Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Montana 

March 2012 

Prepared by 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

4567 Wildfowl Lane 

Stevensville, Montana 59870 

406/777 5552 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

303/236 8145 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII
 

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII
 

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

1.1 	 Purpose and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

1.2 	 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

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

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

 4
 

 4
 

Service Activities in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

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

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

 5
 

 5
 

1.3 	 National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

1.4 	 Contributions to National and Regional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

 6
 

 6
 

 6
 

 7
 

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

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

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

 8
 

 9
 

 9
 

1.5 	 Strategic Habitat Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

 10
 

 10
 

1.6 	 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

 11
 

 12
 

State Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

Tribal Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

Results of Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selecting an Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 14
 

 14
 

CHAPTER 2— The Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 

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

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

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

 15
 

 15
 

 17
 

2.2 	 Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

2.3 	 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

2.4 	 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

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

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

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

 19
 

 19
 

 19
 

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

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

19
 

 19
 

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

 20
 

 20
 

Contents
 
IV 

 

 

2.5 	 Special Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 

2.6 	 Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Bitterroot River Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Wetland Impoundments (or Ponds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Invasive and Noxious Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Research, Inventory, and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

CHAPTER 3— Alternatives and Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

3.1 	 Alternatives Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Elements Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

3.2 	 Description of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

Alternative A (Current Management–No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

3.3 	 Summary of Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

Effects Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

3.4 	 Detailed Descriptions of Alternatives and Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

CHAPTER 4— Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

4.1 	 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

Climate and Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
 

Physiography and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
 

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

Topography and Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
 

Hydrogeomorphic Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
 

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
 

4.2 	 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
 

Land Cover and Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 

Habitat Modifications since Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
 

Changes to the Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
 

Changes to Fish and Wildlife Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

Upland Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
 

Remaining Refuge Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
 

Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
 

Wildlife Diseases and Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
 

4.3 	 State and Federally Listed Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
 

Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
 

4.4 	 Cultural Resources and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
 

Prehistoric Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
 

History of the Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
 

Euro-American Settlement and Land Use Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
 

Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
4.5 	 Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 

Wilderness Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 

Important Bird Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

4.6 	 Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

Hunting and Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
 

Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
 

Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

4.7 	 Management Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Water Level Manipulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Prescribed Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

Prescriptive Grazing or mowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

Cooperative Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

4.8 	 Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

Population and Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
 

Public Use of the Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
 

Baseline Economic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

Visitor Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

4.9 	 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

4.10 Operations	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
 

CHAPTER 5— Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
 

5.1 	 Summary of the Draft CCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
 

Target species Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
 

5.2 	 Goal for the Bitterroot River Floodplain and Associated Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
 

Target species for the Bitterroot River Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
 

Floodplain Objective 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
 

Floodplain Objective 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
 

North Burnt Fork Creek Objective (Including Francois Slough) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
 

Three Mile Creek Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
 

Riverfront Forest Habitat Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
 

Gallery Forest Habitat Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
 

5.3 	 Goal for Wetland Impoundment Habitat and Associated Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
 

Target Wetland Habitat Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
 

Gravel Pits Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
 

5.4 	 Goal for Grassland and Shrubland Habitat and Associated Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
 

Target Grassland and Shrubland Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
 

Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
 

5.5 	 Goal for Invasive and Nonnative Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
 

New Invasive Species Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
 

Established Invasive Species Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
 

5.6 	 Goal for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
 

Research Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
 

5.7 	 Goal for Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
 

Cultural Resources Objective 1 (Protection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
 

Cultural Resources Objective 2 (Interpretation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
 

Contents V 
 

 

5.8 	 Goal for Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
 

Hunting Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
 

Fishing Objective 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
 

Fishing Objective 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
 

Environmental Education Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
 

Interpretation Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
 

Signage Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
 

5.9 	 Goal for Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 

Partnership Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 

5.10 Goal for Operations and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 

Staff Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 

Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
 

5.11 Stepdown Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
 

5.12 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
 

5.13 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
 

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
 

Appendixes 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
 

Appendix B—List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
 

Appendix C—Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
 

Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
 

Appendix E—Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
 

Appendix F—Fire Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
 

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
 

FIGURES 

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

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


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

2 Area map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

3 Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

4 Approved acquisition boundary of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

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


(Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
 

6 Public use map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

7 Ponds and upland fields in Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

8 Roads within Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 

9 Ravalli County average annual precipitation (inches) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
 

10 Channels and sloughs of the Bitterroot River in the 1940s (Heitmeyer et al 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

11 Flooding of the Bitterroot River on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge in 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
 

12 Bitterroot River streamflow near Darby, Montana—USGS 12344000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
 

(Heitmeyer et. al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 

14 Map of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge showing 1-foot contour intervals (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . . . . . . . 61
 

15 Car bodies along the Bitterroot River at the north end of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . 64
 

Montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
 

17 Maps showing the changes in the main channel of the Bitterroot River (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

VI Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
18 Hydrogeomorphic-derived map of potential vegetation communities on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

prior to European settlement in the mid-1800s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
 

19 Existing habitat and vegetation communities on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
 

20 Field planted as dense nesting cover on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

21 Osprey production on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, 1964–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
 

22 Mercury concentration in fish from Montana refuges (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

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

in the 1960s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
 

24 Location of residential structures near Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) . 88
 

25 Adaptive management process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
 

TABLES 

1 Summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana . . . . . . 12
 

2 Habitat type and associated acreages found on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

3 Land acquisition history for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1964–2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

4 Summary of CCP alternatives for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
 

5 Water rights summary for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

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


Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 

7 Documented invasive and nonnative species on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge as of 2010 and the 


degree of infestation, priority for treatment, and State noxious status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 

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


Valley and on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

9 Target species for the Bitterroot floodplain and their habitat needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
 

10 Wetland impoundment target species and their habitat needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
 

11 Target species for the grassland and shrubland areas and their habitat needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
 

12 Current and proposed staff for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
 

13 Stepdown management plans for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
 

Contents VII 

Summary
 

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

Bob Danley / USFWS 

This is a summary of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a comprehensive 

conservation plan by 2012 for each national wildlife 

refuge. Chapter 5 contains the draft plan for the refuge; the final plan is scheduled for completion in 2012 

and would guide the management of the refuge for 

the next 15 years. 

The Refuge 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, established on 

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

Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana (figure 

1). The refuge encompasses a portion of the Bitterroot 

River and is located between the scenic Bitterroot and 

Sapphire Mountains. The channel of the Bitterroot 

River has been altered from levees, bank stabilization, 

and some channelization; nevertheless, this floodplain 

refuge provides a diverse mosaic of western mountain 

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

The refuge provides opportunities for the public 

to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent public use 

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

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

visitors annually. 

The Planning Process 

The planning process for a comprehensive conservation plan consists of a series of steps including environmental analysis. Public and partner involvement 

is encouraged and valued throughout the process. 

The Service’s planning team compiled a list of issues 

to consider and analyzed management alternatives 

for the comprehensive conservation plan that would 

not only address these issues but meet the purposes, 

vision, and goals of the refuge. 

After the public reviews and provides comments 

on the draft plan and environmental assessment, the 

Regional Director will consider the environmental effects of each alternative including information gathered during public review. The Regional Director will 

select a preferred alternative. After the planning team 

prepares the final comprehensive conservation plan 

for publication, a notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register, and copies of the final 

document or accompanying summary will be sent to 

individuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Service will implement the comprehensive conservation 

plan with help from partner agencies, organizations, 

and the public. 
X Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

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

The refuge encompasses a portion of the Bitterroot River 

and is located between the scenic Bitterroot and Sapphire 

Mountains in the heart of the Bitterroot Valley. 

Steve Hillebrand / USFWS 

Issues 

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

scoping, which began in 2009. The following issues are 

detailed in chapter 2: 

■■ riparian habitat loss and fragmentation caused by 

the migration of the Bitterroot River 

■■ overgrown emergent vegetation and eroded levees 

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

impoundments 

■■ reduction in the quality and diversity of upland 

habitats due to invasive plants and lack of native 

species 

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

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

■■ invasive species that have become widespread and 

difficult to control 

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

■■ small visitor contact area, outdated displays, and 

inadequate public access by trails 

■■ inadequate staff to manage and enhance refuge 

habitats and visitor services 

The Future of the Refuge
 

The vision for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

is based on the establishing purposes of the refuge, 

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

VISION FOR THE REFUGE 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 


is a representation of the diverse native 


wildlife habitat once found abundantly 


between the Bitterroot and Sapphire 


Mountains and along the ever-changing 


Bitterroot River. This floodplain refuge, 


fed by mountain snow, is a diverse 


mosaic of forest, grassland, and riparian 


habitat that provides protected lands and 


waters for migratory and 


resident wildlife.
 

The refuge, in partnership with its 


neighbors, friends, and the community, 


is a conservation leader in the valley, 


ensuring that the biological integrity 


of this refuge and other valley habitats 


remains intact or, where appropriate, 


is restored. 


These protected lands and waters 


are a place of discovery for visitors to 


experience fish and wildlife firsthand and 


where children can experience nature 


with all their senses. Visitors to the 


refuge can appreciate the beauty of the 


setting and experience a sense of wonder 


and pride to be preserving this part of 


the Bitterroot Valley and the National 


Wildlife Refuge System. 


GOAL FOR THE BITTERROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 

AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural 

topography, water movements, and physical integrity 

of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot 

River floodplain to provide healthy riparian habitats 

for target native species and to educate visitors about 

the benefits of sustaining a more natural floodplain. 
XII Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Consistent with the guiding principals of all units in the 


Refuge System, wildlife is prioritized first on the refuge.
 

Steve Hillebrand / USFWS 

GOAL FOR WETLAND IMPOUNDMENT HABITAT 

AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments 

to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-dependent species. 

GOAL FOR GRASSLAND AND SHRUBLAND 

HABITAT AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

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

and shrubland species (such as rabbitbrush, needle 

and thread grass, Junegrass, and hairy golden aster) 

to provide healthy lands for a diverse group of target 

native resident and migratory wildlife species and to 

educate visitors about the historical plant and animal 

diversity of the valley. 

GOAL FOR INVASIVE AND NONNATIVE SPECIES 

Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and spread 

of noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species 

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

landscape. 

GOAL FOR RESEARCH 

Pursue and maintain compatible research projects 

that would provide information on refuge resources 

and address refuge issues to assist management in 

making decisions based on the best available information and science. 

GOAL FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the 

unique glacial, Native American, and Euro-American 

history of the Bitterroot Valley while maintaining and 

protecting the integrity of the refuge’s cultural and 

historical resources. 

GOAL FOR VISITOR SERVICES 

Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to 

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

interpretation programs that foster an awareness and 

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

GOAL FOR PARTNERSHIPS 

Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help achieve 

the vision and supporting goals and objectives of the 

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

designed to protect and restore habitats for Federal 

trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

GOAL FOR OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection 

of trust resources in the utilization of staff, volunteers, 

funding, and facilities. 

TARGET SPECIES SELECTION PROCESS 

Early in the planning process, the Service selected 

three groups of target species that will be supported 

by the objectives and strategies described under the 

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

or mammals was selected after Service staff reviewed 

three documents focused on sustaining or recovering 

species in Montana: 

■■ “Montana Intermountain West Joint Venture Plan” 

■■ “Montana State Conservation Plan” 

■■ “Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan” 

The criteria for this species list were based on whether 

a species either occurred on Lee Metcalf Refuge or 

could occur on the refuge if its preferred habitat was 

expanded or restored, as indicated under each goal. The 

life history needs of over 100 species were examined 

for similarities and relevance to the proposed goals. 

Ultimately, 16 species (tables 9, 10, and 11 in chapter 5) 

were selected based on their ability to represent guilds 

or because they were good indicators of the quality of 

a specific habitat type. The habitats that support the 

migration, foraging, nesting, and migration needs of 

these selected species should benefit a much broader 

group of secondary bird species as well as a variety of 

other wildlife, both migratory and resident. 

These target species would be monitored for trends 

in abundance and distribution to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed actions. The actions described in 

these the alternatives, below, were evaluated based on 

their abilities to support these target species. 
Summary XIII 

Alternatives
 

The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives 

for managing habitats and public use at Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge. These alternatives and the 

consequences of implementing them are further described in chapter 3. 

ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO 

ACTION) 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which 

represents the current management of the refuge. 

This alternative provides the baseline against which 

to compare the other alternatives. It also fulfills the 

requirement in the National Environmental Policy 

Act that a no-action alternative be addressed in the 

analysis process. 

Under alternative A, management activity currently 

conducted by the Service would remain the same. The 

Service would continue to manage and monitor refuge 

habitats at current levels. The Bitterroot River would 

continue to migrate through the refuge, eroding some 

levees and trails. Invasive species would be treated 

primarily with mechanical and chemical methods as 

resources become available. Water supply and management structures would be inadequate to properly 

manage many of the wetland impoundments. Cattail 

monocultures would be treated. 

The current staff of five would perform issuedriven research and monitor only long-term wildlife 

and vegetation changes. Visitor services programs 

and facilities would be maintained or expanded as 

resources become available. Funding and 

staff levels would follow annual budget 

allocations provided for refuge operations on Service lands. 

i

t

© Allan F. Meyers 

This alternative focuses on the expansion and restoration of native 

plant communities on the refuge 

ncluding grasslands, shrublands, 

and gallery and riverfront forests. 

Some areas that are currently part 

of wetland impoundments would be 

restored to native communities 

including forest and shrubland. 

A significant focus of restoration proposals would be controlling invasive species and 

preventing further spread. 

Grasses and shrubs native to 

the uplands, including the 

alluvial fans (that is, 

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED 

ACTION) 

Environmental education is one of several visitor 

services offered at the refuge. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

areas of sedimentary deposits where fast-flowing 

streams have flown into flatter plains), would begin 

to be restored to provide habitat for native wildlife 

including grassland-dependent migratory birds. Some 

wetland impoundments and Service (nonpublic) roads 

would be removed or reduced in size to allow for river 

migration and to restore native gallery and riverfront 

forest for riparian-dependent wildlife. The remaining 

impoundments would be managed to mimic natural 

conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds. 

The Service would expand and improve the refuge’s 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use programs, 

in particular the wildlife observation, environmental 

education, and interpretation programs. The visitor 

contact area would be expanded into a visitor center 

with new displays and a combination conference room 

and environmental education classroom. New displays would be professionally planned and produced. 

The refuge would work with Ravalli County staff to 

designate the county road in the refuge as an auto 

our route, which would include pulloffs and some 

form of interpretation. A seasonal hiking trail would 

be added, and current trails would be improved for 

wildlife observation and photography. Interpretation 

and environmental education programs would be expanded using added staff and volunteers. All public 

use programs would provide visitors a consistent message about the purposes and values of the refuge and 

the mission of the Refuge System. 

The refuge staff would be expanded by 3.5 individuals to include an assistant refuge manager (one 

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

biological science technician (1.5 full-time equivalents), 

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

volunteer coordinator. 

Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, 

infrastructure, and partnerships would be required to 

accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies associated with this alternative. Additional staff and funding 
XIV Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

would be added depending on the regional priorities 

for those funds allocated to the Service for management of lands and waters within the Refuge System. 

A fish trap is used to capture and identify fish species on 

the refuge. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C contains many of the elements found 

in alternative B related to expanding visitor service 

programs and facilities. However, habitat management would be focused on maintaining the wetland 

impoundments and attempting to restrict the movements of the Bitterroot River throughout the refuge. 

Habitat efforts would be primarily focused on providing waterfowl and other waterbird habitat. 
Abbreviations
 

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

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

amsl Above mean sea level 

B.C. before Christ 

B.P. before present 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CWD chronic wasting disease 

EA environmental assessment 

FMP fire management plan 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

GIS geographic information system 

GS General Schedule 

HGM hydrogeomorphic 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

IPM integrated pest management 

IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture 

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

n/a not applicable 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 

POD points of diversion 

refuge Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

RLGIS Refuge Lands Geographic Information Systems database 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

U.S.C. United States Code 

U.S. United States 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WG Wage Grade Schedule 

WVA wildlife viewing area 

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 5. 

CHAPTER 1— Introduction
 

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

Bob Danley / USFWS 

This chapter provides an introduction to the process 

for development of a comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP), including environmental analysis, for the Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge (Lee Metcalf Refuge, or refuge) in Montana. Chapter 1 describes the 

involvement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the State of Montana, Native American tribes, 

the public, and others, and it describes conservation 

issues and plans that affect the refuge. The remaining chapters provide more specific information on the 

refuge and planning issues (chapter 2), alternatives 

and consequences (chapter 3), and related resources 

(chapter 4). Chapter 5 describes the proposed action 

(identified by the planning team) and constitutes the 

draft CCP, with detailed objectives and strategies to 

carry out the plan. 

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

in the Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana 

(figure 2). The refuge encompasses a portion of the 

Bitterroot River and is located between the scenic 

ranges of the Bitterroot and Sapphire Mountains. This 

unique location includes a diverse mosaic of western 

mountain valley ecosystem types and provides many 

public use opportunities including recreation, education 

and discovery, and research. The recreational opportunities and natural beauty of this valley have made 

it one of the most rapidly expanding human population areas of Montana. This refuge is surrounded by 

development, including agriculture and housing. The 

nearby Bitterroot National Forest is visited by thousands of people each year, and annually the refuge has 

more than 143,000 visitors, including 2,000 hunters. 

The refuge was authorized primarily for management 

of migratory birds and incidental fish- and wildlifeoriented recreation. 

This document presents an environmental assessment (EA) that evaluates three alternatives for, and 

expected consequences of, managing the Lee Metcalf 

Refuge. The Service’s planning team has identified 

alternative B as its proposed action, which is fully 

described in chapter 5. 

The Service and other Federal, State, and tribal 

partners have developed this draft CCP to provide 

a foundation for the management and use of the Lee 

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

Wildlife is the first priority in refuge management, and 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed 

and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge. When completed, the CCP will 

serve as a working guide for management programs 

and activities over the next 15 years. Although this 

document contains management direction for the refuge, greater detail will be provided in stepdown management plans as part of implementing the final CCP. 

(Refer to table 13 in chapter 5.) 
2 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan 

The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role 

that the Lee Metcalf Refuge would play in supporting 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System) and to provide long-term guidance 

for managing programs and activities. The CCP is 

needed to: 

■■ communicate with the public and other partners 

in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge 

System; 

■■ provide a clear statement of direction for managing the refuge; 

■■ provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

■■ ensure that the Service’s management actions 

are consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act); 

■■ ensure that management supports other Federal, 

State, and county plans, as appropriate; 

■■ provide a basis for development of budget requests 

for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital 

improvement needs. 

Sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens. 

1.2 North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation 

Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to 

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

has come to be known as the North American Model of 

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

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

late-nineteenth century. Market hunting increased in 

response to the growth in urban population fueled by 

the Industrial Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860, the 

percentage of Americans who lived in cities increased 

from 5 percent to 20 percent; this fourfold increase is 

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

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

feathers for the millinery trade—led to exploitation 

of game animals by market hunters. Along with the 

increase in the urban population came a new breed of 

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

animals more when they were alive; market hunters, 

however, placed value on dead animals they could 

bring to market. The growing legion of sport hunters 

started a national movement that resulted in Federal 

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

The keystone concept of the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation, and the bedrock that 

allowed government to exercise control, is the public 

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

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

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

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

it is held in trust for all by government. 

The seven pillars of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation follow: 

■■ wildlife as a public trust resource 

■■ elimination of markets for game 

■■ allocation of wildlife by law 

■■ wildlife only killed for a legitimate purpose 

■■ wildlife considered an international resource 

■■ science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy 

■■ democracy of hunting 

For more than 100 years, these pillars have stood the 

test of time despite significant changes in approaches to 

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

Grinnell, and others emphasized stemming wildlife 

population declines through implementing programs 

that restricted take and protected lands. During the 

1920s, conservationists realized that more was needed, 

and a committee including Aldo Leopold, A. Willis 

Robertson, and other leading conservationists of the 

time authored the 1930 American Game Policy. This 

policy called for a restoration program for habitats 

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

many needs of this program were fulfilled through 

landmark legislation, including the Duck Stamp Act 

to fund land acquisition for national wildlife refuges. 

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

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

agencies. To use this money, States were required to 

pass laws that prevented diversion of hunting license 

revenues to any purpose other than administration of 

the State fish and wildlife agency. 

In recent decades, wildlife management has placed 

greater emphasis on overall wildlife diversity. All wildlife species have benefited from the North American 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 3 

Figure 2. Area map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
4 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Model of Wildlife Conservation pillars, not just game 

animals. The Refuge System has evolved along with 

the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation— 

it today provides refuge for virtually all species found 

in the United States and recreation for all Americans. 

It is a realization of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation to provide for science-based 

management of international wildlife resources held 

in trust for all. The importance of this system to 

American society can best be appreciated if we were 

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

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

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

so disconnected. To lose this connection is to lose the 

basis of our humanity. 

1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge 

System 

The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible 

for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge 

System is one of the Service’s major programs. 

U.S. FISH ANd WILdLIFE SERvICE 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, working with others, 

is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the 

American people. 

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

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

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling 

groups joined together and generated the political 

will for the first significant conservation measures 

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

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

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

of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President Theodore 

Roosevelt established more than 50 wildlife refuges 

across the Nation. 

Over the next three decades, the United States 

ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, 

and Congress passed laws to protect migratory birds, 

establish new refuges, and create a funding source for 

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

Wildlife Service was created within the Department 

of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions 

including law enforcement, fish management, animal 

damage control, and wildlife refuge management were 

combined into a single organization for the first time. 

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital 

wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered 

species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers 

a Federal aid program that distributes hundreds of 

millions of dollars to States for fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related 

programs across the United States. 

SERvICE ACTIvITIES IN MoNTANA 

Service activities in Montana contribute to the State’s 

economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The 

following list highlights the Service’s presence and 

activities in 2009: 

■■ employed 220 people in Montana 

■■ coordinated 446 volunteers who donated more 

than 21,780 hours to Service projects on refuge 

and district lands 

■■ managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish and 

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

■■ managed 23 national wildlife refuges encompassing 

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

■■ managed five wetland management districts 

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

areas 

➤■ 146,816 acres under leases or easements 

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

lands 

➤■ 96,866 hunting visits 

➤■ 80,370 fishing visits 

➤■ 506,632 wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation visits 

➤■ 6,305 visits from students participating in environmental education programs 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 5 

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

Parks (MFWP) for sport fish restoration and $17.4 

million for wildlife restoration and hunter education 

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

Revenue Sharing Act (money used for schools, 

roads, and any other public purpose) 

Additionally, since 1988 the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program has helped private landowners 

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

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

45 structures to open 502 river miles for fish passage. 

NATIoNAL WILdLIFE REFUgE SySTEM 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

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

first wildlife refuge for the protection of native nesting 

birds. This was the first time the Federal Government 

set aside land for wildlife. This small but significant 

designation was the beginning of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres within 553 refuges and more than 

3,000 waterfowl production areas providing breeding 

and nesting habitat for migratory birds. Today, there is 

at least one refuge in every State as well as in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Improvement Act established a clear mission 

for the Refuge System. 

The mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans. 

The Improvement Act states that each national wildlife refuge (that is, every unit of the Refuge System, 

which includes wetland management districts) shall 

be managed to accomplish the following: 

■■ Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. 

■■ Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 

district. 

■■ Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first. 

■■ Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in preparation of these plans. 

■■ Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. 

■■ Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

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

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

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System maintains the following principles: 

■■ Wildlife comes first. 

■■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital 

concepts in refuge and district management. 

■■ Habitats must be healthy. 

■■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic. 

■■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Service immediately began to carry out the direction of 

the new legislation including preparation of CCPs for 

all national wildlife refuges and wetland management 

districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the 

Service prepares CCPs in conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge and each district is required to 

complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by 2012). 

PEoPLE ANd THE REFUgE SySTEM 

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part of 

the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have 

always given people special opportunities to have fun, 

relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting, 

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

In particular, money generated from the taxing of 

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

Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, has generated tens 

of billions of dollars. Distributed by the Service, this 

money has been used by States to increase wildlife 

and fish populations, expand habitat, and train hunters 

across the Nation. Approximately 35 million people 

visited the Refuge System in 2006, mostly to observe 

fish and wildlife in their natural habitats (Caudill and 

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

programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Local 

communities that surround the refuges and wetland 

management districts derive significant economic 

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

economies (Carver and Caudhill 2007). 
6 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

1.3 National and Regional 

Mandates 

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System along with 

the designated purpose of the refuges and districts 

(as described in establishing legislation, Executive 

orders, or other establishing documents). The key 

concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are 

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

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

Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual,” and the Improvement Act (an amendment 

of the Administration Act). 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

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

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

that the Secretary of the Interior will make sure that 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge 

and district must be managed to fulfill the Refuge 

System’s mission and the specific purposes for which 

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

of fish, wildlife, and plants in each national wildlife 

refuge and wetland management district. 

A detailed description of these and other laws and 

Executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A. 

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

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

1.4 Contributions to National 

and Regional Plans 

Lee Metcalf Refuge contributes to the conservation 

efforts outlined in the various State and national plans 

described below. 

FULFILLINg THE PRoMISE 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service 

employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. 

This report was the focus of the first national Refuge 

System conference (in 1998), which was attended by 

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

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements for wildlife and habitat, 

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

PARTNERS IN FLIgHT 

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of many 

migratory landbird species. The challenge is to manage 

avian population growth while maintaining functional 

natural ecosystems in the face of human population 

growth. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight 

worked to identify priorities for landbird species and 

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

State, and local government agencies, philanthropic 

foundations, professional organizations, conservation 

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

The Partners in Flight program was initiated to 

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

continent. Its mission can be expressed in three related 

priorities: helping species at risk, keeping common 

birds common, and forming voluntary partnerships 

benefiting birds, habitat, and people. The three goals 

developed in support of this mission are as follows: 

■■ Ensure an active, scientifically-based conservation 

design process that identifies and develops solutions to threats and risks to landbird populations. 

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

conservation plans at multiple scales. 

■■ Secure sufficient commitment and resources to 

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

Montana Partners in Flight considered 141 species for 

priority status. It identified 14 high-priority species 

(priority I) in need of immediate conservation action, 

43 moderate-priority species with lesser threats but 

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

whose habitat needs may influence design and selection 

of conservation strategies (priority III). The highest 

priority species are common loon, trumpeter swan, 

harlequin duck, greater sage-grouse, piping plover, 

mountain plover, interior least tern, flammulated owl, 

burrowing owl, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided 

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

sparrow (Casey 2000). 

The highest priority habitats in Montana are mixed 

grassland, sagebrush steppe, dry forest (ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir), riparian deciduous forest, and 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 7

prairie pothole wetlands, some of which occur on the 

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

provide suitable habitat for priority (target) species, 

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

management prescriptions that can be applied at all 

geographic scales. 

To fully implement the goals of the international 

Partners in Flight plan, a series of scientifically based 

landbird conservation plans with long-term strategies for bird conservation have been developed. The 

geographical context of these plans is composed of 

58 physiographic regions, each defined by similar 

physical geographic features and wholly or partially 

contained within the continental United States and 

Alaska. Lee Metcalf Refuge lies within the physiographic area known as the Central Rocky Mountain 

Physiographic Region. 

Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region 

The Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region 

is a huge physiographic area, extending from northwest Wyoming to all of western Montana, the northern 

two-thirds of Idaho, large areas of eastern Oregon and 

Washington, much of southeast British Columbia, and 

a sliver of west Alberta. It is an area of high mountains, with elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. Glaciation 

has left broad, flat valleys between mountain ranges. 

Elevation determines the dominant vegetation. The 

highest areas are alpine tundra. The subalpine zone 

is dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir, 

with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the montane 

zone below. Stand-replacing fire can change forests in 

either of these zones to lodgepole pine or aspen. Fire 

in higher-elevation coniferous forests of the central 

Rocky Mountains tends to be of high intensity and low 

frequency. Grass and sagebrush occur under open pine 

forests that grade downslope into grasslands, wetlands, 

woodlands, or shrub-steppe. Approximately 28 species 

of birds have a higher population in the central Rocky 

Mountains than in any other physiographic area. This 

is the highest such number in any physiographic area 

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

of quality bird habitat that still exists. 

A huge percentage of the central Rocky Mountains 

in the United States are in public ownership, mostly 

managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Forest Service. Maintenance or restoration 

of healthy forest ecosystems on public and private 

industrial lands will be the most important factor in 

keeping the central Rocky Mountains a healthy ecosystem for so many forest birds. 

There are currently 141 species identified for special consideration within the Central Rocky Mountain 

Physiographic Region. Generally, priority 1 species 

A priority 1 species of the Central Rocky Mountain 

Physiographic Region, the brown creeper has been 

documented on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

Donna Dewhurt / USFWS 

are the highest priority and are the focus of proposed 

conservation actions. The priority 1 species identified for this physiographic region are common loon, 

trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, sage-grouse, piping 

plover, mountain plover, (interior) least tern, flammulated owl, burrowing owl, black-backed woodpecker, 

olive-sided flycatcher, brown creeper, Sprague’s pipit, 

and Baird’s sparrow. The common loon, trumpeter 

swan, olive-sided flycatcher, and the brown creeper 

have been documented on the refuge, primarily using the refuge for resting and feeding. No nesting 

has been recorded. 

NoRTH AMERICAN WATERbIRd CoNSERvATIoN 

PLAN 

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

provides a contiguous framework for conserving and 

managing colonial-nesting waterbirds including 209 

species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, 

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

marshbirds (certain grebes and bitterns). The overall 

goal of this conservation plan is to make sure that the 

following are sustained or restored throughout the 

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

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

The geographic scope of the plan covers 28 countries 

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

Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This waterbird 

partnership consists of Federal, State, and Provincial 

wildlife agencies; individuals; and nonprofit conservation organizations. 

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

Planning region boundaries are based on a combination of political considerations and ecological factors. 

Sixteen planning regions were identified within North 

and South Americas. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located 
8 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

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

from the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Sierra 

Nevada and Cascades on the west. The Intermountain 

West’s dispersed high-mountain lakes, large terminal 

hypersaline lakes, marshes, playas, rivers, streams, 

riparian zones, and fresh and brackish wetlands host 

about 40 waterbird species, including many or most 

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

waterbirds are identified as species of high concern 

in one or more of the four Bird Conservation Regions 

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

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

snowy egret, American white pelican, common loon, 

American bittern, and certain managed populations 

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

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

documented using the refuge, primarily for resting 

and feeding. However, recent years have seen the 

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

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

depend on a regional-scale association of wetlands to 

meet habitat and forage requirements during stages 

of their annual life cycle. The competing demands for 

water from agriculture, development, and recreation 

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

breakdown products significantly threaten the region’s 

waterbirds. Because of the west’s feast-or-famine water regime, the “Intermountain West Joint Venture 

Conservation Plan” stresses the necessity of conserving a network of high-quality wetland habitats with 

secure water sources to provide options for waterbirds 

during drought and flood cycles (Kushlan et al. 2002). 

NoRTH AMERICAN WATERFoWL MANAgEMENT 

PLAN 

Written in 1986, the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve 

landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl 

populations. Specific plan objectives are to increase 

and restore duck populations to the average levels of 

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

of 100 million birds (USFWS and Canadian Wildlife 

Service 1986). The plan is innovative because of its 

international partnerships and its implementation at 

the local level. Its success depends on the strength 

of the joint ventures, which involve Federal, State, 

Provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation through 

Waterfowl use the ponds of Lee Metcalf Refuge for 

foraging, nesting, and cover. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

a wide array of community participation. Joint ventures 

develop implementation plans that focus on areas of 

concern identified in the plan. Lee Metcalf Refuge lies 

within the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

Intermountain West Joint venture 

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) was 

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

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

multi-level partnerships between diverse public and 

private organizations who share common interests 

in the conservation, maintenance, and management 

of key ecosystems in the Intermountain West region. 

The IWJV encompasses much of the Intermountain 

West region, from the Sierra Nevada and Cascades 

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

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

region encompasses portions of eleven western states 

and includes an enormous diversity of avian habitat. 

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

for Bird Conservation in Western Montana” (IWJV 

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

Bird Habitat Conservation Areas to be used for all 

bird conservation projects over the next 5–7 years. 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is located in the Bitterroot Valley 

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

pine and Douglas-fir), riparian (such as cottonwood), 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 9 

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

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

INTERMoUNTAIN WEST REgIoNAL SHoREbIRd PLAN 

As noted above, the Intermountain West is a huge region, stretching from Canada to Mexico and from the 

Rocky Mountains to the Sierras and Cascades. The 

six Bird Conservation Regions of the Intermountain 

West include an array of habitats from saline sinks 

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

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

desert flats surrounded by rugged, boreal mountain 

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

constructed lakes. Sewage lagoons near many urban 

areas also host numerous shorebirds. The area is of 

some importance for breeding of several shorebird 

species and of modest importance to many species 

of transients. Eleven species of shorebirds regularly 

breed in the Intermountain West, and 23 additional 

species are annual migrants. 

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

human-driven competition for water. Finding ample 

high quality fresh water will be the greatest challenge 

faced by future shorebird conservation interests. 

The “Intermountain West Regional Shorebird 

Plan” recognizes the Lee Metcalf Refuge as one of 79 

managed shorebird sites in the nation, one of only 3 

identified in Montana (Oring et al. 2010). 

STATE CoMPREHENSIvE FISH ANd WILdLIFE 

CoNSERvATIoN STRATEgy 

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

species known to exist in Montana including both 

game and nongame species, as well as some invertebrate species such as freshwater mussels and crayfish. 

Although game species are included in Montana’s 

conservation strategy, the priority is those species and 

their habitats “in greatest conservation need”—that 

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

significantly degraded, declining, federally listed, or 

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

five ecotypes to describe the broad areas of Montana’s 

landscape that have similar characteristics. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located in the intermountain/foothill 

grassland ecotype. The intermountain/foothill grassland ecotype is a mosaic of private and public land that 

extends from the glaciated Flathead River Valley to 

the north, south to the Centennial Valley, and east to 

the Little Belt Foothills, where there remain some 

of Montana’s most diverse fish and wildlife habitats. 

This western Montana ecotype harbors more wildlife 

communities than any other in Montana. It also harbors 

Montana’s largest human population concentration 

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

and Bozeman. The attraction for wildlife and people 

is western Montana’s broad, lush, and sweeping valleys cradled by the peaks of the Rocky Mountains. The 

intermountain/foothill grasslands are cut and formed 

by meandering rivers that create core riparian zones 

and wetland areas that often include glacial lakes and 

potholes that attract nesting waterbirds. Addressing 

the challenges that accompany the interface between 

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

Within each of the ecotypes, tier 1 geographic focus 

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

were identified for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of 

the State. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located within the 

Bitterroot/Frenchtown Valleys focus area, which is 

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

Mountains to the east. The Bitterroot River bisects the 

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

or gently rolling landscapes between 2 and 15 miles 

wide. While the valley supports many habitats—from 

grassland and riparian to forest and sagebrush—most 

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

mountain foothills at the valley edges are important 

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

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

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

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

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

documented on the refuge: boreal toad, long-billed 

curlew, black tern, olive-sided flycatcher, common 

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

not been documented on the refuge are the Coeur d’ 

Alene salamander, northern leopard frog, harlequin 

duck, flammulated owl, black-backed woodpecker, 

northern bog lemming, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. 

The “Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) outlines five 

conservation concerns and strategies for the Bitterroot/ 

Frenchtown Valleys focus area. The key concerns are: 

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

and development of transportation infrastructure; 

■■ invasive and exotic plant and animal species; 

■■ range and forest management practices; 

■■ streamside residential development. 

All of these conservation concerns identified in this 

State plan for the Bitterroot/Frenchtown focus area 

are affecting the management and future protection 

of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. 
10 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

1.5 Strategic Habitat 

Conservation 

In the face of escalating challenges such as land use 

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

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

developing a broader vision. 

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

Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 2006). The report 

outlines a unifying adaptive resource management approach for conservation at a landscape scale, the entire 

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

This approach is strategic habitat conservation—a 

structured, science-driven approach for making efficient, transparent decisions about where and how 

to expend Service resources for species, or groups 

of species, that are limited by the amount or quality 

of habitat. It is an adaptive management framework 

integrating planning, design, delivery and evaluation. 

Since 2006, the Service has taken significant steps 

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

and U.S. Geological Survey developed this framework 

through an aggregation of bird conservation regions. 

Lee Metcalf Refuge lands and waters lie in geographic 

area 6—the great northern. This geographic area is 

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

includes one of the largest surface areas of all of the 

geographic areas in North America and spans more 

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

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

area represents one of the most relatively intact and 

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

and restoration opportunities. Habitats support plant 

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

and conservation value to the United States, Canada, 

and the world. Cultural traditions are tied closely to 

the land’s natural resources as are contemporary ways 

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

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

other ungulates, wolves, and bears as well as diverse 

salmon and trout populations are hallmarks of the 

great northern geographic area. 

The Service is using this framework of geographic 

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

are conservation–science partnerships between the 

Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, universities, and other 

entities. Designed as fundamental units for planning 

and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to 

help the Service carry out the elements of strategic 

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

Coordinated planning and scientific information will 

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

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

CLIMATE CHANgE 

The Service expects that accelerating climate change 

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

in profound ways. While many species will continue 

to thrive, some may decline and in some instances go 

extinct. Others will survive in the wild only through 

direct and continuous intervention by managers. In 

2010, the Service drafted a strategic plan to address 

climate change for the next 50 years entitled “Rising 

to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to 

Accelerating Climate Change” (USFWS 2010). The 

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

acknowledges that no single organization or agency 

can address climate change without allying itself with 

others across the Nation and around the world (USFWS 2010). This draft plan is an integral part of the 

Department of the Interior’s strategy for addressing 

climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 

(September 14, 2009). 

The Service will use the following guiding principles from the draft strategic plan (USFWS 2010) in 

responding to climate change: 

■■ priorities setting—continually evaluate priorities 

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

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

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

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

applying the Service’s strategic habitat conservation framework 

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

challenge 

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

Scientific information suggests that the great northern 

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

change trends. Current patterns in climate change 

are expected to affect high-mountain ecotypes and 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 11 

lower-elevation, snow-melt-dependent watersheds 

more acutely than it will affect some other geographic 

areas. In consideration of anticipated climatic changes 

and the resulting potential ecological impacts, the 

following 12 species are currently considered to be 

focal species for the great northern geographic area: 

bull trout, pacific lamprey, salmon, steelhead, greater 

sage-grouse, Lewis’s woodpecker, trumpeter swans, 

willow flycatcher, Columbia spotted frog, cutthroat 

trout subspecies, Arctic grayling, and wolverine. 

Four of these focal species have been documented on 

Lee Metcalf Refuge: Lewis’s woodpecker, trumpeter 

swan, willow flycatcher, Columbia spotted frog, and 

westslope cutthroat trout (in the Bitterroot River). 

To address the ongoing effects of climate change, any 

proposed management changes must continue to adapt 

to a changing environment. 

1.6 Planning Process 

The Service prepared this draft CCP and EA in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act and Part 602 (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual.” The actions described in this draft 

CCP and EA meet the requirements of the Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). Additional requirements and guidance are 

contained in the Refuge System’s planning policy, issued in 2000. This policy established requirements 

and guidance for refuge and district plans—including 

CCPs and stepdown management plans—to make sure 

that planning efforts follow the Improvement Act. The 

planning policy identified several steps of the CCP and 

environmental analysis process (figure 3). 

The Service began the preplanning process in July 

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

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

Greenbrier Wetland Services, as well as several other 

partners (appendix B). During preplanning, the team 

developed a mailing list, identified internal issues, and 

identified the unique qualities of the refuge. (Refer to 

section 2.5, “Special Values,” in chapter 2.) 

During planning, the team identified and reviewed 

current programs, compiled and analyzed relevant 

data, and determined the purposes of the refuge. An 

additional part of this process was the preparation of 

Figure 3. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis. 
12 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

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

and management. Its report entitled, “An Evaluation 

of Ecosystem Restoration and Management Options 

for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge,” took more 

than 2 years to research and prepare and resulted in 

some sound recommendations for the restoration and 

future management of the refuge. 

Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process 

to date for the preparation of this draft CCP and EA. 

CooRdINATIoN WITH THE PUbLIC 

During preplanning, a mailing list of more than 270 

names was prepared that included private citizens; local, regional, and State government representatives 

and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested 

organizations (appendix C). 

A notice of intent was published in the Federal 

Register on September 30, 2009 (volume 74, Number 

188, pages 50235–50236). It informed the public that 

the planning process for the Lee Metcalf Refuge had 

begun and invited all to share their ideas, issues, and 

other comments within 30 days. Additionally, in September 2009 the first planning update was sent to 

mailing list recipients; it provided information on the 

history of the refuge, an overview of the CCP process, 

and invitations to two public scoping meetings. The 

planning update included a form for providing written 

comments. Emails were also accepted at the refuge’s 

email address: leemetcalf@fws.gov. 

In addition to the update, public scoping meetings 

were announced statewide in the media. Two public 

meetings were held in the communities of Stevensville 

and Missoula, Montana on September 29 and October 

1, 2009, respectively. During these meetings, a presentation was given detailing what a CCP is, the purposes 

of the refuge, and information on planning limitations, 

primarily based on compatibility. There were 12 attendees at both meetings, including the field representative for Senator Max Baucus. All were invited 

to speak, and comments were recorded. In addition to 

the comments submitted at these meetings, 20 emails 

and letters were received during the scoping process. 

Many of the comments were related to the refuge’s 

very popular visitor services programs (the refuge receives more than 143,000 visitors each year who view 

wildlife, hunt, and participate in educational and interpretive programs). Most individuals asked the refuge 

to consider expanding these programs, particularly 

the staff-led programs, along with associated trails 

and other visitor services facilities. Other comments 

were related to invasive species. While commending 

the refuge on controlling these invasive plants, the 

public requested even more effort to reduce impacts 

on wildlife and neighboring landowners. Other comments concerned buffering the refuge from extensive 

surrounding development, addressing climate change 

impacts including ensuring adequate water supplies 

for management, and offering access and additional 

interpretation of the historical Whaley Homestead. 

Public scoping concluded on November 13, 2009, 

when the comment period closed. This project complies 

with public involvement requirements of NEPA, and 

the planning team incorporated public input throughout the planning process. 

STATE CooRdINATIoN 

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

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

inviting its staff to participate in the planning process. 

State biologists and outdoor recreation specialists have 

since been involved in the planning process, offering 

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

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

Jon Tester, Senator Max Baucus, and Representative 

Dennis Rehberg—were sent letters that notified them 

of the planning process and invited their comments. 

Five Montana State senators and representatives and 

Governor Brian Schweitzer were sent similar letters. 

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

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

Date Event	 Outcome 

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

the initial planning team list; developed a mailing list, planning 

schedule, and the first draft of internal issues and qualities list; 

and reviewed biological data needs. 

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

the draft CCP. 

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

scoping. 

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

update described the planning process and announced upcoming 

public scoping meetings. 
Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana. 

Date Event	 Outcome 

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

issues and ideas for future management. 

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

Federal Register. 

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

issues and ideas for future management. 

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

agencies gathered to discuss and propose options for managing 

the refuge’s visitor services programs and facilities. 

January 26–27, 2010 Review of draft habitat analysis 

report 

Service staff reviewed the draft analysis and recommendations 

(prepared by Greenbrier Wetland Services) that described the 

proposed future ecological restoration and management of the 

refuge’s wetland and floodplain complex. 

January 27, 2010 Review of draft grasslands 

restoration and management 

report 

Service staff reviewed the draft analysis and recommendations 

(prepared by Aeroscene Land Logic) that described proposed 

future ecological restoration and management of the refuge’s 

grassland areas. 

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

the proposed vision statement. 

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

alternatives for managing visitor services. 

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

State and national priorities species lists for the Service, the State 

of Montana, and the Bitterroot Valley. 

May 26–27, 2010 Alternatives development and 

evaluation 

The planning team began developing alternatives for biological 

programs and continued evaluating alternatives for managing 

visitor services. 

June 23–24, 2010 Alternatives review and 

consequences development 

The planning team reviewed the alternatives table and discussed 

environmental consequences. 

July 8, 2010 Environmental consequences 

review 

The planning team continued to review the alternatives table and 

discussed environmental consequences. 

July 20–22, 2010 Alternatives and consequences 

workshop 

An expanded team of partners from the Service and other Federal, 

tribal, and State agencies assembled to review three alternatives 

and determine the environmental consequences of each. Alternative 

B was selected as the proposed action. 

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

and State and Federal agencies to discuss options for reconnecting 

North Burnt Fork Creek to the Bitterroot River. 

November 17, 2010 Objectives and strategies 

workshop 

The planning team drafted objectives and strategies for the 

proposed action. 

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

for draft CCP and EA. 

January 25 and February 

2–3, 2011 

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

alternatives. 

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

rationale for the proposed action (chapter 5 of this draft CCP). 

February 2011–September 

2011 

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

maps. The document was edited and prepared for internal review. 

September 12–30, 2011 Internal review of draft plan The draft CCP and EA was sent to a list of internal reviewers 

consisting of Service, State, tribal, and other Federal staff. 

Comments were collected and resulted in several modifications 

to this public draft. 

CHAPTER 1—Introduction 13 
14 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

the planning meetings to discuss the proposed future 

management of these programs. The State has been 

supportive of the planning process to date. 

TRIbAL CooRdINATIoN 

Early in the planning process, the Service’s Regional 

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

in which the refuge is located. Tribes contacted were 

the Confederated Salish and Kootenai and Nez Perce 

tribal councils and culture committees. A staff person 

and tribal member from the Confederated Salish and 

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

the visitor services and cultural resources programs. 

RESULTS oF SCoPINg 

Comments collected from scoping meetings and correspondence were used in the development of a final 

list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and 

EA. The Service determined which alternatives could 

best address these issues. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest effect on refuge 

resources and programs are resolved or prioritized 

over the life of the final CCP. Identified issues, along 

with a discussion of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2. In addition, the Service considered 

refuge management changes that were suggested by 

the public and other groups. 

SELECTINg AN ALTERNATIvE 

Following the public review and comment period for 

the draft CCP and EA, the planning team will present 

this document along with a summary of all substantive 

public comments to the Service’s Regional Director 

(Region 6). The Regional Director will consider the 

environmental effects of all three alternatives including information gathered during public review. If the 

analysis has not identified any significant issues that 

warrant an environmental impact statement or other 

additional analysis, the Regional Director will select a 

preferred alternative. The Regional Director’s decision 

will be disclosed in a NEPA decision document—a finding of no significant impact or FONSI—and included 

in the final CCP. Once approved, the actions in the 

preferred alternatives will compose the final CCP. 

After the planning team prepares the final CCP for 

publication, a notice of availability will be published 

in the Federal Register, and copies of the final CCP 

and accompanying summary will be sent to individuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Service will 

implement the CCP with help from partner agencies, 

organizations, and the public. 

The CCP will provide long-term guidance for management decisions; support achievement of the goals, 

objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish the 

purposes of the Lee Metcalf Refuge; and identify the 

Service’s best estimate of future needs. The CCP will 

detail program planning levels that may be substantially above budget allocations and as such would be 

primarily for strategic planning purposes. The CCP 

does not constitute a commitment for staff increases, 

operation and maintenance increases, or funding for 

future land acquisitions. 

© Allan F. Meyers 
CHAPTER 2— The Refuge
 

Nearly 1,000 acres of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge consist of open water. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge consists of 2,800 

acres of lands and waters all located within Ravalli 

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

purposes, and special values as well as its proposed 

vision, goals, and planning issues. 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History 

The following section describes the establishment, 

acquisition, and management history of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

LEE METCALf NATioNAL WiLdLifE REfugE 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is approximately 2 miles north 

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

the Bitterroot Valley, cradled between two mountain 

ranges: the Bitterroot Mountains to the west and the 

Sapphire Mountains to the east. Today, the refuge 

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

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

The refuge contains upland habitat composed of 

floodplain and terrace grasslands, shrublands, or a 

combination of both. The refuge also has riparian 

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

the river channel and areas of either bare or very 

sparse vegetation such as gravel bars, parking lots, 

and roads (table 2). 

The refuge serves as a staging and nesting area 

for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, sandhill cranes, 

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

white-tailed deer, porcupines, and beaver. 

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

lands for approximately 5 miles. The Bitterroot River 

has two forks with headwaters in the Anaconda-Pintler 

Mountains and in the Bitterroot Mountains at the Idaho 

and Montana stateline. The river flows north and has 

areas of inherently unstable channel configurations 

until its confluence with the Clark Fork River near 

Missoula. The floodplain at the refuge is characterized 

by multiple abandoned channels, backwater flooding, 

and entrances of two tributaries (North Burnt Fork 

Creek and Three Mile Creek). 

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

structures were constructed to capture and manage 

the available water supply with a primary purpose 

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

been partially or completely impounded in 14 ponds 

for managed wetland units. Today, these ponds range 

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

water levels are seasonally managed for waterfowl 

and shorebirds. Additionally, tributaries and natural 

springs have been altered by dams or weirs that have 

allowed the direction or level of surface waterflow to 
16 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

figure 4. Approved acquisition boundary of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 17 

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

Habitat type Acres 

Uplands (primarily tame grasses) 1,186.43 

Woodlands and wetlands near woodlands 502.58 

Wetland impoundments (open water, emergent vegetation) 958.19 

River channel 62.73 

Bare or sparse vegetation 89.59 

Total 2,799.52 

be manipulated. With 24 water claims and one water 

permit, the refuge has the right to 34,209.38 acre-feet 

of water per year to use for habitat management purposes. The diverted water provides feeding, resting, 

and nesting habitat for migratory birds, wetland-related wildlife, and resident wildlife. 

Remnants of gallery and riverfront forest can be 

found in the refuge. Although this habitat is still present, soil types and historical vegetation data suggest 

that several of the impoundments or ponds were once 

forested or consisted of native grasslands. 

SuMMARy of LANd ACquiSiTioN HiSToRy 

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

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

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

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

late Senator Lee Metcalf, who was instrumental in 

establishing this refuge, and to recognize his lifelong 

commitment to conservation. On February 4, 1964, the 

first purchase was made, Tract 21, consisting of 408.05 

acres. Over the next 25 years, the Service purchased 

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

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

from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to access 

a pumping station and to cross the railroad tracks to 

access refuge lands. In 2009, a facilitation easement 

was recorded for an irrigation ditch that traverses 

through a subdivision. 

2.2 Purposes 

Every national wildlife refuge has a purpose for which 

it was established. This purpose is the foundation on 

which to build all refuge programs—from biology and 

public use to maintenance and facilities. The refuge 

purposes are found in the legislative acts or Executive 

actions that provide the authorities to either transfer 

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

various transfer and acquisition authorities, giving the 

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

strategies proposed in the draft CCP (chapter 5) are 

intended to support the individual purposes for which 

the refuge was established. 

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

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

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

For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

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

1222, as amended) 

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

the protection of natural resources, (3) the 

conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...” 

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

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

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 

(Refuge Recreation Act 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k–4) 

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

Lee Metcalf, who was instrumental in establishing this 

refuge, and to recognize his commitment to conservation. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
18 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

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

Tract number Acres Date acquired Means of acquisition 

21 408.05 02/04/1964 Fee 

21a 25.39 02/04/1964 Fee 

19 305.93 04/10/1964 Fee 

25 167.10 06/09/1964 Fee 

25a 90.86 06/09/1964 Fee 

12 298.11 06/11/1964 Fee 

24 9.47 06/12/1964 Fee 

13 160 08/24/1964 Fee 

11 309.32 05/21/1965 Fee 

11a 4.27 05/21/1965 Fee 

20 175.89 01/03/1966 Fee 

15 2.23 06/14/1966 Fee 

14a 5.13 06/15/1966 Fee 

23 2.60 01/25/1967 Fee 

10 26.48 06/12/1967 Fee 

10a 292.53 06/12/1967 Fee 

22 8.13 08/14/1967 Fee 

27 336.31 12/06/1968 Fee 

27-I 0.31 12/06/1968 Fee 

19a 63.78 11/13/1974 Fee 

29 4.4 06/12/1978 Fee 

16 80 03/23/1988 Fee 

17 16.23 05/23/1988 Fee 

19b 01 10/01/1989 Fee—life estate 

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

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

30D 7 01/09/2009 Easement 

Total 2,799.52 

1

Acreage figure is minimal. 

The refuge includes 1,218 acres of upland habitat that consist of grassland, shrubland, and a combination of both. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 19 

2.3 Vision
 

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions for 

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

the Lee Metcalf Refuge is a future-oriented statement 

and is to be achieved through refuge management 

throughout the life of this CCP and beyond. 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
 

is a representation of the diverse native
 

wildlife habitat once found abundantly
 

between the Bitterroot and Sapphire
 

Mountains and along the ever-changing
 

Bitterroot River. This floodplain refuge,
 

fed by mountain snow, is a diverse mosaic
 

of forest, grassland, and riparian habitat
 

that provides protected lands and waters
 

for migratory and resident wildlife.
 

The refuge, in partnership with its 


neighbors, friends, and the community, 


is a conservation leader in the valley, 


ensuring that the biological integrity 


of this refuge and other valley habitats 


remains intact or, where appropriate, 


is restored. 


These protected lands and waters are 


a place of discovery for visitors to 


experience fish and wildlife firsthand and 


where children can experience nature 


with all their senses. Visitors to the 


refuge can appreciate the beauty of the 


setting and experience a sense of wonder 


and pride to be preserving this part of 


the Bitterroot Valley and the National 


Wildlife Refuge System. 


2.4 goals 

The Service developed eight goals for the refuge based 

on the Improvement Act, the purposes of the refuge, 

and information developed during project planning. 

The goals direct efforts toward achieving the vision 

and purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for 

managing refuge resources. 

BiTTERRooT RiVER fLoodPLAiN ANd 

ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

Manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural 

topography, water movements, and physical integrity 

of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot 

River floodplain to provide healthy riparian habitats 

for target native species and to educate visitors about 

the benefits of sustaining a more natural floodplain. 

WETLANd iMPouNdMENT HABiTAT ANd 

ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments 

to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-dependent species. 

gRASSLANd ANd SHRuBLANd HABiTAT ANd 

ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

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

and shrubland species (such as rabbitbrush, needle 

and thread grass, Junegrass, and hairy golden aster) 

to provide healthy lands for a diverse group of target 

native resident and migratory wildlife species and to 

educate visitors about the historical plant and animal 

diversity of the Bitterroot Valley. 

iNVASiVE ANd NoNNATiVE SPECiES 

Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and spread 

of noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species 

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

landscape. 

RESEARCH 

Pursue and maintain compatible research projects 

that would provide information on refuge resources 

and address refuge issues to assist management in 

making decisions based on the best available information and science. 

CuLTuRAL RESouRCES 

Provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the 

unique glacial, Native American, and Euro-American 

history of the Bitterroot Valley while maintaining and 

protecting the integrity of the refuge’s cultural and 

historical resources. 

ViSiToR SERViCES 

Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to 

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

interpretation programs that foster an awareness and 

appreciation of the importance of protecting the natural and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitterroot Valley, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
20 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

PARTNERSHiPS 

Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help achieve 

the vision and supporting goals and objectives of the 

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

designed to protect and restore habitats for Federal 

trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

oPERATioNS ANd fACiLiTiES 

Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection 

of trust resources in the utilization of staff, volunteers, 

funding, and facilities. 

2.5 Special Values 

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the refuge’s unique qualities or special 

values—characteristics and features of the refuge that 

make it special, valuable for wildlife, and an integral 

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

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

process. These special values can be unique biological 

values as well as simple values like providing a quiet 

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

following list summarizes many of the qualities that 

make the refuge unique and valued: 

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

wetland, and upland—in a rapidly growing county 

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

■■ contains gallery forest along the Bitterroot River 

■■ provides a wildlife corridor that runs north to south 

along the Bitterroot River and east to west from 

North Burnt Fork Creek to Kootenai Creek 

■■ contains the largest montane wetland complex in 

the Bitterroot Valley on which many migratory 

bird species are dependent for breeding and migration stopovers 

■■ provides resting habitat for trumpeter swans primarily during migration 

■■ provides habitat for a great blue heron rookery 

containing 12–18 nests 

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

mile from the refuge 

■■ provides exceptional viewing opportunities for 

nesting osprey and maintains the longest running 

dataset for nesting osprey in Montana 

■■ lies within the Bitterroot River Important Bird Area, 

as designated by the National Audubon Society 

■■ provides habitat for 242 bird species, 40 mammal 

species, and 11 species of reptiles and amphibians 

■■ contains 45 documented species of concern (38 

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

amphibian) listed in Montana 

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

■■ includes designated critical habitat for endangered 

bull trout 

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

considered a blue ribbon trout fishery 

■■ lies within the Bitterroot Valley, the traditional 

homeland of the Salish, Nez Perce, and Pend 

d’Oreilles native peoples 

■■ located a few miles from Stevensville, the oldest 

continuous Euro-American settlement in Montana 

■■ contains the historic Whaley Homestead, which was 

built in 1885 and is listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places 

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

public land in Ravalli County and the entire Bitterroot Valley 

■■ provides environmental education and research 

opportunities for more than 16,000 area students 

of all ages (Missoula to Hamilton) 

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

143,000 annual visitors, providing the public with 

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

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

refuge wetlands, the heron rookery, and the Bitterroot Mountains 

■■ provides universally accessible nature trails with 

views of multiple habitat types and opportunities 

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

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

■■ contains portions of the Ice Age Trail, Nez Perce 

Trail, and the actual (not officially designated) 

Lewis and Clark Trail 

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

management, visitor service, historic restoration, 

and research) 

■■ provides close-up wildlife viewing opportunities 

■■ serves as a point of pride for area citizens 

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

■■ attracts dozens of volunteers who annually donate 

8,500 work hours 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 21 

2.6 Planning issues
 

Several key issues were identified following the analysis 

of comments collected from refuge staff and the public 

and a review of the requirements of the Improvement 

Act and NEPA. Two public meetings, news releases 

in the local and regional press, an announcement in 

the Federal Register, and planning updates were used 

to solicit public input on which issues the CCP should 

address. Substantive comments (those that could be 

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

These key issues are summarized below. 

BiTTERRooT RiVER MigRATioN 

The Bitterroot River traverses the Bitterroot Valley 

floor and is characterized by a constantly migrating 

stream channel that flows through extensive cottonwood and ponderosa pine bottomland forest. Naturally, the river fluctuates in water volume depending 

on winter snowpack and spring precipitation. These 

fluctuations regularly flood braided river channels 

and may create new ones. Much of this flooding and 

migration is natural and can be beneficial. However, 

as development increases, many more landowners are 

installing riprap along their properties in an attempt 

to prevent riverbank erosion; this directs the river 

(and its energy and increased velocity) to unprotected 

areas and increases the rate of erosion above natural 

levels. Such erosion has occurred in the refuge’s wildlife viewing area (WVA), where erosion has exceeded 

100 feet in one area, partially destroyed a universally 

accessible paved trail, removed many large ponderosa 

pine and black cottonwood trees, and left a steep bank 

next to the education shelter and terminus of the Lee 

Metcalf accessible trail, a National Recreation Trail. 

Additionally, increased erosion from upstream bank 

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

gallery forest) and wetlands (streams and sloughs). 

Woodlands provide a migration corridor for birds, 

a home to several bat species of State concern, and 

shade and habitat structure for terrestrial and aquatic 

species. The refuge faces challenges and uncertainty 

in managing riparian habitat in the face of intensified 

bank erosion, increased river velocities, and shorter 

and more dramatic flood frequencies due to upstream 

channel alterations and bank stabilization. 

WETLANd iMPouNdMENTS (oR PoNdS) 

Shortly after acquiring the first tract of refuge land, 

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

built atop agricultural fields. Prior to 1873, these lands 

Flooding of the Bitterroot River is a common occurrence 

on the refuge. 

consisted of native grassland and shrubland habitats, 

gallery forests, and some natural streams (as identified 

in a 1964 habitat map, figure 5). Currently, there are 

approximately 960 acres of wetland impoundments. 

Some impoundments are surrounded by persistent 

emergent wetland vegetation like cattail. Cattail is an 

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

control and can limit habitat value for waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. However, a balanced mosaic 

of open water, cattail, and other emergent vegetation 

usually benefits nesting habitat for diving ducks; brood 

habitat for diving and dabbling ducks; and nesting and 

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

The constantly migrating Bitterroot River has 

started to erode some levees on the north end of the 

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

its water level. The structures and levees on one other 

impoundment in the refuge’s north end are threatened 

by erosion as well. Maintaining these impoundments 

may be costly and ecologically unsound, depending on 

the river’s future channel migration. 

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

wetlands. Refuge impoundments receive water from 

irrigation water diverted from the Bitterroot River, 

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

adjacent agricultural operations and residential and 

industrial septic systems, and such impacts on water 

quality could in turn pose a threat to refuge wildlife. 

