Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

              Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
September 2008 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 27820 Southside Centennial Road Lima, MT 59739 406/276 3536 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Division of Refuge Planning PO Box 25486 DFC Lakewood, CO 80225 303/236 8145 Contents
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................
iii
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................
v
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................
1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan .........................................................................................................................
1
1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ........................................................................
3
1.3 National and Regional Mandates......................................................................................................................
4
1.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans .................................................................................
4
1.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats ................................................................................................................
8
1.6 Planning Process ................................................................................................................................................
10
2 The Refuge .....................................................................................................................................................................
13
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ................................................................................
13
2.2 Vision and Goals .................................................................................................................................................
20
3 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................................................
29
3.1 Alternatives Development................................................................................................................................
29
3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................................................................
29
3.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives.............................................................................................................
30
3.4 Description of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................
30
4 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................................................................
63
4.1 Physical Environment .......................................................................................................................................
63
4.2 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................................................
72
4.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................
82
4.4 Special Management Areas ...............................................................................................................................
84
4.5 Visitor Services ..................................................................................................................................................
86
4.6 Socioeconomic Environment .............................................................................................................................
87
4.7 Operations ...........................................................................................................................................................
88
5 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................................................................
91
5.1 Analysis Methods ...............................................................................................................................................
91
5.2 Effects Common to all Alternatives.................................................................................................................
91
5.3 Description of Consequences by Resource......................................................................................................
92
6 Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) ..................................................................................................... 103
6.1 Proposed Goals, Objectives, and Strategies...................................................................................................
104
6.2 Personnel............................................................................................................................................................
124
6.3 Step-Down Management Plans........................................................................................................................
124
6.4 Partnership Opportunities...............................................................................................................................
124
6.5 Monitoring and Evaluation..............................................................................................................................
124
6.6 Plan Amendment and Revision.......................................................................................................................
125
Glossary...............................................................................................................................................................................................
127
Appendices
A
Key Legislation and Policies ............................................................................................................................
133
B
List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordinators.......................................................................................
137
C
Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................................ 139
D
Species List ......................................................................................................................................................... 141
E
Draft Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................................................ 165
F
Fire Management Program .............................................................................................................................. 183
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 187
Figures
1 Location of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .........................................................
2
2 Physiographic areas of the United States .................................................................................................
6
3 Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem map ........................................
9
4 CCP and environmental analysis process steps .....................................................................................
10
5 Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge approved acquisition boundary
and acquired lands—refuge base map................................................................................................
15
6 Conservation easements within the Centennial Valley ...........................................................................
19
7 Alternative A, current visitor service areas and facilities map .............................................................
31
8 Hunting program boundaries proposed in alternative B ........................................................................
34
9 Hunting program boundaries proposed in alternative C ........................................................................
35
10 Hunting program boundaries proposed in alternative D ........................................................................
37
11 Significant declines in annual, December, and January precipitation
totals between 1948 and 2005 (Service data) ....................................................................................
64
12 Mean annual, March, and April air temperatures at Lakeview, Montana,
between 1949 and 2005. Significant increases are shown for the months
of March and April (Service data).......................................................................................................
65
13 Representative flow rates for Red Rock, Odell, and Tom Creeks at
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (Service data) ..............................................................
69
14 Vegetation classifications found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ..................................
73
15 Habitat types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................
75
16 Wetland types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge .....................................................
76
17 Designated wilderness within the acquisition boundary of Red Rock Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................................................................
85
18 Adaptive management process .................................................................................................................. 125
Tables
1 Planning process summary and timeline for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.................. 11
2 Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2007 ...........................
16
3 Conservation easement acquisition history within the Centennial Valley, 2001–2006 .......................
20
4 Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Red Rock
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................................................
38
5 Current base funded staff at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana........................... 88
6 Nesting and foraging requirements for the five most commonly detected bird
species in willow riparian habitat at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .....109
7 Habitat requirements for target wet meadow bird species ...................................................................113
8 Bird species dependent on sagebrush habitat for breeding and nesting ..............................................116
9 Current and proposed staff, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................124
10 Step-down management plans for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................124
ii Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
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
CWCS
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy
districts
wetland management districts
DNRC
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
EA
environmental assessment
FMP
fire management plan
FONSI
Finding of No Signifi cant Impact
GIS
Geographic Information System
GS
general pay schedule
IBA
Important Bird Area
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
MFWP
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
MTNHP
Montana Natural Heritage Program
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NOI
notice of intent
PL
public law
PM10
Particulate matter
refuge
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
RONS
Refuge Operating Needs System
RMP
Rocky Mountain population
SAV
submerged aquatic vegetation
sandhills
Centennial Sandhills
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
waterfowl production area
WPA
Works Progress or Project Administration
WUI
wildland-urban interface
Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after Chapter 6.
iv Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Summary
The following summary provides a brief overview of this draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, including (1) a general description; (2) purposes of the refuge; (3) vision and goals; (4) alternatives considered, including the proposed action; and (5) the decision to be made regarding the proposed comprehensive conservation plan.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed this draft comprehensive conservation plan to provide a foundation for the management and use of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is one of the most remote in the lower 48. 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 47,756-acre refuge sits at 6,670 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 was their last known breeding location. Today, swans can still be seen breeding in the valley, but the intensive management of swan populations (through feeding and raising young) has been altered in favor of allowing the swans to thrive under mostly natural conditions.
The refuge has one of the most naturally diverse areas 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 200 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, 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 native lacustrine/adfl uvial Arctic grayling that occur on the refuge. This population lives in the lake and breeds in the river.
A full-time staff of five employees and various summer temporaries 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 fi shing, 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, mule deer, and white-tailed deer.
ESTABLISHMENT HISTORY
On April 22, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Red Rock Lakes Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (later named “Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge” on July 19, 1961) under Executive Order 7023 “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.”
During the 70 years since the executive boundary was established, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has continued to acquire lands from willing landowners or receive land donations. The Service currently owns 47,756 acres within this approved boundary.
LEGISLATIVE 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 action undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or public may conflict with this refuge purpose. 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 vi Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
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 the draft 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) 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) 4. “The conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefi ts they provide and to help fulfi ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act) 5. “For the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources … for the benefi t 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)
REFUGE VISION
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 mountain
wetlands, grasslands, shrub lands, 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, the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge is a conservation leader in the valley
working to maintain and 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 fi rst-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.
REFUGE GOALS
The goals described below help the staff achieve the vision for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
LAKE, POND, AND MARSH HABITAT GOAL
Provide habitat for breeding and migrating birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that maintains the biological diversity and integrity of montane wetland systems.
RIPARIAN HABITAT GOAL
Maintain the processes necessary to sustain the biological diversity and integrity of native riparian vegetation for breeding birds, native fi shes, 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 sagebrush-dependent species, upland-nesting migratory birds, rare plant species, and other resident wildlife.
