Comprehensive Conservation Plan Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
September 2005
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
6295 Pleasant Valley Road
Marion, MT 59925
406/858 2216
and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Division of Refuge Planning
PO Box 25486 DFC
Lakewood, CO 80225
303/236 4365
Approved by:
__________________________________ ________________
Ralph O. Morgenweck Date
Regional Director, Region 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lakewood, CO
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
Submitted by:
__________________________________ ________________
Ray Washtak Date
Refuge Manager
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
Marion, MT
Concurred with:
__________________________________ ________________
Steve Kallin Date
Project Leader
National Bison Range
Moiese, MT
and
__________________________________ ________________
Steve Berendzen Date
Refuge Program Supervisor (MT, UT, WY)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
and
__________________________________ ________________
Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... ix
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 1
Area Description .......................................................................................................................................... 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System .......................................................................... 1
Purpose and Need for a CCP....................................................................................................................... 5
Refuge Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Refuge Vision Statement and Goals........................................................................................................... 12
2 Planning Process........................................................................................................................................ 15
Decisions Made............................................................................................................................................. 15
Step-down Plans........................................................................................................................................... 15
Plan Revision ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Public Involvement...................................................................................................................................... 16
3 Refuge Resources....................................................................................................................................... 19
Physical Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Water Resources..................................................................................................................................... 22
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Biological Resources.................................................................................................................................... 27
Habitat...................................................................................................................................................... 27
Wildlife...................................................................................................................................................... 34
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 45
Wilderness Review ...................................................................................................................................... 47
Socioeconomic Setting................................................................................................................................. 47
Administrative Setting ............................................................................................................................... 51
Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................. 52
4 Management Direction.............................................................................................................................. 55
Riparian Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 55
Wetland Habitat........................................................................................................................................... 63
Grassland Habitat ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Forest Habitat.............................................................................................................................................. 68
Invasive Plants............................................................................................................................................. 70
Migratory Birds............................................................................................................................................ 73
Endemic Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................... 78
Species of Concern ....................................................................................................................................... 84
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................100
Public Use .....................................................................................................................................................102
Administration..............................................................................................................................................113
Partnerships .................................................................................................................................................115
Funding and Staffing...................................................................................................................................119
Glossary..............................................................................................................................................................121
Appendix A—Background Information..........................................................................................................129
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations.................................................................................................157
vi
Appendix C—List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... 161
Appendix D—Consultation and Coordination............................................................................................... 163
Appendix E—Environmental Compliance..................................................................................................... 173
Appendix F—List of Animal and Plant Species ........................................................................................... 175
Appendix G—Authorized Public Uses ........................................................................................................... 181
Appendix H—List of Facilities....................................................................................................................... 185
Appendix I—Fire Management Program...................................................................................................... 187
Appendix J—Section 7 Biological Evaluation ............................................................................................... 191
Appendix K—Refuge Operating Needs System Projects........................................................................... 199
Appendix L—Maintenance Management System Projects ........................................................................ 201
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 203
vii
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
1 Vicinity map for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.............................................................. 2
2 Base map for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................................................... 3
3 Geographic setting of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana..................................................... 4
4 Columbia Basin ecosystem ............................................................................................................................ 7
5 Management units for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.................................................... 10
6 Wetland resources of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..................................................... 11
7 Fisher River watershed, Montana................................................................................................................ 23
8 Pleasant Valley Creek basin, Montana ........................................................................................................ 24
9 Vegetation of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .................................................................. 28
10 Elk management units, Montana .................................................................................................................. 39
11 Distribution of Spalding’s catchfly in Montana........................................................................................... 45
12 Public use at Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................................................... 103
Tables
1 Summary of the natural resources of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .......................... 20
2 Summary of the cultural resources, and socioeconomic, administrative, and partnership setting
for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..................................................................................... 21
3 Runoff predictions for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.................................................... 25
4 Climatological data for 1931–1960 near Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana....................... 26
5 Vegetative communities of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........................................... 27
6 List of priority, Neotropical migratory birds for habitats on Lost Trail National Wildlife
Refuge, Montana ............................................................................................................................................ 37
7 Species of concern in proximity to Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................... 42
8 Most numerous businesses in Flathead County, Montana ........................................................................ 48
9 Employment by industry for Flathead County, Montana......................................................................... 49
10 Use of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge (Montana) during the first hunting season ...................... 50
11 Measurement unit conversions..................................................................................................................... 55
12 Staffing needs to carry out objectives and strategies of the CCP, Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................................................................................................................. 119
13 Budgetary needs to carry out objectives and strategies of the CCP, Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................................................................................................................. 120
Summary
This is the summary of the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge, Montana.
Although the Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
currently administers the Swan River National
Wildlife Refuge and five waterfowl production areas,
the CCP only addresses management of the Lost
Trail National Wildlife Refuge.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 requires that a CCP be developed for
every unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System by
2012.
The CCP describes how Lost Trail National Wildlife
Refuge will be managed during the next 15 years to
fulfill its congressionally designated purposes.
BACKGROUND
The 9,225-acre Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
is located approximately 20 miles northwest from
the town of Marion (southwest of Kalispell), in
Flathead County, Montana.
This refuge was established in 1999 as the 519th refuge
in the National Wildlife Refuge System of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Establishment Purposes
■ For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory
birds.
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
Habitat management needs to maintain a
mosaic of plant communities for a diversity
of foraging and nesting migratory birds.
Plant communities need to be managed for
a variety of cover conditions and water
levels, with areas of disturbance minimized.
■ For the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and protection
of fish and wildlife resources.
(Fish and Wildlife Act)
■ For (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (2) the protection
of natural resources, (3) the conservation of
endangered species or threatened species.
(Refuge Recreation Act)
■ For the conservation and enhancement of
fish and wildlife.
(Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)
■ Parts of the refuge are mitigative properties
in lieu of losses to Flathead WPA. The
purpose is to protect and maintain wetland
habitat for migratory birds, other animals,
and plants; to restore floodplain acreage to
its historical role; and to enhance the survival
prospects of endangered and threatened
species.
Bernardo Garza/USFWS
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
x Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Osprey
© Cindie Brunner
HABITATS AND WILDLIFE
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge is a breathtakingly
beautiful area nestled in the Pleasant Valley in
northwestern Montana. It can best be described as a
long valley crossed by Pleasant Valley Creek and
encompassing the 182-acre Dahl Lake. The refuge
encompasses wetlands, lush riparian corridors, uplands
dominated by prairie and tame grasses, and temperate
forests dominated by lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir.
Many of the existing wetlands in the refuge have been
altered by water impoundments that created cropland
and grazing opportunities before the establishment of
the refuge. The channelized nature of some streams,
altered for flood protection and irrigation, has
removed them from their historical riparian habitat
condition and function.
Mallard, lesser scaup, northern shoveler, cinnamon
teal, and Canada geese are common breeders in the
refuge. A variety of Neotropical migratory birds
such as
grasshopper and
Savannah
sparrows nests in
the refuge.
Raptors such as
golden eagles,
ospreys, and
northern harriers
are common sights
at the refuge.
Deer and elk winter in the refuge, with the current
winter elk population estimated at over 300 animals.
Moose, black bear, mountain lion, wolverine, beaver,
and badger are other mammals that also occur in the
refuge.
Most fish found in Pleasant Valley Creek show
stunting. Although none occur presently, it is likely
the creek historically supported redband trout and
westslope cutthroat trout. The federally listed bull
trout occurs outside the refuge in the Fisher River
watershed.
Spotted and Pacific chorus frogs occur at the refuge,
which is home to the largest concentration of boreal
toads in the Rocky Mountains.
Species of concern that reproduce in the refuge
include the bald eagle (federally threatened), black
tern, boreal toad, and Spalding’s catchfly (federally
threatened). The Canada lynx (federally threatened)
and the trumpeter swan occasionally use refuge
habitats. The threatened grizzly bear and gray wolf
occur in Pleasant Valley.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Native American occupation sites have been
documented within the boundaries of the refuge.
Petroglyphs that document this early human
presence are still in existence in the refuge.
Prior to refuge establishment, the site of Lost Trail
National Wildlife Refuge encompassed areas used
for domestic cattle grazing and public school building
sites. Two of the three historical ranch sites in the
refuge are eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
PUBLIC USE AND THE ECONOMY
Current use of the refuge includes wildlife observation
and photography, environmental education, and
hunting of deer, elk, mountain grouse, and turkey.
Located in one of the fastest-growing counties in
Montana, ranching, recreation, and timber harvest
are the main land uses near the refuge.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The environmental analysis process—as directed by
the National Environmental Policy Act—was
followed to develop the CCP for the refuge.
Public, partner, and agency involvement was
coordinated by the refuge planning team. During the
scoping process, major issues were raised by refuge
staff, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, other federal agencies, refuge partners and
neighbors, and the general public.
Some of the major issues raised by other agencies
and the public have been addressed in the CCP as
follows:
As a result of agency and public participation,
the CCP provides for coordinated efforts to
control or eradicate invasive plants. This will be
achieved through a variety of habitat
management methods such as grazing,
herbicide applications, rest, and prescribed fire.
The CCP calls for continued studies to ensure
adequate water rights exist and that habitat
management does not cause loss of water
downstream from the refuge.
Wildlife and their habitat will receive foremost
consideration. Management for conservation of
the grizzly bear and gray wolf will strive to
minimize conflicts with humans.
The refuge will ensure that management
activities do not harm cultural sites.
Furthermore, public uses will be allowed and
Summary xi
managed in a way that will not degrade wildlife
habitat. The refuge will continue to provide
hunting, wildlife photography, nature trails,
and fishing opportunities.
The refuge will pursue adequate refuge staffing
levels and public facilities to fulfill its goals and
vision.
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
This vision for the refuge is based on the
establishment purposes of the refuge, resource
conditions and potential, and the issues.
Refuge Vision
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge is an
integral part of the Columbia River ecosystem
and the Pleasant Valley community.
The refuge is a place where wetlands, streams,
native grasslands, and forests have been
conserved, enhanced, and restored. These
habitats support a variety of migratory birds,
species of concern, and other associated wildlife
and plants.
People learn about and appreciate the natural
and cultural environment of the refuge and
enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreation.
Partnering with others fosters natural and
cultural resource conservation for the benefit
of present and future generations.
These goals were developed to guide achievement of
the vision.
■Riparian Habitat Goal. Restore, enhance, and
maintain a mixed deciduous and coniferous
riparian habitat to support indigenous wildlife
species and perpetuate the ecological integrity of
the Fisher River watershed.
■Wetland Habitat Goal. Provide breeding, resting,
and feeding habitat for wetland-dependent species
of northwestern Montana by restoring, maintaining,
and enhancing a mosaic of lake, semipermanent,
seasonal, temporary, and saturated wetlands.
■ Grassland Habitat Goal. Restore, enhance, and
maintain Intermountain grasslands, with an
emphasis on native bunchgrass prairie to provide
habitat for migratory birds, species of concern,
and associated wildlife species.
■ Forest Habitat Goal. Enhance and maintain
Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, aspen, and cottonwood
forested habitats within the context of the Fisher
River watershed for migratory birds, species of
concern, and other associated wildlife species.
■ Invasive Plant Goal. Native plant communities,
composition, occurrence, and density exist
without degradation by invasive plants and
support associated wildlife.
■Migratory Bird Goal. Preserve, restore, and
enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of
migratory birds of the Intermountain West forest,
wetland complexes, riparian habitat, and
bunchgrass prairie.
■Endemic Wildlife Goal. Restore and maintain
resident and endemic wildlife populations of
northwestern Montana to maintain and enhance
species diversity of Lost Trail National Wildlife
Refuge and Fisher River watershed.
■ Species of Concern Goal. Contribute to the
conservation, enhancement, and recovery of
endangered, threatened, and species of concern
populations in Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
and Fisher River watershed.
■ Cultural Resource Goal. Protect, manage, and
interpret archaeological, cultural, and historical
resources present at Lost Trail National Wildlife
Refuge for the benefit of present and future
generations.
