Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Colorado Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service
Arapaho
NationalWildlife Refuge
Colorado
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth
goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and
identify the Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current
budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning
and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment
for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for
future land acquisition.
ARAPAHO
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
July 2003
Prepared by
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 457
953 Jackson County Road #32
Walden, Colorado 80480-0457
970/723-8202
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 6
Submitted By:
__________________________________________ _____________________
Gregory J. Langer Date
Project Leader
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Concur:
__________________________________________ _____________________
Ron Cole Date
Refuges Program Supervisor (Colorado)
__________________________________________ _____________________
Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date
Regional Chief
National Wildlife Refuge System
Acknowledgment:
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would like to acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals toward the
completion of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The diversity, talents, and knowledge contributed by these
individuals dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this document.
David Anderson
John Arkins
Greg Auble
Steve Berendzen
Pam Bilbeisi
Randy Bilbeisi
Ayeisha Brinson
Lynne Caughlan
Chuck Cesar
Christina Clements
Ron Cole
Jim Coyle
Beth Dickerson
Josh Dilley
John Esperance
Terri Follett
Jaymee Fojtik
Jim Gammonley
Bernardo Garza
Liza Graham
Galen Green
David Hamilton
Dave Harr
Paul Hellmund
Dale Henry
Jerry Jack
Rick Kahn
Ken Kehmeier
Wayne King
Richard Knight
Carl Korschgen
Lee Lamb
Greg Langer
Lisa Langer
K. Mark Lanier
Murray Laubhan
Rachel Laubhan
Rhoda Lewis
Bridget McCann
Adam Misztal
Ken McDermond
Eugene Patten
Brad Petch
Phadrea Ponds
Steve Porter
Ray Rauch
Jason Rohwender
Larry Shanks
Rick Schroeder
Mike Scott
Barbara Shupe
Ron Shupe
Kirk Snyder
Michael Spratt
Todd Stefanic
Pete Torma
Melvie Uhland
Rod VanVelson
Carl Waller
Ken Waller
Al White
J. Wenum
Harvey Wittmier
Table of Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Introduction/Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Refuge Overview
History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
NWRS Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ecosystem Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Refuge Purpose(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legal and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Existing Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Planning Process
Description of Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Pole Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Inholdings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Summary Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Geological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Soil Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Ecosystem Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses
Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Reserved Rights and Privately-Owned Mineral Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Habitat Management Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
General Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Management Direction
Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies/Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Goals:
Riparian Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Wetland Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Meadow Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Upland Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Public Use
General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Environmental Education/Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Other Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Implementation and Monitoring
Funding and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Funding Needed to Implement This Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Monitoring and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-85
Appendices
A. Species List of Arapaho NWR
Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Amphibians and Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
B. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C. Key Legislation/Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
D. RONS List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
E. MMS List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
F. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
G. Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
H. Habitat Write Ups
Riparian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Meadow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Upland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
I. Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
J. Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Figures
1. Flyways of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2. Ecoregions of the USFWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Maps
1. Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. North Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Physical Features of North Park, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Platte River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Ecosystem Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Habitat Management Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Wetland Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Public Use - Alternative B and D (Preferred) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10. Public Use - Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-105
11. Public Use - Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-146
Tables
1. Arapaho NWR Planning Process Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Summary of Water Rights Held by the Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3. Special Status Wildlife, Fish, Plant, and Amphibian Species Potentially Occurring on Arapaho NWR . . 43
4. Estimated Annual Visitors to Arapaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5. Current and Proposed Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6. Summary of all Refuge Management Activities by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7. General Breeding Habitat Requirements of Selected Woodland Birds in North Park, Colorado . . . . . . 249
8. General Breeding Habitat Requirements of Selected Grassland Birds in North Park, Colorado . . . . . . 253
i
Summary
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal agency with the responsibility for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System (System) which
encompasses more than 540 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management
areas. It also operates 70 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field
stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory
bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as
wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid
program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
National wildlife refuges are established for a particular purpose. Formal establishment is generally based upon a
statute or executive order that specifies a purpose for that Refuge. However, refuges can also be established by
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service using the authorization found within laws such as the Endangered Species Act,
Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was
established on September 26, 1967, for the following purposes:
“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”
16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (a)(4) “. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in
performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or
affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude . . . .” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
These two broad statements provide the “side-boards” to guide future management of Arapaho NWR.
To accomplish these purposes, the Refuge has utilized the existing ditch irrigation system to irrigate hay
meadows for waterfowl, shorebird, and songbird nesting habitat. Additionally, 78 wetlands were created or
enhanced to provide waterfowl brood-rearing habitat. The result is that Arapaho NWR contains abundant
wildlife resources, produces 6,000 to 8,000 ducks annually, and supports a diverse wildlife community that is
common to high mountain valleys in the central Southern Rocky Mountains. In April of 1997, Arapaho NWR
experienced an office fire that completely destroyed the headquarters building. Unfortunately, much of the
historic wildlife resource data was lost to this fire. Implementation of this plan will require some collection of
baseline wildlife and plant resource information to regain what was lost to fire.
The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex includes the following four satellite refuges in Wyoming:
Bamforth NWR, Hutton Lake NWR, Mortenson Lake NWR, and Pathfinder NWR. The Arapaho NWR staff
administers all five refuges from Walden, Colorado with a combined total of 44,960 acres.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) were mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997. This Act requires that the CCP must identify and describe:
1) purposes of the Refuge;
2) fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their habitats;
3) archaeological and cultural values;
4) significant fish, wildlife, and plant problems; and
5) the actions necessary to correct them.
The CCP should also identify and describe compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and
administrative and visitor facilities required to implement the Plan. This CCP only addresses the management of
Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado. Management of the remaining four Wyoming satellite Refuges will be
addressed in a separate planning effort.
ii
Benefits of the CCP are several: better long-term continuity in Refuge management; better understanding of
Refuge management actions for Refuge staff members and visitors; a clear description of future development and
funding needs; and the assurance that Refuge management will fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and the specific purposes for which the Refuge was established.
The Arapaho CCP will be used to prepare step-down management plans and revise existing management plans.
It also will be used to prepare budgets which describe specific actions to be taken by the Refuge over the next 15
years. Given that new information, guidance, and technology frequently change and become available, the CCP
will be updated as necessary throughout the 15-year period.
The Environmental Assessment considered four management alternatives for management of the Arapaho
National Wildlife Refuge. Each of these alternatives were evaluated for environmental consequences in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CCP is the preferred alternative for
Refuge management.
Refuge Vision
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed to benefit the diversity of plants and wildlife found in this high
mountain valley of the southern Rocky Mountains. The Refuge and its resources are also managed for the benefit
of the citizens of the United States.
The Refuge includes wetland, meadow, sagebrush uplands, and riparian communities that provide habitat for
large mammals, neotropical migratory birds, nesting waterfowl, fishes, and species of concern from national and
regional conservation plans. In particular, efforts by Refuge staff to restore the Illinois River channel hydrology,
areas of sagebrush uplands, and to effectively manage wetlands and meadows, contribute to the ecological
integrity of the Refuge, North Park, and the overall North Platte River system.
Through wildlife-dependent recreation and education, people have opportunities to learn of the wonder and
significance of North Park’s fauna and flora. Firsthand experiences with the Refuge encourage people to
participate as stewards, not only of the Refuge, but also of the natural resources in their own communities.
Working in collaboration with the local community and other agencies and organizations helps the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service manage the Refuge as a contributing ecological, cultural, and economic component of the unique
mountain valley within which it sits.
iii
Refuge Goals
Arapaho NWR lands will be managed using the following goals within four primary habitat types (riparian,
wetlands, meadows, and uplands). Compatible public uses, cultural resources, research opportunities, and
partnerships will be used to facilitate Refuge management, and enhance public understanding of natural resource
values within North Park. Refuge staff recognize that many landscapes have been altered and may never be
restored. Arapaho NWR goals include:
■ Riparian Habitats - Provide a riparian community representative of historic flora and fauna in a high
valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat for migratory birds, mammals, and river-dependent
species.
■ Wetland Habitats - Provide and manage natural and man-made permanent and semipermanent wetlands
(in three wetland complexes) to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and
associated wetland-dependent wildlife.
■ Meadow Habitats - Provide and manage irrigated, grass-dominated meadows historically developed for
hay production, to support sage grouse broods, waterfowl nesting, and meadow-dependent migratory
birds.
■ Upland Habitats - Provide an upland community representative of the historic flora and fauna in a high
valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat for sage grouse, large mammals, and other
shrub-associated species.
■ Public Use - Through wildlife-dependent recreation and education, people of a range of abilities and
interests are able to learn of, and appreciate, the natural resources of this unique high mountain park.
Thereby, citizens become better stewards of nature in their own communities and stronger supporters of
the Refuge specifically and the National Wildlife Refuge System generally.
■ Cultural Resources - The cultural resources of the Refuge are preserved, protected, and interpreted for the
benefit of present and future generations.
■ Research - The Refuge is a learning platform for compatible research that assists management and science
of high mountain park sage-steppe communities.
■ Partnerships - A wide range of partners join with the Fish and Wildlife Service in promoting and
implementing the Refuge vision.
The vision and goals presented here will be implemented over the next 15 years using the measurable objectives
and strategies identified within this CCP. Working with partners, the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge will
conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 1
Introduction/Background
The Arapaho NWR Complex is located in the northwest corner of Colorado.
The Complex includes the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the
following four satellite refuges in Wyoming: Bamforth NWR, Hutton Lake
NWR, Mortenson Lake NWR, and Pathfinder NWR (see Map 1 - Vicinity
Map). On September 26, 1967, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission,
acting under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
approved the established area known as the Arapaho NWR, which is
currently is 23,243 acres in size and is located in Jackson County (see Map 2 -
Base Map). Purchased acres total 18,451 while 4,792 acres have been
withdrawn. The Arapaho Complex staff administers an additional 21,717
acres on the Wyoming satellite refuges for a total of 44,960 acres under
Complex management.
The Refuge is located in an intermountain glacial basin just south of the town
of Walden, the county seat of Jackson County, Colorado. The basin is
approximately 30 miles wide and 45 miles long. Commonly known as “North
Park” since it is the most northern of three such “parks” in Colorado.
Jackson County is a high, isolated intermountain basin that lies in the
northern tier of Colorado counties (see Map 3 - North Park).
Forming the headwaters of the North Platte River, the basin opens north
into Wyoming and is rimmed on the west by the Park Range, on the south by
the Rabbit Ears Range, and on the east by the Medicine Bow Range (see
Map 4 - Physical Features of North Park, Colorado). Elevation ranges from
7,800 to 12,953 feet above sea level. The floor of the basin is interspersed
with many slow meandering streams that come together in the north-central
part of the county to form the North Platte River. Main tributary rivers are
the Michigan, Illinois, Canadian, and Grizzly (Map 5 - Platte River
Watershed).