ASPEN FOREST, MIXED CONIFEROUS FOREST, AND WOODLAND HABITAT GOAL
Create and maintain aspen stands of various age classes within a mosaic of coniferous forest and shrub land for cavity-nesting birds and other migratory and resident wildlife.
VISITOR SERVICES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES GOAL
Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 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. Summary vii
REFUGE OPERATIONS GOAL
Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, funding, and volunteer programs.
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, refl ects the current habitat management of the refuge. It provides the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. It is also a requirement of the National Environmental Protection Act that a no-action alternative be addressed in the planning process.
ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION
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 can be significant, some refuge habitats would require “hands on” management actions during the life of this plan. Visitor services programs (such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, outreach, and interpretation programs) would be improved and expanded while maintaining the wilderness characteristics of the refuge.
ALTERNATIVE C: WETLAND RESTORATION
Management under alternative C acknowledges the importance of a naturally functioning ecosystem. Management action emphasis would be placed on allowing wetland and riparian habitats to function naturally through the restoration of most created and all modified wetlands and elimination of all water management structures. Visitor services programs (such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, outreach, and interpretation programs) would be improved and expanded while maintaining the wilderness characteristics of the refuge.
ALTERNATIVE D: ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
Management under alternative D further Management under alternative D further acknowledges the importance of a naturally functioning ecosystem. Management action emphasis would be placed on the restoration of all natural processes, including the restoration of all wetland and riparian habitats. The refuge would participate in state programs to reintroduce bison if they become designated as free-ranging wildlife. Also, the refuge would place emphasis on creating a wilderness setting in all areas away from refuge headquarters. Visitor services programs would promote a wilderness experience with little to no signage or interpretation
DECISION TO BE MADE
The environmental assessment describes and analyzes four alternatives for achieving the above goals. Based on this analysis, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regional director for region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) will decide which alternative will be selected to manage the refuge for the next 15 years. 1 Introduction
Sunset over Upper Red Rock Lake.
USFWS
This document presents an environmental assessment (EA) that evaluates alternatives for, and expected consequences of, managing Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Alternative B is the proposed action of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (Service) and is presented in chapter 6 as the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the refuge. This chapter provides an introduction to the CCP process and describes the involvement of the Service, the state of Montana, the public, and others, as well as conservation issues and plans that affect the refuge. The remaining chapters provide more specific information on the refuge and planning issues (chapter 2), its resources (chapter 4), and the alternatives (chapter 3) and related consequences (chapter 5) considered for this plan. Chapter 6 provides objectives and strategies for the proposed action. The Service has developed this draft CCP to providea foundation for the management and use of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is one of the most remote in the continental 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. (Figure 1. Location of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana). When finalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
This draft 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 draft CCP and EA meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This project also complies with NEPA public involvement requirements.
The final CCP will specify the necessary actions to achieve the vision and purposes of the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Wildlife is the fi rst priority in refuge management, and visitor services (wildlife-dependent recreation) are allowed and encouraged as long as they are compatible with the refuge’s purposes.
The draft CCP and EA have been prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from various U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs. The planning team also incorporated public input—public involvement and the planning process are described in section 1.6, “The Planning Process.”
After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the planning team developed alternatives for managing the refuge. The team recommended one alternative to be the Service’s proposed action, which addresses all substantive issues and best achieves the purposes of the refuge. 2 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 1. Location of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Chapter 1 — Introduction 3
The proposed action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recommended course of action for managing the refuge. The proposed action is summarized in chapter 3, “Alternatives,” with its predicted effects described in chapter 5, “Environmental Consequences.” The details of the proposed action compose the draft CCP (chapter 6).
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role that the 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 are consistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act; ■ ensure that management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; ■ provide a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. Sustaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources is a task that can be accomplished only through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens.
1.2 THE 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.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
Over a century ago, America’s fish and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined together to restore and sustain America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant 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 fi sh and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related programs across America.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ACTIVITIES IN MONTANA (2006)
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 fi sh and wildlife management assistance offi ce, one fish health center , four ecological services offices, and one fish technology center ■ managed 23 national wildlife refuges encompassing 1,195,828 acres (1.27% of the state) ■ managed 5 wetland management districts — managed 47,884 acres of fee waterfowl production areas — managed 135,320 acres under various leases or easements ■ hosted more than 629,950 annual visitors to Service-managed lands — 112,835 hunting visits — 71,665 fi shing visits — 419,062 wildlife observation visits — 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 fi sh restoration and $6.3 million for wildlife restoration and hunter education ■ 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 schools and roads) 4 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pelicans and other 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 in the world specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing over 96 million acres within 547 refuges and over 3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is at least one refuge in every state, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 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 fi rst; ■ 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, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are legitimate and priority visitor services; ■ retain the authority of refuge managers to
determine compatible visitor services.
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 fi rst. ■ 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 (WMDs). 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, fi shing, hunting, photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife recreation contributes millions of dollars to local economies. 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 benefi ts 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.
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANDATES
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the mission and goals of the Refuge System, along with the designated purpose of the refuges and districts (as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other establishing documents). The key concepts and guidance 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.
The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible visitor services on refuges and districts, and a requirement that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act Chapter 1 — Introduction 5
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 trends 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 A. Service policies on planning and day-to­day management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
The Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge contributes to the conservation efforts described here.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the first national Refuge System conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations.
The report contains 42 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 looked to the recommendations in the document for guidance during CCP planning.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
The “Partners in Flight” program began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory bird species. 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 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States.
The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of bird life of 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 58 physiographic areas, defined by similar physical geographic features, wholly or partially contained within the contiguous United States and several others wholly or partially in Alaska. The 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 over all of western Montana, the northern two-thirds of Idaho, large areas of eastern Oregon and Washington, much of southeast British Columbia, and a sliver of west Alberta. It is an area of high mountains, with elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. Glaciation has left broad flat valleys between mountain ranges. Elevation determines the dominant vegetation. The highest areas are alpine tundra. The subalpine zone is dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fi r, 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 28 species of birds have a larger population in the Central Rocky Mountains than in any other physiographic area. This is the largest such number of any physiographic area in the lower 48 states, and it seems to represent the huge size of the area and the vast amount of quality bird habitat that still exists. The habitat characteristics, however, are not unique to just this area but represent the heart of the mountainous West and the center of distribution for many birds, particularly those of coniferous forests, which range more widely.
Fire in higher elevation coniferous forests of the central Rocky Mountains tends to be of high intensity and low frequency. After such stand-replacing fi res, 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 fi r species. Many birds track this process—both black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers specialize in foraging on charred post-fire 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. 6 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
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
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Written in 1986, the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific plan objectives are to
increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the 1970s���62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds.
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.