■ Public Use Goal. Provide quality wildlife-dependent
recreational and educational
opportunities for persons of all abilities to learn,
understand, and enjoy the Intermountain
ecosystem of northwestern Montana; the
associated fish, wildlife, and plants of Lost Trail
National Wildlife Refuge; and the National
Wildlife Refuge System in a safe and compatible
manner.
■Administration Goal. Provide staffing, funding,
and facilities to maintain the long-term integrity
of habitats and wildlife resources of Lost Trail
National Wildlife Refuge in supporting the
achievement of ecosystem and National Wildlife
Refuge System goals.
■ Partnership Goal. Promote and develop
partnerships with adjacent landowners, public
and private organizations, and other interested
individuals to preserve, restore, and enhance
a diverse and productive ecosystem of which
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge is an
integral part.
xii Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
OUTCOME OF THE PLAN
The CCP calls for habitat restoration through full
staffing, along with increased compatible public use
that is limited when needed to protect wildlife,
habitats, and cultural resources.
The staff will manage refuge habitats through:
■ restoration of native vegetation, especially prairie
grasses and forest;
■ restoration of the natural hydrology of Dahl Lake,
Pleasant Valley Creek, and wetlands;
■ control of invasive plants.
Achieving the refuge’s goals, migratory and other
birds, large and small mammals, amphibians, reptiles,
and fish will inhabit quality habitats where they will
feed, loaf, rest, and reproduce.
Species of concern, especially federally listed
species, will receive adequate protection and find
their life cycle needs met when migrating through or
recolonizing the area of the refuge.
Known cultural resources will be protected. The
refuge will pursue partnerships and coordination
with the state to research and catalog unknown
cultural resources.
Compatible public use will receive a boost, especially
the priority wildlife-dependent uses:
■ Hunting
■ Fishing
■ Wildlife observation
■ Wildlife photography
■ Interpretation
■ Environmental education
The refuge will pursue administrative independence
from the National Bison Range National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, as well as funding for seven full-time
employees and one half-time employee to manage
the refuge and its waterfowl production areas. A
contact station will provide information for visitors
once budget allows for its construction.
USFWS
Spruce Grouse
Chapter 1—Introduction 1
1 Introduction
This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) is the
result of an environmental assessment (EA) that
evaluated alternatives for the management of the
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge in northwestern
Montana (figure 1).
The Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge lies in the
west-central portion of Flathead County, Montana,
approximately 25 air miles west of Kalispell (figure 1).
To get to the refuge, visitors travel 20 miles on
Highway 2, west to Marion, and northwest 20 miles
through Haskell Pass.
The congressionally designated refuge boundary
encompasses approximately 9,225 acres. Within the
designated boundary, the Service manages
approximately 7,885 acres (figure 2). A mosaic of valley
meadows and wetlands, and sloping uplands
dominated by forest, comprise the refuge. Located
in an Intermountain drainage known locally as
Pleasant Valley, the refuge has elevations ranging
from 3,488 to 4,600 feet.
AREA DESCRIPTION
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge is nestled in the
Pleasant Valley, which was formed during the last
glacial period in North America. Pleasant Valley sits
atop a vast, relatively uniform expanse of the Belt
Rock formation called the Purcell Alticline.
Pleasant Valley is located in the Salish Mountains
among medium-elevation mountains such as Ashley
Mountain (6,300 feet) to the north and Murr Peak
(6,763 feet) to the south, near the confluence of the
boundaries of the Flathead, Kootenai, and Lolo
national forests (figure 3).
The Whitefish Mountains lie northeast of the refuge,
beyond which Glacier National Park and the
Continental Divide are found. The Purcell
Mountains are directly west, and Little Bitterroot
and Flathead lakes lie southeast of the refuge.
Further east are the breathtaking Mission and Swan
mountain ranges. The Cabinet and Bitterroot
mountains are west of the refuge.
The refuge administers McGregor Meadows,
Batavia, Blasdel, Smith Lake, and Flathead
waterfowl production areas (WPAs), which comprise
the northern half of the Northwest Montana
Wetland Management District (WMD). The refuge
also administers the Swan River National Wildlife
Refuge. This CCP does not address administration of
these units. These WPAs and the Swan River
National Wildlife Refuge will be addressed in
separate CCPs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)
is the principal agency responsible for conservation
of our Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources. This
responsibility is shared with other federal agencies
and state and tribal governments.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is working with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The Service manages a diverse network of more
than 540 national wildlife refuges within the
National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses
95 million acres of lands and waters. Lost Trail is 1 of
22 national wildlife refuges in Montana.
Dahl Lake, in the midst of the refuge, is nestled in the Pleasant Valley.
Ray/Washtak/USFWS
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 1. Vicinity map for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Chapter 1—Introduction 3
Figure 2. Base map for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 3. Geographic setting of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Chapter 1—Introduction 5
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System is to administer a 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.
Operation and management of national wildlife
refuges are influenced by a wide array of laws,
treaties, and executive orders (see appendix A). The
primary guidance comes from these laws:
■ National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966, as amended
■ National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (Improvement Act)
All national wildlife refuges are established with the
following goals (Service Director’s Order No. 132):
■ 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.
■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of
fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation,
by providing the public with safe, quality, and
compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such
use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, environmental education, and
interpretation.
These goals help step-down the Refuge System
mission and principles of the 1997 amendments to
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act. These goals articulate the foundation for
stewardship of the Refuge System and define the
unique niche it occupies among various federal land
systems.
The Improvement Act calls for making opportunities
for wildlife-dependent recreation, as long as they are
compatibly managed with other purposes and do not
conflict with other use. Service policy allows use if it
is appropriate (appendix A).
An appropriate use:
contributes to the Refuge System mission,
the refuge’s major purposes, or refuge
goals or objectives;
is a priority wildlife-dependent public use
(fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education,
and interpretation); or
supports the safe and effective conduct
of a priority public use.
It is the policy of the federal government—in
cooperation with other nations and in partnership
with states, local governments, Indian tribes, and
private organizations and individuals—to administer
federally owned, administered, or controlled
prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of
stewardship for the benefit of present and future
generations.
To maintain the health of individual national wildlife
refuges, and the Refuge System as a whole, managers
must anticipate future conditions—to avoid adverse
effects and take positive actions to conserve and
protect refuge resources. Effective management also
depends on knowledge of larger systems and resource
relationships.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A CCP
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act, as amended by the Improvement Act, requires
that CCPs be in place for all national wildlife refuges
within 15 years of enactment (2012).
A CCP is needed to guide the conservation and use
of resources on the newly established (1999) Lost
Trail National Wildlife Refuge for the next 10–15
years.
In general, a CCP serves to do the following:
■ Ensure that the purpose of the refuge and mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System are being
fulfilled.
■ Ensure that national policy direction is incorporated
into refuge management.
■ Ensure that opportunities are available for
interested parties to participate in the development
of management direction.
■ Provide a systematic process for making and
documenting refuge decisions.
■ Establish broad strategies for refuge programs
and activities.
■ Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments.
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
REFUGE OVERVIEW
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge was established
on August 24, 1999, and became the 519th refuge in
the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Appendix A provides further information about the
establishment history of the refuge.
PURPOSES
The purposes for the refuge are set out in the
authorities for acquisition (below), and are
summarized here.
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge was
established for…
use by migratory birds, with emphasis on
waterfowl and other waterbirds
the conservation of fish and wildlife
resources
fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation
the conservation of endangered or
threatened species
Management is dictated, in large part, by legislation
that created the refuge and defines the purposes for
which the refuge was established. Five authorities
exist for the acquisition and establishment of the
refuge:
■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act, “…for use as
an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.”
Habitat management needs to maintain a mosaic
of plant communities for a diversity of foraging
and nesting migratory birds. Plant communities
need to be managed for a variety of cover
conditions and water levels, with areas of
disturbance minimized.
■ Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
■ Fish and Wildlife Act, “…for the development,
advancement, management, conservation, and
protection of fish and wildlife resources.”
■ Refuge Recreation Act, “…for (1) incidental fish
and wildlife-oriented recreational development,
(2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the
conservation of endangered species or threatened
species.”
■ Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, “…for the
conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife.”
Parts of the refuge are mitigative properties
(obtained from the Montana Power Company [MPC]
in lieu of losses to Flathead WPA attributed to
past and future operations of Kerr Dam). The
purpose is to protect and maintain wetland habitat
for migratory birds, other animals, and plants; to
restore floodplain acreage to its historic role; and
to enhance the survival prospects of endangered
and threatened species.
ECOSYSTEM SETTING
The refuge is part of the ecosystem designated by
the Service as the Missouri, Yellowstone, Columbia
River (MOYOCO) ecosystem (figure 4). The Columbia
River watershed primarily falls into the Service’s
Region 1, a different administrative area. The
Improvement Act and planning policy requires CCPs
to show how refuge management contributes to the
Service’s ecosystem goals.
The mission for the MOYOCO ecosystem is to
maintain, restore, and enhance riparian and watershed
functions for the benefit of trust resources, Service
properties, and the American public. This includes
preservation and restoration of grasslands, riparian
areas, and wetland habitats and conservation of
endangered, threatened, and other species of special
concern. The habitat and wildlife goals and objectives
for the refuge contribute to the MOYOCO ecosystem
mission.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
This section describes other management
considerations for habitats, wildlife, and
administration of the refuge.
Habitats
The wetland reserve program (WRP) project has
the following goals that relate to Pleasant Valley
Creek:
■ Address habitat needs for a diversity of fish and
wildlife with a priority for species most impacted
by degraded condition; beaver; moose; and species
of concern such as bull, westslope cutthroat, and
redband trout.
Canvasback Duck
Eugene Hester/USFWS
Chapter 1—Introduction 7
Figure 4. Columbia Basin ecosystem
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
■ Restore wetland hydrology and vegetation to
historic conditions.
■ Restore streams to historical channels and/or
function, where feasible.
■ Restore fisheries habitat and aid fish passage to
tributary channels, where feasible.
(The glossary entry for “wetland reserve program”
provides further information.)
Although management of forest habitat is not a
priority for the refuge, as a wildlife steward, the
Service needs to determine what is within refuge
boundaries and not impact species of concern and
their biological potential.
Wildlife
Since Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge was
purchased as mitigation for habitat losses associated
with Flathead WPA, management emphasis is
placed on improving wetland-dependant species
diversity and maintaining healthy self-sustaining
populations of these species. Refuge managers
primarily use habitat management to improve
species diversity and to sustain or improve wildlife
populations. Thus, wildlife management objectives
are directly linked to habitat objectives.
Lost Trail is a new refuge that, until recently, had
only one full-time employee. It is essential to gather
baseline data on habitat and wildlife use of the
refuge to evaluate the refuge’s potential to
contribute to the conservation, enhancement, and
enjoyment of the wildlife of the Rocky Mountain
West. Emphasis for wildlife during the term of this
plan will be on monitoring and evaluating species
richness and populations, developing management
plans, and using the principles of adaptive resource
management to enhance wildlife populations.
Enabling legislation for the refuge also emphasized
the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and
the conservation of endangered or threatened
species. Big game species that occur on the refuge
include elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose,
black bear, and mountain lion.
The refuge is important winter habitat for a herd of
more than 300 elk. Winter is a critical time for
ungulate survival. Animals that may have occupied
thousands of acres of summer and fall range can be
seasonally confined to relatively restrictive area.
These wintering areas have limited forage and
extreme environmental conditions, which can cause
physiological stress. Almost 40 percent more food is
required in winter to generate energy for daily
metabolic and activity requirements. Mackie et al.
(1998) observed that “deer survive primarily by
supplementing energy resources accumulated prior
to winter with energy intake from sub-maintenance
winter diets.” This requires behavior that emphasized
energy conservation. Inactivity provides an energetic
advantage for animals exposed to cold; forced
activity caused by human disturbance exacts an
energetic disadvantage. Management for elk will
concentrate on providing healthy native winter
habitat with limited disturbance.
The refuge is challenged to manage for predator
species diversity and health along with other native
species. Although predators are of secondary
importance after native birds for management to
meet refuge purposes, they are critical to
maintaining ecosystem health and are popular with
refuge visitors.