A major portion of the bottom land along the streams is irrigated hay
meadow and irrigated pasture while the low rises between streams are dry
grassland and sagebrush grazing lands. The picture changes rapidly on the
edges of the basin where the land pitches abruptly upward to the mountain
tops, the slopes heavily clothed with aspen, spruce, pine, and fir up to
timberline at about 11,000 feet, then tundra and rock up to the mountain
summits.
The ecosystems in the North Park area of Colorado have grown through
hundreds of years in a fire-dependent system, with fire as an important,
dominating influence. High elevations and a short season, with a cool, often
moist, climate was part of the fire regime. Class 4 Fire Regime consist of
combined crown fires and severe surface fires (25 to 100 year return
interval). Most woody vegetation or stand elements were killed over large
areas.
The fire regime has been altered, changing the cultural activities, i.e., grazing
patterns over a 100-year period, in the North Park area. Early explorers
noted tallgrass found in the Park. Native Americans dubbed North Park the
“Bullpen,” referring to the bison inhabiting the area. This gives an indication
that the area may have been more dominated by grasses, and thus likely was
more influenced by fire than the present condition dominated by sagebrush
hills.
Records for North Park indicate little significant wildfire activity in the past
50 years.
2 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Map 1- Vicinity Map
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 3
Map 2 - Base Map
Wyoming
Colorado
State
LarimerCounty
Jackson County
Jackson County
Routt County
4 0 4 2 8 12 Miles
USFWS
USFS
PVT
NPS
STATE
Landownership
BLM
4 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Routt National Forest
Routt National Forest
Colorado
Forest
Rocky
Mountain
National
Park
Map 3 - North Park, Jackson County, Colorado
Arapaho
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Pole
Mountain
Unit
12
Walden
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 5
Map 4 - Physical Features of North Park, Colorado
South Dakota
Nebraska
Wyoming
Colorado
Saratoga
Walden
Laramie
Ft. Collins
Boulder
Denver
Cheyenne
Scottsbluff
Casper
North Platte
Kearney
Grand
Island
Lincoln
River
Platte
South
Platte
River
River
Platte
North
30 15 0 30 60 90 Miles
Pathfinder
NWR
Hutton Lake
NWR
Mortenson Lake
NWR
Bamforth
NWR
Sterling
Legend
6 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Map 5 - Platte RiverWatershed
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 7
Beaver © Cindie Brunner
Prior to 1820, the Ute Indians spent their summers in North Park, living on
mule deer, buffalo, pronghorn antelope, and many other kinds of game. The
severity of the winters forced both the Indians and the game down to lower
altitudes in the fall.
The Arapaho Indians also made frequent hunting trips into North Park
coming in from the southwest over a pass described by Lt. John F. Fremont,
as one of the most beautiful he had ever seen. The Utes and Arapaho’s were
bitter enemies, and many battles occurred when they chanced to meet.
Besides their well worn trails, other mute evidence of Indian life of pre-settlement
time still exists in North Park. A band of Utes who participated
in the Meeker, Colorado massacre in 1879 fled to North Park after
the incident and spent the winter in the north end of the Park. Several large
log tepees left by this band of Utes, still stand in a sheltered and secluded
spot in the north end of Jackson County.
The first Europeans to visit and explore North Park were probably trappers,
who were in northwestern Colorado as early as 1819. Beaver were
particularly abundant along North Park’s streams. In 1820, Josephy Bijeau
told of the good trapping he had experienced in North Park a few years
prior, while with the Chateau and DeMunn Expedition. About the same time,
1820, Jacques Laramie trapped in the Park for the Northwest Fur Company.
He was followed by a party of trappers headed by Alexander Sinclair and
Robert Bean who trapped beaver in the Park in 1825. A number of trappers
visited the Park into the 1840s including Peg Smith, John Gantt, Kit Carson,
Henry Fraeb, Calvin Jones, Bill Williams, Jim Baker, Jim Bridger, Sublette,
Gervais, and Vasquez. In 1855, the famous Irish hunter Sir George Gore
made a spectacular hunting trip through North Park, killing thousands of
mule deer, buffalo, and pronghorn antelope.
Miners and prospectors followed the trappers and hunters to North Park.
James O. Pinkham was one of the first prospectors in North Park and began
panning gold in the area in the early 1870s spending the long cold winters in
Laramie, Wyoming, and the summers in North Park. He believed that North
Park was the richest and finest country in the world, and built a home in the
Park in 1874. Mr. Pinkham interested others in North Park through his tales
of rich placer land, and by 1875, nearly 100 men were prospecting for placer
gold around Rabbit Ears, Independence, and Owl Mountains.
During August and September 1879, George Bird Grinnell, naturalist, writer,
and hunter entered the Park to collect museum specimens. Traveling by
horse from the train station in Laramie, Wyoming, this 29-year-old Yale
graduate entered the north end of the Park. “The country at this point had
been burned over and was black and extremely desolate in appearance. I
inquired the cause of the fire and learned from the owner of the ranch
(Pinkham) that the burn had been made to clear off the sagebrush which
takes up so much room that might be occupied by grass.” Several days later,
while camped on a meadow along the North Platte River, Grinnell writes:
“. . . was perhaps a mile and a half wide, a superb level meadow, covered with
fine grass, on which in the morning and evening from two to five hundred
pronghorn antelope were in sight at one time. Sage and dusky grouse, ducks,
and jack rabbits abounded here also . . . . It is only necessary to get back
from the road to find both mule deer and elk.”
8 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The first settlers lived on wild game, and hunting was as much a business of
the men as attending to their ranch work. North Park, in the late 1880s, was
a paradise of game. Thousands of pronghorn antelope summered in the Park
and migrated to the lower valleys in Wyoming during the winter. Also,
hundreds of mule deer and elk were in the Park, but their numbers
diminished after the arrival of settlers. Few buffalo were left in the Park
when the first settlers came, but they soon disappeared. Many bears,
mountain lions, mountain sheep, and beaver existed along with thousands of
sage grouse, blue grouse, and ducks in the early days. No trout existed in any
of the North Park streams when the first settlers came; however, in the
1880s, settlers stocked the streams with eastern brook trout and rainbow
trout.
In 1880, cattle were introduced in large numbers, being driven down from
the railroad lines in Laramie, Wyoming. However, the winter of 1883-84 was
severe, and half of the stock died. As a result, most of the ranchers
purchased mowers and rakes prior to the following summer’s haying season
in preparation for putting up the wild hay for winter feed. Hay has always
been the main agricultural crop in Jackson County, with about 100,000 acres
being in native mountain hay and only 370 acres in other crops. For years, all
the hay was fed inside North Park, but in 1914, ranchers began to bale and
sell the hay outside the Park.
By the early 1890s, North Park was fairly well settled in every direction, and
a central point for securing supplies became necessary. As a result, the Town
of Walden, elevation 8,100 feet, the present county seat, was established in
the middle of North Park located in the vicinity of two wagon roads from
Laramie to Teller City and from Albany to Granby. The town was named
after Mark S. Walden who was postmaster of the nearby settlement, Sage
Hen Springs.
The economy of Jackson County is based primarily on agriculture and
recreation. Additionally, mining and logging have provided economic
stimulus to the county. The economic base has been fairly stable throughout
the history of Jackson County with some fluctuations caused by the
instability of the mining and logging industry.
Recreation is becoming more and more of an economic importance to Jackson
County. The county’s many streams, lakes, uplands, timbered areas, and
mountains, most with public access, offer unusual opportunities for outdoor
recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, bird-watching, backpacking,
camping, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, bicycling, horseback riding,
and many other activities.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 9
Refuge Overview
History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and
Management
Since the 1890s, North Park (Jackson County) Colorado has been known for
high waterfowl productivity. Historically, high spring river flows flooded
meadows providing suitable nesting habitat for a host of nesting bird species,
especially waterfowl. Today, North Park serves as the second most
productive waterfowl area in the State of Colorado. On August 15, 1967, the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the first land acquisition
project for the establishment of Arapaho NWR. The Refuge purpose was “for
use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for other management purposes, for
migratory birds” 16 U.S.C. (Migratory Bird Conservation Act). The original
land purchase was the Allard Ranch of 4,433.07 acres. Subsequently, nine
additional land tracts were purchased, and land exchanges completed with the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the State of Colorado, for a current
Refuge size of 23,243 acres.
Since 1967 the Refuge has been managed primarily for waterfowl nesting and
production. Utilizing existing irrigation ditches for the water delivery system,
the Refuge staff constructed or enhanced 78 wetland impoundments in the
Illinois River. These impoundments, and associated wet-meadow habitats,
provide the habitat necessary to produce waterfowl. The Refuge provides high
quality habitat for many other mammals and birds common to high mountain
sagebrush steppe environments. The willow riparian area alone supports over
40 species of songbird (neotropical migrants) during part of their migration or
nesting cycle. Sage grouse are common on the Refuge, and wet-meadow
habitats provide critical feeding areas for sage grouse young. Moose, mule deer,
elk, and pronghorn antelope are common Refuge wildlife species. These big game
species migrate on and off the Refuge; however, it is not uncommon for 1,200 elk,
200 pronghorn antelope, and 20 moose to inhabit the Refuge at any one time.
The Refuge headquarters is located 8 miles south of Walden on Highway 125.
A full-time staff of six employees and three summer temporaries work to
manage the Refuge wetlands and irrigation system, the wildlife habitats, and
maintain visitor facilities. Grazing is the primary management tool used to
manage meadow and upland habitats. Currently seven grazing cooperators
are used to maintain and enhance Refuge grassland habitats. Water level
manipulation, irrigation, fire, mowing, harrowing, and discing are additional
tools used to improve grassland and wetland habitats on the Refuge.
The Refuge accommodates approximately 8,000 visitors annually. The 6-mile
auto tour route, the walking trail, and Brocker Overlook account for the
majority of visitor use. Approximately 500 recreation days are provided to
hunters and anglers. The Refuge is currently open to limited small game,
waterfowl, sage grouse, and pronghorn antelope hunting opportunities. The
lower one-third of the Refuge provides brown and rainbow trout fishing
opportunities to anglers.
Jackson County is rural and sparsely populated with only 1,577 individuals
(2000 census data) residing there. Walden is the county seat, and
approximately 900 individuals live within its city limits. At 8,200 feet in
elevation, North Park is an intermountain glacial basin approximately 30
miles across and 45 miles long. Ranching, including both hay production and
cattle, continues to be the dominant land use of North Park. Hunting, fishing,
snowmobiling, and other outdoor recreational activities also promote the
economy of the area. Fortunately, the traditional ranching history of North
Park has not only produced hay and cattle, it has preserved and protected
thousands of acres of wildlife habitat.
10 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mission
“To work with others to conserve,
protect and enhance fish and wildlife
and plants and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American
people.”
National Wildlife Refuge System
Mission
“To administer a network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of fish
and wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997,
Public Law 105-57).