Figure 2. Physiographic area map of the United States. (Source: Partners in Flight) Chapter 1 — Introduction 7
Glossy ibis.
Laura King/USFWS
INTERMOUNTAIN WEST REGIONAL SHOREBIRD PLAN
The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan was released in 2000. The plan notes that perhaps 1 million shorebirds breed in the Intermountain West region and that millions more migrate through the area each year. The plan recognizes that fi nding 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 11 species of shorebirds that regularly breed in the region, as well as 23 additional species that are annual migrants. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is recognized in the plan as one of the 79 managed shorebird sites.
STATE COMPREHENSIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY
Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy includes 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, the 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 signifi cantly degraded or declining, 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 species have populations that are stable or increasing, and fewer are identified as “in greatest conservation need” (49 nongame, 11 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 the Centennial Valley, and east to the 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 identifi ed 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 big­8 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
eared bat, pygmy rabbit, great basin pocket mouse, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx. The”Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) 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/ development ■ Invasive or exotic plant species ■ Altered fi re 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 to conserve aquatic resources, a growing number are declining at alarming rates. Loss of habitat and invasive species are the two most signifi cant 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 fi sh 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 2002b). 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 benefi ts 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 native lacustrine/adfluvial (live in the lake and breed in the river) populations of Arctic grayling in the lower 48 states, along with a native population of Westslope cutthroat trout. Both of these populations are imperiled due to a signifi cant loss of habitat, disease, sedimentation, and impacts from other nonnative fish species. In order to achieve this objective of restoring declining fi sh 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.
1.5 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION 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 lower 48 states occurs within this 185,000 square mile area, including such significant protected areas as Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, the Bob Marshall Wilderness, and the Upper Missouri River. 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, are only listed in certain areas. Of these species, only the gray wolf has been observed visiting 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: mountain habitat, river habitat, and 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 acreages of sagebrush stands. Surrounding mountains are of moderate elevation and are cloaked with conifer forests. The Chapter 1 — Introduction 9
Figure 3. Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem map. highest elevations have Douglas-fir or spruce-fi r forests or alpine vegetation. Gray wolves, grizzly bears, wolverines, and different species of trout occur in these habitat groups. River habitat groups are comprised of a mix of native prairie grass and sagebrush-steppe, along with the riparian zone of larger rivers and their tributaries. 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 as well. Prairie habitat groups include woodlands and grass- or sage-dominated areas where adequate moisture for a forest canopy is not available. Higher elevation is home to subalpine communities and rock outcrops. Prairie grasslands or shrub-steppe dominates at lower elevations, with riparian areas along watercourses. Black-tailed prairie dogs, bald eagles, ferruginous hawks, and a diverse group of fi sh 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 include ensuring natural and healthy ecological processes for the area, and making sure that economic development complements environmental protection.
1.6 PLANNING PROCESS
This draft CCP and EA for the refuge are intended to follow 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 identifi ed several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (see fi gure 4).
Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process, to date, for the preparation of this draft CCP and EA. 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 other contributors included other Service divisions, U.S. Geological Service, Montana State University, Bureau of Land Management, and The Nature Conservancy (see “Appendix B: List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination”). During pre-planning, the team developed a mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities list. The planning team identified and reviewed current refuge programs, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and determined the purpose of the refuge.
A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft CCP and EA was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2006. Public scoping began with publication of the notice, and information was distributed through news releases, issuance of the fi rst planning update, and holding two public scoping meetings in August 2006. Public scoping concluded on September 15, 2006, when the comment period closed.
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 is summarized in “Chapter 4. Affected Environment.”
Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process.Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process.Graphic of the 8 steps planning process.Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process.Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process. Graphic of the 8 steps planning process.Graphic of the 8 steps planning process.
10 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 4. CCP and environmental analysis process steps.
COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC
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 pre­planning (see “AppendixC: Public Involvement���). The first planning update issue was sent in July2006 to everyone on the mailing list. Informationwas provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP process, along with an invitation to a public scoping meeting. Table 1. Planning process summary and timeline for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
Date Event Outcome
August 16, 2005 September 20, 2005 February 21, 2006 May 17, 2006 June 12, 2006 August 1, 2006 August 15, 2006 August 16, 2006 August 15, 2006 September 9, 2006 September 11, 2006 January 5, 2007 January 10, 2007 February 12, 2007 April 2007 July 11-25, 2008
Kickoff meeting Visitor services review Biological review Biological review Notice of intent Planning update Public scoping meeting Public scoping meeting Vision and goals workshop Public scoping meeting Biological review Focus group meeting (realty issues) Alternatives netmeetingworkshop Objectives and strategies workshop Draft CCP Internal review of draft CCP
CCP overview developed, planning team list developed, purposes identified, initial issues and qualities list developed, development of mailing list initiated. Visitor services programs and facilities evaluated by education and visitor services staff. Gathered information from a team of researchers and biologists on the natural processes that formed and continue to infl uence Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Worked with contracted U.S. Geological Survey researcher to evaluate current biological programs and needs. Published notice of intent in Federal Registerto initiate public scoping. First planning update sent to mailing list describing planning process and announcing upcoming public scoping meetings. Offered public opportunity to learn about theCCP and provide comments. Offered public opportunity to learn about the CCP and provide comments. Developed draft vision and goals statements.
Offered public opportunity to learn about theCCP and provide comments. Panel of biologists and researchers gathered to review and evaluate biological program and issues. Staff and realty specialists discussed boundaryand conservation easement program issues. Developed alternatives table.Finalized alternatives table, selected proposedaction, and began writing objectives/strategies. Began writing draft CCP/EA.
Draft CCP is reviewed by Service, state, andother federal partners.
Chapter 1 — Introduction 11
12 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Each planning update included a comment form and postage-paid envelope 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 of the refuge office. There were 33 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 were due September 15, 2006. A total of 55 additional written comments were received throughout the scoping process. All comments were shared with the planning team and considered throughout the planning process.
STATE COORDINATION
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. Numerous state biologists have since 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. To date, the state has been supportive of the planning process.
TRIBAL COORDINATION
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 some 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.
RESULTS OF SCOPING
Comments collected from scoping meetings and correspondence were used in the development of a final list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and EA.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined which alternatives could best address these issues.
The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest effect on the refuge are resolved or given priority over the life of the final CCP. Identifi ed issues, along with a discussion of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2.
In addition, the Service considered suggested changes to current refuge management presented by the public and other groups.
SELECTING AN ALTERNATIVE
The Service’s region 6 director will consider the environmental effects of each alternative and select an alternative to implement—this alternative will then become the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge CCP. The regional director’s decision will be disclosed in a finding of no signifi cant impact (FONSI) included in the final CCP. Implementation of the CCP will begin following the regional director’s signature and publication of the fi nal CCP. The final CCP will provide long-term guidance for management decisions; support achievement of the goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. This draft 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 special values of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, as well as the proposed vision and goals and a discussion of the planning issues.
