Comprehensive Conservation Plan Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
June 2009
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
27650B South Valley Road
Lima, MT 59739
406/276 3536
and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Division of Refuge Planning
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, CO 80225
303/236 8145
Approved by
Steve Guertin  Date
Regional Director, Region 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lakewood, CO
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Submitted:
Bill West  Date
Project Leader
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Lima, MT
Reviewed:
Dean Rundle  Date
Refuge Supervisor (MT, UT, WY)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
Approved:
Richard A. Coleman  Date
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
Contents
Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................... vii1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 11.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ................................................................................1.2 Early History of Conservation .................................................................................1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System .......................................1.4 National and Regional Mandates .............................................................................1.5 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ........................................1.6 Ecosystem Description and Threats .......................................................................1.7 Planning Process ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 4 5 6 10 122 The Refuge ................................................................................................................................................................... 172.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .......................................2.2 Special Values of the Refuge ....................................................................................2.3 Purposes ......................................................................................................................2.4 Vision ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 25 26 262.5 Goals ................................................................................................................................................................... 262.6 Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................................. 273 Refuge Resources and Description .............................................................................................................................. 353.1 Physical Environment ...............................................................................................3.2 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................3.3 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 44 553.4 Special Management Areas ......................................................................................3.5 Public Uses ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 56 593.6 Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................................................... 603.7 Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 634 Management Direction ................................................................................................................................................ 67 4.1 Management Focus .......................................................................................................................................... 674.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ................................................................................................Lake, Pond, and Marsh Habitat Goal .............................................................................................................Riparian Habitat Goal .....................................................................................................................................Wet Meadow, Grassland, and Shrub-steppe Habitat Goal ..........................................................................Aspen Forest, Mixed Coniferous Forest, and Woodland Habitat Goal ....................................................Visitor Services and Cultural Resources Goal ............................................................................................. 68 68 75 80 86 87Refuge Operations Goal ..................................................................................................................................4.3 Staffing and Funding .......................................................................................................................................4.4 Step-down Management Plans ........................................................................................................................4.5 Partnership Opportunities ...............................................................................................................................4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 92 94 94 95 95Glossary............................................................................................................................................................................................... 97ii CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Appendices A Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................................ 103B Key Legislation and Policies............................................................................................................................. 127C Section 7 Biological Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 131D Preparers ............................................................................................................................................................. 135E Environmental Compliance ............................................................................................................................... 137F Compatibility Determinations .......................................................................................................................... 141G Species Lists ...................................................................................................................................................... 159H Fire Management Program ............................................................................................................................... 183 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 187Figures 1 Location of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........................................................ 2 2 Physiographic area map of the United States. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within physiographic region 64 ..................................................................................... 7 3 Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem map ....................................... 11 4 CCP and environmental analysis process steps ...................................................................................... 12 5 Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge approved acquisition boundary and acquired lands—refuge base map............................................................................................... 20 6 Conservation easements within the Centennial Valley .......................................................................... 24 7 Significant declines in annual, December, and January precipitation totals between 1948 and 2005 ........................................................................................................................ 37 8 Mean annual, March, and April air temperatures at Lakeview, Montana, between 1949 and 2005. Significant increases are shown for the months of March and April ............................................................................................................................... 38 9 Representative flow rates for Red Rock, Odell, and Tom creeks at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge…………………………………………………………….. ....................................... 42 10 Habitat types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................... 45 11 Vegetation classifications found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ................................. 47 12 Wetland types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge .................................................... 49 13 Designated wilderness within the acquisition boundary of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................................... 57 14 Public use areas to be implemented at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ......................... 61 15 Intra-annual moose abundance on Red Rock Lakes NWR, 1983–1985 ............................................... 77 16 Adaptive management process .................................................................................................................. 95Tables 1 Planning process summary for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ....................................... 13 2 Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008 .......................... 21 3 Conservation easement acquisition history within the Centennial Valley, 2001–2008 ...................... 25 4 Current base funded staff at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.......................... 63 5 Nesting and foraging requirements for the five most commonly detected bird species in willow riparian habitat at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .... 79 6 Habitat requirements for target wet meadow bird species .................................................................. 81 7 Habitat requirements for target shrub-steppe and grassland, and Centennial Sandhills bird species.......................................................................................................................... 83 8 Current and proposed staff, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........................... 94 9 Step-down management plans for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................ 94 Summary
Angler on Odell Creek.
R. Madsen/USFWS
The following summary provides a brief overview of
this final comprehensive conservation plan for Red
Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, including (1)
a general description, (2) purposes of the refuge, (3)
vision and goals, (4) the planning process, and (5)
outcomes of the plan.
THE REFUGE
On April 22, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
established Red Rock Lakes Migratory Waterfowl
Refuge (later named Red Rock Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge on July 19, 1961). During the 74
years since the executive boundary was established,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has continued to
acquire lands by purchase from willing landowners
and acceptance of donations. The Service currently
owns 48,955 acres.
This refuge is one of the most remote in the
contiguous United States. It is located in the
Centennial Valley in southwestern Montana
in Beaverhead County, 47 miles west of West
Yellowstone and 38 miles east of the town of Lima.
This 48,955-acre refuge sits at 6,670–9,400 feet above
sea level and lies east of the Continental Divide near
the uppermost reach of the Missouri drainage.
Historically, management focused on protecting and
enhancing the trumpeter swan population at the
refuge. In the 1930s, the refuge and surrounding
area was their last known breeding location.
Service efforts to protect and expand the population
included winter feeding, transferring swans to
other suitable habitats, managing wetland habitats
for breeding swans, and minimizing illegal harvest
and disturbance (especially during breeding).
Today, swans actively breed and nest on the refuge.
Intensive population enhancement efforts such as
winter feeding and translocations are no longer
necessary or appropriate for species conservation,
and have been phased out. The refuge continues
to focus on providing quality wetland habitats for
nesting swans. This has resulted in a steady increase
in the number of trumpeter swans in the Centennial
Valley since the mid-1990s. The important role these
magnificent birds played in establishing this refuge is
outlined in greater detail within this document.
The refuge has some of the most naturally diverse
habitats in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The
refuge boasts the largest wetland complex within the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, as well as expansive
tracts of grassland and sagebrush-steppe habitats,
and a small amount of midelevation forested areas.
These habitats support over 230 species of birds,
including peregrine falcons, bald eagles, short-eared
owls, sandhill cranes, sage grouse, and numerous
species of waterfowl and waterbirds. Common
mammals include Shiras moose, Rocky Mountain elk,
mule and white-tailed deer, badger, coyote, and red
fox. In addition, wolves and grizzly bears have been
documented using the refuge in recent years. There
is also a remnant population of endemic adfluvial (a
iv CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
population that lives in a lake and breeds in a river)
Arctic grayling that occur on the refuge.
A full-time staff of five employees and various
temporary employees manage and study the refuge
habitats and maintain visitor facilities. Domestic
livestock grazing and prescribed fire are the primary
management tools used to maintain and enhance
upland habitats. Currently, four grazing cooperators
are using refuge lands. Water level manipulation
occurs in some areas of the refuge to improve
wetland habitats.
Approximately 12,000 people visit the refuge
annually. Two refuge roads and three county roads
that pass through the refuge account for the majority
of visitor use. The refuge is open to limited fishing,
with the majority of fishing occurring on Red Rock
Creek. In addition, the refuge is open to limited
hunting of ducks, geese, coots, elk, pronghorn, moose,
and mule and white-tailed deer.
REFUGE PURPOSES
Every refuge has a purpose for which it was
established. The purpose is the foundation upon
which to build all refuge programs, from biology
and visitor services, to maintenance and facilities.
No uses of a refuge may be allowed if they are
determined to materially detract from or interfere
with the purposes for which the refuge was
established or the mission of the Refuge System.
The refuge purpose is found in the legislative acts or
administrative orders that provide the authorities to
either transfer or acquire a piece of land for a refuge.
Over time, an individual refuge may contain lands
that have been acquired under a variety of transfer
and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge more than
one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies
identified in this final comprehensive conservation
plan are intended to support individual purposes for
which the refuge was established.
The legislative purposes for Red Rock Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge include the following:
1. “As a refuge and breeding ground for wild birds
and animals.” (Executive Order 7023, dated
April 22, 1935)
2. “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1929)
3. “Suitable for (a) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (b)
the protection of natural resources, (c)
the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species … the Secretary … may
accept and use … real … property. Such
acceptance may be accomplished under the
terms and conditions of restrictive covenants
imposed by donors.” (Refuge Recreation Act
1962)
4. “The conservation of the wetlands of the
nation in order to maintain the public benefits
they provide and to help fulfill international
obligations contained in various migratory
bird treaties and conventions.” (Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act 1986)
5. “For the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and protection of
fish and wildlife resources … for the benefit of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
in performing its activities and services. Such
acceptance may be subject to the terms of any
restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition
of servitude.” (Fish and Wildlife Act 1956)
6. "Wilderness areas … shall be administered for
the use and enjoyment of the American people
in such manner as will leave them unimpaired
for future use and enjoyment as wilderness,
and so as to provide for the protection
of these areas, the preservation of their
wilderness character, and for the gathering and
dissemination of information regarding their
use and enjoyment as wilderness." (Wilderness
Act 1964)
VISION STATEMENT
The vision for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge is based on the establishing purposes of the
refuge, resource conditions and potential, and the
issues identified during the planning process (see
Section 2.2).
The majestic Centennial Valley of southwest
Montana is an expansive mosaic of high-elevation
wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, and forests
framed by dramatic mountain peaks. Through
partnerships and conservation programs, the
valley has maintained its biological integrity
and is a working landscape that remains largely
undeveloped.