The ESA requires federal agencies to carry out
conservation (recovery) programs for listed species,
and to ensure that agency actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species
or adversely modify or destroy their critical habitat.
— The refuge currently supports one active bald
eagle nest.
— Gray wolves denned within 0.25 mile of the
refuge in the 1990s. Although wolves are not
breeding in Pleasant Valley at this time,
neighboring packs and dispersers occasionally
frequent the refuge.
— The refuge lies in an area designated as
management situation II under the interagency
Grizzly Bear Guidelines (USDA Forest Service
1986). Grizzly bears occasionally inhabit the area,
but lack of highly suitable habitat and security
precludes extensive use. The grizzly bear is
important, but not the primary use of the area
and the refuge will not be managed exclusively
for the grizzly bear at the expense of other
priority species.
— The refuge contains only marginal habitat for
Canada lynx; even intensive management for
lynx habitat may not result in lynx using the
refuge. If conflicts arise, the needs of the lynx
may not be the primary consideration in habitat
management.
The gray wolf is a federally threatened species.
John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS
Chapter 1—Introduction 9
— Bull trout, a federally listed species, exists in
the Fisher River watershed downstream from
the refuge. It is unknown if this species ever
existed on the habitats which today comprise
the Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge.
Public Use
Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
environmental education, and interpretation are
priority public uses of the Refuge System, when
compatible with the main mission of wildlife
conservation (Improvement Act).
The Service’s stewardship responsibilities will ensure
that priority uses, when found compatible, will
receive enhanced and highest consideration in refuge
planning and management over other general public
uses.
Administration
House Report 105–106 (accompanying the House of
Representatives version of the Improvement Act)
encourages refuge managers to take reasonable
steps to obtain outside assistance if adequate
finances are not available to manage a priority use in
a compatible manner.
Refuge staff needs to work closely with state,
community, and conservation partners to help obtain
resources to manage priority uses.
BACKGROUND
In 1985, the Service evaluated ecosystem and Refuge
System needs in Flathead and Lake counties, Montana,
and prepared a land acquisition and development
plan. The plan identified more than 11,000 acres of
wetlands and uplands in Flathead Valley that are
suitable for wetland-dependent wildlife production
and management. Dahl Lake and surrounding
wetland habitats were identified.
The establishment of much of the refuge was the
result of a mitigative settlement between the MPC,
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT),
and the Service. A summary follows, with details
found in appendix A.
The MPC operated Kerr Dam, a hydro-generating
facility located on the Flathead River. In 1985, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
identified hydro-project impacts to aquatic and
wildlife resources on the Service-administered
Flathead WPA at the north end of Flathead Lake.
In 1998, FERC issued a settlement order that
required the MPC to acquire 3,911 acres of suitable
replacement habitat as mitigation for wildlife losses
and impacts on the WPA. The MPC purchased the
Lost Trail Ranch with the intent of conveying 3,112
acres to the Service. Two parcels of the ranch were
identified as mitigative replacement habitat (figure 5):
■ Dahl Lake (approximately 160 acres) with 2,452
acres of surrounding habitat
■ Restorable wetlands (500 acres) on the west end
of the ranch
There is a draft habitat development plan for the
refuge as part of this FERC-approved settlement.
The plan addresses habitat enhancements on the
refuge for mitigation of habitat and wildlife losses.
After review of the proposed parcels, and in
consideration of other wildlife needs, the Service
proposed acquisition of the remaining ranch tracts
for establishment of a national wildlife refuge. In
1998, a preliminary project proposal, conceptual
management plan, and environmental assessment
for acquisition were prepared.
The name of the refuge was selected very early
during the acquisition phase. “Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge” was chosen because the former
private lands that now comprise the refuge were
known locally as the Lost Trail Ranch. The Service
wanted to aid in the public’s identification of the
refuge.
The conceptual management plan provided a general
description of the operations and management for
the newly established refuge, as outlined in the
preferred alternative of the environmental
assessment for the creation of the refuge.
During the interim acquisition period (1998–1999), the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in
conjunction with the MPC, acquired a WRP easement
on 1,770 acres of the ranch (figure 6). This easement
allows for the restoration of the hydrology of the area.
The refuge acquisition was completed on August 24,
1999, by the realty division at the Service’s Region 6
headquarters (Lakewood, Colorado). Approximately
3,112 acres were conveyed to the Service through
the mitigation. The remainder of the property was
proposed to be acquired through the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund, subsequently establishing the
7,885-acre Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge.
The refuge encompasses 7,885 acres of its
designated 9,300-acre legislative boundary. There
are 1,440 acres of state land leases within the
legislative boundary that are not owned by the
Service.
The 2001 decision to allow hunting at the refuge
followed the completion of an environmental
assessment for hunting options, strategies, and
effects (details are in appendix A).
When considering other uses, the refuge manager
will prepare a compatibility determination when
necessary. Appendix B displays the compatibility
determination for the refuge.
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 5. Management units for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Chapter 1—Introduction 11
Figure 6. Wetland resources of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS
Hooded Merganser with Brood
Wildlife-dependent recreational use programs will
be offered only to the extent that staff, funds, and
facilities are sufficient to develop and operate
programs to safe, quality standards.
REFUGE VISION STATEMENT
AND GOALS
VISION
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge is an integral
part of the Columbia River ecosystem and the
Pleasant Valley community.
The refuge is a place where wetlands, streams,
native grasslands, and forests have been
conserved, enhanced, and restored. These habitats
support a variety of migratory birds, species of
concern, and other associated wildlife and plants.
People learn about and appreciate the natural
and cultural environment of the refuge and enjoy
opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation.
Partnering with others fosters natural and
cultural resource conservation for the benefit of
present and future generations.
GOALS
A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired
future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does
not define measurable units. Goals for the refuge
will direct work at carrying out the refuge’s
mandates and achieving the purposes.
These goals are derived from the vision statement
and the refuge’s purposes to reflect the refuge’s
contribution to the Refuge System. The following
goals for the refuge reflect the core mission of the
Service to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources
while providing compatible opportunities for the
public to appreciate and enjoy the natural
environment of the region.
Riparian Habitat Goal
Restore, enhance, and maintain a mixed deciduous
and coniferous riparian habitat to support indigenous
wildlife species and perpetuate the ecological
integrity of the Fisher River watershed.
Wetland Habitat Goal
Provide breeding, resting, and feeding habitat for
wetland-dependent species of northwestern Montana
by restoring, maintaining, and enhancing a mosaic of
lake, semipermanent, seasonal, temporary, and
saturated wetlands.
Grassland Habitat Goal
Restore, enhance, and maintain Intermountain
grasslands, with an emphasis on native bunchgrass
prairie to provide habitat for migratory birds,
species of concern, and associated wildlife species.
Forest Habitat Goal
Enhance and maintain Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine,
aspen, and cottonwood forested habitats within the
context of the Fisher River watershed for migratory
birds, species of concern, and other associated
wildlife species.
Invasive Plant Goal
Native plant communities, composition, occurrence,
and density exist without degradation by invasive
plants and support associated wildlife.
Migratory Bird Goal
Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological
diversity and abundance of migratory birds of the
Intermountain West forest, wetland complexes,
riparian habitat, and bunchgrass prairie.
Endemic Wildlife Goal
Restore and maintain resident and endemic wildlife
populations of northwestern Montana to maintain
and enhance species diversity of Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge and Fisher River watershed.
Species of Concern Goal
Contribute to the conservation, enhancement, and
recovery of endangered, threatened, and species of
concern populations in Lost Trail National Wildlife
Refuge and Fisher River watershed.
Cultural Resource Goal
Protect, manage, and interpret archaeological,
cultural, and historical resources present at Lost
Trail National Wildlife Refuge for the benefit of
present and future generations.
Chapter 1—Introduction 13
Public Use Goal
Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational and
educational opportunities for persons of all abilities
to learn, understand, and enjoy the Intermountain
ecosystem of northwestern Montana; the associated
fish, wildlife, and plants of Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge; and the National Wildlife Refuge
System in a safe and compatible manner.
Administration Goal
Provide staffing, funding, and facilities to maintain
the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife
resources of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge in
supporting the achievement of ecosystem and
National Wildlife Refuge System goals.
Partnership Goal
Promote and develop partnerships with adjacent
landowners, public and private organizations, and
other interested individuals to preserve, restore,
and enhance a diverse and productive ecosystem of
which Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge is an
integral part.
2 Planning Process
The Service followed the planning steps below to
determine the future management of the refuge, in
a thorough manner that meets requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Service policy.
The CCP process consists of a series of steps that
are displayed sequentially. However, CCP planning,
with NEPA analysis and documentation, occurred
simultaneously. Although public involvement is
listed as part of two steps, the Service took public
input throughout the planning process.
■ Preplanning (form a planning team, review
available data, organize efforts)
■ Initiate public involvement and scoping (public
input gathered on issues)
■ Develop draft vision and goal statements
■ Develop and analyze draft alternatives, including
a proposed action (includes developing draft
objectives)
■ Prepare documentation of the NEPA analysis,
including the draft plan (proposed action
alternative)
■ Conduct internal review (Service, state, and tribal
partners) and gather public input on draft document
■ Analyze and respond to public comments
Appendix D contains a summary of the comments
provided to the Service by agencies, public groups,
and individuals during the comment period for the
draft CCP and EA. The Service has provided a
response for each comment category.
■ Select one of the alternatives, which becomes the
CCP
■ Make revisions as necessary and prepare the final
CCP
■ Approve and carry out the CCP
■ Monitor and evaluate actions and results
The planning team (appendix C) carried out the
planning steps of the process. The team prepared
the draft CCP and EA and, subsequently, this final
CCP.
Coordination with the public, local groups, and other
agencies was essential in developing a realistic,
meaningful plan. A summary of this consultation and
coordination is in appendix D.
DECISIONS MADE
Based on the analysis documented in the EA that
was incorporated into the draft CCP, the following
decisions were made by the Service’s regional
director for Region 6 (Mountain–Prairie Region),
headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado.
The type and extent of management and public
access that will occur on the Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge.
Whether or not the management and public access
on the Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge would
have a significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
As part of the Service’s decision-making process, an
EA was developed in accordance with the NEPA.
Four alternatives provided options for addressing
management concerns and for resolving public issues.
This CCP is the result of that process.
Appendix E (environmental compliance) contains
the “Environmental Action Statement” and
“Finding of No Significant Impact” for this CCP.
STEP-DOWN PLANS
Step-down management plans describe how specific
strategies in the CCP will be carried out—schedules
for management (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, and
safety)—to meet CCP goals and objectives.
Information about the process helped the public be
involved.
Bernardo Garza/USFWS
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
One step-down management plan has been completed.
The hunt plan was completed to open the refuge to
hunting starting the fall 2002 season (see details
about the hunting environmental analysis in
appendix A).
Six additional step-down plans need to be developed
or updated:
■ Occupational safety and health—required
■ Inventory and monitoring of populations—
required
■ Habitat management practices—required
■ Fire management—required
■ Invasive species management
■ Public use
■ Habitat management plan
PLAN REVISION
Plans are dynamic—management strategies need to
be periodically reviewed and updated. This CCP will
be reviewed at least annually to determine if it
requires any revisions.
Monitoring and evaluation will determine whether
management activities are achieving the refuge
purposes, vision, and goals. When significant new
information becomes available, ecological conditions
change, major refuge expansion occurs, or other
needs are identified, the CCP can be revised.
Revision should occur, at a minimum, every 15 years.
If the plan requires a major revision, the CCP
process starts anew. Plan revisions require NEPA
compliance. The public will continue to be informed
of and involved with any revision to the CCP.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The NEPA process was used by the Service to
engage the public in refuge planning, while
determining whether the proposed action for
management of the refuge would have significant
effects.
Scoping is the term for requesting input from the
public, in this case, regarding management of a
refuge. The primary thrust for the planning process
was to provide a forum for ideas and issues to be
shared, reviewed, and evaluated among agency staff
and the public.
Comments were reviewed to identify issues—public
concerns about or advocacies for future management
of the refuge. These issues are addressed in the CCP,
other plans, and decision documents.