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY
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. No action undertaken by the Service or public may conflict with this refuge purpose. 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 draft 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 benefi ts they provide and to help fulfi ll 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 benefi t 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) 14 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
ESTABLISHMENT AND ACQUISITION HISTORY
It is impossible to speak of the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge history without fi rst addressing some of the history of the Centennial Valley within which the refuge lies.
The Centennial Valley was well known by Native Americans 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)
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 the area that was to become the refuge, was used by hunting clubs, with people traveling long distances to hunt waterfowl in the area (Beaverhead County History Book Association 1990).
The Centennial Valley provided good seasonal trapping and hunting grounds and was a favored route between the headwaters of the upper Bighole River and the Yellowstone area. 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.
Nearly 100 years after Russell Osborne had entered the Centennial Valley, the Bureau of Biological Survey (a precursor to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) conducted an evaluation and suggested that the area should become a migratory bird refuge. In 1935 Mr. Basyl Kercheval 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.” (Project of the Bureau of Biological Survey 1935)
On April 22, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Red Rock Lakes Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (later named “Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge” on July 19, 1961) under Executive Order 7023, “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.”
During the 70 years since the executive boundary was established, the Service has continued to acquire lands from willing landowners or receive land donations. The Service currently owns 47,756 acres within this approved boundary (see figure 5). Table 2 summarizes the acquisition history and the means of acquisition between 1935 and 2007. Chapter 2 — The Refuge 15
Figure 5. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge approved acquisition boundary and acquired lands—refuge base map. 16 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2007.
Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition
4/22/35 9,218 Reserved from Public Domain 4/23/35 594 Reserved from Public Domain 12/2/35 160 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/5/35 929 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/6/35 212 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/7/35 1,912 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/12/35 3,209 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/17/35 160 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/18/35 880 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/21/35 1,030 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 12/31/35 480 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 1/14/36 360 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 1/20/36 352 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 1/18/36 254 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 3/3/36 1,033 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/30/36 60 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 10/10/36 680 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 4/2/37 320 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 6/10/37 202 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 6/10/37 1,515 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/7/37 519 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 8/11/37 231 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
8/19/37 517 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 17
Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2007.
Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition
8/19/37 254 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 10/2/37 12 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 11/17/37 1,292 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 5/16/38 3 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 390 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 307 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 3,447 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 648 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 296 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 499 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 820 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 195 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 8 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/18/39 398 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 7/19/39 4 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 3/6/40 42 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 2/25/54 1 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 12/31/56 1 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 9/30/76 6,855 Other 2/14/79 1 Other 12/15/86 1,673 Land and Water Conservation Fund 2/2/88 431 Land and Water Conservation Fund 2/28/88 120 Land and Water Conservation Fund 18 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2007.
Date Acquired
Acres Acquired
Means of Acquisition
2/1/90
320
Land and Water Conservation Fund
4/4/90
280
Land and Water Conservation Fund
4/9/90
352
Land and Water Conservation Fund
2/3/91
320
Land and Water Conservation Fund
5/20/91
320
Gifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4/14/94
960
Land and Water Conservation Fund
4/30/97
480
Land and Water Conservation Fund
10/10/99
20
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
10/11/99
20
Gifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
12/15/07
2,159
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and Federal LandTransaction Facilitation Fund
Total
47,756
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 the 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 traffi c resulting from rural housing development;
■ minimize, to a lesser extent, future demands on local government resources necessitated by providing services associated with increasing rural development. Today, the refuge manages nine conservation easements for a total of 20,219 acres (see fi gure 6). Table 3 summarizes the acquisition history of this program since 2001. Chapter 2 — The Refuge 19
Figure 6. Conservation easements within the Centennial Valley. 20 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Table 3. Conservation easement acquisition history within the Centennial Valley, 2001–2006.
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
Gifted
3,353
Total
20,219
MANAGEMENT HISTORY
Red Rock Lakes NWR is one of the most remote refuges in the lower 48. 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 47,756-acre refuge sits at 6,670 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 was their last known breeding location. Management actions included hatching eggs, raising cygnets to fledging age, and feeding adult swans during the winter months. 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, swans can still be seen breeding in the valley, but the intensive management of swan populations (through feeding and raising of young) has been altered in favor of allowing the swans to thrive under mostly natural conditions.
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 waterfowl and waterbirds (see “Appendix D: Species List”). Common mammals include Shiras moose, elk, mule and white-tail 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 native lacustrine/adfl uvial Arctic grayling that occurs on the refuge.
A full-time staff of five employees and various summer temporaries 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, mule deer, and white­tail deer.
2.2 VISION AND GOALS
VISION STATEMENT
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 Chapter 2 — The Refuge 21
CCP and beyond. The following is the draft 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 mountain
wetlands, grasslands, shrub lands, 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, the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge is a conservation leader in the valley
working to maintain and 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 fi rst-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 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 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 migrating birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that maintains the biological diversity and integrity of montane wetland systems.
Riparian Habitat Goal—Maintain the processes necessary to sustain the biological diversity and integrity of native riparian vegetation for 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 sagebrush-dependent species, upland-nesting migratory birds, rare plant species, and other resident wildlife.
Aspen Forest, Mixed Coniferous Forest, and Woodland Habitat Goal—Create and maintain aspen stands of various age classes within a mosaic of coniferous forest and shrub land for cavity-nesting birds and other migratory and resident wildlife.
Visitor Services and Cultural Resources Goal— Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 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.
Refuge Operations Goal—Prioritize for wildlife fi rst and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, funding, and volunteer programs.
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 to identify these special values and ensure that they are conserved, protected, and enhanced through the planning process. 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 1999); ■ protects over 62,000 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 contiguous United States, with 45 identified vegetation associations according to the National Vegetation Classifi cation System (Anderson et al. 1998); ■ played an integral role in the continental
restoration of trumpeter swans;
■ continues to provide critical nesting habitat for a tri-state flock of trumpeter swans; ■ supports the last native lacustrine/adfl uvial 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; 22 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
■
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 (that is, hunting, fi shing, research, and research);
■
provides visitors with a multitude of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities in a remote, peaceful, beautiful setting;
■
encompasses a 32,500-acre designated
wilderness area
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.
Habitat And Wildlife Management
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Caused by Residential Development
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. Partnering 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. Recent efforts to improve the current status of Arctic grayling in the Red Rock Creek watershed have led to partnerships with the MFWP, The Nature Conservancy, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management Assistance Offi ce.
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. 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 implemented are described, this plan was never fully actualized. The grazing program is currently run on what is basically a 3-year rest or rotation schedule 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 the prescribed “short duration—high intensity” grazing. Changes in the grazing program must take place in order for this to be an effective management tool for habitat manipulation and wildlife benefi t.
