Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge

              Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
Montana
March 2012
Prepared by
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 4567 Wildfowl Lane Stevensville, Montana 59870
406/777 5552
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, Colorado 80228 303/236 8145 Summary
VII
Abbreviations
XIII
CHAPTER 1— Introduction
1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan
2
1.2 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
2
1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4
4
Service Activities in Montana
4
National Wildlife Refuge System People and the Refuge System
5
5
1.3 National and Regional Mandates
6
1.4 Contributions to National and Regional Plans Fulfilling the Promise Partners in Flight North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
6
6
6
7
North American Waterfowl Management Plan Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy
8
9
9
1.5 Strategic Habitat Conservation Climate Change
10
10
1.6 Planning Process Coordination with the Public
11
12
State Coordination
12
Tribal Coordination
14
Results of Scoping Selecting an Alternative
14
14
CHAPTER 2— The Refuge
15
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Summary of Land Acquisition History
15
15
17
2.2 Purposes
17
2.3 Vision
19
2.4 Goals
19
Bitterroot River Floodplain and Associated Wildlife Wetland Impoundment Habitat and Associated Wildlife Grassland and Shrubland Habitat and Associated Wildlife
19
19
19
Invasive and Nonnative Species Research
19
19
Cultural Resources
19
Visitor Services
19
Partnerships Operations and Facilities
20
20
Contents
IV
2.5 Special Values 20
2.6 Planning Issues 21
Bitterroot River Migration 21
Wetland Impoundments (or Ponds) 21
Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife 23
Water 23
Invasive and Noxious Species 23
Research, Inventory, and Monitoring 24
Visitor Services 24
Staffing 24
CHAPTER 3— Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 25
3.1 Alternatives Development 25
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 25
Elements Common to All Alternatives 25
3.2 Description of Alternatives 26
Alternative A (Current Management–No Action) 26
Alternative B (Proposed Action) 26
Alternative C 28
3.3 Summary of Environmental Consequences 28
Effects Common to All Alternatives 28
3.4 Detailed Descriptions of Alternatives and Consequences 29
Socioeconomics 29
Cumulative Impacts 29
CHAPTER 4— Affected Environment 53
4.1 Physical Environment 53
Climate and Hydrology 53
Climate Change 55
Physiography and Geology 58
Soils 59
Topography and Elevation 59
Water Rights 62
Hydrogeomorphic Changes 62
Air Quality 67
4.2 Biological Resources 67
Land Cover and Vegetation Communities 68
Habitat Modifications since Establishment 71
Changes to the Vegetation Communities 72
Changes to Fish and Wildlife Populations 73
Upland Habitat 75
Riparian Habitat 76
Wetland Impoundment Habitat 77
Remaining Refuge Acres 78
Invasive Species 78
Wildlife Diseases and Contaminants 78
4.3 State and Federally Listed Species 80
Species of Concern 80
4.4 Cultural Resources and History 83
Prehistoric Occupation 83
History of the Salish 84
Euro-American Settlement and Land Use Changes 84
Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
4.5 Special Management Areas 87
Wilderness Review 87
Important Bird Area 89
4.6 Visitor Services 89
Hunting and Fishing 89
Wildlife Observation and Photography 90
Environmental Education 91
Interpretation 93
4.7 Management Tools 93
Water Level Manipulation 93
Prescribed Burning 94
Prescriptive Grazing or mowing 94
Cooperative Farming 94
4.8 Socioeconomic Environment 94
Population and Demographics 94
Employment 95
Public Use of the Refuge 95
Baseline Economic Activity 95
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Employment 96
Visitor Spending 96
4.9 Partnerships 96
4.10 Operations 96
Staff 96
Facilities 97
CHAPTER 5— Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) 99
5.1 Summary of the Draft CCP 99
Target species Selection Process 100
5.2 Goal for the Bitterroot River Floodplain and Associated Wildlife 100
Target species for the Bitterroot River Floodplain 100
Floodplain Objective 1 102
Floodplain Objective 2 103
North Burnt Fork Creek Objective (Including Francois Slough) 104
Three Mile Creek Objective 105
Riverfront Forest Habitat Objective 106
Gallery Forest Habitat Objective 106
5.3 Goal for Wetland Impoundment Habitat and Associated Wildlife 108
Target Wetland Habitat Species 108
Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 1 108
Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 2 109
Gravel Pits Objective 110
5.4 Goal for Grassland and Shrubland Habitat and Associated Wildlife 111
Target Grassland and Shrubland Species 111
Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Objective 111
5.5 Goal for Invasive and Nonnative Species 113
New Invasive Species Objective 114
Established Invasive Species Objective 114
5.6 Goal for Research 115
Research Objective 115
5.7 Goal for Cultural Resources 116
Cultural Resources Objective 1 (Protection) 116
Cultural Resources Objective 2 (Interpretation) 117
Contents V
5.8 Goal for Visitor Services 118
Hunting Objective 118
Fishing Objective 1 119
Fishing Objective 2 119
Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 120
Environmental Education Objective 121
Interpretation Objective 123
Signage Objective 124
5.9 Goal for Partnerships 125
Partnership Objective 125
5.10 Goal for Operations and Facilities 125
Staff Objective 125
Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies Objective 126
5.11 Stepdown Management Plans 127
5.12 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 127
5.13 Plan Amendment and Revision 128
Glossary 129
Appendixes Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policy 135
Appendix B—List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination 139
Appendix C—Public Involvement 141
Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 143
Appendix E—Species Lists 155
Appendix F—Fire Management Program 181
Bibliography 185
FIGURES 1 Location map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana x
13 Network of minor channels occurring in the valley floor on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
16 Bank and levee erosion along the Bitterroot River on the west side of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge,
2 Area map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 3
3 Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis 11
4 Approved acquisition boundary of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 16
5 Composite vegetation community models Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge for 1964 and 2005
(Heitmeyer et al. 2010) 22
6 Public use map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 41
7 Ponds and upland fields in Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 43
8 Roads within Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 47
9 Ravalli County average annual precipitation (inches) 54
10 Channels and sloughs of the Bitterroot River in the 1940s (Heitmeyer et al 2010) 56
11 Flooding of the Bitterroot River on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge in 1974 57
12 Bitterroot River streamflow near Darby, Montana—USGS 12344000 57
(Heitmeyer et. al. 2010) 60
14 Map of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge showing 1-foot contour intervals (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) 61
15 Car bodies along the Bitterroot River at the north end of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 64
Montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) 64
17 Maps showing the changes in the main channel of the Bitterroot River (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) 65
VI Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
18 Hydrogeomorphic-derived map of potential vegetation communities on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
prior to European settlement in the mid-1800s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010)
69
19 Existing habitat and vegetation communities on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
70
20 Field planted as dense nesting cover on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
73
21 Osprey production on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, 1964–2007
74
22 Mercury concentration in fish from Montana refuges (Heitmeyer et al. 2010)
75
23 Proposed land use and drainage and irrigation infrastructure on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
in the 1960s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010)
86
24 Location of residential structures near Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010)
88
25 Adaptive management process
128
TABLES
1 Summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana
12
2 Habitat type and associated acreages found on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
17
3 Land acquisition history for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1964–2009)
18
4 Summary of CCP alternatives for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
30
5 Water rights summary for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
63
6 Hydrogeomorphic matrix of historical distribution of vegetation communities and habitat types on
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
68
7 Documented invasive and nonnative species on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge as of 2010 and the
degree of infestation, priority for treatment, and State noxious status
79
8 Montana listed species of concern and Federal birds of conservation concern recorded in the Bitterroot
Valley and on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
81
9 Target species for the Bitterroot floodplain and their habitat needs
101
10 Wetland impoundment target species and their habitat needs
108
11 Target species for the grassland and shrubland areas and their habitat needs
112
12 Current and proposed staff for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
126
13 Stepdown management plans for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
128
Contents VII
Summary
View of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge from the Bitterroot Mountains.
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit
This is a summary of the draft comprehensive con­servation plan and environmental assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Lee Metcalf Na­tional Wildlife Refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each national wildlife refuge. Chapter 5 contains the draft plan for the ref­uge; the final plan is scheduled for completion in 2012 and would guide the management of the refuge for the next 15 years.
The Refuge
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, established on February 4, 1964, is a 2,800-acre refuge located in the Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana (figure 1). The refuge encompasses a portion of the Bitterroot River and is located between the scenic Bitterroot and Sapphire Mountains. The channel of the Bitterroot River has been altered from levees, bank stabilization, and some channelization; nevertheless, this floodplain refuge provides a diverse mosaic of western mountain valley habitats including gallery and riverfront for­est, wet meadow, wetlands, and grassland benches.
The refuge provides opportunities for the public to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent public use activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observa­tion and photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The refuge is a very popular commu­nity and tourist destination with more than 143,000 visitors annually.
The Planning Proces
s
The planning process for a comprehensive conserva­tion plan consists of a series of steps including envi­ronmental analysis. Public and partner involvement is encouraged and valued throughout the process. The Service’s planning team compiled a list of issues to consider and analyzed management alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan that would not only address these issues but meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge.
After the public reviews and provides comments on the draft plan and environmental assessment, the Regional Director will consider the environmental ef­fects of each alternative including information gath­ered during public review. The Regional Director will select a preferred alternative. After the planning team prepares the final comprehensive conservation plan for publication, a notice of availability will be pub­lished in the Federal Register, and copies of the final document or accompanying summary will be sent to individuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Ser­vice will implement the comprehensive conservation plan with help from partner agencies, organizations, and the public. X Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Figure 1. Location map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.
Summary XI
The refuge encompasses a portion of the Bitterroot River
and is located between the scenic Bitterroot and Sapphire
Mountains in the heart of the Bitterroot Valley.
Steve Hillebrand / USFWS
Issues
Substantive issues were identified following an inter­nal
review of refuge information and through public
scoping, which began in 2009. The following issues are
detailed in chapter 2:
■■ riparian habitat loss and fragmentation caused by
the migration of the Bitterroot River
■■ overgrown emergent vegetation and eroded levees
and water management structures that have com­promised
the ability to properly manage wetland
impoundments
■■ reduction in the quality and diversity of upland
habitats due to invasive plants and lack of native
species
■■ algal blooms that have diminished clarity and qual­ity
of refuge waters
■■ inefficient water supply due to silted and over­grown
supply ditches
■■ invasive species that have become widespread and
difficult to control
■■ lack of baseline research, inventory, and monitor­ing
data to guide research
■■ small visitor contact area, outdated displays, and
inadequate public access by trails
■■ inadequate staff to manage and enhance refuge
habitats and visitor services
The Future of the Refuge
The vision for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
is based on the establishing purposes of the refuge,
resource conditions and potential, and the issues iden­tified
during the planning process. The goals were de­veloped
to meet the vision for the refuge.
VISION FOR THE REFUGE
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
is a representation of the diverse native
wildlife habitat once found abundantly
between the Bitterroot and Sapphire
Mountains and along the ever-changing
Bitterroot River. This floodplain refuge,
fed by mountain snow, is a diverse
mosaic of forest, grassland, and riparian
habitat that provides protected lands and
waters for migratory and
resident wildlife.
The refuge, in partnership with its
neighbors, friends, and the community,
is a conservation leader in the valley,
ensuring that the biological integrity
of this refuge and other valley habitats
remains intact or, where appropriate,
is restored.