To this end, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge is a conservation leader in the valley
working to maintain, mimic, and where
appropriate, restore natural processes to create and
sustain native habitat for migratory and resident
fish and wildlife. Visitors have a sense of solitude
and wildness that lifts their spirits and stirs their
souls. This first-hand experience with the refuge
encourages people to participate as stewards, not
only of the refuge, but also of the natural resources
in their own communities.
GOALS
The goals described below help the staff achieve the
vision for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
Summary v
Lake, Pond, and Marsh habitat GoaL
Provide habitat for breeding and staging migratory birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that maintains the biological diversity and integrity of montane wetland systems.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Maintain the processes necessary to sustain the biological diversity and integrity of native riparian vegetation for migratory breeding birds, native fishes, and wintering ungulates.
Wet MeadoW, GrassLand, and shrub-stePPe habitat GoaL
Provide structurally complex native meadow, grassland, and shrub-steppe habitats, within a watershed context, for upland-nesting migratory birds, sagebrush-dependent species, rare plant species, and other resident wildlife.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Create and maintain aspen stands of various age classes within a mosaic of coniferous forest and shrubland for cavity-nesting birds and other migratory and resident wildlife.
Visitor serViCes and CuLturaL resourCes GoaL
Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, interpretation, and outreach opportunities that nurture an appreciation and understanding of the unique natural and cultural resources of the Centennial Valley, for visitors and local community members of all abilities, while maintaining the primitive and remote experience unique to the refuge.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, funding, and volunteer programs.
PLANNING PROCESS
In 2006, a planning team of refuge and other Service staff gathered to begin planning the future direction of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The planning process included designing a vision for the refuge, along with goals to reach that vision. The team invited the state and various tribes to serve on the planning team. We received a commitment from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to participate in the process. In June 2006, a notice of intent was published in the Federal Register and planning updates were mailed inviting the public to participate in the planning process and public scoping meetings. A mailing list of about 250 names was created which included private citizens; local, regional, and state government representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; tribal governments; and nonprofit organizations. Key issues (habitat, wildlife, fisheries, visitor use, and refuge operations) were identified during analysis of the topics raised by refuge staff, partners, and the public. The unique qualities and values of the refuge were also identified. The team determined which of these qualities and issues were key to achieving the vision and goals. These were addressed throughout the planning process and in the comprehensive conservation plan. Four alternatives were developed for addressing substantive issues and managing refuge programs. The draft environmental assessment and comprehensive conservation plan was released to the public in September 2008. Two public meetings were held and the public was given 60 days to review the draft plan. In addition to the public meetings, over 100 additional comments were received. Through the environmental analysis process, including internal and public reviews, the Service has selected alternative B from the draft environmental assessment and comprehensive conservation plan. Substantive public comments were addressed in the final plan, resulting in modifications to the final document. Responses to public comments are summarized in appendix A. This alternative is now the final comprehensive conservation plan. Implementation of this plan will be monitored throughout its 15-year effective period.
ISSUES
Several key issues were identified during the planning process that affect the refuge such as habitat loss and fragmentation caused by residential development; inadequate monitoring of the current grazing program to determine its effectiveness as a management tool; the effect on the refuge of loss of wetlands throughout the United States; the scarcity of information on the ecology of montane (the zone below the subalpine zone) wetlands; providing suitable habitat for migratory birds, including trumpeter swans; maintaining one of the last known endemic populations of adfluvial Arctic grayling; management of fishing and hunting; management and improvments to trails, roads, and signage, while maintaining the wilderness characteristics of the refuge; the ecology of the Centennial Sandhills; stream restoration; invasive plant species; aquatic nuisance species; law enforcement; inadequate staffing; and fire management. vi CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
E XPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE PLAN
Based on the analysis document included in the environmental assessment in the draft comprehensive conservation plan, the Service’s director for region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) approved alternative B for implementation. The key actions for this plan are summarized in the following section. A complete description of all objectives and strategies are found in chapter 4.
Management under alternative B acknowledges the importance of naturally functioning ecological communities on the refuge. However, changes to the landscape (for example, human alterations to the landscape, created wetlands, and species in peril requiring special management actions) prevent management of the refuge solely as a naturally functioning ecological community. Because some of these changes are significant, some refuge habitats will require “hands on” management actions during the life of this plan. Visitor services programs (such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, interpretation, and outreach programs) will be improved and expanded while maintaining the wilderness characteristics of the refuge.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There will be improved management of wetland habitats for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. Management will focus on maintaining high wetland productivity through infrequent drawdowns of modified and created wetlands to benefit breeding and migrating waterfowl. The management of riparian areas will be designed to benefit migratory bird species, and moose and Arctic grayling. A riparian habitat is the area along a natural watercourse, such as a river or stream. Some modified wetlands will be restored back to free-flowing streams and associated riparian corridors. Management actions (such as prescriptive grazing and prescribed fire) will only occur on the refuge to achieve specific habitat and wildlife objectives, with increased and improved oversight, monitoring, and research (when appropriate) conducted to assess if management objectives are being met. The refuge will continue to support the “Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans” (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans 2008).
Visitor serViCes
Management will emphasize improving and maintaining high-quality public opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation for visitors of all abilities. Visitors will be better oriented to the refuge through accurate brochures and limited signage. Some of the criteria for all visitor services programs is to ensure (1) all proposed public uses are compatible, (2) visitors know that they are visiting a national wildlifie refuge, (3) visitors understand the specific regulations in place to provide for their safety and protection of the refuge resources and wildlife, and (4) any additional visitor facilities and signage compliment the refuge’s wilderness setting. Additional environmental education and interpretation opportunities will be provided in order to better orient the public, while fostering support for refuge programs through a better understanding and awareness of the values of the refuge and Centennial Valley. Hunting programs will continue or be modified or expanded to provide quality hunting experiences while ensuring that trumpeter swans and other priority migratory birds are provided protected nesting and resting areas. An auto tour route along roads open to the public will be developed and inerpreted through a brochure and minimal signage. A blind will be provided for photographers and hunters with disabilities.
FaCiLities and staFF
Refuge and visitor services facilities will continue to be maintained, including historical structures that are being used. Staff numbers and refuge housing have remained static since the 1950s. During this time, refuge visitor numbers have grown, programs and issues have become more complex, and there are greater opportunities to better understand and manage refuge resources. The refuge currently has five full-time staff members, including one biologist. To carry out this plan, additional staff will be required including a full-time wildlife biologist, range technician, temporary visitor services specialist, temporary office assistant, and permanent seasonal maintenance worker. At least three temporary biological science technicians will be recruited for the summer field season. One permanent refuge staff member will be required to maintain law enforcement credentials. Up to four residences will be needed to accommodate additional staff. These residences will complement existing refuge buildings. To accommodate additional volunteers, the refuge will construct up to three recreational vehicle concrete pads.
STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS
The comprehensive conservation plan is intended as a broad umbrella plan that provides general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, visitor services, and partnership objectives over the next 15 years. When the plan is implemented, additional step-down management plans will be developed. The purpose of the step-down management plans is to provide greater detail to managers and employees for carrying out specific actions and strategies authorized by the comprehensive conservation plan. Table 9 (chapter 4) presents the plans needed for the refuge, their status, and the next revision date.Abbreviations
ARM adaptive resource management
Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
ATV all-terrain vehicle
AUM animal unit months
BP before present
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CCP comprehensive conservation plan
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
compact Water Rights Compact
°F degrees Fahrenheit
districts wetland management districts
DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
EA environmental assessment
FMP fire management plan
FONSI finding of No Significant Impact
GS general pay schedule
GYE Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
IBA Important Bird Area
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture
MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
msl mean sea level
MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOI notice of intent
PL public law
PM particulate matter
refuge Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System
sandhills Centennial Sandhills
SAV submerged aquatic vegetation
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. United States
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WCS water control structure
WG wage grade pay schedule
WMD wetland management district
WPA Works Progress (or Project) Administration
WUI wildland-urban interface
YNP Yellowstone National Park
Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after Chapter 4.
1 Introduction
Sunset over Upper Red Rock Lake.
Michele Hernandez/USFWS
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
developed this final comprehensive conservation plan
(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management
and use of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
(refuge). This refuge is located in the Centennial
Valley in southwestern Montana in Beaverhead
County, 47 miles west of West Yellowstone and 38
miles east of the town of Lima (see figure 1). It is one
of the most remote refuges in the contiguous United
States. This CCP is intended as a broad umbrella
plan that provides general concepts and specific
wildlife, habitat, visitor services, and partnership
objectives over the next 15 years. When the plan
is implemented additional step-down management
plans will be developed. The purpose of these step-down
management plans is to provide greater detail
to managers and employees for carrying out specific
actions and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 9
(chapter 4) presents the plans needed for the refuge,
their status, and the next revision date. This chapter
provides an introduction to the CCP process and
describes the involvement of the Service, the state
of Montana, tribes, the public, and others, as well as
conservation issues and plans that affect Red Rock
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
This CCP was developed in compliance with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 “National
Wildlife Refuge System Planning” of “The Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in
this CCP meet the requirements of the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations that implement
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). Compliance with NEPA was also achieved
through involvement of the public.
This final CCP specifies the necessary actions to
achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge.
Wildlife is the first priority in refuge management,
and various public uses, including wildlife-dependent
recreation may be allowed as long as they are
determined to be compatible with the Service’s
purposes for the refuge and the mission of the refuge.
This CCP has been prepared by a planning team
comprised of refuge staff and representatives from
various state and Service programs. In addition, the
planning team used public input, public involvement,
and the planning process as described in section 1.6,
“Planning Process.” See appendix A for details about
the public involvement process.
After reviewing a wide range of public comments
and management needs, the planning team
developed alternatives for managing the refuge.