Sage thrasher.
Dave Menke/USFWS Chapter 2 — The Refuge 23
Red Rock Lakes Management
Wetlands in the Intermountain West 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 wetlands to drainage. 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. Greater understanding of montane wetland ecology would therefore improve the ability of managers to make sound science-based decisions regarding management of these important fl yway resources.
“Red Rock Lakes” management is a broad priority encompassing Lower and Upper Red Rock lakes, Swan Lake, the River Marsh, and associated wetland areas. Species (such as swans, ibis, waterfowl, gulls, cormorants, 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 of management interest 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 series of water control structures (WCSs) at the western boundary of the refuge since 1930. There are concerns that the WCSs may be negatively affecting the hydrological system of Lower Red Rock Lake and the 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 depleting 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 the only naturally-occurring lacustrine/adfluvial population in the lower 48 states. Currently, spawning numbers are very low. In addition, Arctic grayling are not spawning in most of their traditional spawning creeks (such as Tom Creek). Spawning only occurs in Red Rock and Odell creeks, putting this population at additional risk.
Shiras Moose
Shiras moose, a subspecies of moose found in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, commonly occur on the refuge. The state permits hunting of moose in Montana through a drawing for limited permits, some of which are issued in the unit encompassing the refuge. Numerous comments were received from the public addressing the refuge’s moose management and hunting programs. Many believed that moose populations have declined, stating that it is more difficult to view a moose on the refuge than in the past. MFWP winter survey data indicate moose numbers are relatively high and increasing on the refuge. Conversely, recent assessment of key moose habitat on the refuge indicates that there has been a reduction in willow browse intensity. This change in browse activity could be due to an undetected decline of moose or a redistribution of moose during nonwinter periods. Like many ungulates, moose will move into areas that have been recently disturbed by fire. A wildland fire in the Centennial Mountains in 2003 burned over 14,000 acres, stimulating new aspen growth, a favorite food source of moose. If moose are capitalizing on this new growth during the summer, this would lead to their dispersion, a reduction in observation opportunities for visitors, and the perception of an overall decline in moose abundance.
Refuge moose management is coordinated with the state to manipulate harvest for population regulation. Although the refuge comprises only a small proportion of the hunting district, a high percentage (approximately 90%) of moose harvested in the district is taken on refuge lands. Currently, three demes (resident, summer migrants, and winter migrants) are thought to comprise the refuge moose population. A deme is a local population which interbreed and share a distinct gene pool. Basic information regarding population status and trends, population structure, and landscape-level habitat use patterns is needed to assess the possible impacts of current management on both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses on the refuge.
Willow and Aspen Habitats
Herbivory frequently produces a landscape that would not have been created by the physical environment alone. Browsing by large mammalian herbivores can reduce the survival and competitive reproductive capacity of trees and shrubs, resulting in alterations to the structure and dynamics of plant communities. For example, Berger et al. (2001) found willows to be taller and have greater volume where moose densities were limited by predation (in the form of hunting). Similarly, elk overabundance has been linked to reduced reduced regeneration of aspen in the Rocky Mountains (Romme et al. 1995).
Winter surveys conducted by MFWP between 1966 and 2006 show that winter moose abundance in and around the refuge has increased by more 24 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
than 2% annually throughout the period surveyed. Elk populations in southwestern Montana have experienced similar population growth. High browse intensity on aspen and willow has been documented in portions of the Centennial Valley, including refuge riparian habitats. This has led to concerns regarding possible impacts on the breeding migratory land bird community. Many western land bird populations are sensitive to diminution of aspen and willow due to their reliance on riparian habitats, and many riparian bird species are experiencing regional declines. Both bird species composition and community diversity in riparian habitats are broadly associated with vertical structural diversity of woody vegetation. The reduction of structural diversity due to high levels of browsing may alter the attractiveness of riparian habitats to some birds.
There is general agreement among managers that browse intensity should be reduced in these habitats. However, there is uncertainty regarding the appropriate means to reach the desired habitat condition for breeding migratory land birds.
Centennial Sandhills
The Centennial Sandhills are one of only two significant sandhill areas in Montana. It is the highest sandhill system in the northern Rocky Mountains. Five plant species found in the sandhills are listed as rare in Montana. Two of these plant species (Idaho painted milkvetch and Idaho evening-primrose) only occur in the Centennial Sandhills and the sandhills located in southeast Idaho. The continued existence of these rare plant species depends on the existence of early successional habitat, which is currently lacking in the Centennial Sanhills on the refuge. Fire and grazing are two tools that may be used to improve conditions for the rare plants. The sandhills also contain rare fauna. Four state mammal species of special concern have been documented: Preble’s shrew, black-tailed jackrabbit, Great Basin pocket mouse, and pygmy rabbit. Four Montana Partners in Flight priority II bird species (Casey 2000) also use the sandhill habitat: long-billed curlew, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow.
While much of the refuge’s history has been focused on reducing the negative impacts of human activities on habitats (through reduced grazing and water diversion, elimination of haying), the management of the Centennial Sandhills may take a disparate path. The long-term reduction of disturbances (such as fire and grazing) has resulted in loss of early seral stage habitats, such as blowouts. Early seral sandhill habitat supports a variety of rare flora and fauna. This is evident by the species of plants and wildlife using the heavily-disturbed sandhills found on neighboring lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The refuge needs to determine the frequency and intensity of disturbance to achieve a desired mosaic while minimizing impacts on species such as sage grouse and Brewer’s sparrow, both dependent on late-seral sagebrush growth.
Mixed Conifer Management
Woodlands cover approximately 3,745 acres of the refuge. Little or no management has occurred in this habitat. Condition assessments and potential management actions need to be investigated.
Stream Restoration
There are several creeks/streams on the refuge that have been rerouted from their original streambeds. In addition, there are several streams where the riparian habitats have been degraded due to overgrazing, but have not been restored. Restoring these streams would be beneficial to wildlife using the refuge.
Invasive Plant Species
Integrated pest management is an important focus to minimize infestations due to the relatively natural state of the refuge. Although the refuge does have most native plant species represented, some of the areas that have historically been heavily grazed have converted to nonnative grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass. Other invasive grass species were planted for increased forage, such as smooth brome. While these grasses provide some structure for grassland nesting birds, native grasses are much more desirable for their varied structure and rich nutrients in the seeds they produce. The refuge will be challenged to eradicate these hearty, widespread invasive grasses and restore treated sites.
Wilderness
Over 68% of the refuge (32,350 acres) is congressionally-designated wilderness. This designation recognizes the remote setting and relatively untrammeled nature of the refuge, while protecting these very attributes for future generations. This designation does add complexity to the management of the refuge. Habitat management may seem “inefficient” at times due to wilderness restrictions that prohibit the use of mechanized tools commonly used elsewhere. However, the Wilderness Act was designed to protect the attributes of, and not the efficiencies of managing wilderness areas.