Public scoping was initiated in January 1998, when
issue workbooks were mailed and open houses were
held for public input on management for all the
refuges of the National Bison Range Complex. An
open house was held in March 2001 to request public
comment on hunting at the refuge.
The public review of the draft CCP and EA was
conducted from July to August 2005. Appendix D
further describes the public involvement process,
including the Service’s responses to comments
received during the public comment period.
ISSUES
This section describes issues regarding the refuge
that were identified during public scoping.
Habitat Management
Water rights and loss of water downstream due to
refuge restoration projects are of concern.
— The public wants the Service to explain
hydrology restoration, the purpose, and its
impacts.
— Rumors of filling or draining Dahl Lake were
questioned.
The CCP will describe the purposes for water
management and its impacts.
The public meets with refuge staff to talk about the
draft plan.
Bernardo Garza/USFWS
Chapter 2—Planning Process 17
Strong support and concern exists for the control or
eradication of invasive plants.
— Individuals do not want the Service to change
land management practices on the refuge so
that the distribution of invasive plants increases.
— Concerns were expressed about native plant
restoration and control or reduction of reed
canarygrass. Reed canarygrass is present on
the refuge, yet has been kept down by grazing.
— There were many disagreements about the
most acceptable and efficient control methods.
The CCP will outline objectives and strategies
for management of invasive plants, as well as
for native grass restoration.
Grazing practices and intensity are general issues.
— A local comment suggested grazing
opportunities be continued, but in a compatible
manner. Comments regarding the loss of a
working ranch seem to center partially on the
loss of possible grazing lands.
The CCP will review grazing as a land
management tool.
Wildlife Management
The public advocates strongly for giving wildlife and
their habitat foremost consideration.
— Wildlife-dependent uses must be given a high
priority for consideration due to the
requirement of the Improvement Act, yet the
public had a concern for wildlife to come first.
— The refuge needs to be managed in accordance
with the establishing purposes and provide for
the conservation and enhancement of fish and
wildlife.
— Some individuals suggested the refuge had
more biological potential for deer, elk, and
upland birds than for waterfowl, and could be
an important wildlife habitat corridor.
— The refuge has a history of gray wolves
occupying the area and conflicts with
neighboring ranchers. As a national wildlife
refuge, consideration must be given for wolf
presence, yet it must be managed in response to
depredation problems in compliance with the
ESA and wolf recovery plan. It is also possible
that grizzly bears use the area to some degree;
bears will have to be managed for conservation
of the species and to minimize conflict with
humans.
— Questions were raised regarding the biological
potential for reintroduction of species such as
the trumpeter swan and Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse.
— For a range of management activities, the
public wanted to understand how the
management techniques were decided and what
effects could be expected, for example:
how population targets are derived;
what effects fences or the lack of fences could
have on habitats, wildlife, and public use;
what impacts could be caused from water
manipulation and hunting.
The CCP will contain management direction that
addresses the establishing purposes for the refuge.
Traditional Use
The CSKT are concerned that refuge management
activities not harm cultural sites.
— The tribes want a cultural resource survey
conducted to define the extent of Native
American use and identify sites. The refuge is
part of the aboriginal homelands of the CSKT.
— The tribes voiced an interest in subsistence
hunting on the refuge.
— The Service may accommodate Native American
traditional use, while maintaining the integrity
of the refuge.
— Public comments against Native American use
generally stem from not understanding the
legal requirements and criteria for administering
these types of uses.
The CCP will explain traditional uses and
provide for a quality public experience for all.
Social concerns for the loss of a working ranch
surrounded the acquisition of the ranch.
Ranching is the cultural history of Pleasant
Valley, and cattle grazing will be reviewed for
opportunities as a land management tool.
White-tailed Deer
John Stehn/USFWS
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Public Use
Public use was considered highly desirable, yet
many wanted it managed in a way that did not
degrade wildlife habitat.
— Many desire hunting as a recreational use and
want access across the refuge for hunting
opportunities on neighboring lands.
— A few commenters requested trapping access
on the refuge, yet the majority of opinions were
that trapping should not be allowed.
— Photography, nature trails, and fishing are
popular requests, along with a few requesting
horseback riding, snowmobiling, and cross-country
skiing.
— Some individuals would like to see no
recreational uses allowed.
— Some commenters were concerned about
impacts to habitats that timber company crews
have during access to the refuge.
The CCP will contain management direction for
public use determined compatible with refuge
purposes.
Administration
The public was concerned about facilities, refuge
expansion outside of designated boundaries, and
adequate refuge staffing.
— Facilities were of concern. Many buildings exist
on the refuge. It needs to be determined which
facilities to use for administrative purposes,
along with where to place new structures (e.g.,
parking lots and signs) for minimal impact to
wildlife.
— There were concerns about collaboration with
the MPC on issues of access to refuge easements.
— There were concerns about whether the
Service would be committed to the time and
money required to maximize the potential for
use of additional property.
The CCP will display the staff and funding
required to effectively administer uses and
manage for fish and wildlife.
3 Refuge Resources
This chapter describes the physical, biological, and
cultural resources and conditions in the Lost Trail
National Wildlife Refuge. Also included is a
wilderness review, along with descriptions of the
socioeconomic setting, administrative setting, and
partnerships.
Appendix A contains further details about water
rights, species of concern, cultural resources, and
public use.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the existing resources and
conditions on the refuge, as well as the socioeconomic
setting and administration.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The soils, along with the water resources, provide the
basis for the vegetation and conditions that create
habitats for fish, wildlife, and plants.
SOILS
Pleasant Valley was formed during the Pleistocene
Epoch by glacial contraction, and expansion and
sedimentation activity after glacial melt at the end
of the last ice age. The glaciers pushed south out of
Canada to smooth and shape the underlying
Precambrian Belt rocks, a sedimentary formation
deposited more than a billion years ago. This bedrock
is visible on the higher hills along the north edge of
the refuge and in some road cuts along the main road
through the refuge.
Glacial deposits sit atop the older Belt Rock formation,
which faulted over younger Paleozoic rocks (Alt and
Hyndman 1986). Receding glaciers often leave behind
enclosed basins, some of which now contain lakes.
The Thompson and McGregor lakes and other
popular lakes south of the refuge are examples of
these pothole lakes. Dahl Lake, in the eastern part
of the refuge, is another example.
Soils consist of loams—silt, sandy, gravelly, and clay
loams. The soils formed in glacial deposits typically
are loamy-textured with varying amounts and sizes
of rock fragments. Most of these soils have a high
component of volcanic ash in the surface layer. After
the glaciers receded, a period of volcanic activity in
the Northwestern United States deposited volcanic
ash on much of the area. The eruption of Mount
Mazama (now Crater Lake, Oregon) about 7,000
years ago is thought to have dropped up to 2 feet of
volcanic ash in northwestern Montana. This pale
brown ash is still visible in some forested areas
under the forest litter.
Soil texture is determined by the relative amounts of
sand, silt, and clay, along with rock fragments if present.
When glaciers grind up Belt rocks, they create silt or
very fine sand-sized particles. Volcanic ash is also
mainly silt-sized particles. The soils in the refuge
contain significant amounts of silt and very fine sand.
Bernardo Garza/USFWS
Meadow, forest, and a distant aspen stand provide habitat diversity for wildlife on the refuge.
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Table 1. Summary of the natural resources of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Physical Resources Habitat Wildlife
— The refuge occurs in the glacially
formed Pleasant Valley sheltered
by the Salish Mountains.
Soils contain significant amounts
of silt and sand; organic soils occur
around Dahl Lake and well-drained
loamy soils are in the uplands.
— Elbow Creek and several
unnamed drainages fill the 216-
acre Dahl Lake. Pleasant Valley
Creek drains into the Fisher
River watershed (part of the
Columbia River headwaters).
— The refuge is part of the
MOYOCO ecosystem.
— Ponding and channeling of creeks
provided irrigation and flood
prevention. Pond habitat provides
waterfowl habitat and breeding
sites for boreal toads.
Warm water temperature and
increased siltation are the result
of decreased stream depth,
straightening of the channel to aid
irrigation, and reduced vegetation.
Creeks no longer support a large
native fishery.
— Riparian shrublands important to
migratory birds such as the willow
flycatcher are in good condition
along the north end of Pleasant
Valley Creek.
— The Dahl Lake wetland complex
and isolated wetlands cover more
than 1,000 acres.
Wet meadows have mostly
introduced meadow grasses
dominated by reed canarygrass and
Garrison creeping foxtail. Wetland
vegetation provides habitat for
many waterfowl and waterbirds.
— More than 1,000 acres of native,
bunchgrass prairie provides
wildlife cover and nesting habitat.
Palouse prairie is a rare ecosystem.
— Lodgepole and ponderosa pine,
and Douglas-fir are common forest
species. These forests provide
habitat for wildlife such as
woodpeckers, owls, deer, elk, bears,
and mountain lions.
— All habitat types have been
invaded, to different degrees, by
nonnative invasive plant species
such as spotted knapweed, tansy
ragwort, foxtail, and reed
canarygrass. These invasive plants
have reduced native species
diversity.
— Common breeding waterfowl include
mallard, lesser scaup, shoveler, and
teal. Fall waterfowl populations are low.
— Nesting waterbirds include red-necked
and horned grebes, killdeer,
black tern, and sandhill crane.
— Neotropical migratory birds,
including grassland species such as
vesper, savannah, and grasshopper
sparrows, nest on the refuge. Many
grassland species are experiencing
population declines on a national
level, likely due to habitat loss.
— Populations of white-tailed and mule
deer have been increasing steadily in
the vicinity of the refuge. Approximately
300 elk winter on the refuge.
Fencing poses a hazard to wildlife.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
(RMEF) has assisted refuge staff to
remove more than 25 miles of fence
remaining from ranching activities.
Approximately 20 miles of
unnecessary fence remain.
— Small mammals include river otter,
beaver, coyote, and wolverine.
Ground squirrels are an important
source of protein for predators, but
can compete with other wildlife for
forage and cause soil erosion.
— Resident birds include black-capped
chickadee, great horned owl, hairy
woodpecker, nuthatches, and golden
eagle. Upland game birds include
spruce grouse and turkey.
— All fish found in Pleasant Valley
Creek on the refuge show stunting
(yellow perch, northern pike
minnow, and pumpkinseed), except
redside shiners and suckers.
It is likely Pleasant Valley Creek
historically supported redband and
westslope cutthroat trout.
— Species of concern that reproduce on
the refuge include bald eagle, black tern,
boreal toad, and Spalding’s catchfly.
Species of concern that use the
refuge occasionally include grizzly
bear and gray wolf.
Canada lynx and trumpeter swan
are species of concern that occur in
Pleasant Valley. The refuge is in an
important grizzly corridor.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 21
Table 2. Summary of the cultural resources, socioeconomic and administrative settings, and partnerships for
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Cultural Resources Socioeconomic Setting Administration Partnerships
— Native people of the area
were the Bitterroot
Salish, Pend d’Oreille,
and Kootenai, some of
which are today members
of the CSKT of the
Flathead Indian
Reservation.
Teepee rings and other
native occupation sites
and use sites are
documented.
Native people hunted
deer and elk, harvested
huckleberries and camas
bulbs, and traded furs
with settlers.
— Europeans settled in
Pleasant Valley in the
1880s. The Jackson and
Orr–Gardiner ranches
are eligible for nomination
to the National Register
of Historic Places. The
Doll Ranch has not been
evaluated for eligibility.
The Great Northern
Railroad’s main east-to-west
line ran through
Pleasant Valley from
1892 to 1904.
— The refuge is located in
Flathead County—the
fastest-growing county
in Montana. The county
population is 76,269 with
14.6 persons per square
mile.
Ranching and timber
harvest are the main
types of land use near
the refuge.
More than 3,250
businesses occur in the
county, with 49,466
employees. Median
household income is
$34,466.
Nonresident travel
numbers increased 7.6–
63 percent at state entry
points.
— Existing roads provide
access for wildlife
observation, hunting,
and other public use.