Also of concern is the spread of nonnative aquatic 

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

released 10,000 bass fingerlings into Otter Pond to 

promote recreational fishing; as a result, largemouth 

bass have spread to most ponds (Ponds 5–13). Largemouth bass can be voracious predators on fish, frogs, 

and aquatic insects and have been known to consume 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
22 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

figure 5. Composite vegetation community models Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge for 1964 and 2005 


(Heitmeyer et al. 2010).
 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 23 

ducklings. In addition, bullfrogs also inhabit most of 

the impoundments. This nonnative amphibian displaces and consumes not only native amphibians but 

avian chicks, small snakes, and small mammals as well. 

uPLANd HABiTAT ANd ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

The intermountain and foothill grassland ecotype, 

which is found in the Bitterroot Valley and other broad 

mountain valleys in western Montana, contains some 

of Montana’s most diverse fish and wildlife habitats. 

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

area is considered a terrestrial conservation focus 

area in greatest need due to the loss of this habitat 

to agricultural production (MFWP 2005). 

The refuge has 1,218 acres of upland habitat that 

consists of grassland, shrubland, and a combination 

of both. Due to the retirement of agricultural crops, 

encroachment of development, and spread of invasive 

plants, few native plant species remain, and wildlife 

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

weeds such as smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, 

cheatgrass, knapweed, and thistle. A combination of 

management actions have been applied—prescribed 

fire, disking and seeding, herbicide application, and 

manual weed removal—with varying results. 

WATER 

Lee Metcalf Refuge receives surface water from 

tile drain ditches, springs, ephemeral and perennial 

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

Ditch, and South Lateral Ditch. These lateral ditches 

are supplied by the Supply Ditch, a primary canal that 

carries diverted Bitterroot River water from Victor 

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

traverses or drains out of grazed or farmed lands. As 

a result, the refuge receives nutrient-rich drainage 

water that results in abundant algal growth during 

summer months. 

In the past 5 years, algal growth has increased in 

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

results in diminished water clarity and subsequent 

reduction in light penetration and vegetative quality 

of refuge impoundments. 

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

water quality within the refuge boundary. 

The North Lateral Ditch, also called the Alleman 

Ditch, flows through private land, traverses alongside Eastside Highway, and then enters the refuge on 

Rathbun Lane. In the last several years, the refuge 

has received water from this ditch, even though it has 

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

overflow and flood private lands. 

East of the Eastside Highway, subdivisions have 

been developed along and over the Middle Lateral 

Ditch (also called the McElhaney Ditch) and affected 

the efficiency of flows leaving the Supply Ditch and 

reaching the refuge. Currently, refuge management is 

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

successful, this effort could conserve water, provide a 

more reliable flow to the refuge, reduce noxious weed 

seed transfer from ditchbanks and adjacent lands, 

end periodic localized flooding, and possibly provide 

a gravity-flow water source into the refuge wheel 

lines, thereby saving thousands of dollars annually 

in pumping costs. 

In recent years, much of the refuge water from 

the South Lateral Ditch (also called the Warburton 

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

this ditch in the past. 

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

maintained in recent years. 

iNVASiVE ANd NoxiouS SPECiES 

The State of Montana has identified 32 noxious plant 

species, which are nonnative plants that must be treated 

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

Invasive species prevent desirable native vegetation 

growth and often severely degrade habitat for native 

wildlife by altering its structure and its species and 

ecosystem interactions. When invasive species become 

widespread, they often change the habitat structure 

and vegetative variability that wildlife need for food 

and cover. These nonnative plants often create monotypic stands, using up soil moisture and nutrients and 

outcompeting more desirable native species. This 

Invasive and noxious species are a threat to native plants

on the refuge, including velvet lupine. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 
24 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

change in plant species, structure, and diversity impacts habitat for migratory birds, a group of species 

for which this refuge was established. 

Multiple factors have likely contributed to the 

noxious and invasive plant problem on the refuge. 

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

the refuge were used. Much of this land was managed 

for agriculture, including growing small grains and 

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

croplands were leveled and parts of the refuge may 

have been drained. After refuge establishment, much 

of the agricultural land was developed into wetland 

impoundments or managed for migratory waterfowl 

food resources. Later, gravel levees were developed 

to protect refuge facilities from periodic flooding from 

the Bitterroot River. White-tailed deer move daily off 

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

actions—both before and after refuge establishment— 

disturbed the soil and created abundant opportunities 

for noxious and invasive plants to take root. 

Land uses in and around the refuge also likely 

contribute to the invasive species problem. The Bitterroot River runs the length of the refuge, and the 

water current as well as recreationists often transport 

seed from one area to another. Montana Rail Link also 

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

disturbed ground. Finally, Wildfowl Lane, a county 

road, runs west, north, and east through the south 

half of the refuge, providing abundant opportunities 

for noxious weed transport and establishment. Land 

use surrounding the refuge (subdivisions, irrigation 

laterals and tile drains, uncontrolled weed infestations 

on adjacent lands, Eastside Highway, and Rathbun 

Lane) also contributes to the challenge of managing 

invasive species, including treated areas, on the refuge. 

RESEARCH, iNVENToRy, ANd MoNiToRiNg 

Over the years, research, inventory, and monitoring of 

refuge resources have been sporadic and minimal. In 

most cases, research is proposed by another agency or 

a university, not by refuge staff. Consequently, some 

management programs have not necessarily been 

designed from refuge-specific data or in response to 

critical refuge needs and issues. This had led in part 

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

ViSiToR SERViCES 

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

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

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

be close to nature. 

The refuge has always done well to accommodate 

visitors by providing facilities and programs intended 

for education and enjoyment. The refuge currently 

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

assist with these programs and help greet visitors at 

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

providing new programs, tours, offsite programs, and 

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

area. Although the visitor contact area does allow for 

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

and inadequate for conducting tours, accommodating 

larger groups, or housing displays that could better 

interpret refuge resources and programs. The refuge 

is very popular with local schools and other groups; 

accordingly, there is a need for additional programs 

and an indoor classroom. 

Many visitors have asked for additional trails and 

opportunities to explore more of the refuge. Requests 

were also made to afford all visitors the same access 

provided to refuge hunters. The refuge currently has 

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

improvement or relocation. One of these trails in the 

WVA is slowly eroding as a result of the migrating 

Bitterroot River. The Kenai Nature Trail, located 

north of the refuge headquarters, is also very popular with visitors, but it is surrounded by a closed area 

that does not allow visitors to leave this narrow trail. 

As part of the CCP development process, the refuge 

will evaluate these trails and determine if improvements are needed or if accommodations can be made 

in other refuge areas. 

Hunting for waterfowl and white-tailed deer is very 

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

management unit that only permits archery hunting 

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

result of overbrowsing by white-tailed deer. Should 

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

the State to find other methods to better disperse the 

deer or reduce the population on the refuge. 

STAffiNg 

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

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

forth in this CCP within the established timeframe, 

adequate staffing and resources will be needed. 
CHAPTER 3— Alternatives and
 

Environmental Consequences
 

Variegated meadowhawk is one of many dragonfly species found on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the management alternatives and associated environmental 

consequences considered for the Lee Metcalf National 

Wildlife Refuge. Alternatives are different approaches 

to unit management that are designed to achieve the 

refuge purposes, vision, and goals; the mission of the 

Refuge System; and the mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Alternatives are developed to address 

the substantive issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service, the public, and other partners 

during public scoping and throughout the development 

of the draft CCP. This chapter contains the following: 

■■ summary of alternatives (sections 3.1 and 3.2) 

■■ summary of environmental consequences (section 3.3) 

■■ detailed descriptions of alternatives and consequences (section 3.4) 

3.1 Alternatives Development 

The planning team assessed the planning issues identified in chapter 2, the existing biological conditions 

described in chapter 4, and external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the 

development of alternatives, each of which presents a 

distinct approach for meeting long-term goals. Each 

alternative was evaluated on the basis of its approach 

to addressing planning issues and its expected success 

in meeting the vision and goals of the refuge and the 

Refuge System. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes 

the current, ongoing management activities. This alternative might not meet all the CCP goals. It is provided 

as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives. 

AlTERnATivEs ConsiDERED buT EliminATED 

There were no alternatives considered but eliminated 

from detailed study. 

ElEmEnTs Common To All AlTERnATivEs 

This section identifies the following key elements that 

will be included in the CCP regardless of the alternative selected: 

■■ The Service would ensure that management of the 

refuge complies with all Federal laws, administrative orders, and policies that provide direction for 

managing units of the Refuge System. Among these 

mandates are the Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act of 

1977, Executive Order 11990 (“Protection of Wetlands”), and Executive Order 11988 (“Floodplain 

Management”). The implementation of alternatives 

described in this draft CCP and EA would not lead 

to a violation of these or other mandates. 
26 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ Implementation of the management direction 

(goals, objectives, and strategies) would follow the 

refuge’s best management practices. 

■■ Each alternative would attempt to control invasive 

species through an integrated pest management 

approach that includes biological, chemical, and 

mechanical treatment methods followed by restoration and prevention of reinvasion. 

■■ Through its actions the Service would not knowingly 

negatively affect an adjacent landowner without 

a mutual agreement and adequate compensation. 

■■ Each alternative would provide equal protection 

and management of cultural resources. 

■■ The refuge staff and its contractors, researchers, and 

other consultants would acquire all applicable permits, such as those for future construction activities. 

3.2 Description of 

Alternatives 

This section describes the alternatives considered by 

the planning team to achieve the proposed vision and 

goals and to address the issues. These alternatives include not only the current management (alternative A) 

but also the Service’s proposed action (alternative B), 

which is incorporated into the draft CCP and further 

described in chapter 5. Table 4 in section 3.4 below 

provides a summary of the alternatives’ actions with 

associated consequences. 

These alternatives reflect options to address significant threats, problems, and issues raised not only 

by refuge staff but also public agencies, private citizens, other State, tribal, and Federal agencies, and 

other interested organizations. 

AlTERnATivE A (CuRREnT mAnAgEmEnT–no 

ACTion) 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, represents 

the current management of the refuge. This alternative provides the baseline against which to compare 

the other alternatives. It also fulfills the NEPA requirement that a no-action alternative be addressed 

in the analysis process. 

Under alternative A, the Service’s management 

activities would remain the same. The staff would 

perform issue-driven research and monitor only longterm vegetation changes. Funding and staff levels 

would remain unchanged, and programs would have 

the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they 

do at present. Key elements of alternative A follow: 

■■ Habitat and wildlife management actions would 

continue at present levels unless funding or staffing 

levels changed. Refuge habitat would continue to be 

managed using existing water control structures, 

grazing, and prescribed fire. Results of management actions may or may not be able to be analyzed 

because monitoring would continue to be limited 

due to current funding levels. The refuge would 

continue to impound water in all refuge ponds. 

■■ The Service would not take any actions to prohibit 

the migration of the Bitterroot River, even for road 

and trail protection. 

■■ The culvert at North Burnt Fork Creek in the 

WVA would be replaced by a bridge. 

■■ Prescriptive fire, prescriptive grazing, and natural flooding would be used to enhance the existing 

riverfront and gallery forest plant communities. 

Where appropriate, cottonwood and ponderosa 

pine would continue to be planted to expand the 

gallery forest areas, with a focus on sloughs and 

historical ditches. 

■■ Unless eroded by the Bitterroot River, the wetland 

impoundments would be retained; however, management capabilities would be limited. The gravel 

pits would be retained and managed for boreal toad 

and Columbia spotted frog habitat. 

■■ The Service would attempt to introduce more native plant species into tame grassland areas. 

■■ The Service would work with partners to map and 

treat invasive species and monitor treated areas 

to prevent reintroduction and spread. 

■■ Refuge staff would continue to perform issue-driven 

scientific research. 

■■ Wildlife-dependent compatible priority uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation) would continue at current 

levels. Outreach and education programs would 

continue, primarily onsite, but there would be insufficient resources to update signs, informational 

kiosks, and brochures or to improve hiking trails 

and access roads. 

■■ Five full-time staff persons would continue to be 

assigned to the refuge along with four zone or 

state-wide support staff who could assist with 

refuge programs. 

AlTERnATivE b (PRoPosED ACTion) 

This alternative constitutes the draft CCP (chapter 5) and focuses on the expansion and restoration 

of native plant communities on the refuge including 

grassland and shrubland, gallery and riverfront forests, and wetland impoundments. A significant part 

of the restoration proposal includes the control of 

invasive species. Grasses and shrubs native to the 

uplands (in the floodplains and on the alluvial fans, 

or areas of sedimentary deposits where fast-flowing 

streams have flown into flatter plains) would be restored to provide habitat for native wildlife including 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 27 

grassland-dependent migratory birds. Before any 

restoration is conducted, invasive species (including 

seedbeds) will be reduced primarily with prescribed 

burning and farming. 

Some wetland impoundments and Service (nonpublic) roads would be removed to allow for river 

migration scouring, which could help restore native 

gallery and riverfront forest for riparian-dependent 

wildlife. Most of the remaining impoundments would 

be managed to mimic natural conditions for wetlanddependent migratory birds. 

The Service would expand and improve the refuge’s 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use programs, 

particularly the wildlife observation, environmental 

education, and interpretation programs. The visitor 

contact area would be expanded into a visitor center 

with new displays and an additional combination conference room and environmental education classroom. 

New displays would be professionally planned and 

produced. The refuge would work with Ravalli County 

staff to designate the county road traveling through 

the refuge as an interpreted auto tour route, which 

would include pulloffs for wildlife viewing. A seasonal 

hiking trail would be added around Pond 8, and current trails would be improved for wildlife observation 

and photography. Interpretation and environmental 

education programs would be expanded using added 

staff and volunteers. All public use programs would 

provide visitors with a consistent message about the 

purposes and values of the refuge and the mission of the 

Refuge System. The refuge staff would be expanded 

by 3.5 individuals: an assistant refuge manager, two 

biological science technicians (one part-time), and a 

visitor services specialist. 

Increased research and monitoring efforts, staff, 

funding, infrastructure, and partnerships would be 

required to accomplish the goals outlined in chapter 

2 and the objective and strategies outlined in chapter 

5. Additional staff and funding would be dependent on 

the regional priorities for those funds allocated to the 

Service for management of lands and waters within the 

Refuge System. Key elements of alternative B follow: 

■■ Levees and ditches would be modified or created 

to reconnect floodplain habitats with the Bitterroot River, thereby providing the opportunity for 

overbank and backwater flooding into and out of 

the floodplain. These actions would facilitate the 

restoration of the natural braided migration patterns of the Bitterroot River across the refuge, 

where possible. 

■■ Water control structures and obstructions in tributary and floodplain channels would be removed 

or modified to allow unimpeded flow from North 

Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile Creek into the 

Bitterroot River. North Burnt Fork Creek would 

be reconnected with historical channels and the 

Bitterroot River. 

■■ Water control structures would be replaced in 

Ponds 1–6, Pond 8, and Pond 10 so that water regimes could be managed for a more seasonal, annual 

dynamic that emulates natural increases in water 

distribution and depth in spring and gradual drying 

in summer and fall. Complete drawdown of each 

pond would occur on a rotational basis. 

■■ Levees, ditches, and water control structures would 

be removed to facilitate the restoration and expansion of the gallery forest habitat (Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, 9, 

and D) and native grassland habitat (Pair Ponds and 

Potato Cellar Pond) while ensuring that restoration 

areas do not become new sites for invasive species. 

■■ The pool height of Ponds 8 and 10 would be lowered to allow for the restoration of gallery forest 

to the west of these ponds. 

■■ Once invasive species were well controlled on restoration sites (using primarily farming and prescribed 

fire), native plant communities would be restored 

based on geomorphology, soils, topography, and 

hydrologic features. 

■■ As appropriate, vegetation would be removed from 

gravel pits to restore desirable boreal toad habitat. The presence or absence of Columbia spotted 

frogs (which may respond negatively to vegetation 

removal) would be monitored. 

■■ Mechanical, chemical, and biological methods, including prescribed fire, would be used to convert 

introduced and tame grasses to native species, 

where possible. Prior to restoration, these sites 

would be treated for invasive species. 

■■ Through partnerships, a program would be developed to treat and monitor off-refuge sources 

of early plant invaders. 

■■ Plant communities would be inventoried and the 

responses of target species to restoration treatments would be monitored. 

■■ Research projects that address refuge issues and 

support habitat and public use program objectives 

would be pursued and implemented. 

■■ Work with the State to determine the viability 

of allowing hunters to use muzzleloaders and/or 

shotguns to harvest white-tailed deer within this 

archery-only hunting district. 

■■ Current visitor services and facilities would be maintained and expanded significantly. Visitor services 

staff would be hired; new programs highlighting 

refuge habitats, wildlife, cultural resources, and 

restoration efforts would be created; and a seasonal walking trail around Pond 8 would be added. 

■■ Refuge headquarters would be expanded to create a 

visitor center, classroom, and additional office space. 

■■ Three and a half permanent, full-time employees 

would be added to the current staff. 
28 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

AlTERnATivE C 

Alternative C contains many of the elements found 

in alternative B related to expanding visitor service 

programs and facilities. However, habitat management would be focused on maintaining the wetland 

impoundments, attempting to restrict the movements 

of the Bitterroot River throughout the refuge, and 

providing waterfowl and other waterbird habitat. Key 

elements of alternative C follow: 

■■ To prevent river movement and natural overbank 

and backwater flooding, the Service would take action to repair and maintain eroded levees and dams. 

■■ Water level management structures would be replaced as needed to continue providing impounded 

wetland habitat. Where possible, the water management of impounded areas would be changed to 

seasonal water regimes and periodic dry conditions 

to improve wetland production. 

■■ Limited pheasant and turkey hunting opportunities would be provided in compliance with refuge 

and State regulations. The refuge would establish 

a fee program for using hunting blinds. 

■■ Special fishing events would not be permitted in 

closed areas. The refuge would participate in other 

fishing events offsite. 

■■ Three and half permanent, full-time employees 

would be added to the current staff, the majority 

of whom would work on visitor services programs. 

3.3 summary of Environmental 

Consequences 

The Service assessed the potential environmental consequences of each alternative on the physical, biological, 

socioeconomic, and cultural resources of the refuge. 

EffECTs Common To All AlTERnATivEs 

The management activities and programs of all alternatives would, to the extent possible and practicable, 

avoid and minimize adverse effects on federally listed 

species. The sections below describe other effects expected to be common to all alternatives. 

Environmental Justice 

In keeping with the spirit and intent of Executive 

Order 12898 (“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations”), no actions being considered in this 

draft CCP and EA would disproportionately place any 

adverse environmental, economic, social, or health effects on minority or low-income populations compared 

with the general public. The Service is committed to 

ensuring that all members of the public have equal 

access to the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, as 

well as equal access to information that would enable 

them to participate meaningfully in activities and 

policy shaping. 

Cultural Resources 

Each alternative would protect existing cultural resources and extend protection to newly discovered 

cultural resources. Limited cultural resource surveys 

have been performed on the refuge; additional surveys must precede new construction or excavation to 

fully satisfy provisions of NEPA and other applicable 

regulations concerning historical and archaeological 

resources. Any potentially negative effect from trail 

or facility construction would require review by the 

Mountain–Prairie Region’s archaeologist and consultation 

with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. 

Climate Change 

The actions proposed in this draft CCP and EA would 

conserve or restore land and habitat, thus retaining 

existing levels of carbon sequestration throughout the 

refuge. This would contribute positively to efforts to 

mitigate human-induced global climate change. The 

use of prescribed fire, which releases carbon dioxide, 

should result in no net loss of carbon because new 

vegetation would quickly replace the burned-up biomass. Overall, there should be little to no net change 

in carbon sequestered on the refuge from any of the 

management alternatives. As it relates to global climate change, documenting the long-term changes in 

vegetation, species, and hydrology is an important part 

of research and monitoring. Invasive species may also 

become more prolific and widespread and more difficult 

to control in the wake of climate change. Management 

adjustments may be necessary over time to adapt to 

climate change. The refuge would continue to reduce 

its carbon footprint by using renewable energy (for 

example, wind and solar energy) and green technologies in the development of any new facilities. 

geology and soils 

All alternatives would positively affect soil formation processes on the refuge. Some disturbance to 

surface soils and topography would occur at locations 

selected for: 

■■ administrative, maintenance, and visitor facilities; 

■■ channel excavation and levee adjustment or removal; 

■■ mechanical removal and eradication of invasive 

plant species; 

■■ restoration of native habitat. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 29 

3.4 Detailed Descriptions 

of Alternatives and 

Consequences 

Management actions are prescribed in the alternatives 

as a means for achieving the vision and goals for the 

refuge while responding to issues raised by Service 

managers, the public, and governmental partners. Because management would differ for each alternative, 

the environmental and social effects from implementation would likely differ as well. 

Table 4 describes management direction and consequences of alternative A (current management) 

for comparison with alternatives B and C. In most 

instances, the proposed management alternatives 

outlined in alternatives B and C would differ from 

current management. 

In this table, management actions and their consequences are organized first by major habitat types 

found on the refuge, followed by the proposals for 

invasive species, research, cultural resources, visitor 

services, partnerships, and operations and facilities. 

Columns in the table contain management actions for 

each alternative followed by the estimated potential 

effects from carrying out the actions of an alternative. 

soCioEConomiCs 

This section analyzes the local economic impacts associated with current management activities (alternative A) and the change in management activities 

associated with the proposed action (alternative B) 

and alternative C. 

Alternative A (Current management–no Action) 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would not 

significantly change the refuge’s contribution to the 

local economy. Visitation levels and visitor spending 

would likely increase only slightly, and the refuge 

would continue to employ eight full-time employees 

(3.5 of which are zone or state-wide support employees 

who do not exclusively support refuge operations). 

Alternative b (Proposed Action) 

Alternative B would increase the refuge’s contribution to the local economy. Visitation under this alternative is expected to increase due to expanded and 

more frequent visitor services programs and events, 

new visitor center, new trail, and an interpreted auto 

tour route. Employment would increase from eight to 

11.5 full-time equivalent employees, and many seasonal 

staff would be hired. Of these 11.5 employees, 8 would 

directly support refuge operations. The remaining 3.5 

positions would continue to be zone or state-wide support employees. Accordingly, increases in visitor and 

employee spending in the local communities would 

be anticipated. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would be the same as B. 

CumulATivE imPACTs 

Cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of 

an alternative’s actions when added to past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can be the result of individually minor 

impacts that can become significant when added together over time. 

Whenever the environmental analysis process detects possible significant impacts on habitat, wildlife, 

or the human environment, mitigation measures must 

be put into place. This requirement is mandated by 

the Council on Environmental Quality, the agency that 

implements the National Environmental Quality Act. 

None of the activities proposed in this draft CCP 

and EA are expected nor intended to produce significant levels of cumulative environmental impacts that 

would require mitigation measures. Nevertheless, the 

final CCP will contain the following measures to preclude significant environmental impacts from occurring: 

■■ To protect federally listed species from intentional 

or unintended impacts, activities would be not be 

planned where these species occur, especially during periods such as nesting. 

■■ All proposed activities would be regulated to lessen 

potential impacts on wildlife, fish, and plant species, 

especially during sensitive reproductive cycles. 

■■ Monitoring protocols would be established to determine goal achievement levels and possible unforeseen impacts on resources. This would allow 

for application of adaptive resource management 

to ensure wildlife and habitat resources, as well as 

the human environment, are conserved. 

■■ Five years after its approval, the final CCP could 

be revised to correct for unforeseen impacts that 

occurred during the first 5 years of plan implementation. Adaptive resources management would inform this revision. 
30 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

goAl for bitterroot River floodplain and Associated Wildlife. Manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural topography, water movements, and physical integrity of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot River floodplain to 

provide healthy riparian habitats for target native species and to educate visitors about the benefits of sustaining a more 

natural floodplain. 

Floodplain—Actions 

Remove or modify existing levees that Same as alternative A, plus: Construct bioengineered channels, streamimpede movement of the Bitterroot River Expand efforts to remove or modify banks, or hardened banks on the river, 

or allow them to further erode. levees, berms, dams, roads, and ditches and repair and maintain eroded levees, 

Evaluate and modify refuge levees to to reconnect floodplain habitats with the artificial structures, and dams that preallow for river movement while protect­ Bitterroot River, thereby providing op­ vent natural overbank and backwater 

ing selected refuge roads. portunity for overbank and backwater flooding and river movement. 

Do not inhibit tendencies for the Bit­ flooding into and out of the floodplain. 

terroot River to move primary discharge Facilitate the restoration of the natural 

through the North Island Slough. braided migration patterns of the BitRemove degraded government residence terroot River across the refuge, where 

and allow natural flood events to occur. possible. 

Allow the WVA to further erode as Transition Ponds 11, 12, and 13—or 

the Bitterroot River migrates eastward. portions of these pools—to riparian and 

Educate visitors about this process. gallery forest, reestablishing backwater 

channels on the Bitterroot River and 

creating flooded meadow and reduced 

wetland areas in nonchannel areas. 

Continue to allow Bitterroot River 

seasonal flows into and through North 

Island Slough. 

Floodplain—Environmental Consequences 

As levees erode, the floodplain would 

again become connected to the river. 

Management capabilities of some wetland impoundments would be lost. 

The historical disconnection in fish 

passages would persist in North Burnt 

Fork Creek. 

Year-round access would be reduced 

as roads and levees are modified by erosion and natural flooding occurs. 

The Bitterroot River would flow more 

naturally within the refuge floodplain 

supporting the maintenance and restoration of riparian habitats. 

Some restoration of natural fish passages may occur. 

Brood habitat may decrease for waterfowl but increase for neotropical migrants. Cavity nesters would eventually 

benefit from restoration of gallery forest. 

As habitats are restored, new opportunities for visitors to see and learn 

about wildlife and habitats native to the 

Bitterroot floodplain would be created. 

Wetland impoundments would be retained 

and managed for water bird habitat. 

Refuge staff would spend significant 

time and funds to maintain and restore 

wetland impoundment and road infrastructure affected by natural river movements. 

Opportunities to restore the gallery 

forest and other native riparian habitats in the natural floodplain would not 

be pursued. 

Creeks and Tributaries—Actions 

Allow North Burnt Fork Creek to function as an unimpeded riparian stream. 

Continue to monitor the streamflow 

of North Burnt Fork Creek through 

Francois Slough to evaluate the quality of fish passageways. 

Restore newly exposed banks to riparian habitat. 

To address the impeded channel of 

North Burnt Fork Creek and direct flow 

towards the northeast channel, replace 

the culvert with a bridge. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Remove water control structures and 

obstructions in tributary and floodplain 

channels to reconnect unimpeded flow 

from North Burnt Fork Creek and Three 

Mile Creek into the Bitterroot River. 

Reconnect the North Burnt Fork Creek 

with flow pathways through Francois 

Slough and into the Bitterroot River. 

Through partnerships, attempt to restore river and stream connectivity offrefuge to reestablish fish passage. 

Connect North Burnt Fork Creek directly 

to the river, bypassing Francois Slough. 
Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Creeks and Tributaries—Environmental Consequences 

Management capabilities of some wetland impoundments would be lost. 

Managed foraging habitat for water 

bird species would decrease. 

Native fish may regain access to sections of North Burnt Fork Creek. 

Cottonwood and willow would potentially be restored to the riverfront forest. 

Elevated water temperatures, increased sedimentation, and unnatural 

amounts of persistent emergent habitat may result. 

Water would move freely into the Bitterroot River to allow fish and other 

aquatic animals to use the North Burnt 

Fork Creek flowage corridor. 

Creek water temperatures would decrease and water and nutrient flow would 

improve, potentially enhancing native 

cold-water species habitat. 

There may be a loss of fishing opportunities. 

Breeding habitat for overwater nesting bird species would decrease, but 

the expanded willows and cottonwood 

areas would provide additional habitat 

for migratory birds that prefer riparian woodlands. 

Removal of concrete structures on 

North Burnt Fork Creek could cause 

head cutting along the stream and erosion of stream sides. 

There would be increased backwater 

flooding for fish movement. 

There would be fewer obstructions to 

fish passage. 

There would be less water in Francois Slough for fishing and wildlife use. 

Topography and Flow Patterns—Actions 

Retain nesting islands, level ditching, and 

water level management structures unless they are eroded by flooding. 

Allow the river to naturally scour 

Ponds 12 and 13. 

Remove and/or breach spoil material 

berms (from the level-ditching) and levees along major drainages to systematically restore natural topography and 

reconnect natural waterflow patterns 

and corridors, where possible. 

Remove roads, berms, ditches, and 

other structures that disrupt natural 

sheet flow of water into the floodplain. 

Plant native or desirable vegetation 

on restored sites to prevent invasive 

species encroachment. 

Construct hardened banks on the river, 

and repair and maintain eroded levees, 

artificial structures, and dams that prevent natural overbank and backwater 

flooding and river movement. 

Topography and Flow Patterns—Environmental Consequences 

Level ditching would continue to affect 

water movement. 

Unnatural topography would continue 

to create sedimentation traps and unnatural plant communities that tie up 

nutrients and reduce productivity—ultimately increasing monocultures and 

decreasing diversity. 

Allowing river movements through 

the north end of the refuge would aid 

the restoration of the riverfront forest 

but may initially create new areas for 

invasive species. 

Where possible, natural waterflow patterns and corridors would be restored 

to promote natural plant communities. 

Exposed soil would be a potential site 

for invasive plant establishment. 

There would be a reduction of persistent 

emergent habitat within impoundments. 

The refuge would spend time and funds 

to maintain Ponds 11–13; however, the 

river may still continue to erode portions of Ponds 12 and 13. 

Opportunities to maintain and restore 

the gallery forest and other native riparian habitats in the natural floodplain 

would be reduced. 

CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 31 
Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Reestablishment and Expansion of the Riverfront and Gallery Forest Plant Communities—Actions 

Use prescriptive fire, prescriptive grazing, and natural flooding to enhance the 

existing riverfront and gallery forest 

plant communities. 

Encourage the natural regeneration 

of the shrubland component of the gallery forest (including, hawthorn, alder, 

wood’s rose, and dogwood). 

Plant cottonwood and ponderosa pine 

to expand gallery forest areas, focusing 

on areas with appropriate soils. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Lower maximum pool height of Ponds 

8 and 10 to allow gallery forest restoration to the west of these impoundments. 

Restore distribution of plant communities to appropriate sites based on 

hydrogeomorphic (HGM) documented 

geomorphology, soils, topography, and 

hydrologic features. 

Reestablish riverfront forest along 

the margins of the Bitterroot River on 

newly deposited or scoured coarse material surfaces. 

Reestablish gallery forest communities on higher-elevation floodplain areas 

with sandy-loam soils on natural levees 

and other floodplain ridges that have 2–5 

year flood recurrence intervals. 

Manage for persistent emergent habitats to the fringes of deeper depressions, 

Slocum loam soils, and more permanent 

water regimes. 

Sustain wet meadow communities on 

Slocum loam soils with 2–5 year flood 

frequencies. 

Restore native grassland in silt loam 

soils on higher floodplain elevations and 

on terraces. 

Agricultural crops would be grown to 

treat invasive species and prepare areas 

for restoration. 

Construct deer exclosures to protect 

newly planted areas and regeneration sites. 

Inventory plant communities and monitor responses of forest target species to 

restoration treatments. 

Same as alternative A, except: 

Repair levees as they erode, preventing natural flooding. 

Use planting and prescribed fire for 

any gallery forest restoration efforts. 

Reestablishment and Expansion of the Riverfront and Gallery Forest Plant Communities—Environmental Consequences 

Existing gallery and riverfront forest 

and associated shrubland would be expanded, providing some additional habitat 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Waterfowl would continue to be provided natural food sources in managed 

wetland and upland units. 

Static emergent wetland habitat would 

continue to provide a persistent, historical level of waterfowl production. 

Same as alternative A, except: 

Restoration would depend more on 

natural ecological processes such as 

flooding and scouring. 

Riverfront forest would be restored 

on newly scoured areas. Additional efforts to treat invasive species in these 

scoured areas would be needed. 

Gallery and riverfront forest would be 

expanded, providing additional habitat 

for migratory birds, including target 

species; however, some tree species may 

take the life of this CCP to reach sizes 

that are beneficial to some species, such 

as Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Wetland species habitat would decrease. 

Emergent vegetation would persist in 

ponds and deeper old river channels,providing 

habitat for native and nonnative aquatic 

species. 

Same as alternative A, except: 

There would be a continued loss of 

both quantity and quality of riverfront 

and gallery forest habitats and wildlife 

that uses habitats. 

There would be a loss of natural regeneration from dry sites becoming drier 

and wet sites becoming wetter. 

Cattail populations would increase 

in impoundments, causing a drop in 

biodiversity. 

Diversity and density of nonnative 

plants would increase due to a loss of 

nutrient and sediment movement across 

the floodplain. 

Wetland impoundment habitat would 

be retained, but productivity would decrease due to a lack of nutrient regeneration and spread of cattails into openwater habitat. 

32 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 33 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Water birds would be provided desirable wet meadow habitat for nesting 

and foraging. 

Greater interspersion of open water 

and emergent habitats would provide 

better quality waterfowl brood and stopover habitat. 

Restored grassland areas would provide habitat for grassland nesting birds, 

insects, rodents, and amphibians and 

reptiles. 

Cattail monocultures would be reduced 

in Ponds 1–6, 8, and 10, creating more 

interspersion of emergent and openwater habitat. 

goAl for Wetland impoundment Habitat and Associated Wildlife. Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments to 

create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl, shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-dependent species. 

Wetland Impoundments—Actions 

Continue to maintain water level man­ Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative A, except: 

agement structures to manipulate wa­ Replace water management structures Maintain all wetland impoundments and 

ter levels in Ponds 1–6 for water birds, in Ponds 1–6, 8, and 10 to manage water replace structures as needed to continue 

including shorebirds and waterfowl. regimes for a more seasonal, annually providing impounded wetland habitat. 

Allow Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, 9, and D; Potato dynamic water regime that emulates Where possible, change the water manCellar Pond; and Pair Ponds to remain natural increases in water distribution agement of impounded areas to seasonal 

dependent on irrigation water, leaving and depth in spring followed by rota­ water regimes and periodic dry condithem minimally managed. tional drying in summer and fall. tions to improve wetland production. 

Pond 8, Pond 10, and Otter Pond would While drawing down wetlands, treat 

be periodically drained, and monocul­ exposed shorelines to prevent invasive 

tures of cattails would be treated using species and monotypic stands of cattails 

prescribed fire and prescriptive graz­ from becoming established. 

ing. Once reflooded, desirable emer­ Remove levees, ditches, and water congent vegetation should be available for trol structures to facilitate the restorawaterbirds. tion and expansion of the gallery forest 

habitat (around Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, 9, and 

D) and native grassland habitat (around 

Pair Ponds and Potato Cellar Pond). 

Emulate long-term patterns of drier 

conditions in floodplain wetlands in most 

years, periodic complete drying in some 

years, and occasional prolonged flooding 

every few years. 

Determine the feasibility and methods 

for restoring the natural flow of Three 

Mile Creek, including sedimentation deposits, through Ponds 11–13. 

Remove levees, ditches, and water 

control structures from all higher elevation areas within the floodplain and 

on terraces. 

Maintain Ponds 8 and 10 at a lower elevation to allow for the reestablishment 

of gallery forest. 
34 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Wetland Impoundments—Environmental Consequences 

Impoundments that receive an infre- Same as alternative A, except: Additional marginal waterbird habitat 

quent water supply or do not hold wa- New opportunities would exist to re- would be provided at great expense. The 

ter (for example, Potato Cellar Pond) store the unique gallery forest and as- Bitterroot River could continue to erode 

would remain dry most years, providing sociated shrublands. repaired structures and levees, particuoccasional wetland habitat for wildlife. Sedge wetland habitat and grassland larly in the north end of the refuge. 

The impoundments would provide areas would be restored. Little opportunity would exist to resome brood, stopover wintering, forag- Desirable wetland plants will be pro- store areas that were historically galing, and breeding pair habitat. vided to waterfowl and other wetland­ lery and shrubland forests. 

The impoundments may provide a dependent wildlife. A greater bioaccumulation of mergreater opportunity for the methaliza- Shrub and sedge wetland habitat would cury may result in these permanent 

tion and bioaccumulation of mercury. be restored, providing important habitat waterbodies. 

Cattails would be controlled in Pond for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

8, Pond 10, and Otter Pond providing Drying cycles would increase producmore interspersion of open water and tivity and release nutrients through aeremergent vegetation for wildlife. obic decomposition. 

Eliminating permanent waterbodies 

could result in less bioaccumulation of 

mercury. 

There may be a decrease in fishing 

opportunities for largemouth bass at 

future fishing events. 

Waterfowl hunting may be affected 

next to ponds that would not be reflooded 

before the hunting season due to habitat objectives. 

Gravel Pits (Ephemeral Wetlands)—Actions 

Retain gravel pits for boreal toad and Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. 

Columbia spotted frog habitat. As appropriate, remove vegetation to 

restore the desirable boreal toad habitat. Monitor impacts on Columbia spotted frogs. 

Do not harvest gravel from existing 

gravel pits except when necessary to 

restore boreal toad habitat. Do not attempt to protect these gravel pits from 

the river’s movements. 

Monitor the use of gravel pits by boreal toad and Columbia spotted frog and 

the effects of vegetation removal on improving habitat. 

Gravel Pits (Ephemeral Wetlands)—Environmental Consequences 

The gravel pits would continue to pro­ Removal of vegetation may affect Co­ Same as alternative B. 

vide egg laying habitat for the boreal lumbia spotted frogs that could also be 

toad and Columbia frog until the aquatic using these pits. 

vegetation returns. The results of the proposed management action would be monitored and 

adapted to verify that these techniques 

are providing habitat for both the boreal toads and Columbia spotted frogs. 

Certified weed-free gravel would be purchased or retrieved from removed levees. 

Gravel pits would not be protected 

from the river’s movements. If these 

gravel pits are removed by the river, 

this breeding habitat for boreal toads and 

Columbia spotted frogs would be lost. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 35 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

goAl for grassland and shrubland Habitat and Associated Wildlife. Create the conditions that will allow for the restoration, 

maintenance, and distribution of native grassland and shrubland species (such as rabbitbrush, needle and thread grass, 

Junegrass, and hairy golden aster) to provide healthy lands for a diverse group of target native resident and migratory 

wildlife species and to educate visitors about the historical plant and animal diversity of the valley. 

Native Vegetation Restoration—Actions 

Continue to implement and evaluate 

tested techniques for reducing cheatgrass. 

Continue to reseed and use prescribed 

burning, grazing, irrigation, and invasive 

species treatments to introduce more native species into tame grassland areas. 

Continue to restore former agricultural fields to native bunchgrasses to 

outcompete cheatgrass and other invasive species. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Restore and expand grassland and 

sagebrush communities on high terrace 

elevations and on alluvial fans, where 

appropriate. 

Use farming to treat invasive species 

by continually farming specific areas until the seedbed is reduced or the field 

would be chemically fallowed. Restore 

these areas to native species found on 

that site. Monitor these areas to detect 

reinvasion. 

Use mechanical, chemical, and biological methods, including prescribed 

fire, to systematically begin to remove 

introduced and tame grasses, including dense nesting cover, from locations 

where native grassland communities 

were present, and restore native species where possible. 

Convert higher elevations of current 

impounded wetlands (Pair Ponds, southwest corner of Field S–1) back to native 

grassland and shrubland habitat (based 

on soil type) by removing levees and water control structures, and by restoring 

seasonal water regimes. 

Provide occasional disturbance through 

prescribed fire, mowing, or grazing to 

recycle nutrients and regenerate grass 

and forb species. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Manage all maintained and restored 

levees for tame grasslands and treat to 

remove invasive plants. 

Native Vegetation Restoration—Environmental Consequences 

Tame grasslands would eventually be re­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, plus: 

stored to native grasslands as resources Invasive species, which have currently As levees are restored, soil would be 

became available. overtaken these sites, would be reduced, exposed, providing new seedbeds for inThese restored native grassland ar­ which would provide a greater opportu­ vasive species. Treating these areas and 

eas would provide diverse, productive nity for the restoration of native species. reseeding them to tame grassland would 

habitat for grassland-dependent wildlife. Converting dense nesting cover and not provide the most diverse habitat, but 

Initially, a loss of structure and a po­ tame grasses to native grassland com­ it would suppress establishment of new 

tential for the additional spread of in­ munities would result in a reduction in invasive species areas and provide some 

vasive species would occur as areas are nest density of upland nesting waterfowl, cover for wildlife. 

being restored. upland gamebirds, and upland nesting 

songbirds until native species are fully 

established. 

Restoration of native grasses and shrubs 

would require intensive management, 

and it may be difficult to maintain native communities at this scale with such 

fragmentation of habitats surrounding 

the refuge. 
36 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

goAl for invasive and nonnative species. Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and spread of noxious, invasive, and 

harmful nonnative species within the refuge while working with partners to address off-refuge infestations within the 

surrounding landscape. 

New Invaders—Actions 

Continue to manage new invaders through 

early detection and rapid response with 

the Service’s Montana Invasive Species 

Strike Team, refuge staff, and county 

cooperators for managing new invaders through early detection and rapid 

response. 

Train and certify employees and other 

cooperators in the identification of invasive species, GIS and mapping, and mechanical and chemical treatment methods. 

Continue to inventory the refuge for 

new invaders and monitor treatment 

effectiveness. 

Monitor and retreat areas to prevent 

reintroduction and spread. 

Same as alternative A plus: 

Recruit one biological science technician to coordinate and implement the 

IPM program. 

Survey and monitor the potential impacts caused by pest, nonnative, and invasive wildlife and fish species. 

Promote and participate in an early 

detection, rapid response program with 

surrounding landowners and agencies to 

treat and monitor off-refuge sources of 

early invaders. 

Provide opportunities for volunteers, 

cooperators, and community support 

groups to actively participate in new 

invader treatments. 

Continue and expand partnerships to 

monitor aquatic invaders and wildlife 

and plant diseases. 

Same as alternative B. 

New Invaders—Environmental Consequences 

Through partnerships, new invaders would 

be identified, mapped, and monitored to 

eliminate them or contain their spread. 

Successful early detection and removal 

of new invaders would prevent further 

degradation of habitats and the wildlife 

that depend on them. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

The addition of a staff person dedicated to this program would enable the 

refuge to prioritize, plan, and implement 

an invasive species management program that would remove more invasive 

species and restore habitat. 

Restored areas would likely resist 

the invasion of new species and impede 

the reintroduction of eradicated invasive species. 

Heightened awareness and containment of new invaders within the landscape would help prevent new invaders 

from reaching the refuge. 

Understanding the impacts of noxious 

and other nonnative species would allow 

the refuge to prioritize management action and level of treatment. 

Same as alternative B. 

Established and Widespread Invaders—Actions 

Through partnerships, continue to map, Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, except: 

prioritize, treat, and monitor known in- Continue to map and monitor treated Only treat State-listed noxious weeds 

festations using the Refuge Lands Geo­ areas and develop a weed database us- outside the grassland units. 

graphic Information Systems database ing RLGIS. Do not control bullfrogs on the refuge. 

(RLGIS) and cultural, mechanical, bio- Expand capabilities to treat and restore 

logical, and chemical techniques. (as needed) identified priority areas to 

Train (and possibly certify) employ- create contiguous blocks of habitat for 

ees and cooperators in identification of native species. 

invasive species, mapping techniques, As soil is disturbed for restoration and 

chemical applications, and other cultural, management, treat and restore areas to 

mechanical, and biological treatments. native or desirable species. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 37 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Monitor and retreat areas to prevent Through partnerships, attempt to prereintroduction and spread. vent the reinvasion of treated areas from 

Investigate methods to better con­ off-refuge sources. 

trol invasive bullfrogs that feed on na- Encourage volunteers and community 

tive wildlife. support groups to participate in restoration programs. 

Prioritize treatment sites based on 

wildlife values and proposed habitat objectives and determine the best methods 

for control and eradication. Maintain a 

database of identified invasive species, 

their impacts on natural resources, and 

the most up-to-date and effective treatment methods including farming, grazing, 

haying, and other mechanical, chemical, 

and biological treatments. 

Established and Widespread Invaders—Environmental Consequences 

Established invaders would continue to Same as alternative A, plus: Additional resources would be availbe contained and controlled. Treated and restored areas would im­ able to treat and control State priority 

There would be more effective con­ pede the reintroduction of eradicated noxious weeds. 

trol of bullfrogs but not eradication, invasive species and provide desirable Uncontrolled, other non-listed species 

primarily due to a lack of safe, effective wildlife habitat. such as cattails and cheatgrass would to 

control methods and outside sources of Initially, little wildlife habitat would continue to spread and degrade habitat. 

reintroduction. be provided, as native seed is costly and Bullfrog populations would expand, 

may be difficult to establish. affecting native wildlife, particularly 

Addressing established and widespread reptiles and amphibians. 

invaders could help restore native habitat and lessen opportunities for new invaders to become established. 

Restoring natural processes may control bullfrogs and allow native wildlife a 

competitive advantage. 

Understanding the impacts and treatments of these species would help determine the priority species and most 

effective methods for treatment. 

goAl for Research. Pursue and maintain compatible research projects that would provide information on refuge resources 

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

Existing and Proposed Research—Actions 

Continue to participate with other Ser­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, except: 

vice divisions and the State in research­ Evaluate all current research projects Work with universities to further reing wildlife diseases on the refuge. to determine their value in addressing search the implications of maintaining 

Continue to authorize and cooperate in refuge management concerns. the wetland impoundments. 

the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geol­ Evaluate impacts on water quality 

ogy and Montana Department of Envi­ caused by off-refuge water sources enronmental Quality research on ground tering the refuge. 

water quality of incoming surface and Work with universities to study the 

subsurface flows. methods and effects of restoring parts 

Continue to investigate causes of vari­ of the floodplain and associated habitat 

ability in the number of nesting osprey on the refuge. 

on and near the refuge. Evaluate the impacts of herbivory on 

the survival and recruitment of current 

and restored shrubland and forested areas. 

Complete a research project to deter-
38 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

mine the interchange between ground 

and surface water. 

Determine what visitors value on the 

refuge and what they hope to experience 

and learn. Use this information to develop future visitor services programs. 

Develop partnerships with local universities to provide opportunities for 

students to conduct research and monitoring projects that are beneficial to 

the refuge. 

Existing and Proposed Research—Environmental Consequences 

The refuge would have a greater under- Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: 

standing of the potential wildlife diseases Approved research projects may cause The refuge would gain a greater underthat have or would occur on the refuge, some disturbance to wildlife and short- standing of the best methods to manage 

including their impacts and treatments. term impacts on refuge resources. wetland impoundments and the effects 

Understanding the impacts of sur- A network of partnerships would be of maintaining them. 

rounding development on water resources developed that could continually provide 

would provide information to better ad- science-derived information on which to 

dress water quality issues. base management decisions and address 

Understanding if the refuge is contrib­ refuge issues. 

uting to the decline of the osprey popula- The results of research projects could 

tion would help the refuge determine if be applied on other conservation lands. 

current management activities needed Pursue grants to complete the restoto be modified. ration of the Whaley House and develop 

appropriate interpretation materials of 

previous land uses. 

goAl for Cultural Resources. Provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the unique glacial, Native American, and 

Euro-American history of the Bitterroot Valley while maintaining and protecting the integrity of the refuge’s cultural 

and historical resources. 

Known Cultural Resources—Actions 

Rely on volunteers to continue incre­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. 

mentally restoring and interpreting the Through partnerships, provide visitors 

Whaley Homestead site. with information on the unique history of 

Continue to incorporate the unique the Bitterroot Valley and the refuge inhistory and culture of the Bitterroot cluding the Nez Perce and Salish tribes, 

Valley within its education and inter­ Lewis and Clark, Whaley Homestead, 

pretive programs. and Stevensville (longest occupied town 

in Montana). 

Use partnerships and volunteers to 

continue to restore the Whaley Homestead and interpret its history. Evaluate 

the potential to use this site as a visitor 

contact area. 

Known Cultural Resources—Environmental Consequences 

Restoring the Whaley Homestead over Visitors would gain a greater under­ Same as alternative B. 

many years would eventually ensure its standing of the importance and value 

longevity, but during the years of resto­ of this area to Native American tribes 

ration, visitors would be unable to regu­ as well as the Euro-American history of 

larly learn about this historic homesite. the refuge and Bitterroot Valley. 

Visitors would gain a greater under­ The Whaley Homestead would be 

standing of the unique history and cul­ available to the public to learn about the 

ture of the Bitterroot Valley. history of this historical homestead site. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 39 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Undocumented Cultural Resources—Actions 

Continue to comply with Section 106 of Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. 

the National Historic Preservation Act Work with the zone archeologist, conprior to initiating projects. tractors, Native American tribes, the State 

Document discovered cultural resource Historic Preservation Office, universisites and ensure their protection. ties, and other partners to begin a comprehensive cultural resource inventory. 

As the refuge learns more about the 

history and culture of the area, continue 

to update the cultural history displays 

with this new information, as appropriate. 

Undocumented Cultural Resources—Environmental Consequences 

Compliance with requirements of Section 106 would ensure cultural resources 

are protected prior to disturbing sites. 

Inventory of the refuge’s cultural resources would continue at a minimal 

level. This lack of knowledge would make 

it more difficult to adequately protect 

cultural resources sites from theft and 

vandalism. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

A comprehensive cultural resources 

survey would enhance Service protection of these resources from public use 

activities. 

A cultural resource display that can 

be revised would keep the display interesting and provide visitors with new 

information and an appreciation for the 

unique history of this area. 

Same as alternative B. 

goAl for visitor services. Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to participate in and enjoy quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, and interpretation programs that foster an awareness and 

appreciation of the importance of protecting the natural and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitterroot Valley, and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Hunting—Actions 

According to State regulations, con­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: 

tinue to provide a quality white-tailed Work with the State to determine Establish a fee program for hunters 

deer (archery only) hunt, (excluding the the viability of allowing hunters to use or introduce a recreation fee and charge 

WVA and headquarters). muzzleloaders and/or shotguns to har­ for blind use. 

Continue to provide a quality water­ vest white-tailed deer within the refuge Provide limited pheasant and turkey 

fowl hunt from designated blinds on the portion of this archery-only hunting dis­ hunting opportunities, according to State 

southeast part of the refuge, according trict (currently Hunting District 260). and refuge- specific regulations. 

to State regulations (figure 6). The areas where firearms are permitted 

Continue to monitor hunter satisfac­ may be rotated depending on managetion and harvest information. ment objectives. The number of hunters 

Continue to collaborate with volun­ permitted to use firearms would be limteer instructors and the State to provide ited. This hunt would be evaluated if it 

hunter education programs to youth. was determined that deer numbers on 

the refuge needed to be reduced due to 

overbrowsing of native habitats. 

Allow archery hunters with disabilities to access refuge roads near the 

Whitetail Golf Course (within the refuge boundary). 

Hunting—Environmental Consequences 

Hunters, including those with disabili­ Same as alternative A, including: Same as alternative B, plus: 

ties, would continue to be provided high Providing additional and more effective While the fee may provide additional 

quality hunting opportunities. methods to harvest deer may increase 

hunter success and reduce overbrowsing by deer. 

Permitting additional methods of harvest would provide opportunities for a 

greater number and different types of 

hunters. 

funds for hunting programs, it might 

lead to declining hunt visits. 

A new hunting opportunity would be 

provided to pheasant and turkey hunters. 

Due to the refuge’s size, adding another 

hunting program (such as the proposed 

pheasant and turkey hunts) would 
40 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

There would be some risk associated 

with using modern weapons. Additional 

safety precautions, such as requiring 

the use of hunter orange, would alleviate some of this risk. Limitations on 

hunting hours and locations would also 

be used to reduce risk and disturbance 

to other refuge users. 

The potential for dispersed or decreased deer numbers may allow more 

vegetation in the gallery forest to recover and survive to provide habitat for 

migratory birds. 

Additional signage and maps would be 

needed to provide information on locations, regulations, and safety. 

There would be additional short- term 

wildlife disturbance due to additional 

hunting activities. 

most likely negatively affect the quality 

of other hunting programs and wildlife 

observation opportunities and further 

disturb non-target wildlife. 

Fishing—Actions 

Allow fishing only in the WVA (including the Bitterroot River), according to 

State regulations. 

 Maintain the accessible fishing platform in the WVA (figure 6). 

Do not allow boats anywhere on the 

refuge. 

If compatible, continue to provide 

opportunities for cooperators to host a 

youth and a universally accessible fishing clinic each year. The Service would 

continue to cooperate with MFWP, which 

would transfer caught largemouth bass 

to other State nonnative fishing waters. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Work with partners to restore Francois 

Slough and North Burnt Fork Creek to 

enhance this waterway for native cold 

water species. 

Same as alternative B, except: 

Prohibit special fishing events in closed 

areas. The refuge would participate in 

other fishing events offsite. 

Provide limited and seasonal fishing 

to the public in Pond 8. 

Fishing—Environmental Consequences 

Fishing would continue to be permitted in designated areas on the refuge. 

Youth would continue to be provided 

this opportunity to successfully catch 

fish and be encouraged to appreciate 

the sport of fishing. 

Fishing events may disturb wildlife, 

but the disturbance would be limited to 

the one or two day special event. 

Children would not only be taught 

fishing techniques but they may come 

to appreciate and even want to further 

explore the natural environment that 

surrounds them. 

Focusing the event on capturing largemouth bass would give the Service an 

opportunity to teach the students about 

the impacts of nonnative fish. 

Allowing youth and accessible fishing 

events would continue to cause some dis 

Same as alternative A, except: 

Stream restoration projects would 

support initiatives to restore a native 

cold-water fishery. 

Same as alternative B, except: 

This would still promote the enjoyment 

of fishing. Nevertheless, students would 

not be afforded the opportunity to fish 

on the refuge and learn about refuge resources as part of associated programs. 

Allowing the public to fish Pond 8 

would provide an additional fishing opportunity on the refuge, but it may reduce bass numbers and would disturb 

the wildlife that uses this pond. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 41
 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

figure 6. Public use map for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 
42 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

turbance to wildlife and may provide an 

incentive to maintain a nonnative fishery. 

Transferring bass to other nonnative 

fisheries in the State may decrease opportunities in the short term for easily 

catchable bass for fishing events. 

Transferring bass to State waters 

encourages anglers to use those areas 

rather than the more sensitive and often imperiled fish habitats in the State, 

such as those that contain threatened 

cold-water species like bull trout. 

Wildlife Observation—Actions 

Continue to maintain and manage the 

WVA and associated facilities. 

Allow the continued erosion of the trail 

along the Bitterroot River (within the 

WVA) by the river’s movement. 

Continue to allow visitors to move off 

the established trail in the WVA, creating multiple trails throughout. 

Continue to maintain the three groups 

of refuge walking trails, three viewing 

platforms, and associated facilities. 

Same as alternative A, except: 

Work with the county to develop Wildfowl Lane—the county road that travels through the refuge (figure 6)—into 

an auto tour route with accompanying 

interpretation. 

To reduce disturbance to waterfowl 

and provide a more stable trail, move 

portions of the Kenai Nature Trail (figure 6) to the existing two-track maintenance road, and upgrade the road to 

that trail. Visitors would continue to be 

prohibited from moving off trail into the 

adjacent closed areas. 

Develop a walking trail around Pond 8 

(figure 6). This trail may only be opened 

seasonally to protect waterfowl and other 

waterbirds using ponds 8 and 10 (figure 

7) and nesting migratory birds using 

the gallery forest west of these ponds. 

The trail may be opened in the winter 

when migratory birds are no longer using these ponds. 

Update current wildlife list to meet 

Service standards. 

Same as alternative B, except: 

The portion of the paved wildlife viewing trail that is eroding would be relocated within the WVA. 

The Kenai Nature Trail would be closed 

past the loop turnoff, but visitors could 

use the road below the trail to return to 

the trailhead. 

Wildlife Observation—Environmental Consequences 

Visitors would continue to be provided Additional wildlife observation oppor­ Relocating the WVA trail would retain 

opportunities to view wildlife on the ref­ tunities would be provided. a wildlife observation opportunity; howuge, excluding the eroded trail within Additional wildlife disturbance may ever, it would be costly, would affect adthe WVA. occur along newly established trails. ditional habitat, and may increase wildVisitors would be advised to stay on An official auto tour route may lead to life disturbance. This new trail could be 

trails, lessening impacts on vegetation increased vehicle traffic but would add eroded in the future as the river continand the transporting of invasive species. interpretive opportunities. ues to move. 

Relocating the Kenai Nature Trail may Closing the Kenai Nature Trail past 

decrease disturbance to waterfowl while the loop turn off would prevent visitors 

adding a more level walking surface for from accessing a closed part of the refa greater variety of visitors. uge. The opportunities to view wildlife 

Development and use of the loop trail would be offset by the addition of the 

around Pond 8 could disturb wildlife, loop section of this trail. 

particularly the heron rookery; seasonal 

restrictions could resolve this. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 43
 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

figure 7. Ponds and upland fields in lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 
44 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Wildlife Photography—Actions 

Continue to maintain two stationary 

photography blinds (figure 6). 

Evaluate requests for conducting commercial photography in closed areas on 

a case-by-case basis, as well as any request to conduct commercial filming. If 

determined appropriate and compatible, 

specify conditions in the required special use permit. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Provide two portable photo blinds for 

use in areas currently open to the public. 

Upgrade waterfowl hunting blind 2 to 

provide a photo blind for photographers 

with disabilities. 

Through partnerships, conduct an annual wildlife photography workshop. 

Same as alternative B. 

Wildlife Photography—Environmental Consequences 

Quality wildlife photography opportunities would continue to be provided. 

Quality photographs of the refuge 

would provide the public with opportunities to appreciate refuge resources 

and wildlife. 

Wildlife may be disturbed, particularly by photographers not using a blind. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Photographers, including those with 

disabilities, would gain additional opportunities to enjoy and photograph wildlife from blinds. 

Mobile photo blinds may provide more 

and unique opportunities to photograph 

wildlife, but they may cause greater disturbance to wildlife than stationary blinds. 

Through the workshop, photographers 

would improve their skills while learning 

how to minimize disturbance to wildlife. 

Same as alternative B. 

Environmental Education—Actions 

Through partnerships, continue to organize and provide 15–20 on- and off-refuge annual and special events for adults 

and students. 

Continue to provide onsite environmental education programs to more than 

1,000 students annually. 

Continue to allow teachers and students to independently explore the refuge’s public areas. 

Continue to maintain, develop, and 

provide educational kits related to refuge resources and associated field supplies for teachers and students. 

Continue to serve as the State coordinator for the Junior Duck Stamp Program. 

Continue to collaborate with universities to provide outdoor classrooms 

that promote the refuge and the Refuge System. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

If additional visitor services staff are 

hired, expand environmental education 

programs and activities on and off the 

refuge to at least 1,500 adults and 4,000 

students. 

Recruit one environmental education 

specialist to work with local schools. 

Recruit a visitor services specialist 

to work with volunteers, manage the 

visitor center, and develop and present 

programs. 

Provide at least five offsite school presentations annually. 

Add a new classroom and associated 

supplies to the new visitor center for environmental education programs. 

Conduct annual teacher workshops 

to give teachers the tools to independently explore and teach students about 

the refuge. 

Create multimedia kits for teachers 

to provide background information to 

students before they participate in refuge programs. 

Organize or participate in an additional five annual environmental education events. 

Develop an education kit and program 

that explains the history and value of 

the restoration efforts proposed under 

this alternative. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

The refuge would sponsor an Elderhostel event annually for senior citizens. 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 45 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Expand the refuge’s online presence 

(social media, blog, and Web site) to include interactive educational opportunities and to help teachers plan field visits. 

Work with the State, local schools, universities, the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes, Nez Perce, and other 

partners to create programs that highlight not only the values of the refuge 

and the Bitterroot Valley but its history 

and culture. 

Environmental Education—Environmental Consequences 

Outreach would be conducted to the Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: 

same local schools and communities to New visitor services staff would provide The annual program for elderly visitors 

develop an appreciation and awareness additional resources and opportunities would provide an opportunity to teach 

about the refuge and its resources. to develop and provide quality environ­ them about the value of refuge resources 

Most school programs would continue mental education programs for students and the Refuge System. 

to be onsite, resulting in lost opportu­ and adults. This may result in greater This annual event would require additional 

nities to reach additional students who awareness and support for protecting resources and staff time to implement. 

cannot travel to the refuge. and restoring refuge resources and the 

The lack of additional staff and pro­ greater Bitterroot Valley ecosystem. 

grams would result in lost opportunities An expanded self-study environmento reach a broader audience to educate tal education program would allow more 

them about the value of and threats to students and teachers to independently 

refuge resources and the Refuge System. learn about and appreciate the refuge 

and the Refuge System. 

Reaching more students while they are 

developing their environmental ethics 

may result in a greater awareness and 

appreciation of—and desire to protect— 

their surrounding natural resources. 

Visitors would gain a better connection to the refuge through firsthand experience and a heightened awareness 

of the unique history and culture of the 

Bitterroot Valley. 

Additional onsite programs and facilities may cause additional disturbance to 

wildlife and their habitats. 

Interpretation—Actions 

Continue to maintain five kiosks including three with interpretive panels. 

Continue to maintain and update interpretive displays in the refuge visitor 

contact area. 

Update refuge brochures as needed. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Use volunteers to provide interpretive 

programs on the history of the refuge, 

the surrounding Bitterroot Valley, the 

Whaley Homestead and other cultural 

resources, and the value of the refuge and 

surrounding areas to Native Americans. 