Prescribed Fire Program
There is limited use of prescribed fire on the refuge.
Only two burns have been conducted since 2004.
A fire management plan (FMP) for the refuge was
approved in 2002, but very little work has been done
to carry out prescribed fire on the refuge for habitat
management.
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 25
Visitor Services Program
During the planning process it was clear that many people greatly appreciate the refuge for its wildlife, remoteness, and solitude. Designated both as a National Wilderness Area and National Natural Landmark, the refuge provides quiet, uncrowded wildlife-dependent recreation in a breath-taking setting. Many of the comments supported preserving the pristine character of the refuge. Overall, many participants and visitors identifi ed a need for greater public understanding and appreciation of the refuge and the recreational opportunities it offers. Many comments included poor directional signage, “unfriendly” boundary signage, inadequate brochures, outdated interpretivepanels, confusing regulations, and minimal visitor center information. A number of other recreational issues became apparent during the planning process and deserve further discussion. Specifi c recreational concerns and issues are summarized as follows.
The refuge office, one of several historical structures.
Laura King/USFWS
Hunting
Hunting for waterfowl and big game, including elk, mule and white-tailed deer, pronghorn, and moose, is a popular activity for visitors. Certain portions of the refuge are closed to big game hunting. Waterfowl hunting is limited to Lower Red Rock Lake. The remaining waterbodies are designated as sanctuaries for migratory waterbirds. All hunting seasons (except for moose) follow state regulations and limits. There is no commercial guiding or trapping permitted. Hunting on the refuge is important not only as a wildlife-dependent recreational activity but as a management tool to control large game that become concentrated in protected areas, damaging habitat.
The public expressed many different points of view on whether to permit hunting on the refuge. The greatest concern was over moose hunting. Many commentors believed that the moose population is being impacted by the 11 permits (on average) issued by the state each year for the hunting district in which the refuge is located. Some commentors requested that all moose hunting be stopped.
Overall, there are concerns about what species should be hunted and knowing the refuge’s goals and objectives with respect to management of game species. All commentors agreed that law enforcement is needed to better monitor and regulate this use.
The illegal shooting of game from roads is a major concern on the refuge and in the valley. Because of the expansive views, many hunters drive up and down the road until they find an animal near the road. Instead of giving fair chase and moving off of the road past the right-of-way fence, it has been witnessed several times that the hunter(s) jump out of their vehicles and shoot from the road. Aside from
being illegal, shooting from the road is unethical and unsafe for other hunters in the field and visitors driving the road.
Fishing
Fishing is a popular recreational activity on the refuge and is permitted on Red Rock, Odell, and Elk Springs creeks and Culver, MacDonald, and Widgeon ponds. Some of the most popular fi shing is for nonnative, invasive species such as brook trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and rainbow trout. The habitat alterations on the refuge, such as damming streams to create ponds, have supported these nonnative game fish. These habitat alterations and invasive fish have had a negative impact on the populations of native lacustrine/adfl uvial Arctic grayling and Westslope cutthroat trout, both species of concern and found in refuge waters. Fishing these nonnative game fish has become a popular refuge activity. A few public comments requested expanding fishing opportunities on the lakes, creating ponds, and other creeks but imposing restrictive regulations. There are concerns of potential impacts of increasing fishing pressure (especially on Red Rock Creek) on native fish species and the visitor experience.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
The breath-taking scenery and abundant wildlife make wildlife observation and photography two of the most popular visitor service activities on the refuge. Most visitors independently explore the refuge, but many visitors request guidance on the best areas to view wildlife. Many of these areas are along the roads which are not improved for parking. There are two interpreted sites on the refuge, but no interpreted trails. Trails on the refuge and trails to access other public lands are minimal, in poor condition, are not interpreted, or are not listed in the general brochure. The refuge does not have an auto tour route. Numerous comments received during public scoping were in support of identifying hiking trails and other infrastructure to 26 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
make wildlife observation and photography easier. Most emphasized that activities should not impact wildlife habitats or wilderness values, including the undeveloped qualities (limited and primitive signs, minimal roads, and abounding wildlife) of the refuge.
Winter time wildlife viewing is particularly challenging, given the extreme winter weather and the unmaintained county gravel roads
Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Outreach
Environmental education programs are almost nonexistent. The closest schools are over 45 miles away and it can be challenging for buses to maneuver the county access roads during the school year. The refuge does not have an outdoor recreation or education specialist, and refuge-specific programs or kits are limited. The refuge’s website does provide information about the refuge, its management and resources, and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. It does not provide any interactive activities. The refuge’s remote location offers minimal opportunities to educate students and about the refuge’s purposes, current management programs, issues, and the importance of conserving the Centennial Valley.
The refuge interpretive program is limited. A significant portion of the refuge is wilderness, and to protect the wilderness characteristic of the refuge, signage and trails are limited. There are four kiosks located at the office, entrance areas along county roads, and Upper Lake campground. There are two interpreted sites on the refuge but no interpreted trails. The refuge’s general brochure has been updated and meets Service standards. There is a need for an accurate fish and wildlife observation list that meets Service standards. Interpretive displays in the visitor contact area found in the refuge offi ce have recently been updated and expanded to provide information on the refuge’s role within the Greater Yellowstone Area and the Refuge System and to acquaint visitors with the natural and recreational resources at the refuge.
Campgrounds
The refuge has two primitive campgrounds, one at Upper Red Rock Lake (Upper Lake campground) and one at Lower Red Rock Lake (River Marsh campground). Although camping is not a wildlife-dependent recreational activity, these campground areas are important for refuge visitors engaged in wildlife observation, photography, fi shing, and hunting. The remote location, minimally maintained county road condition, and lack of local lodging facilities have made these campgrounds essential to those visitors who wish to stay for multiple days. Most campground visitors have come to the refuge to bird watch, photograph wildlife, fish, hunt, and hike or bike the Continental Divide trails found in and around the refuge. There was overwhelming support and concern from the public to keep these campgrounds open. The refuge campgrounds are unique in that they require little maintenance by refuge staff. Visitors keep campsites clean, collect their trash, and cause little disturbance to other campers and visitors.
Cultural Resources
The refuge has only limited inventories of cultural resources, known primarily through investigations initiated by refuge activities that required compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The refuge has several historical structures, most of which are still being used, including the refuge office, staff housing, and maintenance facilities. It can be challenging to keep these structures functional while maintaining their historical characteristics.