This was documented in the “Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment—
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.” The
regional director of region 6 approved alternative
B as the Service’s preferred alternative for
management of the refuge. This preferred alternative
has now become this final CCP. This action addressed
2 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 1. Location of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.Chapter 1 — Introduction 3
all substantive issues, while determining how best to achieve the purposes of the refuge.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this final CCP is to identify the role that Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide long-term guidance for managing refuge programs and activities. The CCP is needed to
■■communicate with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge System;
■■provide a clear statement of direction for managing the refuge;
■■provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
■■ensure that the Service’s management actions support the goals and intent of the Improvement Act;
■■to the extent practicable, ensure refuge plans will be consistent with the fish and wildlife conservation plans of the state and the conservation programs of tribal, public, and private partners within the ecosystem;
■■provide a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
1.2 EARLY HISTORY OF CONSERVATION
Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to take on a form unique to the world. In recent years it has come to be known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). The wildlife conservation movement arose out of the conflict between market hunters and sport hunters in the mid- to late-19th century. Market hunting increased in response to the growth in urban population fueled by the Industrial Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860 the percentage of Americans who lived in cities increased from 5% to 20%; this four-fold increase is the greatest proportional increase in urban population that ever occurred in America (Reiss 1995). The demand for meat and hides—along with feathers for the millinery trade—led to exploitation of game animals by market hunters. Along with the increase in the urban population came a new breed of hunter—one who hunted for the chase and the challenge it provided. These sport hunters valued game animals more when they were alive, as opposed to market hunters who placed value on dead animals they could bring to market. The growing legion of sport hunters fomented a national movement that resulted in state and federal governments taking responsibility for regulating the take of wildlife.
The keystone concept of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and the bedrock that allowed government to exercise control, is the Public Trust Doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). Originating in an 1842 Supreme Court decision in the Martin v. Waddell case, its origins derive from Greek and Roman law and the Magna Carta. Simply stated, wildlife belongs to no one; it is held in trust for all by government.
The seven pillars of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation are:
■■wildlife as a public trust resource
■■elimination of markets for game
■■allocation of wildlife by law
■■wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose
■■wildlife considered an international resource
■■science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy
■■democracy of hunting
These pillars have stood the test of time and have seen significant changes in approaches to wildlife conservation for over 100 years. The original conservation movement championed by Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell and others placed emphasis on stemming the decline, and programs restricting take and protecting lands were put in place. During the 1920s, conservationists realized that more was needed, and a committee comprised of Aldo Leopold, A. Willis Robertson, and other leading conservationists of the time authored the 1930 American Game Policy. This policy called for an active program of restoration of habitats and populations based on scientific research, and stable equitable funding to achieve this. Within a decade, landmark legislation fulfilled many of the needs identified, with passage of the Duck Stamp Act to fund land acquisition for national wildlife refuges, and the Pittman–Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act that shifted excise taxes imposed on firearms and ammunition to fund wildlife restoration through cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state fish and wildlife agencies. In order for states to avail themselves of these funds, they were required to pass laws that prevented revenues from hunting licenses to be diverted to any purpose other than administration of the state fish and wildlife agency.
In recent decades, the importance of overall wildlife diversity has gained more emphasis in wildlife management. All wildlife have benefited from the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation pillars, not just game animals. However, the vast majority of funding for wildlife conservation at the federal and state level comes from Pittman-Robertson excise taxes, Duck Stamp revenues, and hunting license sales. We owe the origins of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the hunters 4 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
who articulated the need and provided the funds
(Grinnell 1913). The National Wildlife Refuge
System has evolved along with the North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation, and today provides
refuge for virtually all species found in America, and
recreation for all Americans. It is a realization of
the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
to provide for science-based management of
international wildlife resources held in trust for all.
The importance of this system to our society can best
be appreciated if we were to contemplate its loss.
Wildlife connects us to the heritage of this country
and our ancestors who built our society. It connects
us as well to the natural world of which we are a part,
but from which we have become so disconnected.
To lose this connection is to lose the basis of our
humanity.
1.3 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal
federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and
plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the
Service’s major programs.
U
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s
fish and wildlife resources were declining at an
alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market
hunting. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting
and angling groups joined together and generated
the political will for the first significant conservation
measures taken by the federal government. These
actions included the establishment of the Bureau
of Fisheries in the 1870s, and in 1904, passage of
the first federal wildlife law, the Lacey Act, that
prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife
taken in violation of state laws. Beginning in 1903,
President Theodore Roosevelt created over fifty
wildlife refuges across the nation. Over the next
3 decades the United States ratified the Migratory
Bird Treaty with Great Britain; and Congress
passed laws to protect migratory birds, establish
new refuges, and create a funding source for refuge
land acquisition. In 1940, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was created within the Department of the
Interior, and existing federal wildlife functions
including law enforcement, fish management, animal
damage control, and wildlife refuge management
were combined into a single organization for the first
time.
Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores
nationally significant fisheries, conserves and
restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers
endangered species, and helps other governments
with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service
administers a federal aid program that distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fish and
wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education,
and related programs across America.
S
Service activities in Montana contribute to the state’s
economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The
following list highlights the Service’s presence and
activities:
■■ employed 142 people in Montana
■■ 407 volunteers donated more than 21,131 hours
to Service projects on refuge lands
■■ managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish
and wildlife management assistance office,
one fish health center, four ecological services
offices, and one fish technology center
■■ managed twenty-three national wildlife refuges
encompassing 1,195,828 acres (1.27% of the
state)
■■ managed five wetland management districts
(districts)
RR managed 47,884 acres of fee waterfowl
production areas
RR managed 135,320 acres under various leases
or easements
■■ hosted more than 629,950 annual visitors to
Service-managed lands
RR 112,835 hunting visits
RR 71,665 fishing visits
RR 419,062 wildlife observation visits
RR 9,905 students (8,944 in on-site programs)
participated in environmental education
programs
■■ provided $6.9 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks (MFWP) for sport fish restoration
and $6.3 million for wildlife restoration and
hunter education (generated through taxing
hunting and fishing equipment)
■■ since 1988, the Service’s Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program has helped private
landowners restore more than 27,402 wetland
acres on 2,141 sites; 320,124 upland acres on 298
sites; and 1,138 miles of river habitat
■■ paid Montana counties $315,271 under the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (money used for
any public purpose)
Chapter 1 — Introduction 5
N
In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s
first wildlife refuge for the protection of native
nesting birds. This was the first time the federal
government set aside land for wildlife. This small
but significant designation was the beginning of the
Refuge System.
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has
become the largest collection of lands and waters
in the world specifically managed for wildlife,
encompassing over 150 million acres within 550
refuges and over 3,000 waterfowl production areas
for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is
at least one refuge in every state and in each of the
Pacific and Caribbean territories.
The Improvement Act of 1997 established a clear
mission for the Refuge System.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System is to administer a national network
of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
The Improvement Act states that each national
wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge
System, which includes wetland management
districts) shall be managed to
■■ fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
■■ fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and
district;
■■ consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
■■ fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP
for each unit of the Refuge System and fully
involve the public in preparation of these plans;
■■ maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System;
■■ recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation
activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses;
■■ retain the authority of refuge managers to
determine compatible public uses.
In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the
wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge
System maintains the following principles:
■■ Wildlife comes first.
■■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness
are vital concepts in refuge and district
management.
■■ Habitats must be healthy.
■■ Growth of refuges and districts must be
strategic.
■■ The Refuge System serves as a model for
habitat management with broad participation
from others.
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service immediately began to carry
out the direction of the new legislation, including
preparation of CCPs for all national wildlife refuges
and wetland management districts. Consistent with
the Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs
in conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge
and each district is required to complete its CCP
within the 15-year schedule (by 2012).
PeoPLe and the reFuGe systeM
The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to
the quality of American lives and is an integral part
of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places
have always given people special opportunities to
have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world.
Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting,
photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife
recreation contributes millions of dollars to local
economies. In particular, money generated from
the taxing of sporting arms and ammunition, and
of fishing equipment, authorized by the Pittman–
Robertson and Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively,
have generated tens of millions of dollars. This
money, distributed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, has been used by states to increase wildlife
and fish populations, expand habitat, and train
hunters across the nation. Approximately 37 million
people visited the Refuge System in 2004, mostly to
observe wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors
are most often accommodated through nature trails,
auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and
fishing opportunities. Significant economic benefits
are being generated to the local communities that
surround refuges and wetland management districts.
Economists report that Refuge System visitors
contribute more than $1.4 billion annually to local
economies.
1.4 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
MANDATES
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the
mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, along with the designated purpose of each
refuge and district (as described in establishing
legislation, executive orders, or other establishing
documents). The key concepts and guidance of the
Refuge System are contained in the Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act),
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
“The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the
Improvement Act.
6 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible public uses on refuges and districts, and a requirement that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge and district must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and the specific purposes for which it was established. The Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status and population of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge and district.
A detailed description of these and other laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is found in appendix B. Service policies on planning and day-to-day management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.5 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge contributes to the conservation efforts outlined in the various state and national plans described here.
FuLFiLLinG the ProMise
A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999b), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the first national Refuge System conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations.
The report contains forty-two recommendations packaged with three vision statements dealing with wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with all three of these major topics. The planning team reviewed the recommendations in the document for guidance during CCP planning.
PaCiFiC FLyWay ManaGeMent PLan For the roCky Mountain PoPuLation oF truMPeter sWans
The “Pacific Flyway Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans” (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans 2008) provides broad direction to the states, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other interests engaged in cooperative management of this population. The document was developed by The Pacific Flyway Council's Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans. The plan has been periodically updated to address evolving management challenges and to incorporate new information. The Pacific Flyway Council approved the most recent revision in 2008. The 2008 plan included six objectives to (1) redistribute wintering swans, (2) rebuild the United States breeding flocks, (3) encourage the growth of Canadian flocks,
(4) increase the abundance of desirable submersed macrophytes in Henry’s Fork of the Snake River, (5) monitor the population, and (6) maintain the tundra swan hunt in the Pacific Flyway in a manner compatible with trumpeter swan restoration. The plan assigns specific tasks and time frames to carry out the strategies listed. Population objectives specific to the Centennial Valley, including the refuge, are provided in this CCP as part of the objective to rebuild the United States’ breeding flocks. In the past the refuge has used, and will continue to use, the “Pacific Flyway Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans” to determine refuge management objectives for trumpeter swans.