These protected lands and waters
are a place of discovery for visitors to
experience fish and wildlife firsthand and
where children can experience nature
with all their senses. Visitors to the
refuge can appreciate the beauty of the
setting and experience a sense of wonder
and pride to be preserving this part of
the Bitterroot Valley and the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
GOAL FOR THE BITTERROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN
AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE
Manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural
topography, water movements, and physical integrity
of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot
River floodplain to provide healthy riparian habitats
for target native species and to educate visitors about
the benefits of sustaining a more natural floodplain.
XII Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Consistent with the guiding principals of all units in the
Refuge System, wildlife is prioritized first on the refuge.
Steve Hillebrand / USFWS
GOAL FOR WETLAND IMPOUNDMENT HABITAT
AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE
Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments
to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl,
shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-de­pendent
species.
GOAL FOR GRASSLAND AND SHRUBLAND
HABITAT AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE
Create the conditions that will allow for the restora­tion,
maintenance, and distribution of native grassland
and shrubland species (such as rabbitbrush, needle
and thread grass, Junegrass, and hairy golden aster)
to provide healthy lands for a diverse group of target
native resident and migratory wildlife species and to
educate visitors about the historical plant and animal
diversity of the valley.
GOAL FOR INVASIVE AND NONNATIVE SPECIES
Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and spread
of noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species
within the refuge while working with partners to ad­dress
off-refuge infestations within the surrounding
landscape.
GOAL FOR RESEARCH
Pursue and maintain compatible research projects
that would provide information on refuge resources
and address refuge issues to assist management in
making decisions based on the best available infor­mation
and science.
GOAL FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES
Provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the
unique glacial, Native American, and Euro-American
history of the Bitterroot Valley while maintaining and
protecting the integrity of the refuge’s cultural and
historical resources.
GOAL FOR VISITOR SERVICES
Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to
participate in and enjoy quality, compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation, environmental education, and
interpretation programs that foster an awareness and
appreciation of the importance of protecting the natu­ral
and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitter-root
Valley, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
GOAL FOR PARTNERSHIPS
Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help achieve
the vision and supporting goals and objectives of the
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Comprehen­sive
Conservation Plan and support other initiatives
designed to protect and restore habitats for Federal
trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley.
GOAL FOR OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES
Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection
of trust resources in the utilization of staff, volunteers,
funding, and facilities.
TARGET SPECIES SELECTION PROCESS
Early in the planning process, the Service selected
three groups of target species that will be supported
by the objectives and strategies described under the
habitat goals for the Bitterroot River floodplain, wet­land
impoundment habitat, and grassland and shru­bland
habitat. The initial suite of birds, amphibians,
or mammals was selected after Service staff reviewed
three documents focused on sustaining or recovering
species in Montana:
■■ “Montana Intermountain West Joint Venture Plan”
■■ “Montana State Conservation Plan”
■■ “Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan”
The criteria for this species list were based on whether
a species either occurred on Lee Metcalf Refuge or
could occur on the refuge if its preferred habitat was
expanded or restored, as indicated under each goal. The
life history needs of over 100 species were examined
for similarities and relevance to the proposed goals.
Ultimately, 16 species (tables 9, 10, and 11 in chapter 5)
were selected based on their ability to represent guilds
or because they were good indicators of the quality of
a specific habitat type. The habitats that support the
migration, foraging, nesting, and migration needs of
these selected species should benefit a much broader
group of secondary bird species as well as a variety of
other wildlife, both migratory and resident.
These target species would be monitored for trends
in abundance and distribution to evaluate the effec­tiveness
of proposed actions. The actions described in
these the alternatives, below, were evaluated based on
their abilities to support these target species.
Summary XIII
Alternatives
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives for managing habitats and public use at Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. These alternatives and the consequences of implementing them are further de­scribed in chapter 3.
ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION)
Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which
represents the current management of the refuge. This alternative provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. It also fulfills the requirement in the National Environmental Policy Act that a no-action alternative be addressed in the analysis process. Under alternative A, management activity currently conducted by the Service would remain the same. The Service would continue to manage and monitor refuge habitats at current levels. The Bitterroot River would continue to migrate through the refuge, eroding some levees and trails. Invasive species would be treated primarily with mechanical and chemical methods as resources become available. Water supply and man­agement structures would be inadequate to properly manage many of the wetland impoundments. Cattail monocultures would be treated. The current staff of five would perform issue-driven research and monitor only long-term wildlife and vegetation changes. Visitor services programs and facilities would be maintained or expanded as resources become available. Funding and staff levels would follow annual budget allocations provided for refuge opera­tions
on Service lands.
i
t
© Allan F. Meyers
This alternative focuses on the ex­pansion
and restoration of native plant communities on the refuge ncluding grasslands, shrublands, and gallery and riverfront forests. Some areas that are currently part of wetland impoundments would be restored to native communities including forest and shrubland. A significant focus of restora­tion proposals would be con­trolling invasive species and preventing further spread. Grasses and shrubs native to the uplands, including the alluvial fans (that is,
ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION)
Environmental education is one of several visitor services offered at the refuge.
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit areas of sedimentary deposits where fast-flowing streams have flown into flatter plains), would begin to be restored to provide habitat for native wildlife including grassland-dependent migratory birds. Some wetland impoundments and Service (nonpublic) roads would be removed or reduced in size to allow for river migration and to restore native gallery and riverfront forest for riparian-dependent wildlife. The remaining impoundments would be managed to mimic natural conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds.
The Service would expand and improve the refuge’s compatible wildlife-dependent public use programs, in particular the wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation programs. The visitor contact area would be expanded into a visitor center with new displays and a combination conference room and environmental education classroom. New dis­plays would be professionally planned and produced. The refuge would work with Ravalli County staff to designate the county road in the refuge as an auto our route, which would include pulloffs and some form of interpretation. A seasonal hiking trail would be added, and current trails would be improved for wildlife observation and photography. Interpretation and environmental education programs would be ex­panded using added staff and volunteers. All public use programs would provide visitors a consistent mes­sage about the purposes and values of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.
The refuge staff would be expanded by 3.5 indi­viduals to include an assistant refuge manager (one full-time equivalent), a full-time and a career-seasonal biological science technician (1.5 full-time equivalents), and a visitor services specialist (one full-time equiva­lent) who would serve as a visitor center manager and volunteer coordinator.
Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, infrastructure, and partnerships would be required to accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies associ­ated with this alternative. Additional staff and funding XIV Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
would be added depending on the regional priorities
for those funds allocated to the Service for manage­ment
of lands and waters within the Refuge System.
A fish trap is used to capture and identify fish species on
the refuge.
Bob Danley / USFWS
ALTERNATIVE C
Alternative C contains many of the elements found
in alternative B related to expanding visitor service
programs and facilities. However, habitat manage­ment
would be focused on maintaining the wetland
impoundments and attempting to restrict the move­ments
of the Bitterroot River throughout the refuge.
Habitat efforts would be primarily focused on provid­ing
waterfowl and other waterbird habitat.
Abbreviations
A.D.
Anno Domini or “year of our Lord”
Administration Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
amsl
Above mean sea level
B.C.
before Christ
B.P.
before present
CCP
comprehensive conservation plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
cubic feet per second
CO2
carbon dioxide
CWD
chronic wasting disease
EA
environmental assessment
FMP
fire management plan
FONSI
Finding of No Significant Impact
GIS
geographic information system
GS
General Schedule
HGM
hydrogeomorphic
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
IPM
integrated pest management
IWJV
Intermountain West Joint Venture
MFWP
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
mg/L
milligrams per liter
n/a
not applicable
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
PM2.5
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
POD
points of diversion
refuge
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
RLGIS
Refuge Lands Geographic Information Systems database
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
U.S.C.
United States Code
U.S.
United States
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WG
Wage Grade Schedule
WVA
wildlife viewing area
Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 5. CHAPTER 1— Introduction
Lee Metcalf Refuge is a 2,800-acre refuge located in the Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana.
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit
This chapter provides an introduction to the process for development of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), including environmental analysis, for the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge (Lee Metcalf Ref­uge, or refuge) in Montana. Chapter 1 describes the involvement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser­vice), the State of Montana, Native American tribes, the public, and others, and it describes conservation issues and plans that affect the refuge. The remain­ing chapters provide more specific information on the refuge and planning issues (chapter 2), alternatives and consequences (chapter 3), and related resources (chapter 4). Chapter 5 describes the proposed action (identified by the planning team) and constitutes the draft CCP, with detailed objectives and strategies to carry out the plan.
Lee Metcalf Refuge is a 2,800-acre refuge located in the Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana (figure 2). The refuge encompasses a portion of the Bitterroot River and is located between the scenic ranges of the Bitterroot and Sapphire Mountains. This unique location includes a diverse mosaic of western mountain valley ecosystem types and provides many public use opportunities including recreation, education and discovery, and research. The recreational oppor­tunities and natural beauty of this valley have made it one of the most rapidly expanding human popula­tion areas of Montana. This refuge is surrounded by development, including agriculture and housing. The nearby Bitterroot National Forest is visited by thou­sands of people each year, and annually the refuge has more than 143,000 visitors, including 2,000 hunters. The refuge was authorized primarily for management of migratory birds and incidental fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation.
This document presents an environmental assess­ment (EA) that evaluates three alternatives for, and expected consequences of, managing the Lee Metcalf Refuge. The Service’s planning team has identified alternative B as its proposed action, which is fully described in chapter 5.
The Service and other Federal, State, and tribal partners have developed this draft CCP to provide a foundation for the management and use of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. The CCP specifies the necessary ac­tions to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge. Wildlife is the first priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. When completed, the CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and activities over the next 15 years. Although this document contains management direction for the ref­uge, greater detail will be provided in stepdown man­agement plans as part of implementing the final CCP. (Refer to table 13 in chapter 5.) 2 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan
The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role that the Lee Metcalf Refuge would play in supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide long-term guidance for managing programs and activities. The CCP is needed to:
■■ communicate with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge System;
■■ provide a clear statement of direction for manag­ing the refuge;
■■ provide neighbors, visitors, and government offi­cials with an understanding of the Service’s man­agement actions on and around the refuge;
■■ ensure that the Service’s management actions are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act);
■■ ensure that management supports other Federal, State, and county plans, as appropriate;
■■ provide a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources is a task that can be accomplished only through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens.
1.2 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to take on a form unique in the world; in recent years, it has come to be known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). The wildlife conservation movement arose out of the conflict be­tween market hunters and sport hunters in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. Market hunting increased in response to the growth in urban population fueled by the Industrial Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860, the percentage of Americans who lived in cities increased from 5 percent to 20 percent; this fourfold increase is the greatest proportional increase in urban popula­tion that ever occurred in the United States (Reiss 1995). The demand for meat and hides—along with feathers for the millinery trade—led to exploitation of game animals by market hunters. Along with the increase in the urban population came a new breed of hunter—one who hunted for the chase and the chal­lenge it provided. These sport hunters valued game animals more when they were alive; market hunters, however, placed value on dead animals they could bring to market. The growing legion of sport hunters started a national movement that resulted in Federal and State governments taking responsibility for regu­lating the take of wildlife.
The keystone concept of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and the bedrock that allowed government to exercise control, is the public trust doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). With origins in Greek and Roman law, the Magna Carta, and the 1842 Martin v. Waddell U.S. Supreme Court decision, the public trust doctrine as it applies to wildlife conser­vation is the principle that wildlife belongs to no one; it is held in trust for all by government.