National Wildlife Refuge
System Goals
1) To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve
Refuge purpose(s) and further the
System mission;
2) Conserve, restore where appropriate,
and enhance all species of fish, wildlife,
and plants that are endangered or
threatened with becoming endangered;
3) Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional
fish and marine mammal
populations;
4) Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife,
and plants;
5) Conserve and restore, where
appropriate, representative ecosystems
of the United States, including the
ecological processes characteristic of
those ecosystems;
6) To foster understanding and instill
appreciation of fish, wildlife and plants
and their conservation, by providing the
public with safe, high-quality, and
compatible wildlife-dependent public
use. Such use includes hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, and photography,
and environmental education and
interpretation.
Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Initiated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997, Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) will be developed
for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Plans must
include public involvement in their development, and must set forth
strategies to fulfill the Refuge System mission, as well as the
purposes for which the Refuge was established.
Wildlife has first priority in the management of Refuges. Recreation
or other uses are allowed if they are compatible with wildlife
conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation activities such as
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education, and interpretation will be
emphasized.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan provides a 15-year
guidance for the management of Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge. Management goals and objectives developed for
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge are presented in the
Management Direction Section. Based on the life requirements
of selected wildlife species, these goals and objectives provide
specific “targets” for Refuge staff to manage toward. Future
management efforts will focus on achieving these goals and
objectives for the benefit of wildlife and the American people.
To fulfill the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service mission, Congress
has charged the Service with conserving and managing
migratory birds, endangered species, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and certain marine mammals. The Service
operates more than 540 national wildlife refuges, 70 national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological
services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife
laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat
such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and
helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It
also oversees the Federal Aid Program which distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on hunting and
fishing equipment to state wildlife agencies.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest
collection of lands set-aside specifically for the protection of
wildlife. The first unit of the Refuge System was created in
1903, when president Theodore Roosevelt designated 3-acre
Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as a bird
sanctuary. Today, the Refuge System consists of 540 national
wildlife refuges and waterfowl production areas, encompassing
more than 95-million acres and located in all 50 States and a
number of U.S. Territories.
The Refuge System provides habitat for native mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, and plants “trust
resources” for which the Federal government is ultimately
responsible. It plays a vital role in preserving endangered and
threatened species, preventing species from becoming
endangered, and offers wildlife-dependent recreation for over
34 million visitors annually.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 11
Ecosystem Goals
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem Vision
The vision of the Platte/Kansas Rivers ecoteam is to provide partnership
based, landscape level conservation for the diversity and abundance of natural
resources within the ecosystem. The team envisions landscapes which exhibit
natural, healthy, ecological processes; ongoing protection of threatened,
endangered and endemic species; protecting and promoting native prairie
vegetation; involving all stakeholders in decision-making processes; and
recognizes that partnerships are the key to success.
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem Description
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has divided the country into 53 watershed-based
ecosystem management units. The Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem
unit encompasses approximately 182,000 square miles of the central Great
Plains of the United States (see Map 6 - Ecosystem Map). The Platte/Kansas
Rivers Ecoregion includes the States of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and
Wyoming. The area is diverse, beginning at the headwaters of the North and
South Platte River systems high in the Rocky Mountains, moving into
sagebrush uplands of north-central Colorado and southeastern Wyoming,
traversing across the shortgrass prairie regions of eastern Colorado, and the
mixed-grass prairie regions of Nebraska and Kansas. The primary ecological
processes affecting this system are climate, cultivation, grazing, and fire. The
ecosystem is considered arid with an average annual precipitation between 8
and 16 inches per year. Approximately 85 percent of the Platte/Kansas Rivers
Ecoregion is privately owned. The remainder is primarily owned and
managed by State and Federal agencies.
The Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem Planning Team, with input from current
partners and field stations, identified and prioritized three primary
geographic sub-units: mixed-grass prairie, mountain, and shortgrass prairie.
Within each geographic sub-unit, priorities were established based on
significance in the ecosystem, species diversity, risk/threat to the entire
ecosystem area, public benefits, and trust resources. Also considered were
legal mandates, opportunity for partnerships, likelihood of success, and cost
effectiveness. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge falls within the Mountain
Sub-Unit of the Ecosystem Plan and plays a vital role in uplands management
and protection.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 13
Refuge Purposes
National wildlife refuges are established for a particular purpose. Formal
establishment is generally based upon a statute or executive order that
specifies a purpose for that Refuge. However, refuges can also be established
by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service using the authorization found within laws
such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and
the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was
established on September 26, 1967, for the following purposes:
“. . . for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird
Conservation Act).
“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and
protection of fish and wildlife resources . . . ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (a)(4) “. . .
for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in
performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to
the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of
servitude . . . .” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
These two broad statements provide the “side-boards” to guide future
management of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge.
As part of the planning process, the Refuge staff and planning team reviewed
past national, regional, and complex planning documents and current planning
guidance. Using the legislation and plans, the planning team developed the
following vision statement for the Refuge.
Refuge Vision Statement
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed to benefit the diversity of
plants and wildlife found in this high mountain valley of the southern Rocky
Mountains. The Refuge and its resources are also managed for the benefit of
the citizens of the United States.
The Refuge includes wetland, meadow, sagebrush uplands, and riparian
communities that provide habitat for large animals, neotropical migratory
birds, nesting waterfowl, fishes, and species of concern from national and
regional conservation plans. In particular, efforts by Refuge staff to restore
the Illinois River channel hydrology, riparian areas, sagebrush uplands, and to
effectively manage wetlands and meadows, contribute to the ecological
integrity of the Refuge, North Park, and the overall North Platte River
system.
Through wildlife-dependent recreation and education, people have
opportunities to learn of the wonder and significance of North Park’s fauna
and flora. Firsthand experiences with the Refuge encourage people to
participate as stewards, not only of the Refuge, but also of the natural
resources in their own communities.
Working in collaboration with the local community and other agencies and
organizations helps the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service manage the Refuge as a
contributing ecological, cultural, and economic component of the unique
mountain valley within which it sits.
14 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Legal and Policy Guidance
National wildlife refuges are guided by: The mission and goals of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System; the legal
purpose of the Refuge unit as described in the enabling legislation or
executive orders; international treaties; Federal laws and regulations; and
Service Policies (Appendix C).
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended, provided guidelines and directives for administration of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. Use of any area within the Refuge System
was permitted, provided that such uses were compatible with the major
purposes for which such areas were established.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 amends the
Refuges System Administration Act by including a unifying mission for the
Refuge System, a formal process for determining compatible uses on Refuges,
and a requirement that each Refuge will be managed under a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. This Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of
Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge
lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill both the specific
purposes for which it was established and the mission of the Refuge System.
Further, the Refuge Improvement Act defines the wildlife-dependent
recreational uses as: hunting and fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation. (Specific details
regarding additional amendments are available through the Refuge or
Regional Fish and Wildlife Service offices).
Lands within the Refuge System are different from other public lands in that
they are closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. Unlike
other Federal lands that are managed under a multiple use mandate (i.e.
national forests administered by the U.S. Forest Service and public lands
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management), the Refuge System is
managed specifically for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources.
Compatibility is a legal requirement of all refuge uses. By Federal law, all
uses of national wildlife refuges, including wildlife-dependent recreational
activities, must be formally determined to be compatible. A compatible use is
defined as “a use that, in the sound professional judgement of the refuge
manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of
the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the Refuge.” Sound
professional judgement is further defined as “a finding, determination, or
decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife
management and administration, available science and resources (funding,
personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and adherence with applicable
laws.” No use of a National Wildlife Refuge may be allowed unless
determined to be compatible.
Uses that have been determined to be compatible for Arapaho National
Wildlife Refuge include: hunting, fishing, environmental education and
interpretation, wildlife observation and photography. Additionally, habitat
management tools, including but not limited to, are fire, mowing, grazing,
noxious weed control (chemical, mechanical, and physical methods), Dixie
harrow, fencing, water management, routine Refuge maintenance activities,
and public use related structures (Appendix F).
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 15
Existing Partnerships
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge currently promotes partnership
opportunities to accomplish natural resource related goals both on and off the
Refuge. Existing partnerships include the following groups and agencies:
Colorado Division of Wildlife - Wildlife and fishery habitat improvement,
resource sharing, law enforcement.
Colorado Scenic Byways - Overlooks and roads development and
interpretation.
Colorado State Forest - Natural resources improvement projects, forest
management plans, fire management.
Colorado State University - Assist with planning, wildlife research, and
habitat management.
Habitat Partnership Program - Reducing cattle and big game conflicts
throughout North Park (Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)).
Jackson County - Noxious weed management and fire support.
Natural Resource Conservation Service - Soils and vegetative management
assistance.
Owl Mountain Partnership - Land health improvement projects on public and
private lands. Includes developing grazing management plans, wildlife
watering areas, and sagebrush management projects.
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecoteam - Assist with funding and planning natural
resource projects.
National Center for Atmospheric Research - Research snowpack
characteristics to create reliable snowpack models.
Sage Grouse Working Group - Sage grouse habitat protection and
enhancement.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Partner in several programs, equipment
sharing, resource sharing.
U.S. Forest Service - Partner in several programs, equipment sharing, fire
management, resource sharing.
U.S. Geological Survey - Cooperative wildlife research, planning, and water
monitoring projects.
16 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Planning Process
Description of Planning Process
The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan is
guided by the mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, the established purposes of the Refuge,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service compatibility standards, and other Service
policies, plans, and laws related to Refuge management. This Plan establishes
habitat-based goals, objectives, strategies, and monitoring priorities for
Refuge management.
The Plan will be used to prepare more specific step-down management plans
that address programs (hunting, fishing, environmental education, etc), annual
priorities, and budgets. Projects completed by the Refuge will be monitored
and documented to ensure progress toward achieving overall Refuge goals.
Step-down plans also provide flexibility to accommodate annual changes in
Refuge staff levels, funding, equipment, and other resources.
Key steps in the planning process include:
1) preplanning;
2) identifying issues and developing a vision;
3) gathering information;
4) assessing environmental effects;
5) developing alternatives;
6) identifying the proposed alternative;
7) publishing a Draft Plan and soliciting public comments;
8) reviewing the comments and making appropriate changes to the Draft;
9) preparing the Final Plan for approval by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Regional Director.