Update interpretive panels to have 

a consistent appearance and highlight 

the history and restoration of floodplain habitats. 

Provide interpretive signs combined 

with brochures, podcasts, and other 

digital media to interpret the resources 

within the WVA, the relocated Kenai 

Nature Trail, new auto tour route, and 

hiking trail around Pond 8. 

Same as alternative B, except: 

Interpretive panels and other interpretive programs would focus more on 

wetland management rather than restoration of floodplain habitats. 
46 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Install panels at strategic locations 

that interpret the cultural resources 

of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley 

including the importance of this area to 

Native Americans. 

Collaborate with Travelers Rest State 

Park to participate in events highlighting the history of Lewis and Clark in the 

Bitterroot Valley. 

Create a pulloff and interpretive kiosk 

at north end parking lot used by hunters. 

Update all brochures to meet Service 

graphic standards. 

Interpretation—Environmental Consequences 

Visitors would continue to be provided 

some interpretation of the refuge and 

its resources. There would continue 

to be missed opportunities to reach a 

wider audience, even off-refuge, and 

interpret other public use areas, such 

as walking trails. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

New technology and increased accessibility would appeal to a broader audience both on and off the refuge. 

There would be a greater opportunity 

to reach additional visitors with a more 

integrated and multimedia program of 

interpreting refuge wildlife, habitat management and floodplain restoration, history, culture, and land use. 

Professionally designed exhibit spaces 

could provide a more consistent and effective way of learning. 

Additional signage would need to be 

placed and used carefully so as not to 

detract from the visitors experience. 

Interpretive panels and other multimedia tools are costly and would take staff 

time and resources to develop. 

Same as alternative B, except: 

Interpretive programs would provide 

a greater understanding of managing 

wetland impoundments. 

Roads and Trails—Actions 

Maintain 18.1 miles of existing roads, including 2.8 miles of public roads. 

Maintain 3.5 miles of existing walking 

trails (figure 6). 

Eliminate 3.3 miles of the current Service-access road system (figure 8). The 

roads would be systematically eliminated 

or modified through a priority system 

dependent on the objectives of the proposed restoration program. No public 

roads (namely Wildfowl Lane) would 

be eliminated. 

Improve access to the WVA by replacing the gate with bollards that allow 

wheelchairs to pass through. 

Designate the publically accessible 

county road (Wildfowl Lane) as an auto 

tour route. 

Add a partially accessible loop walking 

trail around Pond 8 (figure 8). 

Same as alternative B. 

Roads and Trails—Environmental Consequences 

Maintaining 18.1 miles of roads is costly, 

and these roads fragment habitats and 

potentially impede sheet flow from the 

Bitterroot River and its tributaries. 

Eliminating unnecessary Service access 

roads would reduce maintenance costs. 

Removing roads would reduce fragmentation and restore sheet flow to some 

Same as alternative B. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

figure 8. Roads within lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana, including those service roads proposed 

for removal. 

CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 47
 
48 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

This expansive system of roads would areas while supporting proposed restocontinue to serve as an avenue to trans­ ration efforts. 

port invasive species. Removing roads would make it more 

The existing system of roads and trails challenging for Service personnel to acwould continue to allow Service person­ cess certain parts of the refuge; fewer 

nel and members of the public to access direct routes would require more walkand utilize the refuge. ing and all-terrain vehicle use. 

Improving access to the WVA would 

allow visitors with disabilities to better 

access and enjoy this area. 

Development and use of the loop trail 

around Pond 8 could disturb wildlife, particularly the heron rookery; however, it 

would provide additional ways to enjoy 

the refuge, including wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities. 

Signage—Actions 

Maintain current refuge signage and re­ Add directional signs along Interstate Same as alternative B, plus: 

place if damaged. 90 and improve signs along Highway 93. 

Post a sign on the environmental education shelter in the WVA and at the Poker 

Joe access point to alert river floaters 

and other visitors that they are entering the refuge. 

Post a regulatory sign in public use 

areas including trailheads and the WVA. 

Add more consistent boundary signage—particularly along the refuge’s 

west side—identifying areas open or 

closed to the public. 

Verify that electronic directional devices (for example, global positioning 

system units) and Web sites correctly 

identify the location of the refuge. 

Use signage to direct people to the east 

entrance (rather than south entrance) 

to provide quicker access to the refuge 

headquarters. 

Investigate the potential and benefits 

of using a billboard along Interstate 90 

to direct visitors to the refuge. 

Signage—Environmental Consequences 

Regulatory signs are insufficient to prevent violations of refuge regulations. 

Lack of proper signage causes public 

confusion (especially regarding hunting 

along the river, dog walking, staying on 

designated trails, etc.) and increases the 

chance for violations to occur. 

Currently, the refuge’s boundary is not 

adequately marked by signs. 

Maintaining and enforcing the boundary along and across the Bitterroot River 

would improve protection of refuge resources, but would be difficult to enforce. 

Entrance signs would continue to adequately identify the refuge and direct 

visitors to the refuge office. 

Quality, useful signage would better 

orient and educate visitors, make them 

feel more welcome, reduce violations, 

and enhance the visitors’ experiences. 

The refuge would need to strategically use and place signs to minimize 

sign pollution that could detract from a 

visitor’s experience. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

A billboard on the highway could notify motorists about the refuge, promote 

the Refuge System, and encourage visits. 

The sign could also contribute sign pollution along our highways. There would 

be some costs to maintaining this sign. 
Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Visitor Contact Area—Actions 

Continue to host approximately 143,000 Expand the visitor contact area into a Same as alternative B. 

visitors who drive through the refuge. full visitor center and office with proMany of these visitors (over 6,000) would fessionally designed and developed discontinue to stop at the refuge’s 513-square­ plays, exhibits, environmental education 

foot visitor contact area. classrooms, and additional office space. 

Maintain current displays that focus Develop a consistent, interactive theme 

on the wildlife of the Bitterroot Valley for the visitor center that focuses on 

through interpretive signs and several floodplain restoration, native wildlife, 

preserved birds and mammals. migratory birds, the refuge’s cultural 

and natural resources, and the role of 

the Refuge System. 

Recruit one full-time, permanent visitor services specialist to manage the 

visitor center, develop programs, and 

recruit and supervise volunteer staff. 

Visitor Contact Area—Environmental Consequences 

The existing, undersized visitor contact Additional funds would be required to Same as alternative B. 

area would remain unable to accommo­ expand the current visitor contact cendate the refuge’s thousands of visitors ter and office area; funding would also 

(143,000 annually). Also lacking an over­ be required to cover maintenance costs, 

riding theme and Service branding, the including utilities. 

station would continue to provide more Additional space would be available 

of a “natural history museum” experi­ to accommodate the thousands of visience. As such, it would provide visitor tors currently using the refuge as well 

enjoyment but may not convey the over­ as staff. The additional space would also 

all values of the refuge and the Refuge provide opportunities to develop profesSystem. sionally planned and produced displays 

and exhibits to more effectively teach 

visitors about the refuge while highlighting programs, management challenges, 

and the values of the Refuge System. 

Visitors would receive a consistent 

message that highlights the purposes of 

the refuge, the benefits of a healthy and 

functioning floodplain system, the unique 

history of the Bitterroot Valley, and the 

value of the Refuge System. 

The visitor services specialist would 

help develop and maintain professionally 

planned and produced displays and conduct interpretive programs. The manager would also recruit and supervise 

additional seasonal volunteer staff who 

could assist with visitor services programs at a minimal cost to the Service. 

goAl for Partnerships. Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help achieve the vision and supporting goals and objectives 

of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and support other initiatives designed to 

protect and restore habitats for Federal trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

Volunteer Program—Actions 

Continue to implement and supervise Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. 

a volunteer program, which generates Recruit a volunteer and partnership 

more than 8,400 hours of volunteer time coordinator to supervise and expand a 

each year. quality volunteer program and cultivate 

and maintain partnerships. 

CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 49 
50 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

Volunteer Program—Environmental Consequences 

The refuge would continue to receive assistance from a cadre of dedicated volunteers to accomplish projects at minimal 

cost to the Service. 

Managing and supervising this program would continue to require a great 

amount of time, preventing the program 

coordinator (the current outdoor recreation planner) from focusing on other 

visitor services programs. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

The volunteer coordinator would provide the resources to effectively expand 

the volunteer program, allowing more 

refuge projects to be accomplished. 

Same as alternative B. 

New and Existing Partnerships—Actions 

Work with partners to restore the connectivity of North Burnt Fork Creek for 

native fish species and riparian habitat. 

Continue to participate in the interagency weed group to address invasive and nonnative species on and next 

to the refuge. 

Continue to work with the Montana 

Preservation Alliance, State Historic 

Preservation Office, and Stevensville 

Museum to restore and preserve the 

Whaley Homestead. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Work with Montana Rail Link to address impacts from riprap, the railroad 

trestle, and the rail bed. 

Receive assistance from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and 

other tribes with a cultural connection 

to the Bitterroot Valley in developing 

programs and displays highlighting their 

histories and uses of natural resources. 

Work with the Bitterroot Land Trust 

to participate in the implementation of 

protecting habitat and wildlife corridors 

on private lands surrounding the refuge. 

Collaborate with students of various 

disciplines from local and State universities to develop a greater understanding 

of refuge resources, develop programs, 

and address issues. 

Work with the Whitetail Golf Course 

(located within the refuge acquisition 

boundary) to discuss wildlife habitat and 

mutual concerns, such as invasive species. 

Work with the State of Montana to 

address trespass through adjoining 

State lands. 

Same as alternative B. 

New and Existing Partnerships—Environmental Consequences 

Partnerships would allow the refuge 

and their partners to share information and combine resources to develop 

projects or learn more about areas of 

mutual interest. 

Partnerships may allow the refuge to 

have a greater impact not only on the 

refuge but also in the surrounding Bitterroot Valley. 

These additional partnerships would allow the refuge to learn more about its 

resource, resolve issues, develop more 

effective programs, participate and contribute to regional restoration and protection programs, and share knowledge 

and resources with others. 

Same as alternative B. 

goAl for operations and facilities. Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, volunteers, funding, and facilities. 

Staff—Actions 

Continue to employ the current staff, Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. 

which consists of a refuge manager, out­ Recruit the following permanent staff 

door recreation planner, administrative to accomplish the actions described in 

support assistant (also a business team this alternative: assistant refuge man 
CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 51 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

member), law enforcement officer, and 

maintenance worker. 

Continue to supervise, support and 

provide resources for several zone or 

state-wide support staff, including a fire 

management officer, range/fire technician, business team staff member, and 

regional maintenance team member. 

Provide space and support for the IPM 

strike team. 

ager, biological science technician, career 

seasonal (part-time) biological science 

technician, and visitor services specialist (to manage visitor center and volunteers and develop and present programs). 

Continue to work with Montana universities to develop a volunteer program 

by providing college credit in exchange 

for volunteer work experience. 

Actively recruit additional volunteers 

to assist with expanded visitor services 

programs and habitat management and 

restoration projects. 

Staff—Environmental Consequences 

Programs would be maintained at cur­ Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative B. 

rent levels. Refuge management would Additional staff would be available 

continue to be selective regarding which to fully implement the objectives and 

projects to complete and may possibly strategies of the CCP, restoring and imlimit additional projects, including ex­ proving habitats and expanding quality 

panding habitat restoration and visitor visitor services programs. 

services programs. 

Facilities—Actions 

Maintain the current 513-square-foot Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B, plus: 

visitor contact area for visitor use and Expand the visitor contact area into Restore the Grube Barn to create an 

interpretation of resources. a visitor center, add office space, and environmental education center. Use soDo not expand office space or equip­ add a combined classroom and confer­ lar or other alternative power sources 

ment storage areas. ence room. 

Relocate the pole barn closer to the 

maintenance area. 

Construct a duplex to provide housing for seasonal, transitional, and detailed staff. 

Purchase a seed storage bin for storing native seed. 

Through partnerships, rehabilitate and 

maintain the historical Whaley Homestead. 

Incorporate green technology and renewable power sources into all new construction and rehabilitation activities. 

Purchase an excavator to complete 

proposed restoration projects. 

Add a wash bay and containment area 

for washing equipment and vehicles to 

reduce the spread of invasive plants. 

to power this facility. 

Construct a shelter over the existing 

amphitheater that blends into the natural environment. 

Install an elevated observation deck 

along one of the new refuge trails. 

Facilities—Environmental Consequences 

The existing, undersized visitor contact 

area would remain unable to accommodate the refuge’s thousands of visitors 

and provide little opportunity to expand 

and improve interpretive displays. 

The existing eight offices, which are 

fully occupied by current refuge and 

regional staff, would remain unable to 

accommodate additional staff, including 

seasonal employees. 

Equipment would continue to be stored 

The thousands of refuge visitors would 

be better accommodated and interpretive facilities and programs could be 

expanded. 

The additional office spaces would provide work areas for added staff. 

Additional storage areas would provide secure areas to store equipment 

and supplies. 

Additional housing would enable the 

refuge to recruit and support additional 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Restoring the Grube Barn and covering the amphitheater would provide 

environmental education facilities that 

could be used in all weather conditions. 

The additional observation deck would 

provide new opportunities for visitors to 

view wildlife. There may be some additional disturbance to wildlife. 

There would be costs associated with 

these projects. The cost could be substantial 
52 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 4. summary of CCP alternatives for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action) 

outside or in unsecured areas. There seasonal staff, including those from other for rehabilitating and maintaining the 

would continue to be insufficient stor- Service programs based at the refuge. Grube Barn, given the age and condiage for equipment used by other Service Restoring the Whaley Homestead tion of this building. 

programs based at this refuge. would provide opportunities for interpreting part of the history of the Bitterroot Valley and refuge. 

Abbreviations: HGM = hydrogeomorphic, IPM = integrated pest management, RLGIS = Refuge Lands Geographic Information 

System, WVA = Wildlife Viewing Area, MFWP = Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 
CHAPTER 4— Affected Environment
 

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

Bob Danley / USFWS 

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

in Montana, as follows: 

■■ physical environment (section 4.1)
 

■■ biological resources (section 4.2)
 

■■ State and federally listed species (section 4.3)
 

■■ cultural resources (section 4.4)
 

■■ special management areas (section 4.5)
 

■■ visitor services (section 4.6)
 

■■ management uses (section 4.7)
 

■■ socioeconomic environment (section 4.8)
 

■■ partnerships (section 4.9)
 

■■ operations (section 4.10)
 

4.1 Physical Environment 

The following sections describe aspects of the physical 

environments that may be affected by implementation 

of the CCP. Physical characteristics include climate and 

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

Unless otherwise noted, the information in this section 

is from unpublished Service data or a hydrogeomorphic 

(HGM) report entitled “An Evaluation of Ecosystem 

Restoration and Management Options for Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge,” which was developed by 

Greenbrier Wetland Services (Heitmeyer et. al. 2010). 

ClimATE And HydRology 

The climate of the Bitterroot Valley is characterized 

by cool summers, generally light precipitation, little 

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

position in the valley (figure 9). Precipitation increases 

with elevation along the valley margins and ranges 

from less than 13 inches in the Bitterroot Valley floor 

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

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

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

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

percent of the annual precipitation falling in May and 

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

River is highest in spring, with about 55 percent of 

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

1972). Natural flows in the Bitterroot River decline 

from spring peaks throughout the summer and remain 

relatively stable through winter. On average about 
54 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 9. Ravalli County average annual precipitation (inches). 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 55 

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

52 percent flows from the west, 37 percent flows from 

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

and Dutton 2000). 

Numerous tributaries enter the Bitterroot Valley 

from mountain canyons. North Burnt Fork Creek and 

Three Mile Creek are major tributaries flowing across 

Lee Metcalf Refuge into Francois Slough and North 

Island Slough, respectively (figure 10). Other minor, 

within-floodplain drainages that historically crossed 

refuge land and ultimately emptied into the Bitterroot River included, Swamp Creek, Rogmans Creek, 

and the recently modified McPherson and Nickerson 

Creeks (now called Ditches). Rogmans Creek’s historical channel is now covered by Ponds 2 through Otter 

Pond. Valley-wide, about four times as many tributaries join the river from the Bitterroot Mountains on 

the west compared to the drier Sapphire Mountains 

on the east. 

Records of flow and flood frequency relationships 

for the Bitterroot River near Florence date back to 

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

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

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

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

flooding discharge causes extensive flooding throughout higher floodplain areas (figure 11) but occurs very 

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

modest backwater flooding on the refuge occurs with a 

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

spring backwater flooding into connected floodplain 

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

year recurrence interval). 

The Darby stream gauge station, approximately 35 

miles upstream of the refuge, has the longest period 

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

at Darby have less influence from irrigation return 

flow; accordingly, this gauge station represents the 

best location to evaluate relatively natural long-term 

patterns in riverflow. Records of peak discharge at 

Darby from the 1940s suggest some higher periodic 

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

year intervals, with intervening years of moderate 

to low flows (figure 12). During the period of record, 

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

20, occurred than did more average flow (greater 

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

data suggest the floodplain at the refuge was seldom 

extensively flooded historically (for example, 1974; 

figure 11), but that some backwater flooding into primary sloughs and tributaries occurred at a less than 

50 percent recurrence interval in spring. 

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

floodplain, including those at the refuge (such as Three 

Mile, Rogmans, McPherson, and Nickerson Creeks and 

Francois Slough), show an intimate connection with 

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

individual channels, and observed springs along the 

margins of floodplain terraces reveal a substantial 

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

past abandoned channels of the Bitterroot River) that 

have filled incompletely. In other cases, ground water 

discharge may be actively excavating channels that 

seem to be growing by head cuts (abrupt changes in 

streambed elevation). 

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

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

2000). Permeability is highest in alluvium of the low 

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

in low terrace alluvium. Ground water circulation is 

predominantly away from the valley margins toward 

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

terrace alluvium, subsurface inflow from bedrock, and 

direct infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt. High 

amounts of precipitation on the western side of the 

valley cause greater recharge in this area than on the 

east side of the valley. Ground water discharge occurs 

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

in basin-fill aquifers is primarily a calcium bicarbonate 

type. Median specific conductance is about 250 microsiemens per centimeter at 25  ̊C, and median nitrate 

concentration is relatively low—0.63 milligrams per 

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

Dutton 2000). 

ClimATE CHAngE 

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

in January 2001 requiring Federal agencies under its 

direction with land management responsibilities to 

consider potential climate change effects as part of 

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

of Energy’s report, “Carbon Sequestration Research 

and Development” (1999), concluded that ecosystem 

protection is important to carbon sequestration and 

may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored 

in the terrestrial biosphere. The report defines carbon 

sequestration as “the capture and secure storage of 

carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain 

in the atmosphere.” 

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 
56 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 10. Channels and sloughs of the Bitterroot River in the 1940s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 57
 

ure 11. Flooding of the Bitterroot River on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge in 1974. 

USFWS 

Fig

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0

2,000

4,000

Year 

Peak annual streamflow (cubic feet per second) 

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

Figure 12. Bitterroot River streamflow near darby, montana—USgS 12344000. 
58 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Although prescribed burning releases CO2, there is no net 

loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly germinates 

or regrows to replace the burned-up biomass. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

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— 

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

effective both in preventing carbon emission and in 

acting as biological scrubbers of atmospheric CO2. 

One Service activity in particular—prescribed burning—releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from 

the biomass consumed during combustion. However, 

there is no net loss of carbon because new vegetation 

quickly germinates or regrows to replace the burnedup biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air 

(Dai et al. 2006). 

Climate data for Montana show a slight reduction 

in annual precipitation and increases in temperatures 

over the last 100 years (National Climatic Data Center 

2011). Climate change impacts predicted in the Rocky 

Mountains are rising temperatures, less snow, less water in snowpacks, earlier spring snowmelts, and lower 

streamflows in the summer. These changes will in turn 

lead to increased forest ecosystem water stress, increased winter temperatures, earlier snowmelts, and 

longer summer drought periods. With this warming 

trend, the growing season will increase, but with limited water resources, forest ecosystems will be water 

stressed and most likely begin to release CO2 instead 

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

Other impacts anticipated include increased wildfires 

and insect infestations. This change in climate could 

also alter vegetation patterns and species, possibly 

allowing for additional invasive species to become established. Invasive plants could spread more rapidly, 

the effectiveness of control methods may be altered, 

and certain species would likely survive the drier and 

milder climates, thereby outcompeting native plants. 

Stronger and more frequent droughts associated 

with climate change could cause waterfowl and other 

waterbirds to lose breeding and migration habitat. In 

addition, changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of synchronization with 

the life cycles of their prey. Natural food sources for 

wildlife could be reduced or eliminated. 

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

costs due to the challenges of pursuing ground water 

that has also been depleted by increased demand. Less 

ground water recharge, along with a greater demand 

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

exists for managed wetlands that depend on runoff 

and delivered water to not receive adequate amounts 

of water for waterbird habitat. Water impoundments 

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

affected on Service lands due to degraded habitats 

and less wildlife. Furthermore, climate change could 

displace local ranchers and farmers if they could no 

longer produce enough crops and livestock to maintain 

the viability of their businesses; this could cause an 

even greater change in land use as ranches and farms 

become further subdivided and developed. 

PHySiogRAPHy And gEology 

The Bitterroot Valley, where the Lee Metcalf Refuge 

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

Bitterroot Mountains on the west and the Sapphire 

Mountains on the east. These mountains and the rich 

montane Bitterroot Valley date to nearly 90 million 

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

1993). The Bitterroot Valley extends about 120 miles 

from the confluence of the east and west forks of the 

Bitterroot River south of Darby to its junction with 

the Missoula Valley and Clark Fork River 5 miles south 

of Missoula. The elevation of the valley floor ranges 

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

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

Summit elevations of surrounding mountains range 

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

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

The Bitterroot Mountains are composed of granitic 

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

Mountains are mostly Belt rocks with localized occurrences of granitic stocks. 

The unusually straight front of the Bitterroot 

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

Pardee 1950); however, the Bitterroot Valley shows 

little sign of recent tectonic activity (Hyndman et 

al. 1975). Undisturbed valley fill shows that tectonic 

movement since the early Pliocene has been slight or 

that the entire valley floor has moved as a single unit. 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 59 

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

materials. Surficial geology evidence suggests Tertiary 

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

thick in some locations (Lankston 1975). Sediment is 

coarse colluviums near the fronts of mountains with 

finer-grain alluvial fill deposits that interfinger with 

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

Low terrace alluvium occurs as outwash, or alluvial 

fans, below the mouths of tributaries on both sides of 

the valley (Lonn and Sears 2001). Floodplain alluvium 

is mostly well-rounded gravel and sand with a minor 

amount of silt and clay derived from the edges of the 

neighboring terraces and fans. Most of the refuge is 

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

and sorted gravel and sand with a minor amount of 

silt and clay. Minor amounts of Qaty (younger alluvial 

outwash terrace and fan complex deposits from the 

late Pleistocene) occur next to the Bitterroot Valley 

alluvium on the north end of the refuge. Materials in 

these terraces are well-rounded and sorted gravel of 

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

refuge. These surfaces are younger (late Pleistocene) 

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

gravel deposited in braided-stream environments that 

formed between and below the dissected remnants of 

older fans. These surfaces appear to have been at least 

partly shaped by glacial Lake Missoula, which reached 

an elevation of 4,200 feet and covered the Bitterroot 

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

The Bitterroot River has an inherently unstable 

hydraulic configuration and high channel instability, 

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

immediately upstream from the refuge has a complex 

pattern that is characterized by numerous braided 

channels that spread over a wide area of the valley 

bottom. The zone of non-vegetated gravels associated 

with this main braided channel system has widened 

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

but numerous cutoff chutes counteract some lateral 

bend displacement. Together, active river movements 

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

other avenues of river overflow. A complex network 

of minor channels occurs in the valley floor including 

the floodplain lands on the refuge (figure 13). These 

minor channels appear to flow from ground water 

discharge, which promotes erosion at slope bases and 

headwater retreat of small channel head cuts on the 

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

gradients of the valley. 

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

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

river stretch along the refuge has maintained a highly 

dynamic, instable channel form due to its geological, 

topographic, and hydraulic position. The historical 

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

Barn and Francois Sloughs) that were connected with 

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

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

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

two mountain- or terrace-derived major tributaries to 

the Bitterroot River (for example, North Burnt Fork 

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

terraces; and (5) alluvial fans (figure 10). 

SoilS 

Nearly 25 soil types or groups currently identified by 

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

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

and Riverside-Tiechute-Curlew complexes. Current 

soil maps of the refuge are constrained by numerous 

water impoundments where no soil type is identified 

and each impoundment area is simply identified as 

water. Consequently, soil surveys conducted prior 

to major floodplain developments and impoundment 

construction are more useful for understanding soil 

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

The combination of soils on the refuge is complex 

and highly interspersed, and it reflects the numerous 

channel migration events across the floodplain. It also 

reflects the introduction of mixed-erosion sediments 

from surrounding Quaternary and Tertiary terraces 

and alluvial deposition of Bitterroot Valley parent 

materials. Most soils on the refuge are shallow, with 

thin layers of silts and clays overlying deeper sands 

and gravels. In many places sandy outcrops occur, 

especially near the Bitterroot River. 

ToPogRAPHy And ElEvATion 

Elevations on the Lee Metcalf Refuge range from 

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

its south end at the river (figure 14). The topographic 

variation within the refuge is related to the historical channel migrations of the Bitterroot River and 
1 

1

 Apparent density of minor channels influenced by 

photographic scale. 1955 map from 1:20,000 photographs; 

1987 map from 1:40,000 photographs. 

Figure 13. network of minor channels occurring in the valley floor on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, 

montana (Heitmeyer et. al. 2010). 

60 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 61
 

Figure 14. map of lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge showing 1-foot contour intervals (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
62 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

its tributaries, scouring and natural levee deposition 

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

higher, more uniform elevations while north and west 

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

along the Qafy geomorphic surfaces on the east side 

of the refuge. A larger tributary fan is present where 

North Burnt Fort Creek enters the Bitterroot River 

floodplain; this fan is much larger than the alluvial 

fans along the floodplain margin that grade into the 

Sapphire Mountains. 

WATER RigHTS 

The refuge has a complex system of irrigation ditches, 

springs, creeks, impoundments, and water control 

structures for moving water within the refuge to fill 

the various impoundments and to irrigate upland fields. 

In 1982, the refuge submitted 24 water right claims 

in response to State Senate Bill 76, which mandated 

adjudication of pre-1973 State water rights. These 24 

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

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

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

per year) that increase the total refuge-owned water 

rights to 31,609.38 acre-feet per year (table 5). Most 

of these rights are supplemental, meaning the water 

sources are commingled to supply the refuge needs for 

optimum operation. In addition, the refuge receives up 

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

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

flows through three lateral irrigation ditches and costs 

approximately $3,600 annually; however, the refuge 

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

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

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

In 2008, the Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation of the State of Montana began 

examining water right claims for the refuge. In this 

process, a claims examiner reviews various elements 

to determine the validity and necessity of each claim. 

A preliminary decree is anticipated to be issued by 

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

satisfied, the claim representing prior use and a final 

decree will be issued. 

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

units on approximately 205 acres. The main season of 

water use is from mid-March until early December. 

This varies with water conditions as determined by 

annual precipitation, snowmelt, and availability of 

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

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

summer. During the winter, most impoundments are 

kept full to provide water for resident species such as 

bass, aquatic invertebrates, and wintering waterfowl. 

HydRogEomoRPHiC CHAngES 

The Bitterroot River stretch at the Lee Metcalf Refuge 

lies near the geomorphic threshold between a highly 

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

immediately downstream (figure 13). Consequently, 

the river channel pattern for the area is changing 

and highly sensitive to perturbation (for example, 

inputs of sediment, changes to shading or discharge) 

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

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

its floodplains and facilitated degradation and loss of 

wetlands in this ecosystem (for example, Kudray and 

Schemm 2008). The extensive irrigation network of 

the Bitterroot Irrigation District led to construction 

of reservoirs, ditches, water diversion structures, and 

modified natural drainage routes. Stream channel 

networks, common in the Bitterroot Valley near the 

refuge, were altered by culvert and bridge crossings, 

railroad levees and beds, and extensive channelization 

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

rock and car bodies to slow stream migration and inchannel bank erosion (figure 15). In addition to local 

physical disruptions to topography and hydraulics, 

the entire fluvial system of the Bitterroot River has 

been altered by historical land use changes (see section 

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

slopes have been grazed and farmed, while the upper 

valleys and mountains have been partly deforested. 

Overgrazing was common on many valley terraces 

and, when coupled with deforestation in neighboring 

mountains and slope areas, led to erosion and increased 

sediment loading in the Bitterroot River (Briar and 

Dutton 2000). Subsequently, extensive sedimentation 

has occurred in drainages and floodplain depressions 

on the refuge (USFWS 1988–1993). 

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

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

the Bitterroot River underwent significant adjustments 

in sinuosity and braided character causing a nearly 4 

percent reduction in channel length between Darby 

and Missoula (Cartier 1984). Other data suggest that 

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

from Hamilton to Stevensville has occurred compared 

to other reaches of the Bitterroot River both above 

and below (Gaeuman 1997). This instability has caused 
Table 5. Water rights summary for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Volume rate 

Water right (cubic feet 

number Priority date per second) 

Volume 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

Irrigated 

acres Source 

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

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

Creek) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

76H–W–142490 12/10/1963 2 629.8 67 

Drain #2 (also known as water and 

seepage; also known unnamed tributary 

of Spring Creek) 

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

Middle Drain (also known as water 

and seepage; also known unnamed 

tributary of Spring Creek) 

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

South Drain (also known as water 

and seepage; also known unnamed 

tributary of Spring Creek) 

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

Drain #1 (also known as water and 

seepage; also known unnamed tributary 

of Bitterroot River) 

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

River) 

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

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

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

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

1

 Equals well pumping capacity of 12 gallons per minute.


2

 Domestic use.
 

3 Equals well pumping capacity of 15 gallons per minute.


4 Post-1973 permit for Otter Pond.
 

Source: USFWS, Region 6 Water Resources Division 2011. 

CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 63 
64 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

rapid erosion of riverbanks on the refuge (figure 16) 

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

across the refuge floodplain. In contrast to the highly 

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

occurred near Stevensville and the refuge lands after 

1937 in part because of artificial control structures. 

Part of the river has been channelized immediately 

upstream of riprap bank stabilization structures near 

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

migration and bank erosion has actually heightened 

river migration tendencies immediately upstream of 

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

Aerial photograph maps of a 2.5-mile stretch of the 

Bitterroot River on the north end of the refuge from 

1937 to 2009 show the highly unstable channel location 

of the river (figure 17). Three key points (labeled A, 

B, and C on figure 17) of river migration are apparent 

through the time-series of photographs, and typical 

movements of the outer riverbanks average about 

8 feet per year. During more active periods of river 

Figure 15. Car bodies along the Bitterroot River at the north end of 

lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Bob Danley / USFWS Bob Danley / USFWS 

Figure 16. Bank and levee erosion along the Bitterroot River on the west side of 

lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 65
 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Figure 17. maps showing the changes in the main channel of the Bitterroot River (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 67 

channel bank migration, the rate of erosion is greater 

than 32 feet per year. The 1955 photograph reveals 

that the river migrated significantly to the south and 

was deemed a threat to the existing railroad bed and 

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

bodies (figure 15) along the riverbank to act as riprap 

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

still present. The most active area of river migration 

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

river migrated about 197 feet east, or about 39 feet 

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

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

15 years and effectively remove about 10.5 acres of 

current floodplain land. 

The Bitterroot River Irrigation District’s Main 

Supply Canal continues to transport water to most of 

the eastern benches in the Bitterroot Valley, including 

those next to the refuge. This canal facilitates a net 

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

from the west side of the valley to the eastern benches 

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

and some of its tributaries. Part of the diverted flow 

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

year in normal precipitation years. This includes well 

water and other canals used for irrigation. Average 

discharge of the Bitterroot River near Florence is 

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

is about a 13 percent current loss of discharge from 

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

valley, and the extraction of water from these wells, 

coupled with irrigation diversion, may be affecting 

ground water levels, recharge to floodplain wetlands, 

ground and surface water quality, and the connections 

of branches (anastomosis) of the Bitterroot River 

(Briar and Dutton 2000). 

AiR QUAliTy 

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

for the quality of air in the United States; through 

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

amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the 

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

through either stationary sources (such as industrial 

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

also natural sources of air pollution such as fires, dust 

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

Environmental Protection Agency has identified six 

principal pollutants that are the focus of its national 

regulatory program: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

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

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

matter is tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that 

can be breathed in through the lungs, with the smaller 

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

effect on Montana’s air quality. 

Air quality in the Bitterroot Valley and Ravalli 

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

National and Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for all regulated air pollutants. The primary pollutant 

of concern in the Bitterroot Valley is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). Ambient PM2.5 

levels have been measured at several locations in the 

Bitterroot Valley over the past several years and continue to be measured in the community of Hamilton, 

approximately 20 miles south of the refuge. Smoke from 

wood burning appliances (primarily residential heaters 

and woodstoves), forestry and agricultural prescribed 

burning practices, and forest fires occasionally result 

in elevated PM2.5 levels in the Bitterroot Valley. The 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality conducts an open burning smoke management program 

to mitigate impacts from forestry and agricultural 

burning. Nevertheless, Missoula experienced 16 days 

of Stage I Air Alerts in 2003. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality evaluates monitored 

concentrations of PM2.5 during the winter months to 

address elevated PM2.5 levels primarily resulting from 

wood burning appliance emissions during periods of 

poor atmospheric dispersion (Hoby Rash, Monitoring 

Section Supervisor, Ambient Air Monitoring, Montana Department of Environmental Quality; email; 

September 27, 2010). 

4.2 Biological Resources 

This section describes the biological resources that 

may be affected by CCP implementation. It begins 

with a description of the refuge’s historical land cover 

and vegetation communities, and it discusses changes 

to the refuge since its establishment. Following this 

background, the current vegetative habitat type descriptions (upland, riparian, and wetland) and the associated birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and 

fishes are described. The remainder of this section 

describes the invasive species, wildlife diseases, and 

contaminants found on the refuge. 

Unless otherwise noted, the information in this 

section is from unpublished Service data; a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) report entitled “An Evaluation of 
68 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Ecosystem Restoration and Management Options for 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge,” developed by 

Greenbrier Wetland Services (Heitmeyer et. al. 2010); 

or from another habitat analysis entitled “Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge 2009 Assessment of Upland 

Units” prepared by Aeroscene Logic (Graham 2009). 

These data and reports are available at the refuge 

headquarters. 

lAnd CovER And vEgETATion CommUniTiES 

The Bitterroot Valley is composed of the intermountain and foothill grassland ecotype cut and formed by 

the meandering Bitterroot River that creates core riparian zones and wetland areas. This ecotype harbors 

more wildlife communities than any other in Montana 

(MFWP 2005). The relatively low precipitation in the 

Bitterroot Valley prohibits the establishment of expansive areas of densely wooded or herbaceous wetland 

vegetation communities. Consequently, the distribution of woody or wetland-type species is restricted to 

areas of greater soil moisture—primarily sites next to 

the Bitterroot River and in floodplain drainages and 

depressions (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Historically, vegetation in the Bitterroot River 

floodplain on the Lee Metcalf Refuge included seven 

distinct habitat and community types: (1) riverfront-type 

forest, (2) floodplain gallery-type forest, (3) persistent 

emergent wetland, (4) wet meadow herbaceous, (5) 

floodplain and terrace grassland, (6) saline grassland, 

and (7) grassland-sagebrush. Figure 18 is a composite 

model of potential historical vegetation communities 

present on the refuge prior to significant alteration 

and development beginning in the late 1800s; community identification was made on the basis of HGM 

attributes (table 6). 

The Bitterroot River floodplain at the refuge historically supported a wide diversity of vertebrate 

and invertebrate animal species associated with the 

interspersed riparian woodlands, floodplain wetland, 

and grassland habitats (appendix E). Resources used 

by animal species were seasonally dynamic and also 

annually variable depending on long-term climate and 

riverflow and flooding patterns. In the refuge region, 

most bird species exploited seasonal resources during 

migration and in the summer, but a few species overwintered in the area. Many waterbirds likely stayed 

in the Bitterroot Valley during wet summers to breed 

when floodplain wetlands had more extensive and prolonged water regimes. In contrast, limited numbers 

of species and individuals probably bred in the valley 

during dry years. In the years when wet springs combined with carryover water in the fall, larger numbers 

of waterbirds would stopover in the valley during fall 

migration. In average or dry years, however, little 

wetland habitat would have been available in fall 

except in historical river channels. Cold winter temperatures freeze most wetlands in the floodplain, but 

the river and a few springs remain open throughout 

winter in most years and provided sanctuary, loafing, 

and some foraging resources for some species. Amphibian and reptile annual emergence and life cycle 

events coincided with spring thaw and flooding and the 

availability of key arthropod and other prey species. 

Larger mammals moved in and out of the floodplain 

to forage and take advantage of cover during winter 

and in other seasons when nutritious grassland forage 

and prey were present. 

Figure 19 shows the 2,800 acres of habitat and 

vegetation communities that exist today. Historical 

vegetation communities have changed over time due 

Table 6. Hydrogeomorphic matrix of historical distribution of vegetation communities and habitat types on lee 

metcalf national Wildlife Refuge. 

Geomorphic 	 Flood Habitat type 	 Soil type surface1	 frequency2 

Riverside, Riverwash, Chamokane gravelly-sand, Riverfront forest Qal, Qaty 	 1YR–I sand, fine sand-loam 

Gallery forest Qal Chamokane loam and loamy sand 	 2–5YR 

Robust emergent–shrub or scrub Qal Slocum poorly drained loam 	 1YR–P 

Wet meadow Qal Slocum deep loams 	 2–5YR 

Grassland 	 Qal, Qafy Corvallis, Hamilton, Grantsdale silt loam >5YR 

Grassland-saline Qal Corvallis saline silt loam 	 >5YR 

Grassland-sage 	 Qafy Lone Rock mixed erosional alluvial fan >10YR 

1	 Qal = Quaternary alluvial deposits, Qafy = Quaternary younger alluvial fan and outwash terrace complex, Qaty = 

late Riverside and Hamilton terraces. 2	 1YR–I = annually flooded for intermittent periods, primarily during high water periods of the Bitterroot River; 2–5YR 

= surface inundation at a 2- to 5-year recurrence interval; 1YR–P = annually flooded primarily for most of the year; 

>5YR = surface inundation at a greater than 5-year recurrence interval; >10YR = surface inundation rare except for 

lower elevations during extreme flood events. 

Source: Heitmeyer et al. 2010. 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 69
 

Figure 18. Hydrogeomorphic-derived map of potential vegetation communities on lee metcalf national Wildlife 

Refuge prior to European settlement in the mid-1800s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Figure 19. Existing habitat and vegetation communities on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

70 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 71 

to past and present land uses, including agriculture 

and the creation of wetland impoundments. The existing habitat and community types present today are 

described below in three different vegetation communities: (1) uplands, (2) riparian, and (3) wetland 

impoundments. 

Migratory birds are especially abundant on the refuge during fall and spring migration. More than 260 

species of birds are present in the Bitterroot River 

watershed, and 242 species have been documented on 

the refuge (USFWS, unpublished refuge files), including grebes, bitterns, herons, egrets, waterfowl, raptors, 

shorebirds, flycatchers, swallows, chickadees, warblers, 

wrens, sparrows, and blackbirds. Additionally, many 

bird species nest in forest, wetland, and grassland 

areas; the most common species are ducks, warblers, 

flycatchers, swallows, blackbirds, sparrows, wading 

birds, and raptors. 

More than 40 mammal species also are present in 

the refuge. Some of the more common species include 

white-tailed deer, yellow-bellied marmot, yellow-pine 

chipmunk, northern pocket gopher, meadow vole, 

porcupine, striped skunk, muskrat, American beaver, 

mink, and raccoon. At least eight species of reptiles 

and amphibians commonly use the refuge including 

three snakes, one turtle, two frogs, one toad, and one 

salamander. Several species of native fish historically 

were present in the Bitterroot River, and many moved 

into floodplain drainages, oxbows, and wetlands during high flow periods. Native species include mountain 

whitefish, northern pikeminnow, large scale sucker, 

longnose sucker, and redside shiner. Presently several 

nonnative fish are also present in refuge impoundments, 

including, but not limited to, largemouth bass, yellow 

perch, and brown and rainbow trout. 

HABiTAT modiFiCATionS SinCE 

ESTABliSHmEnT 

Following establishment, the refuge began physical 

developments on floodplain lands in the mid-1960s, 

with the purpose of creating wetland habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds. By the late 1980s, 14 

impoundments (or ponds) encompassing more than 

1,000 acres had been created (figure 7). 

The following list encompasses major wetland 

management and development activities on refuge 

lands from 1963 through the early 1990s, according to 

refuge annual narratives (USFWS 1988–1993) and as 

summarized in Heitmeyer et al. (2010): 

■■ Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge was authorized by Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

on December 10, 1963. 

■■ The first parcel was purchased in February 1964. 

■■ In the mid-1960s, evidence revealed that the west 

Barn Slough area, a pre-refuge diversion structure, 

was sending water through the McPherson and 

Nickerson Creeks (now Ditches). 

■■ Ponds 1–4 were completed in the summer of 1966 

(refuge files). By 1970, Pond 5 was impounded 

by forming the existing county road into a levee. 

Ponds 6, 8, and 10 were constructed between 1967 

and 1970, judging from photos from this period. 

■■ In the mid-1960s, no dikes or structures existed 

on Francois Slough and North Burnt Fork Creek 

was unimpeded on the refuge. By 1970, three water control structures were constructed on these 

waterways, and they remain in place today. 

■■ Ponds 11–13 were built between 1970 and 1973, as 

refuge photos show the north ponds in the flood 

of 1974. Pond E, which was a small impoundment 

on Rogmans Creek near Pond 11, was likely built 

around the same time. Pond E was expanded by 

the creation of Otter Pond in 1989. 

■■ As part of the Montana Power Company mitigation project in the early 1970s, artificial ponds were 

built on the refuge just south of the area now occupied by Potato Cellar Pond. Within a few years 

these ponds were washed out by floods causing 

them to go dry. 

■■ In the early 1980s, the refuge focused on Three 

Mile Creek sedimentation issues. This creek flowed 

into Pond 11 and out through Pond 13 to the river. 

Two supply ditches were cleaned out in 1985. Ultimately, a bypass channel with three sediment 

ponds was constructed in 1984 to lead the creek 

directly to the river. 

■■ By July 1988, the Pair Ponds were established as 

part of a rehabilitation project by the Montana 

Power Company. Pair Ponds comprise 10 acres 

and are up to 3 feet deep in some areas. 

■■ Otter Pond was built in 1989 as a solution to the 

sedimentation of the northern ponds from Three 

Mile Creek. An 18-inch diameter siphon was constructed to bring water from Pond 10 under Three 

Mile Creek bypass to supply water to Ponds 11, 

12, and 13. This expanded the existing Pond E to 

about 65 surface acres. 

■■ In the early 1990s, ditch leveling was completed in 

Swamp Creek and Ponds 1, 3, 4, 11, and 12. 

These wetland impoundments were developed using 

levees to back water up drainages and depressional 

areas. Because of river channelization, development, 

and wetland loss, the refuge currently manages more 

than 20 percent of all palustrine wetlands present in 

the Bitterroot Valley (Kudray and Schemm 2008). 

Water control structures that significantly alter the 

direction and amount of surface water flow in natural 

drainages have been constructed on Rogmans Creek, 

Barn Slough, and Francois Slough/North Burnt Fork 
72 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Creek. Three Mile Creek was re-routed because of 

sedimentation in ponds. Wetland impoundments have 

been managed by diverting irrigation and tile drain 

water (that is, excess water drained from agricultural 

subsurfaces), flows in minor channels and tributaries, 

and Three Mile Creek water into and through the 

impoundments. 

Water that enters or can be diverted to the refuge 

comes from multiple points of diversion (PODs). Certain 

sources, such as the South Lateral Ditch and Middle 

Lateral Ditch, supply private property in addition to 

the refuge. Tile drain water also enters the refuge from 

open tile drains or ditches from surrounding private 

lands. The refuge receives nutrient-rich water from 

these drains, and during summer months this water 

has abundant algal growth. Most water enters managed wetland impoundments from the south end of 

the refuge and sequentially is routed via gravity flow 

through Ponds 1–13. However, the variability of water 

sources often results in variable amounts and timing 

of available water for individual ponds. For example, 

water from the South Lateral Ditch can be moved by 

gravity flow into all refuge ponds, whereas water from 

Rogmans Creek can only be used for Ponds 2–13. The 

Spring Creek POD (outlet of Pond 10) flows under the 

railroad tracks into Otter Pond and is then siphoned 

under Three Mile Creek to feed Ponds 11, 12, and 13. 

Currently, Three Mile Creek contains high sediment 

loading that, when diverted into impoundments, precipitates out. Three Mile Creek is currently directed via 

a bypass channel to what is now North Island Slough. 

Since refuge establishment, most wetland impoundments have been managed to promote waterfowl production by holding water through summer or 

year-round and occasionally draining areas for vegetation management using tillage, grazing, and burning 

(USFWS 1988–1993). Otter Pond was stocked with 

warm-water fish in 1989 to provide both prey for nesting osprey and limited public fishing opportunities. 

Other wetland developments included construction 

of a siphon to move water; level-ditching in Swamp 

Creek and Ponds 1, 3, 4, 11, and 12; pool construction 

near Potato Cellar Pond; and sediment removal in 

Three Mile Creek. Ephemeral ponds also resulted 

from the excavation of gravel pits. 

Certain upland areas were converted to warm- or 

cool-season grasses for dense nesting cover for waterfowl (figure 20), and two predator-exclusion fences were 

built around some fields and a levee. From the 1960s 

through the early 1980s, some higher elevation fields 

on the refuge were used for small grain production. 

In 1971, the refuge contracted the placement of 

riprap material along 1,250 feet of the east bank of the 

Bitterroot River west of McPherson Ditch (USFWS 

1988–1993). This riprap was subsequently eroded and 

moved by high riverflows; by 1984 the riprap was gone, 

and the bank at this location was moving eastward. 

Since the mid-1990s, levees built along the Bitterroot 

River, including the area where the riprap was placed 

in 1971, have eroded and been at least partly breached 

in places as the Bitterroot River attempts to move laterally (figure 17). Also, the Bitterroot River appears 

to be moving more discharge through the North Island Slough area immediately north of Otter Pond on 

the north side of the refuge. These river movements 

could potentially affect the north Otter Pond levee; 

cause water movement across other floodplain areas 

on the refuge; and affect other structures, roads, and 

the railroad bed. 

More than 18 miles of roads are present on the refuge 

along with five buildings, three trails, two education 

shelters, and an amphitheater. Seven residences and 

several outbuildings have been removed over time. 

CHAngES To THE vEgET ATion CommUniTiES 

Collectively, the many landscape and hydrological 

changes in the Bitterroot Valley since the presettlement period have dramatically altered the physical 

nature, hydrology, and vegetation communities of the 

Lee Metcalf Refuge. Prior to Euro-American settlement, the relatively dry climate of the valley and the 

traveling nature of the Bitterroot River created a 

heterogeneous mix of communities: riverfront and 

gallery forest next to the Bitterroot River and floodplain drainages, persistent emergent wetland communities along floodplain drainages and fluvial-created 

depressions, wet meadow habitats, and grassland and 

sagebrush communities on higher elevation terraces 

and alluvial fans (figure 18). This community matrix 

was maintained by: 

■■ periodic overbank flooding of the Bitterroot River 

that inundated much of the floodplain for relatively 

short periods in spring; 

■■ regular backwater flooding of the Bitterroot River 

up tributaries and floodplain secondary channels 

into floodplain wetland depressions; 

■■ annual spring discharge of water from tributaries, 

sheet flow across terraces and alluvial fans, and 

seep and spring discharge from mountain slopes 

and terraces; 

■■ frequent burning of the grasslands and shrublands 

(primarily by Native Americans) that may have 

led to frequent, low-intensity fires in the adjacent 

ponderosa pine forest (Arno 1980) that, when 

combined with grazing, recycled nutrients and established germination and regeneration sites for 

specific plant species. 

Each of these primary ecological processes at the refuge has been systemically altered: 

■■ Water diversions, channel constriction, and river 

channel modification have reduced overbank flooding and restricted floodplain connectivity. Fewer 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 73 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

Figure 20. Field planted as dense nesting cover on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

extensive overbank events now occur, but lateral 

movement and bank erosion of the Bitterroot River 

have been accelerated in this river stretch. 

■■ The above changes, some of which have occurred 

upstream of the refuge, have restricted backwater 

flow from the Bitterroot River into its floodplain and 

tributaries, and floodplain secondary channels have 

been ditched, diverted, dammed, and impounded. 

■■ Waterflow across the floodplain has been altered by 

extraction and diversion of water from drainages 

prior to reaching the floodplain. Sheet flow across 

terraces and alluvial fans is almost completely eliminated, and ground water aquifers and discharge 

from seeps and springs are changed, usually by 

reduction from presettlement times. 

■■ Wildfires have been eliminated or greatly reduced. 

In addition to changes in the primary ecological processes of the Bitterroot Valley ecosystem on the refuge, the local and regional landforms and vegetation 

communities have been negatively affected by many 

alterations to topography, drainages, clearing, conversion to various agricultural crops or livestock forage, 

extensive grazing by cattle and sheep, sedimentation, 

expansion of nonnative plants, and recent urban expansion. Vegetation changes are documented in aerial 

photographs from the 1940s to the present (figures 5 

and 10). Collectively, the system now has: 

■■ reduced areas of riverfront and gallery forest;
 

■■ fewer wet meadows;
 

■■ increased areas of persistent emergent and open-


water habitat; 

■■ increased areas of herbaceous wetland vegetation; 

■■ fewer native grassland communities; 

■■ more agricultural and tame grass fields; 

■■ increased presence of invasive and exotic plant 

species. 

Invasions of sulfur cinquefoil, Dalmatian toadflax, 

leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, Canada and musk 

thistle, houndstongue, St. Johnswort, and yellow flag 

iris are present in many areas on the refuge (Kudray 

and Schemm 2008, Lee Metcalf Refuge unpublished 

data). Of the 32 currently considered noxious weeds in 

Montana, 15 species are present on the refuge. (Refer 

to “Invasive and Noxious Species” under section 2.6 

for more detail). 

CHAngES To FiSH And WildliFE PoPUlA TionS 

The many ecological and community changes to the 

Lee Metcalf Refuge ecosystem have corresponding 

effects on fish and wildlife populations using the area. 

Unfortunately, few quantitative data are available on 

animal use of the area during historical times, but correlations of species occurrences with specific habitat 

types can indicate relative abundance for at least some 

groups. Apparently, waterbirds and other wetland associated birds increased in number and seasonal occurrence on the refuge at least during the 1970s and 

1980s after wetland impoundments were built and 

managed for more prolonged water regimes during 

summer and fall. Peak numbers of dabbling and diving 

ducks, shorebirds, and wading birds on the refuge collectively exceeded 20,000, especially during spring and 

fall migrations in some years in the 1970s and 1980s; 

now, they seldom exceed 5,000 (USFWS 1988–1993). 

One contributing factor may be the conversion of grain 
74 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

fields surrounding the refuge to housing developments. 

Production of ducks on the refuge also reached 10,000 

in some years during the 1970s and 1980s, but now annual production typically is less than 1,000 ducklings 

(unpublished refuge data). Populations of other birds 

associated with more permanently flooded wetlands 

including osprey and certain passerines also apparently 

increased 20–30 years after wetland impoundments 

were built, but now these populations are declining. 

For example, osprey production on the refuge reached 

a peak of forty young in 1988, but it has declined since 

(figure 21). Concerns about mercury contamination 

of osprey eggs and young relate to the consumption 

of warm-water fish stocked in Otter Pond and high 

mercury levels in other refuge impoundments and regional waters. Mercury concentrations in fish (mainly 

largemouth bass) on the refuge average more than 0.1 

milligram per kilogram wet weight for 14- to 22-inch 

size classes (figure 22). 

Some data suggest declines in animals using riparian forest, grassland/sagebrush communities, and 

floodplain channels and tributaries to the Bitterroot 

River (Brandt 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

unpublished refuge inventories). Reduction of riparian 

forest habitat has meant less foraging, nesting, loafing, and stopover habitat for many passerine birds, 

raptors, and native resident species. Additionally, 

conversion of native grassland to pasture, hayland, 

and agricultural crops has reduced resources for many 

birds, mammals, and amphibians. While the Bitterroot 

River and its floodplain did not historically support 

a large diversity of native fishes, many species were 

highly abundant and widely distributed, especially 

when overbank and backwater floods occurred. Distribution is now restricted to primary channels of the 

Bitterroot River and impoundments or ponds (Brandt 

2000). The Federally listed threatened native bull 

trout is now rarely found in the river (Chris Clancy, 

fisheries biologist, MFWP, personal communication, 

October 2011) but historically occurred in North Burnt 

Fork Creek. The bull trout is now restricted to the 

upper reaches of this creek on U.S. Forest Service 

land because of dammed and diverted waterflows, 

sedimentation, and increased water temperatures in 

the creek and the impounded Francois Slough area on 

the refuge (Stringer 2009); heavy irrigation modifications upstream of the refuge have also contributed to 

the decline of this species. 

45

Number of chicks fledged 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

3

2

3

11

8

12

11

10

13

12

16

13

18

21 21

23

28

40

29

33

20

19

12 12

10

8

10 10

8

15

13

9

19641965196619671968196919701971197219731974197519761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007

Year 

Figure 21. osprey production on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana, 1964–2007. 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 75 

0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

0.6 

6–10 10–14 14–18 18–22 22–26 26–30 

Red Rock Lakes Refuge 

Medicine Lake Refuge 

Lee Metcalf Refuge 

Lee Metcalf Refugea 

Ninepipe Refuge 

Mercury concentration

(milligrams/kilogram wet weight) 

Size class 

(inches) 

Two meals per week, men 

One meal per week to one meal 

per month, women and children 

Two meals per week, women and children 

Figure 22. mercury concentration in fish from montana refuges (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

a

 Whole fish. The remaining analyses 

only used fillet samples. 

UPlAnd HABiTAT 

The Lee Metcalf Refuge’s 1,186 acres of uplands consist 

of floodplain and terrace grasslands, grassland/shrublands, and shrublands. These communities are defined 

as having grassland and shrubland species considered 

facultative or obligate and that usually occur in nonwetland habitats. Historical documents suggest that 

most higher elevations within the refuge’s floodplain 

region were covered with grasses and some scattered 

shrubs (Eckmann and Harrington 1917, Cappious 

1939, Popham 1998). Sites with occasional surface 

flooding contained more wet meadow or grassland 

communities interspersed with wetland herbaceous 

plants (like smartweed), while higher floodplain terraces, slopes, and alluvial fans included both wetland 

and upland-type grasses (like needle and thread and 

Junegrass) and shrubs (like rabbit brush and sage). 

Most floodplain grassland areas have Corvallis, Hamilton, and Grantsdale silt loam and loam soils. Certain 

small sites in the refuge have saline soils that could 

have supported more salt-tolerant species. Larger alluvial fans, such as those near Three Mile Creek, are 

present on “Qafy” surfaces with Lone Rock mixed 

erosion soils, and these sites historically had a mixed 

grassland-sagebrush community (for example, Clary 

et al. 2005). 

The uplands in the valley have historically been disturbed by a variety of land uses since Euro-American 

settlement in 1841. In 1872 Peter Whaley broke the 

first sod on what would become the refuge. The primary land use was cattle grazing and, later, agricultural crops (vegetables and grains). Once the refuge 

was established, the uplands were still disturbed by 

grazing, farming, haying, and other land practices. 

Eventually, these grazed and farmed areas were retired 

and seeded with tame grasses without reseeding of native plant species. These practices greatly altered the 

land, decreasing overall habitat and animal diversity 

and increasing the presence of invasive plant species 

(Graham 2009). Most wet meadows have disappeared, 

and potential saline grasslands are now mostly thistle 

and wheatgrass. Historical grassy upland terraces no 

longer contain substantial amounts of native grass or 

shrubland species. Invasive and other nonnative species 

now dominate more than 80 percent of refuge uplands. 

Dominant species now found in those areas include, 

but are not limited to, cheatgrass, smooth brome, common tansy, mustard species, spotted knapweed, and 

musk and Canada thistle. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Small mammals like the Columbian ground squirrel, 

meadow vole, and the American deer mouse make up 

the majority of the wildlife on the refuge. As uplands 
76 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

are dominated by invasive and other nonnative species, wildlife value is diminished and does not provide 

high-quality migratory bird habitat for nesting and 

cover from predators. Due to the presence of these 

small mammals, these areas do provide some feeding 

opportunities for great blue herons and raptors including red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, American 

kestrel, and prairie falcon. Sandhill cranes have also 

been seen foraging in these fields. 

Other mammal species include the striped skunk 

and American badger. Uplands also provide browsing opportunities for white-tailed deer and support 

predators such as coyote and red fox. Common reptile 

species include the terrestrial garter snake and the 

common garter snake. 

RiPARiAn HABiTAT 

The Bitterroot Valley is bisected by the Bitterroot 

River, which originates in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness and the Bitterroot Mountains and flows north 

to empty into the Clark Fork River near Missoula. 

Immediately alongside the river are riparian habitats consisting of woodlands (riverfront and gallery 

forest) and wetlands. 

The Bitterroot River is characterized by constantly 

shifting stream channels through the riparian habitat. 

This habitat provides some of the most productive 

wildlife habitat in the State and is a home to a wide 

variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians 

(MFWP 2005). According to the Bitterroot Audubon 

Society, the Lee Metcalf Refuge is a cornerstone of 

the Bitterroot Important Bird Area: it is the place 

where all key valley habitats come together and provide bird species richness (Sherry Ritter, Chair of the 

Important Bird Area Committee, Bitterroot Audubon 

Society, Montana; email; August 14, 2010). 

The riparian habitat also includes wetlands in low 

elevation oxbows, depressions, and tributary off-channel areas that contain more permanent water regimes 

and support water-tolerant wetland vegetation species 

edged by persistent emergent species such as cattail. 

Certain low elevation sites with extended water regimes may have been periodically created by beaver 

activity and then abandoned during dry periods (Kudrey and Schemm 2008). 

Riparian Woodlands (Riverfront and gallery 

Forests) 

The riparian woodlands of the refuge consist of 483 

acres of riverfront and gallery forest. Each community 

has different vegetation and succession requirements. 

Riverfront forest includes early successional species such as black cottonwood and sandbar willow 

characterized by very little, if any, understory. Wood’s 

rose, fescue, and wheatgrass species may be present. 

This vegetation is present on newly deposited and 

scoured gravelly-sand, sand, and fine sandy-loams 

near the active channel of the Bitterroot River and in 

sand outcrop sites next to floodplain drainages. These 

sites have high water tables for most of the year and 

are inundated for short periods during high spring 

riverflows almost annually. Regularly scoured soils 

provide bare soil sites for seed deposition and subsequent germination and growth of willow and cottonwood (Cooper et al. 1999). 

The riverfront forest lies alongside the Bitterroot 

River, running south to north within the boundary of 

the refuge. In some places, the riverfront forest occupies both sides of the river; in others, the riverfront 

forest occupies only the eastern side, primarily due 

to land clearing on the western side for other uses. 

Upstream development and riprap efforts along the 

river have caused substantial erosion, which has in 

turn resulted in the loss of riverfront forest in several 

areas in the refuge. 

Gallery forest is located mostly on the western portion of the refuge, west of the river as well as east of 

the river, between the riverfront forest and the wetland impoundments. This habitat is more closely associated with backwater and overbank flooding than 

with drier upland conditions. Dominated by mature 

black cottonwood and ponderosa pine, it is found on 

higher floodplain elevations with layers of Chamokane 

loams over underlying sands along natural levees and 

point bar terraces next to minor floodplain tributaries. 

Indicator tree and shrubs species for gallery forest 

include ponderosa pine with black cottonwood along 

with an understory of large woody shrubs such as thinleaved alder, river hawthorn, red osier dogwood, and 

Wood’s rose. There may also be mixed grasses such 

as bluebunch and fescue under and between trees and 

shrubs. Historically, gallery forests were flooded by 

occasional overbank or high backwater floods from the 

Bitterroot River and secondary floodplain channels. 

When flooding did occur, it was for short durations 

during spring. Fire and grazing by native ungulates 

probably sustained the savanna nature of these sites 

and encouraged a mix of grass, shrubs, and overstory 

trees (Fischer and Bradley 1987). 

Riparian Wetlands 

The wetland component of the refuge’s riparian habitat 

community is 20 acres of oxbows, sloughs, remnants 

of former gravel pits and creeks—specifically, Barn 

Slough, Oxbow, North Island Slough, Francois Slough, 

North Burnt Fork Creek, and Three Mile Creek. These 

wetlands are interspersed in the southern portion of 

the refuge with the exception of Three Mile Creek, 

Oxbow and North Island Slough, which are in the 

north. A bypass was constructed in the early 1980s to 

channel Three Mile Creek directly to the Bitterroot 

River to end sediment buildup in the open-water impoundments. Waterflow in some of these sloughs and 

creeks varies seasonally according to spring rainfall, 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 77 

upstream irrigation use, and the upstream snowpack 

and the rate at which it melts. 