The seven pillars of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation follow: ■■ wildlife as a public trust resource ■■ elimination of markets for game ■■ allocation of wildlife by law ■■ wildlife only killed for a legitimate purpose ■■ wildlife considered an international resource ■■ science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy ■■ democracy of hunting
For more than 100 years, these pillars have stood the test of time despite significant changes in approaches to wildlife conservation. The original conservation move­ment championed by Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, and others emphasized stemming wildlife population declines through implementing programs that restricted take and protected lands. During the 1920s, conservationists realized that more was needed, and a committee including Aldo Leopold, A. Willis Robertson, and other leading conservationists of the time authored the 1930 American Game Policy. This policy called for a restoration program for habitats and populations based on scientific research and sup­ported with stable, equitable funding. Within a decade, many needs of this program were fulfilled through landmark legislation, including the Duck Stamp Act to fund land acquisition for national wildlife refuges. In addition, the Pittman–Robertson Wildlife Restora­tion Act shifted excise taxes imposed on firearms and ammunition to fund wildlife restoration through coop­eration between the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies. To use this money, States were required to pass laws that prevented diversion of hunting license revenues to any purpose other than administration of the State fish and wildlife agency.
In recent decades, wildlife management has placed greater emphasis on overall wildlife diversity. All wild­life species have benefited from the North American CHAPTER 1—Introduction 3
area map of lee metcalf refuge4 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Model of Wildlife Conservation pillars, not just game
animals. The Refuge System has evolved along with
the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation—
it today provides refuge for virtually all species found
in the United States and recreation for all Americans.
It is a realization of the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation to provide for science-based
management of international wildlife resources held
in trust for all. The importance of this system to
American society can best be appreciated if we were
to contemplate its loss. Wildlife connects us to the heri­tage
of this country and our ancestors who built our
society. It connects us as well to the natural world of
which we are a part, but from which we have become
so disconnected. To lose this connection is to lose the
basis of our humanity.
1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Refuge
System
The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible
for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge
System is one of the Service’s major programs.
U.S. FISH ANd WILdLIFE SERvICE
The mission of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, working with others,
is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish
and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the
American people.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s
fish and wildlife resources were declining at an alarm­ing
rate, largely due to unrestricted market hunting.
Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling
groups joined together and generated the political
will for the first significant conservation measures
taken by the Federal Government. These actions in­cluded
the establishment of the Bureau of Fisheries
in the 1870s and, in 1900, passage of the first Federal
wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which prohibited in­terstate
transportation of wildlife taken in violation
of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President Theodore
Roosevelt established more than 50 wildlife refuges
across the Nation.
Over the next three decades, the United States
ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain,
and Congress passed laws to protect migratory birds,
establish new refuges, and create a funding source for
refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service was created within the Department
of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions
including law enforcement, fish management, animal
damage control, and wildlife refuge management were
combined into a single organization for the first time.
Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nation­ally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital
wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered
species, and helps other governments with conser­vation
efforts. In addition, the Service administers
a Federal aid program that distributes hundreds of
millions of dollars to States for fish and wildlife resto­ration,
boating access, hunter education, and related
programs across the United States.
SERvICE ACTIvITIES IN MoNTANA
Service activities in Montana contribute to the State’s
economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The
following list highlights the Service’s presence and
activities in 2009:
■■ employed 220 people in Montana
■■ coordinated 446 volunteers who donated more
than 21,780 hours to Service projects on refuge
and district lands
■■ managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish and
wildlife management assistance office, six coordi­nation
areas, one fish health center, four ecologi­cal
services offices, and one fish technology center
■■ managed 23 national wildlife refuges encompassing
1,217,617 acres (1.29 percent of the State)
■■ managed five wetland management districts
➤■ 48,026 acres of fee-title waterfowl production
areas
➤■ 146,816 acres under leases or easements
■■ hosted 690,173 annual visitors to Service-managed
lands
➤■ 96,866 hunting visits
➤■ 80,370 fishing visits
➤■ 506,632 wildlife observation, photography, and
interpretation visits
➤■ 6,305 visits from students participating in en­vironmental
education programs
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 5
■■ provided $9.6 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife &
Parks (MFWP) for sport fish restoration and $17.4
million for wildlife restoration and hunter education
■■ paid Montana counties $394,799 under the Refuge
Revenue Sharing Act (money used for schools,
roads, and any other public purpose)
Additionally, since 1988 the Service’s Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program has helped private landowners
restore more than 31,759 wetland acres, 360,826 upland
acres, and 1,263 miles of river habitat as well as install
45 structures to open 502 river miles for fish passage.
NATIoNAL WILdLIFE REFUgE SySTEM
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the Nation’s
first wildlife refuge for the protection of native nesting
birds. This was the first time the Federal Government
set aside land for wildlife. This small but significant
designation was the beginning of the National Wild­life
Refuge System.
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has
become the largest collection of lands in the world
specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more
than 150 million acres within 553 refuges and more than
3,000 waterfowl production areas providing breeding
and nesting habitat for migratory birds. Today, there is
at least one refuge in every State as well as in Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Improvement Act established a clear mission
for the Refuge System.
The mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System is to administer a
national network of lands and waters
for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations
of Americans.
The Improvement Act states that each national wild­life
refuge (that is, every unit of the Refuge System,
which includes wetland management districts) shall
be managed to accomplish the following:
■■ Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.
■■ Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and
district.
■■ Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first.
■■ Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for
each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve
the public in preparation of these plans.
■■ Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and en­vironmental
health of the Refuge System.
■■ Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activi­ties
including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, and inter­pretation
are legitimate and priority public uses.
■■ Retain the authority of refuge managers to deter­mine
compatible public uses.
In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the
wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge
System maintains the following principles:
■■ Wildlife comes first.
■■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital
concepts in refuge and district management.
■■ Habitats must be healthy.
■■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic.
■■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Ser­vice
immediately began to carry out the direction of
the new legislation including preparation of CCPs for
all national wildlife refuges and wetland management
districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the
Service prepares CCPs in conjunction with public in­volvement.
Each refuge and each district is required to
complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by 2012).
PEoPLE ANd THE REFUgE SySTEM
The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to
the quality of American lives and is an integral part of
the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have
always given people special opportunities to have fun,
relax, and appreciate the natural world.
Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting,
photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife recre­ation
contributes billions of dollars to local economies.
In particular, money generated from the taxing of
sporting arms and ammunition and of fishing equip­ment
that is authorized by the Pittman–Robertson and
Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, has generated tens
of billions of dollars. Distributed by the Service, this
money has been used by States to increase wildlife
and fish populations, expand habitat, and train hunters
across the Nation. Approximately 35 million people
visited the Refuge System in 2006, mostly to observe
fish and wildlife in their natural habitats (Caudill and
Henderson 2006). Visitors are most often accommo­dated
through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive
programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Local
communities that surround the refuges and wetland
management districts derive significant economic
benefits. Economists report that Refuge System visi­tors
contribute more than $1.7 billion annually to local
economies (Carver and Caudhill 2007).
6 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
1.3 National and Regional Mandates
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the mission and goals of the Refuge System along with the designated purpose of the refuges and districts (as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other establishing documents). The key concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administra­tion Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act (an amendment of the Administration Act).
The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible public uses on refuges and districts, and a require­ment that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife con­servation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will make sure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge and district must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and the specific purposes for which the unit was established. The Improvement Act re­quires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each national wildlife refuge and wetland management district.
A detailed description of these and other laws and Executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Ser­vice’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A. Service policies for planning and day-to-day manage­ment of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.4 Contributions to National and Regional Plans
Lee Metcalf Refuge contributes to the conservation efforts outlined in the various State and national plans described below.
FULFILLINg THE PRoMISE
A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), is the cul­mination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the first national Refuge System conference (in 1998), which was attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and rep­resentatives from leading conservation organizations.
The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements for wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership—all three of these major top­ics are included in this CCP.
PARTNERS IN FLIgHT
The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory landbird species. The challenge is to manage avian population growth while maintaining functional natural ecosystems in the face of human population growth. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to identify priorities for landbird species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activities have re­sulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the con­tinental United States. Partners in Flight is a coop­erative effort involving partnerships among Federal, State, and local government agencies, philanthropic foundations, professional organizations, conservation groups, industries, the academic community, and pri­vate individuals.
The Partners in Flight program was initiated to provide for the long-term health of landbird life of this continent. Its mission can be expressed in three related priorities: helping species at risk, keeping common birds common, and forming voluntary partnerships benefiting birds, habitat, and people. The three goals developed in support of this mission are as follows:
■■ Ensure an active, scientifically-based conservation design process that identifies and develops solu­tions to threats and risks to landbird populations.
■■ Create a coordinated network of conservation part��ners to implement the objectives of the landbird conservation plans at multiple scales.
■■ Secure sufficient commitment and resources to support vigorous implementation of landbird con­servation objectives (Rich et al. 2004).
Montana Partners in Flight considered 141 species for priority status. It identified 14 high-priority species (priority I) in need of immediate conservation action, 43 moderate-priority species with lesser threats but in need of better monitoring and conservation (prior­ity II) consideration, and 51 species of local interest whose habitat needs may influence design and selection of conservation strategies (priority III). The highest priority species are common loon, trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, greater sage-grouse, piping plover, mountain plover, interior least tern, flammulated owl, burrowing owl, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, brown creeper, Sprague’s pipit, and Baird’s sparrow (Casey 2000).
The highest priority habitats in Montana are mixed grassland, sagebrush steppe, dry forest (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir), riparian deciduous forest, and CHAPTER 1—Introduction 7
prairie pothole wetlands, some of which occur on the refuge. The primary objectives in each priority habi­tat are to restore ecological processes necessary to provide suitable habitat for priority (target) species, identify and protect those remaining blocks of habi­tats that have undergone drastic declines, and develop management prescriptions that can be applied at all geographic scales.
To fully implement the goals of the international Partners in Flight plan, a series of scientifically based landbird conservation plans with long-term strate­gies for bird conservation have been developed. The geographical context of these plans is composed of 58 physiographic regions, each defined by similar physical geographic features and wholly or partially contained within the continental United States and Alaska. Lee Metcalf Refuge lies within the physio­graphic area known as the Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region.
Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region
The Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region is a huge physiographic area, extending from north­west Wyoming to all of western Montana, the northern two-thirds of Idaho, large areas of eastern Oregon and Washington, much of southeast British Columbia, and a sliver of west Alberta. It is an area of high moun­tains, with elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. Glaciation has left broad, flat valleys between mountain ranges.
Elevation determines the dominant vegetation. The highest areas are alpine tundra. The subalpine zone is dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir, with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the montane zone below. Stand-replacing fire can change forests in either of these zones to lodgepole pine or aspen. Fire in higher-elevation coniferous forests of the central Rocky Mountains tends to be of high intensity and low frequency. Grass and sagebrush occur under open pine forests that grade downslope into grasslands, wetlands, woodlands, or shrub-steppe. Approximately 28 species of birds have a higher population in the central Rocky Mountains than in any other physiographic area. This is the highest such number in any physiographic area in the contiguous United States, and it seems to rep­resent the huge size of the area and the vast amount of quality bird habitat that still exists.
A huge percentage of the central Rocky Mountains in the United States are in public ownership, mostly managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Maintenance or restoration of healthy forest ecosystems on public and private industrial lands will be the most important factor in keeping the central Rocky Mountains a healthy eco­system for so many forest birds.
There are currently 141 species identified for spe­cial consideration within the Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region. Generally, priority 1 species
A priority 1 species of the Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region, the brown creeper has been documented on Lee Metcalf Refuge.