Issues addressed in this Plan were identified by the public, Refuge staff, and
cooperating agencies. Public meetings were held on February 15, 2001, in
Walden Colorado, and February 16, 2001, in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Questionnaires and CCP summary handouts were distributed during these
public events. News releases were published in the Jackson County Star and
the Fort Collin’s Coloradoan newspapers. Additionally, the public meeting
presentation was delivered at a Fort Collins Chapter Audubon Society
meeting in April of 2000. Public comments were received and utilized
throughout the planning process.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans are initiated, developed, and published in
a 2-year time frame. The Plan duration is 15 years; however, the Plan may be
revised if necessary. The CCP will supercede current management plans.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 17
Table 1. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Planning Process Summary
DATE TITLE OUTCOME
June 2000 CCP kick off meeting Initiate CCP process
June 2000 Notice of intent for Federal Register Intent filed
July 2000 Stake holder involvement plan Stakeholder plan completed
August 2000 Significant issues development Develop and refine list of issues
September 2000 Biological workshop Develop draft focus areas
October 2000 Biological workshop Develop draft riparian goals
December 2000 Biological workshop Develop draft wetland goals
January 2001 Congressional tour Tour Refuge, discuss CCP
January 2001 Commissioner tour Tour Refuge, discuss CCP
January 2001 Biological workshop Develop draft meadow goals
January 2001 Biological workshop Develop draft upland goals
February 2001 Public Scoping – Walden Develop Issues summary
February 2001 Public Scoping - Fort Collins Develop Issues summary
February 2001 Biological Workshop Develop riparian objectives
April 2001 Public Scoping Develop Issues summary
April 2001 Decision support system Develop timelines for DSS
May 2001 Biological Workshop Refine goals and objectives
June 2001 Landscape scales issues meeting Issues identification
June 2001 Riparian workshop Field visit of riparian areas
July 2001 Alternatives development Develop range alternatives
July 2001 Alternatives development Refine alternatives
August 2001 Alternatives development Refine Public Use Alternatives
September 2001 CCP process meeting Evaluate CCP status
October 2001 CCP objectives Refine biological objectives
October 2001 CCP objectives Refine biological objectives
October 2001 CCP objectives Refine biological objectives
October 2001 CCP objectives Refine public use objectives
November 2001 CCP objectives Refine public use objectives
November 2001 CCP objectives Refine biological objectives
December 2001 Economic impact meeting Evaluate economic issues
January 2003 CCP preparation Writing draft CCP
February 2003 CCP preparation Writing draft CCP
March 2003 Internal review Complete internal review
June 2003* Prepare Public review document Document completed
July 2003* Public review – comment period Review completed
July 2003* Public meeting draft CCP – Walden Presentation
July 2003* Public meeting draft CCP – Fort Collins Presentation
August 2003* Follow-up Landscape scale issues Meeting completion
August 2003* Incorporate public comments Complete incorporation
September 2003* Internal final review Complete review
October 2003* Publish final CCP Publish
*proposed
schedule
18 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Planning Issues
Primary issues concerning future management of Arapaho NWR include:
changing from a species-based management approach to a habitat-based
management approach; sage grouse preservation and management; use of
grazing as a wildlife management tool, and water management. Additionally,
close coordination with the state wildlife management agency is critical to
plan success.
Pole Mountain
History
During 1993, the Service acquired lands formerly known as the Stelbar
Ranch owned by E.B. Shawver. As part of the “all-or-nothing” purchase of
lands adjacent to Arapaho NWR, this acquisition included an isolated tract of
land known as Pole Mountain (T7N, R81W, Sec 33 and 34, 6PM), located
approximately 6 miles southwest of the Refuge in Jackson County, Colorado.
With a peak elevation of 9,200 feet, this 800-acre tract contains significantly
different habitats than Arapaho Refuge proper. The site has private land on
three sides and a piece of BLM land to the south that has no public access to
it. Similarly, the Service does not own a permanent access easement to the
property, and currently gains access across private land by virtue of a
positive working relationship with a neighboring landowner.
The site is dominated by sagebrush uplands (50 percent) and mixed
aspen/conifer forest (50 percent), which is common throughout the county
where the uplands meet the forest edge. Currently, the Pole Mountain
property is grazed annually, and invasive weeds are monitored and
controlled. Minimal wildlife monitoring has been conducted at the site.
Wildlife use includes mule deer, elk, blue grouse, porcupine, and a variety of
passerines. Although the area has wildlife value, it does not match current or
future objectives of the remainder of Arapaho NWR.
Issues
The habitat does not meet purposes of Refuge establishment and is not
unique in the area in terms of habitat or wildlife use. Few management
options are available for habitat improvement.
Several entities are interested in the land for various reasons, including:
members of the local Sage Grouse Working Group to trade these lands for
others in the county to protect sage grouse habitat; the CDOW for big game
management (however, they currently have a moratorium on acquiring new
lands); local ranchers for use as grazing land; developers for home sites.
Lack of a legal access right-of-way. This makes any management effort
tenuous, especially anything to do with public use as we do not want to
encourage citizens to trespass on private lands to gain access to public
grounds.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 19
Considered Options
1. Keep tract, survey, re-sign, change/add Refuge objectives to include this
parcel;
2. Work with Colorado State Forest Service to develop and implement a
forest management plan for the area;
3. Sell tract through government regulations to highest bidder;
4. Trade tract for (in priority order):
A. Refuge Inholdings
B. Lands and waters adjacent to Arapaho NWR that are manageable to
reach objectives listed in this Plan
C. Lands and waters adjacent to other Refuges in:
a. Colorado
b. Region 6 of the FWS
c. any Refuge in the nation, which help these areas achieve their
goals and objectives
D. Lands with a natural resource interest by other Federal land
management agencies
5. Place a conservation easement on the property prior to divestment to
limit or preclude development on the tract;
6. Secure a legal right-of-way easement to assure access to the property;
7. Open area to hunting of all species according to State regulations.
Proposed Action
Divest of the Pole Mountain property within 5 years using the priority
criteria listed above. Until that time, the Refuge staff will ensure proper
stewardship of the land, but minimal management will occur.
Strategies:
■ Place a conservation easement on the property prior to sale/trade to
ensure the wildlife benefits of the area remain intact.
■ Continue grazing at recent levels as deemed appropriate by
management.
■ Continue weed control efforts as part of the Pest Management
Agreement with the county.
■ Obtain a right-of-way access to the property for management and
public use.
■ Open the tract to hunting by advertising such intentions in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
■ If the tract is not divested, create a forest and rangeland
management plan for the area prior to update of this CCP.
20 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Grazing
The lands that now make up Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge had been
grazed by cattle and sheep, prior to acquisition, for nearly a century. Since
establishment of the Refuge in 1967, grazing has continued to be the most
common management tool to manipulate Refuge habitats, especially the
meadow areas. Immediately after land purchases, some grazing was
permitted as part of purchase agreements, and some areas were rested to
establish waterfowl nesting cover. From 1969 to 1982, 47 to 95 percent of the
Refuge lands were grazed annually at a Refuge-wide rate varying between
0.4 and 1.2 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) per acre. Grazing records from 1982
to 1991 were destroyed by an office fire. From 1991 to 2001 (excepting 1993
for which data is unavailable) 46 to 74 percent of the Refuge lands were
grazed annually at a Refuge-wide average rate between 0.52 and 0.71 AUMs
per acre. Actual rates per field vary significantly depending on the site, with
some upland areas being as low as 0.01 AUMs per acre and some meadow
fields as high as 2.18 AUMs per acre.
Grazing in meadow/riparian areas has generally not commenced until after
August 1 of a given year to minimize disturbance to nesting waterfowl.
Uplands are sometimes grazed earlier, but as a general rule, grazing on the
Refuge does not commence until June 1. Grazing systems used have included
high intensity, short duration (Holistic Resource Management (HRM) type),
rest-rotation, light annual grazing, and complete rest.
Livestock grazing has been the preferred management tool used on the
Refuge because the effect on vegetative communities is more controllable
and predictable than other management tools available at this time. All
known and available management tools will be assessed for suitability of use
in achieving defined habitat objectives. Other treatment options that will be
considered include:
Prescribed fire -Some prescribed fires have occurred on the Refuge and
others may be planned in the future. Burning could be used to accomplish
efforts to remove excess decadent growth and reset successional stages;
however, due to severe weather extremes including high winds, low
humidities, and unpredictable water weather conditions, meeting burning
prescriptions is difficult. Even though fire could accomplish habitat goals,
manipulation may not have the chance to occur for years.
Haying/mowing - Minimal haying occurred on some parcels as agreements of
purchase, but were short-lived. Haying would be effective in removal of
vegetative growth, but the primary objective of haying would likely be to
remove decadent growth. In this case, hay quality would probably be poor, so
finding someone interested in doing the work may be difficult. Mowing would
successfully remove decadent growth, and the cut grass would ultimately
break down to form litter and duff needed for objectives. This could be very
costly in time and energy compared to other tools.
Fertilizing - Applying fertilizers is an option to increase plant growth, and is
used by many in the county to increase hay production. Cost, equipment, and
time deter its use at present, but this tool should be considered if habitat
objectives are not being met by other means.
Mechanical treatments - These are treatments typically associated with
efforts to manipulate sagebrush and could include using a disc, aerator,
roller/chopper, Dixie harrow, or similar implements. Several hundred acres
around the county have been treated in recent years in an effort to open up
and vary the age diversity of sagebrush stands, and increase plant diversity,
but success of these projects is still being assessed.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 21
There is little Refuge specific data available to assess how past Refuge
grazing practices have or will effect proposed habitat objectives due to: 1) all
data prior to April 1997 was destroyed in an office fire: 2) any available data
from other studies was not necessarily looking for the objectives as defined
in this document and, therefore, is of limited use for assessment purposes.
With this said, it is the opinion of the Refuge staff based on their knowledge
of the Refuge lands, that although grazing practices on the Refuge to-date
have not harmed the habitat, current levels of grazing probably do not allow
us to meet the objectives as defined, and some reduction in grazing will be
required. With more intensive monitoring of habitats to assess how well
objectives are being met, a better understanding of appropriate grazing
levels should be developed. Anticipated grazing use of the different
alternatives as identified in this CCP are as follows (refer to the
Environmental Assessment for full discussion of alternatives):
Alternative A
Estimated grazing numbers are based on the 1996 to 2001 annual average AUMS of 8,470. This range of years
was used because 1996 was the first year of grazing on the current Refuge acreage of 23,243 acres following
the purchase of the Stelbar tract. The figures for 2002 were not included as they were considered an anomaly
since one of the worst droughts on record significantly decreased use. Status quo, figuring what we have been
doing is working.
Alternative B
Uses estimated grazing numbers of 3,050 to 7,650 AUMs annually, and represents approximately 36 to 90
percent of the 1996 to 2001 average. This assumes an average use of between 0.4 and 1.0 AUMs per acre of
grazable acres for riparian and meadows, and 0.05 to 0.15 on uplands. Nothing is guaranteed; however, this
alternative assumes some grazing will likely occur every year to help achieve objectives on and off the
Refuge. Work closely with permittees to combine Refuge needs and permittees operational needs together as
much as possible as far as timing, areas, and to a certain extent, numbers. Permittees in good standing have a
reasonable expectation of how many AUMs will be available to them for the upcoming year - barring
extenuating circumstances (drought, etc.).
Alternative C
Uses estimated grazing numbers of 3,050 to 7,650 AUMs per annual use based on the 1996 to 2001 average
and a rate between 0.4 to 1.0 AUMs per acre of grazable acres for riparian and meadows, 0.05 to 0.15 on
uplands. Since this alternative requires tighter decisions based solely on predicted habitat needs, there is the
higher likelihood of significant variability in AUMs from year-to-year, and an increased possibility of no
grazing under certain circumstances. The Refuge staff will set strict guidelines as to where, when, and how
intense grazing will occur. Permittees in good standing should have some expectation of grazing to occur the
next year, but with more variation possible. If the grazing program under this alternative proves to be too
unreliable to maintain regular permittees, it may be necessary to institute a lottery or bid system. The
Refuge staff would have to identify where grazing was to occur in the upcoming year, how many AUMs were
being offered, and what level of stocking rate would be required, and then advertise that to any interested
rancher.
Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Uses estimated grazing numbers of 3,050 to 7,650 AUMs annually, and represents approximately 36 to 90
percent of the 1996 to 2001 average. This assumes an average use of between 0.4 and 1.0 AUMs per acre of
grazable acres for riparian and meadows, and 0.05 to 0.15 on uplands. Nothing is guaranteed; however, this
alternative assumes some grazing will likely occur every year to help achieve objectives on and off the
Refuge. Work closely with permittees to combine Refuge needs and permittees operational needs together as
much as possible as far as timing, areas, and to a certain extent, numbers. Permittees in good standing have a
reasonable expectation of how many AUMs will be available to them for the upcoming year - barring
extenuating circumstances (drought, etc.).
22 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Options for implementing any needed changes to grazing program include:
1) Attrition - As permittees drop out, they will not be replaced immediately
- if at all. Fields that have historically been grazed by a permittee that
drops out will be given to a new permittee after at least a year of rest -
when assessment of ground indicates treatment is needed again. Or
fields will be adjudicated among remaining permittees to better manage
AUMs throughout the Refuge. Anticipated grazing needs will be
identified by January 15 of each year for permittee planning purposes.
2) New grazing protocol is instituted immediately upon signing of the CCP.
Refuge staff will establish AUMs to be used and where; and permittees
will work with those numbers.
3) Permittees could be guaranteed a certain number of AUMs or range to
expect from year-to-year. No guarantee will occur as to where these
AUMs will be, so permittee must be willing to go anywhere on the
Refuge. AUMs per permittee could be based on a ratio of past use, or a
similar amount/range for all.
4) If no permittees drop out, decrease AUMs across the board a percentage
(5 to 10 percent) every year until a predetermined threshold, or habitat
objectives are met. Adjust annually, thereafter, based on habitat needs
and outside projects.
5) If no permittees drop out, set a date - such as 5 years from signing of the
CCP - when any changes will take effect. Refuge staff will have a chance
to come up with firm numbers that will be communicated to permittees
to aid them in long-term planning.
6) If a permittee drops out, rest all fields they grazed for 2 years to conduct
intensive evaluations of fields. When it is deemed manipulation is
needed, advertise the availability of a grazing permit allowing so many
AUMs per year, for X out of the next Y years (e.g. 500 AUMs per year
for 3 out of the next 6 years), with the permittee choosing which years to
use. Permittee could be selected by lottery or bid. Permit would define
available fields and maximum AUMS per year to be used in each.
Proposed Action
Continue working with existing permittees and adjust use to Refuge goals
using attrition and across the board cuts in AUMS if needed. If a permittee
has intentions of not grazing any longer on the Refuge, the fields they
historically used will be utilized as they are in need of treatment to spread
out use elsewhere on the Refuge. If all permittees are still interested in
continued use in 2 years, all permits will be decreased annually
approximately 5 to 10 percent from 1996 to 2001 averages until objective
levels are met. Grazing levels will, from thereafter, be driven entirely by
habitat needs based on identified objectives.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 23
Elk
History
Until the mid-to-late 1980s, seeing elk on or around the Refuge at any time of
year was a rarity. Then, for various known and unknown reasons, they began
to show up regularly in the winter, until about 500 were common on and
around the Refuge from December to March. Most of the animals would
disperse for higher ground as the snow melted in the spring, but some began
to stay along the Illinois River year-round. By the mid-1990s, a resident herd
of approximately 150 elk had become established. The CDOW initiated a
Distribution Management hunt on private lands to thin this resident herd to
try and disperse some of its numbers off the private lands. This effort was
successful in reducing the resident herd size for awhile. The wintering herd
has continued to grow to the point that winter counts conducted by the
CDOW in late December 2002 found about 2,400 elk on and near the Refuge.
They typically are scattered into several herds that vary in size, but it is not
unusual to see a herd of +/- 1,000 animals. Although a herd of this size is a
magnificent wildlife resource to behold, other things need to be considered.
The first is that the Refuge, though fairly large, cannot be all things for all
wildlife. A point comes where too many individuals of one species (elk) can
negatively impact the habitat for another species or group of species
(waterfowl). With one of the purposes for establishing the Refuge being used
as a sanctuary for migratory birds, too many elk could keep this purpose
from being met. Also, elk by law are a state-owned resource, and high elk
numbers may lead to resource or economic problems elsewhere in the
county. The Refuge should, and will, work with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife to address elk issues on the Refuge.
Elk Issues
Historically, ranching was the primary use of North Park lands, and that
continues to be the case in much of the county. Elk, as grazers and potential
competitors with cattle, can get into hay harvested for livestock and cause
damage to fences and other ranch structures. Elk will continue to
concentrate in areas of the county, and depending on the landowner and the
number of elk in the particular herd, the perspective of whether an elk
“problem” exists or not changes. A landowner that does not rely on livestock
for their livelihood may view 100 elk as a valuable resource, but may view
300 as a problem. Similarly, a landowner relying on the land to make a living
might view the 100 animals as too many. The Refuge strives to find an elk
population size that achieves refuge goals, and meets North Park herd
management objectives. A large visible herd of elk can be a reminder that
herd objectives have been surpassed, and when that herd is on the Refuge, it
may seem to some that they are on a likely spot to reduce numbers.
As mentioned, elk are grazers. When on the Refuge they are foraging,
trampling and eating grasses that the Refuge staff is trying to manage as
habitat for other wildlife. Elk can also have a severe impact on willow stands.
Habitat objectives within this document identify maintaining grasslands and
willows to varying degrees to benefit wildlife. Although the elk do use the
Refuge extensively during the winter months, they do not use it exclusively -
making it more difficult to determine what the cumulative impact of their use
may be. A method needs to be developed to estimate elk use and impact to
Refuge lands.
24 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Elk © Cindie Brunner
The number of elk using the Refuge is continuing to grow, and with recent
drought conditions, recent growth may be larger than usual. Is this a short-term
gain in numbers with a decrease when conditions change, or have the
animals found a new place and will stick with it? Also, is the increase in elk
on the Refuge proportional to the increase throughout the county, or are a
higher (or lower) proportion using the Refuge?
The Refuge is a good place for the elk, since it is a place set-aside for wildlife,
and if they are on the Refuge, they are not on private lands potentially
damaging property or consuming forage meant for livestock. The problem is
that they do not stay just on the Refuge, so the potential exists for them to
travel to adjoining private land and do damage. And as the numbers of
animals using the Refuge grows, so will the possibility of damage to private
resources grow.
Elk Hunting
During the general rifle big game hunting seasons, the resident elk herd on
and near the Refuge typically becomes more noticeable. As the later hunting
seasons progress, more elk move onto the Refuge from the forested areas of
the county. With the exception of some private lands scattered around the
county, the Refuge is the only place on the south end of North Park where
the elk are not pursued during the general seasons. But as more elk move
onto the Refuge, an impression is created with some hunters that “all the elk
are on the Refuge,” especially if the animals are hard to find in other
locations. The Refuge is composed mainly of sagebrush uplands, meadow,
and open areas, without many places for elk to hide (the elk typically are in
large herds at this time). The lands surrounding the Refuge are very open
and the hunting that occurs on these areas often includes radio use, pushing
animals with vehicles and all-terrain-vehicles (ATVs), party hunting, and
over limits of animals. In general, this does not fit Refuge System
requirements as outlined in the Refuge Manual to offer a quality hunting
experience that promotes “positive hunting values and hunter ethics such as
fair chase and sportsmanship” on National Wildlife Refuges.
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been documented in white-tailed and
mule deer and elk in Jackson County. Though these are typically State
issues, the Refuge staff is also concerned, since elk use is high on the Refuge.
The potential for other diseases and their risk of spread rises dramatically as
a result of the large herd sizes.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 25
Elk Management Options
■ Eliminate livestock, and manage Refuge habitats with elk grazing. This
would involve trying to haze the elk on or off various fields on the
Refuge, or completely off the Refuge if habitat goals are thought to be
met. The problems with this include the fact that elk are wild and getting
them to move where you want them to is not an easy task, and elk moved
off the Refuge could very well end up on private land, potentially causing
problems there.
■ Eliminate elk, and manage Refuge habitats with cows and other
management tools. This would decrease the likelihood of disease
problems such as CWD on the Refuge, and since management would be
more controllable, this would seem an appropriate option. However, we
would still be into a hazing program, and where the elk go when they are
not on the Refuge should be a concern. Also, is it appropriate and within
Refuge purposes to keep a species native to the area off a National
Wildlife Refuge?
■ Try and meet habitat objectives with range management practices
including prescribed livestock grazing since it is a controllable tool.
Monitor elk use and impact on Refuge habitats. Develop a protocol for
action when management objectives are not being met, using
management tools such as elk hazing, hunting, transplant, etc. Protocol
should define what circumstances will trigger these actions and when.
Coordination with CDOW will be critical to address potential impacts to
other parts of the county.
■ Open an elk hunting season. Objectives of a hunt would have to be
defined. Opening the Refuge during the general seasons would not meet
the guidelines set out in the Refuge Manual to provide a quality hunting
experience. A limited quota hunt of just the Refuge with the aim at
reducing overall herd size would be minimally successful as elk would
quickly leave the Refuge for safer areas. Any hunt geared toward
population management would have to incorporate adjacent BLM and
private lands since the elk are not on the Refuge all the time, and they
will not necessarily remain on the Refuge once the shooting begins. A
limited, late season youth and/or disabled hunt could supply a quality
learning experience for young and disabled hunters, while contributing
to countywide efforts to control herd sizes. Other hunting options would
include Coordinated Management hunts, or Limited Access hunts,
through the CDOW and the local Habitat Partnership Program group.
■ Calculate daily impact to forage by elk and develop a means to determine
when elk use is stressing habitat objectives. Management decisions for
elk, livestock, or any other manipulation could then be made with that
impact in mind.
■ Work with the State to monitor CWD and/or other disease issues,
especially those on the Refuge.
26 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
■ Initiate herbivory (elk, moose, cattle) studies to assess the independent
and cumulative impacts to riparian, upland, and meadow habitats on the
Refuge by these species. Willow regeneration along the Illinois River is
slow, and small willow shoots are frequently grazed to one inch height.
Elk damage to riparian areas is well documented in the scientific
literature (see Riparian Summary - Appendix H). Currently,
approximately 150 elk utilize the Refuge during the spring, summer, and
fall. During winter months (November through March), elk numbers
vary considerably but average 1,000 to 1,400 using the Refuge and
surrounding area. Elk numbers and elk damage are not necessarily a
linear relationship. Snow depth, temperature, duration of feeding, and a
host of other factors may determine wintering elk impacts. Elk wintering
on the Refuge may minimize game damage on adjacent private lands.