Barn Slough is fed by natural springs; North Island 

Slough was created by the migration of the Bitterroot 

River and is now becoming a more established river 

channel. Oxbow was the river channel in the mid-1950s 

but was closed at both ends when the river moved 

back north. North Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile 

Creek originate in the Sapphire Mountains and flow 

westward down the valley slope, ending at the Bitterroot River on the refuge. North Burnt Fork Creek 

feeds Francois Slough, which then empties into the 

river. Dominant vegetation in these riparian habitats 

consists of alder willow, snowberry, horsetail, various 

sedges, and rushes. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Riverfront woodlands and wetlands provide important nesting, foraging, and stopover habitat for many 

birds. These include neotropical songbirds such as least 

flycatcher, yellow warbler, Vaux’s swift, and Lewis’s 

woodpecker, and waterbirds such as common merganser and wood duck. Riverfront forest is also important 

for nesting and perching sites for large raptors such 

as bald eagles and osprey. There is at least one known 

eagle nest on the refuge, and trees and numerous 

nesting platforms provide desirable nesting sites for 

osprey. The most common reptiles are garter snakes. 

Mammals that use the riverfront forest include the 

northern river otter, white-tailed deer, raccoon, beaver, muskrat, and the yellow-pine chipmunk. 

As the gallery forest is found upslope from the riverfront corridor, many of the same bird species found 

in the riverfront forest—including Lewis’s woodpecker, 

Vaux’s swift, and wood duck—are present in the gallery forest, along with the red-naped sapsucker and 

brown creeper. These last two species rely on the 

mature trees found in the gallery forest for feeding 

and nesting. Yellow warbler, least flycatcher, and MacGillivray’s warbler feed and nest in the understory of 

the forest. Some mammals include the red-squirrel, 

raccoon, white-tailed deer, porcupine, yellow-bellied 

marmot, red fox, and coyote. There are eleven bat 

species found on the refuge (appendix E), all of which 

depend on the gallery forest for various stages of their 

life cycles. Of these 11 species, 3 of them are State 

species of concern including Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, hoary bat, and fringed myotis. 

Throughout the riparian woodlands are various 

wetland types including ephemeral pools, sloughs, 

and remnants of former gravel pits which provide 

breeding grounds for amphibians such as the longtoed salamander and the boreal toad, a State species of 

concern. Documented fish species include both native 

fish (pike minnow and longnose sucker) and nonnative 

fish (largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, and brook and 

brown trout). Native beavers and Columbia spotted 

frogs and nonnative American bullfrogs also inhabit 

these wetlands. 

The Service designated North Burnt Fork Creek 

as critical habitat for bull trout in October 2010. Historically, bull trout used North Burnt Fork Creek as 

a passageway to return to their spawning grounds 

in the headwaters in the Sapphire Mountains where 

populations are still viable. This no longer occurs. The 

refuge installed several structures along the refuge 

portion of the creek in an effort to create more pondlike habitat for waterfowl and warm-water fish (providing more fishing opportunities in the public area). 

Off-refuge, along the creek, ditching and irrigation 

occurred on private land. These actions resulted in 

a loss of stream habitat and fish passage for the federally listed bull trout (listed as threatened in 1994). 

Fish occupying the creek still consist of native species 

including minnows, suckers, and whitefish. Nonnative 

species such as brown and brook trout and pumpkinseed also use the stream (unpublished refuge files: 

Fish Trap Data 2009). 

WETlAnd imPoUndmEnT HABiTAT 

Wetland habitat on the refuge, other than that described above, consists of wetland impoundments and 

their surrounding areas. Wetland impoundments were 

created throughout the refuge to provide wetland 

habitat for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl. 

Levees were constructed, and water control structures 

were installed. A number of impoundments were semipermanently flooded, constituting the largest area of 

open water in the Bitterroot Valley. The refuge now 

manages many impoundments for migratory birds by 

seasonally drying them to increase their productivity. 

Water to flood the impoundments is provided by natural springs, tile drains, creeks, and irrigation ditches. 

The impoundments have areas of open water with 

mudflat edges and are surrounded and interspersed 

with submergent and emergent vegetation. Submergent flowering aquatic vegetation in many areas of the 

open water includes northern water milfoil, hornwort, 

and Richardson and Sago pondweed. Emergent vegetation includes, water smartweed, cattail, and various species of rushes and sedges. The combination of 

these and similar vegetative species is often referred 

to as persistent/robust emergent habitat, and it provides cover and nesting opportunities for American 

bitterns, rails, wrens, blackbirds, and waterfowl. However, if left unmanaged, emergent vegetation such as 

cattail can grow into a monoculture and leave little 

edge, outcompeting other emergent vegetation and 

reducing the amount of open water. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

The wetland impoundments and surrounding emergent vegetation make up 958 acres of the refuge. 

These impoundments provide stopover habitat for 
78 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

migrant waterbirds including waterfowl species such 

as mallard; gadwall; Northern pintail and shoveler; 

cinnamon, green-winged, and blue-winged teal; and 

wood, redhead, and ruddy duck. Other waterbirds 

documented on these impoundments includes six species of grebe, American white pelican, white-faced 

ibis, and occasionally a great egret. Both trumpeter 

and tundra swans stopover at the refuge, and bitterns 

are sometimes seen hiding amongst the cattail. When 

extensive mudflats are present, migrant shorebirds 

such as least sandpiper, semipalmated plover, American avocet, black-necked stilt, dowitcher, and yellowleg are seen feeding in these areas. Double-crested 

cormorants can usually be found in the north ponds 

and have historically nested over water in dead trees. 

Abundant yellow-headed and red-winged blackbirds 

can be found nesting in the summer among the cattails along with marsh wren, sora, and Virginia rail. 

REmAining REFUgE ACRES 

Habitats that do not fall in the above categories include 63 acres of the Bitterroot River channel and 90 

acres of bare or sparse vegetation that includes gravel 

bars, parking lots, roads, and facilities. 

invASivE SPECiES 

Nonnative species are prolific on the refuge, displacing native plants and affecting more than 70 percent 

of refuge lands as a result of alterations to topography, drainages, clearing, conversion to various agricultural crops or livestock forage, extensive grazing 

by cattle and sheep, and sedimentation pre- and postestablishment of the refuge. Many of the species are 

transported to the refuge as “hitchhikers” on vehicles, 

pedestrians, and animals. Wildfowl Lane, a county road 

that bisects the refuge, is used by more than 143,000 

visitors annually in vehicles from all over the country. These factors have contributed to the introduction and distribution of invasive species, as have the 

surrounding development, landscape level invasive 

species in western Montana, the vulnerable exposed 

soil on the refuge (from wetland habitat construction 

and prior agricultural uses), and the locations of the 

Bitterroot River, the railroad bed, Highway 93, and 

Eastside Highway. 

The State of Montana has 32 plant species on the 

Montana Noxious Weed List, 15 of which are found on 

the refuge in various degrees of infestation. During 

the past several years, new invaders (hoary alyssum, 

Dalmatian toadflax, and blueweed) have been detected. 

These species rank as high priority species for early 

detection and rapid response treatment. Some species, 

while not considered noxious by the State of Montana, 

are considered undesirable and problematic by refuge 

staff; these include musk thistle, cheatgrass, kochia, 

reed canarygrass, and teasel (table 7). 

The refuge has a number of resources to respond 

to the invasive species problem. The refuge provides 

office space and other support for one of the Service’s 

Montana Invasive Species Strike Teams. This team 

works with refuges throughout the State, including 

Lee Metcalf Refuge, inventorying and treating new 

invaders and high priority invasive and nonnative 

plants. Additionally, a partnership with the Ravalli 

County Weed District has provided several crew members wholly dedicated to treating more established 

noxious weeds. An annual volunteer weed-pull event 

for the public occurs, and youth groups like the Montana Conservation Corps, Youth Conservation Corps, 

and Selway-Bitterroot Foundation interns have also 

assisted in refuge treatment efforts. In addition, invasive species spread and control is integrated into 

staff fieldwork. 

The main planning tool for treating invasives on the 

refuge is using integrated pest management (IPM). 

IPM is a structured and logical approach to managing 

weeds by using a combination of biological, mechanical, and chemical tools. Past IPM efforts have included 

mapping, treating, and monitoring invasive species on 

the refuge. Treatment methods for invasives vary with 

species, daily weather conditions, plant growth stage, 

and time of year. Methods used to treat invasives have 

included herbicide application, prescribed fire, biological controls (including goats, flower and root weevils, 

and flower and root moths), hand pulling, mowing, and 

cultivating. Along with prescribed burning and grazing, chemical applications of herbicides have significantly aided efforts to control the spread of invasive 

plant species and possibly the elimination of invasives 

from specific areas on the refuge. Chemical applications are used on specific species and applied during 

the optimal plant stage of growth to increase the effectiveness of the application. All chemicals must be 

approved by the Service for use on refuges, and the 

application of a specific chemical onsite must undergo a 

pesticide use proposal evaluation. Approximately 400 

acres per year are treated for invasive plants, using 

chemical applications and mechanical means. 

WildliFE diSEASES And ConT AminAnTS 

Several wildlife diseases have the potential in the near 

future to spread to the refuge from western Montana 

and neighboring states. Contaminants from surrounding residential development, historical mining activity, 

and atmospheric deposition also pose a threat. 

Wildlife diseases 

Two common avian diseases have been documented 

near the refuge in very small numbers (less than 30 

birds): aspergillosis and salmonellosis. Often fatal, aspergillosis is caused by birds ingesting or inhaling toxic 

fungi in contaminated feeds. Salmonellosis can also be 

fatal; it is caused by Salmonella bacterium that spreads 
Table 7. documented invasive and nonnative species on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge as of 2010 and the 

degree of infestation, priority for treatment, and State noxious status. 

Degree of Area of infestation or Priority for State noxious status1 

Common name infestation number of plants found treatment and comments 

Tall buttercup Medium 0.23 acre2 High Priority 2A—common in some areas, 

eliminate or contain 

Yellowflag iris Medium 0.82 acre2	 High Priority 2A 

Blueweed Low Two plants found High Priority 2A 

Hoary alyssum Low 3.56 acres2 High Priority 2A 

Canada thistle High 50 acres3 Medium	 Priority 2B—abundant and widespread, 

eradication or containment where less 

abundant 

Field bindweed Low 1 acre	 High Priority 2B 

Leafy spurge Medium 7.51 acres2 High Priority 2B 

Spotted knapweed High 6.64 acres2 Medium Priority 2B 

Dalmatian toadflax Low <5 plants	 High Priority 2B 

St. Johnswort Medium 15.2 acres2 Medium Priority 2B 

Sulfur cinquefoil Low 0.06 acre2	 High Priority 2B 

Common tansy High 28.89 acres2, 3 Medium Priority 2B 

Oxeye daisy Medium 6.43 acres2 Medium Priority 2B 

Houndstongue High 48.33 acres2, 3 

High 

Priority 2B 

Yellow toadflax Medium 1.48 acres2, 3 Medium Priority 2B 

Cheatgrass High 26.74 acres2, 3 Low	 Priority 3—regulated plant with potential to have significant impacts, may not 

be intentionally spread or sold 

Musk thistle High 70 acres3	 Medium n/a 

Italian bugloss Medium 2.97 acres2 High n/a 

Teasel Low 0.5 acre3	 Medium n/a 

Kochia High 7 acres3	 Medium n/a 

Reed canarygrass High 200 acres3	 Low n/a 

1	 Sources: Montana Department of Agriculture 2010; U.S. Department of Agriculture 2010. 2	 Estimated acreage of infestation (treated and untreated) within areas surveyed based on USFWS, Montana Invasive Species 

Strike Team 2009; additional infestations may occur within unsurveyed areas. 3 

 Acreage is estimated.
 

Additional source: unpublished refuge data.
 

CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 79 

through (1) the air via bacteria shed from seed kernels 

or insects, (2) an infected organism’s feather dust or 

feces, or (3) through other contact. While these are the 

only two diseases documented in this area, there may 

be impacts on the refuge in the future from unknown 

or emerging contaminants or diseases. 

Highly pathogenic avian influenza has not yet been 

documented in North America, but because of the serious health risks to humans and domestic fowl, the 

Service has entered into an interagency agreement 

to develop an early detection system should this influenza migrate to the continent. Additionally, in 2006 

the refuge completed a “Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan.” This plan will be 

reviewed annually and updated as new information 

becomes available. 

Since 2006, the refuge has collaborated with MFWP 

to sample for avian influenza. More than 200 samples 

(obtained through cloacal and pharyngeal swabbing 

of hunter-killed ducks) were collected. All of these 

samples tested negative for highly pathogenic avian 

influenza. Another avian influenza testing effort was 

led by the University of California, Los Angeles and 

the Institute for Bird Populations. The goal of this 

project was to determine the pattern, distribution, 

and transmission of various strains of avian influenza 

between migratory and resident species. Neotropical 

migrants and resident passerines were sampled for 

avian influenza in 2007 and 2008 at the refuge bird 

banding station. No highly pathogenic avian influenza 

was documented in refuge birds. 
80 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible 

spongiform encephalopathy that is found in deer and 

elk in North America. Spongiform encephalopathy is 

a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that produces changes in the brain and causes fatal chronic 

weight loss. The main theory of a causative agent is 

the abnormality of a group of proteins called prions. 

These prions infect the host and cause tissue damage 

in the brain, resulting in a “sponge-like” appearance. 

CWD is contagious and can be transmitted directly 

between animals through nose-to-nose contact and 

indirectly through shedding of infectious prions into 

the environment that are later ingested by healthy 

animals (U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife 

Health Center 2007). All 48 contiguous states have 

some form of CWD surveillance in place, and CWD 

has been found in Montana but only on deer game 

farms. It is anticipated that CWD will appear in wild 

populations because it is documented in the neighboring states of South Dakota and Wyoming. The refuge 

completed a “Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance 

and Contingency Plan” in 2005. Beginning in 2014, this 

plan will be reviewed annually and updated as new 

information becomes available. 

Contaminants 

Concerns about links between mining-related contaminants in river sediment and their occurrence in nesting 

osprey prompted scientists to study the refuge and 

other areas throughout the Clark Fork River Basin 

(Langner et al. 2011). The refuge participated in this 

3-year research project conducted between 2006 and 

2009 by the University of Montana. The Bitterroot 

River was used as a control site, including the stretch 

alongside the refuge. The study tested mercury levels 

from several sources: river sediments, aquatic invertebrates, trout, and blood and feathers from osprey 

chicks. Osprey were chosen as subjects in this study 

as they are regarded as indicators of aquatic ecosystem health. Chicks were sampled because virtually 

all of their biomass grew from consumption of local 

fish, thus reflecting local environmental conditions. 

One of the discoveries made during this study was 

that osprey chicks within and downstream of the refuge had elevated mercury levels. In the Lee Metcalf 

Refuge Bitterroot River reach, the mercury concentration of the fine-grain sediment is relatively low; 

nevertheless, the blood analysis showed elevated methylmercury levels in refuge osprey chicks. Methylmercury is extremely toxic, and it bioaccumulates—that 

is, increases in toxicity as it moves up the food chain. 

Methylation occurs when elemental mercury enters 

the water and is taken up by bacteria that convert it 

to methylmercury in anaerobic conditions (Langner et 

al. 2011). Many of the sampled chicks from the refuge 

were in nests alongside wetland impoundments. The 

wetland impoundments likely enhance methylation 

rates and mercury biomagnification within the aquatic 

food web (Langner 2011). Static water levels can create anaerobic conditions that promote methylation. 

The resulting methylmercury is moved through the 

food chain, eventually reaching osprey and other top 

predators such as otter. This could be a cause of the 

20-year decline in chicks fledged on the refuge from 

a peak of 40 in 1988 to 9 in 2007 (figure 21). Alternatively, osprey populations may also be responding to 

availability of snags and appropriate habitat following 

wetland impoundment creation and then the maturing 

of these habitats. The study proposed that the source 

of this mercury is likely not from local mining but from 

atmospheric deposition (Langner et al. 2011). 

Other contaminant concerns on the refuge are 

pharmaceuticals and nutrients (which enter the refuge 

ground water from the many subdivisions adjacent to 

the refuge), acid rain, and residual pesticides. 

4.3 State and Federally listed 

Species 

The Service has not documented any current candidate or federally listed species under the Endangered 

Species Act using any lands or water within the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. Many of the species found within the 

refuge have been designated as species of concern by 

MFWP and the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

(Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009) or as birds 

of conservation concern by the Service (USFWS 2008). 

SPECiES oF ConCERn 

According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program, species of concern are native animals breeding in Montana that are considered to be at risk due 

to their declining population trends, threats to their 

habitats, or restricted distribution (Montana Natural 

Heritage Program 2009). The Service identifies birds of 

conservation concern as migratory and nonmigratory 

birds of the United States and its territories that have 

Bull trout, a threatened species, are not found in refuge 

waters, but once crossed the refuge to spawning grounds. 

Jim Mogen / USFWS 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 81 

declining populations, naturally or human-caused small 

ranges or population sizes, threats to their habitat, or 

other threats. Bird species considered for inclusion 

on this Federal list include non-gamebirds, gamebirds without hunting seasons, subsistence-hunted 

non-gamebirds in Alaska, birds that are candidates 

or proposed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act, and birds that recently have 

been removed from a Federal listing (USFWS 2008). 

Some of these Federal birds of conservation concern 

are not listed as State species of concern (for example, 

the horned grebe). This Federal species list covers the 

entire Northern Rockies, not just Montana; therefore, 

the species may not be imperiled in Montana and not 

warrant listing as a State species of concern. This 

designation helps stimulate coordinated and proactive 

conservation actions among Federal, State, tribal, and 

private partners. 

A total of 42 wildlife State species of concern and 21 

Federal birds of conservation concern have been found 

in the Bitterroot Valley (USFWS 2008). These wildlife species are identified on the State and/or Federal 

lists as species that require special attention to prevent them from becoming threatened or endangered. 

All but eight of these species have been documented 

using the refuge. There are also two plant species of 

concern found on or near the refuge, Guadalupe waternymph and shining flatsedge. 

The State forest and grassland bird species of concern that have been recorded on Lee Metcalf Refuge 

are peregrine falcon, black swift, burrowing owl, great 

gray owl, Lewis’s woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, 

Clark’s nutcracker, loggerhead shrike, black-and-white 

warbler, LeConte’s sparrow, and bobolink. There are 

also three documented mammal State species of concern on the refuge: hoary bat, fringed myotis, and 

Townsend’s big eared bat. A damselfly, the boreal 

bluet, and an amphibian, the boreal toad, are also species of concern that have been recorded on the refuge. 

Lewis’s woodpecker has been documented on the refuge. 

Dave Menke / USFWS 

The State wetland bird species of concern that have 

been recorded on the refuge are common loon, American white pelican, American bittern, black-crowned 

night-heron, white-faced ibis, trumpeter swan, bald 

eagle, long-billed curlew, Franklin’s gull, black tern, 

common tern, Caspian tern, and Forster’s tern. 

The bull trout is federally listed as threatened 

and historically used North Burnt Fork Creek, which 

traverses through the refuge, as passage to spawning grounds. Although it has not been documented on 

the refuge, there is a population off the refuge in the 

upper reaches of North Burnt Fork Creek in the Sapphire Mountains. On September 30, 2010, the Service 

designated 18,795 miles of streams and 488,252 acres 

of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 

Montana, and Nevada as critical habitat for the wideranging native fish. The Bitterroot River and North 

Burnt Fork Creek are both located within this designated area. This designation and the status of the bull 

trout emphasize the need for coordination with other 

efforts to restore this critical habitat including special 

consideration in management of refuge resources. 

Table 8 lists State species of concern and Federal 

birds of conservation concern that have been found in 

the Bitterroot Valley and on the refuge. 

Table 8. montana listed species of concern and Federal birds of conservation concern recorded in the Bitterroot 

valley and on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Federal birds of Species State species of concern1 Recorded using the refuge3 

conservation concern2 

Boreal toad4 X n/a X 

Trumpeter swan X — X 

Common loon X — X 

Horned grebe — X X 

Clark’s grebe X — X 

American white pelican X — X 

American bittern4 X X X 

Great blue heron X — X 

Black-crowned night-heron X — X 

Bald eagle X X X 
Table 8. montana listed species of concern and Federal birds of conservation concern recorded in the Bitterroot 

valley and on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Federal birds of Species State species of concern1 Recorded using the refuge3 

conservation concern2 

Northern goshawk X — X
 

Swainson’s hawk — X X
 

Golden eagle X X X
 

Peregrine falcon X X X
 

Prairie falcon — X X
 

Long-billed curlew X X X
 

Marbled godwit4 — X X
 

Short-billed dowitcher — X X
 

Franklin’s gull X — X
 

Forster’s tern X — X
 

Black tern X — X
 

Caspian tern X — X
 

Common tern X — X
 

Least tern X — X
 

Black-billed cuckoo X X X
 

Burrowing owl X X X
 

Short-eared owl — X X
 

Great gray owl X — X
 

Flammulated owl X X X
 

Black swift X X X
 

Calliope hummingbird — X X
 

Lewis’s woodpecker4 X X X 

Pileated woodpecker X — X
 

Willow flycatcher4 — X X
 

Olive-sided flycatcher — X X
 

Loggerhead shrike X X X
 

Pinyon jay X — X
 

Brown creeper4 X — X 

Winter wren X — X
 

Veery X — X 

Sage thrasher X X X
 

LeConte’s sparrow X — X
 

Bobolink4 X — X 

Fringed myotis X n/a X
 

Townsend’s big-eared bat X n/a X
 

Hoary bat4 X n/a X
 

Bull trout5 X n/a — 

Boreal bluet X n/a X
 

Boreal whiteface X n/a X
 

Shining flatsedge X n/a X
 

Guadalupe water-nymph X n/a X
 

1 Source: Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009.
 2 Source: USFWS 2008. 4 Proposed target species for refuge management.
 3 Source: unpublished refuge data, includes casual sightings. 5 Listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act as threatened.
 

82 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 83 

4.4 Cultural Resources and 

History 

The following section describes the cultural resources 

and history of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, 

starting with the earliest documented occupation by 

Native Americans circa 12–15,000 years before present 

(B.P.). It then discusses Euro-American settlement in 

the valley and changes to the area’s land uses, including those within the refuge boundary. 

PREHiSToRiC oCCUPATion 

The cultural sequence for prehistoric occupation in 

this area is split into three major subdivisions based 

on Malouf (1956) including Early Hunter (10,000 to 

6,000 before Christ [B.C.]), Middle Period (6,000 B.C. 

to Anno Domini [A.D.] 800), and Late Hunter (A.D. 

800 to 1870). 

Early Hunter 

Woodside (2008) examined oral histories and other 

documentation to propose the presence of Paleo-Indians in Oregon and Washington prior to the flooding of 

Glacial Lake Missoula. Paleo-Indians, or Paleoamericans, is a classification term given to the first peoples 

who entered, and subsequently inhabited, the North 

American continent during the final glacial episodes 

of the late Pleistocene period. Woodside examined the 

Native American oral history of tribes in Oregon and 

Washington that described the cataclysmic flooding of 

Glacial Lake Missoula and how the tribes survived this 

event, dating about 15,000 years ago. Her research 

did cover other areas impacted by Glacial Lake Missoula, including the refuge. Ryan (1977) recovered 

two Cascade Points (projectiles) while performing 

archaeological research along the Clark Fork River 

west of Missoula. These points are indicative of this 

period and definitive evidence of Paleo-Indian presence. Ryan hypothesized that the Clark Fork Valley 

was an important corridor connecting the Columbian 

Plateau and the Northern Plains. Ryan also found an 

abundance of sites containing prehistoric activity. 

Alternately, Ward (1973) found a small number of archaeological sites in the Bitterroot Valley; many were 

pictographs only and not considered evidence of this 

period, nor did they date to this period of time. 

middle Period 

Glacial Lake Missoula receded about 12,000 B.P., according to Alt (2001). Eventually native people occupied the new valleys formed by this event. Ward 

(1973) searched the Bitterroot Valley for middle prehistoric evidence of occupation. She found 19 sites no 

older than 5,000 B.P. None contained the traditional 

pottery, roasting pits, tipi rings, battle pits, rock piles, 

or fishing gear associated with this time period. Many 

had pictographs, which connect site occupation to the 

middle period. Ward refers to other work including 

that done in 1951 by Carling Malouf and his University 

of Montana archaeology class who found jasper and 

flint chips at the mouth of the North Burnt Fork Creek 

(a small occupation site on the refuge) (Malouf 1952). 

late Hunter 

Malouf (1952) notes that in A.D. 1730 the Shoshoni 

of Idaho gave horses to the Salish of this area. This 

significantly changed the culture of the Salish people. 

Malouf stated that the Salish have occupied western 

Montana for several centuries dating back at least A.D. 

1700. He cites tribal myths of animals that occupied 

this area, specifically coyote, beaver, otter, jay, and owl. 

Protohistoric and Early native Americans 

The protohistoric period is the period of time between the arrival of horses and manufactured goods 

but before the arrival of Euro-American traders and 

explorers. This time period lasted only about 70 years 

due to the arrival of the Lewis and Clark expedition 

in 1805. Malouf (1952) noted that these intermountain 

areas of western Montana were the last areas of the 

United States to be settled by whites. Many traits of 

aboriginal times survived through this period without 

influence from Euro-American culture. 

When early Euro-American explorers arrived, the 

area of western Montana was occupied primarily by 

three tribal groups: the Flathead and Pend d’Oreille 

(both considered Salish) and the Kutenai. In 1855, 

Governor Isaac Stevens stated the tribal population 

in western Montana to be 2,750 (Ryan 1977). In an 

unpublished University of Montana paper, Malouf 

(1952) reconstructed economy and land use by these 

tribes in western Montana using ethnographical and 

historical data. 

All tribes were hunters and gatherers, and as such 

they did not allow for the accumulation of surplus food 

and supplies. However, famines were rare. Approximately 28 species of plants were the main sources of 

foods, medicines, cookware, and housing. The root of 

the bitterroot plant was a central dietary feature. One 

of the best places to dig the root was a mere 3 miles 

north of the refuge boundary at the mouth of Eight 

Mile Creek. Families could dig 50–70 pounds of bitterroot in late March or April. Arrowleaf balsamroot, an 

abundant plant in most elevations of western Montana, 

was also extensively eaten. Stems were typically peeled 

and eaten raw before flowering, and later roots were 

harvested and cooked. Ponderosa pine provided four 

forms of food: inner bark, sap between woody layers, 

cone nuts, and moss hanging from branches. Narrow 

leaf willow, a pioneer species on river gravel bars, was 

used in the construction of sweat lodges and baskets 

for cooking (sealed with gum). Most of the common 

mammals present today in western Montana were 

hunted including white-tailed deer and mule deer. 
84 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Columbian ground squirrel, which is still abundant in 

places on the refuge, was also harvested. Woodchuck 

Creek, about 5 miles north of the refuge, was a site 

where Salish regularly used dead fall traps to harvest 

marmots. Most birds were not harvested except waterfowl, yet mallard eggs were particularly plentiful 

and popular. Other gamebirds were not numerous. 

Fishing was employed on bison hunts and by those 

left behind when these bison hunt parties were gone. 

The place name for Missoula refers to the bull trout 

caught there. 

The vicinity of Stevensville was the center of social 

and economic life for the Salish. Most tributaries in the 

Bitterroot Valley had one or more families inhabiting 

it. The alluvial fan at the mouth of North Burnt Fork 

Creek (partially on refuge property) was also home 

for a considerable number of Salish families. JoAnn 

BigCrane, a Native American historian, visited this 

part of the refuge in August 1990 (refuge annual narrative) and agreed that a seasonal encampment was 

here at one time. North Burnt Fork Creek doubled 

as a highway of sorts for Native American travel to 

the Clark Fork Valley over the Sapphire/Rock Creek 

divide. This was the shortest route requiring only one 

night of camping. 

HiSToRy oF THE SAliSH 

The Salish–Pend d’Oreille Culture Committee furnished the following narrative for use on the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge Web site. 

The Bitterroot Mountain range is the backbone 

of the valley. The Salish call the Bitterroot 

Mountains “VCk Welk Welqey” which means 

“the tops are red.” The life way of the Salish 

people is a cooperative dependent relationship 

with the land, plants, and animals. 

Salish is the name of a group of people, consisting of several tribes, and the language they 

spoke. The Bitterroot Valley was the permanent 

home of their forefathers. The Stevensville 

vicinity was their main winter camp. 

After the Hellgate Treaty of 1855, pressure 

increased for the removal of the Salish from the 

Bitterroot to the Jocko Valley on the Flathead 

Reservation. In 1872, General James Garfield 

presented the three Salish Chiefs Charlo, 

Arlee, and Adolf, with a second treaty which 

Charlo refused to sign. Charlo remained in the 

Bitterroot for 20 more years until he and his 

band were escorted from the valley by General Carrington in October 1891. 

The respect and love for the Bitterroot can 

be summed up in the words of Louise Vanderburg, a Salish elder: 

“When we go home I think about our old people. 

I walk lightly when I walk around. The bones 

of my Grandparents and their Grandparents 

are all around here. We return to the Bitterroot each year on a Pilgramage to honor our 

connection with our homeland. Also to ensure 

the preservation of our ancestors’ graves and 

sacred sites. In doing so we acknowledge the 

gifts left here by those who have gone on before 

us, gifts of language, songs, dance, spirituality. This way of life has been sustained for 

generations by our ancestors’ prayers.” 

EURo-AmERiCAn SETTlEmEnT And lAnd USE 

CHAngES 

The Bitterroot Valley was used by the first Euro-American explorers to the western United States, including 

Lewis and Clark. Following the Lewis and Clark expedition, fur traders from the Hudson’s Bay Company 

entered the Bitterroot Valley to secure furs from the 

Indians and establish forts and missions. The oldest 

consistently occupied town in Montana was initially 

established at the present day site of Stevensville by 

Catholic missionaries in 1841 (Stevensville Historical 

Society 1971). At the request of four separate Indian 

delegations from the Salish tribe, Father Pierre De 

Smet came to the valley from St. Louis in the late 

1830s. De Smet and other priests were eventually 

joined by Father Anthony Ravalli in 1845. Named 

St. Mary’s Mission, this community kindled additional 

settlement in the region. St. Mary’s Mission was closed 

in 1850, and the community was renamed Fort Owen, 

and then later Stevensville, after Isaac Stevens, the 

first Governor of the Montana territory. 

The primary early land use by settlers in the Bitterroot Valley was cattle grazing. By 1841 extensive 

areas of the valley were grazed and used for winter 

range as cattle were moved from summer grazing and 

calving locations in mountain slopes and foothills back 

into the valley in the fall (Clary et al. 2005). 

In the mid-1850s, the discovery of gold in western 

Montana fueled immigration to the State, and a short 

flurry of gold exploration and mining occurred in the 

Bitterroot Valley. Early workers in the gold camps 

subsisted on wild meat and the importation of produce, 

meat, and dairy products. At this time some residents 

began growing vegetable crops to feed the miners, and 

this demand stimulated the first agricultural development in the Bitterroot Valley. Subsequently, the Bitterroot Valley became the “breadbasket” that nourished 

Montana’s genesis, and Fort Owen was the nucleus of 

the first Euro-American settlement. Gold exploration 

was short-lived in the Bitterroot region, and by the 

1870s the area’s economy was almost solely based on 

local agricultural crops and cattle production. Ravalli 

County was created in 1893, and by 1914 extensive 

settlement had occurred in the region. Timber harvest 

and grazing were the predominant economic uses of 

the area at that time (Clary et al. 2005). 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 85 

The dry climate of the Bitterroot Valley created 

annual variation in the availability of water to support agricultural crops. As early as 1842, priests at 

St. Mary’s Mission successfully planted and irrigated 

crops of wheat, potatoes, and oats (Stevensville Historical Society 1971), and thus by appropriation, the 

first water right in Montana was established. A water 

right on the North Burnt Fork Creek was filed in 1852 

by Major John Owen, who used creek water to run a 

grist mill and sawmill. 

Two methods of water appropriation occur in Montana. The first—used by early settlers, miners, and 

mill operators—applies the “relation back” rule of 

law, meaning that the right is dated to the beginning 

of construction of a ditch or a means to use the water 

in a so-called “beneficial” way. The second method involves posting a POD on a creek or other drainage and 

filing notices in the courthouse. A stream inevitably 

becomes over-appropriated when many people and 

industries make demands on it. Over-appropriation 

usually ends in “quick frozen” or “decreed” action, 

and adjudication of a stream becomes necessary when 

rights are conflicting. 

In the early 1900s, the Bitterroot Valley Irrigation 

Company (formerly the Dinsmore Irrigation and Development Company) began construction of a major 

irrigation system for the Bitterroot Valley (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1939, 1982; Stevensville Historical 

Society 1971). This system included water storage and 

conveyance facilities along the Bitterroot River and 

its tributaries as well as several reservoirs, including 

Lake Como west of Darby, and a diversion dam on Rock 

Creek. In 1905 the existing dam at Lake Como was 

raised 50 feet, and by the winter of 1906, 17 miles of 

canals were built to convey Lake Como water northward in the Bitterroot Valley. Eventually, a channel 

was built from Lake Como to the Bitterroot River, at 

which point it was reverse siphoned into a 24-foot-wide 

canal, capable of carrying water 6 feet deep. Water 

was then flumed across several small gulches, across 

Sleeping Child Valley, and around the foothills for 75 

miles to the Eight Mile Creek east of Florence. By 

1909, 56 miles of canal had been built northward to 

North Burnt Fork Creek. Subsequently about 14,000 

acres of cropland were sold, and irrigation water was 

delivered to the acreage. The company’s Main Supply 

Canal (known as the “Big Ditch”) was originally constructed to primarily deliver water to apple orchards. 

The canal, however, was only able to supply about half 

an inch of water per acre, which was barely enough 

to support fruit trees and only about half enough for 

other crops. The land was bought by local farmers and 

then re-sold in promotional schemes to eastern families 

for mainly apple production. Limited water and poor 

yields collapsed orchard production, and by 1918 the 

Bitterroot Valley Irrigation Company went bankrupt. 

In 1920, a reorganized Bitterroot Irrigation District was formed, and it issued bonds to purchase 

water rights and to develop water storage and distribution works. Drought conditions in the late 1920s 

and 1930s coupled with the Depression-era economics 

further exacerbated water problems in the valley and 

curtailed agricultural expansion in the region during 

this period (Cappious 1939, Stevensville Historical 

Society 1971). Following further financial difficulty, 

in 1930 Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to liquidate private indebtedness and rehabilitate the Bitterroot Irrigation District (U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation 1939). Extensive rehabilitation to the 

district’s Main Supply Canal and its distribution system was conducted from 1963 to 1967. Flood damage 

occurred in 1974, and extensive repairs were made 

on many structures. Currently the Bitterroot Irrigation District provides water to about 16,665 acres on 

the east side of the Bitterroot River (U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation 1982). 

Today, the Bitterroot Irrigation District’s Main 

Supply Canal runs 1 mile east of the Lee Metcalf Refuge; however, it does not supply water to the refuge. 

Instead, irrigation water is supplied by the Supply 

Ditch Association, a private company formed in 1909. 

The association’s Supply Ditch delivers Bitterroot 

River water to the refuge via three lateral ditches: the 

North Lateral Ditch (also called the Alleman Ditch), 

the Middle Lateral Ditch (also called the McElhaney 

Ditch), and the South Lateral Ditch (also called the 

Warburton Ditch) (figure 23). 

Most of the Bitterroot Valley was unfenced in the 

early era of settlement from 1850 to 1910. However, in 

the early 1900s, the “apple boomers” who bought land 

in the valley began fencing most of the area. By the 

mid-1930s, more than 50,000 sheep and 30,000 cattle 

were present in the Bitterroot Valley; only about 22 

percent of the valley was harvested cropland (Richey 

1998). In the late 1940s and early 1950s generally wet 

conditions stimulated agricultural production in the 

Bitterroot Valley. Large-scale cattle grazing and haying operations and some small grain farming were 

conducted in and near the Lee Metcalf Refuge. Some 

native riparian forest and grassland in the Lee Metcalf Refuge region had been cut, cleared, and/or converted to alternate land uses by the mid-1900s. Two 

of the larger minor floodplain channels, Nickerson and 

McPherson Creeks (now called Ditches), were partly 

ditched in the early 1900s, and some minor impoundment of low elevation depressions and drainages occurred. By the 1960s, lands that became part of the 

refuge were controlled by about 13 landowners who 

heavily cropped and grazed the area. Much of the site 

was irrigated crop and pastureland using the extensive ditch and irrigation diversion system constructed 

across the floodplain (figure 23). These impounded 

ponds probably were created as water sources for 
86 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 23. Proposed land use and drainage and irrigation infrastructure on lee metcalf national Wildlife 

Refuge in the 1960s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 87 

livestock. Another development—a golf course—was 

established in 1933 within the southwest side of what 

became the refuge. It still exists today. 

Many roads have been built in the Bitterroot Valley 

starting with a stage coach road in 1867 (Stevensville 

Historical Society 1971). This route eventually became 

Highway 93. Part of the main county road through the 

refuge follows the existing road shown on the 1873 plat 

map. Other early roads in the area were constructed 

from 1870 to 1900. These roads skirted higher ground 

and avoided the river, but eventually bridges were 

built across the Bitterroot River beginning in the late 

1800s. These bridges were often destroyed by high 

water levels and floods. 

The Bitterroot Branch of the Northern Pacific Railroad was constructed from Missoula to Grantsdale in 

1889 and soon thereafter was extended to Darby. This 

rail line was built primarily to transport timber from 

the slopes of the Bitterroot Mountains and sawmills 

that sprang up all along the west side of the valley. Rail 

spurs connected mills, and eventually logging and mills 

expanded to the east side of the valley. Transporting 

lumber from the east side of the valley eventually led 

to the construction of rail bridge crossings over the 

Bitterroot River including the bridge and line at the 

northern boundary of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. In the 

high waters of June 1943, this bridge collapsed under 

the weight of a train loaded with logs. In 1927 and 1928, 

the railroad was relocated from south of Florence to 

the east side of the river. 

By the late 1970s, farm sizes in the Bitterroot 

Valley increased greatly, but agricultural economies 

prevented more extensive small grain farming in the 

valley and landowners began subdividing holdings for 

residential development (Richey 1998). By the early 

1990s, Ravalli County had the fastest growing population and residential expansion in Montana, expanding from about 25,000 residents in 1990 to more than 

40,000 in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Today, most 

Ravalli County residents live on the Bitterroot Valley floor within a few miles of the river. Much of the 

increase in population occurred outside of established 

towns and became concentrated in areas where each 

dwelling or subdivision has its own well and septic 

system. Several hundred residential structures now 

essentially surround Lee Metcalf Refuge (figure 24). 

Whaley Homestead (national Register of Historic 

Places) 

The Whaley Homestead, which was included as part 

of a major land acquisition by the refuge in 1988, is 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

The Whaley Homestead was home to the family of 

Peter Whaley, an Irish immigrant who came to Montana in the 1860s, lured by gold strikes at Bannack and 

Alder Gulch. Whaley’s wife, Hannah, and their nine 

children shared his adventures, including his service 

as the first agent on the Flathead Reservation, until 

the family settled on deserted land claimed in 1877. 

The house, built circa 1885, survives as an outstanding 

example of vernacular frontier architecture. Weatherboard siding conceals a massive, complicated understructure of square-hewn logs. 

The Whaley family farmed and raised livestock 

until 1905 when they sold the property to a shortlived horse breeding operation. At the height of the 

“apple boom” in 1909, the Bitterroot Valley Irrigation 

Company purchased the homestead, planting the upper fields with McIntosh apple trees and gooseberry 

bushes for nursery stock. 

In 1921 new owners Fred and Anna Hagen returned 

the homestead to a self-sufficient farm, raising corn, 

potatoes, hogs, and dairy cows. After more than 50 

years of farming, they sold the land to the refuge and 

their son, Harold, and his wife remained there until 

1988. During the 1979 ceremony renaming the refuge 

in Senator Lee Metcalf’s honor, Harold Hagen waxed 

philosophical of the agricultural practices on the family farm that became refuge property: “I believe that 

we have attempted to mold the land to our ideas, to 

what it should produce when the land should have 

shaped our ideas and dictated to us what it could best 

produce” (refuge files). 

4.5 Special management 

Areas 

Areas with official designations are managed to retain 

the special features that led to their designation. While 

not suitable for inclusion in the Wilderness System, the 

Lee Metcalf Refuge has been identified as a significant 

part of the Bitterroot Valley Important Bird Area. 

WildERnESS REviEW 

A wilderness review is the process used for determining whether to recommend Service lands or waters to 

Congress for designation as wilderness. The Service 

is required to conduct a wilderness review for each 

refuge as part of the CCP process. Lands or waters 

that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness would 

be identified in a CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they merit recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. To be designated as 

wilderness, land must meet certain criteria as outlined 

in the Wilderness Act of 1964: 

■■ generally appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of human 

work substantially unnoticeable 

■■ has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation 
88 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Figure 24. location of residential structures near lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana (Heitmeyer et al. 

2010). 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 89 

■■ has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient 

size to make practicable its preservation and use 

in an unimpaired condition 

■■ may also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value 

The refuge is only 2,800 acres and is altered by roads, 

ditches and levees. The refuge is also bordered by 

private land that has been developed for agriculture 

or housing. Although the refuge does provide visitors with opportunities for solitude and educational 

and scenic value, overall the refuge does not meet the 

criteria for wilderness designation and is not being 

recommended for inclusion in the Wilderness System. 

imPoRTAnT BiRd AREA 

The Important Bird Areas program, initiated in Montana in 1999, is a global effort managed by the National 

Audubon Society to identify and conserve areas vital 

to birds and biodiversity. To date 39 sites have been 

designated as Important Bird Areas in Montana, encompassing more than 10 million acres of outstanding 

wildlife habitat, including streams and wetlands. To 

qualify as an important bird area, sites must satisfy 

at least one of the following criteria to support the 

following types of bird species groups: 

■■ species of conservation concern (for example, 

threatened and endangered species) 

■■ restricted-range species (species vulnerable because they are not widely distributed) 

■■ species that are vulnerable because their populations are concentrated in one general habitat type 

or biome 

■■ species or groups of similar species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds) that are vulnerable because 

they occur at high densities due to their behavior 

of congregating in groups 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is part of the Bitterroot Important Bird Area, one of the largest riparian and wetland Important Bird Areas in the State, and part of an 

Important Bird Area network crucial for bird survival 

throughout the year. The boundaries of the entire Bitterroot Important Bird Area were made to correspond 

closely to the 500-year floodplain, and the northern 

and southern extent of the area was decided based 

on wanting to capture the most extensive cottonwood 

gallery forest that was present. Lee Metcalf Refuge 

is a cornerstone of the Bitterroot River Important 

Bird Area. From the cottonwood galleries to willow 

shrubland, extensive wetlands, and valley bottom coniferous forests patches, all key valley habitats come 

together on this refuge to provide great bird species 

richness. The Important Bird Area documentation 

notes that more than 30 species of waterfowl, 20 species of shorebirds, and 20 species of riparian obligate 

bird species, plus marshbirds, terns, and gulls are 

found on the refuge. 

4.6 visitor Services 

Visitors to the Lee Metcalf Refuge enjoy a variety of 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use activities: 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

The Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge office and 

visitor contact area are open Monday–Saturday, 8:00 

a.m.–4:30 p.m. The remaining areas open to the public can be accessed from dawn to dusk, except during 

hunting season when hunters are allowed reasonable 

time to access hunting areas. Brochures containing 

area maps, public use regulations, wildlife checklists, 

and general information are available to the public at 

the visitor contact area or the WVA kiosk. 

HUnTing And FiSHing 

The refuge is open to waterfowl hunting and archeryonly hunting for white-tailed deer, both of which have 

occurred on the refuge since 1965 (USFWS 1966, refuge narratives). 

A refuge hunting and fishing brochure was developed and printed in 2010. In addition to the site-specific 

regulations mentioned in the hunting brochure, all 

State of Montana hunting regulations apply to Service 

lands. All entry to refuge hunting areas is restricted 

to five specific parking areas, and all hunter parking 

areas have sign-in boxes to collect harvest data. A kiosk in the parking lot for the waterfowl hunting area 

provides refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulations and information. 

White-Tailed deer Archery Hunting 

The refuge is located in a State hunting district that 

only permits white-tailed deer to be harvested using 

a bow, also known as archery hunting. The earliest 

reference to archery hunting for deer on the refuge is 

found in the “Wildlife Inventory Plan” (USFWS 1966), 

Youth participating in hunter safety course. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
90 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

which states that controlled archery hunts were taking place on the refuge but only in the river bottom. 

Today, 82 percent of the refuge (2,275 acres) land is 

open to archery hunting for deer. Hunters sign in at 

each of the five parking and access sites and may use 

tree stands. Archery hunting in the waterfowl hunt 

area (see restricted archery deer hunting area in figure 6) is permitted in September except during the 

youth waterfowl hunt weekend; thereafter, archery 

hunting is permitted during waterfowl hunting season on Mondays and Thursdays. An average of 949 

archery visits have occurred annually between 2005 

and 2010 (refuge unpublished data), and the trend 

is moving upward. The highest documented usage 

was in the 2009–2010 season at 1,321 hunt visits. An 

analysis of harvest data collected between 2000 and 

2009 revealed an average of 891 visits annually totaling 2,318 hours and resulting in an average harvest 

of 32 deer per year. 

In 1966, the population of white-tailed deer was 

“about 10 head” (USFWS 1966). In the 1980s, refuge 

staff began to observe that parts of the refuge were 

being overbrowsed, resulting in fewer shrubs and 

little understory in forested areas, both of which are 

important habitat components for a variety of migratory bird species. It is suspected that the larger 

number of deer (100–300 deer between 2001 and 2005) 

(unpublished refuge data) residing on the refuge today may be the cause; however, additional data will 

be needed to make this determination. 

Waterfowl Hunting 

The size of the waterfowl hunting area has remained 

fairly consistent at 654 acres. In 1983 the refuge established 28 hunting blinds within this area. Today 

14 blinds remain and 2 blinds (numbers 2 and 7) are 

reserved for hunters with Montana disability licenses. 

Hunters with disabilities are allowed to park near 

these blinds along Wildfowl Lane. All other hunters 

must enter and exit through the waterfowl hunt area 

parking lot. Waterfowl hunters may only possess and 

use nontoxic shot on refuge lands and waters when 

hunting waterfowl. From 2005 to 2010, an average 

of 1,029 waterfowl hunting visits occurred annually. 

Between 2000 and 2009, the average waterfowl harvest was 786 birds per year from an average of 1,299 

annual hunt visits totaling 4,111 hours. Refuge staff 

meet with duck hunters each year to discuss the upcoming season and address issues to improve the 

quality of the hunt. 

Fishing 

Refuge anglers must adhere to the fishing regulations 

designated by MFWP. Designated fishing sites are 

located in the WVA (figure 6) and include Francois 

Slough and the Bitterroot River shoreline. A fishing 

platform is located along the paved Metcalf Trail at a 

water control structure that moves water from Francois 

Slough to the Bitterroot River. The area where Francois Slough intersects the Bitterroot River provides 

shallow water habitat with a solid gravel bottom that 

is used for fly fishing. 

There are no boat launches within the refuge. However, people can float and fish the part of the Bitterroot River that passes through the refuge, but they 

must remain below the high watermark and must not 

access the refuge from the river. 

It is difficult to obtain an accurate count on the 

number of anglers. In recent years fishing seems to 

be less popular within the WVA and Francois Slough. 

WildliFE oBSERvATion And PHoTogRAPHy 

Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography are located at or along the following places: (1) 

the WVA; (2) visitor contact area (3) Kenai Nature 

Trail; and (4) Wildfowl Lane, a county road that runs 

through the refuge (figure 6). Visitors must follow 

refuge regulations to protect wildlife and their habitats while enjoying the opportunity to view and photograph them. 

Commercial filmmakers must acquire a special 

use permit to work on the refuge. Commercial photographers need a permit if they are granted access 

to areas not normally opened to the general public. 

The permit specifies regulations and conditions that 

the permittee must follow to protect the wildlife and 

habitats they have come to capture on film. 

Wildlife viewing Area 

The WVA is about 188 acres and has four pedestrian 

trails that total 2.5 miles: Ponderosa Trail, Metcalf 

Trail, Cottonwood Trail, and Slough Trail (figure 6). 

The trails pass through different vegetation communities, specifically riverfront and gallery forest and 

persistent emergent wetland. This system of trails is 

designated as National Recreation Trail. The first 0.55 

mile of the trail system is known as Metcalf Trail, a 

10-foot-wide paved path that is considered accessible 

for visitors with disabilities. This paved section of trail 

Members of the Audubon Society gather at the refuge to 

spot birds. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 91 

The refuge’s visitor contact area provides interpretation 

of refuge resources. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

starts immediately at the trailhead, located at a large 

parking area, and ends at a turn-around point at the 

refuge’s education pavilion at the edge of the Bitterroot River. Other sections of the trail are soil or gravel. 

Facilities at the trailhead include an information kiosk 

and restroom facilities (“porta-potties”). This area is 

open year-round from dawn to dusk and is probably 

the most popular area with refuge visitors. Parking at 

the trailhead is very spacious; motorhomes or buses 

can easily enter and exit. Dogs on leashes are allowed 

here but not bicycles or horses. 

visitor Contact Area and the Kenai nature Trail 

Visitors are provided a spotting scope to view waterfowl and other waterbirds and raptors on the ponds 

adjacent to the visitor contact area. This is one of the 

most popular wildlife observation and photography 

sites for visitors, including school groups. The visitor 

contact area is just over 500 square feet and provides 

some interpretation of refuge resources, including 

numerous taxidermy displays of local wildlife species. 

The Kenai Nature Trail is a 1.25-mile trail accessed 

just north of the refuge headquarters (figure 6). At 

the start of this trail is a 0.25-mile paved loop that is 5 

feet wide. This part of the trail meets Americans with 

Disabilities Act guidelines. A stationary, all-weather 

spotting scope and viewing bench are also along this 

section of trail. The remaining trail is a soil footpath 

that tracks northward, above and parallel to the eastern shorelines of Ponds 8 and 10 (figure 6). The views 

of the Bitterroot Mountains are spectacular between 

this point and the end of the trail, where a viewing 

platform with an all-weather spotting scope is available. This part of the trail travels through a closed 

area, so visitors are not permitted off this trail and 

no dogs are allowed. 

Two permanent photo blinds are located along the 

Kenai Nature Trail. Blind 1 is located one-third mile 

from the visitor contact area on Pond 8; it sits on the 

edge of 5 acres of open water and marsh land and is 

sheltered to the east by cottonwood, aspen and alder 

trees. Blind 2 is located 1.25 miles from the visitor 

contact area on approximately 85 acres of open water 

on Pond 10. These blinds are positioned on the edge of 

two different wetlands and face open water. Photographers who have regularly contributed photos and 

volunteer time to the refuge helped determine the 

design, construction, and placement of these photo 

blinds. Photographers are gently reminded that subjects and habitats are more important than photographs; nevertheless, there is always the potential 

to disturb wildlife. 

The Kenai Nature Trail traverses the following 

vegetation communities: persistent emergent wetland, floodplain and terrace grassland, and grasslandsagebrush. The plant communities and views differ 

from those in the WVA, offering visitors a different 

wildlife viewing experience. 

Wildfowl lane 

Wildfowl Lane (figure 8) is a Ravalli County road that 

travels almost 3 miles through the southern half of the 

refuge. This road loops through the refuge and connects at both ends to Eastside Highway. It is not an 

official auto tour route, but all refuge visitors use this 

road to access the refuge and view wildlife in the adjoining lands and wetland impoundments. Most of the 

road is gravel, but the southern third is tar and chip 

pavement, and the first 3,200 feet of the east end is 

coated with recycled asphalt chipping. Ravalli County 

is attempting to make the road more maintenance-free 

so that it requires less summer blading and fewer applications of anti-dust chemical. 

A superior feature of this road is the width—greater 

than 33 feet—so motorists can safely pull over and 

view wildlife. Automobiles make great wildlife viewing 

blinds, and with modern optics visitors can easily see 

wildlife from the road, causing minimal disturbance. 

EnviRonmEnTAl EdUCATion 

Environmental education is a process designed to teach 

citizens and other visitors the history and importance 

of conservation and share scientific knowledge of our 

Nation’s natural resources. Through this process, we 

can help develop a citizenry with the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to 

work cooperatively towards the conservation of our 

Nation’s environmental resources. Environmental 

education within the Refuge System incorporates onsite, offsite, and distance learning materials, activities, 

programs, and products that address the audience’s 

course of study, refuge purpose(s), physical attributes, 

ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, and the 

Refuge System mission. The refuge headquarters has 

a conference room (the Okefenokee Room) that can 

be used for larger groups. There is an amphitheater 

and an outdoor pavilion for refuge programs and three 

public restrooms, all within the footprint of the refuge 

headquarters. 
The refuge provides environmental education and 

research opportunities for students from surrounding 

schools and universities. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

92 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Schools 

On average, the refuge hosts 2,309 students annually. 

Students come from communities as far as Darby to 

the south and Ronan to the north. Most students are 

from grades 3 through 5. Most visits occur during May 

and are usually restricted to one visit per year. Since 

2005, the philosophy of the environmental education 

program has centered on introducing students to common, native wildlife of the refuge. The refuge does 

not have a dedicated or formal curriculum for student 

visits. There is no visitor services plan, but one will 

be produced following the completion of this CCP. 

Most onsite environmental education programs 

take place in the area immediately around the refuge headquarters due to the availability of ample 

parking, the Okefenokee Room, visitor contact area, 

restrooms, the outdoor education shelter and amphitheater, habitat diversity, and the Kenai Nature Trail. 

This infrastructure gives staff opportunities and flexibility for providing quality environmental education. 

The Okefenokee Room is especially valuable because 

of its multimedia capabilities; it functions much like 

a formal classroom space. Environmental education 

partner organizations and self-guided teachers and 

school groups also use the WVA. A diverse supply of 

materials and equipment, including a refuge reference 

library, is available for these spaces for use in refuge 

programs or for visiting teachers and students. 

onsite Educators 

The refuge outdoor recreation planner is the only 

staff position dedicated to environmental education. 

However, all refuge staff participate in environmental education activities when possible. Volunteers also 

assist with programs and staffing the visitor contact 

area. Many of these volunteers are self-taught, but 

the refuge works with volunteers in both formal and 

non-formal learning settings to augment their wildlife 

knowledge and associated skills. Without assistance 

from volunteers and partner organizations, the refuge 

could not accommodate the often large groups of students or visitors requesting environmental education 

programs. Nevertheless, there are requests that cannot be met due to a lack of staff. The refuge has been 

investigating the possibility of recruiting skilled naturalists as volunteers at the refuge. 

Teacher Workshops 

Teacher workshops were offered many years during 

the 1990s and in 2006. In 2006 the workshop was based 

on the “Flying Wild Educator’s Guide.” The goal of 

these teacher workshops is to build teachers’ wildlife 

knowledge so they may appreciate and use the refuge 

appropriately for student learning and become selfdirected when using the refuge for environmental 

education. 

off-Refuge Efforts 

Refuge staff have visited local schools and attended 

community organization meetings to perform environmental education, interpretation, and outreach using 

established education kits and programs highlighting 

refuge resources. 

montana Junior duck Stamp Program 

Attendees of the 2011 Montana Junior Duck Stamp 


Award Ceremony gather at the refuge amphitheater.
 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

The refuge outdoor recreation planner is also the 

State coordinator for the Montana Junior Duck Stamp 

program. Both Houses of Congress passed H.R. 3679, 

the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Act 

in 1994. This is a national program managed by the 

Service. Its goals are to connect children with nature 

through science and art. 

A national curriculum is available but is currently 

being updated. Students are asked to depict a North 

American duck, goose, or swan in its natural habitat. 

At the State level, the artwork is then judged by a 

distinguished panel of local wildlife experts, artists and 

photographers and the entry deemed “best of show” 

is sent to Washington, DC to compete at the national 

level. The winner from the Federal competition is then 

made into the Federal Junior Duck Stamp, available 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 93 

for purchase for $5. All proceeds from the sale of the 

Federal Junior Duck Stamps support conservation 

education. Awards include savings bonds, art supplies, 

and various other gifts. 

Nationally, about 25,000 entries are received per 

year. In Montana, the average annual number of participants in kindergarten through grade 12 is 391 

(2000–2010, refuge files). A Montana entry has won 

the national championship twice between 1994 and 

2010. Montana’s best of shows have finished in the 

national top ten in 2009 and 2010, a sign of continued 

excellence by Montana students. 

For program support within Montana, two trunks 

have been developed that contain a variety of waterfowl reference materials; these trunks can be loaned 

to schools. A portable exhibit showcases the program 

and winning entries and is sent to libraries, schools 

and post offices around the state. 

A detailed overview of the program is available at 

www.fws.gov/juniorduck. 

inTERPRETATion 

Interpretation provides opportunities for visitors to 

make their own connections to resources. By providing 

opportunities to connect to the resource, interpretation provokes participation in resource stewardship. 

It helps refuge visitors understand their relationships 

to, and impacts on, those resources. Well-designed interpretive programs can be effective resource management tools. For many visitors, taking part in an 

interpretive program may be their primary contact 

with a refuge, the Refuge System, and the Service. 

It is their chance to learn about refuge resource management objectives and could be their first contact 

with conservation and wildlife. Through such contact, 

the Service has the opportunity to influence visitor 

attitudes about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service and to influence visitor 

behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System. 

Brochures 

Refuge brochures contain area maps, public use regulations, and general information. The current refuge 

brochures are available at the refuge headquarters 

and at the main kiosk of the WVA. 

Most of the public brochures have not been updated 

to meet Service standards, with the exception of the 

new hunting and fishing brochure. Brochures that require updating include the general brochure and the 

wildlife checklist for Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

Kiosks 

There are five kiosks on the refuge that are used to 

interpret refuge resources and provide information to 

visitors including maps and refuge regulations. The 

kiosk at the WVA has three interpretive panels including a location map, general refuge information, wetland 

facts, and habitat management techniques. There is a 

kiosk at each of the entrance points on both the south 

and east end of Wildfowl Lane that primarily highlight 

information about the Refuge System. At the start of 

the Kenai Nature Trail there is a small interpretive 

kiosk primarily used to distribute refuge brochures 

(figure 6). There is also a kiosk in the waterfowl hunting area that provides updated hunting regulations. 

visitor Contact Area 

The refuge has a 513-square-foot visitor contact area 

that provides a small library of books, natural history 

displays (including representations of refuge wildlife), 

interpretive displays, other environmental education 

materials, a small bookstore, and a large screen television. There are many interpretive displays on local 

plant and animal life. The information is updated based 

on the season or changing refuge activities. The refuge 

also has a Web site that provides information about 

resources, programs, and regulations. 

media 

The refuge has a Web site (http://leemetcalf.fws.gov), 

blog, and social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, and 

Flickr) that provide up-to-date information about 

refuge resources, programs, upcoming activities, and 

refuge regulations. Refuge staff provide the three local newspapers with periodic news articles on refuge 

activities and events and informative articles on the 

natural resources found throughout the refuge. 

4.7 management Tools 

In recent years, the Service has manipulated habitat 

using various management tools that are carried out 

under specific, prescribed conditions to meet the needs 

of wildlife. These management tools have included water level manipulation, prescribed burning, and prescriptive grazing or mowing, and cooperative farming. 

WATER lEvEl mAniPUlATion 

The refuge manipulates the water levels in 17 wetland 

impoundments that provide approximately 800 acres 

of open water and mudflats for migratory waterbirds. 

The development of these wetland impoundments began in 1964 when levees and berms were constructed 

to capture and impound water. Water control structures were added to control the inflow and outflow of 

water in attempt to mimic wetland cycles. Water levels 

continue to be timed to the needs of wildlife and the 

season. For example, during the migrating shorebird 

season, water levels are lowered to create mudflats. 

For migratory and breeding waterfowl, water levels 

are raised slowly to create optimum foraging conditions 

and to provide for brood and roosting habitat. Wetland 

impoundments are occasionally drained to improve 

the health and productivity of these impoundments 
A variety of methods are used to control cattails on the 

refuge. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

94 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

for waterbirds. This also allows the opportunity to 

reduce cattail monocultures, thereby restoring open 

water areas. 

PRESCRiBEd BURning 

Prescribed burning is a management tool that has 

been used on the refuge since 1988 to control some 

invasive plant species or undesirable monotypic vegetation stands, particularly cattails. It is also used to 

clear ditches of vegetation that may impede waterflow. 

One of the most widespread uses of prescribed fire on 

the refuge is to rejuvenate grassland vigor. 

Since 2004, the refuge has burned 491 acres to 

improve grassland habitat and 463 acres to improve 

wetlands. Each year 3–5 acres of ditches are burned 

to keep them free of vegetation allowing water to 

travel more freely. 