Partners in FLiGht
The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with the recognition of declining populations of many migratory bird species (Rich et al. 2004). The challenge is, according to the program, maintaining functional natural ecosystems in the face of human population growth. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to identify priority land bird species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity has resulted in fifty-two bird conservation plans covering the contiguous United States.
The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of bird life on this continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest species from going extinct. The second priority is to prevent uncommon species from descending into threatened status. The third priority is to “keep common birds common.”
There are fifty-eight physiographic areas, defined by similar physical geographic features, wholly or partially contained within the continental United States, and several others wholly or partially in Alaska. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within the physiographic area known as the central Rocky Mountains (see figure 2). It is a huge physiographic area, extending from northwest Wyoming to all of western Montana, the northern two-thirds of Idaho, large areas of eastern Oregon and Washington, much of southeast British Columbia, and a sliver of west Alberta. It is an area of high mountains, with elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. Glaciation has left broad flat valleys between mountain ranges. Elevation determines the dominant vegetation. The highest areas are alpine tundra. The Chapter 1 — Introduction 7
subalpine zone is dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir, with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the montane zone below that. Stand-replacing fire can change forests in either of those zones to lodgepole pine or aspen. Grass and sagebrush occur under open pine forests that grade downslope into grasslands, wetlands, woodlands, or shrub-steppe.
Approximately twenty-eight species of birds have a higher population in the central Rocky Mountains than in any other physiographic area. This is the highest such number in any physiographic area in the contiguous United States, and it seems to represent the huge size of the area and the vast amount of quality bird habitat that still exists.
Fire in higher elevation coniferous forests of the central Rocky Mountains tends to be of high intensity and low frequency. After such stand-replacing fires, either aspen or lodgepole pine occupy a site until a century or more of succession results in redominance of the site-specific hemlock, spruce, or fir species. Many birds are dependent on these different stages of succession—both black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers specialize in foraging on charred postfire trees. Dusky grouse and Williamson’s sapsucker are among those species most abundant in aspen.
A huge percentage of the central Rockies in the United States are in public ownership, mostly managed by the Forest Service. Maintenance or restoration of healthy forest ecosystems on public and private industrial lands will be the most important factor in keeping the central Rocky Mountains a healthy ecosystem for so many forest birds.
The priority bird species and habitats of the central Rocky Mountains found on the refuge include the following:
Shrub-steppe
greater sage-grouse
Wetland
American white pelican
trumpeter swan
Barrow’s goldeneye
Franklin’s gull
Riparian
calliope hummingbird
Coniferous forest
Dusky grouse
black-backed woodpecker
Aspen
Williamson’s sapsucker
red-naped sapsucker
Figure 2. Physiographic area map of the United States. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within physiographic region 64. (Source: Partners in Flight)8 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Originally written in 1985, the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986)envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific plan objectives are to increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the
1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds.
By 1985 waterfowl populations had plummeted to record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and the need for international cooperation to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the United States and Canadian governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994.
The plan is innovative because of its international scope and its implementation at the regional level. Its success depends on the strength of partnerships called “joint ventures,” involving federal, state, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and individual citizens.
Joint ventures are regional self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation through a wide array of community participation. Joint ventures develop implementation plans that focus on areas of concern identified in the plan. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within the Intermountain West Joint Venture.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) was established in June of 1994 to serve as the implementation arm of the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005b) in the Intermountain West region. The focus of the IWJV was conservation of wetland and associated habitats. The IWJV is comprised of multi-level partnerships between diverse public and private organizations who share common interest in the conservation, maintenance, and management of key ecosystems in the Intermountain West region.
The IWJV encompasses much of the Intermountain West region, from the Sierras and Cascades on the west to just east of the Rocky Mountains, and from the Mexican border on the south to the Canadian border on the north. This extensive geographic region encompasses portions of eleven western states and includes an enormous diversity of avian habitat.
In 2005 the IWJV Montana steering committee developed a “Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Western Montana” (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005a). This team divided the state of Montana into Bird Habitat Conservation Areas to be used for all bird conservation projects over the next 5 to 7 years. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located in the Centennial/Beaverhead Bird Habitat Conservation Area and has almost all of the habitat types and species identified as priorities for this region. The plan identifies this refuge as the single most important nesting area for trumpeter swans within the Intermountain West region.
The refuge will continue to work closely with the IWJV to support ongoing planning efforts and meet their objectives, by protecting high priority habitats and the species they support.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
The “Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan” (Oring et al. 2000) was released in 2000. The plan notes that perhaps one million shorebirds breed in the Intermountain West region and that millions more migrate through the area each year. The plan recognizes that finding ample high-quality fresh water will be the greatest challenge faced by shorebirds in the Intermountain West region. The shorebird plan articulates seven goals plus associated objectives and strategies related to habitat management, monitoring and assessment, research, outreach, and planning. The planning goal includes objectives to coordinate shorebird planning and projects with other migratory bird initiatives and specifically with the Intermountain West Joint Venture. The shorebird plan identifies eleven species of shorebirds that regularly breed in the region, as well as twenty-three additional species that are annual migrants. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is recognized in the plan as one of the seventy-nine managed shorebird sites.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
The “North American Waterbird Conservation Plan” provides a contiguous framework for conserving and managing colonial nesting waterbirds, including 209 species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, pelicans), wading birds (herons, ibises), and marsh birds, such as certain grebes and bitterns. The overall goal of the plan is to ensure that the distribution, diversity and abundance of populations, habitats (breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding), and important sites of waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout their ranges in North America. The geographic scope of the plan covers twenty-eight countries, from Canada to Panama, as well as Chapter 1 — Introduction 9
islands and nearshore areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. As with the Intermountain West Joint Venture and Partners in Flight, this waterbird partnership includes federal, state, and provincial wildlife agencies, individuals, and nonprofit conservation organizations. Also, as with Partners in Flight and other migratory bird plans, the “North American Waterbird Conservation Plan” includes a goal to establish conservation action, and exchange information and expertise with other bird conservation initiatives. The plan also calls for establishment of Practical Units for Planning for terrestrial habitats; Western Montana, including Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, falls within the Intermountain West Region Practical Units for Planning.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
When federally listed threatened or endangered species occur at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, management goals and strategies in their respective recovery plans will be followed. Currently no threatened or endangered species reside on the refuge; nevertheless, this may change as species are listed, or as listed species are discovered on refuge lands. The refuge may have incidental visits by various listed species. To ensure the impacts to any of these species were considered in this document, the Service conducted a biological evaluation of the actions in this CCP per section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see appendix C).
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
“The Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) covers all vertebrate species known to exist in Montana, including both game and nongame species, as well as some invertebrate species, such as freshwater mussels and crayfish. From the early years of fish and wildlife management, the focus has been placed on game animals and their related habitats because most of the agency’s funding has been provided by hunters and anglers.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks does not intend to reduce its focus on important game species and maintains that conserving particular types of habitats will benefit a variety of game and nongame species. With this new funding mechanism and conservation strategy in place, MFWP believes that managing fish and wildlife more comprehensively is a natural progression in the effective conservation of Montana’s remarkable fish and wildlife resources (MFWP 2005). Although game species are included in MFWP’s conservation strategy, the priority is species and their related habitats “in greatest conservation need.” This means focus areas, community types, and species that are significantly degraded or declining, are federally listed, or where important distribution and occurrence information used to assess the status of individuals and groups of species are lacking. Because management of game species has been largely successful over the last 100 years, most game species have populations that are stable or increasing, and fewer are identified as “in greatest conservation need” (forty-nine nongame, eleven game). MFWP’s conservation strategy uses five ecotypes to describe the broad areas of Montana’s landscape that have similar characteristics. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located in the intermountain/foothill grassland ecotype, a mosaic of private and public land that extends from the glaciated Flathead River Valley to the north, south to Centennial Valley, and east to Little Belt Foothills. This western Montana ecotype harbors more wildlife communities than any other in Montana.
Within each of the ecotypes, Tier 1 (greatest need of conservation) geographic focus areas were identified for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of the state. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Southwest Montana Intermontane Basin and Valley focus area. The Tier 1 priority species for this area include the western toad, common loon, trumpeter swan, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, long-billed curlew, flammulated owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat, pygmy rabbit, great basin pocket mouse, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx.
The “Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy” outlines five conservation concerns and strategies for the Southwest Montana Intermontane Basin and Valley Focus Area. The key concerns are:
■■habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity as a result of human population growth and development
■■invasive or exotic plant species
■■altered fire system
■■range or forest management practices
■■streamside residential development
Fisheries ProGraM, Vision For the Future
The Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has played a vital role in conserving and managing fish and other aquatic resources since 1871. Today, the Fisheries Program is a critical partner with states, tribes, other governments, other Service programs, private organizations, public institutions, and interested citizens in a larger effort to conserve these important resources. The nation’s fish and other aquatic resources are among the richest and most diverse in the world. These resources have helped support the nation’s growth by providing enormous ecological, social, and economic benefits. Despite efforts by the Service and others 10 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
to conserve aquatic resources, a growing number are declining at alarming rates. Loss of habitat and invasive species are the two most significant threats to the diversity of aquatic systems. One-third of the nation’s freshwater fish species are threatened or endangered, 72% of freshwater mussels are imperiled, and the number of threatened and endangered species has tripled in the last 20 years. Clearly, there is increasing urgency to identify and carry out actions that will reverse these alarming trends before it is too late (USFWS 2002a).