Law Enforcement
The refuge has no law enforcement staff and is almost 5 hours from the nearest station with region 6 Service law enforcement staff. The refuge has always been a very popular hunting area for both big game and waterfowl. While most visitors respect the refuge and its resources, there will always be those who will “step outside” the laws and regulations. It is very difficult to prevent or respond to these violations without law enforcement staff on-site. The refuge has been contacted by numerous visitors and neighbors reporting suspected violators. The main issues include off-road use, illegal hunting, and trespass. Many public comments identified the need for law enforcement for all visitor service programs to protect wildlife, visitors, and wildlife habitat.
Facilities, Staff, and Administration
The refuge is responsible for managing over 62,000 acres, both in fee title and conservation easements, all within the Centennial Valley. Current staff, funding levels, and facilities available to manage this large land base is inadequate. The refuge currently has a full-time staff of fi ve, including two managers, a biologist, an administrative assistant, and a maintenance worker. Supporting facilities include an office, four refuge houses, one maintenance building, a bunkhouse, and one outbuilding for storage. Although the refuge has been able to conduct many refuge programs through existing resources and partnerships, visitor services programs have been limited, and there have been missed opportunities for greater understanding, conservation, and enhancement of refuge resources. Some of the specific needs include: additional baseline data for some species, more effective management and enhancement of refuge habitats, monitoring of management actions, and orienting and educating visitors. In addition there is no on-site law Chapter 2 — The Refuge 27
enforcement presence to ensure the safety of staff, visitors, wildlife, and facilities.
The refuge headquarters was recently expanded, to provide additional offices and a larger visitor contact area. Interpretive displays are being designed, highlighting the resources and wildlife that use this refuge and the Centennial Valley. Most of the remaining facilities are in need of repair, including the refuge residences, maintenance, other visitor facilities, signs, and fencing. The refuge has several historical structures including the refuge offi ce, fire tower, maintenance buildings, and two refuge houses. These structures are occupied, used daily, and require maintenance to not only keep them functional, but to preserve their historical character and integrity. This can be costly and time-consuming. Universal accessibility can also be an issue with historical structures. Currently, only the office visitor contact area and restrooms are designated as universally accessible. The public also asked for proper maintenance of refuge facilities, but most requested that any changes to the refuges infrastructure be complimentary to the refuge’s rugged, undeveloped character. Due to a lack of private housing surrounding this remote refuge, most current refuge employees rent government housing. There are currently four refuge houses, built between the 1930s and 1950s. The lack of adequate housing has limited the recruitment of added staff and the expansion of refuge programs.
Most refuge roads currently open to the public are in need of repair, some due to failed bridges. Many county roads that provide access through the refuge are not recommended for passenger vehicles due to a lack of regular maintenance and inadequate drainage. There are areas with insufficient visitor parking throughout the refuge.
Directional, interpretive, boundary, and entrance signs are also in need of updating.
Pronghorn are native to the refuge.
Mike Parker/USFWS 3 Alternatives
Angler on Odell Creek.
R. Madsen/USFWS
This chapter describes the management alternatives considered for the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Alternatives are different approaches to planning unit management that are designed to achieve the refuge purposes, vision and goals, the mission of the Refuge System, and the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are developed to address the substantive issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service, the public, and other partners during public scoping and throughout the development of the draft CCP.
3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
The alternatives represent different approaches for permanent protection and restoration of fi sh, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources. The planning team assessed the planning issues identifi ed in chapter 2, the existing biological conditions, and external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents different approaches for meeting long-term goals. Each alternative was evaluated according to how well it would advance the vision and goals of the refuge and the Refuge System and how it would address the planning issues.
All of the alternatives incorporate concepts and approaches intended to achieve the goals outlined in chapter 2 and are discussed in terms of how they could meet each goal.
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes ongoing refuge management activities. This alternative might not meet all the CCP goals. It is provided as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
There were some requests from the public for the Service to evaluate reintroducing bison to the refuge. The Service has considered this in the past as free-ranging bison historically used the Centennial Valley. Currently, cattle are used as a tool to mimic this historic disturbance. In the state of Montana, bison are designated as livestock. As livestock, bison reintroduction is not desirable for various reasons including the need to keep bison from roaming onto neighboring land, which requires a substantial, electrified fence. The refuge is located in an area that is relatively undeveloped. In addition, 68% of the refuge is designated as wilderness. With little development in the valley and with more private and public landowners constructing wildlife-friendly fences, wildlife, such as elk, pronghorn, and the occasional grizzly bear and wolf are able to roam freely across the valley floor. The Centennial Valley is a large wilderness area and large electrifi ed fences are counterproductive to the progress that has been made in making the eastern portion barrier-free for wildlife movement. A captive bison herd would not 30 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
mimic historical grazing patterns. Bison migrated through the valley, particularly during the winter months when heavy snows blanketed the valley, making it difficult for them to survive. Captive bison could have undesirable impacts on refuge habitats and would most likely require relocation or supplemental feeding during winter months. Other issues related to installing a large electrical fence would be the significant initial cost and maintenance. The Service has an obligation to ensure that such expenditures are necessary and result in the greatest benefit. Such an expenditure could not be justifi ed.
3.3 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
This section identifies key elements included in the CCP regardless of the alternative selected. Each alternative contains key elements that are the same: ■ All alternatives, including the no-action alternative, emphasize the same priority species and protection of endangered species. ■ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would ensure that refuge management complies with all other federal laws and regulations that provide direction for managing units of the Refuge System. ■ Each alternative would attempt to eradicate invasive species through an integrated pest management approach, including biological, chemical, and mechanical treatment methods. ■ No adjacent landowners would be adversely impacted by any action taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service without a mutual agreement and adequate compensation. ■ All alternatives would provide equal protection and management of cultural resources.
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following section summarizes the alternatives considered by the planning team to achieve the proposed vision and goals and address issues. These alternatives include not only the current management, alternative A, but also the planning team’s proposed action, alternative B. This proposed action is further described in chapter 6. There are additional details for these alternatives and the consequences of each in both table 4. within this chapter, and in “Chapter 5. Envionmental Consequences.”
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT)
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, refl ects current management of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. It provides the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. It is also a
requirement of NEPA that a no-action alternative be addressed in the planning process. These are the key elements of alternative A: ■ Habitat and wildlife management actions to benefit migratory birds and other wildlife would continue at present levels unless funding or staffing levels change. Refuge habitat would continue to be managed using existing water control structures, grazing, and prescribed fi re opportunities. Results of management actions may or may not be able to be interpreted because monitoring of management actions would continue to be limited due to current funding levels. The refuge would continue to divert water from streams and impound water. ■ The refuge would continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies and partners, as well as willing landowners, to manage on a larger (landscape) scale. In particular, management of forested habitats and sand dune systems would be coordinated with neighboring private and public landowners whenever possible. ■ Wildlife-dependent compatible priority uses (such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation) would continue to occur at current levels (see fi gure 7). There would continue to be minimal outreach and education programs and insuffi cient resources to update signs, informational kiosks, and brochures, as well as improve hiking trails, access roads, and campgrounds. ■ Duck, goose, and coot hunting would remain permitted near Lower Red Rock Lake under state and federal regulations (see fi gure 7). ■ Big game hunting for elk, pronghorn, deer, and moose would continue to be allowed on the refuge (see figure 7). All seasons coincide with the state except for the shortened moose season. ■ Visitation would likely remain at current levels of approximately 12,000 visitor days per year.
ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION
Management proposed under alternative B acknowledges the importance of naturally functioning ecological communities on the refuge. However, changes to the landscape from human alterations to the landscape, past refuge management creating wetlands, and species in peril requiring special management actions prevent managing the refuge solely as a naturally-functioning ecological community. Because some of these changes are Chapter 3 — Alternatives 31
Figure 7. Alternative A, current visitor service areas and facilities map. Chapter 3 — Alternatives 33
significant, some refuge habitats would require “hands on” management actions during the life of the CCP. Visitor services programs would be expanded, both on and off refuge. These are the key elements of alternative B: ■ Improved management of riparian habitats to benefit Arctic grayling and migratory bird species dependent on these habitats. Restoration of some modified wetlands (such as Culver Pond) back to riparian corridors would occur. ■ Management actions (such as grazing and prescribed fire) would be directed toward specific habitat and wildlife objectives, with increased and improved oversight, monitoring, and research (when appropriate) being conducted to assess if management objectives are being met. ■ There would be improved environmental education, outreach, and interpretation opportunities in order to better garner support, understanding, and awareness of refuge values. These offerings are expected to increase visitation to 15,000 visitor days per year, an increase of 3,000 visitor days. ■ Facilities and signage on the refuge would be improved to better orient and educate visitors, including added kiosks and interpretive panels (both on the refuge and in the visitor contact area). An auto tour route along an existing refuge road would be designated and interpreted. Minimal signage would be used to retain the refuge’s wildland characteristics. ■ The manager and assistant manager positions would be upgraded, and the assistant manager would be required to maintain law enforcement credentials. Added staff would include a full-time biological science technician, a permanent seasonal park ranger (visitor services manager), and maintenance worker. ■ To create a contiguous hunting area and eliminate hunting boundary confusion, moose hunting would be open in the area west of the Centennial Valley Road near “Saier Corrals.” The area south of South Valley Road (Red Rock Pass Road) would be closed to eliminate a road hunting issue south of the road (see fi gure 8). ■ Closed areas in the northern section of refuge would be opened to deer, elk, and pronghorn hunting. ■ Fishing opportunities would be expanded, and visitors would be encouraged to keep nonnative fi sh. ■ An apartment and refuge house would be
constructed to accommodate added staff.
ALTERNATIVE C: WETLAND RESTORATION
Management under alternative C acknowledges the importance of a naturally functioning ecosystem. Management action emphasis would be placed on allowing wetland and riparian habitats to function naturally through the restoration of most created and all modifi ed wetlands. These are the key elements of alternative C: ■ All modified and most created wetlands would be restored to their original state (stream, shallow wetland, and upland habitats). ■ Prescribed fire and grazing by native ungulates would be used as the primary disturbance for sagebrush-steppe and grassland habitats. Cattle grazing would be eliminated. ■ A full-time visitor services specialist would be recruited to design and expand environmental education and interpretive programs for adults and school children and conduct annual refuge events. These expanded offerings are expected to increase visitation to 16,000 visitor days, an increase of 4,000 visitor days. ■ Outreach would be expanded to garner support and understanding of the refuge issues and management programs, including working with the surrounding landowners and other partners to protect the Centennial Valley from habitat loss and residential development. ■ Moose hunting would follow state seasons. ■ Hunting boundaries will be modifi ed and expanded to eliminate boundary confusion, address law enforcement issues, and provide additional opportunities (see fi gure 9). ■ The River Marsh (commonly referred to as Lower Lake) campground would be closed while accessibility to the campground at Upper Lake would be improved. ■ A full-time wildlife biologist, full-time range technician, and permanent seasonal maintenance worker would be recruited. At least three temporary seasonal biological science technicians would be recruited. ■ Up to five residences would be constructed for current and added staff.
ALTERNATIVE D: ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
Management under alternative D further acknowledges the importance of a naturally functioning ecosystem. Management action emphasis would be placed on the restoration of all natural processes, including the restoration of wetland and riparian habitats and working with adjacent landowners and the state to reintroduce bison should they become designated as free-ranging wildlife in this part of Montana. The refuge would place emphasis on creating a wilderness setting in all areas away from the visitor contact station. Visitor 34 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Figure 8. Hunting program boundaries proposed in alternative B. Chapter 3 — Alternatives 35
Figure 9. Hunting program boundaries proposed in alternative C. 36 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
programs would remain at current levels or be reduced. These are the key elements of alternative D: ■ To the extent possible, management would focus on the restoration of all natural processes including the removal of all structures currently used for impounding and managing waters. ■ If bison become designated as free-ranging in Montana, the Service would work with the state and neighboring landowners to repatriate bison to the refuge. Cattle grazing and interior fences would be eliminated. ■ Hunting boundaries will be modifi ed and expanded to eliminate boundary confusion, address law enforcement issues, and provide additional opportunities.
■ Interpretation would be concentrated at the visitor contact station to reduce the need for signage and interpretative kiosks. ■ All trails would be eliminated, and off-trail hiking would be emphasized to visitors using the refuge. ■ All moose hunting would be eliminated on the refuge (see fi gure 10). ■ Both River Marsh and Upper Lake
campgrounds would be closed.
Table 4 provides additional information for each alternative including an evaluation of the consequences. Chapter 3 — Alternatives 37
Figure 10. Hunting program boundaries proposed in alternative D. Table 4. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Current Management) (Proposed Action) (Wetland Restoration) (Ecological Restoration) Lake, Pond, and Marsh Habitat Goal Provide habitat for breeding and migrating birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that maintains the biological diversity and integrity of montane wetland systems. Natural Lakes (Upper Lake and Swan Lake)—Management Actions The lakes would Same as alternative A, Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B, be allowed to except: including: function naturally Monitoring would be If bison become with no monitoring conducted to ensure designated as free-or management management of adjacent ranging wildlife in intervention. habitats is not adversely Montana the refuge will affecting the lakes work with the state and (for example, through neighboring landowners increased levels of to reintroduce them. nitrogen due to upstream Livestock grazing grazing practices). would be eliminated and interior fences would be removed. Natural Lakes (Upper Lake and Swan Lake)—Environmental Consequences Intact refuge wetlands Monitoring Same as alternative B.
Same as alternative B, would function naturally, would provide an except: maintaining the understanding of the If free-ranging bison biodiversity of native natural variation in the wintered in the valley species and the biological system and allow