PRESCRiPTivE gRAzing oR moWing 

Historically, the Bitterroot River Valley was grazed 

and browsed by native ungulates such as white-tailed 

deer, mule deer, moose, and elk. Following EuroAmerican settlement, these valley lands were used for 

cattle grazing, primarily as winter range as cattle were 

moved in the fall from the summer grazing and calving 

locations in the mountain slopes and foothills (Clary 

et al 2005). Cattle grazing on the refuge grasslands 

continued until 1975. Between 1993 and 1997 sheep 

and goats were brought into the refuge in an attempt 

to control cattails and invasive species; however, prescriptive cattle grazing was not consistently used as 

a management tool until 2006. To control monotypic 

stands of cattails in the wetland impoundments, cattle 

were brought in to graze primarily on the young cattail plants. This is one part of a multi-step process of 

thinning cattails. 

CooPERATivE FARming 

Cooperative farming is an arrangement whereby a 

farmer is compensated for planting crops on a refuge 

through keeping a certain percentage of the harvest. 

The refuge can retain its share (1) as standing cover 

for wildlife forage, (2) in exchange for additional work 

from the cooperator such as invasive plant control and 

grass seeding, or (3) in exchange for supplies from 

the cooperator such as herbicides and fence materials. Any income received by the refuge is deposited 

in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. 

Before cooperative farming can take place, the 

refuge manager must issue a cooperative farming 

agreement or a special use permit. Subsequently, 

cooperators are allowed to (1) till, seed, and harvest 

small grain, (2) control invasive plants, or (3) harvest 

hay on the restoration site until native seed can be 

planted and becomes established. These agreements 

are generally issued for 2–4 years to achieve a specific management objective, such as preparing a field 

for restoration to native species. In some cases these 

agreements may extend longer to allow time for the 

establishment of native plants. 

When the refuge was first established, farming was 

used to grow grains including wheat and barley. Historically, the 800 pounds of grain that was harvested 

was sent to Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

to feed wintering swan. Cooperative farming stopped 

in 2002, partly due to the difficulty of finding cooperative farmers and partly due to a trend of restoring 

farmlands to native grasslands. 

While cooperative farming can assist with restoration efforts, unfortunately most of these restoration 

efforts have not succeeded on the refuge, primarily 

due to competition from invasive species. 

4.8 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

Most of the Lee Metcalf Refuge is open to the public 

for uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. These recreational opportunities attract outside visitors and bring in dollars to 

the community. Associated visitor activities—such as 

spending on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging in 

the area—provide local businesses with supplemental 

income and increase the local tax base. Management 

decisions for the refuge about public use, expansion 

of services, and habitat improvement may either increase or decrease refuge visitation and, in turn, affect 

the amount of visitor spending in the local economy. 

PoPUlATion And dEmogRAPHiCS 

The refuge is located approximately 4 miles northeast 

of Stevensville, Montana in Ravalli County. During the 

1990s, Ravalli County was the fastest growing county 

in Montana and became one of the fastest growing 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 95 

counties in the entire United States, as measured 

by percentage change in population. For the period 

from 1990 to 2009, the county’s population increased 

from 25,010 to 40,431—an increase of 62 percent. A 

key factor in the character and change of the Bitterroot Area economy is the county’s proximity to a 

mid-size regional center, the city of Missoula, which 

is located 25 miles to the north in Missoula County. 

During the 1980s, the county of Missoula grew from 

76,016 to 78,687, an increase of only 3.5 percent. However, between 2000 and 2009, Missoula County grew 

by 13.4 percent. 

The communities of the Bitterroot Valley are located 

on a “peninsula” of largely private lands occupying the 

valley floor and mountain foothills surrounded by a 

“sea” of public forest lands. Within the boundaries of 

Ravalli County itself, there are 1,850 square miles of 

forest lands administered by the USDA Forest Service, 

representing about 77 percent of the entire county’s 

land base. Beyond the perimeters of the county, these 

forest lands and wilderness stretch for many miles. 

The presence of these public forest lands has heavily 

influenced the settlement and economic development of 

the Bitterroot Valley, and wood products manufacturing has been a key component of the area’s economic 

base. Historically, the economic role of these forest 

lands has been primarily one of a supplier of raw material for lumber processing in the area. However, 

the role these lands play in the area’s development 

is changing. The Bitterroot Valley’s economy is now 

being increasingly shaped by rapid growth spurred 

by in-migration. The amenities of this picturesque 

mountain valley with its surrounding forests appear 

to be the primary attraction for many of the valley’s 

recent migrants. Similar migration patterns are occurring in non-metropolitan forest land areas like the 

Bitterroot Valley throughout the west. 

The recent rise in population in the Bitterroot Valley has not been evenly shared by various age groups 

within the population. While Ravalli County’s population as a whole grew by 43 percent between 1990 and 

1999, the greatest growth occurred among persons in 

their mid-to-late 40s and 50s. The population 45–54 

years of age increased from 2,994 persons to 6,356—a 

112 percent increase in less than a decade. The population of age group 55–64 increased by 71 percent. The 

county’s 65-and-older population increased by only 

24 percent during this period and actually decreased 

as a percentage of the population between 1990 and 

1999. The area may in fact be losing a disproportionate number of people 65 or older who move away 

from the area. 

The area’s population is racially non-diverse, as is 

the population of the larger region. Of Ravalli County’s 

40,431 residents in 2009, more than 97 percent were 

white. The population of Hispanic or Latino origin is the 

largest racial minority group at 2.8 percent. American 

Indians, who have a distinct cultural connection to 

this area, make up only 0.9 percent of the population. 

EmPloymEnT 

The unemployment rate in Ravalli County in 2010 was 

10.4 percent, which is greater than Montana’s average of 7.4 percent. In 2009, the median family income 

was $45,691, which is close to the rest of State but less 

than the national 2008 average of $52,029. 

The fastest growing industries are administrative 

and support services, followed closely by waste services, arts, entertainment, and recreation. 

PUBliC USE oF THE REFUgE 

During 2010, 166,767 visits were recorded on the refuge. Between 2005 and 2010 (the period after which 

the new refuge office and visitor contact area opened) 

annual visits averaged 142,971. During this time period, the maximum visitation was 177,563 in 2005 and 

the minimum was 90,000 in 2008. These numbers are 

based on mechanical counters strategically located at 

the WVA, Wildfowl Lane, and the Kenai Nature Trail. 

These numbers do not account for the refuge visitors 

on the Bitterroot River or on refuge lands west of the 

Bitterroot River. The average number of individuals 

who actually came into the visitor contact area during this same period was 6,118. Visitors attending 

special events accounted for 1,741 visitors annually. 

These latter figures are recorded manually by refuge 

volunteers. During hunting and fishing seasons from 

2005–2010, the visitors participating in these activities accounted for 2 percent of all visits (Carver and 

Caudill 2007). It is assumed that the remaining visitors were participating primarily in wildlife observation and photography activities along the county road 

and nature trails. Most wildlife observers visit in the 

spring and summer, when the greatest numbers of 

migratory birds inhabit the area. 

Camping and fires are not allowed on the refuge; 

however, the Bitterroot National Forest manages land 

throughout Ravalli County, including campgrounds, 

one of which is near Stevensville. There is a motel 

located in the town of Stevensville, a few in Hamilton and Lolo, and dozens more in Missoula, as well as 

several recreational vehicle campgrounds. 

BASElinE EConomiC ACTiviTy 

It is difficult to place a value on the worth of outdoor 

experiences or the importance of maintaining and 

preserving habitat vital to migratory birds and a variety of resident wildlife species. One way of defining 

a refuge’s value and the opportunity to experience 

wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge may be 

to ask what the area would be like without the refuge 

(Carver and Caudill 2007). According to the latest 

“Banking on Nature” economic analysis (Carver and 

Caudill 2007), 13 percent of expenditures associated 
96 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

with a wildlife-dependent recreational visit to a refuge 

come from local residents, thus 87 percent of revenue 

comes from outside area visitors. These expenditures 

include purchases of food, lodging, transportation, 

and other expenses. In 2007, refuge visits generated 

approximately $185.3 million in tax revenue at the 

local, county, State and Federal levels (Carver and 

Caudill 2007). 

Public use is just one way that Lee Metcalf Refuge 

generates revenue and contributes to the economic 

engine of the local economy. Other economic benefits 

include spending by the refuge, spending by refuge employees, payment in lieu of taxes ($13,439 in 2010), the 

economic value of the function of the refuge’s habitats, 

and the increased value of lands next to the refuge. 

U.S. FiSH And WildliFE SERviCE EmPloymEnT 

In 2010, Lee Metcalf Refuge was staffed by nine permanent employees and six seasonal employees. Its 

payroll equaled approximately $601,000. Based on the 

Bureau of Labor statistics, approximately 79 percent 

of each employee’s annual income is spent locally. Using this figure, refuge employees contribute nearly 

$475,000 to the local economy. 

viSiToR SPEnding 

An average of 143,000 visitors enjoy Lee Metcalf Refuge every year though wildlife observation, photography, hiking, and environmental education (sometimes 

referred to as non-consumptive uses). On Lee Metcalf 

Refuge it is estimated that more than 97 percent of 

visitors participate in these activities. The remaining visitors participate in fishing and hunting (often 

referred to consumptive uses). 

According to the 2007 “Banking on Nature” report, 87 percent of refuge visitors travel more than 

30 miles to visit a refuge (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

This same report stated that 77 percent of these visitors engage in non-consumptive activities. Non-resident visitors tend to contribute more money to the 

local economy. Based on refuge visitor numbers and 

the estimated percentage of non-resident visitors, it 

is estimated that Lee Metcalf Refuge could possibly 

contribute as much as $15 million annually to the local 

economy from non-resident, non-consumptive users, 

and nearly $4 million from non-resident consumptive 

users. Resident non-consumptive users spend an additional $356,000 while resident hunters and anglers 

spend approximately $140,000. 

4.9 Partnerships 

Lee Metcalf Refuge has a history of fostering partnerships that help accomplish the refuge mission and 

implement programs. From 2005 to the present, the 

The Hollingsworth Wetland Project was a collaborative 

effort among the Service and numerous partner 

organizations. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

Service has entered into various projects and activities with more than 65 organizations including local 

and national conservation organizations, private companies and businesses, other Federal agencies, State 

agencies, universities, local schools, and county and 

city governments. The refuge also has a very active 

volunteer program that primarily assists visitor services programs. The refuge could not begin to meet 

the needs of the thousands of refuge visitors without 

these volunteers. 

These partners have assisted in wildlife and habitat management, visitor services and recreational 

activities, land protection, law enforcement, and community outreach. Several of these relationships have 

developed into formalized partnerships with written 

agreements or memoranda of understanding while 

others remain more informal. 

4.10 operations 

Service operations consist of the staff, facilities, equipment, and supplies needed to administer resource 

management and public use programs throughout the 

Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

STAFF 

Lee Metcalf Refuge provides supervision, logistical 

support, office space, storage, and supplies to multiple 

positions that serve a broader set of responsibilities 

than the mission of the refuge. Current staff at the 

refuge consists of five permanent full-time employees 

including a refuge manager, outdoor recreation planner, 

law enforcement officer, maintenance worker, and an 

administrative support assistant. There are also four 

permanent Service employees who are based out of 

this office, but they are not assigned to exclusively 

support refuge programs. These positions include 
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment 97 

the district fire management officer, fire technician, 

regional maintenance team member, and the Montana 

Invasive Species Strike Team leader. These employees 

and their programs are supported partially or wholly 

by Lee Metcalf Refuge with logistics, equipment, and 

materials, and most of these positions are supervised 

by the refuge manager. The refuge does receive some 

assistance on refuge projects from these positions if 

they are not dedicated to other priority projects. 

Seasonal employees are often hired each year. In 

addition to the above refuge positions, the refuge uses 

its management funding to annually hire one to two 

seasonal workers, including a biological technician and 

a maintenance assistant. Additionally, since 2009, the 

refuge has also hosted a Youth Conservation Corps 

Crew and leader. In 2010, the refuge coordinated 

with Ravalli County Weed District to employ three, 

5-month seasonal employees to treat invasive species 

on the refuge. 

FACiliTiES 

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife management and wildlife-dependent public use activities 

for an estimated 143,000 annual visitors. The refuge’s 

buildings have been updated over the years, yet much 

of the habitat management infrastructure such as irrigation components, some wetland impoundment 

levees, and water control structures are in disrepair. 

The refuge headquarters and visitor contact area 

were developed in 2004 from an existing maintenance 

garage. The current maintenance shop, a metal Butler 

building, was constructed in 2000, and a cold storage 

equipment bay building was constructed in 2005. The 

refuge has a bunkhouse, built in 2005, to provide housing for seasonal workers. The refuge historically had 

one refuge house but it was recently deemed unsafe 

for occupancy, and in August 2010 it was removed. 

Most of the refuge wetland impoundments were 

constructed in the late 1960s through the early 1970s. 

Roads and dikes associated with these wetlands were 

constructed at that time and many are in need of repair. In addition to the visitor contact area, visitor 

service facilities include the amphitheater, education 

shelters and 5 miles of trails. 

The following is a list of most of the facilities found 

on the Lee Metcalf Refuge: 

■■ headquarters and visitor contact area (4,488 square 

feet) 

■■ maintenance shop (7,200 square feet) 

■■ cold storage building (3,500 square feet) 

■■ outdoor amphitheater (4,000 square feet) and shelter (400 square feet) 

■■ bunkhouse (2,080 square feet) 

■■ hazmat building (390 square feet) 

■■ pole barn (3,000 square feet) 

■■ Grube Barn (3,162 square feet) (poor condition) 

■■ Whaley Homestead (1,416 square feet) 

■■ approximately 23 miles of dikes/roads 

■■ 22 large (greater than 2-foot diameter) water control (stoplog) structures 

■■ 10 small (less than 2-foot diameter) water control 

(stoplog) structures 

■■ 3 water delivery ditches, totaling 6 miles, plus 2 

tile drain ditches 

■■ 3 pumping stations for Fields I–1 through I–7 

■■ 4 domestic wells 

■■ 2 recreational vehicle pads with septic, electrical, 

and water hookups 

■■ 3 vehicle bridges 

■■ 5 miles of walking trails 

■■ 5 walking bridges 

■■ 2 wooden photo blinds 

■■ wildlife observation deck (Kenai Trail) 

■■ 3 entrance signs 

■■ 5 interpretive kiosks 

■■ universally accessible fishing deck (168 square feet) 

■■ 13 waterfowl hunt blinds (includes 2 blinds for 

hunters with disabilities) 

■■ 5 archery hunter parking lots 

CHAPTER 5— Implementation of the 

Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 

A young visitor participates in a refuge educational program. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

This chapter contains the specific objectives and strategies that would be used to carry out the Service’s 

proposed action (alternative B) and reflects the draft 

CCP for the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. The 

Service recommends this as the alternative that could 

best achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals 

while helping to fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

If the Regional Director selects alternative B as 

the preferred alternative, the objectives and strategies presented in this chapter would become the final 

plan to be carried out over the next 15 years. In addition, the stepdown management plans listed in table 

13 (section 5.11 below) would provide implementation 

details for specific refuge programs. 

5.1 Summary of the Draft CCP 

The rest of this chapter contains the draft CCP—the 

objectives and strategies for the refuge resources and 

programs as identified in alternative B, the proposed 

action. (Refer to sections 3.2 and 3.4 in chapter 3.) 

The focus of the draft CCP is to carry out sciencebased management of the habitat and wildlife associated with the refuge along with complementary visitor services: 

■■ The Service would use the best available science to 

determine the most effective methods for conserving, 

restoring, and enhancing the habitats within the 

refuge, including grassland and shrubland, gallery 

and riverfront forests, and wetland impoundments. 

Providing these habitats for target migratory birds 

would achieve the purposes of this refuge. A significant part of the restoration proposals would be 

to control invasive plant species, where possible, 

and prevent further spread. Grasses and shrubs 

native to the uplands, including the alluvial fans, 

would be restored, where appropriate, to provide 

habitat for native wildlife including grasslanddependent migratory birds. Some wetland impoundments would be removed or reduced in size 

to allow for river migration or provide restoration 

sites with an overall long-term goal to restore the 

gallery and riverfront forest for wildlife that are 

dependent on riparian areas. Most of the remaining impoundments would be managed to emulate 

natural conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The Service would provide information 

to the public on the process and purposes of restoring some of these native habitats. 

■■ The Service would expand and improve the refuge’s 

compatible, wildlife-dependent, public use programs, 

in particular the wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation programs. The 

visitor contact area and associated headquarters 

would be expanded into a visitor center, new office space, and a combination conference room and 
100 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

environmental education classroom. New displays 

would be professionally planned and produced for 

the expanded visitor center. Interpretive panels 

would be located at strategic points on the refuge, 

highlighting the restoration efforts. These panels 

would be designed so they could be updated as 

needed. The refuge would work with the county 

to designate the public road traveling through the 

refuge as an auto tour route, which would include 

pulloffs and interpretation. A seasonal hiking trail 

would be added and some other existing trails 

would be improved for wildlife observation and 

photography and other interpretive and education programs. The hiking trails within the WVA 

would not be protected from the Bitterroot River’s 

migration. Trails may be relocated if they become 

impassible. All public use programs would provide 

visitors with information on the purposes of the 

refuge and the mission of the Refuge System, ensuring that almost every visitor would know that 

they are on a national wildlife refuge. 

■■ Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, 

infrastructure, and partnerships would be required 

to accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies 

outlined in this chapter. 

Sections 5.2 through 5.10 set out the objectives and 

strategies that serve as the steps needed to achieve 

the CCP goals for the refuge. While a goal is a broad 

statement, an objective is a concise statement that reveals what is to be achieved, the extent of the achievement, who is responsible, and when and where the 

objective should be achieved—all to address the goal. 

The strategies are the actions needed to achieve each 

objective. Unless otherwise stated, refuge staff would 

carry out the actions in the objectives and strategies. 

The rationale for each objective provides context such 

as background information, assumptions, and technical details. 

Appendix D contains the required compatibility 

determinations (in draft form) for public and management uses associated with this draft CCP. In addition, 

appendix F describes the fire management program 

for the refuge. 

TARgET SPECIES SElECTIon PRoCESS 

Early in the planning process, the Service selected 

three groups of target species that will be supported 

by the objectives and strategies described under the 

habitat goals for the Bitterroot River floodplain, wetland impoundments, and grassland and shrubland habitat. Part of this process was to review three separate 

documents focused on sustaining or recovering species 

in Montana: the “Montana Intermountain West Joint 

Venture Plan,” “Montana State Conservation Plan,” 

and the “Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan.” An initial 

list was developed based on whether a species either 

Wood duck is a target species for the Bitterroot River 

floodplain. 

Thomas Barnes / USFWS 

occurred on the refuge or could occur on the refuge 

if its preferred habitat was expanded or restored, as 

indicated under each goal. Almost all of the species 

selected are recognized in these three documents. The 

life history needs of over 100 species were examined 

for similarities and relevance to the proposed goals. 

The final lists of 16 species were selected based on their 

ability to represent guilds or because they were good 

indicators of the quality of a specific habitat type. The 

habitats that support the migration, foraging, nesting, 

and migration needs of these selected species should 

benefit a much broader group of secondary bird species 

as well as a variety of other wildlife, both migratory 

and resident. These target species will be monitored 

for trends in abundance and distribution to evaluate 

the effectiveness of these proposed actions. The actions 

described in these three alternatives were evaluated 

based on their abilities to support these target species. 

5.2 goal for the Bitterroot 

River Floodplain and 

Associated Wildlife 

Manage and, where appropriate, restore the 

natural topography, water movements, and 

physical integrity of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot River floodplain to 

provide healthy riparian habitats for target 

native species and to educate visitors about the 

benefits of sustaining a more natural floodplain. 

TARgET SPECIES FoR THE BITTERRooT RIvER 

FlooDPlAIn 

The Service has identified the habitat needs of a 

diverse group of target floodplain species, including waterbirds, neotropical migrants, and mammals 

(table 9). Providing for the life history needs of these 
Table 9. Target species for the Bitterroot floodplain and their habitat needs. 

Nesting or Structural Vegetation height Area breeding Habitat or foraging Migration and cover requirements (after requirements 1991) 

Wood Duck 

Creeks, streams, 

marshes, beaver 

ponds 

Nests in natural cavities or artificial nest boxes; trees for nest site 

are >24 inches DBH; cavities average 24 feet or higher aboveground 

Freshwater wetlands 

with an abundance of 

vegetative cover; small 

areas of open water 

with 50–75% cover 

Not territorial— 

priority is adequate 

cover 

X X 

Lewis’s Woodpecker 

Riparian woodland 

with ponderosa pine 

and cottonwood, 

logged or burned 

pine, and snags 

Uses brushy understory and ground 

cover; requires snags for nesting 

(standing dead or partially dead); 

nest heights vary between 3 and 

171 feet 

During breeding, eats 

free-flying insects and 

fruit found on serviceberry, hawthorn, dogwood, elderberry and 

sumac 

Determined by food 

and storage-site 

availability 

X X 

Willow Flycatcher 

Riparian woodland with willow 

and other shrubs 

and cottonwood; 

restricted to river 

and creek corridors 

Nests in shrub thickets close to 

ground (3–5 feet high on average); 

willow shrubs are favored nesting 

substrate, but will use other shrubs 

Eats primarily insects 

and occasionally fruit 

Wintering home 

range estimated at 

0.25 acre and breeding range at 1 acre 

X X 

Vaux’s Swift 

Coniferous and 

deciduous forest; 

large- diameter hollow trees (dead or 

alive) and chimneys 

are favored nesting 

and roosting sites 

Cover not important for nesting; 

DBH averages 30 inches (17–43 

inches); tree height averages 85 

feet (30–131 feet); nest height averages 56 feet (30–108 feet) 

Forages for flying insects in air over forest 

canopy and grasslands 

Not territorial; nest 

singly or semi-colonially, when roosting-thousands can 

roost in a single tree 

X X 

Brown Creeper 

Continuous and unfragmented mixed 

coniferous–deciduous forest, mostly 

old growth (>100 

years); large snags 

and live trees; high 

canopy closure and 

high density of trees 

preferred 

Forages especially on large trees 

(average >12 inches DBH) and tall 

trees (>89 feet) with trunks that 

have deeply furrowed bark that 

contain higher arthropod densities; 

nest height ranges between 2 and 

45 feet and nest is almost always 

between trunk and a loose piece 

of bark on a dead or dying tree in 

a dense tree stand 

Forages on variety of 

insects and larvae, spiders and their eggs, ants, 

and a small amount of 

seeds and other vegetable matter; forages 

primarily on trunks 

of live trees and occasionally on large 

branches, but rarely 

on the ground 

During breeding, 

average territory 

size ranges from 

0.02 to 0.06 acre; 

territories break 

down late in the 

fledging period 

X X 

Hoary Bat 

Summer resident 

in forested riparian 

areas and woody 

wetlands 

Roosts on trees 12–40 feet 

aboveground; dense vegetation 

above roost preferred 

Open-air forager that 

prefers moths, but also 

feeds on beetles, wasps, 

grasshoppers, and occasionally small bats 

Solitary with no real 

defined territory 

Unknown X 

Sources: Bull et al. 2007, MFWP 2005, Hejl et al. 2002, Hepp 1995, Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996, Sedgwick 2000, Texas 

State Parks and Wildlife 2011, Tobalske 1997. 

Abbreviations: DBH = diameter at breast height, X = recorded use on the refuge. 

CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 101 
102 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

species would provide the natural floodplain habitat 

diversity and conditions needed not only for these 

targeted species, but also for a broad suite of other 

floodplain-associated wildlife. Monitoring would focus 

on these target species to determine their response 

to floodplain management actions. 

FlooDPlAIn oBjECTIvE 1 

Where channel migration of the Bitterroot River is 

occurring, do not inhibit the river from establishing 

natural flow patterns during high flow events, where 

appropriate, to enhance existing riparian woodlands 

and provide suitable restoration sites for both gallery 

and riverfront forest vegetation that could provide 

breeding, nesting, feeding, or migration habitat for 

target species (over the next 15 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Remove or do not replace hard points or riprap along 

the channel banks of the Bitterroot River unless 

they protect non-Service property or structures. 

■■ Work with engineers and hydrologists, contracting as necessary, to determine and design overflow 

channels in the north part of the refuge (Ponds 11, 

12, and 13) and remove infrastructure to allow for 

river movements into these channels. Revegetate 

exposed soils with gallery and riverfront forest 

species. 

■■ Do not impede the fluctuations and movements of 

the Bitterroot River within the WVA. Use interpretation, including signage, and environmental 

education to inform visitors with information about 

the benefits of this process and the Service’s plans to 

relocate facilities and eroded trails, as appropriate. 

■■ In areas away from overflow channels and gallery 

and riverfront forest restoration, continue to allow 

seasonal flows (including backwater flooding into 

Francois Slough) of the Bitterroot River into and 

through North Island and Francois Sloughs. File 

for changes to existing water rights as directed by 

the Service’s water resources division. 

■■ Allow and promote natural regeneration of native 

gallery and riverfront forests and plant native trees, 

shrubs, and grasses, where appropriate. 

■■ Monitor and treat new invaders within channels 

and on the newly exposed soils. 

■■ Monitor the abundance and distribution of target 

species to determine the success of management 

techniques, and use adaptive management to ensure that the refuge is using the most effective 

methods and proven technologies. 

Rationale 

The combination of irrigation ditches and associated 

infrastructure (culverts, water diversion structures), 

development (bridge crossings, riprapping), and land 

The erosion caused by meandering Bitterroot River, 

adjacent to the wildlife viewing area. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

use changes has significantly altered the Bitterroot 

River’s channel form, structure, and movement within 

the Bitterroot Valley and its floodplain (Heitmeyer et 

al. 2010). Notably, existing river stabilization structures on the refuge, including frontline levees and 

riprap placed along the Bitterroot River in the 1950s, 

altered the river’s physical and hydraulic dynamics 

and character. Ultimately, these structures may be 

contributing to potential damage on other stretches 

or off-refuge lands along the river, both upstream and 

downstream (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

In addition to the possible impacts caused by infrastructure and land use, the Bitterroot River has an 

inherently unstable hydraulic configuration and high 

channel instability in the stretch immediately upstream 

from and at the Lee Metcalf Refuge. The river in this 

area is characterized by numerous braided channels 

that spread over a wide area of the Bitterroot Valley 

floodplain. Many of these channels are evident on Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. 

Since the 1930s, lateral migration of the Bitterroot 

River channel has apparently accelerated, and the river 

is actively attempting to cross the floodplain at the 

refuge in new pathways, including seasonally shifting 

primary discharge through the North Island Slough. 

Lateral migration of the river has been discouraged 

to date by land interests along the river—including 

those of the refuge—to protect existing roads, agricultural land, and the railroad bed and trestle on the 

north end of the refuge. Control of river migration has 

been attempted by channeling and armoring channel 

banks with riprap and other materials. Eventually, 

more channel stabilization would be needed to keep the 

Bitterroot River channel “in place” because hydraulic 

dynamics from future high-flow events would continue 

to destabilize the current river channel configuration 

and destroy or damage existing physical structures. 

It is not only practical but preferable to balance the 

Bitterroot River’s natural fluctuations with restoration of native refuge conditions and land use interests. 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 103 

Riverbank erosion has occurred all along the refuge, 

and several levees have been breached by the river. 

This erosion has led to some loss of riparian habitats, 

a community type that provides some of the most 

productive wildlife habitat in the State and is home 

to a wide variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians (MFWP 2005). Nevertheless, this type 

of flooding and erosion enriches the soil and creates 

the conditions necessary for expanding and sustaining riparian habitats across the refuge’s floodplain. 

The levees impounding Ponds 12 and 13 have been 

partially eroded by the Bitterroot River’s side channel movements into the refuge through North Island 

Slough. The best use of these areas would be to remove the structures and allow the river to flood and 

recede. Current climate change models predict lower 

precipitation and lower river levels, and these historic 

flooding events may rarely take place. However, if 

natural flow patterns were restored—even to some 

degree—there would be opportunities to restore native habitats, such as riverfront and gallery forest, 

providing areas for target bird species (table 9). As 

necessary, the refuge would closely monitor and treat 

newly exposed soils as the river recedes. Although 

necessary for cottonwood and willow regeneration, 

newly exposed soil and channels could also create 

ideal conditions for the downstream movement and 

spread of existing and new invasive species. An active monitoring and treatment program would prevent this invasion and encourage native vegetation 

to outcompete less desirable species. 

Several trails in the WVA are also subject to erosion caused by the river’s migration and flooding. The 

riverbank alongside the Metcalf Trail has eroded at 

least 100 feet in since 2008. It would be impossible 

to prevent further movement of the river without 

significant cost and possible damage to other refuge 

resources. The Service would evaluate relocating 

established trails if they were to become completely 

eroded and impassible. New trail designs would only 

be considered if the new trail would not be eroded by 

the river’s movements or impede river movements. 

FlooDPlAIn oBjECTIvE 2 

Reconnect floodplain habitats with the Bitterroot River 

to allow natural overbank and backwater flooding into 

and out of the floodplain during high flow events to 

support and expand the health, diversity, and extent 

of the riparian woodlands that could provide breeding, nesting, feeding, or migration habitat for target 

species (table 9) (over the next 15 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Construct wide spillways in or remove artificial 

levees, roads, and ditches that prohibit overbank 

and backwater flooding of the Bitterroot River and 

disrupt natural sheet flow into the central floodplain of the refuge. 

■■ Work with engineers and hydrologists, contracting as necessary, to determine and design the best 

methods available to remove structures, level 

ditching, and islands that are impeding natural 

overbank and backwater flooding on the refuge, 

including Ponds 11–13. 

■■ Improve high water flow west of Ponds 6–10 into 

and through historical slough and swale channels 

by removing obstructions, levees, and dams in and 

across these drainages. File for changes to existing water rights as directed by the Service’s water 

resources division. 

■■ Monitor and treat invasive species as necessary, 

particularly on newly exposed soils. 

■■ Monitor the abundance and distribution of target 

species to determine the success of management 

techniques and use adaptive management to ensure 

the refuge is using the most effective methods and 

proven technologies. 

Rationale 

The diversity and productivity of the Bitterroot River 

Valley at and near Lee Metcalf Refuge was created 

and sustained by a diverse floodplain surface that was 

seasonally inundated each spring from both flooding 

of the Bitterroot River and drainage or seepage from 

surrounding mountain slopes. Occasional overbank and 

more regular backwater flooding from the river into 

its floodplain at the refuge historically helped create 

and sustain communities and basic ecological functions 

and values of the site. These flooding processes on the 

refuge are now restricted by levees along the river, 

levees and dams on constructed wetland impoundments, roads, the railroad bed, and dams or other obstructions on tributary channels. 

To restore the floodplain system at the Lee Metcalf Refuge, restoring the capability of the Bitterroot River to overflow its banks and to back water up 

tributaries and into other floodplain channels is desirable. The seasonal “pulsed” flooding regime provided 

uninhibited movement of water, nutrients, sediments, 

and animals between the river and the floodplain and 

supported life cycle events and needs of both plant 

and animal communities. Periodic long-term floods 

are also important floodplain processes that help 

maintain community dynamics and productivity. For 

example, overbank flooding deposits silts and nutrients in floodplains that enhance soil development and 

productivity. Overbank flooding also creates scouring 

and deposition surfaces critical for germination and 

regeneration of riparian woodland species, especially 

cottonwood (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). Backwater flooding provides foraging habitat for pre-spawning native 

river fish and rearing habitat for larval and juvenile 
104 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

fishes. Annual backwater flooding recharges water 

regimes in depressions and shallow floodplain wetlands that serve as productive breeding habitat for 

amphibians, reptiles, waterbirds, and certain mammals. Subsequent drying of floodplains concentrates 

aquatic prey for fledgling waterbirds. Collectively, the 

body of scientific evidence suggests that restoring the 

hydrologic connectivity between the Bitterroot River 

and its floodplain at Lee Metcalf Refuge is desirable 

(Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

The variations in topography and soil created a 

mosaic of elevations and site-specific hydrology that 

supported many vegetation and wildlife communities 

on the Lee Metcalf Refuge. Unfortunately, the topography and flow of water across the floodplain has been 

altered, initially from land conversion, physical developments, and diversion of water for irrigation and then 

from construction of water-control infrastructure by 

the Service in an attempt to create more permanent 

wetland areas (ponds) for breeding waterfowl. The 

physical developments on and around the refuge have 

been detrimental to sustaining the natural functions 

and processes that made this area so rich and diverse. 

Restoration of the physical and biological diversity 

and productivity of the refuge would require at least 

some restoration of natural topography, especially 

reconnecting waterflow pathways or corridors in the 

floodplain. Restoration of topography and waterflow 

pathways is important to allow water, nutrients, and 

animals to move through the system in more natural 

patterns. Additionally, restoring water pathways can 

improve both flooding and drainage capabilities to more 

closely emulate natural hydroperiods that sustained 

native plant communities (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

The Service would work with engineers and hydrologists to determine the location, design, and steps 

needed to effectively restore natural waterflow without damaging other refuge resources or neighboring 

lands. Some of the options include completely removing levees, breaching them, or constructing a spillway 

to allow water to pass through a specific area. 

One of the areas proposed for restoration is the old 

residence site on the west-central side of the refuge. 

This area has several levees that were created to form 

shallow water ponds. These ponds were abandoned due 

to an inability to deliver water or because of flooding 

of the residence due to subsurface waterflows. 

There are many levees or berms that are not part 

of any impoundment. The vegetation on these levees 

is often a combination of nonnative grasses and invasive species. Keeping these levees and berms could not 

only inhibit river movements, but it may contribute to 

the spread of nonnative grasslands and invasive species. Removing these structures, or placing spillways 

in them, would allow natural backwater flooding and 

sheet flow to occur, but monitoring backwater areas 

for invasives would be required. Restored processes 

would encourage maintenance and propagation of 

native habitats of the riverfront and gallery forest. 

Ponds 11–13 on the north side of the refuge are 

difficult to manage. These impoundments have fallen 

into disrepair due to non-operational water control 

structures and, more importantly, erosion of the impoundment dikes and levees by the Bitterroot River. 

Maintaining these ponds would be very costly and 

not very effective in providing habitat for a variety of 

target migratory floodplain species. The refuge would 

work with an engineer and hydrologist to transition 

this area—which currently contains artificial islands, 

level ditching, cattail monocultures—into riparian 

woodlands, persistent aquatic vegetation, and uplands 

to benefit a variety of wildlife species. Initial steps 

would be to survey topography and design sustainable side channels of the Bitterroot River. Grading 

and revegetation would follow. 

It would be important that the refuge closely monitor and treat newly exposed soils that would provide 

ideal conditions for the spread of existing and new invasive species. The refuge would have to implement 

an active treatment and restoration program to prevent this invasion and encourage native vegetation to 

outcompete less desirable species. 

noRTH BuRnT FoRk CREEk oBjECTIvE 

(InCluDIng FRAnCoIS SlougH) 

Within the refuge, reconnect unimpeded flow from 

North Burnt Fork Creek with flow pathways into 

the Bitterroot River to reduce creek water temperatures, improve water and nutrient flow, create habitat 

conditions conducive to native cold-water species and 

restore riparian woodland habitat that would support 

target species (within 8 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Based on historical channel information (photos, 

topographical features), reestablish the Burnt Fork 

Creek entrance into the Bitterroot River where it 

is sustainable and conducive for native salmonids. 

■■ Work with an engineer and hydrologist to determine the best route for North Burnt Fork Creek 

to return to the river, considering the requirements of bull trout. Strategically remove water 

control structures and other obstructions in the 

tributary and floodplain channels to allow fish and 

other aquatic animals to use this riparian corridor. 

■■ Through partnerships, attempt to restore river 

and stream connectivity off the refuge to reestablish natural fish passage and flow pathways in the 

creek to its upper reaches. 

■■ Monitor and treat invasive species, particularly on 

newly exposed soils. 

■■ Monitor the changes in water quality to determine 

the success of management techniques, and use 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 105 

adaptive management to ensure the refuge is using 

the most effective methods and proven technologies. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

North Burnt Fork Creek is a mountain and terrace 

derived tributary to the Bitterroot River. This stream 

channel has been altered both off and on the refuge 

through installation of culverts, bridge crossings, and 

artificial channels and from using the creek to transport water to wetland impoundments. The refuge has 

installed water control structures to provide fishing 

opportunities and has impounded water for waterfowl. Undesirable species, such as cattail and reed 

canarygrass, formed monocultures along the stream, 

crowding out and preventing the regeneration of native riparian vegetation such as cottonwood, willow, 

and dogwood. 

Removal of water control structures in the WVA 

and other areas along the creek would deepen and 

narrow the streambed, allowing the reconnection of 

natural streamflows to the Bitterroot River. This reconnection would encourage riparian ecological processes to become reestablished, which may include 

beaver activity. Additionally, flooding and drainage 

capabilities would improve and more closely emulate 

natural hydrological regimes that sustained native 

plant communities. 

Newly exposed soil would provide optimal conditions 

for invasive species encroachment or monocultures of 

cattails. The refuge would need to treat cattails and 

other undesirable vegetation, including invasive species, using various techniques such as prescribed fire 

and other effective mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments. These methods would also be used to 

prepare areas for native plant restoration, as needed. 

To further encourage riparian habitat restoration, the refuge would plant native vegetation, such 

as willow and cottonwood, on restored sites. It would 

be important to monitor the stream’s response to the 

removal of structures and other management actions. 

Monitoring water chemistry (temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, total dissolved solids), streamside vegetation, 

and target species response would help to determine 

the success of management techniques. 

THREE MIlE CREEk oBjECTIvE 

Reestablish a channel to the Bitterroot River that 

mimics the historical flow pattern of Three Mile Creek 

to create habitat conditions supporting native coldwater species (cooler water temperature, riffles, deep 

pools) and the restoration of riparian habitat (within 

12 years). This objective would complement the Bitterroot River side channel restoration proposed for 

Ponds 11–13. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop contracts as necessary with engineers 

and hydrologists to determine and design the best 

methods available to remove structures, level 

ditching, and islands. Through partnerships, attempt to restore river and stream connectivity 

off refuge to reestablish natural fish passages and 

flow pathways in the creek. File for changes to 

existing water rights as directed by the Service’s 

water resources division. 

■■ Plant and encourage native vegetation (for example, 

cottonwood or willow) on restored sites to prevent 

invasive species encroachment as Ponds 11–13 (see 

Floodplain Objective 2) dry up and overbank and 

backwater flow patterns reestablish. 

■■ Treat cattails and other undesirable vegetation 

using various techniques including disking, prescribed fire, chemical application and other effective mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments 

to control invasive species and prepare areas for 

native restoration. 

■■ Monitor the changes in water quality to determine 

the success of management techniques, and use adaptive management to ensure the refuge is using the 

most effective methods and proven technologies. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 

The Service is proposing to restore unimpeded flow from 

North Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile Creek into the 

Bitterroot River. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
106 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Rationale 

Three Mile Creek is another mountain and terrace 

derived tributary to the Bitterroot River. Much like 

North Burnt Fork Creek, this stream channel has 

been altered both off and on the refuge by the installation of culverts, bridge crossings, irrigation diversions, and artificial channels. This creek contributes 

a high sediment and nutrient load to the Bitterroot 

River compared to other tributaries in the Bitterroot 

watershed (McDowell and Rokosch 2005). 

In 1984, three sediment catch pools were built just 

south of Pond 11 to prevent sediment from entering 

and filling in Pond 11. The pools were filled to capacity in only 1 year. Then in 1989, as a solution to the 

sedimentation, Otter Pond was built. The refuge portion of Three Mile Creek was channeled into a bypass 

directly to the river. Water from Otter Pond was then 

siphoned under Three Mile Creek to feed Ponds 11­

13. Undesirable species, such as reed canarygrass, 

formed monocultures along the stream, crowding out 

and preventing establishment of native riparian vegetation such as shrubs and sedges. 

Currently, the river’s mainstem is directed northward (figure 7), just west of this confluence, and the 

sediment from Three Mile Creek has created a willowfilled island and beaver ponds within what is now considered part of North Island Slough. Restoring Three 

Mile Creek to its historical channel would encourage 

riparian ecological processes to become reestablished. 

Additionally, overbank flooding capabilities would 

improve and more closely emulate natural hydrological regimes that sustained native plant communities. 

Newly exposed soil would provide optimal conditions for invasive species encroachment. The refuge 

would need to treat cattails and other undesirable 

vegetation, including invasive species, using various 

techniques including prescribed fire and other effective mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments. 

These methods would also be used to prepare areas 

for native plant restoration. 

To further encourage riparian habitat restoration, 

the refuge would plant native vegetation, such as 

hawthorn and dogwood, on restored sites. It would 

be important to monitor the response of the stream to 

the removal of structures and other management actions. Monitoring water chemistry (dissolved oxygen, 

total dissolved solids, and temperature) and streamside vegetation would help to determine the success 

of management techniques and determine if another 

method would be more effective. 

RIvERFRonT FoREST HABITAT oBjECTIvE 

Restore regenerating and sustaining mechanisms for 

riverfront forest communities alongside the Bitterroot River that will provide nesting and migration 

habitat for target species such as willow flycatcher 

and Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop a riverfront forest inventory map and compare it with areas where riverfront forest occurred 

historically. Use this information to determine the 

most effective and strategic areas for restoration. 

■■ Remove levees, berms, and roads to allow for natural 

overbank and backwater flooding (see Floodplain 

Objective 2). These occasional flood events would 

scour surfaces, deposit sands, and create regeneration sites to restore and sustain riverfront forest 

vegetation, including cottonwood, along the margins of the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Use prescribed fire and grazing during dry periods 

to sustain occurrence of grasses and forbs. 

■■ Construct temporary deer exclosures, as needed, 

to protect newly planted tree areas and regeneration sites. 

■■ Monitor and treat invasive species and promote 

and restore vegetation native to riverfront forest 

to provide quality habitat for target species. 

■■ Monitor the abundance and distribution of target 

species to determine the success of management 

techniques, and use adaptive management to ensure the refuge is using the most effective methods 

and proven technologies. 

gAllERy FoREST HABITAT oBjECTIvE 

Restore regenerating and sustaining mechanisms for 

gallery forest communities on higher floodplain elevations (natural levees and benches) in areas with sandyloam soils, on natural levees, and on other floodplain 

ridges that have 2- to 5-year flood occurrence intervals 

in order to sustain and expand nesting and migration 

habitat for target species such as Lewis’s woodpecker, 

willow flycatcher, and hoary bat. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop a gallery forest inventory map to identify 

its current extent and historical range, particularly 

along the west side of Ponds 8 and 10. Use this 

information to determine the most effective and 

strategic areas for restoration. 

■■ Change the water management of Ponds 8 and 10 to 

allow for expansion of gallery forest as appropriate 

on the west side of these impoundments. Utilize 

prescribed fire, grazing, and chemical applications 

to manage cattail encroachment, and sustain the 

occurrence of grasses and forbs. 

■■ Allow for continued natural regeneration of the shrubland component in the gallery forest (hawthorn, 

alder, wood’s rose, and dogwood) while applying 

and evaluating proven techniques for promoting 

the shrubland component within the gallery forest. 

■■ Construct deer exclosures to protect newly planted 

areas and regeneration sites, as needed. 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 107 

■■ To protect restoration sites, monitor and treat invasive species using prescribed fire, chemical applications, and mechanical techniques. 

■■ Seed grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass and 

Idaho fescue under and between the trees and 

shrubs to reestablish ground cover and outcompete noxious and invasive plants. 

■■ Survey and monitor the population and response 

of forest target species prior to and following enhancement and restoration treatments. 

Rationale for Riverfront and gallery Forest 

objectives 

Historically the Bitterroot River Valley, which includes 

the Lee Metcalf Refuge, supported a wide diversity 

of animal species associated with the interspersed 

riparian forest, wetland, and grassland habitats. The 

riparian forest is made up of riverfront forest and gallery forest (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Riverfront forest includes early succession tree 

species such as black cottonwood and sandbar willow 

that are present on newly deposited and scoured gravelly-sand, sand, and fine sandy-loams near the active 

channel of the Bitterroot River and in sand-outcrop 

sites next to floodplain drainages. These sites have 

high water tables for most of the year and are inundated for short periods during high spring river flows 

almost annually. Regularly scoured soils provide bare 

soil sites for seed deposition and subsequent germination and growth of willow and cottonwood (Cooper et 

al. 1999, Heitmeyer et al. 2010) 

Gallery forest is dominated by cottonwood and 

ponderosa pine and is present on higher floodplain 

elevations along natural levees and point bar terraces 

adjacent to minor floodplain tributaries. Gallery forest 

areas often have woody shrubs such as alder, hawthorn, 

dogwood, and Wood’s rose in the understory and mixed 

grass species such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho 

fescue under and between the trees and shrubs. The 

gallery forests were flooded occasionally by overbank 

or backwater floods from the river and for short durations in the spring (Burkhardt 1996, Fischer and 

Bradley 1987, Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Most wildlife species in these forests were seasonal 

visitors that used resources provided by spring and 

early summer pulses of water into the system. Riparian woodlands in the Bitterroot Valley were sustained 

by fertile floodplain soils and seasonal inundation for 

generally short periods at about 2- to 5-year intervals. 

Occasional disturbance mechanisms provided suitable 

substrates for regenerating tree species and shrubs. 

Riparian woodlands in Montana generally are in poor 

condition if the shrub components are not present, most 

commonly due to overgrazing (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Collectively, many landscape and hydrological 

changes in the Bitterroot Valley since Euro-American 

settlement have dramatically altered the physical 

nature, hydrology, and vegetation communities of 

the refuge. Prior to Euro-American settlement, the 

relatively dry climate of the valley and the migration 

of the Bitterroot River created a diverse mix of communities including riverfront and gallery forest next 

to the Bitterroot River and floodplain drainages. 

In response to the altered ecological processes, 

there are now reduced areas of riverfront and gallery forest. Restoration and expansion of the riparian 

woodlands would be a long-term project that would 

surpass the life of this plan. Ideally, and over time, 

using prescribed fire, planting native plants (plugs 

of dominant tree species and shrubs), treating and 

controlling invasive species, and restoring hydrological regimes would allow for the restoration of these 

habitats to support target species. 

The refuge does not have a complete forest inventory map. Developing this map would help the refuge 

determine the extent of this native forest and where 

it occurred historically; in turn, this would help determine the most effective and strategic restoration 

areas. However, there are some areas that need immediate attention on the west side of the refuge along 

the river. Removal of levees and roads would allow 

overbank and backwater flooding into historical forest areas. This action would scour the surface of the 

soil and deposit fine sediments, creating conditions to 

promote cottonwood regeneration—a main vegetative 

component of the riparian woodlands. The refuge would 

implement prescriptive fire and grazing in forest areas to allow scarifying of pine cones, which promotes 

germination of ponderosa pine, another component of 

riparian woodlands. 

Other focus areas would be Ponds 8 and 10. The 

HGM-derived map of vegetation prior to Euro-American settlement shows this area to be a mixture of gallery and riverfront forest (figure 18). Creating these 

ponds reduced the amount of native forest habitat. 

Past water level management has also created very 

large monocultures of cattails that have reduced the 

amount of open water available to the waterbirds these 

ponds were intended to support. Returning gallery 

and riverfront forest to these historical sites would 

begin to restore a unique and important habitat to 

this part of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, providing new areas for identified forest target species. 

The Service would draw down water in Ponds 8 and 

10, as needed, to allow for this expansion. The ponds 

would still be managed for open water, but the water 

table would be lowered and the amount of cattail surrounding these ponds would be reduced to allow for 

forest expansion. Reducing cattail is most effective 

using a variety of methods including prescribed fire, 

grazing, and chemical applications. 

It would be important that the refuge closely monitor and treat newly exposed soils. This newly exposed 

soil would create ideal conditions for the spread of 
108 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

existing and new invasive species. The refuge would 

have to implement an active treatment and restoration program to prevent this invasion and encourage 

native vegetation to outcompete less desirable species. Additionally, erecting deer exclosures or other 

plant protectors would help protect tree and shrub 

plantings from being overbrowsed and killed by deer. 

5.3 goal for Wetland 

Impoundment Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife 

Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl, shorebirds, and other associated 

native wetland-dependent species. 

TARgET WETlAnD HABITAT SPECIES 

The Service has identified the habitat needs of a diverse group of target waterbird species, including 

ducks and shorebirds. Providing for the life history 

needs of these species would provide the natural wetland diversity and conditions needed not only for these 

target species, but also for an even greater variety of 

wetland-associated wildlife. Monitoring would focus 

on these target species to determine their response 

to wetland management actions. 

In the Bitterroot Valley, the Lee Metcalf Refuge 

is an important refuge for migratory birds during the 

spring and fall. Waterfowl breeding and brood rearing 

occurs on Lee Metcalf Refuge with a great variety of 

waterfowl using the refuge for these life history requirements; however, the refuge is not a major production 

refuge. The most important habitat management efforts would focus on providing optimal habitat for 

foraging and resting during migration. Lowering the 

water levels would serve to increase food availability 

by concentrating foods in smaller areas and at water 

depths within the foraging range of target wildlife. 

The rate and timing of drawdowns have important 

influences on the production and composition of semipermanent wetland plants and invertebrates that 

provide protein-rich food resources (USFWS 1991) 

for each of these target bird species. 

WETlAnD IMPounDMEnT HABITAT oBjECTIvE 1 

Over the next 15 years, manage water levels on 628 

acres to emulate natural and seasonal water regimes 

including natural increases in waterflow in the spring 

followed by rotational drying in the summer and fall. 

Managed properly, these wetland impoundments, or 

ponds, could provide a variety of wetland conditions 

to meet the life cycle requirements of target wetlanddependent species (table 10). 

Strategies 

■■ Maintain or replace the water management structures in Ponds 1–6, Ponds 8 and 10, and Otter Pond. 

The remaining wetland impoundment structures 

would be maintained as needed. 

■■ Water level management of Pond 8, Pond 10, and 

Otter Pond would be changed to a more seasonal 

water regime that emulates natural increases in 

distribution and depth in spring, followed by drying 

in summer and fall to encourage the restoration of 

wetland and shrub habitat. While drawing wetlands 

down, exposed shorelines would be monitored and 

treated to prevent invasive species and monotypic 

stands of cattails from becoming established. File 

Table 10. Wetland impoundment target species and their habitat needs. 

Species Spring migration Forage depth Fall migration 

Birds 

American wigeon Mid-March to mid-April 5–8 inches Mid-November to mid-December 

Redhead	 Mid-March to mid-April 6–30 inches Mid-November to mid-December 

Marbled godwit Early May to early June Mudflats, 0–4 inches Early July to early September 

Long-billed dowitcher Mid May to mid-June Mudflats, 0–4 inches Early July to early September 

American bittern May to June	 Mudflats, 0–4 inches July to September 

Amphibians 

Species	 Habitat Breeding Active period 

Boreal toad	 Wide variety; survive best in April to mid-July April to October 

shallow ephemeral ponds to avoid 

American bullfrog predation 

Sources: Gratto-Trevor 2000, Lowther et al. 2009, Mowbray 1999, MFWP 2005, Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996, refuge 

data, Takekawa 2000, Texas State Parks and Wildlife 2011, Woodin et al. 2002. 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 109 

for changes to existing water rights as directed by 

the Service’s water resources division. 

■■ Prevent invasive species encroachment into newly 

exposed soil using various mechanical, biological, 

and chemical treatments to control invasive species 

and prepare areas for native restoration. 

■■ Manage, or maintain, a hemi-marsh condition of 

the ponds to create a ratio of 50:50 open-water to 

emergent vegetation (such as bulrush and cattail), 

providing optimal breeding and brood rearing habitat for diving ducks and dense emergent vegetation 

over water 2–8 inches deep for bitterns. 

■■ Manage or maintain dry ground with tall grasses 

and mixed herbaceous cover for dabbling ducks. 

■■ Provide short, grassy-cover uplands—well away 

from wetland edges—for shorebird nest sites. 

■■ Emulate long-term patterns of drier conditions in 

floodplain wetlands in most years including periodic complete drying in some years and occasional 

prolonged flooding in a few years. 

■■ To determine the water-level targets needed to 

provide adequate food, cover, and nesting substrate 

for target waterbird species, install staff gauges 

in all wetland impoundments. 

■■ Determine the feasibility and methods for restoring the historical flow of the side channel of the 

Bitterroot River and Three Mile Creek through 

Ponds 11 through 13 to restore riparian habitat 

(see Floodplain Goal) and reestablish unimpeded 

flow to the river. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

Wetland impoundments on the refuge were constructed 

and developed to provide open water habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. However, past 

management has not consistently emulated seasonal 

or long-term dynamics of water levels that naturally 

occur in wetlands. Instead, water regimes have consisted of drawdown in the spring to provide mudflats 

for shorebirds, followed by flooding the ponds for nesting waterfowl. The ponds would then stay full during 

the summer until early fall with drawdown again for 

shorebirds, followed by flooding for migratory waterfowl and to enhance waterfowl hunting opportunities. 

This water regime occurs only on some ponds while 

others—notably Pond 6, Pond 8, Pond 10, and Otter 

Pond—are usually full year-round. These permanently 

flooded wetlands have experienced algal blooms, encroachment of cattails, and it is assumed, low productivity and nutrients. Overall, it is suspected that 

the refuge’s past water regime has not provided the 

optimal habitat for target wetland species. 

Researchers from the University of Montana have 

been investigating the contamination of mercury on 

the refuge and elsewhere in Montana. It is theorized 

that there has been bioaccumulation of methyl mercury 

as a result of stagnant water, and mercury concentration in fish on the refuge has been high (Langner et 

al. 2011). It is possible that mercury may have also 

contributed to the decline of osprey populations over 

the years and has prompted concern of contamination 

in osprey eggs, making some non-viable (Heiko Langner, personal communication, professor of biological 

sciences, University of Montana, November 2010 and 

February 2011). 

To provide optimal habitat, increase nutrient uptake 

and plant productivity, and decrease methylization of 

mercury, the Service would manage Ponds 1–6, Pond 

8, Pond 10, and Otter Pond for a more seasonal and 

annually dynamic water regime by increasing water 

levels in spring and rotational drying in summer and 

fall. Rotation of ponds with drawdowns would depend 

on annual habitat objectives and responses of target 

wildlife to water regimes. To manage and move water 

more effectively, the refuge would need to replace old, 

dilapidated water management structures as well as 

structures that are not effective due to size. Some of 

the existing structures are extremely unsafe and require more than one person to operate. Replacement 

of these structures would provide more cost effective and safe operations. It would also be important 

for the refuge to manage cattails and prevent their 

further encroachment into open water. Cattail is very 

difficult to control, and management would require a 

variety of methods such as prescribed fire, grazing, 

and chemical application. It would be important that 

the refuge closely monitor water levels and quality to 

evaluate the effectiveness of any water regime. Documenting the response of target species would also 

help evaluate the effectiveness of this management 

program while using adaptive management to ensure 

that the refuge is using the most effective methods 

and proven technologies. 

WETlAnD IMPounDMEnT HABITAT oBjECTIvE 2 

Where appropriate, reduce the area of more permanently flooded wetland impoundments and persistent 

emergent vegetation to restore native plant communities, such as gallery forest, while improving the diversity and productivity of the remaining impoundments 

for the benefit of target waterbird species (over the 

next 10 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Remove levees, ditches, and water control structures from abandoned wetland impoundments to 

facilitate the restoration and expansion of the gallery 

forest (Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, 9, and D) and native grassland (Pair Ponds and Potato Cellar Pond) habitat. 
110 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Restoring and expanding gallery and riverfront forest 

would enhance habitat for species including brown 

creeper and hoary bat. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

■■ Reduce Pond 8, Pond 10, and Otter Pond in size, 

as appropriate, to allow for the restoration of gallery forest habitat. File for changes to existing 

water rights as directed by the Service’s water 

resources division. 

■■ Treat exposed shorelines to prevent invasive species and monotypic stands of cattails from becoming established prior to restoration. Use a variety 

of management techniques such as prescribed 

fire, chemical application, livestock grazing, and 

mechanical means. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

Refuge lands around and within Ponds 8 and 10 were 

once a mixture of riverfront and gallery forest, but 

today this habitat is much less extensive here and in 

the Bitterroot Valley. Creating these ponds reduced 

the amount of forest habitat and created open water. 

Over time, these ponds have been covered by large 

areas of cattails which reduced the amount of open water available for waterbirds. Managing these permanently flooded ponds for open water is not the highest 

and best use of this habitat type due in part to a lack 

of nutrient cycling, a reduction in early successional 

submergent vegetation, and the spread of monotypic 

cattail stands. These stands are difficult to control and 

provide minimal habitat for target wildlife species. 

The best use of this area is to restore and expand 

the gallery and riverfront forest in these historical 

sites, thereby enhancing the habitat needed by native 

forest target species such as brown creeper and hoary 

bat. The Service would draw down water in Ponds 8 

and 10 and Otter Pond to allow for this expansion. The 

ponds would still be managed for open water, but the 

amount of cattail surrounding these ponds would be 

reduced to allow for forest expansion and restoration. 

Some of the most effective methods for reducing cattails are prescribed fire, grazing, and chemical applications; it is important to use the right treatment at the 

right time to be effective and prevent further spread. 

In addition to reducing the ponds in size, the refuge 

would replace the water control structures on Ponds 8 

and 10 to allow more effective, productive water level 

management on the remaining wetland area. 

There are several old and abandoned ditches and 

levees throughout the refuge from former attempts 

to impound water. These attempts have failed due to 

lack of water availability and the inability of the soil 

to hold water. These levees, ditches, and water control 

structures would be removed to facilitate the restoration of gallery forest in Ponds 7, 7a, 9, and D and 

native uplands in Pair Ponds and Potato Cellar Pond. 

gRAvEl PITS oBjECTIvE 

Use the gravel pits—created when gravel is harvested 

east of the Bitterroot River—to provide nursery habitat for amphibians such as the boreal toad, a State 

species of concern, and the Columbia spotted frog. 

Strategies 

■■ Remove vegetation and soil from the artificial 

gravel pits to restore the desired habitat conditions for amphibians, as appropriate. If necessary, 

harvest gravel October through March, avoiding 

disturbance and displacement of any amphibians 

during breeding season. 

■■ Manage these old gravel pits as ephemeral pools 

to discourage the American bullfrog, an invasive 

predator of amphibians and other desirable native species. 

■■ Survey amphibian populations and monitor the response of amphibians to determine the success of 

management techniques. Adapt management techniques to ensure the refuge is using the most effective methods, research, and proven technologies. 

Rationale 

Since the 1990s boreal toads have been declining 

throughout the Rocky Mountains. In Montana, the 

species status is uncertain, but it has been listed by 

the State as a species of concern. There are relatively 

few known breeding populations. 

Throughout its life cycle, the boreal toad utilizes a 

wide variety of habitats including streams, wet meadows, beaver pools, marshes, and lakes. They prefer 

shallow areas and edges with mud bottoms. These 

gravel pits have become shallow, disturbed gravel 

ephemeral pools—desirable breeding habitat for these 

toads. In 2001, researchers on the refuge found 20,469 

eggs from a single female in a refuge gravel pit. This 

was the largest clutch ever reported for this species 

(Maxwell et al. 2002). 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 111 

It is suspected that breeding boreal toads are limited to just a few areas on the refuge, like the gravel 

pits, due to American bullfrog predation, an invasive 

species that has been introduced throughout the western United States. Introduced in Montana sometime 

before 1968, the bullfrogs have been documented all 

along the Bitterroot River and extensively throughout 

the refuge. This species is so widespread throughout 

the Bitterroot Valley, it is almost impossible to control 

through treatments other than removing their desired 

habitat, which affects native species. Extremely territorial, they are voracious predators that feed on 

young birds, fish, snakes, crayfish, invertebrates, and 

other amphibians. This feeding behavior allows them 

to displace native species easily (Werner et al. 2004). 

They have been implicated in extirpations of amphibians and declines in waterfowl production (State of 

Montana 2011). Any suitable pond habitats available 

for native amphibians are typically occupied solely by 

American bullfrogs. 

The American bullfrog is highly aquatic and spends 

much of its life in warmer permanent water. As the 

gravel pits are fairly shallow and ephemeral in nature, 

they experience dry periods. This hydrology is not conducive to the life cycle of the American bullfrog. The 

refuge would continue to manage these old gravel pits 

as ephemeral pools to discourage American bullfrogs. 

This would serve to maintain, if not promote, boreal 

toad populations. Columbia frogs have similar habitat 

needs as the boreal toad; however, they prefer emergent and aquatic vegetation. Removing too much of 

this vegetation for boreal toad larval habitat may impact the other native frogs that use these gravel pits. 

5.4 goal for grassland and 

Shrubland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife 

Create the conditions that will allow for the 

restoration, maintenance, and distribution of 

native grassland and shrubland species (such as 

rabbitbrush, needle and thread grass, Junegrass, 

and hairy golden aster) to provide healthy lands 

for a diverse group of target native resident 

and migratory wildlife species and to educate 

visitors about the historical plant and animal 

diversity of the valley. 