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit are the highest priority and are the focus of proposed conservation actions. The priority 1 species identi­fied for this physiographic region are common loon, trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, sage-grouse, piping plover, mountain plover, (interior) least tern, flammu­lated owl, burrowing owl, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, brown creeper, Sprague’s pipit, and Baird’s sparrow. The common loon, trumpeter swan, olive-sided flycatcher, and the brown creeper have been documented on the refuge, primarily us­ing the refuge for resting and feeding. No nesting has been recorded.
NoRTH AMERICAN WATERbIRd CoNSERvATIoN PLAN
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a contiguous framework for conserving and managing colonial-nesting waterbirds including 209 species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, and pelicans), wading birds (herons and ibises), and marshbirds (certain grebes and bitterns). The overall goal of this conservation plan is to make sure that the following are sustained or restored throughout the waterbirds’ ranges in North America: (1) the distri­bution, diversity, and abundance of waterbird popula­tions; (2) waterbird habitats (breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding); and (3) important sites for waterbirds. The geographic scope of the plan covers 28 countries from Canada to Panama as well as islands and near-shore areas of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This waterbird partnership consists of Federal, State, and Provincial wildlife agencies; individuals; and nonprofit conserva­tion organizations.
Waterbird planning regions were identified to al­low for planning at a practical, landscape-level scale. Planning region boundaries are based on a combina­tion of political considerations and ecological factors. Sixteen planning regions were identified within North and South Americas. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located 8 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
within the Intermountain West Waterbird Conser­vation Region. This is a vast inland area stretching from the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Sierra Nevada and Cascades on the west. The Intermountain West’s dispersed high-mountain lakes, large terminal hypersaline lakes, marshes, playas, rivers, streams, riparian zones, and fresh and brackish wetlands host about 40 waterbird species, including many or most of the world’s California gulls, eared grebes, white-faced ibises, and American white pelicans. Eleven waterbirds are identified as species of high concern in one or more of the four Bird Conservation Regions within the planning area: yellow rail, Franklin’s gull, black tern, eared grebe, western grebe, Clark’s grebe, snowy egret, American white pelican, common loon, American bittern, and certain managed populations of the greater and lesser sandhill crane. The Frank­lin’s gull, black tern, western grebe, American white pelican, bittern, loon, and sandhill crane have all been documented using the refuge, primarily for resting and feeding. However, recent years have seen the sandhill cranes nesting with at least two to five suc­cessful nests per season.
Waterbirds using this region are highly adapt­able to constantly changing wetland conditions and depend on a regional-scale association of wetlands to meet habitat and forage requirements during stages of their annual life cycle. The competing demands for water from agriculture, development, and recreation pose the greatest threats to regional waterbird popu­lations. Also, contaminants such as mercury and di­chlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (known as DDT) and its breakdown products significantly threaten the region’s waterbirds. Because of the west’s feast-or-famine wa­ter regime, the “Intermountain West Joint Venture Conservation Plan” stresses the necessity of conserv­ing a network of high-quality wetland habitats with secure water sources to provide options for waterbirds during drought and flood cycles (Kushlan et al. 2002).
NoRTH AMERICAN WATERFoWL MANAgEMENT PLAN
Written in 1986, the “North American Waterfowl Man­agement Plan” envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific plan objectives are to increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds (USFWS and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986). The plan is innovative because of its international partnerships and its implementation at the local level. Its success depends on the strength of the joint ventures, which involve Federal, State, Provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and individual citizens.
Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partner­ships that carry out science-based conservation through
Waterfowl use the ponds of Lee Metcalf Refuge for foraging, nesting, and cover.
illustration depicting the steps of planning processillustration depicting the steps of planning processillustration depicting the steps of planning process
a wide array of community participation. Joint ventures develop implementation plans that focus on areas of concern identified in the plan. Lee Metcalf Refuge lies within the Intermountain West Joint Venture.
Intermountain West Joint venture
The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) was established in June 1994 to serve as the implementa­tion arm of the “North American Waterfowl Manage­ment Plan” (IWJV 2005a) in the Intermountain West region. The focus of the IWJV is conservation of wet­land and associated habitats. The IWJV comprises multi-level partnerships between diverse public and private organizations who share common interests in the conservation, maintenance, and management of key ecosystems in the Intermountain West region.
The IWJV encompasses much of the Intermountain West region, from the Sierra Nevada and Cascades on the west to just east of the Rocky Mountains, and from the Mexican border on the south to the Cana­dian border on the north. This extensive geographic region encompasses portions of eleven western states and includes an enormous diversity of avian habitat.
In 2005 the IWJV Montana steering commit­tee developed a “Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Western Montana” (IWJV 2005b). This team divided the State of Montana into Bird Habitat Conservation Areas to be used for all bird conservation projects over the next 5–7 years. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located in the Bitterroot Valley Bird Habitat Conservation Area. The priority habi­tat types for this area include dry forest (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir), riparian (such as cottonwood), CHAPTER 1—Introduction 9
wetland (reservoirs, lakes, and marshes), and burned forest (recent fires). The refuge has two of these high-priority habitat types, the riparian and the wetland.
INTERMoUNTAIN WEST REgIoNAL SHoREbIRd PLAN
As noted above, the Intermountain West is a huge re­gion, stretching from Canada to Mexico and from the Rocky Mountains to the Sierras and Cascades. The six Bird Conservation Regions of the Intermountain West include an array of habitats from saline sinks to alpine streams (Oring et al. 2010). The refuge is located in the Northern Rocky Mountain Bird Con­servation Region, an area characterized by low lying desert flats surrounded by rugged, boreal mountain ranges. Stream and river valleys occur in the moun­tains along with many small wetlands and natural and constructed lakes. Sewage lagoons near many urban areas also host numerous shorebirds. The area is of some importance for breeding of several shorebird species and of modest importance to many species of transients. Eleven species of shorebirds regularly breed in the Intermountain West, and 23 additional species are annual migrants.
The most important issue facing shorebird conser­vation in the Intermountain West is the very great human-driven competition for water. Finding ample high quality fresh water will be the greatest challenge faced by future shorebird conservation interests.
The “Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan” recognizes the Lee Metcalf Refuge as one of 79 managed shorebird sites in the nation, one of only 3 identified in Montana (Oring et al. 2010).
STATE CoMPREHENSIvE FISH ANd WILdLIFE
CoNSERvATIoN STRATEgy
“Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conser­vation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) is for all vertebrate species known to exist in Montana including both game and nongame species, as well as some inverte­brate species such as freshwater mussels and crayfish.
Although game species are included in Montana’s conservation strategy, the priority is those species and their habitats “in greatest conservation need”—that is, focus areas, community types, and species that are significantly degraded, declining, federally listed, or for which important distribution and occurrence in­formation is lacking. The conservation strategy uses five ecotypes to describe the broad areas of Montana’s landscape that have similar characteristics. Lee Met-calf Refuge is located in the intermountain/foothill grassland ecotype. The intermountain/foothill grass­land ecotype is a mosaic of private and public land that extends from the glaciated Flathead River Valley to the north, south to the Centennial Valley, and east to the Little Belt Foothills, where there remain some of Montana’s most diverse fish and wildlife habitats. This western Montana ecotype harbors more wildlife communities than any other in Montana. It also harbors Montana’s largest human population concentration in and near the towns of Kalispell, Missoula, Helena, and Bozeman. The attraction for wildlife and people is western Montana’s broad, lush, and sweeping val­leys cradled by the peaks of the Rocky Mountains. The intermountain/foothill grasslands are cut and formed by meandering rivers that create core riparian zones and wetland areas that often include glacial lakes and potholes that attract nesting waterbirds. Addressing the challenges that accompany the interface between human settlement and fish and wildlife and their habi­tats will be critical to the conservation of these areas.
Within each of the ecotypes, tier 1 geographic focus areas (that is, those in greatest need of conservation) were identified for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of the State. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located within the Bitterroot/Frenchtown Valleys focus area, which is dominated by views of the jagged peaks of the Bit­terroot Range to the west and the lower Sapphire Mountains to the east. The Bitterroot River bisects the valley floor north to Missoula. The valley is arid, flat, or gently rolling landscapes between 2 and 15 miles wide. While the valley supports many habitats—from grassland and riparian to forest and sagebrush—most of the area is now in subdivided for home sites inter­spersed with some agricultural production. The rolling mountain foothills at the valley edges are important elk, white-tailed deer, and mule deer winter ranges. In the valley bottoms, the cottonwood riparian habi­tats are some of the most productive wildlife habitats in the State and are home to a wide variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Of the 16 tier 1 priority (target) species for this area, 8 have been documented on the refuge: boreal toad, long-billed curlew, black tern, olive-sided flycatcher, common loon, trumpeter swan, bald eagle, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. The target species for this area that have not been documented on the refuge are the Coeur d’ Alene salamander, northern leopard frog, harlequin duck, flammulated owl, black-backed woodpecker, northern bog lemming, gray wolf, and grizzly bear.
The “Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) outlines five conservation concerns and strategies for the Bitterroot/ Frenchtown Valleys focus area. The key concerns are:
■■ habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, es­pecially as a result of human population growth and development of transportation infrastructure;
■■ invasive and exotic plant and animal species;
■■ range and forest management practices;
■■ streamside residential development.
All of these conservation concerns identified in this State plan for the Bitterroot/Frenchtown focus area are affecting the management and future protection of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. 10 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
1.5 Strategic Habitat Conservation
In the face of escalating challenges such as land use conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and ref­uge issues that have been amplified by accelerating climate change, the Service has evolved from its eco­system approach of thinking about conservation to developing a broader vision.
A cooperative effort by the Service and U.S. Geo­logical Survey culminated in a report by the National Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 2006). The report outlines a unifying adaptive resource management ap­proach for conservation at a landscape scale, the entire range of a target species or a suite (or guild) of species. This approach is strategic habitat conservation—a structured, science-driven approach for making ef­ficient, transparent decisions about where and how to expend Service resources for species, or groups of species, that are limited by the amount or quality of habitat. It is an adaptive management framework integrating planning, design, delivery and evaluation.
Since 2006, the Service has taken significant steps to turn this vision into reality and has defined a frame­work of 21 geographic areas. Experts from the Service and U.S. Geological Survey developed this framework through an aggregation of bird conservation regions. Lee Metcalf Refuge lands and waters lie in geographic area 6—the great northern. This geographic area is unique in social values, natural resources, and mana­gerial challenges. The great northern geographic area includes one of the largest surface areas of all of the geographic areas in North America and spans more than 447,000 square miles in the United States (57 percent) and Canada (43 percent). Ecologically, this area represents one of the most relatively intact and functional ecosystems in the United States with di­verse groups of species and important conservation and restoration opportunities. Habitats support plant and animal species with cultural significance to mul­tiple Native American tribes and important societal and conservation value to the United States, Canada, and the world. Cultural traditions are tied closely to the land’s natural resources as are contemporary ways of life, such as ranching, logging, and recreational and subsistence hunting and fishing. The Nation’s larg­est communities of free-roaming bison, elk, deer and other ungulates, wolves, and bears as well as diverse salmon and trout populations are hallmarks of the great northern geographic area.
The Service is using this framework of geographic areas as the basis to locate the first generation of land­scape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives are conservation–science partnerships between the Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and other entities. Designed as fundamental units for planning and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to help the Service carry out the elements of strategic habitat conservation—biological planning, conserva­tion design and delivery, and monitoring and research. Coordinated planning and scientific information will strengthen the Service’s strategic response to accel­erating climate change, land use conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and a host of other challenges.