Therefore, the Refuge proposes to evaluate herbivory impacts of elk,
moose, and cattle. Studies will be conducted in conjunction with the State
and other partners to evaluate impacts. Exclosures will be installed
during 2004 to begin the evaluation process.
Proposed Action
Initiate studies to determine elk impact to willow communities and impact on
grasslands. The Refuge staff is concerned primarily with the lack of willow
regeneration, the percent cover provided by willows, and willow density
along the Illinois River channel. Develop protocol outlining actions to take
when impacts become severe. Work with the State to develop a hunting
strategy for land on and adjacent to the Refuge. Strategy could include a late
season limited youth and disabled hunt, and protocol outlining the need and
administration of additional hunts based on game damage, herd reduction,
Refuge habitat degradation, etc.
Sage Grouse Hunting
Greater sage-grouse are only found in sagebrush dominated rangelands in
Western North America. Sage grouse are dependent on sagebrush for winter
cover, nesting, and feeding habitat. Currently, North Park supports greater
sage-grouse habitat and a viable grouse population. However, over the last
40 years, the population has exhibited extreme fluctuations. In 1998, because
of increased local concerns about the status of sage grouse in North Park, a
group of concerned citizens and agencies formed the North Park Sage
Grouse Working Group. The mission of the group is to develop, implement,
and monitor a conservation plan to maintain a viable sage grouse population
in Jackson County, Colorado. Historically, the Refuge has supported sage
grouse hunting in accordance with State regulations and seasons. The
Refuge proposes to continue offering sport hunting opportunities for sage
grouse in accordance with State regulations and seasons. Additionally, the
Refuge staff will monitor and evaluate upland habitats to improve conditions
for nesting and brood-rearing sage grouse (See Upland Habitats, Appendix
H). Finally, the Refuge will support the purpose and guiding principals of the
North Park greater sage-grouse conservation plan.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 27
Inholdings
The following lands lie within the approved acquisition boundary of Arapaho
National Wildlife Refuge.
These properties represent valuable wildlife habitat and are of interest to
the Refuge. Following the Service acquisition policy and guidelines, the
Refuge will attempt to acquire these properties on a willing-seller, willing-buyer
basis only. Additionally, the Refuge will attempt to acquire mineral
resource interests on lands within the existing acquisition boundary. Surface
disturbance associated with minerals extraction may destroy wildlife
habitats, and prevent Refuge goals and objectives from being met. The
Refuge staff has not identified any additional lands or minerals for
acquisition outside the approved boundary.
Tract Approximate
Acreage
Stephens 160
Anderson 480
Burr (Tract 1) 200
Burr (Tract 2) 2,960
Hwy 14 Tract 18
Old RR grade (pieces) 24
Total 3,842
28 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Summary Refuge and
Resource Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, situated at
an elevation of 8,200 feet, is located in an
intermountain glacial basin in north-central
Colorado. The Refuge is situated along the
western edge of the Central Waterfowl Flyway
(Figure 1). Jackson County opens north into
Wyoming and is rimmed on the west by the
Park Range, on the south by the Rabbit Ears
Range, and on the east by the Medicine Bow
Range. The basin floor is locally known as
North Park and encompasses approximately
600 square miles. The basin floor is relatively
flat with an elevation range of 7,900 to 8,300
feet. Slow, meandering streams, which criss-cross
the basin, flow toward the north-central
part of the basin to form the North Platte
River. Most of the floodplain is irrigated
meadow, while the adjacent low rises are
characterized by sagebrush grasslands.
Sagebrush uplands are the dominate vegetative
community encompassing 80 percent of the Park. Sagebrush uplands are
dominated by seven primary species of sagebrush, with a perennial bunch-grass
and forb understory. Meadows are typically irrigated to produce a
single hay crop per year. Meadow grasses typical include timothy, red top,
garrison creeping foxtail, and foxtail barley. Riparian areas are dominated by
willows (Salix sp.) and other low growing shrub species.
Climate
The climate is semiarid which can be characterized as having short-cool
summers, followed by long, cold winters. The mean rainfall in Walden is 10.83
inches of precipitation annually. Temperatures and precipitation vary greatly
with elevation and location. Mean annual air temperature in Walden, near
the center of the Park, is 36.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature extremes
are minus 39 degrees to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, based on the National
Weather Bureau 30-year average. The average length of the growing season
in Walden is 43 days. The average date for the last killing frost in Walden is
July 1, and the average first killing frost is August 14, based on North Park
weather station’s 70-year average. The relatively short frost-free season
inhibits any form of agriculture today except hay near floodplain areas.
Generally, annual precipitation increases as elevation increases from the
floor to the outer edge of North Park. Elevation ranges from slightly below
8,000 feet on the valley floor to 12,965 feet on Clarks Peak. Seventy percent
of the annual precipitation falls as snow. Walden averages 53 inches of snow
per year, the lowest of any point in the Park. The highest average monthly
precipitation occurs in March, April, May, and August (Lischka et al. 1983).
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 29
Geological Resources
North Park is a structural basin between the Precambrian granites, gneisses
and schists of the Medicine Bow and Park Ranges and Independence
Mountain. The Surface geology of the Park floor is dominated by the
sandstones, conglomerates, and shales of the Tertiary Coalmont Formation.
Coal is found in the lower members of the formation (Hail, 1968). The North
Park Formation overlies the Coalmont Formation and consists of white,
calcareous conglomerates. The Coalmont Formation is exposed along a long
narrow syncline ridge trending northwest from Owl Mountain to the
confluence of Roaring Fork and Grizzly Creeks. The syncline includes Owl
Ridge and Peterson Ridge. Pierre Shale underlies the Coalmont Formation
and is exposed primarily in the northwestern and northeastern quadrants of
North Park. Evidence of Tertiary volcanics is obvious along the south
boundary of the Park. Quantities of breccia and other volcanics are common
in the Rabbit Ears Range in the form of dikes, plush, flows, and ash.
Significant glacial activity occurred in North Park during the Pleistocene.
Fluviatile gravels, and interfluvial terraces are examples of the influence of
glacial activity upon the current landscape of the Park floor. Several natural
lakes in the area are thought to be remnants of Pleistocene glaciation. Winds
also influenced the geology of the Park. Prevailing southwesterly winds,
thought to be caused by the low ridge between Rabbit Ears Peak and
Arapaho Pass, have deposited fine grains alluvium, some of which reaches
thicknesses of 30 feet. Winds are suggested to have created several shallow
lakes within the basin, including Hebron Sloughs, located just southwest of
the Refuge (Lischka et al. 1983).
Soil Resources
Soils that have the capacity to reproduce the same kinds, amounts, and
proportions of range plants are grouped into range sites. Fletcher (1981)
defined 15 different range sites and two forest types within Jackson County.
Five range sites are found on the Refuge: (Floodplain sites):
1) Randman - Blackwell-Dobrow association; deep, poorly drained,
dominantly sandy soils;
2) Spicerton -Stumpp association: deep, well drained sandy loams and
clay loams (bench and upland sites);
3) Fluetch - Bosler - Tealson association, deep and shallow well drained
sandy loams;
4) Tiagos - Cabin association: deep, well drained fine sandy loams; and
5) Coalmont - Brinkerton - Aaberg association: moderately deep of soft
shale and well drained sandy loams.
The Refuge contains 31 individual soil types within the five range sites
(Fletcher, 1977). Dominate soil types include Spicerton sandy loam, Fluetsch
-Tiagos association, Bosler sandy loam, and the Boettcher-Bundyman
association. These soils are found on slopes less than 15 percent, and
generally have slow to moderate permeability. Mean soil temperature at
Walden is 58 degrees Fahrenheit.
30 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Ecosystem Setting
Bailey (1995) described the Jackson County
area as part of the southern Rocky Mountain
Ecoregion. The Service has adopted an
ecosystem approach to natural resource
management and has identified 53 watershed-based
ecoregions in the United States (Figure
2). Within the Service ecosystem organization,
the Refuge lies within the boundaries of the
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem. The Service
is developing a nationally coordinated
approach involving ecosystem teams,
partners, and stakeholders to preserve
natural resources for the American people.
Ecosystem teams are fundamental to the
Service in sustaining good land health.
Ecosystem teams should be the primary
delivery mechanism for establishing priorities
and identifying areas of greatest conservation concern in their ecosystems
(Fulfilling the Promise, 1999).
Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses
Water Rights
The Refuge is located on the Illinois River and its tributaries. The Illinois
River is tributary to the Michigan River, which is tributary to the North
Platte River. Prior to settlement, the bottoms and meadows of the Illinois
River and its tributaries flooded annually with snowmelt and spring runoff,
creating significant waterfowl nesting habitat. As the area became settled,
much of the natural flooding and ponding were reduced and irrigated
meadows replaced ponds and marshes. Since the Refuge’s first land
acquisition in 1967, the Service created new wetland habitat through the
management of acquired irrigation and stock reservoirs; diversion of water
into natural depressions; as well as diversion of water into Service-constructed
ponds.
The Refuge has a decreed diversion rate of 515.05 cubic feet per second, most
of which is diverted from the Illinois River, with lesser amounts diverted
from the Big, Willow, Spring, Potter, and Antelope Creek tributaries. This
water is either ditched for storage in 9 decreed reservoirs and 73 undecreed
ponds, or ditched to meadows for direct irrigation. Currently, the Refuge has
decreed rights to 7,626.4 acre-feet for reservoir/pond initial fills and refills,
and is seeking an additional 2,582.5 acre-feet. The total capacity of Refuge
storage units is 5,678.5 acre-feet. Approximately 814 surface acres are
ponded, and approximately 9,499 acres are irrigated meadow grass.
Since 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey has measured Illinois River flow at
gauging stations at the upstream and downstream ends of the Refuge in
order to determine the effect of Refuge diversions, wildlife use, and return
flow on river discharge.