TARgET gRASSlAnD AnD SHRuBlAnD SPECIES 

The Service has identified the habitat needs of a diverse 

group of target upland (grassland and shrubland) species (table 11). Providing for the life history needs of 

these species would provide the natural upland diversity and conditions needed not only for these targeted 

The bobolink is a target species for the grassland and 

shrubland areas. 

Steve Maslowski / USFWS 

species but an even greater variety of upland-associated wildlife. Monitoring would be focused on these 

target species to determine their response to upland 

management actions. 

gRASSlAnD AnD SHRuBlAnD HABITAT 

oBjECTIvE 

Reduce the presence of invasive species to 

facilitate the restoration, maintenance, and distribution of native grasslands and shrublands 

in higher floodplain elevations and terraces 

and on alluvial fans (over the next 10 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Use Service staff and equipment—possibly in 

combination with cooperative farming—to plant 

annual grain crops (including glyphosate-tolerant 

crops) to eliminate invasive species, including the 

seedbed, and to prepare an area for restoration to 

native plant species (over 5–10 years). 

■■ As appropriate, keep some fields fallow using repeated disking or chemical applications to continually treat and reduce invasive species. Some fields 

may also be planted to winter wheat to reduce erosion from wind and runoff. 

■■ Use small tame grassland sites to determine the 

best methods to restore native plants and shrubs 

on the refuge both with and without irrigation. 

■■ Continue to implement and evaluate tested techniques for reducing cheatgrass. 

■■ Use fire, grazing, seeding, and other proven techniques to facilitate the spread and distribution of 

remnant native species into areas surrounding existing native grassland and shrubland sites. 

■■ Systematically convert tame grassland areas to 

native species of grass, forbs, and shrubs using 

direct seeding, irrigation (where possible), prescribed fire, and other mechanical, chemical, and 

biological methods. 
Table 11. Target species for the grassland and shrubland areas and their habitat needs.1 

Nesting or Vegetation Litter and/or Area Habitat Vegetation cover breeding Migration height residual cover requirements (after 19912

) 

Western Meadowlark 

Open, treeless 

areas with widely 

dispersed shrubs 

Varies— 

shortgrass 

prairie to mixed 

and tallgrass 

prairie 

Nest sites in grass clumps 

or next to prickly pear 

Abundance is 

positively correlated 

with litter depth 

5–32 acres depending 

on vegetation height; 

more abundant on 

interior plots >656 

feet from edge 

X X 

Bobolink 

Mixture of grasses 

and broad-leaved 

forbs 

2–6 inches Nests beneath the shade 

of forbs; no nests found 

where grass is only 

concealment 

Density is higher 

in areas with low 

total vegetation 

cover but with 

high litter cover 

(hayfields >8 years 

old) 

2–4 acres depending 

on habitat quality; 

on fields >74 acres, 

there are more than 

twice the number of 

males than on fields 

<25 acres 

X X 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Idle grasslands with 

clumped vegetation 

interspersed with 

bare ground. 

Intermediate, 

>4 inches 

Bird numbers are 

positively correlated 

with percent grass cover 

(the more cover, then 

the more birds) 

Moderately deep 

litter and sparse 

cover of woody 

vegetation 

Average size is <5 

acres but prefers 

20–74 acres; more 

abundant on interior 

plots >656 feet from 

edge 

X 

Brewer’s Sparrow 

Considered a sagebrush obligate species; 

moderate shrub 

cover 

2–5 feet >10% average shrub cover; 

abundance decreases 

as shrub cover falls 

below 10% and over 

50%; nests on shrubs 

9–75 inches in height 

No information Usually 1–5 acres X 

1 These species do not currently nest on the refuge in great numbers, but with restoration of these desirable habitat qualities, it may 

allow them to become reestablished. 2 Refuge data. 

Sources: Dechant et al. 2002a, 2002b; Martin et. al 1995; MFWP 2005; Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996; Texas State Parks 

and Wildlife 2011; Walker 2004. 

Abbreviation: X = recorded use on the refuge. 

112 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ Restore intermittent and seasonal water regimes 

to higher elevation sites within the floodplain and 

restore patterns of sheet flow surface water movement across the sites by removing unnecessary roads 

(figure 8), ditches, levees, and other infrastructure. 

■■ Based on soil type, convert higher elevations of 

current impounded wetlands (that is, Pair Ponds 

and southwest corner of Field S–1) to native grassland and shrubland by removing levees and water 

control structures and restoring seasonal water regimes. Seed tame grassland fields with nonnative 

grasses (not noxious) to outcompete the noxious 

and invasive weeds. Once these are established, 

interseed native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

■■ Due to a lack of irrigation and moisture, use native 

seed that can be germinated with minimal moisture. 

■■ Where possible, harvest native seed from plants 

found on the refuge. 

■■ Based on historical frequencies and the habitat 

requirements of target species, provide occasional 

disturbances from fire, mowing, or grazing to recycle nutrients and regenerate grass, shrub, and 

forb species. 

■■ As saline soils require a different seed mix and 

management, determine where these soils exist 

and map them in RLGIS. 

■■ Monitor trends in abundance and distribution to 

evaluate the effectiveness of these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

Soil maps reveal that most uplands on the refuge were 

historically covered with grasses and some scattered 

shrubs. Some areas experienced occasional flooding and 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 113 

Service equipment would be used to plant annual grain 

crops to eliminate invasive species. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

had more wet grassland communities interspersed with 

herbaceous plants such as smartweed and sedges. By 

contrast, higher floodplain terraces, slopes, and alluvial 

fans included mixed wet and upland-type grasses and 

shrubs such as rabbit brush, sage, needle and thread, 

and Junegrass (Heitmeyer et. al 2010). These uplands 

were altered by farming and agricultural practices. 

Very little, if any, native grassland and shrubland was 

intact when the refuge was established. Some of these 

agricultural and tame grass fields are heavily infested 

with invasive species and provide minimal habitat 

value to upland wildlife, such as grassland birds. Since 

refuge establishment, the uplands have continued to 

undergo various management techniques, and there 

has been no long-term management approach due to a 

lack of management plans. Since 1873 the soils in these 

uplands have been altered and disturbed by farming 

and agricultural practices; they have also been affected 

by the change in system hydrology due to irrigation 

practices, impoundments, roads, and levees (Graham 

2009). While the refuge retired these tame grasslands 

and rested them for many years, invasive plants such 

as spotted knapweed, cheatgrass, and Canada thistle 

have become widespread in these areas. This has reduced the tame grasses that can provide some habitat 

value for grassland nesting birds. 

There are many challenges to restoring the uplands. Restoration would be costly and time consuming. To begin restoration, the refuge would first focus 

on treating and eliminating invasive species and testing restoration techniques in small patches of tame 

grassland sites. Since many of these areas do not have 

irrigation, it may be challenging to germinate some 

native grassland seed. Many of the upland field soils 

receive no moisture or shade from the drying sun. 

This has resulted in a hard soil cap that is almost impossible for native vegetation to take root in and seed 

successfully. Grazing or disking may help to break up 

this soil cap to allow for seeding. 

Treatment and restoration would be accomplished 

through a variety of methods including chemical applications (using the Service’s approved chemicals 

only), cropping for multiple years prior to seeding with 

natives, mowing, grazing, prescribed fire, and direct 

planting. Effectively controlling invasive species may 

require using several of these methods (see section 5.5, 

“Goal for Invasive and Nonnative Species”). 

To reduce the invasive weed seedbed, formerly 

disked and farmed fields with considerable amounts of 

invasive species would be planted to small grains for 

several years. Using herbicide-treatable seed and applying herbicide would reduce the weed seedbed that 

has built up in these soils for years. The small grain 

crops would also provide an interim wildlife food source 

for a number of migratory birds and resident wildlife. 

Some fields would also be kept fallow and disked at 

strategic times when invasive plants begin to grow. 

This farming would stimulate the weeds to grow and 

then they would be mowed and, in some cases disked, 

prior to seeding. Winter wheat could be used on these 

fallow fields to reduce erosion from wind and runoff. 

These fields would be disked again in the spring. Once 

the resprouting of invasive plants is reduced (after 

4–7 years), restoration to native plants would begin 

and soil disturbance would cease. Upland Fields I–1 

through I–7 could potentially be irrigated by a wheel 

line (figure 7). However, the wheel line is expensive 

and time consuming to repair and operate. The refuge 

would use irrigation where it would be beneficial for 

the transition from small grains to native grasslands. 

Many of the former agricultural fields are dominated 

by cheatgrass and smooth brome. Upland Fields S–1 

and S–2 are subirrigated units with a high water table 

that keeps the soil somewhat moist. These fields have 

more of a mixture of grasses but still have considerable 

invasive species. Canada and musk thistle are rapidly 

invading these fields in the south part of the refuge. 

Other potential treatment and restoration sites 

include formerly impounded areas and proposed restoration sites where the Service would remove levees, 

berms, and water control structures by the old residence site; Ponds 7, 7a, 9, and D; and Pair Ponds (see 

section 5.3, “Goal for Wetland Impoundment Habitat 

and Associated Wildlife,” and figure 7). 

5.5 goal for Invasive and 

nonnative Species 

Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and 

spread of noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species within the refuge while working 

with partners to address off-refuge infestations 

within the surrounding landscape. 
114 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

nEW InvASIvE SPECIES oBjECTIvE 

Within 5 years, establish a baseline inventory of all 

invasive plants including noxious weeds for the refuge 

to develop thresholds or triggers for management actions and priority management areas. 

Prevent, monitor, and treat all new invaders or small 

infestations for early detection and rapid response 

(for example, blueweed, hoary alyssum, and Dalmatian toadflax) to prevent establishment and additional 

management burden for invasive species. 

Strategies 

■■ Recruit one biological science technician to coordinate the IPM program. 

■■ Continue to map known locations of early invaders and continue to update the database as areas 

are treated. 

■■ Train and/or certify employees and cooperators (including the Service’s strike team) in invasive species identification, mapping techniques, mechanical 

techniques (shovel, hand pulling, and netting) and 

chemical application. 

■■ Prioritize treatment in those areas where restoration is occurring and in heavy public use areas. 

■■ Through partnerships, determine the presence of 

known and new harmful wildlife and insect species 

and treat them as needed. Through partnerships, 

develop a program to treat and monitor off-refuge 

sources of early invaders. 

■■ Actively include volunteers, cooperators, and community support groups in new invader treatment 

and restoration programs. 

■■ Develop a partnership with MFWP and Ravalli 

County to monitor aquatic invaders. 

■■ Use geographic information system (GIS) technologies to map treated sites and monitor and retreat 

areas to prevent reintroduction and spread. 

ESTABlISHED InvASIvE SPECIES oBjECTIvE 

Reduce infestations of Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, common tansy, houndstongue, reed canarygrass, 

cheatgrass, and musk thistle by at least 20–30 percent 

(measured by canopy cover) over 15 years. Reduce 

infestations of tall buttercup, yellowflag iris, leafy 

spurge, St. Johnswort, oxeye daisy, yellow toadflax, 

and common bugloss on the refuge by at least an average of 45–50 percent (measured by canopy cover) 

over 15 years. 

Strategies 

■■ Using RLGIS, continue to monitor invasive species 

distribution and abundance and use this information 

to prioritize treatment, monitor treatment sites for 

effectiveness, and re-treat as needed. 

■■ Train and/or certify employees and cooperators 

(including the Service’s strike team) in invasive 

species identification, mapping techniques, mechanical techniques (shovel, hand pulling) and 

chemical application. 

■■ Monitor and re-treat areas to reduce patch sizes 

and to prevent reintroduction. 

■■ Continue to use partnerships to treat known invasive species areas, including off-refuge sources 

of invasive plants. 

■■ Expand capabilities to treat and restore identified 

priority areas to create contiguous blocks of native 

habitat for native wildlife species. 

■■ As soil is disturbed for restoration and management 

activities, treat these areas for invasive plants and 

restore them to desirable or native species. 

■■ Only purchase gravel for the refuge that is certified weed-free. 

■■ Review and update the IPM plan. 

■■ Through partnerships, attempt to prevent the reinvasion of treated areas from off-refuge sources. 

■■ Actively involve volunteers and community support groups in education and outreach to increase 

awareness and prevent establishment of invasives. 

■■ Work cooperatively with the Whitetail Golf Course, 

located within the refuge boundary, to address invasive species that can be transported to the refuge. 

Rationale for new and Established Invasive 

Species 

Due to changes in the refuge’s landscape—including 

conversion of native habitat to agriculture (prior to 

refuge establishment) and the advancing of nonnative 

species across the landscape—the refuge is infested 

with at least 15 invasive plant species. These invasive 

species are so widespread that the refuge is challenged 

in fulfilling its wildlife conservation mission with respect to biological diversity and biological integrity. 

These invasive plants can displace native vegetation 

over large areas and form nearly monotypic stands in 

the absence of management—accordingly, they threaten 

native biodiversity (Bedunah 1992, Hutchison 1992). 

The control or elimination of invasive plants on Service lands would comply with State and Federal laws 

for invasive and noxious species, including all Service 

policies pertaining to chemical treatments. 

The treatment of weeds requires two different tactics. The first, Early Detection and Rapid Response, 

focuses on treating new invaders to prevent establishment, which would add to the existing management 

burden. New invaders are species that are present in 

small infestations or which have recently been documented on the refuge and are not widespread or well 

documented. The second tactic involves continual 

treatments to reduce the size of larger, established 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 115 

infestations. These areas would be targeted repeatedly in multiple-year treatment plans. All invasive 

species treatments would require monitoring to measure their effectiveness and allow adaptive management as necessary. 

Invasive plant management requires baseline information of size, canopy cover, location relative to 

priority wildlife habitat areas, and rate of spread to 

be able to determine the most cost-effective management strategies. An inventory would help prioritize 

management areas and strategies for eliminating 

new and isolated infestations, containing them, or 

reducing larger infestations. Using IPM techniques, 

the refuge would develop both short- and long-term 

plans to target and reduce the low, medium, and high 

ranking infestations of weeds. Montana Department 

of Agriculture ranks invasive noxious weeds on the 

degree of infestation and threat to the State. Using 

these rankings and the degree of threat to refuge 

lands, the refuge has developed high, medium, and 

low rankings for treatment. High ranking species 

are those that are just arriving on the refuge in very 

small infestations—that is, new invaders. Targeting 

these species before they become more established 

is critical. Medium ranking species are those that are 

more abundant and a bit more established than high 

ranking species. Finally, low ranking species are those 

that are well established and cover a lot of acreage, 

making their control and eradication more challenging, much more costly, and often less successful than 

smaller infestations. 

Controlling invasive species must start on the ground 

level with education and training because prevention 

is the most cost-effective management method. Employees, volunteers, and cooperators would be trained 

in species identification including how to identify new 

invaders. Each would be trained on how to treat invasive species and which technique (chemical, mechanical, biological, or cultural) is most effective for each 

species, including timing and duration. 

Employees travel all around the refuge, and thus 

they are highly likely to transport weeds; therefore, 

the refuge would make sure that all employees can 

identify weeds and at least one employee maintains a 

pesticide applicator’s license. Steps would be taken to 

reduce the probability of transporting weeds, such as 

washing equipment before transporting it to another 

location. Additionally, any dirt work that is performed 

would be immediately followed by reseeding of desired 

species and treatment of invasives. 

Infestations of invasive species from adjoining 

lands have increased in recent years. The refuge 

would continue to develop its partnership with the 

Ravalli County Weed District to provide education to 

adjoining landowners on weeds and their detrimental 

effects on habitat. A program would be developed to 

treat and monitor off-refuge sources of new invaders. 

As more established and larger infestations are targeted, such as those in upland fields, focus areas would 

be developed to maintain consistent treatment and 

monitoring over several years in one area to prevent 

reintroduction of invasive species. The refuge would 

recruit volunteers and youth groups for this effort. 

Invasive species treatment is an important step in 

habitat restoration; however, once native plant species become established, they should resist reinvasion. 

5.6 goal for Research 

Pursue and maintain compatible research 

projects that would provide information on 

refuge resources and address refuge issues to 

assist management in making decisions based 

on the best available information and science. 

RESEARCH oBjECTIvE 

Identify and support research projects that substantially benefit the refuge and species conservation and 

management (for example, floodplain restoration, target species studies, and public use). 

Strategies 

■■ Evaluate all current research projects to determine 

their value in addressing refuge management objectives and concerns. 

■■ Focus wildlife research on assessments of species– 

habitat relationships. 

■■ Identify, design, and conduct issue-driven research 

and work with universities to develop senior thesis projects, graduate projects, or other research 

proposals that would address identified issues or 

provide useful data for management actions and 

adaptive management. Continue to participate with 

other Service divisions and the State in researching wildlife diseases on the refuge. 

A bird on Lee Metcalf Refuge is banded for research 

purposes. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
116 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ Evaluate impacts on both ground and surface 

water quality from off-refuge water sources including supply ditches, creeks, and other public 

inputs (for example, subdivisions, septic systems, 

and underground tile). Continue to participate in 

the Montana Bureau of Mines and Department of 

Environmental Quality research on ground water 

quality impacts. 

■■ Work with partners, including universities, to 

research methyl mercury contamination and the 

potential correlation with the osprey population 

on the refuge. 

■■ Work with partners to provide opportunities to 

research the best methods and net effects of restoring refuge habitats, particularly gallery and 

riverfront forest, and reconnecting waterways to 

the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Complete a forest inventory (baseline) and upland 

inventory (baseline) prior to major restoration 

activities to better understand and monitor the 

response of those vegetative communities to restoration efforts and other management actions. 

■■ Investigate the relationship of how water moves 

through the refuge by recording data such as the 

arrival of irrigation water, ground water movements, water level management, and the fluctuating water levels of the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Through partnerships, investigate the impacts and 

monitor changes to refuge habitats and wildlife 

as a result of climate change. Use these results to 

adapt refuge management programs to the changing environment. 

■■ Seek out grant opportunities to fully or partially 

fund research projects. 

■■ Use an adaptive management approach to incorporate ongoing research and monitoring results into 

management options and decisions. 

Rationale 

Past research conducted on the refuge has been beneficial in understanding resources and making management decisions. However, no concerted effort has 

been made to design a research program based on the 

refuge’s most pressing issues or to provide missing 

data for effectively managing and restoring habitats. 

The habitat-based goals and objectives in this CCP 

would form the basis for establishing research and 

monitoring priorities for the refuge. The restoration 

proposals would provide a number of research opportunities to both develop restoration methods and 

study their effects. 

To ensure that research proposals address refuge 

issues and inform management decisions, research 

proposals would be evaluated to determine if they 

support refuge research objectives and needs. The 

refuge would also present research opportunities to 

other partners such as universities. Partnerships are 

critical for achieving the research goal and objectives. 

Cooperative efforts—such as shared funding, lodging, 

vehicles, equipment, knowledge, and expertise—are 

needed to accomplish research projects. 

5.7 goal for Cultural 

Resources 

Provide opportunities for visitors to learn 

about the unique glacial, Native American, 

and Euro-American history of the Bitterroot 

Valley while maintaining and protecting the 

integrity of the refuge’s cultural and historical resources. 

CulTuRAl RESouRCES oBjECTIvE 1 

(PRoTECTIon) 

Through partnerships, systematically develop a comprehensive cultural resource inventory for the refuge, 

giving priority to proposed habitat restoration sites, 

and preserve and protect all known cultural resources 

while ensuring future activities comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with the zone archeologist, contractors, local tribes, the State Historic Preservation Office, 

universities, and other partners, to start developing a comprehensive cultural resource inventory. 

■■ Use the Montana statewide cultural resource inventory list to determine sensitive sites before 

conducting activities (such as construction or excavation) that may disturb these sites. 

■■ Document discovered cultural resource sites and 

ensure their protection. 

■■ Continue to comply with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act before starting projects. 

Volunteers help restore the Whaley Homestead, which is 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 117 

■■ Collaborate with universities and anthropology students looking for projects and inventory opportunities. 

■■ Develop a partnership with the Native American 

studies program at the Salish Kootenai College to 

better understand the significance and cultural history of the refuge area to the Salish and other tribes. 

Rationale 

The Bitterroot Valley has a rich history and a dynamic culture. Ideally, a comprehensive inventory 

would help better describe that history on the refuge 

and ensure the protection of cultural resources. However, these types of inventories are time consuming. 

Throughout the life of this 15-year CCP, refuge staff 

would work with partners and the regional archaeologist to begin documenting cultural sites, focusing 

first on any areas proposed for restoration or other 

developments. 

Prior to Euro-American settlement, the Salish 

people called this valley home for several centuries, 

and literature shows that there were several Salish 

campsites on the refuge. Within decades of the passage 

of Lewis and Clark through the Bitterroot Valley in 

1805 and 1806, other Euro-Americans followed. The 

first Euro-American settlers were fur traders who 

built a fort and later Jesuit priests who built a mission. The area surrounding the mission became the 

oldest community in Montana: what is now the town 

of Stevensville. As more Euro-Americans settled in 

the valley, the land and waters that had provided the 

Salish people with their traditional supplies and foods, 

such as the bitterroot plant, were converted to grazing 

and agriculture. In 1891, the United States Government relocated the Salish people to a reservation in 

the Jocko Valley. Since that time, almost all of their 

traditional sites for gathering native plants in the Bitterroot Valley have been developed. 

The arrival of Euro-American settlers forever 

changed the landscape and the uses of this valley from 

traditional harvesting of native plants and wildlife to 

intensive agriculture. One of the earliest homesteads in 

the valley was the Whaley Homestead, located on the 

refuge and listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. This homestead was established by Indian Agent 

Peter Whaley in 1885 and survives as an outstanding 

example of frontier architecture. Weatherboard siding conceals a massive, complicated understructure 

of square-hewn logs. The Service would continue to 

weatherproof and seal this structure to prevent physical deterioration from climate and animals. 

Federal laws and policies mandate the identification 

and protection of cultural resources on Federal lands. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

requires Federal agencies to consider the effects on 

cultural resources before conducting any Federal action. Without a complete inventory, the refuge’s identification of all cultural resources is incomplete. Until 

the inventory is completed, the staff would continue 

to work with the regional archaeologist and State 

Historic Preservation Office on a case-by-case basis to 

evaluate projects with the potential to cause impacts. 

CulTuRAl RESouRCES oBjECTIvE 2 

(InTERPRETATIon) 

Through partnerships, develop a multimedia education and interpretation program that provides visitors 

with information about the unique history and culture 

of the Bitterroot Valley and the refuge. Topics would 

include the Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Nez Perce tribes; 

Lewis and Clark expedition; Euro-American settlement; and the Whaley Homestead. These displays 

and programs would also highlight the effects—both 

positive and negative—of these peoples, events, and 

land uses on the resources and ecology of this area. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with tribal, State, and other partners to create professionally planned and produced displays 

at kiosks and at the expanded visitor center that 

interpret the unique culture and early history of 

the refuge and the Bitterroot River Valley, including the traditional uses of native plants. 

■■ Partner with volunteers and other interested organizations to restore and interpret the Whaley 

Homestead site. Once restored, consider creating 

a visitor contact area and history displays, including period furniture. 

■■ Working with Salish Cultural Committee, incorporate traditional Native American place names and 

the history of place names in interpretive signage, 

as appropriate. 

■■ Work with refuge partners to determine what degree of interpretation and accompanying restoration is needed for the Whaley Homestead. 

■■ Develop a set of education kits highlighting the 

unique history of the refuge and the Bitterroot 

Valley. 

■■ The refuge would continue to identify and interpret historical and nationally designated trails that 

pass through the refuge including the Nez Perce 

(National Historic Trail) and Ice Age (National 

Geologic Trail). 

Rationale 

Cultural resources interpretation communicates important messages about the area’s history, context, 

and resources to diverse audiences. A tremendous 

opportunity exists to work with partners, including 

the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes culture 

committee and other State and Federal agencies, to 

develop a comprehensive interpretive program that 

adequately describes the significance and history of this 

valley and the refuge. Thousands of Native Americans 
118 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

once lived throughout the valley, although many of 

their traditional sites have been lost to development. 

The refuge contained many of the resources that would 

have been needed to live and survive, including the 

Bitterroot River and native plants; however, no known 

traditional sites have been identified on the refuge. 

The refuge and the surrounding Bitterroot Valley 

also have a rich history of Euro-American settlement, 

including the earliest town in Montana, Stevensville. 

Several major historical and cultural sites occurred 

or occur on or within 5 miles of the refuge: Salish camps, 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, St. Mary’s Mission, Fort Owen, Whaley Homestead, and Nez Perce 

National Historic Trail. The buildings of St. Mary’s 

Mission, Fort Owen, and the Whaley Homestead are 

all on the National Registry for Historic Places. Additional signage and interpretation programs would 

need to be developed to interpret these sites. 

Very little interpretation of the Whaley Homestead 

has been completed because of its current condition. 

The structure is not safe enough to allow visitors to 

regularly walk through the building, despite the resources and time the refuge and other partners have 

dedicated to maintaining it. A National Register of 

Historic Places sign does provide some history of the 

site. The interior has been updated by the occupants 

over the years but does not match the period of the late 

1800s. To properly interpret this site while protecting 

the structure and visitors, the refuge would need to 

determine what level of interpretation is appropriate 

and then work with partners to restore and interpret 

this historical homestead based on these guidelines. 

To date many refuge partners have expressed enthusiasm and willingness to help restore the site (in part 

by providing period furniture). Such efforts could ultimately allow visitors to enter this home and interpret the history of early settlers. Nevertheless, these 

efforts would be costly, and the Service must ensure 

that this historical structure remains protected. 

The overarching interpretive theme for the Whaley 

House would be land use and its effects on wildlife. 

Topics would include hydrological changes, agricultural 

practices, grassland conversion, lumber and forest 

ecology, and native plant usage, all of which have and 

would continue to affect refuge resources. 

5.8 goal for visitor Services 

Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to participate in and enjoy quality, 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, and interpretation programs that foster an awareness and 

appreciation of the importance of protecting 

the natural and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitterroot Valley, and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

HunTIng oBjECTIvE 

Continue to provide and improve the quality of waterfowl and deer hunting opportunities, facilities, 

and access points to provide for the safety and enjoyment of refuge hunters of all abilities and work with 

the State to determine if additional opportunities for 

hunting white-tailed deer hunting opportunities could 

be provided. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to provide a quality white-tailed deer 

(archery only) hunt on designated lands according 

to State regulations. Continue to provide a quality waterfowl hunt from designated blinds on the 

southeast part of the refuge, according to State 

regulations. 

■■ Work with the State to determine the viability of 

allowing hunters to use muzzleloaders and shotguns to harvest white-tailed deer (depending on the 

deer population) within this archery-only hunting 

district (currently Hunting District 260). Consider 

rotating the areas where firearms are permitted 

depending on management objectives. Limit the 

number of hunters permitted to use firearms. 

■■ Continue to work with local hunters to rebuild, 

prepare, and maintain waterfowl hunting blinds. 

Upgrade the current blinds that are available to 

hunters with disabilities. 

■■ Allow archery hunters with disabilities to access 

refuge roads near the Whitetail Golf Course (within 

the refuge boundary). 

■■ Produce a large print version of the hunting and 

fishing brochure. 

■■ Provide an annual “tear sheet” outlining the specific refuge regulations for all hunting programs. 

■■ Post a sign at the beginning of the Kenai Nature 

Trail to make trail users aware of their potential 

proximity to archery hunters. 

■■ Provide spent-shell deposit sites near hunting areas. 

■■ Continue to monitor hunter satisfaction and harvest information. 

■■ Manage submergent aquatic and upland vegetation within waterfowl hunt areas to improve the 

hunt quality. 

■■ Enforce waterfowl hunt regulations, including 

shoot times and access. 

■■ Continue to collaborate with the State to provide 

hunter education programs to youth. 

■■ Provide a limited number of waterfowl decoys for 

checkout from the refuge headquarters. 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 119 

Rationale 

White-tailed deer and waterfowl hunting were permitted soon after the refuge was established. Today, 

hunting is one of the most popular compatible wildlifedependent activities offered on the refuge. As practiced 

on Lee Metcalf Refuge, hunting does not pose a threat 

to the wildlife populations, and in some instances it is 

necessary for sound wildlife management. The refuge 

works with the State to carefully regulate its hunting 

program and maintain equilibrium between population levels and wildlife habitat. 

On the refuge there is a lack of regeneration of native trees and shrubs, which are important components 

for migratory bird habitat. White-tailed deer browse 

heavily and may be the cause of this lack of regeneration and plant diversity. Although the refuge is open to 

hunting, it lies within Hunting District 260, an archeryonly hunting area. Archery hunting does remove some 

of these deer; however, the challenges associated with 

this type of hunting (for example, animals must be in 

close range) affect the success rate of hunters. Adding 

a limited firearm season, during which shotguns and 

muzzleloaders could be used, would provide opportunities for non-archery hunters; it may also improve 

harvest rates and better disperse the deer during the 

long archery season (currently over 4 months). The 

refuge would work with the State and collect data on 

white-tailed deer numbers to help determine the need 

for expanding this hunting opportunity. 

The refuge maintains 15 designated waterfowl 

hunting blinds, two of which are reserved for hunters 

with disabilities. The labor and cost associated with 

maintaining the blinds would continue to be offset 

by volunteer assistance, particularly from waterfowl 

hunters. 

FISHIng oBjECTIvE 1 

Following State and Federal regulations, continue to 

provide opportunities for anglers of all abilities to fish 

within the WVA, including the associated banks of the 

Bitterroot River and Francois Slough. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to permit fishing on Francois Slough after the riparian habitat is restored. 

■■ Maintain the accessible fishing (and wildlife observation) platform in the WVA. 

■■ Prohibit boats anywhere on the refuge (except 

the Bitterroot River). No boats can be launched 

on the refuge. 

■■ Prohibit boaters from accessing the refuge from 

the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Continue to provide updated fishing regulations in 

a combined hunting and fishing brochure, following 

Service graphic standards. 

■■ Restore instream and riparian habitat on North 

Burnt Fork Creek to improve the quality of the 

creek’s cold-water fishery. 

Rationale 

Compatible and accessible recreational fishing opportunities are available at Francois Slough and the Bitterroot River, both within the designated WVA. The 

remainder of the refuge is closed to fishing, except 

for special events. 

Most anglers come to the refuge not only to fish but 

also to appreciate the wildlife and beautiful scenery of 

the Bitterroot Valley. Fishing, like hunting, can serve 

as the foundation for an individual’s appreciation of 

conservation efforts and environmental ethics. Once 

people begin to appreciate and care about the wildlife 

they enjoy and experience firsthand, they take this 

appreciation and awareness back to their own communities and backyards. 

Currently some anglers use the fishing platform 

to access Francois Slough and its largely nonnative 

fishery. The restoration proposed for Francois Slough 

(associated with North Burnt Fork Creek) would restore a natural stream that could improve the quality 

of the habitat for native fish. The existing accessible 

fishing platform could still be used by anglers to access this restored stream. 

Thousands of anglers and boaters float the Bitterroot River. In many areas, the refuge property 

includes the entire existing channel of the Bitterroot 

River along with the uplands west of the river. Recent 

land surveys indicate that lands through and west of 

the Bitterroot River are part of the refuge. The refuge would seek to open the areas west of the river for 

public uses, including fishing. 

FISHIng oBjECTIvE 2 

Provide an opportunity for children of all abilities to 

learn about the techniques and enjoyment of catching fish. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with partners to host an annual accessible 

fishing event and others, if possible. Consider 

holding these events within areas closed to public 

fishing (to increase fishing success) if they do not 

violate the policy requirements of appropriate use 

and compatibility or inhibit restoration efforts. 

■■ As part of the environmental education program, 

provide students at these events with educational 

materials on the impacts of nonnative fish—particularly largemouth bass, which dominates many 

refuge impoundments. 

■■ As appropriate, provide an opportunity for MFWP 

to transfer captured largemouth bass to existing 

State closed-basin, warm-water fisheries. 
120 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ At events, deliver presentations on the refuge, 

its purposes and resources, and the values of the 

Refuge System. 

Rationale 

The Service’s wildlife recreation policy promotes the 

enjoyment and techniques of fishing, particularly among 

children and their families. The refuge has an opportunity to work with partners, including the State, to 

provide opportunities for students to learn about the 

enjoyment and proper methods and ethics for catching fish while fostering a desire to continue fishing on 

refuges and other State waters. This initiative has an 

even broader purpose of teaching children about the 

outdoors so they may be able to appreciate it. 

The greatest opportunities to catch fish on the refuge—particularly largemouth bass—are in Ponds 8 and 

10. These ponds are closed to all other public fishing, 

so allowing any public events requires a compatibility 

determination (appendix D). Also, since largemouth 

bass are not native to this area, students would be provided information on the impacts of nonnative fish on 

native species and their habitats. The State would assist 

with this education and may be permitted to transfer 

these captured nonnative fish to other State warmwater fisheries. These State waters already contain 

populations of largemouth bass. The State uses these 

closed basin nonnative fisheries to take pressure off 

more sensitive fishing areas that may contain threatened cold-water species, such as bull trout. 

WIlDlIFE oBSERvATIon AnD PHoTogRAPHy 

oBjECTIvE 

Without impeding the migration of the Bitterroot River, 

maintain and create additional facilities and programs 

for wildlife observation and photography for visitors 

of all abilities. These additional opportunities would 

provide visitors with a new and exciting perspective 

that would enhance the visitor’s appreciation and connection to the wildlife and the habitats of the refuge 

and the Bitterroot Valley. 

Strategies for Wildlife observation 

■■ Continue to maintain and manage the WVA; however, do not add artificial structures to protect the 

WVA’s trails and structures from the movements of 

the Bitterroot River. Relocate threatened facilities 

and eroded trails to other areas, as appropriate. 

■■ Continue to maintain all walking trails not impacted 

by river movements, and one viewing and fishing 

platform and associated facilities, keeping two of 

these trails and the viewing platform accessible to 

visitors with disabilities (figure 6). 

■■ Improve the WVA entrance for wheelchair use, 

replacing the gate with bollards that allow wheelchairs to pass between. 

■■ Continue to provide spotting scopes, binoculars, 

and bird books for wildlife observers at the expanded visitor center. 

■■ Add signage to ensure that visitors remain on designated trails. 

■■ As appropriate, relocate portions of the Kenai Nature Trail to the adjacent upper road to provide a 

more level walking surface and to reduce disturbance to waterfowl and other waterbirds using 

the wetlands below the trail. Upgrade the road to 

this trail. Maintain the closed area immediately 

east of this trail. 

■■ Add a seasonal walking trail around Pond 8 (figure 

6). This trail would be opened seasonally, as appropriate, to protect waterfowl and other waterbirds 

using this pond. 

■■ Replace the stationary spotting scopes located 

along existing trails and add an additional spotting 

scope within the WVA. 

■■ Treat invasive species along designated trails. 

■■ Add interpretation to new and existing trails, including information on the wildlife species that 

visitors may encounter. 

■■ Work with the county to develop Wildfowl Lane— 

the county road that travels through the refuge—as 

an auto tour route with pulloffs and accompanying 

interpretation. 

■■ Update and reprint the refuge’s current wildlife 

species list, including a large print version that 

meets the Service’s graphic standards. 

■■ Add recommendations for wildlife viewing etiquette 

to the general brochure and wildlife list. 

■■ Consider installing a remote camera on a nest area; 

this image could be streamed not only in the visitor contact area but also on the refuge’s Web site. 

■■ Provide wildlife observation information through 

the internet via the refuge’s homepage, blog, and 

social media sites. 

Strategies for Photography 

■■ Continue to maintain two stationary photography 

blinds. 

■■ Require a special use permit (approved by the 

refuge manager) for commercial photography 

proposals that benefit the refuge and provide the 

photographer access or privileges not afforded to 

the general public. Commercial photography proposals not benefitting the refuge or Refuge System 

would not be allowed. 

■■ Require a special use permit (approved by the refuge manager) for commercial filming. 

■■ All permitted commercial photography and film 

would be made available for Service use (excluding 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 121 

that which is provided to other parties for commercial uses). 

■■ Through partnerships, work with photographers 

to build the refuge’s photo library. 

■■ Make two portable photo blinds available for use 

in areas currently open to the public. 

■■ Through partnerships, conduct an annual wildlife 

photography workshop highlighting how to photograph wildlife while causing minimal disturbance. 

■■ Upgrade waterfowl hunting Blind 2 to provide a 

photo blind for photographers with disabilities. 

■■ Work with photography schools to build the refuge’s 

photo library and assist with the annual photography workshops while providing wildlife photography opportunities to their students. 

Rationale 

Most visitors to the refuge come to view and photograph wildlife and the beautiful scenery of the Bitterroot Valley. Wildlife observation has been found 

compatible on the refuge. Wildlife observation often 

serves as the foundation for an individual’s environmental ethics. Once people begin to appreciate and 

care about the wildlife they enjoy and experience 

firsthand, they take this appreciation and awareness 

back to their own communities and backyards. 

Currently most visitors view wildlife from Wildfowl 

Lane, a county road that travels through the refuge. 

However, this is not an official tour route and offers no 

interpretation. Working with the county to turn Wildfowl Lane into an auto tour route, if appropriate, may 

take some effort, particularly for any improvements 

such as pulloffs and accompanying interpretation. 

The proposed trail around Pond 8 would be 1.25 

miles in length and provide visitors with another opportunity to independently explore the refuge and 

view wildlife. This trail would extend the Kenai Nature Trail westward using the Pond 8 dike road (near 

Potato Cellar Pond); it would then loop south, travel 

just north of a former residence site, and then connect to Wildfowl Lane (figure 6). This trail would be 

located close to an existing heron rookery and waterfowl migration areas. To protect these species, the trail 

would be closed seasonally. These and other proposed 

improvements to the photography and wildlife viewing 

areas within the refuge would enhance the visitors’ 

experiences, provide better opportunities for viewing 

and photographing wildlife, and help foster their connection to the area’s unique habitat and wildlife. This 

connection may result in a greater understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge and its resources including 

the wildlife species found within the Bitterroot River 

Valley. By working with partners, including commercial photographers, the refuge would continue to build 

a photo library that could be used in publications and 

education and outreach tools, including interpretive 

displays and the refuge’s Web site. There is almost always some disturbance to wildlife in areas open to the 

public, particularly when visitors approach too closely 

or don’t follow refuge regulations (for example, by 

traveling off designated trails or removing vegetation 

for a photo). To reduce these impacts, visitors would 

be provided refuge-specific materials (brochures, podcasts, and education programs) to facilitate wildlife 

friendly behaviors that minimize disturbance. This 

would not only reduce the impacts on refuge wildlife 

and their habitats but improve the overall quality of 

opportunities for all visitors. 

EnvIRonMEnTAl EDuCATIon oBjECTIvE 

Continue and expand environmental education programs and activities on and off the refuge for at least 

1,500 adults and 4,000 students of all abilities. These 

programs would focus on the values and importance 

of the natural, historical, and cultural resources of the 

refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, including the refuge’s 

efforts to maintain, enhance, and restore native plant 

and wildlife communities on the refuge. 

Strategies 

■■ Recruit a visitor services specialist to and develop 

and present programs. 

■■ Develop programs and materials that could be 

used year-round and encourage teachers and students to explore the refuge beyond the popular 

spring season. 

■■ Through partnerships, continue to organize and 

provide at least 15 on- and off-refuge annual and 

special events for adults and students. 

■■ Conduct teacher workshops annually to better orient and equip teachers to independently explore 

and learn about the refuge resources. 

■■ Establish and widely publicize field trip planning 

procedures for teachers. 

■■ Use current and new education kits to provide 

at least five offsite school presentations annually. 

The refuge’s amphitheater is a good venue for 

environmental education and visitor services events. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
122 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ Continue to allow teachers and students to independently explore the refuge’s public use areas, 

determining if any participants require special 

assistance due physical limitations. Provide an 

orientation on where and how to best explore the 

refuge, and provide teachers with background information prior to their arrival. 

■■ Develop exploration backpacks that can be checked 

out and used by students; these backpacks would 

include suggested projects, species they would see, 

along with some field supplies such as invertebrate 

sampling nets, water testing kits, and binoculars. 

■■ Working with local teachers, continue to maintain, 

develop, and provide multimedia educational kits 

related to refuge resources and make them available to local teachers and students for use in onsite 

visits or in their classrooms. 

■■ Develop an education program that focuses on climate change in the Bitterroot Valley. 

■■ Work with local teachers to develop a refuge-specific 

curriculum that meets State standards. 

■■ Develop an education kit that explains the history 

and value of the restoration efforts proposed under 

this alternative. 

■■ Continue to serve as the coordinator for the State 

Junior Duck Stamp Program. 

■■ Expand opportunities to collaborate with universities to provide outdoor classrooms for students 

wanting to learn about the refuge, its management 

programs, its current issues, and the values of the 

Refuge System. 

■■ Develop a partnership with local universities to 

provide opportunities for students to conduct research and monitoring projects that are beneficial 

to the refuge, and provide an opportunity for students work with refuge staff. 

■■ Add a classroom and associated supplies to the 

expanded visitor center for environmental education programs. 

■■ Organize or participate in five additional annual environmental education events on and off the refuge. 

■■ Pursue partnerships and grants to acquire additional 

resources for environmental education programs. 

■■ Expand the refuge’s online presence (social media, 

blog, Web site) to include interactive educational 

opportunities and help teachers plan field visits. 

■■ Provide training opportunities for added staff and 

volunteers to improve their capabilities and knowledge in developing and presenting environmental 

education programs. 

■■ Meeting Service graphic standards, use both the 

refuge’s Web site and a tearsheet to list all the 

educational resources available through the refuge 

Under the proposed alternative, the refuge would continue 

to coordinate the State Junior Duck Stamp Program. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

and the Service, and make this available to schools 

and other interested groups. 

■■ Continue to collaborate with the State to provide 

hunter education training. 

■■ Provide assistance to students interested in completing school science projects related to the natural 

resources found on the refuge, including mentoring 

and project development. 

■■ Collaborate with the State, universities, the Salish 

Tribe, and other entities to create focused activities 

(environmental education and other visitor uses) 

for environmental education and visitor service 

programming, including special events. 

■■ Participate in events sponsored by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe, including the River 

Honoring event for students. Provide information 

on refuge resources and the Bitterroot River Valley, where the Salish Tribe had lived for centuries. 

Rationale 

Environmental education is a learning process that 

increases people’s knowledge and awareness about the 

environment and associated challenges; develops the 

necessary skills and expertise to address the challenges; 

and fosters attitudes, motivation, and commitments to 

make informed decisions and take responsible action 

(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization 1978). Through environmental education, the Service can help develop a citizenry with the 

awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and drive to 

work cooperatively toward the conservation of environmental resources. Environmental education within 

the Refuge System incorporates onsite, offsite, and 

distance-learning materials, activities, programs, and 

products. These educational tools describe the refuge’s 

purposes, physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, and 

conservation strategies as well as the Refuge System 

mission. They also provide some history and perspective on this area prior to Euro-American settlement, 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 123 

including the native vegetation, natural waterways, 

and the unique culture and importance of this area to 

Native American people. 

Since today’s children are tomorrow’s land stewards, it is essential to help them become aware of the 

natural world and how they can protect and restore it. 

Today, most students learn about their natural world 

online, through books, or highly structured programs. 

These methods do provide educational benefits, but 

it is also effective simply to allow students to explore 

on their own. Refuge programs must not be so rigid 

that children cannot learn by using their own imaginations and senses. 

Environmental education is one of six wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the Improvement 

Act as a priority public use for the Refuge System, and 

it has been emphasized and supported on Lee Metcalf 

Refuge for many years. Given the refuge’s proximity 

to some of the more urban areas in Montana, including Missoula, there is a tremendous opportunity to do 

even more, including promoting the refuge as a conservation learning center where adults and children can 

learn about refuge resources, the unique history and 

importance of the Bitterroot Valley, and the values of 

the Refuge System. The refuge has focused most of its 

efforts on schools and groups that travel to the refuge, 

but with additional staff, greater opportunities would 

exist to travel offsite and reach a broader audience. 

Providing teacher workshops and materials for 

independently exploring the refuge would make even 

more teachers and students feel welcome while learning why the refuge is here, how it benefits them, and 

why it should be protected for future generations to 

enjoy and appreciate. 

InTERPRETATIon oBjECTIvE 

Improve, maintain, and create additional interpretive 

opportunities for the public that focus on refuge purposes; the natural, cultural, and historical resources 

of the refuge and Bitterroot Valley; and management 

programs and challenges, including future habitat restoration projects. These enhanced facilities and universally accessible programs would encourage visitors to 

independently explore and learn more about not only 

the values of this refuge, but also about how they can 

be part of protecting and restoring native and productive habitats to this refuge, the Bitterroot Valley, and 

other lands within the Refuge System. 

Strategies 

■■ Recruit a full-time permanent General Schedule 

(GS)–7 (could be upgraded to 9) visitor services 

specialist to work with volunteers, manage the 

visitor center, and develop and present programs. 

■■ Identify interpretive themes for the refuge and 

use them to develop professionally planned and 

produced interpretive panels and brochures; these 

themes would be used in future interpretive programs to consistently highlight the most important 

and unique aspects of the refuge, its history and 

purposes, current management and challenges, and 

proposed habitat restoration projects. 

■■ Develop a theme and message for the visitor center 

that focuses on floodplain restoration, wetland impoundment management, native wildlife, migratory 

birds, the refuge’s cultural and natural resources, 

and the role of the Refuge System. 

■■ Update interpretive panels to provide a variety 

of information including rules and regulations, the 

natural and cultural resources of the refuge and 

the Bitterroot Valley, habitat restoration projects, 

and the value of the Refuge System. Design panels 

to have a consistent appearance and to allow refuge staff to easily update them with dynamic and 

timely information. 

■■ Continue to maintain and update the current five 

kiosks, including three with interpretive panels. 

Locate an additional interpretive panel along the 

river trail within the WVA that explains the migration of the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Ensure that all current and future refuge brochures 

meet Service graphic standards and provide upto-date information that is useful for interpretive 

programs and better orients visitors. 

■■ Train volunteers to provide interpretive programs 

on the natural, historical, and cultural resources of 

the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley. 

■■ Make online resources (podcasts, Web site, blog, 

social media) available that interpret refuge resources along the public roads and trails. 

■■ Restore native habitat around entrance areas and 

kiosks and provide identification and interpretation of this native vegetation. 

■■ Provide interpretation along the Kenai Nature Trail, 

within the WVA, and along the auto tour route. 

■■ Participate in events highlighting the history of the 

Lewis and Clark expedition in the Bitterroot Valley. 

■■ Through partnerships, develop a new refuge video 

highlighting the history and resources of the refuge. 

■■ Construct a kiosk at the parking lot on the north 

end of the refuge, used by refuge hunters, that provides regulations as well as information on refuge 

purposes and resources. 

Rationale 

Interpretation is the identification and communication 

of important messages about natural and cultural resources to diverse audiences. Interpretation is designed 

to reveal relationships about the nature, origin, and 

purpose of a resource, landscape, or site in a way that 

forges connections between the interests of the audience and meanings inherent in the resource (National 
124 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Association for Interpretation 2011). Interpretation is 

a resource management tool that can be designed to 

develop understanding, and through understanding 

comes appreciation, and through appreciation comes 

protection of our natural resources. 

Interpretation is one of six wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the Improvement Act as 

a priority public use for the Refuge System. The refuge already contains some facilities and displays that 

interpret refuge resources, provide regulations, and 

orient visitors. The refuge hosts over 143,000 visitors 

annually and predicts that number would increase over 

the next 15 years. Tremendous opportunity exists to 

further educate these and future visitors about the 

importance of maintaining, restoring, and enjoying 

the natural and cultural resources of the refuge and 

the Refuge System. 

SIgnAgE oBjECTIvE 

Maintain an effective network of signs that meet the 

Service’s standards and notify the public of refuge 

boundaries, public use areas, and closed areas by annually reposting, replacing, and/or maintaining 20 

percent of the refuge signs. 

Strategies 

■■ Determine the opportunity to add directional 

signage along Interstate 90 and improve it along 

Highway 93. 

■■ Develop an entrance sign on or near the environmental education shelter in the WVA to notify river 

floaters that they are entering the refuge. 

■■ Add and maintain more consistent boundary signage—particularly along the west side of the refuge 

(and the river)—so the public is aware that they 

are entering the refuge. 

■■ Ensure that electronic directional devices, Web 

sites, and other printed materials correctly identify 

the location and information for refuge. 

■■ Ensure that signage has a similar appearance, 

meets Service graphic standards, and provides a 

consistent message or theme. 

■■ Mark the west boundary of the refuge with signage and open or maintain closure for public use. 

■■ Post a sign at the beginning of the Kenai Nature 

Trail to make visitors aware of appropriate uses of 

the trail and their potential proximity to archery 

hunters. 

■■ Establish the refuge’s primary point of entry as 

the east entrance, which would be closest to the 

expanded visitor center; a directional sign at the 

refuge boundary would include the distance to the 

visitor center and WVA. 

■■ Develop an entrance sign for the northeast corner 

of the refuge within easy view of the East Side 

Highway. 

■■ Place a directional sign at the east and south entrances identifying the distance to the visitor center. 

■■ In areas open to public use, such as the WVA, 

exchange “unauthorized entry” signs for “refuge 

boundary” signs. 

■■ Develop new panels for the two entrance kiosks 

including an orientation panel with regulations, a 

Refuge System panel, and a system for displaying 

changing information including current events. 

■■ Develop new panels for the kiosk in the WVA to 

include an orientation panel, a panel with a map 

and information about this part of the refuge, and 

a system for displaying changing information. 

■■ Develop a 2-foot by 3-foot orientation panel at 

refuge headquarters to provide information for 

after-hours visitors. 

■■ Move the single-paneled kiosk from behind the 

visitor center out to the front of the building for 

after-hours visitors. 

■■ Develop a sign that guides visitors to the WVA 

from the visitor center, and provide a directional 

sign to the visitor center at the road where the 

Whitetail Golf Course begins. 

■■ Work with the community of Stevensville to install 

interpretative and regulation signage at the Bitterroot River boat launch. 

■■ Add a Service logo to the side of the headquarters 

building that faces the parking area. 

■■ Update publications to show the same hours of operation that are posted at the visitor center. 

■■ Post the law enforcement officer’s phone number at kiosks and instruct visitors to call 911 for 

emergencies. 

Rationale 

Overall, the refuge boundaries are well signed, and 

directional signage orients visitors. However, opportunities exist to improve boundary, directional, and 

informational signage for the refuge’s 143,000 visitors. Maintaining and replacing these signs is timeconsuming but critical for orienting visitors, welcoming 

visitors, protecting refuge habitats, and preventing 

trespass. The refuge is surrounded by private, State, 

and some USDA Forest Service land. There are issues with trespassing that could be resolved with 

additional boundary signage and outreach. Most trespass occurs on the western boundary, particularly by 

boaters who leave their boats, unaware that they are 

entering the refuge. 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 125 

5.9 goal for Partnerships 

Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help 

achieve the vision and supporting goals and 

objectives of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

support other initiatives designed to protect 

and restore habitats for Federal trust species 

within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

PARTnERSHIP oBjECTIvE 

Foster a strong and effective working relationship 

with existing partners and new partners for the purpose of protecting cultural and historical resources, 

developing and providing visitor services programs, 

and managing and restoring the refuge’s habitats for 

target species. The refuge may participate in other 

partnerships that support refuge and Service initiatives including providing additional habitat for Federal trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to work with conservation organizations, communities, schools, State and Federal 

agencies, and tribes to collaborate on projects of 

mutual interest. 

■■ Work with partners to restore the connectivity of 

North Burnt Fork Creek for native fish species 

and riparian habitat. 

■■ Continue to participate in the interagency weed 

group to address invasive and nonnative species 

on and near the refuge. 

■■ Expand efforts to recruit and support volunteers for 

the refuge’s visitor services and biological programs. 

■■ Continue to work with partners to restore and 

preserve the Whaley Homestead. 

■■ Work with universities to incorporate various disciplines into refuge programs to address issues 

concerning visitor services and refuge resources. 

■■ Continue to participate in valley-wide efforts to 

protect habitat and wildlife corridors on private 

lands surrounding the refuge. 

■■ Work with the Whitetail Golf Course, located within 

the refuge boundary, to address wildlife habitat 

and impacts on adjoining refuge lands and waters. 

Rationale 

Partnerships are vital to achieving the Service’s mission, 

including the vision for Lee Metcalf Refuge. Many of 

the refuge’s wildlife, habitat, and public use programs 

and habitat projects could not continue without the 

funding and support from refuge partners, including 

volunteers. 

The Service must emphasize working cooperatively 

with others; develop a more integrated approach to 

problem-solving and share resources to get the job 

done; and make choices and find efficiencies in both resource and business management practices. This focus 

reinvigorates the refuge’s current intergovernmental 

coordination efforts. Numerous Federal, State, tribal, 

and local agencies and private citizens could be considered partners for the refuge. However, more could 

be done to inform and educate the partners about the 

refuge’s value and goals. In the same vein, the Service 

is willing to help other agencies with issues, such as 

invasive plant control and specific wildlife conservation issues. Much of this coordination could be accomplished through regular meetings and by developing 

personal relationships with individuals within other 

agencies and surrounding communities. 

5.10 goal for operations and 

Facilities 

Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of 

staff, volunteers, funding, and facilities. 

STAFF oBjECTIvE 

Recruit additional staff and volunteers needed to fully 

carry out the proposed actions in this draft CCP, including actions concerning public use, habitat management, inventory and monitoring, and research. 

Strategies 

■■ Retain the current permanent, full-time refuge positions: refuge manager, outdoor recreation planner, 

law enforcement officer, administrative assistant, 

and maintenance worker. 

■■ Continue to provide office space and support for 

zone and state-wide support staff, including a fire 

management officer, range (fire) technician, business team staff member, regional maintenance team 

member, and IPM strike team leader and team. 

■■ Recruit a GS–7 (could upgrade to 9) visitor services 

specialist to manage the visitor center, develop 

and conduct programs, and recruit and supervise 

volunteer staff. 

■■ Recruit a GS–9 (could upgrade to 11) deputy refuge manager. 

■■ Recruit a GS–5 (could upgrade to 7) biological science technician. 

■■ Recruit one GS–5 career seasonal biological science technician. 
126 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ Continue to work with Montana universities to 

develop a volunteer program by providing college 

credits in exchange for volunteer work experience. 

■■ Actively recruit additional volunteers to assist with 

expanded visitor services programs and habitat 

management and restoration projects. 

Rationale 

Lee Metcalf Refuge supports several other State and 

regional Service programs, including fire, regional 

maintenance team, business team, and invasive species 

programs. Although 14 full-time and seasonal Service 

employees are stationed at Lee Metcalf, only five are 

specifically assigned to conduct refuge programs. The 

State and regional resource employees do provide 

some support for the refuge’s maintenance and habitat 

projects, but their regional duties take precedence. 

To accomplish the proposed goals and objectives 

described in this draft CCP, additional staff, partnerships, and volunteers would be needed. One of the 

most significant needs is in the refuge’s visitor services 

program. Currently the refuge has over 143,000 visitors annually. The refuge has one outdoor recreation 

planner who is able to provide onsite programs, but 

there is a tremendous opportunity to do more outreach, interpretation, and education with students 

and adults, both on- and off-refuge. The vision for the 

refuge is to serve as an ambassador for not only the 

refuge but also the Refuge System. To accomplish this 

goal, additional staff would be needed to develop and 

provide programs, work with local schools and communities, and develop partnerships that could expand 

the refuge’s capabilities and outreach. 

Restoring refuge habitats, particularly gallery 

and riverfront forests only, is possible if the refuge 

can complete much of the restoration and subsequent 

monitoring using Service equipment and staff including (1) monitoring the response of target species; (2) 

planting and maintaining restoration sites; (3) monitoring the spread of invasive plants; (4) removing levees, 

ditches, and other structures; and (5) working with 

other partners, including volunteers, universities, State 

and Federal agencies, and conservation organizations 

interested in studying and assisting with this restoration. At a minimum, a biological science technician, 

under the direction of refuge management, would be 

required to conduct much of this monitoring, along 

with partners, such as universities. 

Current staff at the refuge consists of five permanent full-time employees including a refuge manager, 

outdoor recreation planner, law enforcement officer, 

maintenance worker, and an administrative assistant. 

There are also five zone and regional Service employees who are based out of this office, but they are not 

assigned to exclusively support refuge programs. 

Table 12 shows the current staff and proposed additional staff required to fully implement the CCP. 

If all requested projects and positions were funded, 

the refuge would be able to carry out all aspects of 

this CCP, which would provide the most benefit to 

wildlife, improve facilities, and significantly enhance 

public use programs. In the interim, projects that have 

adequate funding and staffing would receive priority 

for accomplishment. Staffing is requested for the 15­

year life of this CCP. 

FACIlITIES, EquIPMEnT, AnD SuPPlIES 

oBjECTIvE 

Maintain and acquire the facilities, equipment, and 

supplies needed to support all current and proposed 

biological, visitor services, and maintenance programs proposed in this draft CCP including support 

for added staff. 

Strategies 

■■ Expand the current visitor contact area into a visitor center including added space for professionally planned and produced displays, office space, 

a restroom available during closed hours, and a 

combined environmental education classroom and 

conference room. 

■■ Relocate the pole barn closer to the maintenance area. 

■■ Purchase or build a seed storage bin for storing 

native seed. 

■■ Construct a duplex to provide housing for seasonal, 

transitional, and detailed staff. 

Table 12. Current and proposed staff for lee Metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

Program Current positions Proposed additional staff 

Management GS–485–12 refuge manager GS–485–9 (could upgrade to 11) deputy refuge manager 

Biology None GS–404–5 (could upgrade to 7) biological science technician 

GS–404–5 career seasonal biological science technician 

Administration GS–0303–7 None 

Law enforcement GS–0025–7 (could upgrade to 9) None 

Maintenance WG–4749–08 maintenance worker None 

Visitor services GS–025–11 outdoor recreation planner GS–025–7 (could upgrade to 9) visitor services specialist 

Abbreviations: GS = General Schedule, WG = Wage Grade. 
CHAPTER 5—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 127 

The refuge’s existing headquarters would be expanded to 

include additional office space and a combined classroom 

and conference room. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

■■ Through partnerships, rehabilitate and maintain 

the historical Whaley Homestead. 

■■ Incorporate green technology and power sources 

into all new construction and rehabilitation. 

■■ Purchase an excavator to complete proposed restoration projects. 

■■ Recruit an additional Wage Grade (WG)–6 maintenance worker to maintain current and proposed 

refuge facilities. 

■■ Add a wash bay and containment area for washing equipment and vehicles to reduce the spread 

of invasive species. 

Rationale 

A large portion of refuge facilities, equipment, and 

supplies are adequate to support the current refuge 

operations; however, most facilities are fully utilized 

and some are in need of modifications to support even 

current programs, particularly the public use facilities. 

The refuge hosts over 143,000 visitors annually. Currently, most visitors are greeted in the small visitor 

contact area, which is inadequate for supporting refuge visitors and for housing an effective interpretive 

program. Expanding this area to include a combined 

environmental education classroom and conference 

room would allow the refuge to develop more effective and dynamic interpretation and education programs for adults and children. This expansion would 

also include additional offices for proposed added staff. 

The bunkhouse remains full throughout the field 

season, supporting refuge and regional programs based 

out of the refuge. Additional seasonal and transitional 

staff housing is needed. Availability of this housing 

would be critical to recruitment of seasonal staff, because rental housing is very limited and costly in the 

surrounding rural communities. This would be even 

more critical if the refuge does not receive support for 

permanent staff, as more seasonal employees would 

be required. 

Recruiting an additional maintenance worker would 

not only ensure the current and future facilities and 

equipment are maintained, but it would provide the 

support needed to complete the extensive proposed 

restoration projects, including a significant amount 

of dirtwork and planting of native seed and plants. 

Acquiring the necessary equipment and supplies to 

support these restoration and maintenance programs 

would also be essential to completing and maintaining 

the projects described in this proposed action. 

Refuge vehicles and equipment can be a source of 

transport for seeds and plant materials from invasive 

species. This can allow these plants to spread into other 

areas of the refuge. Installing a wash station where 

each piece of equipment could be cleaned after use in 

the field or before being transported to other areas 

could help prevent some of this spread. 

5.11 Stepdown Management 

Plans 

The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific objectives for habitat, 

wildlife, public use, cultural resources, partnerships, 

and operations over the next 15 years. The purpose 

of the stepdown management plans is to provide details to Service staff for carrying out specific actions 

and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 13 lists 

the stepdown plans needed for the refuge, status, and 

next revision date. 