CLIMATE CHANgE
The Service expects that accelerating climate change will affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources in profound ways. While many species will continue to thrive, some may decline and in some instances go extinct. Others will survive in the wild only through direct and continuous intervention by managers. In 2010, the Service drafted a strategic plan to address climate change for the next 50 years entitled “Rising to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change” (USFWS 2010). The strategic plan employs three key strategies: adapta­tion, mitigation, and engagement. In addition, the plan acknowledges that no single organization or agency can address climate change without allying itself with others across the Nation and around the world (US­FWS 2010). This draft plan is an integral part of the Department of the Interior’s strategy for addressing climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 (September 14, 2009).
The Service will use the following guiding prin­ciples from the draft strategic plan (USFWS 2010) in responding to climate change:
■■ priorities setting—continually evaluate priorities and approaches, make difficult choices, take calcu­lated risks, and adapt to climate change
■■ partnership—commit to a new spirit of coordina­tion,
collaboration, and interdependence with others
■■ best science—reflect scientific excellence, profes­sionalism,
and integrity in all the Service’s work
■■ landscape conservation—emphasize the conser­vation of habitats within sustainable landscapes, applying the Service’s strategic habitat conserva­tion framework
■■ technical capacity—assemble and use state-of-the­art technical capacity to meet the climate change challenge
■■ global approach—be a leader in national and inter­national efforts to meet the climate change challenge
Scientific information suggests that the great northern landscape has already undergone observable environ­mental and ecological changes as a result of climate change trends. Current patterns in climate change are expected to affect high-mountain ecotypes and CHAPTER 1—Introduction 11
lower-elevation, snow-melt-dependent watersheds more acutely than it will affect some other geographic areas. In consideration of anticipated climatic changes and the resulting potential ecological impacts, the following 12 species are currently considered to be focal species for the great northern geographic area: bull trout, pacific lamprey, salmon, steelhead, greater sage-grouse, Lewis’s woodpecker, trumpeter swans, willow flycatcher, Columbia spotted frog, cutthroat trout subspecies, Arctic grayling, and wolverine. Four of these focal species have been documented on Lee Metcalf Refuge: Lewis’s woodpecker, trumpeter swan, willow flycatcher, Columbia spotted frog, and westslope cutthroat trout (in the Bitterroot River). To address the ongoing effects of climate change, any proposed management changes must continue to adapt to a changing environment.
1.6 Planning Process
The Service prepared this draft CCP and EA in com­pliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in this draft CCP and EA meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that imple­ment the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Additional requirements and guidance are contained in the Refuge System’s planning policy, is­sued in 2000. This policy established requirements and guidance for refuge and district plans—including CCPs and stepdown management plans—to make sure that planning efforts follow the Improvement Act. The planning policy identified several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (figure 3).
The Service began the preplanning process in July 2009 by establishing a planning team composed pri­marily of Service staff from the refuge. Additional contributors included staff from other Service divi­sions; MFWP; Bitterroot National Forest; Confed­erated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; local schools; and Greenbrier Wetland Services, as well as several other partners (appendix B). During preplanning, the team developed a mailing list, identified internal issues, and identified the unique qualities of the refuge. (Refer to section 2.5, “Special Values,” in chapter 2.)
During planning, the team identified and reviewed current programs, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and determined the purposes of the refuge. An additional part of this process was the preparation of
Figure 3. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis. 12 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
a habitat analysis report by Greenbrier Wetland Ser­vices, a company that focuses on wetland conservation and management. Its report entitled, “An Evaluation of Ecosystem Restoration and Management Options for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge,” took more than 2 years to research and prepare and resulted in some sound recommendations for the restoration and future management of the refuge.
Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process to date for the preparation of this draft CCP and EA.
CooRdINATIoN WITH THE PUbLIC
During preplanning, a mailing list of more than 270 names was prepared that included private citizens; lo­cal, regional, and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested organizations (appendix C).
A notice of intent was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2009 (volume 74, Number 188, pages 50235–50236). It informed the public that the planning process for the Lee Metcalf Refuge had begun and invited all to share their ideas, issues, and other comments within 30 days. Additionally, in Sep­tember 2009 the first planning update was sent to mailing list recipients; it provided information on the history of the refuge, an overview of the CCP process, and invitations to two public scoping meetings. The planning update included a form for providing written comments. Emails were also accepted at the refuge’s email address: leemetcalf@fws.gov.
In addition to the update, public scoping meetings were announced statewide in the media. Two public meetings were held in the communities of Stevensville and Missoula, Montana on September 29 and October 1, 2009, respectively. During these meetings, a presen­tation was given detailing what a CCP is, the purposes of the refuge, and information on planning limitations, primarily based on compatibility. There were 12 at­tendees at both meetings, including the field repre­sentative for Senator Max Baucus. All were invited to speak, and comments were recorded. In addition to the comments submitted at these meetings, 20 emails and letters were received during the scoping process.
Many of the comments were related to the refuge’s very popular visitor services programs (the refuge re­ceives more than 143,000 visitors each year who view wildlife, hunt, and participate in educational and inter­pretive programs). Most individuals asked the refuge to consider expanding these programs, particularly the staff-led programs, along with associated trails and other visitor services facilities. Other comments were related to invasive species. While commending the refuge on controlling these invasive plants, the public requested even more effort to reduce impacts on wildlife and neighboring landowners. Other com­ments concerned buffering the refuge from extensive surrounding development, addressing climate change impacts including ensuring adequate water supplies for management, and offering access and additional interpretation of the historical Whaley Homestead.
Public scoping concluded on November 13, 2009, when the comment period closed. This project complies with public involvement requirements of NEPA, and the planning team incorporated public input through­out the planning process.
STATE CooRdINATIoN
At the start of the planning process, the Service’s Regional Director (Region 6) sent a letter to MFWP, inviting its staff to participate in the planning process. State biologists and outdoor recreation specialists have since been involved in the planning process, offering input on current and future biological and visitor ser­vices programs. At the start of the process, each office of Montana’s U.S. congressional delegation—Senator Jon Tester, Senator Max Baucus, and Representative Dennis Rehberg—were sent letters that notified them of the planning process and invited their comments. Five Montana State senators and representatives and Governor Brian Schweitzer were sent similar letters.
The State has been most concerned with the visi­tor services programs, and State staff participated in
Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana. Date Event Outcome July 13, 2009 Kickoff meeting The planning team learned about the CCP process; discussed the initial planning team list; developed a mailing list, planning schedule, and the first draft of internal issues and qualities list; and reviewed biological data needs. July 14, 2009 Vision statement development The planning team developed a proposed vision statement for the draft CCP. August 11, 2009 Public scoping planning The planning team discussed an effective outreach plan for public scoping. September 9, 2009 Planning update mailing The first planning update was sent to mailing list recipients. This update described the planning process and announced upcoming public scoping meetings. Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana. Date Event Outcome
September 29, 2009
Public scoping meeting
Public attendees learned about the CCP process and discussed issues and ideas for future management.
September 30, 2009
Notice of intent publication
A notice of intent to prepare the CCP was published in the Federal Register.
October 1, 2009
Public scoping meeting
Public attendees learned about the CCP process and discussed issues and ideas for future management.
November 17, 2009
Visitor services workshop
A panel of visitor services experts from State, tribal, and Federal agencies gathered to discuss and propose options for managing the refuge’s visitor services programs and facilities.
January 26–27, 2010
Review of draft habitat analysis report
Service staff reviewed the draft analysis and recommendations (prepared by Greenbrier Wetland Services) that described the proposed future ecological restoration and management of the refuge’s wetland and floodplain complex.
January 27, 2010
Review of draft grasslands restoration and management report
Service staff reviewed the draft analysis and recommendations (prepared by Aeroscene Land Logic) that described proposed future ecological restoration and management of the refuge’s grassland areas.
March 3, 2010
Goals workshop
The planning team prepared draft goal statements in support of the proposed vision statement.
April 7, 2010
Alternatives development
The planning team began developing and evaluating three alternatives for managing visitor services.
April 20, 2010
Target species determination
The planning team determined CCP target species by reviewing State and national priorities species lists for the Service, the State of Montana, and the Bitterroot Valley.
May 26–27, 2010
Alternatives development and evaluation
The planning team began developing alternatives for biological programs and continued evaluating alternatives for managing visitor services.
June 23–24, 2010
Alternatives review and consequences development
The planning team reviewed the alternatives table and discussed environmental consequences.
July 8, 2010
Environmental consequences review
The planning team continued to review the alternatives table and discussed environmental consequences.
July 20–22, 2010
Alternatives and consequences workshop
An expanded team of partners from the Service and other Federal, tribal, and State agencies assembled to review three alternatives and determine the environmental consequences of each. Alternative B was selected as the proposed action.
November 16, 2010
North Burnt Fork Creek meeting
The planning team met with scientists from other Service divisions and State and Federal agencies to discuss options for reconnecting North Burnt Fork Creek to the Bitterroot River.
November 17, 2010
Objectives and strategies workshop
The planning team drafted objectives and strategies for the proposed action.
January 13, 2011
Map and figure review
The planning team developed a list of needed maps and figures for draft CCP and EA.
January 25 and February 2–3, 2011
Proposed alternatives review
Refuge staff met to review and revise the list of proposed alternatives.
March 21–22, 2011
Proposed action review
The planning team reviewed the list of objectives, strategies, and rationale for the proposed action (chapter 5 of this draft CCP).
February 2011–September 2011
Internal draft plan preparation
The planning team prepared the draft CCP and EA, including maps. The document was edited and prepared for internal review.
September 12–30, 2011
Internal review of draft plan
The draft CCP and EA was sent to a list of internal reviewers consisting of Service, State, tribal, and other Federal staff. Comments were collected and resulted in several modifications to this public draft.
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 13
14 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
the planning meetings to discuss the proposed future
management of these programs. The State has been
supportive of the planning process to date.
TRIbAL CooRdINATIoN
Early in the planning process, the Service’s Regional
Director (Region 6) sent a letter to tribes with po­tential
cultural and historical connections to the area
in which the refuge is located. Tribes contacted were
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai and Nez Perce
tribal councils and culture committees. A staff person
and tribal member from the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Natural Resources Division offered her assis­tance
in developing and reviewing the alternatives for
the visitor services and cultural resources programs.
RESULTS oF SCoPINg
Comments collected from scoping meetings and cor­respondence
were used in the development of a final
list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and
EA. The Service determined which alternatives could
best address these issues. The planning process en­sures
that issues with the greatest effect on refuge
resources and programs are resolved or prioritized
over the life of the final CCP. Identified issues, along
with a discussion of effects on resources, are summa­rized
in chapter 2. In addition, the Service considered
refuge management changes that were suggested by
the public and other groups.
SELECTINg AN ALTERNATIvE
Following the public review and comment period for
the draft CCP and EA, the planning team will present
this document along with a summary of all substantive
public comments to the Service’s Regional Director
(Region 6). The Regional Director will consider the
environmental effects of all three alternatives includ­ing
information gathered during public review. If the
analysis has not identified any significant issues that
warrant an environmental impact statement or other
additional analysis, the Regional Director will select a
preferred alternative. The Regional Director’s decision
will be disclosed in a NEPA decision document—a find­ing
of no significant impact or FONSI—and included
in the final CCP. Once approved, the actions in the
preferred alternatives will compose the final CCP.