Groundwater is present in an unconfined, sand and gravel alluvial aquifer
which underlies the entire Refuge. The water table is shallow, with the
elevation of the groundwater table approximating the water-surface
elevations in nearby rivers, creeks, reservoirs, and ponds.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 31
The Refuge’s water rights are administered according to the prior
appropriation doctrine by the Colorado Division of Water Resources,
commonly referred to as the State Engineer’s Office. Whereas much of the
Refuge’s acquired land has rather senior appurtenant water rights,
conversion of ranch land to wildlife habitat has required obtaining junior
water rights which cannot be exercised in dry or semidry years. The Refuge
staff believes it holds sufficient water rights to implement Refuge goals and
objectives. Water rights held by the Refuge are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Water Rights Held by the Refuge
Court Admin # Name Flow, Storage, Use Approp. Date
11 12179 Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 4.0 cfs (Refuge 2.0 cfs) 5/6/1883
81 13635 Dryer Ditch 5.2 cfs 5/1/1887
80 13635 North Park Ditch No. 6 9.0 cfs 5/1/1889
86 13642 Everhard Baldwin Ditch 10 cfs (Refuge 5 cfs 5/8/1887
100 13686 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 1 cfs 6/21/1887
110 13849 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 6/21/1889
122 14015 Ward Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 5/15/1888
161 14148 Hill, Crouter Ditch 6 cfs 9/25/1888
167 14337 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 3 cfs 4/2/1889
170 14350 Oklahoma Ditch No. 1 41 cfs 4/15/1889
180 14370 Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 2 cfs 5/5/1889
190 14403 Ward Ditch No. 2 .5 cfs 6/7/1889
196 14417 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 2 cfs 6/21/1889
195 14417 Ward Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 6/21/1889
217 14731 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 3 cfs 5/1/1890
229 14762 Everhard Baldwin Ditch 8 cfs 6/1/1890
232 14805 Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 2 cfs 7/14/1890
243 15151 Oklahoma Ditch No. 1 10 cfs 6/25/1891
264 15891 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 8 cfs 7/4/1893
270 16215 Dryer Ditch 3.6 cfs 5/24/1894
275 16360 Boyce Bros Ditch No. 1 9.25 cfs 10/16/1894
276 16362 Oklahoma Ditch No. 2 9 cfs 10/18/1894
382 16942 Ish and Baldwin Ditch 1.6 cfs (Refuge .9 cfs) 5/20/1896
286 17420 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 15 cfs 9/10/1897
287 17496 Ward Ditch No. 1 13 cfs 11/25/1897
296 17806 Dryer Ditch 2.4 cfs 10/1/1898
302 18395 Ward Ditch No. 3 2.25 cfs 5/12/1900
306 18507 Midland Ditch 15 cfs (Refuge 5 cfs) 9/1/1900
329 20270 Potter Ditch No. 2 5 cfs 7/1/1905
344 21367.91160 North Park Ditch No. 6 6 cfs 5/1/1903
344 21367.91160 Oklahoma Ditch No. 1 10 cfs 5/1/1903
344 21367.91160 Oklahoma Ditch No. 2 4 cfs 5/1/1903
346.5 21367.93177 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 16 cfs 7/5/1904
349 21367.94726 Everhard Baldwin Ditch 5 cfs 10/17/1947
353 21367.99593 Riddle Ditch 3 cfs 4/6/1908
355 21367.99710 Midland Ditch 6 cfs 5/1/1908
357 21392 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 27 cfs 7/26/1908
364 22189 Howard Ditch 75 cfs 10/1/1910
375 23017.81853 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 6 cfs 8/1/1901
None 23017.92901 Hubbard Ditch No. 4 2 cfs 7/18/1908
378.2 23017.95734 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 31 cfs 5/1/1910
398 24008 Midland Ditch 20.5 cfs (Refuge 5 cfs) 9/24/1915
700 30281.61915 Boyce Bros Ditch No. 1 20.5 cfs 5/1/1901
707 30281.70359 Antelope Ditch No. 1 5.47 cfs 5/1/1908
726 30281.91011 State Walden Pipeline .75 cfs 6/20/1939
32 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table 2. Summary of Water Rights Held by the Refuge cont’d.
Court Admin # Name Flow, Storage, Use Approp. Date
49102 Howard Ditch 70 cfs (Refuge 35 cfs) 6/8/1984
2 22208 MacFarlane Reservoir 6507AF (Refuge3253.5AF) 10/20/1910
11 30281.70643 Case Reservoir #1 124 AF 7/26/1908
12 30281.70646 Case Reservoir #2 106 AF 7/27/1908
14 30281.75467 Case Reservoir #3 67 AF 7/26/1912
18 30281.91011 State Walden Reservoir 37.9 AF 6/20/1939
48578.98394 Muskrat Pond 390 AF 11/12/1980
51499.47542 Spring Creek Pond 93 AF 3/1/1980
51499.47999 Fox Pond 140 AF 6/1/1981
30280.21308 Antelope Well .10 cfs 5/1/1908
47481.33602 Arapaho NWR Domestic Well .10 cfs 12/31/1941
47481.33602 Arapaho NWR Stock Well .10 cfs 12/31/1941
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 33
Reserved Rights and Privately-Owned Mineral Estate
Purchase of some of the land tracts on the Refuge were subject to existing
rights-of-way at the time of purchase. Some of these existing rights-of-way
include Jackson County Roads 32, 34, and 21. A 100 foot right-of-way on
Highway 125 and a 50 foot right-of-way on Highway 14 are owned by the
Colorado State Highway Department. Additional rights-of-way include
buried telephone lines along Highway 125 and 14, and power lines along
Highway 125, through the length of the east side of the Refuge and across
the Case tract on the south side.
With the purchases of the land tracts, the Refuge acquired the surface
mineral rights of all its land except the BLM transfers. The Refuge owns the
majority of the subsurface mineral rights with the State of Colorado, BLM,
and some private landowners holding the rest.
Habitat Management Units
Habitat on the Refuge can be divided into four broad types: riparian,
wetland, meadow, and upland. Acreages for each habitat type were
calculated using ArcView GIS software, with Refuge boundary topographic
base maps, and National Wetland Inventory map layers. Width of the
riparian area was determined by estimating width of the historic floodplain
using topography and vegetative community changes as a guide. Meadow
habitats were derived using primarily National Wetland Inventory Maps
with corrections for recent wetland additions. Upland acreages were
calculated by subtracting the other three habitat types from the Refuge base
acreage. Descriptions of these habitat types follows:
Riparian Habitat
The riparian habitat contains 4,374 acres on Arapaho NWR and is
composed of the channel, floodplain, and transitional upland fringe along
portions of the Illinois River and Spring Creek. Historically, the Refuge
staff has considered the floodplain and transitional fringe collectively as
irrigated meadow. However, we have chosen to use channel, floodplain,
and transitional fringe in this document because these components more
appropriately represent the collective functions and processes of riparian
habitats, and such a designation allows management potential of the
entire area to be more thoroughly evaluated (Map 7 - Habitat
Management Units).
Plant species found along the Illinois River include: Drummonds’s
willow, coyote willow, Geyers willow, whiplash willow, mountain willow,
and planeleaf willow. Grass species common to these moist soil areas
include bluejoint reedgrass, Timothy, mannagrass, smooth brome,
meadow foxtail, meadow barley, Nevada bluegrass, sloughgrass, rufted
hairgrass, saltgrass, Carex nebrascensis, Juncus sps., nuttall alkaligrass,
redtop, and winter bentgrass. The runs and pools in the river channel
typically contain aquatic vegetation (Elodea, Potamogeton, and
filamentous algae). Canada thistle is the main noxious weed in this area.
Wildlife species that utilize the riparian habitat grasslands include
waterfowl (northern pintail, mallard, gadwall, green-winged teal) and
sage grouse broods in search of high protein invertebrates. Additionally,
the willow complex supports at least 40 species of migrating songbirds
(yellow warbler, willow flycatcher) along with moose, river otter, beaver,
and wintering elk. Water birds, including common Wilson’s snipe,
spotted sandpiper, sora, American white pelican, and black-crowned
night herons also extensively utilize this habitat type. Within the Illinois
River, 7 species of native and nonnative fish and at least 17 taxa of
aquatic invertebrates can be found in this cold water river system.
34 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Map 7 - Habitat Management Units
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 35
Wetland Habitat
Wetland habitat includes 824 acres of natural and created ponds and
lakes up to the high water mark, excluding the surrounding meadows
and riparian corridor. Ponds and lakes, henceforth referred to as basins
or wetlands, were delineated using both National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) maps and Refuge coverage maps. Currently, approximately 78
shallow wetlands exist within the Refuge boundary (Map 2 - Base Map).
For management purposes, three wetland complexes were developed:
the Case, Illinois, and Soap Creek Complexes (Map 8 - Wetland
Complexes).
The majority (90 percent) of the wetland basins on the Refuge are man-made.
Construction of these “artificial” wetlands is intended to offset
wetland losses occurring elsewhere in the Central Flyway. Maintenance
of these facilities provides benefits to a host of wetland-dependent
species, including waterfowl. Specific wetland objectives only account for
approximately 50 percent of the total wetland surface area to be
managed in a given year. Drought, evaporative losses, periodic
drawdowns for aquatic vegetation enhancement, dike maintenance
activities, and fall migration drawdowns account for the remainder of the
wetland surface area.
Aquatic vegetation of Refuge wetland habitats includes both emergent
(cattail, spike rush, bulrush) and submerged (sago pondweed, leafy
pondweed, widgeon grass) species. Invertebrate abundance is high in the
wetland basins. Common invertebrates include Hemiptera (true bugs),
and the families Corixidae (water boatman) and Notonectidae
(backswimmers), Dytiscidae (predacious diving beetle), and Haliplidae
(crawling water beetles). Invertebrates are a critical food source to many
waterfowl shorebirds. Waterfowl species include both diving ducks
(lesser scaup, canvasback, redhead, ring-necked) and puddle ducks
(mallard, northern shoveler, gadwall, American wigeon). Over-water
nesting birds (black-crowned night-heron, Wilson’s phalarope, white-faced
ibis, marsh wrens, coots, rails, and blackbirds) also extensively
utilize wetland habitats.
36 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Map 8 - Wetland Complexes
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 37
Meadow Habitat
Meadow habitat includes 2,683 acres of grasslands and old hay meadows
on the Refuge except those along the riparian corridor (which are
considered part of the “Riparian” habitat). These historically irrigated
fields provide the majority of the Refuge nesting habitat for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and songbird species. Meadow habitats represent common
feeding, resting and loafing areas for most avian and mammal species
found on the Refuge (Map 7 - Habitat Management Units).
Vegetation common to meadow habitat is primarily native plants
including: rushes; Colorado rush, baltic rush, dagger-leaf rush, long-styled
rush, tuberous rush, field woodrush, smallflowered woodrush;
sedges: slenderbeaked sedge, capitate sedge, Hayden’s sedge, narrow-leaved
sedge, elk sedge, wooly sedge, Nebraska sedge, dunhead sedge,
beaked sedge, shortbeaked sedge, water sedge, golded sedge, soft-leaved
sedge, new sedge, valley sedge. Grass species common to these moist soil
areas include: bluejoint reedgrass, Timothy, mannagrass, smooth brome,
meadow foxtail, meadow barley, Nevada bluegrass, sloughgrass, tufted
hairgrass, saltgrass, Nuttall alkaligrass, redtop, and winter bentgrass;
Common forbs include sulphur buckwheat, hoods phlox, longleaf phlox,
rosy pussytoes, silvery lupine, prairie lupine, groundsels, narrow leaved
maertensia, small bluebells, cinquefoil, early cinquefoil, stonecrop or
wormleaf sedum, daisys, beard tongue. Canada thistle is the main
noxious weed in this area. Wildlife species that utilize the meadow
habitat include: waterfowl (pintail, shoveler, gadwall, green-winged teal)
and sage grouse broods in search of high protein invertebrates. Snipe
broods and other grassland nesting songbirds utilize this habitat type.
Additionally, elk, pronghorn antelope, and coyote are common habitat
users.