In order to better conserve and manage fish and other aquatic resources in the face of increasing threats, the Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries Program and develop a vision outlined in the document, “Fisheries Program, Vision for the Future” (USFWS 2002a). The vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program is working with partners to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to support federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public. To achieve this vision, the Fisheries Program will work with its partners to
■■protect the health of aquatic habitats,
■■restore fish and other aquatic resources,
■■provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
One of the objectives in this document states:
Objective 2.2: Restore declining fish and other aquatic resource populations before they require listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Fisheries Program will increase its support and assistance in stopping and reversing declines of native fish and other aquatic resources, including restoring fish passage and rebuilding populations.
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge has one of the only endemic adfluvial populations of Arctic grayling in the contiguous United States, along with a native population of Westslope cutthroat trout. An endemic population is native to the region and its distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. This population of Arctic grayling are lake-dwelling for most of the year, but use rivers and streams to spawn. Both of these populations are imperiled due to a significant loss of habitat, disease, and impacts from other nonnative fish species. In order to achieve this objective of restoring declining fish populations, the refuge will need to take management actions to enhance these species and their habitats, while ensuring that the purposes of the refuge are being met.
1.6 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS AND THREATS
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia Rivers Ecosystem. This ecosystem lies within the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains physiographic provinces and includes a large part of Montana, northern Wyoming, and a small section of western North Dakota (see figure 3). Some of the wildest and most unpopulated country in the contiguous United States occurs within this 185,000 square mile area, including such significant protected areas as Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Bob Marshall Wilderness, and the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Wildlife in these areas is abundant and diverse.
Threatened and endangered species are actively protected and managed within various areas of this ecosystem; those species include grizzly bear, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, bull trout, pallid sturgeon, piping plover, least tern, and water howellia. Some of these species, such as the grizzly bear and gray wolf, are only listed in certain areas. Both the gray wolf and grizzly bear have been observed on the refuge. Sitting astride the Continental Divide, the ecosystem gives rise to the Columbia and Missouri rivers. Three main habitat groups are predominant throughout the ecosystem: (1) mountain habitat, (2) river habitat, and (3) prairie habitat. Mountain habitat groups contain a number of habitat types. Arid lands in the valleys have mixed wheatgrass and fescue grasslands along with considerable acreage of sagebrush stands. Surrounding mountains are of moderate elevation and are cloaked with conifer forests. The highest elevations have Douglas-fir or spruce-fir forests or alpine vegetation. Gray wolves, grizzly bears, wolverines, and various species of trout occur in these habitat groups. River habitat groups are comprised of a mix of native prairie grass and sagebrush-steppe. Cottonwood- and shrub-dominated communities are also common. Many of the same animals that are present in the mountain habitat are present in the river habitat. Prairie habitat groups include woodlands and grass- or sage-dominated areas where adequate moisture for a forest canopy is not available. Higher elevations host subalpine communities and rock outcrops. Prairie grasslands or shrub-steppe dominate at lower elevations, with riparian areas along watercourses. Black-tailed prairie dogs, bald eagles, ferruginous hawks, and a diverse group of fish can be found in this habitat.
Key threats to the ecosystem include invasive plant species, conversion of native prairie to agriculture, and habitat fragmentation from development and population growth. Priorities for the Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia Rivers Ecosystem Chapter 1 — Introduction 11
Figure 3. Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem map.12 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
include ensuring natural and healthy ecological processes for the area, and making sure that economic development complements environmental protection.
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is also part of an area designated as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), an area roughly the size of West Virginia which straddles the states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
Within the GYE, the headwaters of three major river systems—the Yellowstone, the Snake, and the Green—support a renowned trout fishery and are the lifeblood of agriculture, towns, and cities.
The 18 million acre GYE is one of the largest, relatively intact temperate zone ecosystems left on earth. This area includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, portions of seven surrounding national forests, Bureau of Land Management lands, three national wildlife refuges, and state and private lands. Vast, roadless landscapes continue to be the hallmark of the GYE, the source of its attraction as well as its ecological health. They include designated wilderness areas within the region's seven national forests, Red Rock Lakes National Wilderness, undeveloped portions of two national parks, and also the surrounding lands managed by a number of federal and state agencies which have, as yet, neither roads nor legal restrictions on road-building.
In the GYE’s natural tapestry, wildlife is a spectacular element, attracting worldwide interest and awe. The ecosystem is home to one of the largest herds of elk in North America, and is one of the few remaining areas in the contiguous United States where the magnificent grizzly bear still roams in significant numbers. The GYE serves as breeding and wintering ground for trumpeter swans, and is home to the largest free-ranging herd of bison in the contiguous United States. The GYE’s relatively intact natural landscape appears to retain its full complement of vertebrate wildlife. Mountain lion and wolverine still roam its mountains, bighorn sheep scramble among its cliffs, moose browse its willows, and eagles grace the open sky (Greater Yellowstone Coalition 2006).
Residential development is the greatest threat to this ecosystem—threatening ranching, destroying wildlife habitat, disrupting wildlife migrations, and compromising natural processes such as fire.
1.7 PLANNING PROCESS
This final CCP for the refuge follows the Improvement Act and NEPA, and the implementing regulations of both acts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued its Refuge System planning policy in 2000. This policy established requirements and guidance for refuge and district plans—including CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure that planning efforts follow the Improvement Act. The planning policy identified several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (see figure 4), which begins with preplanning.
Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process for the preparation of this final CCP. The Service began the pre-planning process in August 2005 with the establishment of a planning team. The planning team is comprised primarily of Service personnel from the refuge and representatives from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Some additional contributors included other Service divisions, U.S. Geological Service, Montana State University, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (see appendix D). During pre-planning, the team developed a mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities list. Over the course of pre-planning and public scoping, the planning team collected available information about the resources of the refuge and the surrounding areas. This information was first summarized in chapter 4 of the draft environmental assessment (EA). This information has been retained in this final CCP in chapter 3. During preplanning, the refuge hosted three separate biological workshops inviting eighteen individuals from various
Figure 4. CCP and environmental analysis process steps.
Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.
Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process. Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Graphic with text in 8 boxes describing the steps and their sequence planning process.Chapter 1 — Introduction 13
Table 1. Planning process summary for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
Date
Event
Outcome
August 16, 2005
Kickoff meeting
CCP overview developed, planning team list developed, purposes identified, initial issues and qualities list developed, development of mailing list started.
September 20, 2005
Visitor services review
Visitor services programs and facilities evaluated by education and visitor services staff.
February 21, 2006
Biological review
Gathered information from a team of researchers and biologists on the natural processes that formed and continue to influence Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
May 17, 2006
Biological review
Worked with contracted U.S. Geological Survey researcher to evaluate current biological programs and needs.
June 12, 2006
Notice of intent
Published notice of intent in Federal Register to start public scoping.
August 1, 2006
Planning update
First planning update sent to mailing list describing planning process and announcing upcoming public scoping meetings.
August 15, 2006
Public scoping meeting,
Ennis, MT
Offered public opportunity to learn about the CCP and provide comments.
August 15, 2006
Vision and goals workshop
Developed draft vision and goals statements.
August 16, 2006
Public scoping meeting,
Dillon, MT
Offered public opportunity to learn about the CCP and provide comments.
September 9, 2006
Public scoping meeting,
Lima, MT
Offered public opportunity to learn about the CCP and provide comments.
September 11, 2006
Biological review
Panel of biologists and researchers gathered to review and evaluate biological program and issues.
January 5, 2007
Focus group meeting
(realty issues)
Staff and realty specialists discussed boundary and conservation easement program issues.
January 10, 2007
Alternatives netmeeting workshop
Developed draft alternatives table.
February 12, 2007
Objectives and strategies workshop
Finalized alternatives table, selected proposed action, and began writing objectives/strategies.
April 2007
Draft CCP
Began writing draft CCP/EA.
July 11–25, 2008
Internal review of draft CCP
Draft CCP is reviewed by Service, state, and other federal partners.
September 26, 2008
NOA of public draft CCP
Notified the public that the CCP/EA was available for a 30-day review.
October 8, 2008
Public meeting in Lima, Montana
Offered public opportunity to learn about the draft CCP and provide comments.
October 9, 2008
Public meeting in Dillon, Montana
Offered public opportunity to learn about the draft CCP and provide comments.14 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Table 1. Planning process summary for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
DateEventOutcome
October 20, 2008
Extended comment period
Provided the public an additional 30 days in
which to comment on the draft CCP.
November 26, 2008
Comment period ends
Public comments must be emailed or
postmarked by this date.
January 8–9, 2009
Planning team meeting
Based on substantive public and internal
review comments, discussed needed revisions.
February 3, 2009
Meeting with refuge supervisor
Discussed public comments.
March 2009
Final CCP prepared
Prepared final CCP and made necessary
revisions based on substantive public
comments.
June 15, 2009
FONSI signed
Regional Director approved alternative B as
the proposed action and signed the Finding of
No Significant Impact.
December 2009
Final CCP completed
Finished editing final CCP for printing.
state and federal agencies who are experts in their fields. These groups discussed the challenges and opportunities identified by the refuge staff and the public and shared their expertise on options for managing the refuge in the future. A visitor services review was also conducted.
In compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the general public is consulted through the scoping process, including public meetings and solicitation of comments. This provides opportunities for the public to share concerns and issues they would like addressed, while providing their ideas on how to best manage the refuge.
Coordination With the PubLiC
A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft CCP and EA was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2006. A mailing list of more than 250 names including private citizens; local, regional, and state government representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; and interested organizations was prepared during pre-planning (see appendix A).
The first planning update issue was sent in July 2006 to everyone on the mailing list. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP process, along with an invitation to the public scoping meetings. Public scoping meetings were also announced through state and local media. Each planning update included a comment form to give the public an opportunity to provide written comments. Emails were also accepted at the refuge’s email address: redrocks@fws.gov.