After the planning team prepares the final CCP for
publication, a notice of availability will be published
in the Federal Register, and copies of the final CCP
and accompanying summary will be sent to individu­als
on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Service will
implement the CCP with help from partner agencies,
organizations, and the public.
The CCP will provide long-term guidance for man­agement
decisions; support achievement of the goals,
objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish the
purposes of the Lee Metcalf Refuge; and identify the
Service’s best estimate of future needs. The CCP will
detail program planning levels that may be substan­tially
above budget allocations and as such would be
primarily for strategic planning purposes. The CCP
does not constitute a commitment for staff increases,
operation and maintenance increases, or funding for
future land acquisitions.
© Allan F. Meyers
CHAPTER 2— The Refuge
Nearly 1,000 acres of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge consist of open water.
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge consists of 2,800 acres of lands and waters all located within Ravalli County near Stevensville, Montana. This chapter dis­cusses the refuge’s establishment, management history, purposes, and special values as well as its proposed vision, goals, and planning issues.
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History
The following section describes the establishment, acquisition, and management history of the Lee Met-calf Refuge.
LEE METCALf NATioNAL WiLdLifE REfugE
Lee Metcalf Refuge is approximately 2 miles north of Stevensville and 25 miles south of Missoula in Ra­valli County, Montana. The refuge lies in the heart of the Bitterroot Valley, cradled between two mountain ranges: the Bitterroot Mountains to the west and the Sapphire Mountains to the east. Today, the refuge boundary encompasses 2,800 acres (figure 4). Eleva­tion ranges from about 3, 225 feet on the north end of the refuge to about 3, 314 feet on the south.
The refuge contains upland habitat composed of floodplain and terrace grasslands, shrublands, or a combination of both. The refuge also has riparian habitat consisting of woodlands, wetlands, and wet­land impoundments that have open water and per­sistent emergent vegetation. Other habitats include the river channel and areas of either bare or very sparse vegetation such as gravel bars, parking lots, and roads (table 2).
The refuge serves as a staging and nesting area for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, sandhill cranes, and other migratory birds. A variety of refuge habi­tats are home for native resident wildlife such as bats, white-tailed deer, porcupines, and beaver.
The refuge is located in the Bitterroot River flood­plain, and the river runs through or alongside refuge lands for approximately 5 miles. The Bitterroot River has two forks with headwaters in the Anaconda-Pintler Mountains and in the Bitterroot Mountains at the Idaho and Montana stateline. The river flows north and has areas of inherently unstable channel configurations until its confluence with the Clark Fork River near Missoula. The floodplain at the refuge is characterized by multiple abandoned channels, backwater flooding, and entrances of two tributaries (North Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile Creek).
After establishment of the refuge in 1964, an ex­tensive system of levees, ditches, and water control structures were constructed to capture and manage the available water supply with a primary purpose of providing migration and nesting habitat for wa­terfowl. By the late 1980s, more than 1,000 acres had been partially or completely impounded in 14 ponds for managed wetland units. Today, these ponds range in size from 8 acres to more than 200 acres, and their water levels are seasonally managed for waterfowl and shorebirds. Additionally, tributaries and natural springs have been altered by dams or weirs that have allowed the direction or level of surface waterflow to 16 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Map of Lee Metcalf Refuge boundary.CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 17
Table 2. Habitat type and associated acreages found on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Habitat type Acres Uplands (primarily tame grasses) 1,186.43 Woodlands and wetlands near woodlands 502.58 Wetland impoundments (open water, emergent vegetation) 958.19 River channel 62.73 Bare or sparse vegetation 89.59 Total 2,799.52
be manipulated. With 24 water claims and one water permit, the refuge has the right to 34,209.38 acre-feet of water per year to use for habitat management pur­poses. The diverted water provides feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for migratory birds, wetland-re­lated wildlife, and resident wildlife.
Remnants of gallery and riverfront forest can be found in the refuge. Although this habitat is still pres­ent, soil types and historical vegetation data suggest that several of the impoundments or ponds were once forested or consisted of native grasslands.
SuMMARy of LANd ACquiSiTioN HiSToRy
On December 10, 1963, the Migratory Bird Conserva­tion Commission used the authority of the 1929 Migra­tory Bird Conservation Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r) (45 Stat 1222) to approve the acquisition of 2,700 acres in 18 tracts of land to establish the Ravalli National Wildlife Ref­uge. In 1978, the refuge was renamed to honor the late Senator Lee Metcalf, who was instrumental in establishing this refuge, and to recognize his lifelong commitment to conservation. On February 4, 1964, the first purchase was made, Tract 21, consisting of 408.05 acres. Over the next 25 years, the Service purchased an additional 23 tracts for a total of 2,799.52 refuge acres (table 3). There were also two permits acquired from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to access a pumping station and to cross the railroad tracks to access refuge lands. In 2009, a facilitation easement was recorded for an irrigation ditch that traverses through a subdivision.
2.2 Purposes
Every national wildlife refuge has a purpose for which it was established. This purpose is the foundation on which to build all refuge programs—from biology and public use to maintenance and facilities. The refuge purposes are found in the legislative acts or Executive actions that provide the authorities to either transfer or acquire a piece of land. Over time, an individual ref­uge may contain lands that have been acquired under various transfer and acquisition authorities, giving the unit more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies proposed in the draft CCP (chapter 5) are intended to support the individual purposes for which the refuge was established.
The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission jus­tification for establishing the Lee Metcalf Refuge was to provide a feeding and resting area for migrating wa­terfowl in a locality where some sanctuary is needed.
The legislative purposes of the Lee Metcalf Ref­uge are as follows:
For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r, 45 Stat. 1222, as amended)
As “suitable for (1) incidental fish and wild­life-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threat­ened species ...”
“the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accom­plished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” (Refuge Recreation Act 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k–4)
In 1978, the refuge was renamed to honor the late Senator Lee Metcalf, who was instrumental in establishing this refuge, and to recognize his commitment to conservation.
Photo credit: Photo credit: Photo credit: 18 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Table 3. Land acquisition history for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1964–2009). Tract number Acres Date acquired Means of acquisition 21 408.05 02/04/1964 Fee 21a 25.39 02/04/1964 Fee 19 305.93 04/10/1964 Fee 25 167.10 06/09/1964 Fee 25a 90.86 06/09/1964 Fee 12 298.11 06/11/1964 Fee 24 9.47 06/12/1964 Fee 13 160 08/24/1964 Fee 11 309.32 05/21/1965 Fee 11a 4.27 05/21/1965 Fee 20 175.89 01/03/1966 Fee 15 2.23 06/14/1966 Fee 14a 5.13 06/15/1966 Fee 23 2.60 01/25/1967 Fee 10 26.48 06/12/1967 Fee 10a 292.53 06/12/1967 Fee 22 8.13 08/14/1967 Fee 27 336.31 12/06/1968 Fee 27-I 0.31 12/06/1968 Fee 19a 63.78 11/13/1974 Fee 29 4.4 06/12/1978 Fee 16 80 03/23/1988 Fee 17 16.23 05/23/1988 Fee 19b 01 10/01/1989 Fee—life estate 28M 01 12/01/1967 Permit from railroad company—pump station 28R 01 02/01/1970 Permit from railroad company—crossing 30D 7 01/09/2009 Easement Total 2,799.52 1Acreage figure is minimal.
The refuge includes 1,218 acres of upland habitat that consist of grassland, shrubland, and a combination of both.
photo creditphoto creditphoto creditCHAPTER 2—The Refuge 19
2.3 Vision
A vision is a concept, including desired conditions for
the future, that describes the essence of what the Ser­vice
is trying to accomplish. The following vision for
the Lee Metcalf Refuge is a future-oriented statement
and is to be achieved through refuge management
throughout the life of this CCP and beyond.
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
is a representation of the diverse native
wildlife habitat once found abundantly
between the Bitterroot and Sapphire
Mountains and along the ever-changing
Bitterroot River. This floodplain refuge,
fed by mountain snow, is a diverse mosaic
of forest, grassland, and riparian habitat
that provides protected lands and waters
for migratory and resident wildlife.
The refuge, in partnership with its
neighbors, friends, and the community,
is a conservation leader in the valley,
ensuring that the biological integrity
of this refuge and other valley habitats
remains intact or, where appropriate,
is restored.
These protected lands and waters are
a place of discovery for visitors to
experience fish and wildlife firsthand and
where children can experience nature
with all their senses. Visitors to the
refuge can appreciate the beauty of the
setting and experience a sense of wonder
and pride to be preserving this part of
the Bitterroot Valley and the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
2.4 goals
The Service developed eight goals for the refuge based
on the Improvement Act, the purposes of the refuge,
and information developed during project planning.
The goals direct efforts toward achieving the vision
and purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for
managing refuge resources.
BiTTERRooT RiVER fLoodPLAiN ANd
ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE
Manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural
topography, water movements, and physical integrity
of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot
River floodplain to provide healthy riparian habitats
for target native species and to educate visitors about
the benefits of sustaining a more natural floodplain.
WETLANd iMPouNdMENT HABiTAT ANd
ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE
Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments
to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl,
shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-de­pendent
species.
gRASSLANd ANd SHRuBLANd HABiTAT ANd
ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE
Create the conditions that will allow for the restora­tion,
maintenance, and distribution of native grassland
and shrubland species (such as rabbitbrush, needle
and thread grass, Junegrass, and hairy golden aster)
to provide healthy lands for a diverse group of target
native resident and migratory wildlife species and to
educate visitors about the historical plant and animal
diversity of the Bitterroot Valley.
iNVASiVE ANd NoNNATiVE SPECiES
Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and spread
of noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species
within the refuge while working with partners to ad­dress
off-refuge infestations within the surrounding
landscape.
RESEARCH
Pursue and maintain compatible research projects
that would provide information on refuge resources
and address refuge issues to assist management in
making decisions based on the best available infor­mation
and science.
CuLTuRAL RESouRCES
Provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the
unique glacial, Native American, and Euro-American
history of the Bitterroot Valley while maintaining and
protecting the integrity of the refuge’s cultural and
historical resources.
ViSiToR SERViCES
Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to
participate in and enjoy quality, compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation, environmental education, and
interpretation programs that foster an awareness and
appreciation of the importance of protecting the natu­ral
and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitter-root
Valley, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
20 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
PARTNERSHiPS
Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help achieve the vision and supporting goals and objectives of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Comprehen­sive Conservation Plan and support other initiatives designed to protect and restore habitats for Federal trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley.
oPERATioNS ANd f ACiLiTiES
Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, volunteers, funding, and facilities.