5.12 Research, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation 

Appendix D contains the draft compatibility determination for research that supports refuge objectives 

and programs. Furthermore, the Service proposes to 

most efficiently deal with the uncertainty surrounding 

restoration and habitat management with adaptive resource management (figure 25; Kendall 2001, Lancia 

et al. 1996, Walters and Holling 1990). This approach 

provides a framework within which objective decisions 

can be made and the uncertainty surrounding those 

decisions reduced at the time that they are made. The 

key components of an adaptive resource management 

plan, such as this draft CCP and proposed stepdown 

plans, follow: 

■■ clearly defined management goals and objectives 

■■ a set of management actions with associated uncertainty as to their outcomes 
128 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 13. Stepdown management plans for lee Metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

Plan Completed plan (year approved) New or revised plan (completion year) 

Disease contingency plan — 2015 

Chronic wasting disease 2005 2015 

Avian influenza 2006 2015 

Fire management 2011 Revised when HMP is completed 

Habitat management plan — 2014 

Inventory and monitoring plan — 2014 

Integrated pest management — 2015 

Wildlife inventory 1991 2018 

Refuge safety — 2013 

Occupant emergency 1995 2014 

Spill prevention — 2013 

Water management 2002 2014 

Visitor services — 2016 

■■ a suite of models representing various alternative 

working hypotheses describing the response of 

species or communities of interest 

■■ monitoring and assessment of the response of target organisms 

■■ use of monitoring and assessment information to 

direct future decision-making through the selection of a best model 

The first three components—goals, actions, and models—are largely defined before initiation of an adaptive resource management plan. The latter two components, monitoring and directed decision-making, 

compose a repetitive process whereby each year the 

Figure 25. Adaptive management process. 

predictive ability of models is 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, management can evolve 

as more information about the refuge is gained and 

uncertainty is reduced. 

Development of adaptive resource management 

plans for habitat management would allow refuge staff 

to “learn by doing” and adapt to a changing climate 

while focusing on management objectives. Knowledge 

gained from assessing management actions is as integral to the process as the management actions themselves. This emphasis on gaining knowledge about 

the refuge creates a situation whereby the staff can 

refine its habitat management with feedback between 

management and assessment. 

5.13 Plan Amendment and 

Revision 

The Service would annually review the final CCP to 

determine the need for revision. A revision would occur 

if and when significant information became available 

such as a change in ecological conditions. Revisions to 

the CCP and the stepdown management plans would 

be subject to public review and compliance with NEPA. 

At a minimum, the Service would evaluate the plan 

every 5 years and revise it after 15 years. 
Glossary
 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas and 

activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments. 

adaptive resource management—The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring 

to gain information and experience necessary to 

assess and modify management activities. It is a 

process that uses feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to 

support or modify objectives and strategies at all 

planning levels. It is also a process in which policy 

decisions are implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test predictions 

and assumptions inherent in management plans. 

Analysis of results helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

alluvial fan—A sedimentary deposit where a fastflowing stream has flown into a flatter plain. 

alternative—A reasonable way to solve an identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2); one of several different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the Refuge System mission (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian—A class of cold-blooded vertebrates that 

includes frogs, toads, and salamanders. 

anastomosis—Reconnection of two streams that formerly had been separated. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination. 

baseline—A set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control—The use of organisms or viruses 

to control invasive plants or other pests. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—The variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and 

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). The National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological processes. 

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds or 

other animals during the breeding season. 

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure 

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs—Cubic feet per second. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—The codification of 

the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the executive departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. Each volume 

of the CFR is updated once each calendar year. 

compatibility determination—See compatible use. 

compatible use—A wildlife-dependent recreational use 

or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 

3.6). A compatibility determination supports the 

selection of compatible uses and identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft 

Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation of an area. 

cultural resources—The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past. 

dense nesting cover—Composition of grasses and forbs 

that allows for a dense stand of vegetation that 

protects nesting birds from the view of predators, 

usually consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (for example, 
130 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

fire) or human-caused events (for example, timber 

harvest). 

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels in 

an impoundment to allow for the natural dryingout cycle of a wetland. 

duck, dabbling—Duck that mainly feeds on vegetable 

matter by upending on the water surface, or by 

grazing, and only rarely dives. 

duck, diving—Duck that mainly feeds by diving 

through the water. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together with its environment, functioning as a 

unit. For administrative purposes, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has designated 53 ecosystems 

covering the United States and its possessions. 

These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their sizes and ecological 

complexity vary. 

ecotype—A subspecies or race that is especially adapted 

to a particular set of environmental conditions. 

EIS—Environmental impact statement. 

Elderhostel—A not-for-profit organization established 

in 1975 that allows senior citizens to travel and 

take educational programs in the United States 

around the world. 

emergent—A plant rooted in shallow water and having most of the vegetative growth above water. 

Examples include cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, Federal—A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

endangered species, State—A plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular State within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations of 

these species are at critically low levels, or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

environmental assessment (EA)—A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives 

to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding 

of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

Federal trust resource—A trust is something managed 

by one entity for another who holds the ownership. 

The Service holds in trust many natural resources 

for the people of the United States of America as a 

result of Federal acts and treaties. Examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 

migratory birds protected by international treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on 

a national wildlife refuge. 

Federal trust species—All species where the Federal 

Government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land. 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal Government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

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

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible. 

FMP—Fire management plan. 

full-time equivalent—One or more job positions with 

tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one 

person employed for the standard government 

work-year. 

geographic information system (GIS)—A computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial data; a set of computer hardware and software 

for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced 

features (such as points, lines, and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft 

Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

GS—General Schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal positions). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

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

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. 

head cuts—abrupt changes in streambed elevation. 

hemi-marsh—The emergent phase of a seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland where the ratio of openwater area to emergent vegetation cover is about 

50:50, and vegetation and open-water areas are 

highly interspersed. 
 

GLOSSARY 131 

hydrogeomorphic methodology (HGM)—An interdisciplinary science that focuses on the interaction and 

linkage of hydrologic processes with landforms or 

earth materials and the interaction of geomorphic 

processes with surface and subsurface water in 

temporal and spatial dimensions. 

hydroperiod—Period of time during which soils, waterbodies, and sites are wet. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—See National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place. 

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; includes education, prevention, physical or mechanical 

methods of control, biological control, responsible 

chemical use, and cultural methods. 

interseed—Mechanical seeding of one or several plant 

species into existing stands of established vegetation. 

introduced species—A species present in an area due 

to intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a 

result of human activity. 

invasive species—A species that is nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

IPM—See integrated pest management. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat 

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

concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource 

condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

level ditching—Ditches developed to improve water 

distribution, provide open water for waterfowl, 

furnish nesting islands, and encourage aquatic vegetation for waterfowl and furbearers. The material 

removed and piled along the ditch edge provides 

nesting and loafing sites for waterfowl. The production of waterfowl from level ditching is dependent 

upon the suitability of the wetland. 

management alternative—See alternative. 

management plan—Plan that guides future land management practices on a tract of land. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose and/or reason for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental impact or to make an impact less severe. 

monitoring—The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

national wildlife refuge—A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include coordination areas; a complete listing of all 

units of the Refuge System is in the current “Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife, including species threatened with 

extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; 

areas for the protection and conservation of 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. 

neotropical migrant—A bird species that breeds north 

of the United States and Mexican border and winters primarily south of this border. 

nest success—The chance that a nest will hatch at 

least one egg. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that is not 

composed of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—The 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 
132 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

signed in 1986, recognizes that the recovery and 

perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends 

on restoring wetlands and associated ecosystems 

throughout the United States and Canada. It established cooperative international efforts and 

joint ventures comprised of individuals; corporations; conservation organizations; and local, State, 

Provincial, and Federal agencies drawn together 

by common conservation objectives. 

noxious weed—Any plant or plant product that can 

directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to 

crops (including nursery stock or plant products), 

livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, 

irrigation, navigation, natural resources of the 

United States, public health, or the environment. 

objective—An objective is a concise target statement 

of what will be achieved, how much will be achieved, 

when and where it will be achieved, and who is 

responsible for the work; derived from goals and 

provides the basis for determining management 

strategies. Objectives should be attainable and 

time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to 

the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated 

quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

obligate—Necessary for survival. 

palustrine—Relating to a system of inland, nontidal 

wetlands characterized by the presence of trees, 

shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation that 

is rooted below water but grows above the surface). Palustrine wetlands range from permanently 

saturated or flooded land to land that is wet only 

seasonally. 

Partners in Flight program—Western Hemisphere program designed to conserve Neotropical migratory 

birds and officially endorsed by numerous Federal 

and State agencies and nongovernmental organizations; also known as the Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation Program. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind service, 

such as labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 

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

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years. 

planning team—Team that prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consists of a planning team leader; refuge manager and staff biologist; staff specialists 

or other representatives of Service programs, 

ecosystems or regional offices; and State partner 

wildlife agencies, as appropriate. 

planning team leader—Typically a professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable 

of the requirements of National Environmental 

Policy Act and who has planning experience. The 

planning team leader manages the refuge planning 

process and ensures compliance with applicable 

regulatory and policy requirements. 

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries. 

plant community—An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the 

site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general 

kind of climax plant community, such as ponderosa 

pine or bunchgrass. 

preferred alternative—The selected final alternative 

that becomes the final plan. It can be the proposed 

action, the no-action alternative, another alternative, or a combination of actions or alternatives 

discussed in the draft comprehensive conservation plan and National Environmental Policy Act 

document. 

prescribed fire—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. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land that is owned by a private individual, a group of individuals, or a nongovernmental organization. 

private landowner—Any individual, group of individuals, 

or nongovernmental organization that owns land. 

private organization—Any nongovernmental organization. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 to have priority if found to be compatible 

with a refuge’s purposes. This includes hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

proposed action—The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues, and 

is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management). 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials 

of Federal, State, and local government agencies; 
 

GLOSSARY 133 

Native American tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have expressed 

an interest in Service issues and those who do or do 

not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement or scoping—A process that offers 

affected and interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to become informed about, 

and to express their opinions on, Service actions 

and policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly, and thoughtful consideration of public views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

Executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum 

establishing authorization or expanding a refuge, 

refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

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

vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat taken 

by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses). 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

refuge use—Any activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out 

by or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee. 

resident species or wildlife—A species inhabiting a 

given locality throughout the year; nonmigratory 

species. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Management emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, such 

as healthy upland habitats and aquatic systems. 

riparian corridor—An area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant 

communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface; an area whose 

components are directly or indirectly attributed to 

the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the 

land immediately adjoining and directly influenced 

by streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes all plant life growing on the land adjoining 

a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural 

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land 

surface into a waterbody. 

scoping—The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

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

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and shrubs 

planted around cropland or buildings to block or 

slow down the wind. 

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

such as a plover or snipe, that frequent the seashore or mud flat areas. 

special use permit—A permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available to the general public through authorizations 

in Title 50 CFR or other public regulations (Refuge 

Manual 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or apparent populations declines, small or 

restricted populations, or dependence on restricted 

or vulnerable habitats. Species that (1) are documented or have apparent population declines, (2) 

are small or restricted populations, or (3) depend 

on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with more 

or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

Typically used to refer to forested areas. 

stepdown management plan—A plan that provides the 

details necessary to implement management strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation 

plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet 

unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath the water surface, except for flowering parts 

in some species. 

temporal—Of or relating to time. 

threatened species, Federal—Species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

that are likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of their range. 

threatened species, State—A plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular State 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

tile drainage—In agricultural, a method of draining 

the soil subsurface to reduce moisture. 

trust resource—See Federal trust resource. 

trust species—See Federal trust species. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS)—The 

principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife 
134 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. The Service manages the 

93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

that comprises more than 530 national wildlife 

refuges and thousands of waterfowl production 

areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries 

and 78 ecological service field stations. The agency 

enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory 

bird populations, restores national significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species 

Act, and helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal 

aid program that distributes millions of dollars in 

excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to 

State wildlife agencies. 

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

U.S. Geological Survey—A Federal agency whose mission is to provide reliable scientific information to 

describe and understand the earth; minimize loss 

of life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life. 

ungulate—A hoofed mammal. 

vision statement—A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily on the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water; includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

waterbird—Birds dependent upon aquatic habitats to 

complete portions of their life cycles (for example, 

breeding). 

waterfowl—A category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water drains 

into a particular river, stream or body of water. A 

watershed includes both the land and the body of 

water into which the land drains. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water. 

WG—Wage Grade Schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain Federal positions). 

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 general public uses of 

the Refuge System. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating wildlife populations either directly through regulating 

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable habitat conditions 

and alleviating limiting factors. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent cover. 
Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policy 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other key legislation and policies that guide management of the Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. 

A.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997) 

GoAlS 

■■ 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, interjurisdictional fish, 

and marine mammal populations. 

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

■■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States including the ecological processes characteristic of those 

ecosystems. 

■■ 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 v

There are four guiding principles for management and 

general public use of the Refuge System established 

by Executive Order No. 12996 (1996): 

■■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

■■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without 

high-quality habitat and without fish and wildlife, 

traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. 

The Refuge System will continue to conserve and 

enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges. 

■■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting 

valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. 

Conservation partnerships with other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and management of 

the Refuge System. 

■■ Public Involvement—The public should be given 

a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our 

national wildlife refuges. 

A.2 legal and Policy Guidance 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges and 

wetland management districts are circumscribed by 

many mandates including laws and Executive orders. 

Regulations that affect refuge and district management the most are listed below. 

American indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directed agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibited 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorized the scientific inestigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides 

penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken 

or collected without a permit. 
136 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)— 

Directed the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), 

as amended—Protected materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction, 

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Required federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

clean Water Act (1977)—Required consultation with 

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

major wetland modifications. 

Section 404 (of the clean Water Act)—Authorized 

the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for discharge of dredged 

or fill material into navigable waters of the United 

States, including wetlands, at specified disposal sites. 

Required selection of disposal sites be in accordance 

with guidelines developed by the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction 

with the Secretary of the Army. Stated that the Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of any defined 

area as a disposal site whenever she or he determines, 

after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that 

discharge of such materials into such areas will have 

an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water 

supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. 

dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for 

State fish restoration and management plans and projects. Financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers 

of rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. Known as the 

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. 

emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Promoted wetland conservation for the public benefit to 

help fulfill international obligations in various migratory bird treaties and conventions. Authorized the 

purchase of wetlands with Land and Water Conservation Fund monies. 

endangered Species Act (1973), as amended—Required 

all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

environmental education Act of 1990—Established 

the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and 

administer a Federal environmental education program. Responsibilities of the office include developing 

and supporting programs to improve understanding 

of the natural and developed environment and the 

relationships between humans and their environment, 

supporting the dissemination of educational materials, 

developing and supporting training programs and environmental education seminars, managing a Federal 

grant program, and administering an environmental 

internship and fellowship program. Required the office to develop and support environmental programs 

in consultation with other Federal natural resource 

management agencies including the Service. 

executive order No. 11644, use of off-road Vehicles 

on Public lands (1972)—Provided policy and procedures for regulating off-road vehicles. 

executive order No. 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977)—Required Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

the floodplains. Prevented Federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the “direct 

or indirect support of floodplain development.” In the 

course of fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal 

agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk of flood 

loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

executive order No. 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977)—Directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists. 

executive order No. 12996, Management and General 

Public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

public uses of the Refuge System; presented four 

principles to guide management of the Refuge System. 

executive order No. 13007, indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directed Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian sacred 

sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, 

and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality 

of sacred sites. 

executive order No. 13443, Facilitation of Hunting 

Heritage and Wildlife conservation (2007)—Directed 

Federal agencies that have programs and activities 

that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, 

including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion 

and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the 

management of game species and their habitat. 
APPENDIX A— Key Legislation and Policy 137 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Required the use 

of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal 

and State agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Required the preservation of evidence of the Government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information. 

Federal Water Pollution control Act of 1972—Required any applicant for a Federal license or permit 

to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge 

into navigable waters to obtain a certification from 

the State in which the discharge originates or will 

originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction over navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that the discharge will comply 

with applicable effluent limitations and water quality 

standards. Required that a certification obtained for 

construction of any facility must also pertain to subsequent operation of the facility. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—Directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to develop the policies and procedures 

necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife laws and 

to research and report on fish and wildlife matters. 

Established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 

the Department of the Interior, as well as the positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Director of the Service. 

Fish and Wildlife coordination Act (1958)—Allowed 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. Also required consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife agencies where the waters of any stream or other 

body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted 

or licensed to be impounded, diverted , or otherwise 

controlled or modified by any agency under a Federal 

permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken 

for the purpose of preventing loss of and damage to 

wildlife resources. 

Fish and Wildlife improvement Act of 1978)—Improved 

the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956. Authorized the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of 

the United States. Authorized the use of volunteers 

for Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), known 

as the Historic Sites Act, as amended (1965)—Declared 

a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects 

of national significance, including those located at 

refuges and districts. Provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of 

such sites and for designation of national historic and 

natural landmarks. 

Junior duck Stamp conservation and design Act 

(1994)—Directed the Secretary of the Interior to create a junior duck stamp and to license and market the 

stamp and the stamp design. The proceeds from these 

efforts are used to support conservation education 

awards and scholarships. In 2000, Congress preauthorized the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design 

Program Act for another five years, and expanded 

the conservation education program throughout the 

United States. and its territories. Since that time, all 

50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands have joined the program. 

land and Water conservation Fund Act of 1965—Provided money from leasing bonuses, production royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, 

the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and State and local agencies for purchase of 

lands for parks, open space, and outdoor recreation. 

Migratory Bird conservation Act (1929)—Established 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts 

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and conservation Stamp Act 

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

waterfowl hunting and requires each waterfowl hunter 

16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal 

hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp 

are deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not 

subject to appropriations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designated the protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility 

and enabled the setting of seasons and other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or nonFederal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National environmental Policy Act (1969)—Required 

all agencies including the Service to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Required Federal agencies to integrate this act with 

other planning requirements and prepare appropriate documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 CFR 1500). 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended— 

Established policy that the Federal Government is to 
138 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

provide leadership in the preservation of the Nation’s 

prehistoric and historical resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defined the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible 

with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System improvement Act of 

1997—Set the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandated comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System (amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and community Partnership enhancement Act of 1998—Encouraged the use of volunteers to help the Service in the 

management of refuges within the Refuge System. 

Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge System 

and non-Federal entities to promote public awareness 

of the resources of the Refuge System and public participation in the conservation of those resources. Encouraged donations and other contributions by persons 

and organizations to the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Required Federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

North American Wetlands conservation Act (1989)— 

Provided for the conservation of North American 

wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on such habitats. 

Pittman–Robertson Act (1937)—Taxed the purchase of 

ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds 

to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. 

Known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act 

or P–R Act. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allowed the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient 

money is available to manage the uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, Section 401 (1935)—Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes using 

revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906—Provided the 

first Federal protection for wildlife at national wildlife 

refuges. Made it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or take 

or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any lands of 

the United States set apart or reserved as refuges or 

breeding grounds for such birds or animals by any law, 

proclamation, or Executive order, except under rules 

and regulations of the Secretary. Protected Government property on such lands. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Required programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all 

facilities and programs funded by the Federal Government to ensure that any person can participate in 

any program. 

Transfer of certain Real Property for Wildlife conservation Purposes Act of 1948—Provided that, upon determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed 

by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds or to a 

State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

u.S. department of the interior order No. 3226 (2001)— 

Directed bureaus and offices of the Department to 

analyze the potential effects on climate change when 

undertaking long-range planning, setting priorities 

for scientific research, and making major decisions 

about use of resources. 

Volunteer and community Partnership enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encouraged the use of volunteers to help 

in the management of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the resources 

and encouraged donations and other contributions. 

Wilderness Act of 1964—Directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless 

area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island 

(regardless of size) within the Refuge System and 

National Park Service for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 
Appendix B 

List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination 

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

team shown below. 

Team member Position Work unit 

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Refuge 

Planning, Lakewood, Colorado 

Bob Danley Outdoor recreation planner Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

Teresa Giffen Editor ICF International, Sacramento, California 

Deborah Goslin Biological science technician Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

Erin Holmes Refuge manager Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge, Sherwood, Oregon 

(transferred April 2011) 

Laura King Refuge program specialist (planning 

team leader) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Refuge 

Planning, Lakewood, Colorado 

Tom Reed Refuge manager Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

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

The Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of the 

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

this document. 

Contributor Position Work unit 

Neil Anderson Biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Laboratory, Bozeman, 

Montana 

Diane Borgreen Biological science technician U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Health Office, 

Bozeman, Montana 

Rob Brassfield Fisheries biologist USDA Forest Service, Stevensville, Montana 

Dan Brewer Fish and wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Service, Missoula, 

Montana 

Chris Clancy Fisheries biologist USDA Forest Service, Hamilton, Montana 

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director, 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Vivica Crowser Information and education manager Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Missoula, Montana 

Patti Fiedler Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and 

Visitor Services 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Sean Fields Wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team, Great Falls, Montana 

Leigh Fredrickson Wetland ecologist and retired professor Wetland Management and Education Services, Puxico, 

Missouri 

Lindy Garner Regional invasive species coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Great Falls, 

Montana 

Todd Graham Biologist and owner Aeroscene Land Logic, Bozeman, Montana 

Louis Hartjes Fire management officer Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 
140 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Contributor Position Work unit 

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Helena, Montana 

Mickey Heitmeyer Wetland ecologist and owner Greenbrier Wetland Services, Advance, Missouri 

Sandy Hutchcroft Information technology specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Brett Husong Facilitator Belt Collins West, Boulder, Colorado 

Ladd Knotek Fisheries management biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Missoula, Montana 

David Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Mimi Mather Facilitator and planner Belt Collins West, Boulder, Colorado 

Pam Okland Teacher Lone Rock School, Stevensville, Montana 

Dale Pfau Range and fire technician Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

Dean Rundle Refuge zone supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Julie Schreck Conservation education specialist Bitterroot National Forest, Hamilton, Montana 

Dean Vaughan Private lands biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife, Moiese, Montana 

George Wasser Teacher Stevensville Public Schools, Stevensville, Montana 

Germaine White Information and education specialist Natural Resources Department, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes Pablo, Montana 
Appendix C 

Public Involvement 

A notice of intent to prepare the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) was published in the Federal Register on 

September 30, 2009. The Service compiled a mailing 

list of more than 270 names during preplanning. The 

list included private citizens; local, regional, and State 

government representatives and legislators; other 

Federal agencies; and interested organizations. Public 

scoping was announced through news releases and a 

mailed planning update; it provided information on the 

history of the refuge, an overview of the CCP process, 

and invitations to two public scoping meetings. The 

planning update included a form for providing written 

comments. Emails were also accepted at the refuge’s 

email address: leemetcalf@fws.gov. 

Two public meetings were held in the communities 

of Stevensville and Missoula, Montana on September 

29 and October 1, 2009, respectively. There were 12 

attendees, primarily local citizens and staff from Senator Max Baucus’s local office. Following a presentation about the refuge and an overview of the CCP 

and National Environmental Policy Act processes, 

attendees were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. Verbal comments were recorded, and 

each attendee was given a comment form to submit 

additional thoughts or questions in writing. 

All written comments were due November 13, 

2009; 20 emails and letters were received in addition 

to the verbal comments recorded at the public scoping 

meeting. All comments were shared with the planning 

team and considered throughout the planning process. 

In addition to 200 private individuals, the following 

organizations and agencies were given the opportunity to provide comments about this planning process. 

C.1 Federal Officials 

U.S. Representative Dennis Rehberg, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator Jon Tester, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Washington, DC 

C.2 Federal Agencies 

Bitterroot National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 

Hamilton, Montana 

Lewis and Clark National Trail, National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska 

National Park Service, Denver, Colorado 

Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Missoula, 

Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Stevensville, Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Regional Office and Lolo National Forest, Missoula, Montana 

C.3 Tribal Officials 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council, 

Pablo, Montana 

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Council, Lapwai, Idaho 

C.4 State Officials 

Governor Brian Schweitzer, Helena, Montana 

Representative Ray Hawk, Florence, Montana 

Representative Gary MacLaren, Victor, Montana 

Representative Bob Lake, Hamilton, Montana 

Senator Rick Laible, Darby, Montana 

Senator Jim Shockley, Victor, Montana 

C.5 State Agencies 

Travelers Rest State Park, Lolo, Montana 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Hamilton, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana 

Montana Historical Society, Helena, Montana 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office, Helena, 

Montana 

Ravalli County Extension Office, Hamilton, Montana 

Ravalli County Weed District, Stevensville, Montana 
142 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

C.6 Local Government
 

Mayor of Stevensville, Stevensville, Montana 

Ravalli County Commissioners, Hamilton, Montana 

C.7 Organizations 

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia 

American Bird Conservancy, Kalispell, Montana 

American Legion Post #94, Stevensville, Montana 

Audubon Society, Helena, Montana 

Audubon Society, Hamilton, Montana 

Audubon Society, Missoula, Montana 

Audubon Society, Washington, DC 

Bitterroot Water Forum, Hamilton, Montana 

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC 

Ducks Unlimited, Clancy, Montana 

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee 

Family of Peter Whaley, Missoula, Montana 

Five Valleys Audubon Society, Missoula, Montana 

Friends of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, 

Stevensville, Montana 

Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, 

California 

Isaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

Missoula Convention & Visitors Bureau, Missoula, 

Montana 

Montana Conservation Science Institute, Missoula, 

Montana 

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana 

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Natural History Center, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Preservation Alliance, Helena, Montana 

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

West Virginia 

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Virginia and 

Helena, Montana 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC 

The Nature Conservancy, Helena, Montana 

Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association, Hamilton, Montana 

Ravenworks Ecology, Stevensville, Montana 

Sierra Club, San Francisco, California 

Stevensville Historical Museum, Stevensville, Montana 

Stevensville Main Street Association, Stevensville, 

Montana 

The Teller, Corvallis, Montana 

Watershed Education Network, Missoula, Montana 

The Humane Society, Washington, DC 

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC 

Trout Unlimited, Missoula, Montana 

The Wildlife Society, Townsend, Montana 

C.8 Universities and Schools 

Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins, 

Colorado 

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 

University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 

Stevensville Public Schools, Stevensville, Montana 

C.9 Media 

Billings Gazette Online, Billings, Montana 

The Billings Outpost, Billings, Montana 

Bitterroot Star, Stevensville, Montana 

Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, Montana 

The Missoulian, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Public Radio, Missoula, Montana 

Ravalli Republic, Hamilton, Montana 

Stonydale Press, Stevensville, Montana 

Yellowstone Public Radio, Billings, Montana 

C.10 Individuals 

200 private individuals 
Appendix D 

Draft Compatibility Determinations 

D.1 Refuge Information 

Refuge NAme 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

DAte estAblIsheD 

February 4, 1964 

estAblIshINg AND AcquIsItIoN AuthoRItIes 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] 661–667e) 

Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k–1) 

State of Montana approval under provisions of Public 

Law 87–383 (75 Stat. 813) 

Refuge PuRPoses 

“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k–1 

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

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

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 

16 U.S.C. 460k–2 (Refuge Recreation Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k–4) 

D.2 National Wildlife Refuge 

system mission 

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

D.3 Description of uses 

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge: 

■■ hunting 

■■ fishing 

■■ wildlife observation and noncommercial photography 

■■ environmental education and interpretation 

■■ commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography 

■■ cooperative farming and prescriptive grazing 

■■ research and monitoring 

huNtINg 

Hunting is one of six wildlife-dependent priority public 

uses specified in the Improvement Act. Hunting occurs 

in two forms on the refuge: waterfowl (by shotgun) 

and white-tailed deer (by bow). In addition to the sitespecific regulations mentioned below, State hunting 

regulations would apply to all Lee Metcalf Refuge 

lands open to hunting. Hunters may only possess and 

use U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)–approved, 

nontoxic shot shells on the refuge, and vehicle travel 

and parking is restricted to public roads, pulloffs, and 

parking areas. The refuge Web site and public use brochures provide guidance on site-specific regulations. 

The general hunting regulations are available from 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP). 

Waterfowl hunting is restricted to the southeast 

part of the refuge. This 628-acre area of the refuge encompasses five wetlands and is closed to the general 

public. Waterfowl hunters access this area from one 

parking area. According to 2005–2009 records, fourteen blinds together accommodate an average of 965 

visits per year. Waterfowl hunting is conducted during 

the State hunting season, which usually occurs from 

the first week of October through first week of January. Waterfowl hunting is available on a first-come, 

first-served basis except for opening weekend, during 

which blinds are allocated by drawing. 

Archery hunters access 2,275 acres of refuge lands 

from five archery hunting access parking areas. According to 2005–2009 records, archery hunting for 

white-tailed deer draws an average of 1,030 visits annually and an average of 33 deer are harvested each 
144 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

year. Deer hunting season starts in early September 

and ends the second week in January. In addition to 

providing a compatible recreational activity, deer 

hunting assists the refuge in managing overbrowsing 

of native habitats. 

The comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for 

the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge proposes to 

continue the hunting uses described above. 

Availability of Resources. Hunting would be administered by the refuge staff. Currently, refuge staff 

does not include a dedicated or collateral duty law 

enforcement officer or a refuge biologist to monitor 

deer populations. It is anticipated that the refuge 

would rely on the zone law enforcement officer or staff 

from other refuges. Also, the regional inventorying 

and monitoring biologist would assist with analysis 

and trend monitoring. 

Infrastructure in place on the refuge includes the 

following: 

■■ hunt information kiosk 

■■ five parking area and check-in stations 

■■ 14 waterfowl blinds (2 are universally accessible) 

Anticipated Impacts of use. The hunting program 

on Service lands would continue to provide hunters 

ample quality hunting opportunities without materially detracting from the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) or 

from the establishing purposes of refuge lands. Public use brochures and the refuge Web site would be 

kept up-to-date and made readily available to hunters. 

Hunter success and satisfaction would continue to be 

monitored using the hunter registration kiosk sign-in 

sheet along with random contacts with hunters in the 

field and in the refuge office. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966, 

other laws, and the Service’s policy permit hunting on 

a national wildlife refuge when it is compatible with 

the purposes for which the refuge was established 

and acquired. Habitat that normally supports healthy 

wildlife populations produces harvestable surpluses 

that are a renewable resource. As practiced on Lee 

Metcalf Refuge, hunting does not pose a threat to the 

wildlife populations and, in some instances, is necessary for sound wildlife management. However, by its 

very nature, hunting creates a disturbance to wildlife 

and directly affects the individual animal being hunted. 

Nonetheless, it is well recognized that this activity has 

given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife 

and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed 

to the Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite 

the potential impacts of hunting, a goal of Lee Metcalf 

Refuge is to provide opportunities for quality wildlifedependent recreation. Hunting would be designed and 

monitored to offer a safe and quality program and to 

keep adverse effects within acceptable limits. 

Although hunting directly affects the hunted animal and may indirectly disturb other animals, limits on 

hunting access and harvest would ensure that populations do not fall to unsustainable levels. Closed areas 

on the refuge provide sanctuary to migratory birds 

during the hunting season. In some cases, hunting 

can be used as a management tool to control elevated 

populations that are negatively affecting wildlife habitat (for example, through overbrowsing). 

Additional impacts from hunting include conflicts 

with individuals participating in wildlife-dependent, 

priority public uses such as wildlife observation and 

photography. 

Determination. Hunting is a compatible use on Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure compatibility 

■■ Visitors participating in hunting would be provided 

the Service’s public use regulations, including sitespecific regulations and State hunting regulations. 

■■ Hunters would continue to use approved nontoxic 

shot for waterfowl hunting. 

■■ Vehicles would be restricted to county and designated public roads and parking areas in the refuge. 

■■ Signage and brochures would be used to provide 

hunters information on where and how to hunt on 

the refuge to ensure compliance with public use 

regulations. 

Justification. A secondary goal of the Refuge System 

is to provide opportunities, when found compatible, 

for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. Hunting is identified as a priority 

public use in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and would 

help meet the above secondary goal with only minimal 

conflicts. Hunting can instill, in citizens of all ages, a 

greater appreciation for wildlife and its habitat. This 

appreciation may extend to the Refuge System, other 

conservation agencies, and to the individual personal 

land conservation ethic. 

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the environmental assessment (EA) that 

accompanied the draft CCP for Lee Metcalf Refuge, 

the Service has determined that hunting within the 

refuge would not interfere with the Service’s habitat 

goals and objectives or purposes for which the refuge 

was established. Limiting access and monitoring the 

use would help limit any adverse effects. 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

RecReAtIoNAl fIshINg 

Recreational fishing is one of six wildlife-dependent 

priority public uses specified in the Improvement 
APPENDIX D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 145 

Act. Fishing is allowed within the wildlife viewing 

area (WVA) (145 acres), specifically along Francois 

Slough and the Bitterroot River. Fishing is available 

year-round, though limited in winter and during spring 

flooding. Fishing would be conducted in accordance 

with the rules and regulations set by the State of 

Montana. Additional refuge-specific regulations are 

printed in the refuge fishing brochure. 

The draft CCP does not call for the implementation of any new fishing programs. 

Availability of Resources. The refuge would continue 

to work with MFWP to conduct fish and creel surveys. 

The regional inventorying and monitoring biologist 

would assist with analysis and trend monitoring. The 

refuge would rely on the law enforcement officer, stationed at the refuge, and law enforcement staff from 

other refuges to enforce fishing regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. Fishing and other human 

activities cause disturbance to wildlife and trampling of 

vegetation along the bank of rivers and streams. There 

would also be some mortality to those fish caught and 

then released. Refuge-specific regulations would assist in managing anglers and minimizing disturbance. 

Determination. Fishing is a compatible use at designated fishing areas on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure compatibility 

■■ Visitors participating in fishing would follow the 

Service’s public use regulations and State fishing 

regulations and limits. Rules specific to the refuge 

are published in the refuge fishing brochure. 

■■ Vehicles would be restricted to county and designated public roads and parking areas. 

■■ No boats may be used or launched at the WVA or 

anywhere else on the refuge, with the exception of 

boats launched off- refuge that then travel through 

the refuge on the Bitterroot River. Public fishing on 

the Bitterroot River by boat is restricted to below 

the high watermark, and boats cannot be launched 

onto the river from refuge lands. 

■■ Boats, fishing equipment, and all other personal 

property must be removed at the end of each day. 

Justification. Fishing is a priority public use identified 

in the Improvement Act. No long-term or significant 

adverse impacts of wildlife resources are expected 

from the primary or supporting uses. Based on the 

biological effects addressed above and in the EA that 

accompanied the draft CCP for Lee Metcalf Refuge, 

the Service has determined that fishing would not interfere with the Service’s habitat goals and objectives 

or purposes for which the refuge was established. 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

WIlDlIfe obseRvAtIoN AND NoNcommeRcIAl 

PhotogRAPhy 

Wildlife observation and photography are two of six 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses identified in 

the Improvement Act. Wildlife observation and photography on the refuge are conducted at the following 

public use areas: (1) the WVA; (2) outside the visitor 

contact area; (3) the Kenai Nature Trail; and (4) Wildfowl Lane, a county road that runs through the refuge. 

The WVA, located in the southwest corner of the 

refuge, has four trail segments that total 2.5 miles. The 

area is open to off-trail hiking and observation. The 

0.55-mile accessible Metcalf Trail segment is 10 feet 

wide and paved and has three concrete benches. The 

three other trail segments are soil or gravel and vary 

in width. The gravel parking area is three-quarters 

of an acre, large enough to accommodate recreational 

vehicles. There is also a designated paved parking 

area for visitors with disabilities. Additional facilities include an information kiosk, porta-potties, and 

an education shelter. 

At the visitor contact area, visitors are provided a 

spotting scope to view waterfowl and other waterbirds 

and raptors on the adjacent ponds. This is one of the 

most popular wildlife observation and photography 

sites for visitors, including school groups. 

The Kenai Nature Trail is 1.25 miles long (figure 

6). It starts at refuge headquarters and parallels the 

eastern edge of Ponds 6, 8, and 10. The areas immediately next to the trail are closed, so visitors must 

remain on the trail. The first quarter mile of this trail 

is asphalt and meets accessibility guidelines. Five 

benches and one spotting scope are positioned along 

this paved section of trail. The remaining trail is bare 

soil and is not considered accessible. An additional four 

benches, one overlook platform with spotting scope, 

boardwalk, two wooden bridges, and two permanent 

photo blinds are located along this part of the Kenai 

Nature Trail. 

Two permanent photo blinds are located along the 

Kenai Nature Trail (figure 6). Blind 1 is located onethird mile from the visitor contact area on Pond 8; 

it sits within 55 acres of open water and marsh land 

and is sheltered to the east by cottonwood and alder 

trees. Blind 2 is located one-third mile from the visitor contact area on approximately 85 acres of open 

water on Pond 10. 

An “L”-shaped 2.8-mile section of Wildfowl Lane 

travels through the refuge on a south-central to eastcentral direction and has informally serves as the refuge auto tour route. The southern and easternmost 

miles of the road are paved or covered with recycled 

asphalt. The remaining road is gravel. The road is 

wide—at least 33 feet in width—allowing motorists 

to pull over safely and observe wildlife. 
146 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Wildlife observation and photography would be 

conducted year-round at the WVA, the visitor contact 

area, Kenai Nature Trail, and Wildfowl Lane. 

The CCP proposes to continue the above wildlife 

observation and noncommercial photography activities and add the following to improve opportunities 

for these uses: 

■■ The refuge would work with the county to develop 

the 2.8 miles of Wildfowl Lane, described above, 

as an auto tour route, with observation sites and 

accompanying interpretation. 

■■ The existing footprint of the Kenai Nature Trail 

would be moved east in select areas by 10–30 yards 

to lessen disturbance to waterbirds using the slough 

portion of Pond 8. 

■■ The Kenai Nature Trail would be extended westward using the Pond 8 dike road (near Potato Cellar 

Pond); it would then loop south, travel just north of 

a former residence site, and then connect to Wildfowl Lane (figure 6). This trail addition measures 

1.25 miles in length. The trail may be open seasonally for public use. The closure would provide 

refuge for migrating and nesting waterfowl and 

other waterbirds. This spur to the Kenai Nature 

Trail would provide additional opportunities for 

wildlife viewing and photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. 

■■ Through partnerships, the refuge would conduct an 

annual wildlife photography workshop highlighting how to photograph wildlife while minimizing 

disturbance. 

■■ Waterfowl hunting Blind 2 would be upgraded to 

provide a photo blind for photographers with disabilities. At least two portable photo blinds would 

be purchased and available for visitor use. 

Availability of Resources. Wildlife observation and 

photography would be administered by refuge staff. 

The refuge would rely on the zone law enforcement officer and staff from other refuges for law enforcement. 

Signage and law enforcement would be used to keep 

visitors from crossing into areas closed to public use. 

The porta-potties would be maintained twice a 

week, and paved trails would be sealed periodically 

to maintain a smooth surface. 

The proposed extension of the Kenai Nature Trail 

may require the construction of a boardwalk in wet 

areas. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. There would be temporary disturbance to wildlife near the WVA and along 

trails. This disturbance would be minimized through 

refuge regulations and education including brochures, 

signage, and staff- or volunteer-led wildlife walks 

that highlight the ethics of wildlife observation and 

photography. 

Determination. Wildlife observation and photography 

are compatible uses on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure compatibility 

■■ Visitors participating in wildlife observation and 

photography would be strongly encouraged to follow all public use regulations. 

■■ All users of the Kenai Nature Trail would be required to stay on the trail. 

■■ Non–Fish and Wildlife Service vehicles would be 

restricted to county and public access roads in 

the refuge. 

■■ Viewing areas would be designed to minimize disturbance impacts on wildlife and all refuge resources 

while providing good opportunities to view wildlife 

in their natural environments. 

■■ Visitors using permanent or portable observation 

and photography blinds would be provided with 

information on properly using these structures 

to minimize disturbance to wildlife, habitats, and 

other refuge visitors. 

■■ Photography outside of public use sites is not allowed. 

■■ Dogs are allowed only on leashes and only on trails 

in the WVA. 

■■ Bicycles, horses, and off-road vehicles are not allowed on the refuge. 

Justification. Wildlife observation and photography 

is a wildlife-dependent, priority public use. No unacceptable, long-term or significant adverse impacts on 

wildlife resources are expected from the primary or 

supporting uses. 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

eNvIRoNmeNtAl eDucAtIoN AND 

INteRPRetAtIoN 

Environmental education and interpretation are two 

of six wildlife-dependent priority public uses specified 

in the Improvement Act. 

Most environmental education programs would be 

conducted at sites near refuge headquarters: (1) the 

visitor contact area, (2) Okefenokee Room, (3) outdoor 

education shelter, (4) outdoor amphitheater, and (5) 

Kenai Nature Trail. The WVA would also be used for 

staff-led programs but even more so by self-directed 

environmental education partner organizations and 

school groups. Environmental education can be both 

formal and informal, and it can range from presentations to special events like festivals or fishing clinics. 

However, certain programming, usually special events, 

may involve additional refuge lands outside the headquarters area. The refuge would continue to organize 

and provide at least 15 on- and off-refuge annual and 

special events for adults and students. 
APPENDIX D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 147 

The refuge has hosted an average of 2,300 students 

annually. Students come from communities as far as 

Darby to the south (approximately 40 miles) and Ronan 

to the north (about 85 miles). Most students are from 

grades 3–5. Environmental education would be conducted year-round; however, most students visit the 

refuge in May, and these visits are typically limited 

by the individual schools to one visit per year. 

Interpretation of the natural and cultural resources 

of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley would be provided year-round in the same designated environmental 

education and wildlife observation and photography 

areas. Interpretation would be conducted through interpretive panels, revolving displays, videos, online 

materials, brochures, flyers, handouts, and booklets. 

New displays would be professionally planned and 

produced. 

Interpretive panels and brochures would be maintained and updated to reflect changes in information 

or policy and to meet the Service’s graphic standards. 

The CCP proposes to continue environmental education and interpretation and add the following to 

improve these programs: 

■■ The Service would expand the programs and opportunities for environmental education and interpretation, reaching additional students and visitors. 

These programs would focus on the values and 

importance of the natural, historical, and cultural 

resources of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, 

including the refuge’s efforts to maintain, enhance, 

and restore native plant and wildlife communities 

on the refuge. 

■■ Partnerships would be developed with local universities to provide opportunities for students to 

conduct research and monitoring projects that are 

beneficial to the refuge, that help address management needs, and that provide an opportunity for 

students to work on the refuge and with refuge staff. 

■■ The Service would expand opportunities to collaborate with universities to provide outdoor 

classrooms for students interested in the refuge, 

its management programs, its current issues, and 

the values of the Refuge System. 

■■ A classroom and associated supplies would be added 

to the expanded visitor center for environmental 

education programs. 

■■ The Service would continue to maintain and update the current five kiosks, including three with 

interpretive panels. An additional interpretive 

panel would be located along the river trail within 

the WVA explaining the migration of the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Interpretation would be provided along the Kenai 

Nature Trail, within the WVA, and along the auto 

tour route. 

■■ On the north end of the refuge, a kiosk would be 

constructed at a parking lot used by hunters; it 

would provide regulations as well as information 

on refuge purposes and resources. 

Availability of Resources. The refuge’s outdoor recreation planner and volunteers, supplemented by other 

current Service staff, would continue to develop and 

lead these programs. Expanding current programs may 

require additional visitor services staff and volunteers. 

Funding for environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures 

would be mainly supported by annual operation and 

maintenance money. Funding from other sources 

such as grants, regional project proposals, challenge 

cost-share agreements, and other temporary funding sources would also be sought and used as they 

became available. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. The bulk of environmental 

education and interpretation would take place in the 

refuge headquarters area. The use of the refuge for 

onsite activities by groups of teachers and students 

for environmental education or interpretation may impose a short-term, low-level impact on the immediate 

and surrounding area. Impacts may include trampling 

of vegetation and temporary disturbance to nearby 

wildlife species during the activities. 

Refuge brochures, interpretive panels, and other 

educational materials would continue to be updated 

as needed to meet Service requirements. The Service 

would continue to promote a greater public understanding and appreciation of the refuge resources, programs, 

and issues through interpretive, outreach, and environmental educational programs. Presentations, both 

on and off Service lands, would be provided to refuge 

visitors, school groups, and organizations, allowing the 

Service to reach a broader audience. Onsite presentations would be managed to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources. 

Determination. Environmental education and interpretation are compatible uses on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure compatibility. Onsite activities would be held where minimal impact on 

wildlife and habitats would occur. The Service would 

review new environmental education and interpretation activities to ensure that these activities meet 

program and refuge management objectives and are 

compatible. 

■■ Visitors participating in environmental education 

and interpretation programs would follow all Service regulations. Compliance with regulations would 

be achieved through education, signage, and law 

enforcement and would minimize negative impacts 

on refuge habitat and wildlife. 
148 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ Environmental education would be restricted to 

daylight hours. 

■■ Environmental education may be limited to reduce 

disturbance to wildlife, particularly during the nesting 

seasons. The refuge manager would evaluate and, 

if appropriate, approve additional environmental 

education sites on the basis of potential impacts on 

wildlife. Access should be restricted around active 

bird nests and during other sensitive life history 

phases of refuge resources. 

■■ Educational activities would be commonly held in 

the Okefenokee Room, outdoor education shelter, 

outdoor amphitheater, WVA, and the Kenai Nature Trail. On occasion and by special use permit 

only, environmental education activities may occur near dikes along Ponds 8 and 10, Grube Barn, 

and management areas I–4 and I–5 A number of 

stipulations would cover special events: 

➤■ The Bitterroot and Five Valleys Audubon 

Societies’ bird walk activities would be held on 

refuge-approved dates and times and located 

in public use areas. 

➤■ The Great Backyard Bird Count in mid-February—a national “citizen science” event that 

promotes knowledge of native birds—would take 

place in areas open to the public. Event activities must be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ Ground Hog Day, February 2, would include 

information and activities that emphasize the 

natural history of mammals, ecology, habitat, 

community processes, and the Refuge System; 

event activities must be approved by the refuge 

manager, and the location of this event would be 

restricted to the area around the Grube Barn. 

Other proposed locations would need to be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ Montana Junior Duck Stamp Program activities 

(mid-April to early May) would take place at 

the outdoor amphitheater and education shelter. 

The program would highlight the integration 

of science with the arts. Event activities must 

be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ The Weed Pull in mid-May is a public event 

targeting the removal of noxious weeds, which 

is compatible with refuge and management 

purposes. Staff would work with partners 

employing environmental education curriculum and outreach to educate visiting public on 

noxious weed identification and management. 

Event locations must be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ For the Kid’s Fishing Clinic, held in both June 

and September, all fishing and environmental 

education stations would be positioned for the 

purpose of safety and minimizing resource 

disturbance. Activities would primarily be located surrounding the Refuge Headquarters 

area, but may occur, with issuance of a special 

use permit, in areas currently closed to public 

use. Event locations and times must be approved 

by the refuge manager. 

➤■ The spring and summer Hunter Safety Courses 

would be held at the Okefenokee Room, Kenai 

Nature Trail, Grube Barn, and parts of management units I–4 and I–5 with issuance of a special use permit. Activities would be planned to 

ensure safety and minimize wildlife and visitor 

disturbance. Event activities and optional locations must be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ The Stevensville Audubon Christmas Bird 

Count is held in December or January every 

year. Refuge staff escort Audubon volunteers, 

counting and identifying all birds encountered 

on the refuge. Most bird identification activities would be conducted from refuge roads and 

dikes, minimizing wildlife disturbance; event 

activities and locations must be approved by 

the refuge manager. Unaccompanied individuals 

may not enter areas closed to the public without 

a Special Use Permit. 

Justification. A secondary goal of the Refuge System 

is to provide opportunities, when found compatible, 

for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. 

Environmental education and interpretation can 

be used to help citizens of all ages build a land ethic 

and act responsibly in protecting wildlife and habitats, 

which in turn can enrich a person’s life, provide an 

incentive for outdoor activity with associated health 

benefits, and potentially lessen the likelihood of that 

person violating laws protecting wildlife. Additionally, environmental education and interpretation are 

important tools for the refuge to provide visitors with 

an awareness of its purposes, values, and specific issues such as invasive species, habitat management, 

restoration of natural processes, and migratory bird 

management. These tools would provide visitors and 

students with a greater understanding of the mission 

and importance of the Refuge System to the American people. 

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the EA that accompanies the draft CCP 

for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, the Service 

determines that environmental education and interpretation would not significantly detract from the 

Service’s implementation of wildlife habitat goals and 

objectives, or with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. Managing areas used for conducting 

environmental education and interpretation, monitoring those areas, and mitigating impacts would help 

minimize potential adverse effects. 
APPENDIX D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 149 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

commeRcIAl fIlmINg, AuDIo RecoRDINg, AND 

stIll PhotogRAPhy 

Commercial filming is the digital or film capture of a 

visual image. Commercial audio recording is the capture of sound. Commercial still photography is the 

digital or film capture of a still image. Each of these 

activities is conducted by a person, business, or other 

entity for a market audience for use in a documentary, 

television program, feature film, advertisement, or 

similar project. It does not include news coverage or 

visitor use. 

Lee Metcalf Refuge provides opportunities for 

commercial filming and still photography of migratory 

birds and other wildlife. Requests from commercial 

persons, businesses, or entities to conduct commercial 

activities would be evaluated on their merit in educating the public about the resources and purposes of the 

refuge and the Refuge System. Any issued special use 

permit for filming or photography would designate the 

specific areas that may be accessed and the activities 

that are allowed (refer to “Stipulations Necessary to 

Ensure Compatibility” below). 

In rare cases the Service may permit access to areas 

closed to the public. The public benefit, as determined 

by the refuge manager, must outweigh the potential 

disturbance to wildlife resources. 

Availability of Resources. Current staff would evaluate requests for commercial photography, filming, or 

audio recording. Administrative costs for reviewing 

applications, the issuance of subsequent special use 

permits, and staff time to monitor compliance may 

be offset by a fee. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. Wildlife filmmakers and 

photographers tend to create the greatest disturbance 

of all wildlife observers (Dobb 1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). While observers frequently stop to view 

wildlife, photographers are more likely to approach 

animals (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach by photographers tends to have behavioral consequences on 

wildlife (Klein 1993). Photographers often remain close 

to wildlife for extended periods of time in an attempt 

to habituate the subject to their presence (Dobb 1998). 

Furthermore, photographers with low-power lenses 

tend to get much closer to their subjects (Morton 

1995). This usually results in increased disturbance to 

wildlife as well as habitat, including the trampling of 

plants. Handling of animals and disturbing vegetation 

(such as cutting plants and removing flowers) or cultural artifacts is strictly prohibited on Service lands. 

Issuance of special use permits with strict guidelines and monitoring by refuge staff for compliance 

may help minimize or avoid these impacts. Permittees 

who do not follow the stipulations of their special use 

permits could have their permits revoked, and further 

applications for filming or photographing on refuge 

lands would be denied. 

Determination. In rare circumstances, commercial 

filming, audio recording, and still photography would 

be compatible uses on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure compatibility. Commercial filming or photography must (1) demonstrate 

a means to increase the public’s knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of the purposes of Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, or the wildlife resources that are managed on 

these lands. Failure to fully demonstrate a measurable 

means to meet this criterion would likely result in a 

denial of the special use permit request.

 Any commercial filming and audio recording would 

require a special use permit that would (1) identify 

conditions that protect the refuge’s values, purposes, 

resources, and public health and safety and (2) prevent 

unnecessary disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the refuge. Such conditions may be, but are 

not limited to, specifying road conditions when access 

would not be allowed, establishing time limitations, 

identifying routes of access, limiting the number of 

participants, and specifying the exact location participants are allowed. These conditions would 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 would stipulate that imagery produced on refuge lands would be made available 

for use in environmental education and interpretation, 

outreach, internal documents, or other suitable uses. 

In addition, any commercial products must include appropriate credits to the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Still photography requires a special use permit 

(with specific conditions as outlined above) if one or 

more of the following would occur: 

■■ It takes place at locations where or at times when 

members of the public are not allowed. 

■■ It uses models, sets, or props that are not part of 

the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities. 

■■ The Service would incur additional administrative 

costs to monitor the activity. 

■■ The Service would need to provide management and 

oversight to avoid impairment of the resources and 

values of the site, limit resource damage, or minimize health and safety risks to the visiting public. 

■■ The photographer intends to intentionally manipulate vegetation to create a shot (for example, 

cutting vegetation to create a blind). 
150 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

To minimize the impact on Service lands and resources, 

refuge staff would ensure that all commercial filmmakers and commercial still photographers comply 

with policies, rules, and regulations. The staff would 

monitor and assess the activities of all filmmakers, 

audio recorders, and still photographers. 

Justification. Commercial filming, audio recording, 

and still photography are economic uses that, if allowed, must contribute to the achievement of the 

refuge purposes, mission of the Refuge System, or 

the mission of the Service. Providing opportunities 

for these uses should result in an increased public 

awareness of the refuge’s ecological importance as well 

as advancing the public’s knowledge and support for 

the Refuge System and the Service. The stipulations 

outlined above and conditions imposed in the special 

use permits issued to commercial filmmakers, audio 

recorders, and still photographers would ensure that 

these wildlife-dependent activities occur with minimal 

adverse effects on resources or visitors. 

mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 

cooPeRAtIve fARmINg AND PRescRIPtIve 

gRAzINg 

The Service has used cooperative farming and prescriptive livestock grazing in the past as a management tool to manage a variety of upland, riparian, and 

seasonal wetland habitats. These tools would be used 

to meet habitat objectives, control vegetative litter, 

promote native plant production and diversity, control 

the spread of invasive plant species, and help convert 

disturbed grasslands back to native plant species. 

Cooperative farming is usually done on a share basis 

where the Service and the cooperator each receive a 

share of the crop. The Service would retain its share 

as standing cover for wildlife forage or in exchange for 

additional work from the cooperator such as invasive 

plant control, grass seeding, or provision of supplies 

such as herbicides and fence materials for habitat protection and improvement on the management unit. Any 

income received by the Service would be deposited in 

the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. Cooperative 

farming would primarily be used to treat invasive species by continually farming specific areas until seedbed 

is reduced. Following this process, these areas would 

be restored to native species found on that site. The 

site would continue to be monitored for reinvasion. 

Grazing by livestock has been a preferred management tool because the effect on habitat is controllable 

and measurable. Grazing may occur throughout the 

year as management needs dictate. For wetland units, 

the purpose of grazing would be to consume portions of 

emergent vegetation and to break root rhizomes with 

hoof action. This would likely result in enhanced aeration of soils, removing portions of monotypic emergent 

vegetation. For upland units, grazing would be used 

to mimic the historical grazing patterns, most likely 

employing short-duration, intense grazing pressure 

with extended rest periods. 

Fencing and controlling livestock is the responsibility of the cooperating rancher. The Service provides instruction and guidance within the special use 

permit for placement of fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements to ensure that sensitive habitats 

or refuge assets are protected. A temporary electric 

fence is used in most grazing applications. Current 

forage conditions, habitat objectives, and available 

water determine stocking rates in each grazing unit. 

The draft CCP proposes to continue using cooperative farming and prescriptive livestock grazing to 

meet habitat objectives. Furthermore, the draft CCP 

establishes goals and objectives for specific habitat 

types where these tools may be used. In addition, 

the Service has identified target wildlife species (for 

example, grasshopper sparrow and marbled godwit) 

and their habitat requirements, which has resulted in 

objectives that guide these programs to achieve the 

habitat needs of these target species. The refuge would 

improve the monitoring and research programs for 

vegetation and wildlife to assess habitat and wildlife 

population responses to prescriptive livestock grazing. 

Availability of Resources. Current refuge staff and 

funding resources are sufficient for the purposes of 

monitoring habitats and implementing research needs 

to understand the impacts of grazing on refuge habitats. One biological technician would be necessary to 

carry out the on-the-ground monitoring. These programs would continue to be conducted through special 

use permits or cooperative farming agreements, which 

minimize the need for staff time and Service assets 

to complete work. Permittees would be selected on 

their ability to accomplish refuge habitat goals and 

minimize expenditures of staff time and resources. 

Fencing, caring for, and all animal husbandry tasks 

are the responsibility of the permittee. The permittee 

is also responsible for keeping all animals within the 

management unit and preventing them from roaming at large. The Service provides direction on the 

placement of temporary fences, water tanks, livestock supplements, loading and off-loading panels and 

chutes to ensure the protection of sensitive habitats 

and refuge resources. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. The cooperative farming 

and prescriptive livestock-grazing program is used to 

meet habitat- and species-specific goals and objectives 

identified in the draft CCP. This program is intended 

to maintain and enhance habitat conditions for the 

benefit of a wide variety of migratory birds and other 

wildlife that use the refuge. 

Some wildlife disturbance may occur during operation of noisy farming equipment, and some animals 

may be temporarily displaced. Wildlife would receive 
APPENDIX D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 151 

the short-term benefit of standing crops or stubble 

for food and shelter and the long-term benefit of having historical cropland or other poor-quality habitat 

converted to native grasses and shrubs. Reducing the 

number of invasive species and the existing seedbed 

would support future restoration efforts. 

Some trampling of areas by livestock occurs around 

watering areas. It is anticipated that grazing will continue to be used to manage vegetative monocultures 

on a rotational basis. Grazing, as well as fire, is known 

to increase the nutrient cycling of nitrogen and phosphorous (Hauer and Spencer 1998, McEachern et al. 

2000). Hoof action may break up the soil cap on upland fields, allowing moisture to infiltrate the soil and 

allowing native plant seeds to become established. 

However, cattle grazing would also increase the risk 

of invasive plants becoming established. Grazing in 

the spring could have adverse effects on grasslandbird nests due to trampling and loss of vegetation. In 

addition, the presence of livestock may disturb some 

wildlife species and some public users. The long-term 

benefits of this habitat management tool should outweigh the short-term negative effects. 

Determination. Cooperative farming and prescriptive 

grazing as habitat management tools are compatible 

uses on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure compatibility. To 

ensure consistency with management objectives, the 

Service would require general and specific conditions 

for each cooperative farming and grazing permit. 

To minimize impacts on nesting birds and other 

wildlife, the refuge manager would determine and 

incorporate any necessary timing constraints on the 

permitted activity into the cooperative farming agreement or special use permit. 

The cooperative farming agreement or special use 

permit would specify the type of crop to be planted. 

Farming permittees would be required to use Service-approved chemicals that are less detrimental to 

wildlife and the environment. 

Control and confinement of livestock are the responsibility of the permittee, but the Service would 

continue to determine where fences, water tanks, and 

livestock supplements (if necessary) are placed within 

the management unit. Temporary electric fences are 

used to retain livestock within grazing cells as well 

as to protect sensitive habitat areas and refuge assets such as water control structures. Cooperators 

would be required to remove fences at the end of the 

grazing season. 

When grazing fees are assessed, they are based 

on the current-year U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Statistics Board publication, “Grazing Fee Rates for 

Cattle by Selected States and Regions.” Standard deductions for labor associated with the grazing permit 

may be included on the special use permit. 

The refuge would monitor vegetation and soils 

to assess if habitat requirements of target species 

are being met. A minimum of one temporary biological technician is necessary to monitor and document 

these activities. 

Justification. Habitat management needs to occur to 

maintain and enhance habitat for migratory birds and 

other wildlife in this altered landscape. When properly managed and monitored, cooperative farming and 

prescriptive livestock grazing can rejuvenate native 

grasses and help control the spread of some invasive 

plant species and some undesirable monoculture species like cattail. Prescriptive grazing is controlled and 

the results monitored (for example, vegetation monitoring) so that adjustments in the grazing program 

are made to meet habitat goals and objectives. The 

cooperative farming program would be monitored to 

determine the effectiveness and necessary duration 

and frequency of farming needed to control and reduce invasive species. 

Using local cooperators to perform the work is a 

cost-effective method to accomplish habitat objectives. The long-term benefits of habitat restoration 

and management far outweigh any short-term impacts 

caused by grazing. 

mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 

ReseARch AND moNItoRINg 

Lee Metcalf Refuge receives approximately 8–12 

requests each year to conduct scientific research or 

monitoring on Service lands. Priority is given to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, 

preservation, and management of the refuge’s native 

plant, fish, and wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Non–Fish and Wildlife Service applicants must submit 

a proposal that outlines the following: 

■■ objectives of the study 

■■ justification for the study 

■■ detailed methodology and schedule 

■■ potential impacts on wildlife and habitat including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, or 

mortality 

■■ description of measures the researcher would take 

to reduce disturbances or impacts 

■■ staff required and their qualifications and experience 

■■ status of necessary permits such as scientific collection permits and endangered species permits 

■■ costs to the Service including staff time requested, 

if any 

■■ anticipated progress reports and endproducts such 

as reports or publications 

Refuge staff would review research and monitoring 

proposals on a case-by-case basis and issue special use 
152 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

permits if approved. Criteria for evaluation include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

■■ Research and monitoring that contribute to specific 

refuge management issues would be given higher 

priority over other requests. 

■■ Research and monitoring that would cause undue 

disturbance or would be intrusive would likely not 

be approved. The degree and type of disturbance 

would be carefully weighed when evaluating a research request. 

■■ Research projects that can answer the same questions yet be conducted off-refuge are less likely to 

be approved. 

■■ Evaluations would determine if effort has been 

made to minimize disturbance through study design, including adjusting location, timing, scope, 

number of researchers, study methods, and number of study sites. 

■■ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the 

refuge to monitor researcher activity, this may be 

a reason to deny the request. 