Three public scoping meetings were held within 2 hours distance of the refuge office. There were thirty-three attendees, primarily local citizens,
including surrounding ranchers. Following a presentation about the refuge and an overview of the CCP and NEPA processes, attendees were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. Verbal comments were recorded, and each attendee was given a comment form to submit additional thoughts or questions in writing.
All written comments had to be postmarked by September 15, 2006. A total of fifty-five additional written comments were received throughout the scoping process. All substantive comments were shared with the planning team and considered throughout the planning process.
The draft CCP and EA was released to the public on September 26, 2008 through a notice of availability published in the Federal Register. Copies of either the draft CCP and EA and/or a planning update were mailed to individuals on the planning mailing list. Initially the public was offered a 30-day review period. Numerous requests from the public and state representatives resulted in an additional 30 days being granted, for a total of 60 days for public review. Two public meetings were held on October 8 in Lima, Montana and on October 9 in Dillon, Montana. These meetings were announced in the planning update and through the local and statewide media. Over thirty individuals participated in these meetings. A short presentation was given on the draft plan, followed by an opportunity for participants to offer comments. All comments needed to be received or postmarked by November 26, 2008.
In addition to oral and written comments received during these public meetings, the planning team received over 100 additional written comments during the public review process. The planning team reviewed all comments both individually Chapter 1 — Introduction 15
and as a team. Numerous modifications, including clarifications, were made to this final document based on the public review. Responses to substantive comments are summarized in appendix A.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
At the start of the planning process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s region 6 director sent a letter to MFWP, inviting them to participate in the planning process. Since then, numerous state biologists have been involved in the planning process and have also participated in biological reviews of the refuge’s management program. At the start of the process, the offices of each of the three state members of Congress (then Senator Conrad Burns, Senator Max Baucus, and Representative Dennis Rehburg) were sent letters notifying them of the planning process and inviting them to comment on the plan. Four other Montana state senators and representatives and Governor Brian Schweitzer were sent similar letters. The state was provided copies of both the internal and public review drafts. Based on state comments, various changes were made to the final CCP.
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Early in the planning process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s region 6 director sent a letter to tribes identified as possibly having interest in participating in the planning efforts at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Those contacted were the Northern Cheyenne, Crow, Eastern Shoshone, and Arapaho tribal councils. The tribal councils did not submit responses to the region 6 letter; nevertheless, the councils were provided planning updates and opportunities to comment. During public review of the draft CCP, we received a comment that several other tribes may have historically used the Centennial Valley and the refuge at one time. These tribes included the Nez Pierce, Confederated Salish and Kootenai, Shoshone-Bannock, and the Blackfeet Nation. We provided each a copy of the public draft and offered 30 days in which to comment on the document. No comments were received.
PLan aMendMent and FinaL deCision
An intra-Service Section 7 evaluation was completed on the document by the Service’s Ecological Services office to evaluate impacts to threatened and endangered species (See appendix C). The Service’s region 6 regional director considered the environmental effects of each alternative and the public comments on the draft document and approved alternative B as Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge’s final 15-year comprehensive conservation plan. The decision is disclosed in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) included in this CCP (appendix E). Implementation of the CCP will begin with the regional director’s signature and publication of the final CCP. The final compatibility determinations are found in this document under appendix F. This CCP provides long-term guidance for management decisions. It establishes goals, objectives, and strategies (chapter 4) needed to accomplish refuge purposes, and identifies the Service’s best estimate of future needs.
This CCP details program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and thus are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. This CCP does not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operation and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisitions.2 The Refuge
Grass and sage habitats looking east into the Centennial Mountains.
Mike Parker/USFWS
This chapter explains the purposes, establishment,
management history and the special values of Red
Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the planning
process, including the development of the vision and
goals, and the planning issues.
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION,
AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY
It is impossible to speak of Red Rock Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge history without first addressing
the history of the Centennial Valley where the
refuge lies, and the role the refuge has played in the
recovery and continued conservation of trumpeter
swans, other waterfowl, and one of the last remaining
endemic population of adfluvial Arctic grayling in the
contiguous United States.
The Centennial Valley was well known by American
Indians long before the homestead era, as evidenced
from the journal writing of explorer Osborne Russell.
Upon entering the Centennial Valley in 1835, Russell
wrote that the valley from which “flows the head
stream of the Missouri … was full of Buffaloe when
we entered it and large numbers of which were killed
by hunters …We repeatedly saw signs of Blackfeet
about us to waylay the Trappers …We stopped
at this place to feast on fat Buffaloe” (Russell and
Haines 1965).
The Centennial Valley provided good seasonal
trapping and hunting grounds and was a favored
route between the headwaters of the upper Big Hole
River and the Yellowstone River.
In 1876, Mrs. William C. Orr, one of the partners in
the P&O Ranch, named this 60-mile long,
east-west running valley—the Centennial Valley—to
commemorate the nation’s Centennial. Along with
other ranches, the P&O Ranch summered livestock
in the valley. In the late 1890s, the Centennial Valley
was homesteaded. In addition, the valley and in
particular this area that was to become a national
wildlife refuge, was used by hunting clubs, with
people traveling long distances to hunt waterfowl
in the area (Beaverhead County History Book
Association 1990).
The long winters and great distances to market made
subsistence difficult at best, with few homesteaders
remaining after the Great Depression. Many
sold their land back to the Federal Resettlement
Administration during the 1930s.
T
Winston E. Banko was refuge manager of Red Rock
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge from 1950–57. Much
of the following history is from his 1960 Monograph
“The Trumpeter Swan; Its History, Habits and
Population in the United States” (Banko 1960).
18 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Like so many other species of wildlife in North American history, the trumpeter swan was exploited for economic reasons. This fact, perhaps more than any other, caused a decline in numbers and range of this species. By early accounts, the trumpeter was relatively abundant in North America but declined by the late 1800s because the plumage of these great birds was valued by early colonists as an article of frontier commerce. Their skins were used for the manufacture of powder puffs and clothing adornment with most of the early market in Europe. The quill feathers made for excellent pens.
During the late 1820s the traffic in swan skins apparently increased. C.P. Wilson, editor of the Hudson’s Bay Company publication, “The Beaver,” furnished notes regarding the Company’s trade in swan skins. He wrote, “In regard to the old sale lists … 5,072 skins were sold in London on 16th April, 1828, and on the following 10th December 347,298 goose, swan and eagle quills and wings were sold. On the 29th October that year the Company imported 4,263 swan skins from York Factory and Mckenzie River Districts” (Banko 1960).
In 1828, John James Audubon set down a significant account of an Indian swan hunt. These notes record “the taking of swans specifically for their plumage in the United States proper.” Audubon’s account describes the deliberate killing of at least fifty swans by Indians near the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers (in Kentucky), the skins of which were “all intended for the ladies of Europe” (Banko 1960).
Although the original status of early swan populations inhabiting the Centennial is obscure, their occurrence can be traced from early times. From the 1880s to 1910, the early existence of these birds in the area is outlined. This also agrees with information collected by George Wright and Ben H. Thompson, though the actual level of these populations was never recorded (Banko 1960).
Exploitation of swans continued in the Red Rock Lake area right up until establishment of the refuge. Some duck clubs in the area of today’s refuge were shooting the birds when opportunity presented itself. The Wetmores and the Hansons, local residents, were selling live captured birds for as much as $50 apiece to zoos, parks, aviary owners, and wealthy buyers until at least 1919 (Giles et al. 2006).
The plight of the trumpeter swan was a symptom of the widespread assault on wetlands and the overharvesting of waterfowl, all of which was compounded by the drought of the early 1930s, classically known as the Dust Bowl era.
Conservation-minded citizens wanted the government to save waterfowl and their habitat. Conservation giants Aldo Leopold and Ding Darling emerged to persuade the government that there was a problem, and to present a plan for acquiring wetland habitat. As newly appointed head of the Biological Survey, Darling hired J. Clark Salyer as the new chief of refuges, to select lands where new refuges could be established and wetlands could be restored to bring waterfowl back from the brink of extinction. The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, key legislation providing funding for federal acquisition of waterfowl habitat through the sale of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, was passed in 1934 (Banko 1960).
In 1934 George Wright, Roger Toll, and Ben H. Thompson, all employees of Yellowstone National Park (YNP), were concerned about the plight of the trumpeter swan. The Red Rock Lake area was their last stronghold near YNP and for that matter in the contiguous United States. The U.S. Biological Survey had considered the area for refuge status in the early 1920s, recognizing the value of the area to waterfowl (Sperry 1922). However, local duck clubs persuaded decision-makers not to proceed. George Wright and Ben Thompson persuaded Ding Darling to reconsider the Red Rock Lakes area in 1934. In 1935 Mr. Basyl Kercheval, of the U.S. Biological Survey, wrote a report and indicated that, “The economic situation is grave. A large part of the land is mortgaged. Taxes are delinquent in many cases. Livestock in very (sic) instance is mortgaged to various agencies for feed. It is conceded by every one that the Red Rock Lakes area has been the foremost breeding, nesting and resting place for migratory waterfowl with the state of Montana” (Kercheval 1935).
All of these efforts led to President Franklin D. Roosevelt establishing Red Rock Lakes Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (later named Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge on July 19, 1961) under Executive Order 7023, signed on April 22, 1935, “as a refuge and breeding ground for wild birds and animals.” On September 4, 1935, President Roosevelt enlarged the refuge under Executive Order 7172, “provided, that any private lands within the areas described shall become a part of the refuge upon the acquisition of title or lease thereto by the United States.”