2.5 Special Values
Early in the planning process, the planning team and public identified the refuge’s unique qualities or special values—characteristics and features of the refuge that make it special, valuable for wildlife, and an integral part of the Refuge System. It was important to iden­tify the special attributes of the refuge to recognize its value and to make sure that these attributes are con­served, protected, and enhanced through the planning process. These special values can be unique biological values as well as simple values like providing a quiet place to see a variety of birds and enjoy nature. The following list summarizes many of the qualities that make the refuge unique and valued:
■■ protects 2,800 acres of diverse habitats—riparian, wetland, and upland—in a rapidly growing county ■■ supports a healthy riparian corridor used by breed­ing neotropical songbirds ■■ contains gallery forest along the Bitterroot River
■■ provides a wildlife corridor that runs north to south along the Bitterroot River and east to west from North Burnt Fork Creek to Kootenai Creek
■■ contains the largest montane wetland complex in the Bitterroot Valley on which many migratory bird species are dependent for breeding and mi­gration stopovers
■■ provides resting habitat for trumpeter swans pri­marily during migration ■■ provides habitat for a great blue heron rookery containing 12–18 nests
■■ provides habitat for one bald eagle nest and for­aging habitat for one additional nest less than 0.5 mile from the refuge
■■ provides exceptional viewing opportunities for nesting osprey and maintains the longest running dataset for nesting osprey in Montana
■■ lies within the Bitterroot River Important Bird Area, as designated by the National Audubon Society
■■ provides habitat for 242 bird species, 40 mammal species, and 11 species of reptiles and amphibians
■■ contains 45 documented species of concern (38 birds, 3 mammals, 2 plants, 1 aquatic insect, and 1 amphibian) listed in Montana
■■ provides habitat for moose, black bear, and (occa­sionally) elk on the valley floor
■■ includes designated critical habitat for endangered bull trout
■■ includes a portion of the Bitterroot River, which is considered a blue ribbon trout fishery
■■ lies within the Bitterroot Valley, the traditional homeland of the Salish, Nez Perce, and Pend d’Oreilles native peoples
■■ located a few miles from Stevensville, the oldest continuous Euro-American settlement in Montana
■■ contains the historic Whaley Homestead, which was built in 1885 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
■■ offers one of the few places to hunt waterfowl on public land in Ravalli County and the entire Bit­terroot Valley
■■ provides environmental education and research opportunities for more than 16,000 area students of all ages (Missoula to Hamilton)
■■ serves as a “window” on the Refuge System for its 143,000 annual visitors, providing the public with a multitude of wildlife-dependent recreational ac­tivities in a peaceful and beautiful setting
■■ provides a visitor contact area staffed by volun­teers and an outdoor amphitheater with vistas of refuge wetlands, the heron rookery, and the Bit­terroot Mountains
■■ provides universally accessible nature trails with views of multiple habitat types and opportunities to view a variety of wetland, grassland, and for­est bird species
■■ contains a 2.5-mile-long designated National Rec­reation Trail
■■ contains portions of the Ice Age Trail, Nez Perce Trail, and the actual (not officially designated) Lewis and Clark Trail
■■ collaborates with a wide variety of area organiza­tions to carry out the refuge mission (that is, land management, visitor service, historic restoration, and research)
■■ provides close-up wildlife viewing opportunities
■■ serves as a point of pride for area citizens
■■ provides research opportunities for dozens of wild­life
and environmental researchers
■■ attracts dozens of volunteers who annually donate 8,500 work hours CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 21
2.6 Planning issues
Several key issues were identified following the analysis of comments collected from refuge staff and the public and a review of the requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. Two public meetings, news releases in the local and regional press, an announcement in the Federal Register, and planning updates were used to solicit public input on which issues the CCP should address. Substantive comments (those that could be addressed within the authority and management ca­pabilities of the Service) were considered during for­mulation of the alternatives for future management. These key issues are summarized below.
BiTTERRooT RiVER MigRATioN
The Bitterroot River traverses the Bitterroot Valley floor and is characterized by a constantly migrating stream channel that flows through extensive cotton­wood and ponderosa pine bottomland forest. Natu­rally, the river fluctuates in water volume depending on winter snowpack and spring precipitation. These fluctuations regularly flood braided river channels and may create new ones. Much of this flooding and migration is natural and can be beneficial. However, as development increases, many more landowners are installing riprap along their properties in an attempt to prevent riverbank erosion; this directs the river (and its energy and increased velocity) to unprotected areas and increases the rate of erosion above natural levels. Such erosion has occurred in the refuge’s wild­life viewing area (WVA), where erosion has exceeded 100 feet in one area, partially destroyed a universally accessible paved trail, removed many large ponderosa pine and black cottonwood trees, and left a steep bank next to the education shelter and terminus of the Lee Metcalf accessible trail, a National Recreation Trail.
Additionally, increased erosion from upstream bank stabilization also contributes to a loss of riparian habi­tat, including both types of woodlands (riverfront and gallery forest) and wetlands (streams and sloughs). Woodlands provide a migration corridor for birds, a home to several bat species of State concern, and shade and habitat structure for terrestrial and aquatic species. The refuge faces challenges and uncertainty in managing riparian habitat in the face of intensified bank erosion, increased river velocities, and shorter and more dramatic flood frequencies due to upstream channel alterations and bank stabilization.
WETLANd iMPouNdMENTS (oR PoNdS)
Shortly after acquiring the first tract of refuge land, the Service constructed several impoundments (com­monly referred to as ponds) to hold water for migra­tory waterfowl. These impoundments were mostly built atop agricultural fields. Prior to 1873, these lands
Flooding of the Bitterroot River is a common occurrence on the refuge.
consisted of native grassland and shrubland habitats, gallery forests, and some natural streams (as identified in a 1964 habitat map, figure 5). Currently, there are approximately 960 acres of wetland impoundments.
Some impoundments are surrounded by persistent emergent wetland vegetation like cattail. Cattail is an aggressive emergent plant that can completely fill wet­land areas; once established, it is extremely difficult to control and can limit habitat value for waterfowl and other migratory birds. However, a balanced mosaic of open water, cattail, and other emergent vegetation usually benefits nesting habitat for diving ducks; brood habitat for diving and dabbling ducks; and nesting and roosting habitat for rails, American bitterns, and red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds.
The constantly migrating Bitterroot River has started to erode some levees on the north end of the refuge, making Pond 13 susceptible to river move­ments and leaving refuge staff with little control over its water level. The structures and levees on one other impoundment in the refuge’s north end are threatened by erosion as well. Maintaining these impoundments may be costly and ecologically unsound, depending on the river’s future channel migration.
Management of impoundments depends on a consis­tent water source and the ability to manage and drain wetlands. Refuge impoundments receive water from irrigation water diverted from the Bitterroot River, tributary creeks, natural springs, tile drainage of ag­ricultural fields, and subsurface groundwater. Drain­age and irrigation ditches may receive outflow from adjacent agricultural operations and residential and industrial septic systems, and such impacts on water quality could in turn pose a threat to refuge wildlife.
Also of concern is the spread of nonnative aquatic predators. In the early 1990s, MFWP and the refuge released 10,000 bass fingerlings into Otter Pond to promote recreational fishing; as a result, largemouth bass have spread to most ponds (Ponds 5–13). Large-mouth bass can be voracious predators on fish, frogs, and aquatic insects and have been known to consume
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit22 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
figure 5. Composite vegetation community models Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge for 1964 and 2005
(Heitmeyer et al. 2010).
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 23
ducklings. In addition, bullfrogs also inhabit most of the impoundments. This nonnative amphibian dis­places and consumes not only native amphibians but avian chicks, small snakes, and small mammals as well.
uPLANd HABiTAT ANd ASSoCiA TEd WiLdLifE
The intermountain and foothill grassland ecotype, which is found in the Bitterroot Valley and other broad mountain valleys in western Montana, contains some of Montana’s most diverse fish and wildlife habitats. These areas also contain some of the largest popula­tions of humans in Montana. The Bitterroot Valley area is considered a terrestrial conservation focus area in greatest need due to the loss of this habitat to agricultural production (MFWP 2005).
The refuge has 1,218 acres of upland habitat that consists of grassland, shrubland, and a combination of both. Due to the retirement of agricultural crops, encroachment of development, and spread of invasive plants, few native plant species remain, and wildlife value has been degraded. In many uplands, the domi­nant plant species are nonnative bunch grasses and weeds such as smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, cheatgrass, knapweed, and thistle. A combination of management actions have been applied—prescribed fire, disking and seeding, herbicide application, and manual weed removal—with varying results.
WATER
Lee Metcalf Refuge receives surface water from tile drain ditches, springs, ephemeral and perennial creeks and subsurface flow, and three lateral irriga­tion ditches: the North Lateral Ditch, Middle Lateral Ditch, and South Lateral Ditch. These lateral ditches are supplied by the Supply Ditch, a primary canal that carries diverted Bitterroot River water from Victor to just north of the refuge. Water entering the ref­uge from the east often has a high nutrient load as it traverses or drains out of grazed or farmed lands. As a result, the refuge receives nutrient-rich drainage water that results in abundant algal growth during summer months.
In the past 5 years, algal growth has increased in the impoundments, possibly in part due to the com­bination of increased nutrient loading in surface wa­ter and potentially in subsurface water. Algal growth results in diminished water clarity and subsequent reduction in light penetration and vegetative quality of refuge impoundments.
Currently, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Ge­ology has established shallow wells to collect subsur­face water quality data and is also evaluating surface water quality within the refuge boundary.
The North Lateral Ditch, also called the Alleman Ditch, flows through private land, traverses along­side Eastside Highway, and then enters the refuge on Rathbun Lane. In the last several years, the refuge has received water from this ditch, even though it has become silted and overgrown with vegetation. How­ever, when the headgate is opened, the ditch tends to overflow and flood private lands.
East of the Eastside Highway, subdivisions have been developed along and over the Middle Lateral Ditch (also called the McElhaney Ditch) and affected the efficiency of flows leaving the Supply Ditch and reaching the refuge. Currently, refuge management is working with the Supply Ditch Association, landown­ers, and staff to replace this ditch with a pipeline. If successful, this effort could conserve water, provide a more reliable flow to the refuge, reduce noxious weed seed transfer from ditchbanks and adjacent lands, end periodic localized flooding, and possibly provide a gravity-flow water source into the refuge wheel lines, thereby saving thousands of dollars annually in pumping costs.
In recent years, much of the refuge water from the South Lateral Ditch (also called the Warburton Ditch) has not reached the refuge. Refuge law en­forcement officers have monitored diversions along this ditch in the past.
Other historic ditches (now McPherson and Nick­erson Creeks) remain on the refuge but have not been maintained in recent years.
iNVASiVE ANd NoxiouS SPECiES
The State of Montana has identified 32 noxious plant species, which are nonnative plants that must be treated by rule of the Montana County Weed Control Act. Fif­teen of these species have been found on the refuge. Invasive species prevent desirable native vegetation growth and often severely degrade habitat for native wildlife by altering its structure and its species and ecosystem interactions. When invasive species become widespread, they often change the habitat structure and vegetative variability that wildlife need for food and cover. These nonnative plants often create mono-typic stands, using up soil moisture and nutrients and outcompeting more desirable native species. This
Invasive and noxious species are a threat to native plantson the refuge, including velvet lupine.
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit
24 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
change in plant species, structure, and diversity im­pacts habitat for migratory birds, a group of species for which this refuge was established.
Multiple factors have likely contributed to the noxious and invasive plant problem on the refuge. Historically, factors like soil type, flood frequency, to­pography, availability of irrigation, and dominant veg­etation likely influenced how lands that now compose the refuge were used. Much of this land was managed for agriculture, including growing small grains and potatoes, haying, and grazing. It is also evident that croplands were leveled and parts of the refuge may have been drained. After refuge establishment, much of the agricultural land was developed into wetland impoundments or managed for migratory waterfowl food resources. Later, gravel levees were developed to protect refuge facilities from periodic flooding from the Bitterroot River. White-tailed deer move daily off the refuge and back from neighboring lands and po­tentially carry weed seeds in fur or scat. All of these actions—both before and after refuge establishment— disturbed the soil and created abundant opportunities for noxious and invasive plants to take root.