— Some areas of the refuge
have been open to deer,
elk, mountain grouse,
and turkey hunting since
2002. Waterfowl hunting
is not allowed due to low
numbers of ducks and
geese on the refuge in
the fall.
— Fishing is not allowed
due to the lack of viable
fisheries and ongoing
wetland restoration.
— A public use handout
and signs provide limited
interpretive materials.
— Environmental education
includes some in-school
presentations and on-site
habitat improvements,
monitoring, and surveys.
— There are 1,440 acres of
state lease land. The
refuge holds the lease on
three of these pieces. A
neighboring landowner
holds the fourth lease for
grazing.
Habitat protection
efforts include
conservation easements
purchased by the NRCS.
Five land inholdings will
be evaluated for
acquisition or protection
when available. Four
state tracts and one
Plum Creek Timber
Company (PCTC) tract
are within the legislative
boundary of the refuge.
Land acquisition outside
the refuge boundary is
not needed. Habitat
protection via
conservation easements
will be evaluated.
— The headquarters
complex was remodeled
from part of the horse
arena. Wells, septic
systems, storage, shops,
and horse barns provide
the infrastructure.
Culverts and cattle
guards occur on 27 miles
of roads.
Approximately 2 miles
of interior fence remain.
Refuge staff and
volunteers from the
RMEF have removed
the rest.
— Lost Trail is a satellite
refuge of the National
Bison Range Complex.
The refuge has two full-time
employees, the
refuge manager and a
biologist. Seasonal
employees and one to
five volunteers provide
assistance during the
summer.
— Partnerships have been
essential in carrying out
refuge programs.
— Partnerships have been
established with Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks
(MFWP) for support
with refuge establishment
and planning, as well as
with the hunting
program.
— Flathead and Lincoln
counties, PCTC, U.S.
Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service,
McGinnis Meadows
Guest Ranch, and
Montana’s Department
of Natural Resources
and Conservation (DNRC)
provide support
including road and fence
maintenance, invasive
plant management, and
fire protection.
— A partnership with the
NRCS exists to manage
the wetland restoration
program.
The RMEF has funded
wildlife habitat
improvement projects
such as invasive plant
control and removal of
more than 50 miles of
interior barbwire fence
in the last 5 years.
— Pleasant Valley School,
Montana Academy,
Flathead Audubon, and
Montana Conservation
Corps (MCC) are
partners in providing
educational activities.
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Bottomland Soils
A glacial lake covered much of the Pleasant Valley
at the end of the last ice age. Although most of the
valley is now drained, the stream gradients are so
low that water accumulates in the floodplain during
spring runoff. Dahl Lake is a remnant of this old
glacial lake.
Organic soils are found around Dahl Lake. The very
poorly drained Barzee soils are adjacent to the lake
and have stratified muck more than 50 inches thick.
The McLangor soils are also very poorly drained
mucky peat, but have stratified silt loam layers
below 16 inches.
The floodplains are dominantly Meadowpeak silt
loam, a deep, poorly drained soil. The profiles are silt
loam and very fine sandy loam. Buried, brown ash
layers can be found in these soils. Small areas of
Blacklake mucky peat are found in slightly lower,
wetter areas. These very poorly drained soils are
similar to Meadowpeak, except they have 8–16 inches
of mucky peat over the silt loam and very fine sandy
loam textures. Along the edges of the floodplain on
slightly higher areas are Whitebear–Dahlake silt
loams. These somewhat poorly drained soils also
have deep silt loam and very fine sandy loam
textures, but they are sodium-affected with pH
values as high as 10.0.
Some stream and lake terraces and small alluvial
fans are adjacent to the floodplain. Perma and
Dominic soils on the stream terraces formed in
alluvium and have loamy surfaces, but are very
gravelly loams to extremely gravelly loamy sands
underneath. The Tally soils have deep sandy loam
profiles. These soils are well-drained or somewhat
excessively drained. The lake terrace soils formed in
glaciolacustrine deposits and dominantly silt loam
profiles. Some soils are sodium-affected and are
somewhat poorly drained. The soils on alluvial fans
generally have deep silt loam profiles, but some have
gravelly or very gravelly textures below about 2 feet.
They are somewhat poorly drained or well drained.
Upland Soils
The upland soils generally formed in deep, glacial
deposits. Rock fragments are varying in size from
small pebbles to stones. Rangeland areas are
dominantly Prospect and Finleypoint soils. These
soils are well drained and have dark-colored, loamy
surfaces. Prospect soils have less than 35 percent
rock fragments in the profile and Finleypoint soils
have 35–60 percent. Forested areas are dominantly
Courville and Winfall soils—loamy textures with 35–
60 percent rock fragments. The Courville soils have
a pale brown ash-influenced surface layer.
The Belt formation bedrock outcrops occur in some
areas where glacial deposits have eroded away or
were thin deposits. These bedrock areas are
generally along the north part of the refuge at higher
elevations. Soils formed in this bedrock are the
shallow Rockhill and Sharrott soils, and the deeper
Winkler soils. Some of these areas have remnants of
deep, glacial deposits.
WATER RESOURCES
The refuge is located in a long, narrow east–west
valley in which Pleasant Valley Creek flows south
out of the Salish Mountains and moves westward
(figure 7).
The creek is joined by the Meadow Creek ditch, which
partially drains from the west end of Dahl Lake. The
lake is filled by Elbow Creek and several unnamed
drainages that end before the lake and seep into the
wetland. Pleasant Valley Creek starts north of the
refuge headquarters and flows south to the county
road before heading west to drain into the Pleasant
Valley–Fisher River, a tributary of the Fisher River.
The Fisher River watershed complex is part of the
headwaters of the Columbia River. The Fisher
River is a tributary of the Kootenai River and leads
to Lake Pend Oreille, which is drained by the Columbia
River. The Fisher River corridor is part of a large
watershed conservation effort for native fish. The
corridor was established by MFWP with an easement
on PCTC land (figure 7).
In the eastern part of the refuge lies Dahl Lake, which
is approximately 216 surface acres at 3,511 msl contour.
There are six intermittent creeks within the drainage
area of the lake—all of these creeks end as they enter
the valley floor, and none of them have channels that
connect to the lake. An explanation for this may be
that the valley floor is like a large porous sponge,
from a deposit of glacial till, that pulls surface water
to join the groundwater rather than form stream
channels (Pierce 2001).
Throughout the rest of the Pleasant Valley Creek
drainage, eight other intermittent creeks exist—
only two of their channels connect to the creek. This
area was glaciated by the Cordilleral Ice Sheet, whose
terminus was not too far south from Pleasant Valley.
Hydrology of Pleasant Valley
The drainage area for Pleasant Valley Creek, as it
leaves the refuge, is 53.6 square miles. For
management reasons, this area has been delineated
into three drainages (figure 8).
■ Basin 1—53.6 square miles; terminates downstream
at the western edge of the refuge
■ Basin 2—31.1 square miles; at the current earthen
check dam on Pleasant Valley Creek for Dahl Lake
■ Basin 3—29.4 square miles; at an abandoned check
structure on Pleasant Valley Creek
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 23
Figure 7. Fisher River watershed, Montana
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 8. Pleasant Valley Creek basin, Montana
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 25
Within the drainage area of Dahl Lake are six
intermittent creeks. All six of these creeks
terminate on entry to the valley floor; none of them
has channels that connect to the lake. Throughout
the rest of the Pleasant Valley Creek drainage,
there are eight other intermittent creeks; only two
of their channels connect to the creek.
This area was glaciated by the Cordilleral Ice Sheet,
whose terminus was not too far south from Lost
Trail Valley. There appears to be widespread lake
sediments formed by glacial damming of the valley.
These sediments restrict water infiltration and
groundwater flow. One possible explanation for the
terminus of the streams is that the hillslopes are
comprised of permeable fan gravels, yet the valley
floor is less permeable (Pierce 2001).
Dahl Lake does not appear as though it had a natural
outlet channel. The linear shape of the outlet channel
suggests that it was constructed. Historically, this
channel and a dam allowed irrigators to back up
water into the meadow around the lake and time the
release best to manage their fields. The NRCS has
an easement on the property where the outlet
structure is located; the purpose of which is to restore
the system to its natural hydrology.
Runoff predictions are based on average annual
runoff numbers developed by the NRCS. Research
for this area shows 7.2 inches of surface runoff for
mountainous elevations of 4,000 feet and 10 inches
for the elevation of 5,200 feet (Ralph Bergentine,
NRCS, personal communication).
Table 3 shows the results of the runoff-mapping
analysis. The basins were divided into elevation bands.
The area in acres was multiplied by inches of rain,
divided by 12, and totaled to predict runoff in acre-feet.
Table 3. Runoff predictions for Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Basin 1
West Drainage
Basin 2
Middle Drainage
Basin 3
Dahl Lake
Elevation
(feet)
Runoff
(inches acre-ft)
Runoff
(inches acre-ft)
Runoff
(inches acre-ft)
4,000 7 5,085 7 511 7 5,426
4,000–4,400 8 2,465 8 132 8 3,641
4,400–4,800 9 1,203 9 26 9 2,217
4,800 10 273 10 0 10 920
Basin Totals 9,026 669 12,204
Runoff Total = 21,899 acre-feet
Water Rights
The refuge currently owns the necessary water
rights to maintain existing wetlands in their present
condition.
The earliest livestock water and irrigation claims for
the refuge date back to 1890 and 1899, respectively.
The amended irrigation claims describe 1,572 acres
irrigated with 10,930 acre-feet per year.
The combined irrigation diversion rate at the western
edge of the refuge is 20 cubic feet per second (cfs).
This flow value does not include areas that are
subirrigated by check structures with no flow rate
claimed on the water right. It is important to note
that the irrigated acreage figure does not include
several natural wetlands. Filing on naturally
subirrigated areas such as pasture and wetlands was
not required under the statute establishing the
adjudication.
The temporary preliminary decree for the Fisher
River basin (76C) was issued in 1985. The basin was
one of the first to be reviewed by the state through
the water rights adjudication process. A complete
list of water rights is in appendix A.
Some of the water rights were not accurately
described in the preliminary decree. When the MPC
negotiated transfer of the property to the Service, a
water rights specialist was retained to review and
amend the water rights. The validity of the water
rights was documented, but some errors were found.
Amendments that corrected the errors were
submitted to the water court on August 2, 1999, and
accepted in a decision by the chief water judge on
June 29, 2005.
The largest irrigation claim is on Dahl Lake.
Historically, the lake would back up and cause the
small valley to flood, after which the water was
released downstream in Pleasant Valley Creek.
Although refuge stream flows and pond elevations
have been monitored for several years to better
understand available water, the effort has been
hampered by extremely dry conditions.
John Westenberg of Land and Water Consulting,
Inc., Missoula, Montana (personal communication)
reviewed the water rights before the Service
received this property and presented changes to the
water court. Westenberg documented that the
revised water rights reflect historical use of the
water. Any hydrologic restoration that would create
larger and more diverse wetlands would need studies
to determine the availability of additional water and
would need examination to see if changes or new
water rights are necessary.
The water claims filed by the Lost Trail Ranch (before
refuge establishment) received no objections from
other users during the adjudication of the basin that
occurred in the 1980s. This is an indication that the
former ranch and general area experience few water
conflicts.
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Climatic Conditions
Precipitation is the most important criteria used to
predict stream flow. At a nearby weather station
called Pleasant Valley (southeast of the valley at
3,600 feet in elevation), the average annual
precipitation for a 25-year period is 18.6 inches. A
majority of the Lost Trail basin is 1,000 feet higher
in elevation than this weather station, resulting in
greater rainfall; therefore, another annual precipitation
value was used. It came from a map of the entire
state of Montana (made by Oregon State University
and funded by the NRCS). This work more
accurately predicts 22 inches, as established by the
1961–1990 data sets. The Service is currently in the
process of using several different predictive
equations to estimate water supply.
Climatological data for 1931–1960 was supplied by
the U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental
Data Service published in June 1968. This data set,
while rather dated, summarizes the most
comprehensive elements to climate that could be
located. Table 4 displays this data, which is likely a
compilation of sites; a nearby site might be more
accurate, but none nearby collect evaporation or
humidity.