Although trumpeter swans and other waterfowl populations have rebounded considerably from the time the refuge was established, the Service recognizes its continued role in conserving these populations. The refuge continues to provide critical nesting, breeding, and resting areas for migratory birds. Additionally, the refuge recognizes its role in meeting regional, national, and international migratory bird conservation objectives by participating in such collaborative efforts as the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986) and the “Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans” (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Populations of Trumpeter Swans 2008).Chapter 2 — The Refuge 19
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
The richness of the refuge’s wetlands, lakes, and streams were and continue to be of great value to a diverse suite of wildlife species including native Westslope cutthroat trout and one of the last known endemic populations of adfluvial Arctic grayling in the contiguous United States. Photograph caption: Photograph credit:
This endemic Arctic grayling population has long been recognized by the Service as an important priority species on the refuge. A letter dated July 15, 1941 from the Service states, “the streams on Red Rock Lakes Refuge are some of the more important grayling streams in the United States, and it is the desire of the Division of Wildlife Refuges to preserve these streams for this purpose.” This same letter discusses how the planting of all nonnative fish, particularly eastern brook trout, should be prohibited to protect grayling (Leach 1941). A letter dated June 15, 1952 from the state of Montana to the Service describes the Red Rock drainage, which flows through the refuge, as a grayling sanctuary where all steps possible would be taken to preserve this unique population of grayling. It discusses how grayling and cutthroat trout were negatively impacted by the introduction of nonnative fish including rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and brown trout (Allen 1952). There are numerous other documents over the years, many generated by the Service including refuge managers, that describe a grayling sanctuary on the refuge and the importance of managing for the conservation of this species. Today, Arctic grayling in the Centennial Valley remain imperiled and are a species of concern in the state of Montana.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The refuge’s conservation role has continued to expand over the years. This is particularly true in the conservation and recovery of imperiled migratory land birds, a management responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1990, the Partners in Flight program was launched in response to growing concerns about population declines of many land bird species that were not included in existing conservation initiatives. The overall objective of this initiative is to help species at risk while “keeping common birds common.” The refuge is an important area for numerous Service and state recognized species at risk, including Brewer’s sparrow and Swainson’s hawk. The refuge’s grassland, riparian, and shrub-steppe habitats are important nesting and feeding areas for these and numerous other resident and migratory land birds. Historically, efforts were made to monitor these populations and properly manage their habitats, however, much is left to be learned and done to ensure their survival and conserve these species.
There are other numerous resident wildlife species that depend on the rich resources found on this refuge for all or part of their lifecycle. Many of these are state-managed species, such as the Shiras moose and Rocky Mountain elk. The refuge has a long history of cooperatively managing these native wildlife species to meet state and refuge management objectives.
Land ProteCtion and aCquisition history
During the 74 years since the executive boundary was established, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has continued to acquire lands by purchase from willing landowners and acceptance of donations.The Service currently owns 48,955 acres within this approved boundary (see figure 5). Table 2 summarizes the acquisition history and the means of acquisition between 1935 and 2008.
CentenniaL VaLLey ConserVation easeMent ProGraM
The refuge expanded its conservation efforts in the Centennial Valley in March 2001 through the initiation of a Centennial Valley Conservation Easement Program. This work is outlined in an environmental assessment and land protection plan (USFWS 2001). The purposes of the Centennial Valley Conservation Easement Program are to
■■protect native wet meadows, wetlands, uplands, and mountain foothills from future conversions to second and recreational home uses;
■■protect habitat integrity by preventing fragmentation;
■■preserve key wilderness values and views throughout and adjacent to Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge;
■■promote landscape integrity in order to maintain, sustain, and enhance the historic plant, animal, and insect biodiversity of native prairie habitats and associated ranching heritage;
■■minimize invasive plant infestations from soil disturbance, road building, and increased traffic resulting from rural housing development;20 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 5. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge approved acquisition boundary and acquired lands—refuge base map.Chapter 2 — The Refuge 21
Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008.
Date Acquired
Acres Acquired
Means of Acquisition
4/22/35
9,218
Reserved from Public Domain
4/23/35
594
Reserved from Public Domain
12/2/35
160
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/5/35
929
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/6/35
212
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/7/35
1,912
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/12/35
3,209
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/17/35
160
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/18/35
880
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/21/35
1,030
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
12/31/35
480
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
1/14/36
360
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
1/20/36
352
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
1/18/36
254
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
3/3/36
1,033
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/30/36
60
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
10/10/36
680
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
4/2/37
320
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
6/10/37
202
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
6/10/37
1,515
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/7/37
519
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
8/11/37
231
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
8/19/37
517
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund22 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008.
Date Acquired
Acres Acquired
Means of Acquisition
8/19/37
254
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
10/2/37
12
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
11/17/37
1,292
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
5/16/38
3
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
390
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
307
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
3,447
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
648
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
296
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
499
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
820
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
195
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
8
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/18/39
398
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
7/19/39
4
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
3/6/40
42
Acquired by Resettlement Administration
2/25/54
1
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
12/31/56
1
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
9/30/76
6,855
Other
2/14/79
1
Other
12/15/86
1,673
Land and Water Conservation Fund
2/2/88
431
Land and Water Conservation Fund
2/28/88
120
Land and Water Conservation FundChapter 2 — The Refuge 23
Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008.
Date AcquiredAcres AcquiredMeans of Acquisition
2/1/904/4/904/9/902/3/915/20/914/14/944/30/9710/10/9910/11/9912/15/072008Total
32028035232032096048020202,1591,20048,955
Land and Water Conservation FundLand and Water Conservation FundLand and Water Conservation FundLand and Water Conservation FundGifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLand and Water Conservation FundLand and Water Conservation FundMigratory Bird Conservation FundGifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMigratory Bird Conservation Fund and Federal Land Transaction Facilitation FundMigratory Bird Conservation Fund and North American Wetlands Conservation Act
■■minimize, to a lesser extent, future demands on local government resources necessitated by providing services associated with increasing rural development.
Today, the refuge works with landowners to manage nine conservation easements totaling 20,342 acres (see figure 6). Table 3 summarizes the acquisition history of this program since 2001.
ManaGeMent history
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most remote refuges in the contiguous United States. It is located in the Centennial Valley in southwestern Montana in Beaverhead County, 47 miles west of West Yellowstone and 38 miles east of the town of Lima. This 48,955-acre refuge sits at 6,670–9,400 feet above sea level and lies east of the Continental Divide near the uppermost reach of the Missouri drainage.
Historically, management focused on protecting and enhancing the trumpeter swan population at the refuge. In the 1930s, the refuge and surrounding area was their last known breeding location. Management actions included winter feeding, transferring swans to other suitable habitats, managing wetland habitats for breeding swans, and minimizing illegal harvest and disturbance (especially during breeding). Trumpeter swans were studied intensively at the refuge, and much of what is known about their breeding biology was published in The Trumpeter Swan, written by former refuge manager Winston E. Banko (Banko 1960). Today, the refuge continues to support a robust population of trumpeter swans, but heroic population enhancement efforts, such as winter feeding and translocation are no longer necessary or appropriate for swan conservation, and have been phased out. The refuge continues to focus on providing quality wetland habitats for nesting swans. This has resulted in a steady increase in the number of trumpeter swans in the Centennial Valley since the mid-1990s.
The refuge has one of the most naturally diverse areas in the Refuge System. The refuge boasts the largest wetland complex within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, as well as expansive tracts of grassland and sagebrush-steppe habitats, and a small amount of midelevation forested areas. These habitats support over 230 species of birds, including peregrine falcons, bald eagles, short-eared owls, sandhill cranes, sage grouse, and numerous species of 24 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 6. Conservation easements within the Centennial Valley.Chapter 2 — The Refuge 25
Table 3. Conservation easement acquisition history within the Centennial Valley, 2001–2008.
Year Acquired
Means of Acquisition
Total Acres
2001
Land and Water Conservation Fund
2,376
2002
Land and Water Conservation Fund
3,771
2003
Land and Water Conservation Fund
188
2003
Land and Water Conservation Fund
1,361
2003
Land and Water Conservation Fund
640
2004
Land and Water Conservation Fund
990
2004
Land and Water Conservation Fund
3,404
2005
Land and Water Conservation Fund
4,137
2006
Land and Water Conservation Fund
3,346
2008
Land and Water Conservation Fund
129
Total
20,342
waterfowl and waterbirds (see appendix G). Common mammals include Shiras moose, Rocky Mountain elk, mule and white-tailed deer, badger, coyote, and red fox. In recent years, wolves and grizzly bears have been documented using the refuge. There is also a remnant population of endemic adfluvial Arctic grayling that occurs on the refuge.
A full-time staff of five and various seasonal employees manage and study the refuge habitats and maintain visitor facilities. Domestic livestock grazing and prescribed fire are the primary management tools used to maintain and enhance upland habitats. Currently, four grazing cooperators are using refuge lands. Water level manipulation occurs in some areas of the refuge to improve wetland habitats.
Approximately 12,000 people visit the refuge annually. Two refuge roads and three county roads that pass through the refuge account for the majority of visitor use. Visitors also use the trails at Sparrow Pond and Odell Creek to access the refuge. The refuge is open to limited fishing, with the majority of fishing occurring on Red Rock Creek where anglers can catch Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and brook trout. In addition, the refuge is open to limited hunting of ducks, geese, coots, elk, pronghorn, moose, and mule and
white-tailed deer.