■■ The length of the project would be considered and 

agreed upon prior to approval. Projects would be 

reviewed annually. 

Availability of Resources. Current resources are minimally adequate to administer research and monitoring 

efforts. A full-time biological science technician would 

assist in monitoring research proposals and projects. 

It is anticipated that approximately $4,000 per year is 

required to administer and manage current research 

and monitoring projects. Coordination with a Service inventorying and monitoring biologist would be 

necessary to administer large or long-term projects, 

which generally require more in-depth evaluation of 

applications, management of permits, and oversight 

of projects. The refuge would work with this biologist 

to identify research and monitoring needs and work 

with other Service staff, universities, and scientists 

to develop studies that would benefit the refuge and 

address the goals and objectives in the draft CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. Some degree of disturbance is expected with research activities, because 

most researchers enter areas and use Service roads 

that are closed to the public. In addition, some research 

requires collecting samples and/or handling wildlife. 

However, the overall impact on wildlife and habitats 

is expected to be minimal with research studies when 

special use permits include conditions to minimize 

those impacts. 

Determination. Research and monitoring are compatible uses on the Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Needed to ensure compatibility 

■■ Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats and species 

are sufficiently protected from disturbance by limiting research activities in these areas. 

■■ All refuge rules and regulations are followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge management. 

■■ Refuge staff use the criteria for evaluating research 

and monitoring proposals as outlined above (“Description of Use”) when determining whether to approve a proposed project on the refuge. If proposed 

research methods are evaluated and determined to 

have potential impacts on refuge wildlife or habitat, it must be demonstrated that the research is 

necessary for refuge resource conservation management. All projects are reviewed annually. 

■■ Measures to minimize potential impacts would need 

to be developed and included as part of the project 

and study design. These measures, with potential 

modifications and/or additions, would be listed as 

conditions on the special use permit. 

■■ The length of the project would be considered and 

agreed on before approval. 

■■ Projects would be reviewed annually and any modifications made as appropriate. 

■■ Refuge staff would monitor research and monitoring activities to ensure compliance with all conditions of the special use permit. At any time, refuge 

staff may accompany the researchers to determine 

potential impacts. Staff may determine that previously approved research and special use permits 

be terminated due to observed impacts. 

■■ No unauthorized individuals may accompany the 

researcher without prior consent from the refuge. 

■■ The special use permit is non-transferrable from 

one researcher to any other individual. 

■■ The refuge manager would 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 would be minimized through 

restrictions included as part of the study design, and 

research activities would be monitored by refuge staff. 

Results of research projects would contribute to the 

understanding, enhancement, protection, preservation, 

and management of the refuge’s wildlife populations 

and their habitats. 

mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 
 

 

 

APPENDIX D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 153 

D.4 signatures
 

submItteD: 

Tom Reed, Refuge Manager Date 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Stevensville, Montana 

RevIeWeD: 

Dean Rundle, Refuge Supervisor Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

APPRoveD: 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D., Assistant Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Appendix E 

Species Lists 

This appendix contains the common and scientific names of animals and plants that have been recorded on Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge or the surrounding Bitterroot Valley. The bird and plant lists are from surveys, 

annual narratives (USFWS 1988–1993), and the 2009 Lee Metcalf Refuge Bioblitz event held in 2010. Species of 

concern were determined from global, Federal, and State of Montana listings (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009). 

ClAss AmphibiA 

Common name Scientific name 

Frogs 

American bullfrog† Rana catesbeiana† 

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris 

Toads and Salamanders 

Boreal toad* Bufo boreas* 

Long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum 

ClAss REptiliA 

Common name Scientific name 

Snakes 

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans 

Rubber boa Charina bottae 

Eastern racer Coluber constrictor 

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis 

Gopher snake Pituophis catenifer 

Turtles 

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta 

ClAss AvEs 

Common name Scientific name 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’s goose Chen rossii 

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

Trumpeter swan* Cygnus buccinator* 

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Gadwall Anas strepara 

American wigeon Anas americana 

Eurasian wigeon Anas penelope 
156 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Green-winged teal Anas crecca 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Redhead Aythya Americana 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

Greater scaup Aythya marila 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica 

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca 

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis 

Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

Black scoter Melanitta nigra 

Upland Gamebirds 

Ring-necked pheasant† Phasianus colchicus† 

Gray partridge† Perdix perdix† 

Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus† 

Wild turkey† Meleagris gallopavo† 

California quail† Callipepla californica† 

Loons 

Common loon* Gavia immer* 

Grebes 

Pied-billed grebe Podylimbus podiceps 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus 

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Clark’s grebe* Aechmophorus clarkii* 

Pelicans 

American white pelican* Pelecanus erythrocephalus* 

Cormorants 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Herons 

American bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus* 

Great blue heron* Ardea herodias* 

Great egret Ardea alba 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 157 

Common name Scientific name 

Snowy egret Egretta caerulea 

Black-crowned night-heron* Nycticorax nycticorax* 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

Ibis 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 

Vultures 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

Hawks and Eagles 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bald eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus* 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern goshawk* Accipiter gentilis* 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 

Golden eagle* Aquila chrysaetos* 

White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus 

Falcons 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine falcon* Falco peregrinus* 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 

Rails 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

Sora Porzana carolina 

American coot Fulica americana 

Cranes 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

Plovers 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous 

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

American golden plover Pluvialis dominica 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Avocets 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Black-necked stilt* Himantopus mexicanus* 

Sandpipers 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 
158 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 

Long-billed curlew* Numenius americanus* 

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata 

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Sandpipers 

Stilt sandpiper Calidis himantopus 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Gulls and Terns 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Franklin’s gull* Larus pipixcan* 

California gull Larus californicus 

Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia 

Forster’s tern* Sterna forsteri* 

Black tern* Sterna niger* 

Caspian tern* Sterna caspia* 

Common tern* Sterna hirundo* 

Herring gull Larus argentatus 

Least tern* Sternula antillarum* 

Pigeon and Doves 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Rock dove Columbia livia 

Eurasian collared-dove† Streptopelia decaocto† 

Cuckoos 

Black-billed cuckoo* Coccyzus erythropthalmus* 

Yellow-billed cuckoo* Coccyzus americanus* 

Owls 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

Burrowing owl* Athene cunicularia* 

Long-eared owl Asio otus 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus 

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus 

Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 159 

Common name Scientific name 

Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii 

Great gray owl* Strix nebulosa* 

Flammulated owl* Otus flammeolus* 

Snowy owl Bubo scandiacus 

Nighthawks 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Swifts 

White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis 

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi 

Black swift* Cypseloides niger* 

Hummingbirds 

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 

Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope 

Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri 

Kingfishers 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers 

Lewis’s woodpecker* Melanerpes lewis* 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Pileated woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus* 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

Flycatchers 

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus forficatus 

Say’s phoebe Saynoris saya 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri 

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii 

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis 

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike* Lanius ludovicianus* 

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor 

Vireos 

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii 

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Jays, Crows, and Magpies 

Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri 

Clark’s nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana 
160 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Pinyon jay* Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus* 

Common raven Corvus corax 

Larks 

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

Swallows 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Chickadees 

Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus 

Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea 

Creepers 

Brown creeper* Certhia americana* 

Wrens 

House wren Troglodytes aedon 

Winter wren* Troglodytes troglodytes* 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

Dipper 

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus 

Kinglets 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

Thrushes 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

Veery* Catharus fuscescens* 

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides 

Western bluebird Sialia mexicana 

Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius 

Thrashers, Mockingbirds, and Catbirds 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Sage thrasher* Oreoscoptes montanus* 

Starlings 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 161 

Common name Scientific name 

Pipits 

American pipit Anthus rubescens 

Waxwings 

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulous 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Warblers 

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Common yellowthroat Geothlipis trichas 

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata 

Sparrows 

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia laucophrys 

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

LeConte’s sparrow* Ammodramus leconteii* 

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

House sparrow Passer domesticus 

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Tanagers, Cardinals, and Buntings 

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena 

Blackbirds 

Bobolink* Dolichonyx oryzivorus* 

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 
162 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Finches 

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator 

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Common redpoll Carduelis flammea 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

ClAss mAmmAliA 

Common name Scientific name 

Shrews 

Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans 

Common (masked) shrew Sorex cinereus 

Yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus 

Bats 

California myotis Myotis californicus 

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum 

Western long-eared myotis Myotis evotis 

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus 

Fringed myotis* Myotis thysanodes* 

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans 

Yuma myotis Myotis ymanensis 

Townsends big-eared bat* Corynorhinus townsendii* 

Hoary bat* Lasiurus cinereus* 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Beavers 

American beaver Castor canadensis 

Porcupines 

Common porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Pocket Gophers 

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides 

Mice, Voles, and Rats 

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea 

Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Squirrels 

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 163 

Common name Scientific name 

Columbian ground squirrel Spermophilus columbianus 

Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus 

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger 

Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris 

Wolves, Coyotes, and Foxes 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Gray wolf* Canis lupus* 

Cats 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Mountain lion Puma concolor 

Skunks 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Weasels 

Short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea 

Northern river otter Lontra canadensis 

American badger Taxidea taxus 

Mink Mustela vison 

Raccoons 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Bears 

Black bear Ursus americanus 

Deer, Moose, and Elk 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Moose Alces alces 

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus 

Elk Cervus elaphus 

ClAss OstEiChthyEs 

Common name Scientific name 

Fish 

Largemouth bass† Micropterus salmoides† 

Pumpkinseed† Lepomis gibbosus† 

Yellow perch† Perca flavescens† 

Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus 

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus 

Northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis 

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus 

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni 

Rainbow trout† Oncorhynchus mykiss† 

Brown trout† Salmo trutta† 

Brook trout† Salvelinus fontinalis† 

Bull trout* Salvelinus confluentus* 
lAss pinOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Pinaceae (Pine) 

Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum 

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta 

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa v. ponderosa 

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii v. glauca 

ClAss mAgnOliOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Aceraceae (Maple) 

Rocky mountain maple Acer glabrum 

Amaranthaceae Amaranth (Pigweed) 

Tumbleweed Amaranthus albus 

Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus graecizans 

Powell’s amaranth Amaranthus powellii 

Redroot amaranth Amaranthus retroflexus 

Asclepiadaceae (Milkweed) 

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa 

Apocynaceae (Dogbane) 

Spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium 

Clasping leaved dogbane Apocynum sibiricum 

Balsaminaceae (Touch-Me-Not) 

Spurless jewelweed Impatiens ecalcarata 

Berberidaceae (Barberry) 

Oregon grape Berberis repens 

Betulaceae (Birch) 

Thin-leaved alder Alnus incana 

River birch Betula occidentalis 

Boraginaceae (Borage) 

Slender cryptantha Cryptantha affinis 

Houndstongue‡ Cynoglossum officinale‡ 

Blueweed‡ Echium vulgare‡ 

Western stickseed Lappula redowskii 

Corn gromwell Lithospermum arvense 

Wayside gromwell Lithospermum ruderale 

Field forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis 

Small flowered forget-me-not Myosotis laxa 

Blue forget-me-not Myosotis micrantha 

Common forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides 

Early forget-me-not Myosotis verna 

Italian bugloss‡ Anchusa azurea mill‡ 

Scouler’s popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys scouleri 

Cactaceae (Cactus) 

Brittle cholla Opuntia fragilis 

164 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

C
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 165 

Common name Scientific name 

Callitriche (Water-Starwort) 

Northern water-starwort Callitriche hermaphroditica 

Water-starwort Callitriche heterophylla 

Pond water-starwort Campanula rotundifolia 

Campanulaceae (Harebell) 

Scotch harebell Campanula rotundifolia 

Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle) 

Blue elderberry Sambucus caerulea 

Common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 

High-bush cranberry Viburnum opulus 

Caryophyllaceae (Pink) 

Blunt leaved sandwort Arenaria lateriflora 

Thyme-leaved sandwort Arenaria serpyllifolia 

Field chickweed Cerastium arvense 

Nodding chickweed Cerastium nutans 

Jagged chickweed Holosteum umbellatum 

White champion Lychnis alba 

Menzies’ silene Silene menziesii 

Red sandspurry Spergularia rubra 

Long leaved starwort Stellaria longifolia 

Ceratophyllaceae (Hornwort) 

Common hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum 

Chenopodiaceae (Goosefoot) 

Fat hen Atriplex patula v. hastata 

Lambs quarter Chenopodium album 

Jerusalem oak Chenopodium botrys 

Maple leaved goosefoot Chenopodium nybridum 

Kochia/red belvedere‡ Kochia scoparia‡ 

Poverty weed Monolepis nuttalliana 

Russian thistle‡ Salsola kali‡ 

Compositae (Asteraceae) (Sunflower) 

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 

False dandelion Agoseris glauca 

Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea 

Nuttals pussy-toes Antennaria parviflora 

Rosy pussy-toes Antennaria microphylla 

Umber pussy-toes Antennaria umbrinella 

Common burdock‡ Arctium minus‡ 

Meadow arnica Arnica chamissonis 

Western absinthium ‡ Artemisia absinthium‡ 

Biennial sagewort Artemisia biennis 

Northern sagewort Artemisia campestris v. scouleriana 

Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 

Fringed sagewort Artemisia frigida 

Western mugwort Artemisia ludoviciana v. latiloba 
166 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Prairie sage Artemisia ludoviciana v. ludoviciana 

Smooth aster Aster laevis 

Few-flowered aster Aster modestus 

White prairie aster Aster pansus 

Beggar-ticks Bidens cernua 

Musk thistle‡ Carduus nutans‡ 

Spotted knapweed‡ Centaurea maculosa‡ 

Oxeye daisy‡ Chrysanthemum leucanthemum‡ 

Hairy golden aster Chrysopsis villosa 

Rabbit-brush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

Canada thistle‡ Cirsium arvense‡ 

Wavy leaved thistle Cirsium undulatum 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 

Horseweed Conyza canadensis 

Cutleaf daisy Erigeron compositus 

Spreading fleabane Erigeron divergens 

Shaggy fleabane Erigeron pumilus 

Showy fleabane Erigeron speciosis 

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus v. strigosus 

Field filago Filago arvensis 

Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 

Lowland cudweed Gnaphalium palustre 

Gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Sunflower Helianthus annuus 

Nuttals sunflower Helianthus nuttallii 

Narrow-leaved hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum 

Poverty weed Iva xanthifolia 

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola 

Pineapple weed‡ Matricaria matricarioides‡ 

Nodding microseris Microseris nutans 

False-agroseris Microseris troximoides 

Woolly groundsel Senecio canus 

Groundsel Senecio indecorus 

Tall butterweed Senecio serra 

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Late goldenrod Solidago gigantea 

Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Western goldenrod Solidago occidentalis 

Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus 

Marsh sowthistle‡ Sonchus uliginosus‡ 

Common tansy‡ Tanacetum vulgare‡ 

Smooth dandelion‡ Taraxacum laevigatum‡ 

Common dandelion‡ Taraxacum officinale‡ 

Goatsbeard/western salsify‡ Tragopogon dubius‡ 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 167 

Common name Scientific name 

Convolvulaceae (Morning-Glory) 

Field bindweed‡ Convolvulus arvensis 

Cornaceae (Dogwood) 

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera 

Crassulaceae (Stonecrop) 

Lanceleaf stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum 

Cruciferae (Mustard) 

Pale alyssum Alyssum alyssoides 

Desert alyssum Alyssum desertorum 

Holboell’s rockcress Arabis holboellii 

Nuttall’s rockcress Arabis nuttallii 

Wintercress Barbarea orthoceras 

Hoary alyssum‡ Berteroa incana‡ 

Field mustard Brassica campestris 

Black mustard Brassica nigra 

Hairy false flax Camelina microcarpa 

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris 

Little western bittercress Cardamine oligosperma 

Pennsylvania bittercress Cardamine pensylvanica 

Tansy mustard Descurainia sophia 

Woods draba Draba nemorosa 

Whitlow-grass Draba verna 

Wormseed mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides 

Dame’s rocket Hesperis matronalis 

Field pepper grass Lepidium campestre 

Common pepper grass Lepidium densiflorum 

Clasping pepper grass Lepidium perfoliatum 

Western yellowcress Rorippa curvisiliqua 

Marsh yellowcress Rorippa islandica 

Watercress Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum v. glabrata 

Jim hill mustard Sisymbrium altissimum 

Tumble mustard Sisymbrium loeselii 

Fanweed Thlaspi arvense 

Dipsacaceae (Teasel) 

Teasel‡ Dipsacus sylvestris‡ 

Euphorbiaceae (Spurge) 

Leafy spurge‡ Euphorbia esula‡ 

Corrugate-seeded spurge Euphorbia glyptosperma 

Thyme-leaf spurge Euphorbia serpyllifolia 

Ericaceae (Heath) 

White pyrola Pyrola elliptica 

Pinedrops Pterospora andromeda 

Geraniaceae (Geranium) 

Cranes bill Erodium cicutarium 

Bicknell’s geranium Geranium bicknelli 
168 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Small field geranium Geranium pusillum 

Sticky geranium Geranium viscosissimum 

Grossulariacea (Gooseberry) 

Common current Ribes sativum 

Missouri gooseberry Ribes setosum 

Haloragaceae (Water-Milfoil) 

Northern water milfoil Myriophyllum sibricum 

Hippuridaceae (Mares-Tail) 

Mares-tail Hippuris vulgaris 

Hydrophyllaceae (Waterleaf) 

Sand phacelia Phacelia linearis 

Hypericaceae (St. Johnswort) 

Western St. Johnswort Hypericum formosum v. scouleri 

Canada St. Johnswort Hypericum majus 

Goatweed/St. Johnswort‡ Hypericum perforatum‡ 

Labiatae (Mint) 

Hemp nettle Galeopsis tetrahit 

Water horehound Lycopus americanus 

Rough bugleweed Lycopus asper 

Northern bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus 

Field mint Mentha arvensis 

Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa 

Catnip Nepeta cataria 

Purple dragonhead Physostegia parviflora 

Self-heal Prunella vulgaris 

Marsh skullcap Scutellaria galericulata 

Hedge nettle Stachys palustris v. pilosa 

Leguminosae (Pea) 

Canada milkvetch Astragalus canadensis v. mortonii 

Weedy milkvetch Astragalus miser 

Wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota 

Velvet lupine Lupinus leucophyllus 

Washington lupine Lupinus polyphyllus 

Blue-bonnet Lupinus sericeus 

Black medic Medicago lupulina 

Alfalfa Medicago sativa 

White sweet-clover Melilotus alba 

Yellow sweet-clover Melilotus officinalis 

Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum 

Wooly clover Trifolium microcephalum 

Red clover Trifolium pratense 

White clover Trifolium repens 

White-tip clover Trifolium variegatum 

American vetch Vicia americana 

Common vetch Vicia sativa 

Slender vetch Vicia tetrasperma 
Common name Scientific name 

Hairy vetch Vicia villosa 

Lentibulariaceae (Bladderwort) 

Little bladderwort Utricularia minor 

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris 

Loranthaceae (Mistletoe) 

Dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium sp. 

Malvaceae (Mallow) 

Common mallow Malva neglecta 

Cheese weed Malva parviflora 

Moraceae (Mulberry) 

Hops Humulus lupulus 

Nymphaeaceae (Water Lily) 

Indian pond lily Nuphar polysepalum 

Onagraceae (Evening Primrose) 

Enchanter’s nightshade Circaea alpina 

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium 

Swamp willow-herb Epilobium palustre 

Annual willow-herb Epilobium paniculatum 

Shrubby willow-herb Epilobium suffruticosum 

Watson’s willow-herb Epilobium watsonii 

Yellow evening primrose Oenothera strigosa 

Oxalidaceae (Wood-Sorrel) 

Yellow wood-sorrel Oxalis corniculata 

Plantaginaceae (Plantain) 

Ribgrass Plantago lanceolata 

Common plantain Plantago major v. major 

Indian wheat Plantago patagonica 

Polemoniaceae (Phlox) 

Narrow-leaved collomia Collomia linearis 

Scarlet gillia Gilia aggregata 

Pink microsteris Microsteris gracilis 

Annual polemonium Polemonium micranthum 

Jacob’s ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum v. calycinum 

Polygonaceae (Buckwheat) 

Umbrella plant Erigonum umbellatum v. subalpinum 

Knotweed Polygonum achoreum 

Water smartweed Polygonum amphibium 

Dooryard knotweed Polygonum aviculare 

Water smartweed Polygonum coccineum 

Ivy bindweed Polygonum convolvulus 

Douglas’ knotweed Polygonum douglasii v. douglasii 

Marshpepper Polygonum hydropiper 

Smartweed Polygonum hydropiperoides 

Willow weed Polygonum lapathifolium 

Spotted ladysthumb Polygonum persicaria 

Dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum 

APPENDIX E—Species Lists 169 
170 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Red sorrel Rumex acetosella 

Curly dock Rumex crispus 

Seaside dock Rumex maritimus 

Western dock Rumex occidentalis 

Willow dock Rumex salicifolius 

Portulacaceae (Purslane) 

Narrow-leaved miners lettuce Montia linearis 

Miner’s lettuce Montia perfoliata 

Purslane Portulaca oleracea 

Bitterroot Lewisia rediviva 

Primulaceae (Primrose) 

Fairy candelabra Androsace occidentalis 

Woodland shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum 

Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata 

Tufted loosestrife Lysimachia thrysiflora 

Ranunculaceae (Buttercup) 

Western clematis Clematis ligusticifolia 

Sedge mousetail Myosurus aristatus 

Kidney-leaved buttercup Ranunculus abortivus 

Tall buttercup‡ Ranunculus acris‡ 

Water buttercup Ranunculus aquatilis v. capillaceus 

Shore buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria 

Yellow water buttercup Ranunculus flabellaris 

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus flammula 

Sagebrush buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus v. glaberrimus 

Gmelins buttercup Ranunculus gmelinii v. limosus 

Long-beaked water-buttercup Ranunculus longirostris 

Macouns buttercup Ranunculus macounii 

Bristly buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus 

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens 

Celery-leaved buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus 

Stiff-leaf water buttercup Ranunculus subriqidus 

Little buttercup Ranunculus uncinatus v. uncinatus 

Tall meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum 

Western meadowrue Thalictrum occidentale 

Few-flowered meadowrue Thalictrum sparsiflorum 

Rosaceae (Rose) 

Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 

River hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 

Woods strawberry Fragaria vesca 

Blueleaf strawberry Fragaria virginiana 

Large-leaved avens Geum macrophyllum 

Water avens Geum rivale 

Prairie smoke Geum triflorum 

Silverweed Potentilla anserina 
Common name Scientific name 

Silvery cinquefoil Potentilla argentia 

Biennial cinquefoil Potentilla biennis 

Sticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa 

Elmer’s cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis v. elmeri 

Marsh cinquefoil Potentilla palustris 

Sulfur cinquefoil‡ Potentilla recta‡ 

Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata 

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana v. melanocarpa 

Woods rose Rosa woodsii 

Red raspberry Rubus idaeus 

Rubiaceae (Madder) 

Cleavers Galium aparine 

Thinleaf bedstraw Galium bifolium 

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale 

Small cleavers Galium trifidum 

Salicaceae (Wwillow) 

Lombardy poplar Populus nigra v. italica 

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 

Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 

Peach-leaf willow Salix amygdaloides 

Bebb willow Salix bebbiana 

Sandbar willow Salix exigua 

Geyer willow Salix geyeriana 

Whiplash willow Salix lasiandra 

Mackenzie willow Salix rigida 

Saxifragaceae (Saxifrage) 

Smooth fringecup Lithophragma glabra 

Small-flowered fringecup Lithophragma parviflora 

Scrophulariaceae (Figwort) 

Blue-eyed mary Collinsia parviflora 

Common hedge-hyssop Gratiola neglacta 

Dalmation toadflax‡ Linaria dalmatica‡ 

Yellow toadflax‡ Linaria vulgaris‡ 

Monkey flower Mimulus guttatus v. guttas 

Musk plant Mimulus moschatus 

Little penstemon Penstemon procerus 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus 

American speedwell Veronica americana 

Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica 

Chain speedwell Veronica catenata 

Purslane speedwell Veronica peregrina 

Thyme-leaved speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia v. serpyllifolia 

Vernal speedwell Veronica verna 

Solanaceae (Nightshade) 

Henbane Hyoscyamus niger 

APPENDIX E—Species Lists 171 
172 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara 

Cut-leaved nightshade Solanum triflorum 

Umbelliferae (Parsley) 

Water hemlock Cicuta douglasii 

Cow-parsnip Heracleum lanatum 

Mountain sweet-cicely Osmorhiza chilensis 

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa 

Black snakeroot Sanicula marilandica 

Water parsnip Sium suave 

Urticaceae (Nettle) 

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica spp. Gracilis 

Verbenaceae (Vervain) 

Blue vervain Verbena hastata 

Violaceae (Violet) 

Early blue violet Viola adunca v. bellidifolia 

Marsh violet Viola palustris 

Bog violet Viola nephrophylla 

ClAss liliOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Alismataceae (Water-Plantain) 

America water-plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica v. americanum 

Narrowleaf water-plantain Alisma gramineum v. angustissimum 

Arumleaf arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata 

Cyperaceae (Sedge) 

Awned sedge Carex atherodes 

Water sedge Carex aquatilis 

Clustered sedge Carex arcta 

Slenderbeaked sedge Carex anthrostachya 

Golden sedge Carex aurea 

Bebb’s sedge Carex bebii 

Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra 

Douglas’ sedge Carex douglassii 

Wooly sedge Carex languinosa 

Slender sedge Carex lasiocarpa 

Kellog’s sedge Carex lenticularis 

Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis 

Retrose sedge Carex retrosa 

Sawbeaked sedge Carex stipata 

Beaked sedge Carex utriculata (c. Rostrata) 

Inflated sedge Carex vesicaria 

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 

Awned flatsedge Cyperus aristatus 

Shining flatsedge* Cyperus rivularis* 

Needle spike-rush Eleocharis acicularis 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 173 

Common name Scientific name 

Delicate spike-rush Eleocharis bella 

Common spike-rush Eleocharis palustris 

Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus 

Small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 

Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus 

Poaceae (Gramineae) (Grass) 

Goat grass Aegilops cylindrica 

Bearded wheatgrass Agropyron canium v. andinum 

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 

Thin spiked wheatgrass Agropyron dasystachyum 

Intermediate wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium 

Quack grass Agropyron repens 

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

Bluebunch wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum 

Redtop Agropyron alba v. alba 

Tickle-grass Agropyron scabra 

Shortawn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis 

Meadow foxtail Alopecurus partensis 

Common oats Avena sativa 

Slough grass Beckmania syzigachne 

Smooth brome-grass Bromus inermis spp. inermus 

Soft brome-grass Bromus mossi 

Cheatgrass‡ Bromus tectorum‡ 

Bluejoint reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis v. canadensis 

Slim reedgrass Calamagrostis neglecta 

Brook grass Catabrosa aquatica 

Woodreed Cina latifolia 

Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata 

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis 

Great basin wildrye Elymus cinereus 

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilienensis 

Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea 

Six weeks fescue Festuca octoflora 

Northern mannagrass Glyceria borealis 

Tall mannagrass Glyceria elata 

American mannagrass Glyceria grandis 

Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata 

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 

Junegrass Koeleria cristata 

Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne 

Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides 

Common witchgrass Panicum capillare 

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 

Common timothy Phleum pratense 

Annual bluegrass Poa annua 
174 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Viviparous bluegrass Poa bulbosa 

Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 

Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris 

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 

Sandbergs bluegrass Poa sandbergii 

Green bristlegrass Setaria viridis 

Sand dropseed Sporobolis cryptandrus 

Squirreltail Sitanion hystrix 

Needle and thread Stipa comata 

Green needlegrass Stipa viridula 

Hydrocharitaceae (Frog’s Bit) 

Canada waterweed Elodea canadensis 

Nuttalls waterweed Elodea nuttallii 

Iridaceae (Iris) 

Yellow flag iris‡ Iris pseudacorus‡ 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium angustifolium 

Juncaceae (Rush) 

Wire grass Juncus balticus 

Toad rush Juncus bufonius 

Soft rush Juncus effusus 

Dagger-leaf rush Juncus ensifolius 

Tuberous rush Juncus nodosus 

Slender rush Juncus tenuis v. tenuis 

Torrey’s rush Juncus torrei 

Smooth rush Luzula hitchcockii 

Lemnaceae (Duckweed) 

Water lentil Lemna minor 

Star duckweed Lemna trisulca 

Great duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza 

Watermeal Wolffia punctata 

Lilaceae (Lily) 

Nodding onion Allium cernuum 

Asparagus Asparagus officinalis 

Wild hyacinth Brodiaea douglasii 

Starry false solomon’s seal Smilacina stellata 

Common death camas Zigadenus venenosus 

Najadaceae (Water-Nymph) 

Guadalupe water-nymph* Najas guadalupensis* 

Potamogetonaceae (Pondweed) 

Reddish pondweed Potamogeton alpinus 

Large-leaved pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius 

Berchtold’s pondweed Potamogeton berchtoldii 

Ribbon-leaved pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus 

Slender-leaved pondweed Potamogeton filiformis 

Illinois pondweed Potamogeton illinoensis 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 175 

Common name Scientific name 

Floating-leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans 

Fennel-leaved pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus 

Small pondweed Potamogeton pusillus 

Richardsons pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii 

Eel-grass pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis 

Sparganiaceae (Bur-Reed) 

Narrow-leaved bur-reed Sparganium angustifolium 

Simple stem bur-reed Sparganium emersum v. multipedunculatum 

Typhaceae (Cat-Tail) 

Common cattail Typha latifolia 

Zannichelliaceae (Horned Pondweed) 

Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris 

ClAss FiliCOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Polypodiaceae (Common Fern) 

Brittle bladder-fern Cystopteris fragilis 

Marsileaceae (Pepperwort) 

Pepperwort Marsilea vestita 

ClAss EquisEtOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Equisetaceae (Horsetail) 

Common horsetail Equisetum arvense 

Water horsetail Equisetum fluviatile 

Scouring rush Equisetum hyemale 

Smooth scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum 

Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre 

Shady horsetail Equisetum pratense 

ClAss lyCOpOdiOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Selaginellaceae (Clubmoss) 

Compact clubmoss Selaginella densa v. densa 

ClAss mARChAntiOspidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Marchantiaceae 

— Marcantia polymorphia 

Ricciaceae 

— Riccio carpus natans 
176 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

ClAss ChlOROphyCEAE 

Common name Scientific name 

Characeae (Green Algae) 

— Nostoc ssp. 

— Hydrodictnon reticulatum 

— Riccia fluitins 

— Nitella spp. 

— Chara spp. 

— Tolypella spp. 

ClAss insECtA 

Common name Scientific name 

Butterflies 

Two-tailed swallowtail Papilio multicaudata 

Western tiger swallowtail Papilio rutulus 

Pale swallowtail Papilio eurymedon 

Western white Pontia occidentalis 

Cabbage white† Pieris rapae† 

Beckers white Pontia beckerii 

Checkered white Pontia protodice 

Clouded sulphur Colias philodice 

Sara orangetip Anthocharis sara 

Orange sulfur Colias eurytheme 

Ediths copper Lycaena editha 

Purplish copper Lycaena helloides 

Bronze copper Lycaena hyllus 

Western pine elfin Callophrys eryphon 

Gray hairstreak Strymon melinus 

Melissa blue Lycaeides melissa 

Spring azure Celastrina ladon 

Arrowhead blue Glaucopsyche piasus 

Great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele 

Silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene 

Mormon fritillary Spreyeria mormonia 

Mylitta crescent Phyciodes mylitta 

Northern crescent Phyciodes cocyta 

Field crescent Phyciodes pratensis 

Ediths checkerspot Euphydryas editha 

Satyr anglewing Polygonia satyrus 

Oreas anglewing Polyfonia oreas 

Zephyr anglewing Polyfonia zephyrus 

Mourning cloak Nymphalis antiopa 

Milbert’s tortoiseshell Nymphalis milberti 

California tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica 

Red admiral Vanessa atalanta 

West coast lady Vanessa annabella 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 177 

Common name Scientific name 

Painted lady Vanessa cardui 

Lorquins admiral Limenitis lorquini 

Viceroy Limenitis archippus 

Common wood nymph Cercyonis pegala 

Small wood nymph Cercyonis oetus 

Common alpine Eregia eipsoodea 

Common ringlet Coenonympha ampelos 

Pecks skipper Polites peckius 

Sandhill skipper Polites sabuleti 

Long dash Polites mystic 

Common branded skipper Hesperua comma 

Woodland skipper Ochlodes sylvanoides 

Arctic skipper Carterocephalus palaemon 

Garita skipperling Oarisma garita 

Roadside skipper Amblyscirtes vialis 

Common sootywing Pholisora catullus 

Common checkered skipper Pyrgus communis 

Dragonflies and Damselflies 

Spotted spreadwing Lestes congener 

Emerald spreadwing Lestes dryas 

Lyre-tipped spreadwing Lestes unguiculatus 

Northern spreadwing Lestes disjunctus 

Northern bluet Enallagma annexum 

Boreal bluet* Enallagma boreale* 

Marsh bluet Enallagma ebrium 

Pacific forktail Ischnura cervula 

Western forktail Ischnura perparva 

Western red damsel Amphiagrion abbreviatum 

Canada darner Aeshna canadensis 

Lance-tipped darner Aeshna constricta 

Paddle-tailed darner Aeshna palmata 

Shadow darner Aeshna umbrosa 

Common green darner Anax junius 

Variable darner Aeschna interrupta 

California darner Rhionaeschna californica 

Pale snaketail Ophiogomphus severus 

Sinuous snaketail Ophiogomphus occidentis 

Common whitetail Plathemis lydia 

Four-spotted skimmer Libellula quadrimaculata 

Eight-spotted skimmer Libellula forensis 

Twelve-spotted skimmer Libellula pulchella 

Dot-tailed whiteface Leucorrhinia intacta 

Hudsonian whiteface Leucorrhinia hudsonica 

Variegated meadowhawk Sympetrum corruptum 

White-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusum 

Cherry-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum internum 
178 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Common name Scientific name 

Saffron-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum costiferum 

Band-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum 

Striped meadowhawk Sympetrum pallipes 

Black meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum 

Moths 

Isabella tiger moth Pyrrharctia isabella 

Carpenterworm moth Cossoidea spp. 

Big poplar sphinx Pachysphinx occidentalis 

Large yellow underwing Noctua pronuba 

One-eyed sphinx Smerinthus cerisyi 

Polyphemus moth Antheraea polyphemus 

Catocaline moth Catocala spp. 

Beetles 

Blister beetle Epicauta spp. 

Tiger beetle Cincidela oregona 

Leaf beetle Chrysomelidae latreille 

Rifle beetle Optioservus quadrimaculatus 

Beetle Troposternus latoralis 

Tumbling flower beetle Mordellidae latreille 

Carrion beetle Silphidae latreille 

Ground beetle Pterostichus spp. 

Leaf beetle Systena spp. 

Predaceous diving beetle Platambus spp. 

Weevil Larinus spp. 

Weevil Rhinocyllus conicus 

Flies 

Caddisfly Parapsyche almota 

Caddisfly Limnephelus spp. 

Caddisfly Hydropsyche californica 

Mayfly Baetis tricaudatus 

Mayfly Drunella coloradensis 

Mayfly Ephemerella excrucians 

Mayfly Siphlonurus occidentalis 

Mayfly Callibaetis pictus 

Mayfly Rhitrhogena robusta 

Mayfly Ameletus similior 

Mayfly Sweltsa spp. 

Mayfly Serratella tibialis 

Mayfly Drunella doddsi 

Stonefly Claassenia sabulosa 

Stonefly Hesperoperla pacifica 

Stonefly Kogotus modestus 

Stonefly Isoperla spp. 

Stonefly Pteronarcella 

Deerfly Chrysops spp. 
APPENDIX E—Species Lists 179 

ClAss gAstROpOdA 

Common name Scientific name 

Snails and Slugs 

Forest disc Discus whitneyi 

Marsh pondsnail Stagnicola elodes 

Mountain marshsnail Stagnicola montanensis 

Coeur d’Alene Oregonian Cryptomastix mullani 

Brown hive Euconolus fulvus 

Garlic glass snail† Oxychilus alliarus† 

Two-ridge rams-horn snail Helisoma anceps 

Big-eared radix† Radix auricularia† 

Mimic lymnaea snail Pseudosuccinea columella 

Glossy pillar Cochilicopa lubrica 

Grey fieldslug† Derocerus reticulatum† 

Idaho forestsnail Allogona ptychophora 

Lovely vallonia Vallonia pulchella 

Meadow slug† Derocerus laeve† 

Quick gloss Zonitoides arboreus 

Dusky arion† Arion subfuscus† 

ClAss ARAChnidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Spiders 

Western black widow Latrodectus hesperus 

ClAss mAlACOstRACA 

Common name Scientific name 

Scuds 

Scud† Hyalella azteca† 

* Species of concern 

† Nonnative animal species 

‡ Invasive plant species 

Appendix F 

Fire Management Program 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has administrative responsibility for fire management at the 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, which covers 

2,800 acres. This appendix describes the fire management plan that will be implemented on the refuge. 

F.1 The Role of Fire 

Vegetation in the Rocky Mountains evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation from fire, drought, 

floods, large herbivores, insect outbreaks, and disease. 

These periodic disturbances kept the ecosystem diverse 

and healthy and maintained significant biodiversity 

for thousands of years. 

Historically, wildland fire played an important role 

in many ecosystems by stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, providing a diversity of habitats for 

plants and wildlife, and decreasing the impacts of insects and diseases. When fire or grazing is excluded 

from a landscape, fuel loading occurs due to the buildup 

of thatch and dead or downed trees. Increased fuel 

loading intensifies a fire’s resistance to control, increases the potential for large-scale severe wildfires, 

and threatens firefighter and public safety as well as 

Federal and private facilities. The return of fire in 

most ecosystems is essential for healthy vegetation for 

wildlife habitats in grasslands, wetlands, and forests. 

When used properly, fire can accomplish the following: 

■■ Reduce hazardous fuel buildup in both wildland– 

urban interface areas and non-wildland–urban 

interface areas. 

■■ Improve wildlife habitats by reducing the density 

of vegetation, changing the plant species composition, or both. 

■■ Sustain or increase biological diversity. 

■■ Improve woodland and shrubland by reducing 

plant density. 

■■ Reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and disease outbreaks. 

■■ Increase the quantity of water available for municipalities and activities that depend on wildland 

water supplies. 

F.2 Wildland Fire 

Management Policy and 

Guidance 

Based on Federal interagency policy (Fire Executive 

Council 2009), wildland fire is defined as any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland including wildfire 

and prescribed fire. Response to wildland fire is based 

on consideration of a full range of fire management actions—allowing the fire to benefit the resource where 

possible or taking suppression action when those 

benefits are not attainable or important resources or 

adjacent lands are likely threatened. 

The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 

was updated in 2001. This revised policy directs Federal agencies to achieve a balance between suppressing fires to protect life, property, and resources and 

prescribing fires to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. The following are the foundational principles for Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 

and have been excerpted from “Review and Update of 

the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” 

(National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2001): 

1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in 

every fire management activity. 

2. The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological 

process and natural change agent will be incorporated into the planning process. Federal agency 

land and resource management plans set the objectives for the use and desired future condition 

of the various public lands. 

3. Fire Management Plans (FMP), programs, and 

activities support land and resource management 

plans and their implementation. 

4. Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire 

management activities. Risks and uncertainties 

relating to fire management activities must be understood, analyzed, communicated, and managed as 

they relate to the cost of either doing or not doing 

an activity. Net gains to the public benefit will be 

an important component of decisions. 

5. Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be protected, 

costs, and land and resource management objectives. Federal agency administrators are adjusting 
182 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

and reorganizing programs to reduce costs and 

increase efficiencies. As part of this process, investments in fire management activities must be 

evaluated against other agency programs in order 

to effectively accomplish the overall mission, set 

short- and long-term priorities, and clarify management accountability. 

6. Fire Management Plans and activities are based 

upon the best available science. Knowledge and experience are developed among all federal wildland 

fire management agencies. An active fire research 

program combined with interagency collaboration 

provides the means to make these tools available 

to all fire managers. 

7. Fire Management Plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality 

considerations. 

8. Federal, State, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential. 

Increasing costs and smaller work forces require 

that public agencies pool their human resources to 

successfully deal with the ever-increasing and more 

complex fire management tasks. Full collaboration 

among federal wildland fire management agencies 

and between the federal wildland fire management 

agencies and international, State, tribal, and local 

governments and private entities result in a mobile fire management work force available for the 

full range of public needs. 

9. Standardization of policies and procedures among 

federal wildland fire management agencies is an 

ongoing objective. Consistency of plans and operations provides the fundamental platform upon 

which federal wildland fire management agencies 

can cooperate, integrate fire activities across agency 

boundaries, and provide leadership for cooperation with State, tribal, and local fire management 

organizations. 

The 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 use resource plans (for 

example, the comprehensive conservation plan [CCP]). 

Fire management plans are stepdown processes from 

the land use plans and habitat plans; they detail fire 

suppression, fire use, and fire management activities. 

F.3 Management Direction 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge will suppress 

human-caused fires and wildfires that threaten life and 

property. Appropriate suppression actions—whether 

aggressive, high intensity, or low intensity—will be 

based on preplanned analysis, executed to minimize 

costs and resource losses, and consistent with land 

management objectives. 

Prescribed fire, as well as manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments, would be used in an ecosystem context to protect both Federal and private property 

and for habitat management purposes. Fuel reduction 

activities would be applied in collaboration with Federal, State, private, and nongovernmental partners. 

For wildland–urban interface treatments, focal areas 

would be those with community wildfire protection 

plans and designated communities at risk. The only 

community at risk near the refuge, as identified in the 

Federal Register, is the community of Stevensville, 

Montana. The State of Montana has developed a community wildfire protection plan for all communities in 

Ravalli County. 

All aspects of the fire management program will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with applicable laws, 

Department of Interior and Service policies, and guidance established at national, regional, and local levels. 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge will maintain a 

fire management plan to accomplish the fire management goals described below. Wildland fire, prescribed 

fire, and manual and mechanical fuel treatments will 

be applied under selected weather and environmental 

conditions, monitored using scientific techniques, and 

refined using adaptive management. 

FiRe MAnAGeMenT GoAls 

Fire management goals are set at national, regional, 

and local levels. 

national Fire Management Goals 

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

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland Fire 

Management Program Strategic Plan are consistent 

with the following guidance: 

■■ policies of the Department of the Interior and the 

Service 

■■ direction from the National Fire Plan 

■■the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative 

■■ 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan 

■■ guidelines of the National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group 

■■ initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council 

■■ “Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations” 

Regional Fire Management Goals 

Priorities stated in “The Region 6 Refuges Regional 

Priorities FY07–11” are consistent with the vision 

statement for Region 6: “to maintain and improve the 

biological integrity of the region, ensure the ecological condition of the region’s public and private lands 

are better understood, and endorse sustainable use 
APPENDIX F—Fire Management Program 183 

of habitats that support native wildlife and people’s 

livelihoods.” 

Refuge Fire Management Goals and objectives 

Fire management goals and objectives are used in 

the planning process to help management determine 

which responses and activities are necessary to achieve 

National Fire Plan and land management goals and 

objectives. 

The fire management goals and objectives for Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge are as follows: 

1. Provide for firefighter and public safety. 

2. Suppress human-caused fires and wildfires that 

threaten life and property. 

3. Reduce wildland fire risk to the community of Stevensville and other public structures and private 

lands through hazardous fuels reduction treatments. 

4. Use wildland fire, manual treatment methods, and 

mechanical treatment methods to achieve habitat 

goals and objectives identified in this CCP using 

scientific techniques and adaptive resource management to monitor results. 

5. Protect important migratory bird habitats and 

natural resource values. 

6. All wildfires will receive a management response 

based on firefighter and public safety considerations, 

resource and cultural values at risk, and circumstances unique to the incident while providing for 

cost-effective management. 

7. Prevent human-caused wildfires through public 

contact and education, monitoring, and hazard fuels mitigation. 

8. Safely suppress all wildfires occurring within the 

refuge. Maintain an initial attack success rate of 

95 percent or higher on wildfires occurring on 

Service lands. 

9. Utilize Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

or Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR) funding as 

needed following wildfires. 

10. Implement and monitor a rotational prescribed 

burn program over the life of the plan that supports 

the fire dependent communities within the refuge. 

The refuge staff recognizes that fire can play an important role in habitat management. With an approved 

Fire Management Plan, the refuge staff may use wildland fire or prescribed fire in accordance with Federal, State, and local ordinances and laws to achieve 

hazardous fuels reduction and resource management 

objectives. Strategies and tactics that consider public and firefighter safety, as well as resource values 

at risk, will be used. Wildfire suppression, prescribed 

fire methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, 

and monitoring will be described in detail within the 

stepdown fire management plans for the refuge. 

On approval of this CCP, the 2010 Fire Management Plan will be reviewed and updated as needed to 

meet the goals and objectives set forth by the CCP. 

F.4 Fire Management 

organization, Contacts, and 

Cooperation 

Region 6 of the Service would establish a fire management organization to provide qualified technical 

oversight of fire management for the refuge. Fire 

management staffing levels would be determined by 

established modeling systems and based on the fire 

management workload of a group of refuges and possibly that of interagency partners. Workload is based 

on historical wildfire suppression activities as well as 

historical and planned fuel treatments. Fire management activities would be conducted in a coordinated 

and collaborative manner through the “Montana State 

Annual Operating Plan” and other agreements with 

Federal and non-Federal partners. 

Bibliography
 

Alt, D.B. 2001. Glacial Lake Missoula and its humongous floods. Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press 

Publishing Company, 208 p. 

Arno, S. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry, 78(8): 460–465. 

Bedunah, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, 

grazing, and wildlife. Western Wildlands 18:6–11. 

Brandt, T.M. 2000. Fish diversity, behavior, and microhabitat use in secondary channels of the Bitterroot 

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

University of Montana. 

Briar, D.W.; Dutton, D.M. 2000. Hydrogeology and 

aquifer sensitivity of the Bitterroot Valley, Ravalli County, Montana. Helena, MT: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources. Investigations Report 

99-4219. 114 p. 

Bull, Evelyn L.; Collins, Charles T. 2007. Vaux’s swift 

(Chaetura vauxi). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. [Internet]. <http://bna.birds.cornell. 

edu/bna/species/077doi:10.2173/bna.077> accessed 

January 3, 2011. 

Burkhardt, J.W. 1996. Herbivory in the Intermountain 

West: an overview of evolutionary history, historic 

cultural impacts and lessons from the past. Idaho 

Forest, Wildlife and Range Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 58. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources, Boise, ID. 

Cappious, S.L. 1939. A history of the Bitter Root Valley to 1914 [master’s thesis]. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. [Pages unknown]. 

Cartier, K.D.W. 1984. Sediment channel morphology, 

and streamflow characteristics of the Bitterroot 

River drainage basin, southwestern Montana. M.S. 

Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Carver, Erin; Caudill, James. 2007. Banking on nature 

2006: the economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 371 p. 

Casey, Daniel. 2000. Partners in Flight draft bird 

conservation plan: Montana. Version 1.0 Kalispell, 

Montana: Montana Partners in Flight. 288 p. 

Caudill, James; Henderson, E. 2006. Banking on nature 

2006: the economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 373 p. 

Clary, J.; Hastings, P.B.; O’Neill, J.; Winthrop, R. 2005. 

First roots: the story of Stevensville, Montana’s 

oldest community. Stevensville, MT: Stoneydale 

Press Publishing Company. 251 p. 

Cooper, D.J.; Merritt, D.M.; Andersen, D.C.; Chimner, 

R.A. 1999. Factors controlling the establishment of 

Fremont cottonwood seedlings on the Upper Green 

River. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15:419–440. 

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M. [et al.]. 2006. 

Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in response to 

fire in a temperate mixed-grass savanna. Journal 

of Environmental Quality 35:1620–8. 

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

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Zimmerman, A.L.; Euliss, B.R. 

2002a. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: western meadowlark. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 33 p. 

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

Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; and Euliss, B.R. 

2002b. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: grasshopper sparrow. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 28 p. 

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

lens. Audubon: January–February. [Pages unknown]. 

Eckmann, E.C.; Harrington, G.L. 1917. Soil survey of 

the Bitterroot River Valley area, Montana. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. 72 p. 

Fire Executive Council. 2009. Guidance for implementation of federal wildland fire management policy. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and U.S. Department of the Interior. 20 p. <http:// 

www.nifc.gov/policies/policies_documents/guidance/ 

GIFWFMP.pdf> accessed January 2011. 

Fischer, W.C.; Bradley, A.F. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

General Technical Report INT-223. 95 p. 

Gaeuman, D. 1997. Historical channel changes and 

processes of the central Bitterroot River, Ravalli 

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

University of Montana. 

Geist, V.; Mahoney, S.P.; Organ, J.F. 2001. Why hunting 

has defined the North American model of wildlife 

conservation. In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; 
186 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

March 20, 2001; Washington, DC. Washington, DC: 

Wildlife Management Institute. 66:175–85. 

Geist V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust foundation 

of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Northeast Wildlife 58:49–56. 

Graham, Todd. 2009 Assessment of upland units. Bozeman, MT: Aeroscene Land Logic. 9–12. 

Gratto-Trevor, Cheri L. 2000. Marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa). The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. [Internet]. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ 

species/492doi:10.2173/bna.492> accessed January 

3, 2011. 

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorous and nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with wildfire—a study of immediate and long-term effects. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 8:183–98. 

Heitmeyer, M.E.; Artmann, M.J.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

2010. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and 

management options for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 6, Denver, CO. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 10-02. Bloomfield, MO: Blue 

Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC. 

Hejl, S.J.; Newlon, K.R.; Mcfadzen, M.E.; Yound, 

J.S.; Ghalambor, C.K. 2002. Brown creeper (Certhia Americana). The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/669doi:10.2173/bna.669> accessed January 3, 2011. 

Hepp, Gary R.; Bellrose, Frank C. 1995. Wood duck 

(Aix sponsa). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/169doi:10.2173/bna.1169> accessed January 3, 2011. 

Hodges, K.V.; Applegate, J.D. 1993. Age of Tertiary 

extension in the Bitterroot metamorphic core 

complex, Montana and Idaho. Geology 21:161–164. 

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline—Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] Scop.) 

Natural Areas Journal 12:160–1. 

Hyndman, D.W.; Talbot, J.L.; Chase, R.B. 1975. Boulder batholiths—a result of emplacement of a block 

detached from the Idaho batholiths infrastructure. 

Geology 3:401–404. 

[IWJV] Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005a. 

Coordinated implementation plan for bird conservation in western Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Montana Steering Committee Intermountain West Joint Venture. 58 p. 

———. 2005b. Intermountain West Joint Venture coordinated bird conservation plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Intermountain West Joint Venture. 94 p. 

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

decisions. In: Shenk, T.M.; Franklin, A.B., editors. 

Modeling in natural resource management—development, interpretation, and application. Washington, DC: Island Press. 223 p. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31–39. 

Kudray, G.M.; Schemm, T. 2008. Wetlands of the Bitterroot Valley; change and ecological functions. 

Prepared for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Agreement #DEQ 206028. Helena, 

MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

Kushlan, James A.; Steinkamp, Melanie J.; Parsons, 

Katharine C.; [et al.]. 2002. Waterbird conservation 

for the Americas—the North American waterbird 

conservation plan, version 1. Washington, DC: 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 78 p. 

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W. [et al.]. 1996. 

ARM! for the future—adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 24:436–42. 

Langner, H.W.; Greene, E.; Domenech, R.; Staats, M.F. 

2011. Mercury and other mining-related contaminants in ospreys along the Upper Clark Fork River, 

Montana, USA. University of Montana, Missoula, 

MT. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

November 25, 2011. <http://www.springerlink.com/ 

content/m081860p378q2453/fulltext.html> accessed 

January 3, 2011. 

Langton, C.M. 1935. Geology of the northeastern part 

of the Idaho batholiths and adjacent region in Montana. Journal of Geology 43: 27–60. 

Lankston, R.W. 1975. A geophysical investigation 

in the Bitterroot Valley, western Montana [Ph.D. 

dissertation]. University of Montana, Missoula. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Lonn, J.D.; Sears, J.W. 2001. Geologic map of the Bitterroot Valley, Montana. Butte, MT: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report 362.. 

Lowther, Peter; Poole, Alan F.; Gibbs, J.P.; Melvin, 

S.; Reid, F.A. 2009. American bittern (Botaurus 

lentiginosus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/018doi:10.2173/bna.018> accessed January 3, 2011. 

Malouf, Carling I. 1952. Economy and land use by the 

Indians of western Montana, U.S.A. [Unpublished]. 

Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 63 p. 

———. 1956. The cultural connections between the 

prehistoric inhabitants of the upper Missouri and 

Columbia River systems [Ph.D. dissertation]. New 

York, NY: Columbia University. [Pages unknown]. 

Martin, Stephen G.; Gavin, Thomas A. 1995, Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 187

edu/bna/species/176doi:10.2173/bna.176> accessed 

January 3, 2011. 

Maxwell, Bryce A.; Nelson, K.J.; Browder, S. 2002. 

Record clutch size and observance on breeding and 

development of the western toad (Bufo boreas) in 

Montana. Northwestern Naturalist 83:27–30. 

McDowell, Will; Rokosch, Jim. 2005. Ambrose-Threemile 

watershed project: watershed assessment and recommendations for stream improvements. Sandpoint, 

ID: Tri-State Water Quality Council. 161p. <http:// 

www.tristatecouncil.org/documents/05ambrose_ 

asses.pdf> accessed November 15, 2011. 

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

2000.The forest fire induced impacts on phosphorus, 

nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations in boreal 

sub-arctic lakes of northern Alberta Can. Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57 (Suppl. 2):73–81. 

McMurtrey, R.G.; Konizeski, R.L.; Johnson, M.V.; 

Bartells, J.H. 1972. Geology and water resources 

of the Bitterroot Valley, southwestern Montana, 

with a section on chemical quality of water, by H.A. 

Swenson. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply 

Paper 1889. 80 p. 

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P.D. 

Skaar’s Montana bird distribution, fifth edition. 

Special Publication No. 3. Helena, MT: Montana 

Natural Heritage Program. 130 p. 

Montana Department of Agriculture. 2010. Montana 

noxious weed list: effective September 2010. <http:// 

agr.mt.gov/weedpest/pdf/weedlist2010.pdf> accessed March 23, 2011. 

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2005. The 

Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks. 43–44, 78,158–159. 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2009. [Species 

of concern]. <http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern> 

accessed May 12, 2009. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In: Whitman, 

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

Kehoe, P.; Roberts, L.; editors. Waterfowl habitat 

restoration, enhancement and management in the 

Atlantic flyway. 3rd edition. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section; Delaware, Division of 

Fish and Wildlife. F59–F86. 

Mowbray, Thomas. 1999. American wigeon (Anas 

americana). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/401doi:10.2173/bna.401> accessed January 3, 2011. 

National Association for Interpretation. 2011. [Mission, 

vision, and core values.] <http://www.interpnet.com/ 

about_nai/mission.shtml> accessed March 9, 2011. 

National Climatic Data Center. 2011. Precipitation 

and temperature graphs, 1900–2010. <http://www. 

ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series> accessed February 8, 2011. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001. [Review 

and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy]. http://www.nwcg.gov/branches/ 

ppm/fpc/archives/fire_policy/history/index.htm accessed January 13, 2012. 

Oring, Lewis W.; Neel, Larry; Oring, Kay E. 2010. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan. 

Pardee, J.T. 1950. Late Cenozoic black faulting in 

western Montana. Geological Society of America 

Bulletin 61:359–406. 

Popham, C. 1998. Early days in sagebrush country. 

Missoula, MT: Pictoral Histories Publishing Company. 130 p. 

Reiss. S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850– 

1920. The American History Series. Wheeling, IL: 

Harlan Davidson, Inc. 178 p. 

Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H.; Blancher, 

P.J.; Bradstreet, M.S.W.; Butcher, G.S.; Demarest, D.W.; Dunn, E.H.; Hunter, W.C.; Inigo-Elias, 

E.E.; Kennedy, J.A.; Martell, A.M.; Panjabi, A.O.; 

Pashley, D.N.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Rustay, C.M.; 

Wendt, J.S.; Will, T.C. 2004. Partners in Flight 

North American landbird conservation plan. Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Revised 

March 2005. 85 p. 

Richey. E.D. 1998. Subdividing Eden: land use and 

change in the Bitterroot Valley, 1930–1998. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 290 p. 

Running, Steven W. 2010. Impacts of climate change 

on forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, Montana Climate Office. <https://www. 

cfc.umt.edu> accessed February 8, 2011. 

Ryan, Michael Jerome. 1977. An archaeological survey 

of the middle Clark Fork River valley: Missoula to 

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

University of Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Sedgwick, James A. 2000. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/533doi:10.2173/bna.533> accessed January 3, 2011. 

State of Montana. 2011. [Montana field guides: American bullfrog—Rana catesbeiana]. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AAABH01070.aspx> accessed 

March 11, 2011. 

Stevensville Historical Society. 1971. Montana genesis. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing 

Company. 289 p. 

Stringer, A. 2009. Effect of constructed wetlands on 

water temperature in Lower Burnt Fork Creek: 
188 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

implications for native trout populations and possible 

stream restoration. Unpublished report to Sentinel High School. Missoula, MT. [Pages unknown]. 

Takekawa, John Y.; Warnock, Nils. 2000. Long-billed 

dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus). The Birds 

of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds. 

cornell.edu/bna/species/493doi:10.2173/bna.493> 

accessed January 3, 2011. 

Texas State Parks and Wildlife. 2011. [Hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus)]. <http://www.tpwd.state. 

tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/hoarybat> accessed 

February 14, 2011. 

Tobalske, Bret W. 1997. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/284doi:10.2173/bna.284>. Accessed January 3, 2011. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization. 1978. Needs and priorities in Environmental Education: an International Survey. 

Paris, France. [Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1939. Bitter Root Irrigation District. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Hamilton, MT. 

———. 1982. Bitter Root Project, Montana, Ravalli 

County. U.S. Department of the Interior, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclamation. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census Bureau: state and 

county quickfacts for Montana. Data derived from 

2010 population estimates. <http://www.census. 

gov> accessed April 4, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. [Montana 

State-listed noxious weeds.] <http://plants.usda. 

gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=30> 

accessed February 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestration research and development. Springfield, VA: 

National Technical Information Service, Office of 

Fossil Energy and the Office of Science. <http:// 

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ 

publications/1999_rdreport/> accessed December 

18, 2010. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation: final report of the National Ecological Assessment Team. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 45 p.

 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife 

Health Center. 2007. [Chronic wasting disease fact 

sheet.] <http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/chronic_wasting_disease/> accessed February 10, 2011. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1966. Wildlife inventory plan. Stevensville, MT: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 22 p. 

———. 1974. Flood Report, Ravalli National Wildlife 

Refuge, Stevensville, MT. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1988–1993. Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge annual narratives. Stevensville, MT: Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. [On file at Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, MT]. 

———. 1991. Waterfowl management handbook— 

section 13.4.6, strategies for water manipulation 

in moist-soil systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 8 p. [On file at Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, MT]. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the promise. Arlington, VA: 

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

Service. 94 p. 

———. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. Arlington, VA: United States Department of Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. 85 p. <http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/> accessed November 10, 2010. 

———. 2010. Rising to the challenge—strategic plan 

for responding to accelerating climate change. Unpublished report on file at Washington, DC. 28 p. 

<www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCDraftStratPlan92209.pdf> accessed July 27, 2010. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana 

Invasive Species Strike Team. 2009. 2009 Lee 

Metcalf NWR report. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Montana Invasive Species 

Strike Team. 76 p. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 

6 Water Resources Division. 2011. Unpublished 

data. [On file at the water resources division office 

in Lakewood, CO] 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Canadian 

Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan-a strategy for cooperation. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Gatineau, Quebec: Environment, Canada. 26 p. 

Walker, B. 2004. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Brewer’s sparrow. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/brsp.brsp.htm> accessed December 22, 2010. 

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 

71:2060–8. 

Ward, Linda. 1973. Prehistory of the Bitterroot Valley [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: University of 

Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Weber, W.M. 1972. Correlation of Pleistocene glaciations in the Bitterroot Range, Montana, with fluctuations of glacial Lake Missoula. Montana Bureau 

of Mines and Geology Memoir 42 pp. 

Werner, Kirwin J.; Maxwell, Bryce A.; Hendricks, Paul; 

Flath, Dennis L. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of 

Montana. Missoula, MT: Montana Press Publishing 

Company. 73–4, 93–4, 100–102. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 189

Woodin, Marc C; Michot, Thomas C. 2002. Redhead (Aythya americana). The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/695doi:10.2173/bna.695> accessed Janu­

ary 3, 2011. 

Woodside, Gail J. 2008. Comparing native oral history 

and scientific research to produce historical evidence 

of native occupation during and after the Missoula 

floods [senior thesis]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. <http://hdl.handle.net/1957/8746> ac­

cessed September 27, 2010.