Table 4. Climatological data for 1931–1960 near Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Climatological Factor Time Period Measurement
Precipitation
Wettest month (June)—mean total precipitation
Driest month (August)—mean total precipitation
Mean annual total precipitation
Mean annual total snowfall
2.34 inches
0.97 inches
19.00 inches
85.00 inches
Temperature
January—normal daily maximum temperature
January—normal daily minimum temperature
July—normal daily maximum temperature
July—normal daily minimum temperature
Average annual temperature
(at Glacier National Park, ~10,000 feet in elevation)
Annual heating degree days
30.0ºF
10.0ºF
80.0ºF
43.0ºF
42.1ºF
approximately 10,000 days
Humidity Mean annual relative humidity 70 percent
Wind
Mean annual wind speed
(prevailing winds from the west)
July—annual fastest wind speed
(wind from the northwest)
6 mph
72 mph
Evaporation Mean annual class A pan evaporation 35 inches
AIR QUALITY
Air quality in the area of the refuge is considered
good, with no nearby manufacturing sites or major
air pollution sources.
Particulate matter (PM10) is a measure of tiny liquid
or solid particles in the air that is respirable in the
lungs. In the area of the refuge, carbon from
automobiles and diesel engines; soot from slash
burning, forest fires, fireplaces, and wood stoves;
and dust associated with wind-blown sand and dirt
from roadways, fields, and construction sites may all
contribute to particulate matter.
Air quality receives protection under several
provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the
prevention of significant deterioration program.
Montana has adopted additional standards under the
Montana ambient air quality standards.
Air quality problems in Montana are usually related
to urban areas and mountainous topography or river
valleys that are sensitive to temperature inversions.
Particulate matter and carbon monoxide are the air
pollutants that have the greatest adverse impact on
Montana’s air quality.
The major sources of particulate matter are vehicles
traveling on unpaved roads, sand and gravel from
winter traction material, and residential wood burning.
The major sources of carbon monoxide in Montana
are motor vehicles and residential wood burning.
The other criteria air pollutants under the NAAQS
are lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide.
The area around Kalispell was designated a
nonattainment area and was not in compliance for
PM10 in 1989. A monitoring study indicated that
material from road dust, gravel roads, parking lots,
and construction activities in Kalispell were the
main sources of the area’s particulate matter.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 27
Burning from wood stoves and open fires were
secondary sources of PM10. A technical committee
developed control strategies that were applied to an
area within 1 mile of the city limits. Attainment
designation for the area will probably be achieved in
the near future.
Between 1986 and 1995, national average
concentrations of carbon monoxide decreased 37
percent and national emissions decreased 16 percent,
despite the fact that there was a 31 percent increase
in total vehicle miles traveled in the United States.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing and potential
plant and animal communities for the refuge.
HABITAT
Habitat types consist of subirrigated wet meadows,
grassy uplands, and coniferous forests (figure 9).
The subirrigated wet meadows are composed
primarily of introduced meadow grasses dominated
by reed canarygrass and Garrison creeping foxtail,
and basin wildrye, cattail, rush, and sedge. Table 5
lists and quantifies the vegetative resources.
Upland areas are composed of a mosaic of prairie
grasslands consisting of the following:
■ cool-season native grasses—rough fescue, Idaho
fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, Columbia and
Richardson’s needlegrass, and needle and thread
■ nonnative grasses—smooth brome, timothy,
redtop, and Kentucky bluegrass
■ invasive plants—spotted knapweed and tansy
ragwort
■ a diversity of native forbs
Coniferous forests are dominated by lodgepole and
ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. Other forest species
include subalpine fir, grand fir, Engelmann spruce,
western larch, and juniper. Small pockets of quaking
aspen, birch, and cottonwood are located throughout
the refuge.
Table 5. Vegetative communities1 of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Riparian Area
and Wetland
(species acres)
Native Grassland
(species acres)
Nonnative
Grassland
(species acres)
Shrubland
(species acres)
Forest and
Woodland
(species acres)
Nonvegetated Area
(species acres)
Reed 973
canarygrass
Sedge 275
Rush 126
Pond-lily 83
Alkaligrass 37
Willow 13
Alder 6
Idaho 2,146
fescue
Western 758
wheatgrass
Rough 279
fescue
Bluebunch 101
wheatgrass
Wildrye 75
Needlegrass 20
Junegrass 43
Foxtail 1,007
Kentucky 62
Bluegrass
Cheatgrass 36
Redtop 23
Poa 6
Fringed sage 24
Snowberry 17
Shrubby 16
cinquefoil
Lodgepole 1,212
pine
Douglas-fir 926
Ponderosa 779
pine
Quaking 76
aspen
Western 14
larch
Engelmann 6
spruce
Open water 107
Unknown 63
Structures 28
Gravel pit 10
Total 1,721 Total 3,422 Total 1,134 Total 57 Total 3,013 Total 101
Total Refuge Acres = 9,2252,3
1Derived from the National Vegetation Classification System, alliance level
2The refuge acreage includes state land leases.
3Total acreage figures add up to 9,347 because of how open water and lake acreages are used, and depending on climatic conditions.
Riparian Habitat
Much of the riparian habitat in the Western United
States has been lost or degraded due to flood control,
irrigation projects (Hendrickson and Kubly 1984),
grazing (Bock 1993), logging, and housing
development.
Riparian shrubs—alder and willow—occur along
Pleasant Valley Creek (USFWS 1982). Meadow
Creek is a constructed ditch that flows out of the
west end of Dahl Lake, across an open meadow, and
into Pleasant Valley Creek at the horse ranch. From
there, the stream flows through cottonwoods, willows,
and a water control structure at refuge headquarters,
before leaving the refuge. Deciduous, riparian
woodlands of aspen and cottonwood occur in small
patches (USFWS 1982).
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 9. Vegetation of Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 29
Ray Washtak/USFWS
Wetlands along the refuge’s tour route.
Riparian Shrublands
Riparian shrublands consist of tall shrubs such as
alder, willow, birch, and dogwood. This habitat is
important foraging and nesting habitat for a diverse
set of migratory birds, including many priority
species (as designated by Montana Partners in
Flight [MPIF]) such as the willow flycatcher, gray
catbird, warbling vireo, MacGillivray’s warbler, and
lazuli bunting. As the Montana Bird Conservation
Plan points out, this habitat is also used by common
species such as song sparrows, which should respond
quickly to restoration efforts, in line with the concept
of “keeping common birds common” (Casey 2000).
The north end of Pleasant Valley Creek has been
mostly undisturbed for approximately 10 years and
is in relatively good condition. Prior to that, some
selective logging occurred. Preliminary bird surveys
suggest use by passerines such as song sparrows,
and ruby-crowned and golden-crowned kinglets.
The willow flycatcher is a priority 2 species for
riparian shrub habitat (designated by MPIF), and
occurs in the Pleasant Valley Creek corridor. These
birds breed in riparian habitat with a midstory of 6-
to 7-foot alders or willows interspersed with openings
(Casey 2000).
Conservation
Plans are in draft form to improve the stream
channel of Pleasant Valley Creek to create or
enhance fish habitat by restoring sinuosity on the
south end where it was channelized and straightened.
The NRCS is in the process of formalizing restoration
plans for Pleasant Valley Creek (figure 6).
The plan calls for restoration of stream sinuosity
and streambank vegetation. Lower Moose Pond
(see figure 6) is an artificial impoundment that was
developed when the refuge was a working cattle
ranch. This pond provides waterfowl habitat and
in 2002 it was one of the two largest reproductive
sites for boreal toads in the Rocky Mountains.
Wetland Habitat
Wetland habitat consists of the Dahl Lake wetland
complex along with isolated wetlands that are
seasonal, temporary, permanent, and semipermanent
(figure 6). The wetland habitat on the refuge has
tremendous biological potential.
The refuge has four permanently flooded wetlands
or ponds:
■ Southeast Pond is surrounded by alders and
lodgepole pine; species recorded include moose,
lesser scaup, and olive-sided flycatcher
■ wetland south of Pleasant Valley Road near the
South 1019 intersection (Goose Pond); species
recorded include deer, elk, marten, Canada goose,
mallard, wigeon, and common goldeneye
■ upper wooded pond on Pleasant Valley Creek
(Upper Moose Pond), excavated and diked,
surrounded by tamarack, poplar, birch, aspen, and
Douglas-fir; species recorded include bufflehead,
horned grebe, and hooded merganser
■ Lower Pond on Pleasant Valley Creek (lower
Moose Pond), excavated and diked, is surrounded
by alders and grasses; species recorded include
boreal toad, long-toed salamander, deer, elk,
marten, Canada goose, mallard, wigeon, and
common goldeneye
■ other artificial ponds—Caroline, Cow 1, Cow 2,
Deer, Hidden, Hoehn, Johns, Ray’s, Southeast
There is an unknown amount of fens on the refuge.
Fens are wetlands dominated by emergent sedge
vegetation. They occur in northern regions that have
an underlying layer of peat covered with many species
of mosses and aquatic macrophytes. A fen is similar
to a bog, but is alkaline rather than acidic, with a
much higher nutrient content. Fens gain nutrients
found in precipitation, surface water, and
groundwater, whereas bogs are fed by nutrients in
precipitation only (Aerts 1999). Wet meadows are
like fens, but are much more numerous across the
country.
Most species use different types of wetlands to meet
their life history requirements. For example,
American bitterns nest in shallow water (less than 4
inches deep) with dense, robust emergent vegetation,
while trumpeter swans will nest in water greater
than 20 inches deep. Both black terns and trumpeter
swans need abundant, floating, dead vegetation.
Species of concern (as designated by MPIF) that
have been documented using refuge wetlands
include the bald eagle (threatened) and several
category 2 species (horned grebe, hooded
merganser, black tern, and willow flycatcher).
Wetlands with diverse emergent vegetation, seed-producing
annuals interspersed, and open water
with submergent vegetation provide the habitat
requirements of many waterfowl and waterbirds
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
(Cowardin et al. 1979). Emergent vegetation such as
cattail, rush, and bulrush is critical to successfully
raising a brood, with a variety of uses from foraging
habitat to escape cover. Submergent vegetation
(e.g., pondweed, mint, and horsetail) provides seeds
and the substrate necessary for invertebrate
populations that are food for waterfowl.
Dahl Lake Complex
Dahl Lake is a natural lake that spills over to the
west into the surrounding wetland complex in high-water
years. This complex naturally fluctuated in
water level seasonally and yearly, creating an array
of temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent wetlands.
Around 1940, the natural spillway for Dahl Lake was
channelized and directed through a ditch system
named Meadow Creek. These actions, which reduced
the lake’s water level and dried up surrounding wet
meadows, were done to increase hay pasture. The
resulting reduction of surface water and loss of
wetland vegetation has made these areas less
conducive to use by waterfowl and other waterbirds.
Meadow Creek extends westward through the valley
from the western end of Dahl Lake. Portions of the
creek were more recently dredged to increase water
flow efficiency for irrigation. Historical and current
aerial photos show the area as a complex of temporary
and seasonal wetlands, with seepage and overflow
out the west end of the complex.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data (1982)
for the Dahl Lake complex identified the following
wetland types:
■ Approximately 182 acres (different than table
acreage) of open water
■ 80 acres of semipermanent wetlands (water
through spring and summer and frequently into
fall and winter)
■ 432 acres of seasonal wetlands (water in spring
and early summer, but generally dry by late
summer and early fall)
■ 376 acres of temporary wetlands (water for only a
few weeks after snowmelt and few days after
heavy rainstorms)
Dahl Lake has submergent vegetation such as mint
and pondweed. It is used by black terns (candidate
species, category 2), soras, waterfowl, and sandhill
cranes. Lower Moose Pond and Dahl Lake host the
largest populations of boreal toads in the Rocky
Mountains.
Semipermanently flooded wetlands include areas
surrounded by hardstem bulrush. Intermittently
flooded wetlands include a few wet patches of
alkaligrass mixed with bluegrass. Saturated wetlands
cover 15 acres (USFWS 1982) of wet sedge areas.