2.2 SPECIAL VALUES OF THE REFUGE
Early in the planning process, the planning team and public identified the outstanding qualities of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Refuge qualities are the characteristics and features of the
refuge that make it special, valuable for wildlife, and worthy of refuge status. It was essential during the planning process to identify these special values to ensure that they are conserved, protected, and enhanced. Refuge qualities can be unique biological values, as well as something as simple as “a quiet place to see a variety of birds and enjoy nature.” There are many attributes that make Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge unique and valued because it
■■is located in the middle of an important wildlife corridor linking the Greater Yellowstone and Bitterroot ecosystems (Merrill and Mattson 2003, Servheen and Sandstrom 1993, Walker and Craighead 1997);
■■protects over 69,000 acres of the Centennial Valley in southwest Montana—the least developed valley of its size in the state;
■■encompasses the largest wetland complex in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem;
■■contains 3,300 acres of sandhills habitat—one of only two places this habitat can be found in Montana;
■■represents one of the most diverse refuges in the United States, with forty-five identified vegetation associations according to the National Vegetation Classification System (Anderson et al. 1998);
■■plays an integral role in the contiguous restoration of trumpeter swans;
■■continues to provide critical nesting habitat for a tri-state flock of trumpeter swans (those nesting in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana);26 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
■■ supports one of the last endemic adfluvial
population of Arctic grayling in the contiguous
United States;
■■ provides habitat for one of the highest-density
wintering moose populations in Montana;
■■ is in an area that has been a gathering spot for
people and wildlife throughout time;
■■ occurs in an area with rich paleohistory, early
exploration, and settlement;
■■ has historic buildings originally constructed by
the Works Progress Administration;
■■ has potential for a broad range of partnerships
that are integral to every aspect of refuge
management;
■■ provides visitors with a multitude of wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities in a
remote, peaceful, beautiful setting;
■■ encompasses the 32,350-acre designated Red
Rock Lakes Wilderness.
2.3 PURPOSES
Every refuge has a purpose for which it was
established. This purpose is the foundation upon
which to build all refuge programs, from biology and
visitor services, to maintenance and facilities. The
refuge purposes are found in the legislative acts or
administrative orders that provide the authorities
to either transfer or acquire a piece of land for a
refuge. Over time, an individual refuge may contain
lands that have been acquired under a variety of
transfer and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge
more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and
strategies identified in this CCP are intended to
support individual purposes for which the refuge was
established.
The legislative purposes for Red Rock Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge include the following:
1. “As a refuge and breeding ground for wild
birds and animals.” (Executive Order 7023,
dated April 22, 1935)
2. “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1929)
3. “Suitable for (a) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (b)
the protection of natural resources, (c)
the conservation of endangered species or
threatened … species … The Secretary …
may accept and use … real … property. Such
acceptance may be accomplished under the
terms and conditions of restrictive covenants
imposed by donors.” (Refuge Recreation Act 1962)
4. “The conservation of the wetlands of the
nation in order to maintain the public benefits
they provide and to help fulfill international
obligations contained in various migratory
bird treaties and conventions.” (Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act 1986)
5. “For the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and protection of
fish and wildlife resources … for the benefit of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
in performing its activities and services. Such
acceptance may be subject to the terms of any
restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition
of servitude.” (Fish and Wildlife Act 1956)
6. “Wilderness areas … shall be administered for
the use and enjoyment of the American people
in such manner as will leave them unimpaired
for future use and enjoyment as wilderness,
and so as to provide for the protection
of these areas, the preservation of their
wilderness character, and for the gathering and
dissemination of information regarding their
use and enjoyment as wilderness.” (Wilderness
Act 1964)
2.4 VISION
A vision is a concept, including desired conditions
for the future, that describes the essence of what the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to accomplish
at the refuge. The vision for the refuge is a future-oriented
statement designed to be achieved through
refuge management throughout the life of this CCP
and beyond. The following is the vision statement
developed by the planning team for Red Rock Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge.
The majestic Centennial Valley of southwest
Montana is an expansive mosaic of high-elevation
wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, and forests
framed by dramatic mountain peaks. Through
partnerships and conservation programs, the
valley has maintained its biological integrity
and is a working landscape that remains largely
undeveloped.
To this end, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge is a conservation leader in the valley
working to maintain, mimic, and where
appropriate, restore natural processes to create and
sustain native habitat for migratory and resident
fish and wildlife. Visitors have a sense of solitude
and wildness that lifts their spirits and stirs their
souls. This first-hand experience with the refuge
encourages people to participate as stewards, not
only of the refuge, but also of the natural resources
in their own communities.
2.5 GOALS
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a set
of goals for the refuge based on the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act, the refuge’s
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 27
purposes, and information developed during project planning. The goals direct efforts toward achieving the vision and purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for managing refuge resources. The Service established six goals for the refuge.
Lake, Pond, and Marsh habitat GoaL
Provide habitat for breeding and staging migratory birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that maintains the biological diversity and integrity of montane wetland systems.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Maintain the processes necessary to sustain the biological diversity and integrity of native riparian vegetation for migratory breeding birds, native fishes, and wintering ungulates.
Wet MeadoW, GrassLand, and shrub-stePPe habitat GoaL
Provide structurally complex native meadow, grassland and shrub-steppe habitats, within a watershed context, for upland-nesting migratory birds, sagebrush-dependent species, rare plant species, and other resident wildlife.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Create and maintain aspen stands of various age classes within a mosaic of coniferous forest and shrubland for cavity-nesting birds and other migratory and resident wildlife.
Visitor serViCes and CuLturaL resourCes GoaL
Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, interpretation, and outreach opportunities that nurture an appreciation and understanding of the unique natural and cultural resources of the Centennial Valley for visitors and local community members of all abilities, while maintaining the primitive and remote experience unique to the refuge.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, funding, and volunteer programs.
2.6 PLANNING ISSUES
Several key issues were identified following the analysis of comments collected from refuge staff and the public and a review of the requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. Substantive comments (those that could be addressed within the authority and management capabilities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) were considered during formulation of the alternatives for future management. Challenges abound within the National Wildlife Refuge System, and these issues will have to be reviewed, changed, and added to as management actions are put into place and as environmental and social issues interact with refuge purposes and plans. The key issues identified during this planning process are summarized below.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Habitat loss is the greatest threat faced by North American wildlife. Maintaining the integrity of existing habitats and providing linkage zones between existing habitats is a key wildlife conservation strategy. Centrally situated between the Greater Yellowstone and Bitterroot ecosystems, two of the most intact, biologically diverse ecosystems in the contiguous United States, the refuge is ideally located to be a conservation leader to protect the Centennial Valley from fragmentation and residential development.
Successful conservation leadership is attained through the development of partnerships. Working with conservation partners, local residents, and the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the refuge works to preserve the integrity of the Centennial Valley through conservation easements. These easements prevent further residential or commercial development while fostering the relationships necessary to pursue habitat improvements on adjacent private lands. The refuge also partners with state and other federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to address local and regional wildlife management challenges. For example, efforts to improve the current status of Arctic grayling in the Red Rock Creek watershed have led to partnerships with MFWP, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management Assistance Office. Photograph caption: Photograph caption:
Photograph credit: 28 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Grazing
Demonstrating good stewardship of refuge lands is another example of how the refuge can be a conservation leader. Managing refuge resources based on the best available knowledge should be the starting point for management actions. This does not ensure success or lack of controversy due to the uncertainties regarding relationships among wildlife, habitat, and management activities. For example, the current grazing program on the refuge draws considerable criticism. It is known that Centennial Valley grasslands evolved with grazing by large native ungulates such as bison. The refuge currently provides that disturbance via cattle grazing, a controversial practice on public lands in the American West. While several public comments were supportive of a scientifically-based grazing system designed to benefit wildlife, there was also support for the termination of the grazing program and repatriation of bison on the refuge.
Currently, the refuge has an Upland Management Plan that was written in 1994. The selected alternative was “Adaptive Management by Prescription.” Although details of how this management alternative would be carried out are described, this plan was never fully actualized. The grazing program is currently run on what is a 3-year grazing unit rest-rotation cycle with very little monitoring of grazing impacts on habitats. In addition, fences have been removed or allowed to deteriorate, resulting in large units that preclude “short duration—high intensity” grazing as prescribed in the 1994 plan. Changes in the grazing program must take place in order for this to be an effective management tool for habitat manipulation and wildlife benefit.
Red Rock Lakes Management
Wetlands in the Intermountain West region provide important habitat for migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife. Similar to wetland habitats in other regions of North America, agriculture and development have resulted in the loss of approximately 57% of Intermountain West region wetlands to drainage (Ratti and Kadlec 1992). The significance of this loss is magnified due to the region’s largely arid landscape. However, management of these habitats is hindered by the relative scarcity of information on the ecology of montane wetlands, making it difficult to predict the response of these habitats to management actions intended to improve habitat quality for migratory birds. Montane wetlands are a type of high-elevation wetland, located just below the subalpine region. Greater understanding of montane wetland ecology would therefore improve the ability of managers to make sound science-based decisions regarding management of these important flyway resources.
Refuge lakes and wetlands management is a broad priority encompassing Lower and Upper Red Rock lakes, Swan Lake, River Marsh, and associated wetland areas. River Marsh referred to in this document is the marshy areas along Red Rock Creek, between Upper and Lower Red Rock lakes. Species (such as swans, other waterfowl, ibis, grebes, gulls, and fishes) using this system of wetlands are inherently included in this priority. Current refuge objectives for wetland habitat management are to mimic disturbance processes believed necessary for maintaining ecological function of montane wetlands. The primary process is the dynamic wet/dry hydrological cycle, a key driver of wetland productivity and vegetation community structure.
Lower Red Rock Lake and the lower River Marsh have been influenced by a water control structure (WCS) at the western boundary of the refuge since 1930. There are concerns that the WCS may be negatively affecting the hydrological system of Lower Red Rock Lake and River Marsh. Increasing temperatures and decreasing precipitation have also raised concerns regarding reduced water resources in the future and the impact on refuge wetland habitats. There is a question as to whether this structure would need to be used as a management tool to capture water resources or if it should be removed.
Arctic Grayling
The restoration of wildlife populations and habitats has been a common theme of the planning process and public comments, and Arctic grayling are a particularly poignant example. The refuge population of Arctic grayling represents one of the only naturally occurring adfluvial populations in the contiguous United States. Currently, spawning numbers are very low. In addition, Arctic grayling are not spawning i