Land uses in and around the refuge also likely contribute to the invasive species problem. The Bit­terroot River runs the length of the refuge, and the water current as well as recreationists often transport seed from one area to another. Montana Rail Link also traverses the width and length of the refuge and pro­vides additional opportunity for weeds to spread on disturbed ground. Finally, Wildfowl Lane, a county road, runs west, north, and east through the south half of the refuge, providing abundant opportunities for noxious weed transport and establishment. Land use surrounding the refuge (subdivisions, irrigation laterals and tile drains, uncontrolled weed infestations on adjacent lands, Eastside Highway, and Rathbun Lane) also contributes to the challenge of managing invasive species, including treated areas, on the refuge.
RESEARCH, iNVENToRy, ANd MoNiToRiNg
Over the years, research, inventory, and monitoring of refuge resources have been sporadic and minimal. In most cases, research is proposed by another agency or a university, not by refuge staff. Consequently, some management programs have not necessarily been designed from refuge-specific data or in response to critical refuge needs and issues. This had led in part to some of the habitat management difficulties de­scribed in this section.
ViSiToR SERViCES
Each year, the refuge hosts more than 143,000 visitors from all over the country and the world. It is valued as a place to discover, enjoy the beautiful scenery, and be close to nature.
The refuge has always done well to accommodate visitors by providing facilities and programs intended for education and enjoyment. The refuge currently employs one outdoor recreation planner who man­ages and designs all programs. Dedicated volunteers assist with these programs and help greet visitors at the refuge headquarters. Nevertheless, there is tre­mendous potential for improvement, namely through providing new programs, tours, offsite programs, and interpretive displays and by expanding and improv­ing current facilities, particularly the visitor contact area. Although the visitor contact area does allow for some interpretation, it is small (about 500 square feet) and inadequate for conducting tours, accommodating larger groups, or housing displays that could better interpret refuge resources and programs. The refuge is very popular with local schools and other groups; accordingly, there is a need for additional programs and an indoor classroom.
Many visitors have asked for additional trails and opportunities to explore more of the refuge. Requests were also made to afford all visitors the same access provided to refuge hunters. The refuge currently has
2.09 miles of trails in the WVA, some of which require improvement or relocation. One of these trails in the WVA is slowly eroding as a result of the migrating Bitterroot River. The Kenai Nature Trail, located north of the refuge headquarters, is also very popu­lar with visitors, but it is surrounded by a closed area that does not allow visitors to leave this narrow trail. As part of the CCP development process, the refuge will evaluate these trails and determine if improve­ments are needed or if accommodations can be made in other refuge areas.
Hunting for waterfowl and white-tailed deer is very popular on the refuge. The refuge is located in a State management unit that only permits archery hunting for big game. The refuge suspects that the lack of re­generation in the understory of the forest is a direct result of overbrowsing by white-tailed deer. Should this be the case, the refuge may need to work with the State to find other methods to better disperse the deer or reduce the population on the refuge.
STAffiNg
Currently, the refuge employs eight full-time employ­ees (three of whom are zone or state-wide support employees who do not exclusively support refuge op­erations). If the refuge is to accomplish the goals set forth in this CCP within the established timeframe, adequate staffing and resources will be needed. CHAPTER 3— Alternatives and
Environmental Consequences
Variegated meadowhawk is one of many dragonfly species found on Lee Metcalf Refuge.
photo creditphoto creditphoto credit
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the man­agement alternatives and associated environmental consequences considered for the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. Alternatives are different approaches to unit management that are designed to achieve the refuge purposes, vision, and goals; the mission of the Refuge System; and the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are developed to address the substantive issues, concerns, and problems iden­tified by the Service, the public, and other partners during public scoping and throughout the development of the draft CCP. This chapter contains the following: ■■ summary of alternatives (sections 3.1 and 3.2) ■■ summary of environmental consequences (sec­tion 3.3) ■■ detailed descriptions of alternatives and conse­quences (section 3.4)
3.1 Alternatives Development
The planning team assessed the planning issues iden­tified in chapter 2, the existing biological conditions described in chapter 4, and external relationships af­fecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of alternatives, each of which presents a distinct approach for meeting long-term goals. Each alternative was evaluated on the basis of its approach to addressing planning issues and its expected success in meeting the vision and goals of the refuge and the Refuge System.
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes the current, ongoing management activities. This alter­native might not meet all the CCP goals. It is provided as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives.
AlTERnATivEs ConsiDERED buT EliminATED
There were no alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study.
ElEmEnTs Common To All AlTERnATivEs
This section identifies the following key elements that will be included in the CCP regardless of the alterna­tive selected:
■■ The Service would ensure that management of the refuge complies with all Federal laws, administra­tive orders, and policies that provide direction for managing units of the Refuge System. Among these mandates are the Improvement Act, the Endan­gered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act of 1977, Executive Order 11990 (“Protection of Wet­lands”), and Executive Order 11988 (“Floodplain Management”). The implementation of alternatives described in this draft CCP and EA would not lead to a violation of these or other mandates. 26 Draft CCP and EA, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
■■ Implementation of the management direction (goals, objectives, and strategies) would follow the refuge’s best management practices.
■■ Each alternative would attempt to control invasive species through an integrated pest management approach that includes biological, chemical, and mechanical treatment methods followed by resto­ration and prevention of reinvasion.
■■ Through its actions the Service would not knowingly negatively affect an adjacent landowner without a mutual agreement and adequate compensation.
■■ Each alternative would provide equal protection and management of cultural resources.
■■ The refuge staff and its contractors, researchers, and other consultants would acquire all applicable per­mits, such as those for future construction activities.
3.2 Description of Alternatives
This section describes the alternatives considered by the planning team to achieve the proposed vision and goals and to address the issues. These alternatives in­clude not only the current management (alternative A) but also the Service’s proposed action (alternative B), which is incorporated into the draft CCP and further described in chapter 5. Table 4 in section 3.4 below provides a summary of the alternatives’ actions with associated consequences.
These alternatives reflect options to address sig­nificant threats, problems, and issues raised not only by refuge staff but also public agencies, private citi­zens, other State, tribal, and Federal agencies, and other interested organizations.
AlTERnATivE A (CuRREnT mAnAgEmEnT–no ACTion)
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, represents the current management of the refuge. This alterna­tive provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. It also fulfills the NEPA re­quirement that a no-action alternative be addressed in the analysis process.
Under alternative A, the Service’s management activities would remain the same. The staff would perform issue-driven research and monitor only long-term vegetation changes. Funding and staff levels would remain unchanged, and programs would have the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do at present. Key elements of alternative A follow:
■■ Habitat and wildlife management actions would continue at present levels unless funding or staffing levels changed. Refuge habitat would continue to be managed using existing water control structures, grazing, and prescribed fire. Results of manage­ment actions may or may not be able to be analyzed because monitoring would continue to be limited due to current funding levels. The refuge would continue to impound water in all refuge ponds.
■■ The Service would not take any actions to prohibit the migration of the Bitterroot River, even for road and trail protection.
■■ The culvert at North Burnt Fork Creek in the WVA would be replaced by a bridge.
■■ Prescriptive fire, prescriptive grazing, and natu­ral flooding would be used to enhance the existing riverfront and gallery forest plant communities. Where appropriate, cottonwood and ponderosa pine would continue to be planted to expand the gallery forest areas, with a focus on sloughs and historical ditches.
■■ Unless eroded by the Bitterroot River, the wetland impoundments would be retained; however, man­agement capabilities would be limited. The gravel pits would be retained and managed for boreal toad and Columbia spotted frog habitat.
■■ The Service would attempt to introduce more na­tive plant species into tame grassland areas.
■■ The Service would work with partners to map and treat invasive species and monitor treated areas to prevent reintroduction and spread.
■■ Refuge staff would continue to perform issue-driven scientific research.
■■ Wildlife-dependent compatible priority uses (hunt­ing, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photogra­phy, and interpretation) would continue at current levels. Outreach and education programs would continue, primarily onsite, but there would be in­sufficient resources to update signs, informational kiosks, and brochures or to improve hiking trails and access roads.
■■ Five full-time staff persons would continue to be assigned to the refuge along with four zone or state-wide support staff who could assist with refuge programs.
AlTERnATivE b (PRoPosED ACTion)
This alternative constitutes the draft CCP (chap­ter 5) and focuses on the expansion and restoration of native plant communities on the refuge including grassland and shrubland, gallery and riverfront for­ests, and wetland impoundments. A significant part of the restoration proposal includes the control of invasive species. Grasses and shrubs native to the uplands (in the floodplains and on the alluvial fans, or areas of sedimentary deposits where fast-flowing streams have flown into flatter plains) would be re­stored to provide habitat for native wildlife including CHAPTER 3—Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 27
grassland-dependent migratory birds. Before any restoration is conducted, invasive species (including seedbeds) will be reduced primarily with prescribed burning and farming.
Some wetland impoundments and Service (non­public) roads would be removed to allow for river migration scouring, which could help restore native gallery and riverfront forest for riparian-dependent wildlife. Most of the remaining impoundments would be managed to mimic natural conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds.
The Service would expand and improve the refuge’s compatible wildlife-dependent public use programs, particularly the wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation programs. The visitor contact area would be expanded into a visitor center with new displays and an additional combination con­ference room and environmental education classroom. New displays would be professionally planned and produced. The refuge would work with Ravalli County staff to designate the county road traveling through the refuge as an interpreted auto tour route, which would include pulloffs for wildlife viewing. A seasonal hiking trail would be added around Pond 8, and cur­rent trails would be improved for wildlife observation and photography. Interpretation and environmental education programs would be expanded using added staff and volunteers. All public use programs would provide visitors with a consistent message about the purposes and values of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. The refuge staff would be expanded by 3.5 individuals: an assistant refuge manager, two biological science technicians (one part-time), and a visitor services specialist.
Increased research and monitoring efforts, staff, funding, infrastructure, and partnerships would be required to accomplish the goals outlined in chapter 2 and the objective and strategies outlined in chapter
5. Additional staff and funding would be dependent on the regional priorities for those funds allocated to the Service for management of lands and waters within the Refuge System. Key elements of alternative B follow:
■■ Levees and ditches would be modified or created to reconnect floodplain habitats with the Bitter-root River, thereby providing the opportunity for overbank and backwater flooding into and out of the floodplain. These actions would facilitate the restoration of the natural braided migration pat­terns of the Bitterroot River across the refuge, where possible.
■■ Water control structures and obstructions in trib­utary and floodplain channels would be removed or modified to allow unimpeded flow from North Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile Creek into the Bitterroot River. North Burnt Fork Creek would be reconnected with historical channels and the Bitterroot River.
■■ Water control structures would be replaced in Ponds 1–6, Pond 8, and Pond 10 so that water re­gimes could be managed for a more seasonal, annual dynamic that emulates natural increases in water distribution and depth in spring and gradual drying in summer and fall. Complete drawdown of each pond would occur on a rotational basis.
■■ Levees, ditches, and water control structures would be removed to facilitate the restoration and expan­sion of the gallery forest habitat (Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, 9, and D) and native grassland habitat (Pair Ponds and Potato Cellar Pond) while ensuring that restoration areas do not become new sites for invasive species.
■■ The pool height of Ponds 8 and 10 would be low­ered to allow for the restoration of gallery forest to the west of these ponds.
■■ Once invasive species were well controlled on resto­ration sites (using primarily farming and prescribed fire), native plant communities would be restored based on geomorphology, soils, topography, and hydrologic features.
■■ As appropriate, vegetation would be removed from gravel pits