Seasonally flooded wetlands consist of reed
canarygrass with small, intermingled sedge patches.
Historically, these areas probably included mainly
sedge, rush, cattail, and bulrush vegetation. Isolated
seasonal wetlands are surrounded by bulrush. Seasonal
wetlands provide abundant invertebrate foods and
nesting cover for species that nest over water.
Temporarily flooded wetlands consist of subirrigated
pastures with Garrison creeping foxtail. Alder and
willow historically occurred along the ditches. Birds
breeding in these wetlands include savannah sparrow,
sandhill crane, and common snipe. Temporary
wetlands are important for breeding waterfowl,
especially early nesters such as mallards and teal,
because they provide isolation and spacing and
because their shallow waters warm rapidly to
provide the first invertebrate foods in spring
(Swanson et al. 1974, Baldassarre and Bolen 1994).
Conservation
Many of the refuge’s wetlands have potential for
restoration to basins that discharge and recharge on
a seasonal basis, with either naturally occurring
runoff or water control structures. A restored Dahl
Lake complex will have the potential to provide
habitat for trumpeter swans (candidate species,
category 1).
The NRCS bought a permanent easement on 1,770
acres of refuge wetland (figure 6) for the WRP. The
emphasis of the WRP is to protect, restore, and
enhance the functions and values of wetland
ecosystems to attain:
first and foremost, habitat for migratory
birds and wetland-dependent wildlife,
including threatened and endangered
species;
protection and improvement of water
quality;
reduction of water flows due to flooding;
recharge of groundwater;
Dave Menke/USFWS
Cinnamon Teal
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 31
protection and enhancement of open
space and aesthetic quality;
protection of native plants and animals;
contribution to education and scientific
scholarship.
The WRP helps eligible landowners protect and
restore the original hydrology, native vegetation,
natural topography, and values of wetlands in the
agricultural landscape. The national WRP goal is “no
net loss of wetlands” (USDA NRCS 2000).
Grassland Habitat
A diverse set of grasses cover the majority of the
refuge. The main grass types include tall and
medium-tall bunchgrasses, and some planted areas
of medium-tall sod. Basin wildrye occurs in the
bottomlands of more moist sites (75 acres). More
than 2,400 acres of uplands have fescue species
intermixed, in some low areas, with 882 acres of
wheatgrass and redtop-dominated areas. Planted
areas of foxtail and Kentucky bluegrass cover more
than 1,000 acres. The area south of the county road
(includes the WRP easement) has a wide diversity of
sedges, native grasses, and forest.
There are more than 1,000 acres of relict, native,
bunchgrass prairie that provides wildlife forage,
cover, and nesting habitat. Idaho fescue and western
wheatgrass have very good to excellent palatability
and are good in energy value as forage for deer and
elk (Mueggler and Stewart 1980). These grasses also
provide fair to good cover for nongame birds
(Dittberner and Olson 1983, Tirmenstein 1999).
Upland grasslands and one unit of bottomland
grasslands (figure 5; mitigation units 11–14, 19)
surround the Dahl Lake wetland complex, and have
many areas important for waterfowl.
Prior to establishment, the refuge was a working
cattle ranch. Some areas have been overgrazed,
leading to weedy areas and sparse vegetation with
low productivity. The impact of defoliation on plant
vigor is depression of herbage and flower stalk
production. Adequate plant vigor and productivity
are essential to regain the climax grassland
community, with native plants occurring in their
natural, “correct” percent compositions.
Conservation
For vigor to recover in grassland species such as
Idaho fescue, areas of extremely poor vigor may
need 6–7 years of rest, while bluebunch wheatgrass
can take up to 10 years (Mueggler 1975). In areas of
intermediate vigor, Idaho fescue may be able to
recover after 3 years of protection (Mueggler 1975).
Once vegetation targets are met, some disturbance
is required to maintain vigor unless native
herbivores are concentrating in these areas.
Conservation is essential for Palouse prairie, which
is listed as a rare ecosystem exhibiting a 98 percent
decline (Noss et al. 1995). Native bunchgrass prairie
is an important habitat coverage that is limited in
the Northwestern United States. These upland
grasslands overlay rolling topography that grades
into forest habitat and encompass approximately
1,500 acres. Most of these upland grassland areas are
comprised of native grasses (figure 9).
Birds key into vegetation structure and litter for
nest site selection rather than plant species
composition (Cody 1968, Wiens 1969, Kantrud and
Higgins 1992). Tame grasses can provide suitable
habitat for ground-nesting birds; however, it is
important to maintain and restore native plant
communities, where feasible, to meet Refuge
System goals and further initiatives such as “Bring
Back the Natives.”
Forest Habitat
Forest habitat is composed of coniferous and
deciduous forest occupying approximately 3,000
acres of the surrounding slopes of the valley.
Dominant tree species include lodgepole pine,
Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and quaking aspen.
Other species found include western larch,
Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, grand fir, spruce,
juniper, black cottonwood, and white birch (figure 9).
Stands of large ponderosa pine historically dominated
most dry forest sites in western Montana. These dry
forests are also composed of a mix of ponderosa pine
and Douglas-fir. Logging and fire suppression have
resulted in an alteration of tree age-class structure,
physical structure, density, and species composition
(Barrett 1979, Schubert 1974, Shepperd et al. 1983).
Large, old-growth trees in open settings have been
replaced with dense stands of younger trees.
Although forest habitat types have been initially
classified (figure 9), a more thorough evaluation is
needed to determine the amount of open areas, and
provide species-specific coverage types. Initial efforts
grouped the largest area possible for dominant tree
species; other available habitat types may be
inclusions within large forest areas.
Aspen groves are important components of the
diverse habitats on the refuge. These areas provide
food and nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife.
Aspens are important for stabilizing soil and
watersheds. Healthy stands of trees, with shrub and
herbaceous understories and tree litter, provide
nearly 100 percent vegetative cover. Soil cover and
the intermixture of herbaceous and woody roots
protect soil, except during very intense rains
(DeByle 1985a).
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Associated Wildlife
Many priority bird species are closely associated
with old forest stages and snags, such as the Lewis’s
woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, olive-sided
flycatcher, white-breasted nuthatch, and Williamson’s
sapsucker, all of which have been documented on the
refuge. Regional populations have decreased due to
the reduction of old forest stages.
Olive-sided flycatchers, flammulated owls, and black-backed
woodpeckers (priority 1 species for the MPIF
program) are found, respectively, in open-canopy
woodlands, open-canopy ponderosa pine, and closed-canopy
lodgepole pine.
Golden eagles have nested in Douglas-fir in the PCTC
lands immediately adjacent to the refuge. Yellow-billed
cuckoos are a federal candidate species that
could be using the cottonwood–aspen woodland
associations.
While the refuge does not have enough forest habitat
to provide all life requirements for the grizzly bear,
gray wolf, and Canada lynx, with the large, surrounding,
land tracts owned by the USDA Forest Service and
PCTC, refuge lands could provide an important
linkage area for these species. Grizzly bears and
gray wolves are known to occur in the surrounding
forested area, and Canada lynx could potentially be
using the refuge as a corridor or foraging area.
The refuge harbors large wintering deer and elk
populations. They use the dry forest areas of
ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Elk live in high
elevations in semi-open forests and mountain
meadows during the summer. In the winter, elk
migrate to lower sheltered valleys, windswept
meadows, and lower wooded slopes. Tree lichen is
important forage for deer and elk during winter
(Baty et al. 1996), with their typical diet consisting
of mainly grasses, sedges, and forbs.
Wild Merriam’s turkeys were transplanted to
Pleasant Valley in 1999. Although, turkeys are not
indigenous to Montana and are not a priority species
for management, they are a popular game species
and are considered for habitat management to
better serve the public. Turkey hunting is open in
fall and spring on the refuge, except in the
bottomlands between south of the county road and
north of South Pleasant Valley Road.
Merriam’s turkeys are associated with the edges of
ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir
forests, where there are open areas for foraging and
mating (MacDonald and Jantzen 1967). Turkeys use
forested areas as cover from predators and for tree-roosting
at night. Open areas provide a greater
abundance of insects for young poults and females.
This varied habitat of both open and covered areas is
essential for wild turkey survival. Most turkey
sightings have occurred in the refuge’s mixed-conifer
and hardwood areas and meadows surrounding the
Dahl Lake complex.
A bald eagle has nested in the aspens on the north
side of Dahl Lake for several years. Many migratory
songbirds and woodpeckers use aspen for foraging
and nesting habitat, especially moist aspen sites
where bird species diversity tends to be higher than
stands on dry sites (DeByle 1985b). Ruffed grouse
use aspen communities extensively for an abundant
and nutritious food source, as well as for courting,
breeding, and nesting (DeByle 1985b).
Young aspen provide browse for deer and elk,
especially valuable during fall and winter when
protein levels are high relative to other browse
species (Tew 1970). Aspen also provide thermal
cover for deer and elk, which is important for summer
shade and winter warmth. Moose use aspen in
summer and winter (DeByle 1985b).
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants have undergone extensive range
expansion. They often create dense stands that turn
native plant communities into weed wastelands. The
presence of invasive plants can alter the functioning
of ecosystems by loss of wildlife habitat, displacement
of native species, change in carrying capacity from
reduced forage production, lower plant diversity,
and increased soil erosion and sedimentation.
The refuge has not yet been inundated with a large
number of invasive plant species. Spotted knapweed
and tansy ragwort are the two most common and
noticeable invasive plants. Kentucky bluegrass has
invaded some areas of the refuge. Sulfur cinquefoil
exists on the refuge, intermingled with the native
cinquefoil, and the extent of this problem has yet to
be defined. Foxtail species, reed canarygrass, and
St. Johnswort are other invasive plants that are
impacting native species diversity and wildlife
habitats.
Control of invasive plants is costly in time and money,
and requires careful planning, implementation, and
monitoring as defined by a plan to be successful.
Lewis’s Woodpecker
Dave Menke/USFWS
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 33
Native plant restoration is planned for the WRP
easement, and will be conducted through the
partnership with the NRCS.
Spotted Knapweed
Spotted knapweed is fairly dispersed over the refuge
and is likely to become dominant without control efforts.
Spotted knapweed aggressively invades grassland
and early successional forest sites (Rice et al. 1997a).
As spotted knapweed increases on a site, other species
decline and there may be up to a 60–90 percent
decrease in graminoid production (Harris and Cranston
1979, Bucher 1984, Morris and Bedunah 1984).
Tansy Ragwort
Tansy ragwort is a new, encroaching plant that
occurs in many isolated pockets on the refuge;
eradication may be possible if heavy effort is put
into its control early.
The refuge participates in a working group that
coordinates control of tansy ragwort within the area.
Ragwort locations were mapped and treated with
hand pulling and herbicide in 2000, 2001, 2002, and
2003. Chemical and biological controls are the two
most common methods used for these invasive
plants. Evaluation of biological control agents is
essential prior to release to ensure they do not alter
or disrupt the native insect community, especially
pollinators.
Foxtail
More than 1,000 acres of foxtail occur on the refuge.
Foxtail plants are palatable, but are a poor nutrition
forage grass for deer and elk. Foxtail can provide
some nesting cover for waterfowl (Hitchcock 1971).
Foxtail species are often seeded along with timothy;
the result is reduced plant diversity from vigorous
spreading and domination of the area occupied.
For effective control, elimination methods are used
with simultaneous introduction of a desirable
competitor (Weaver et al. 1990).
Reed Canarygrass
Dahl Lake water levels have been stabilized at a
lower level for multiple years to promote drying of
the upper portions of the meadow for hay pasture. A
consequence of these stabilized water levels is
increased cattail and reed canarygrass, which has
likely reduced the area’s attractiveness to waterfowl
(Smith and Kadlec 1986). In the past, cattle grazing
kept the reed canarygrass in check to some degree.
Reed canarygrass has taken over the majority of the
Dahl Lake complex at 780 acres (most occurs in units
14 and 19; figure 5). In unit 14, the largest section of
canarygrass is still interspersed with native sedges
and, therefore, has a greater chance for restoration
to native species. Control efforts are needed to stop
the canarygrass from taking over the entire wetland
complex.
Although some waterfowl species use reed
canarygrass as nesting substrate, it is not a native
plant species. Reed canarygrass often grows into a
monoculture, reducing species diversity. A return to
native plant diversity will include species such as
cattail and bulrush, along with a variety of wetland
plants such as sedge, mint, and pondweed. These
native plants will increase food resources and
nesting substrates for a greater diversity of wildlife.
Fire Regime
Limited historical fire regime information is available.
Wildland fires range from smoldering duff to stand-replacing
crown fires. Fire ignitions are classified as
natural or human caused. Lightning is a natural,
random weather event. Human-caused fire is
accidental, negligent, or deliberate arson. An ignition
from either source developing into a spreading
wildland fire is dependent on many variables,
primarily weather, topography, and available forest
fuels.
Fire has a demonstrable effect on wildlife habitat
through its effects on food plants. The combination
of opening up stands by killing overstory trees,
reducing competition by removing understories, and
rejuvenating sprouting plants through the top-kill
can significantly increase the availability of palatable
browse and forage.
Information presented here was obtained from the
USDA Forest Service, Canoe Gulch Ranger Station
in Libby, Montana. The Pleasant Valley area has
been designated a “fire group six habitat” by the
USDA Forest Service:
■ Douglas-fir is both the indicated climax species
and a vigorous member of seral communities
usually occurring at elevations of 3,000–6,500 feet.
It is not uncommon for Douglas-fir to dominate all
stages of succession.
■ Ponderosa pine, western larch, and lodgepole pine
are components within this habitat group.
■ Whitebark pine can be found at the upper
elevation sites.
■ Subalpine fir and spruce are essentially absent,
although there is a tiny bit of Engelmann spruce
on the south side of the refuge.
■ Various shrubs and moist site forbs such as
kinnikinnick dominate the undergrowth, along
with pinegrass and elk shrub.
Fire history studies conducted in southwestern
Montana (sites similar to forest immediately north of
the refuge) indicate fire was an important agent in
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
controlling density and species composition. Low- to
moderate-severity fires converted dense stands of
pole-sized or larger trees to more open conditions.
Subsequent light burning maintained stands in a
parklike state. Frequent low- to moderate-severity
fires favored larch and ponderosa pine over Douglas-fir
in stands where these species occurred. Severe
fires probably occurred on dense, fuel-heavy sites
and resulted in stand replacement that favored
lodgepole pine.
Fire’s role as a seedbed-preparing agent for Douglas-fir
shows this species establishing itself on a variety
of seedbeds and that it is not dependent on mineral
soil conditions for successful regeneration. Fire’s
role as a stand-replacement agent is more pronounced
when the natural, fire-free interval is increased.
Fire occurrence and intensity is dependent on the
area’s wet and drier habitat types. Fire occurrence
is indicated within the Grubb Mountain area
(immediately north of the refuge) by the recorded
fire suppression actions—12 lightning-caused and
zero human-caused fires since 1908 when records
were initiated. Human activity such as piling slash
from timber harvest, piling poles from thinning, and
filter strip rows from road construction contribute to
and influence fire behavior. Naturally occurring,
dead, forest fuels occur from insect disease, snow
breakages, and windthrow throughout the drainage.
The highest hazard fuel loading occurs in remaining
thickets of lodgepole pine that sustained mortality
from mountain pine beetles.
There is little, if any, evidence of pine beetle mortality
within forested areas on the refuge. There is
widespread, hazardous fuel loading in the mixed
conifer, Douglas-fir, and western larch stands that
have a lodgepole pine component.
Historical fire return intervals are around 125 years
in the Grubb Mountain area. Fire scar recordings
were conducted on burned larch in September 1995
on north-facing slopes of the Grubb Mountain area.
Scar records on a larch tree showed a tree age of 325
years (felled in 1985), with three scars recording fires
during the years of 1785, 1889, and 1939.
Fires in the Grubb Mountain area have been of mixed
intensity, with more mortality and stand replacement
occurring on drier sites. There have been eight
recorded fires within 2 miles of the refuge boundary
since 1908; two of these fires occurred on present
refuge lands (township 28 north, range 27 west,
sections 13 and 24).
The most recent wildland fire was the Little Wolf
fire of August/September 1994. This fire had
moderate–intense fire behavior and spread through
Douglas-fir, larch, and ponderosa pine communities
on previous ranch lands within sections 14 and 15,
and PCTC lands in sections 3, 4, 10, and 11 north of
the refuge boundary. Approximately 300 acres
within the refuge were burned. This lightening-caused
fire was as a stand-replacement fire.
Ponderosa pine and larch seedlings were hand
planted in 1995 within the burn area.
Wildland fire season in Montana officially begins
May 1 and runs through early September. Seasonal
weather patterns may extend or shorten the fire
season, resulting in a seasonal-dependent fire risk.
WILDLIFE
A list of animal and plant species that occur on or
near the refuge can be found in appendix E.
Migratory Birds
Documentation of bird occurrence and use is not well
developed for this new refuge. Two point-count
surveys were initiated in 2000.
The first survey consists of 20 points along the South
Pleasant Valley and the county roads. This survey
encompasses various habitats including grassland,
wetland, and forest. The second survey is a walking
survey along Pleasant Valley Creek. It starts in
riparian forest on the north end of the refuge and ends
in riparian grassland by the county road. These
surveys were developed to determine species
presence and use, to develop a species list for the
refuge, and to monitor the effect that implementation
of the NRCS restoration projects will have on birds.
The MPIF program uses a system that identifies
species of conservation priority in each of its planning
units, rather than writing planning information for
all species. If conservation measures are focused on
these species and their habitats, it is expected that
other species in the area will benefit as well. MPIF
has identified a pool of species that represents
priorities for conservation action within the state. A
species may be considered a priority for several
different reasons, including global threats to the
species, high concern for regional or local populations,
and high state responsibility for conserving large or
important populations of the species.
MPIF has also identified target habitats for
conservation and study in the northern Rocky
Mountains. The refuge contains three of these
habitats—ponderosa pine forest, grassland, and
marsh/wetland.
Waterbirds
The Dahl Lake wetland complex is an Intermountain
valley, wetland system that provides habitat for many
species. These types of wetlands support nesting
populations of many common waterfowl, shorebird,
and other waterbird species, as well as some upland
species.
The wetland complex has potential for nesting
waterfowl and rails, along with the entire
Intermountain valley, wetland-priority species, and
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources 35
some prairie–pothole species, as defined by Partners
in Flight Montana Bird Conservation Plan. These
species include the following:
■ common loon
■ trumpeter swan
■ black, common, and Forster’s terns
■ Clark’s and horned grebes
■ black-crowned night-heron
■ black-necked stilt
■ Wilson’s phalarope
■ yellow-headed blackbird
■ American bittern
■ Le Conte’s sparrow
The complex can provide important migration
habitat as well for transient shorebirds, waterfowl,
and sandhill cranes.
The remoteness of the refuge, and the potential for
less human disturbance and recreation, may
encourage use by species that are most sensitive to
disturbance. Freeze-up on Dahl Lake generally
occurs by mid-November and ice remains until late
March or April, limiting use of the area by late-season
migrating and wintering wetland-dependent
species.
Waterfowl
Fall populations of waterfowl on the refuge appear
to be low compared to other areas in western
Montana.
Wetland habitats support many species of waterfowl.
Commonly observed species include: mallard,
cinnamon teal, common goldeneye, redhead, ring-neck,
lesser scaup, common merganser, gadwall,
American wigeon, hooded merganser, wood duck,
northern pintail, northern shoveler, bufflehead, ruddy
duck, and Canada goose. Pair-count data indicates all
of these species may nest on the refuge, with the most
commonly observed pairs being mallard, lesser scaup,
northern shoveler, cinnamon teal, and ruddy duck.
Duck pair counts have been conducted on Dahl Lake
and other wetlands since the refuge’s establishment.
Pair-count data will only establish an estimate of how
many pairs are nesting. Average brood size, hen
success, and survival to fledging must also be
calculated to determine production.
Duck production = number of pairs
× average brood size
× nest success
× constant of 0.7 survival to
fledging
Nesting success of approximately 15–20 percent is
suggested to maintain stable duck populations
(Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood 1986, Klett 1988).
Current staffing levels and management obligations
do not allow time for these calculations to be
determined on site. Biologists from the National Bison
Range Complex calculate data on average brood size
yearly, using surveys conducted on WPAs in the WMD,
and on Ninepipe and Pablo national wildlife refuges.
Hen success and survival are constants, as
determined by literature and past nest dragging
conducted by the Montana Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit.
The National Bison Range Complex completes two
aerial surveys for geese that include the refuge.
These surveys are done with partners—the CSKT,
MFWP, and Avista Utilities. The goose pair-count
was not conducted for several years, but has been
resumed; the data from these surveys is important
for evaluating population trends from year to year,
and are used by MFWP for hunting regulations. The
goose brood survey is used to calculate production.
Goose populations and production are high in
northwestern Montana; therefore, geese are not a
priority species. The goose nesting structures existed
prior to refuge establishment; since they are in good
condition and there is not an overabundance of geese
in the Pleasant Valley watershed, they will likely be
retained.
Nest predation by mammals and, to a lesser extent,
by birds is the major proximate cause of nest failure
(Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood et al. 1987, Klett
et al. 1988). Predation can be limited directly through
predator trapping, and indirectly through habitat
manipulation and expansion to increase nest security.
Predator control is often expensive and time
consuming.
Another limiting factor to duck production is forage.
Aquatic invertebrates play a critical role in the diet
of most female ducks during the breeding season.
Ducklings feed on aquatic invertebrates until
approximately 1-month-old, and then gradually
increase consumption of seeds and vegetation.
Primary foods of hens and broods of many waterfowl
James C. Leupold/USFWS
Yellow-headed Blackbird
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT
species shift from invertebrates in spring and early
summer to seeds and vegetation by fall. While the
high-protein foods are required for reproduction and
growth, the high-energy foods more available later
in the season are critical for migration.
Human disturbance can negatively affect waterfowl
production by decreasing the number of breeding
pairs, hatching success, and survival of the young.
Disturbance during pair bonding, and nest building
and initiation can cause waterfowl to nest elsewhere
or not at all. Several studies have identified human
disturbance as the cause of nest desertion, especially
during early incubation (Korschgen and Dahlgren
1992). Flushing hens away from the nests, leaving
eggs exposed to predators and the elements, can
affect nest success. Human-created trails and
markers may also lead to increased predation rates
on hens and eggs. Disturbance during brood rearing
may break up and scatter broods, leaving them
vulnerable to predation, exposure, and starvation.
Shorebirds and Waders
Other wetland-dependent species are important to
ecosystem health and many are listed as priority
species under the Shorebird Conservation Plan and
the MPIF initiative. These species are difficult to
record with traditional monitoring and general
observation. Monitoring such as taped calls may be
needed to record their presence.
Waterbirds known to nest on the refuge include red-necked
and horned grebes, killdeer, and black terns.
Two pair of sandhill cranes has inhabited the refuge
during spring and summer for the last 4 years; colts
have been observed, so nesting has occurred. Eared
grebes are common on Dahl Lake, and pied-billed
grebes are observed on the refuge. Eighteen Wilson’s
phalarope were observed during the 2002 duck pair
counts. Other species migrating through or nesting
include the great blue heron, spotted sandpiper,
common snipe, American bittern, sora rail, gulls, and
dowitchers. It is unknown to what extent shorebirds
are using this wetland complex.
Young shorebirds are especially vulnerable to
mortality from hay cutting. In Harney Basin, Oregon,
it was estimated that one operator killed 400–600
shorebirds (primarily Wilson’s phalarope) by mowing
between July 1 and 13 (Oring et al. 2003).
Unlike ducks, shorebirds, and especially the Wilson’s
phalarope, tend to remain in hay meadows to feed
after hatching. Consequently, even the early-nesting
species are vulnerable to mowing.
Species of shorebirds known to breed in the northern
Rocky Mountains that are listed as priority 3
(important) for conservation value include black-neck