38 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Upland Habitat
The upland habitat consists of 14,285 acres of a shrub-steppe plant
community dominated by sagebrush, drought tolerant perennial
bunchgrasses, and forbs. Uplands are the dominate Refuge habitat type
and include all lands not accounted for in the wetland, meadow, and
riparian descriptions. Many upland habitats exhibit a mosaic pattern
around meadows sites on the Refuge, these sites are generally managed
as meadows (Map 7 - Habitat Management Units).
Historical reports of the sagebrush-steppe plant community are
conflicting, and pre-settlement community conditions may never be fully
known. Additionally, the focus of past Refuge management efforts have
been devoted to wetland-dependent birds, therefore current Refuge
upland plant community information is limited. Available information
suggests that sagebrush historically was the dominate plant species,
although perhaps taller >3m plants may have existed. Floristic diversity
in North Park and on the Refuge has likely decreased, especially within
the grasses and forbs. Management efforts for the past 50 years have
attempted to increase grass and forb abundance through mechanical and
chemical means. In general, the sagebrush plant community appears to
be degraded, but given the lack of basic information, management
alternatives are difficult to define. Therefore, Refuge upland
management objectives center on developing an upland habitat database
that defines plant species, location, abundance and characteristics.
Secondly, the Refuge proposes to “experiment” with 4,000 acres of
uplands habitats in an attempt to create a preferred plant community
structure. Lessons learned will be applied to larger pieces of Refuge
upland habitats.
Upland vegetation consists primarily of shrubs including: mountain big
sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, alkali sagebrush, fringed sage,
rubber rabbitbrush, Douglas rabbitbrush, broom snakeweed, gray
horsebrush, black greasewood, and winterfat. Dominant grasses include
mutton grass, Nevada bluegrass, sandberg bluegrass, bottlebrush
squirreltail, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass,
blue grama, elk sedge, needle and thread grass, and green needlegrass.
Common forbs include sulphur buckwheat, hoods phlox, longleaf phlox,
rosy pussytoes, silvery lupine, prairie Lupine, groundsels, narrow leaved
maertensia, small bluebells, cinquefoil, early cinquefoil, stonecrop or
wormleaf sedum, daisys, beard tongue. Noxious weeds included yellow
toadflax and musk thistle, and occur primarily in disturbed sites. Sage-grouse
are a sage-obligate species, and requires sagebrush plants for
cover and food. Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn
antelope are common big-game users of upland habitats. Additionally,
vesper sparrow, brewers sparrow, and sage thrasher are songbirds
common to Refuge uplands.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 39
Black-crowned Night-Heron
© Cindie Brunner
Wildlife Resources
Arapaho NWR’s habitat diversity is reflected in the broad diversity of
wildlife found here. Only those species that are residents or frequent visitors
to the Refuge are discussed in the following text. Many species, especially
birds, may infrequently inhabit or migrate through the Refuge. Threatened,
Endangered, and Candidate Species and Species of Special Concern are
listed in Table 3. All species of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles
are listed in Appendix A.
Avian
Waterfowl – ducks and Canada geese: A large number of waterfowl depend
on the Refuge’s wetland, riparian, and meadow habitat for foraging, nesting,
brood-rearing, and molting. The most common type of ducks breeding on the
Refuge include lesser scaup, gadwall, American wigeon, Northern shoveler,
and cinnamon teal.
Most of the ducks common to the Refuge use the three habitats listed above
and occasionally some species use the upland habitat. These ducks include:
green-winged teal, mallard, northern pintail, cinnamon teal, Northern
shoveler, blue-winged teal, gadwall, and American wigeon. Redhead, ruddy
duck, and lesser scaup depend on the wetlands for most of their life needs,
with the scaup and redhead nesting in the meadows occasionally. Ring-necked
duck, canvasback, and bufflehead are generally spring and fall
migratory visitors but the canvasback does infrequently nest on the Refuge.
Common merganser primarily inhabit the riparian areas to meet their life
requirements.
Canada goose is an abundant species that is the first to arrive in the spring and
the last to migrate in the fall. The geese use the wetland, riparian, and
meadow habitats for foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing.
Wading birds are water birds that usually do not swim or dive for food, but
wade in shallow edges of water for prey. The black-crowned night-heron,
great blue heron, and white-faced ibis are the common breeding species on the
Refuge. The ibis and black-crowned night-heron use wetlands with heavy
cattail/hardstem bulrush vegetation for nesting and brood-rearing. They
forage across the Refuge in riparian, meadow, and wetland areas. The great
blue heron uses the riparian habitat primarily for nesting and foraging but
can be observed in the wetlands.
Shorebirds are most often found foraging for food along the water margins,
they use the Refuge as a migratory stop-over, and some nest here. American
avocet, willet, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, common snipe, and Wilson’s
phalarope are the common nesters. Avocet and willet mainly use the wetland
habitat for their needs, where the killdeer is more a generalist and can be
found in all habitat sites. The spotted sandpiper and common snipe reside
mostly in the riparian habitat. Wilson’s phalarope use the meadow/riparian
for nesting and forage and rear young in the wetlands. Black-necked stilt are
an occasional nester in the Refuge wetlands. Dowitcher, yellowleg and other
sandpipers use the area for a stop-over during spring and fall migration.
Other water birds are represented by a variety of species. Pied-billed grebe,
eared grebe, and American coot use wetlands for nesting, foraging, and
brood-rearing. Virginia rail and sora use the meadow/riparian habitats
extensively. American white pelican, double-crested cormorant, and
California gull do not nest on the Refuge but use the area for foraging. Black
and forester’s terns nest in areas of dense carex, cattail, and bulrush foraging
in the wetlands.
40 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Golden Eagle © Cindie Brunner
Northern Flicker © Cindie Brunner
Raptors consist of several families of hawks, falcons, and owls. The most
common raptors of the Refuge include: northern harrier, swainson’s hawk,
rough-legged hawk, golden eagle, American kestrel, prairie falcon, short-eared
owl, and great horned owl. Only the golden eagle and great horned owl
are year-round residents. The rough-legged hawk is a winter visitor while
the rest of the birds are present in the spring, summer, and fall. The raptors
utilize all habitats for nesting and foraging. Red-tailed hawk, ferruginous
hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and cooper’s hawk use the area occasionally.
Upland bird species rely on the uplands primarily to subsist. Several of the
common upland birds are sage grouse, horned lark, sage thrasher, vesper
sparrow, and brewer’s sparrow. The sage grouse and horned lark are year-round
residents, the sage grouse resides primarily in the upland but uses the
edge areas of the riparian and meadow habitats. The sage thrasher, horned
lark, and sparrows depend on the upland area for nesting but may forage in
the other habitats.
Neotropical migrants are birds that breed in North America, north of
Mexico, but winter in Mexico, Central and South America or the West
Indies. The following species are found commonly on the Refuge either
during migration or the nesting season. These birds rely heavily on the
riparian habitat for foraging, cover, and nesting, they include: common
nighthawk, belted kingfisher, willow flycatcher, warbling vireo, house wren,
marsh wren, yellow warbler, MacGillivrays warbler, common yellowthroat,
western kingbird, gray catbird, Wilson’s warbler, savannah sparrow, fox
sparrow, song sparrow, Lincoln’s sparrow, and white-crowned sparrow. A
few of these species also use the meadow and wetland habitat for nesting or
foraging such as the savannah sparrow and the marsh wren. The cliff, barn,
and tree swallows use a combination of habitats including wetland, riparian,
and meadow.
Resident and migrant songbirds breed in North America and migrate
throughout a limited North American range. This group includes mountain
bluebird, American robin, dark-eyed junco, rosy finch, pine siskin, American
goldfinch, and lark bunting. These birds use riparian, meadow, and upland
habitats. Red-winged, yellow-headed, and brewer’s blackbirds utilize both
wetlands and riparian for nesting and foraging. Species like the black-capped
chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, and ruby-crowned kinglet use the riparian
woody areas for foraging but tend to nest off the Refuge.
The Northern flicker is the most common woodpecker. This species inhabits
the riparian willow habitat but also uses upland and meadow habitats. Other
less common woodpeckers include downy, hairy, and red-naped sapsucker.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 41
Brown Trout © Cindie Brunner
Pronghorn antelope © Cindie Brunner
Mammals
Big game animals common to the Refuge include: pronghorn antelope, mule
deer, white-tailed deer, moose, and elk. Fifteen to 20 moose can be found on
the Refuge at any one time, spending most of their time in the riparian
habitat. The mule deer population is approximately 40 animals that roam on
and off the Refuge spending time in the riparian, meadow, and upland
habitats. White-tailed deer, population of about 20 animals, use the same
areas as the mule deer. Pronghorn antelope utilize the upland habitat
primarily but can be found in the riparian and meadow habitats. They use the
Refuge in the spring, summer, and fall with a population of about 50 animals
present at any one time. In the winter, the pronghorn antelope generally
move north off the Refuge, making them a rare sight in the area. The Refuge
has a resident herd of approximately 150 elk; these animals reside primarily
in the riparian area in the southern half of the Refuge and on neighboring
land. During the winter (November through March) the Refuge and
surrounding area hosts about 1,400 elk, these animals are usually in several
herds and can be found using riparian, meadow, and upland habitats.
The Refuge has many small mammals which utilize all habitat types,
depending on their life requirements. Common species are Nuttall’s
cottontail, white-tailed jackrabbit, least chipmunk, Wyoming ground squirrel,
white-tailed prairie dog, beaver, deer mouse, montane vole, muskrat,
porcupine, coyote, long-tailed weasel, mink, badger, and striped skunk
(Appendix A).
Fish
The Illinois River and wetlands are two main types of aquatic communities
present on the Refuge. The Illinois River is a transition stream beginning as
a trout stream in the headwaters down to the southern end of the Refuge to
a native species stream by the time it reaches the northern half of the
Refuge. The splitting of the stream channel into two channels appears to be
the basis of this fishery transition. The low flows of the split are ultimately
responsible for trout giving way to the more tolerant native species. The
following species are common in the Illinois River on Arapaho NWR: Brown
trout, rainbow trout, Northern redbelly dace, fathead minnow, creek chub,
long-nosed sucker, white sucker, and Johnny darter (Appendix A).
Potter and Spring Creeks are tributaries of the Illinois River on the Refuge.
These creeks provide little fishery habitat with only a few native fish such as
long-nosed dace, white sucker, fathead minnow, and creek chub found in
them.
Many of the wetlands will not support a fishery, with water depth and winter
survival being the limiting factors. The most common fish found in the
wetlands is the fathead minnow, a native which has evolved in this type of
habitat.
42 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Reptiles and Amphibians
The wandering garter snake is the only reptile known to inhabit the Refuge.
Sightings of this snake are rare with only one or two seen in a year.
Amphibians are slightly more numerous with the following species: barred
tiger salamander, Western toad, wood frog, Northern leopard frog, and
striped chorus frog. The salamanders are primarily associated with the
wetlands but have been seen in all habitats. The wood frog has only been
documented once on the Refuge, and that was in the riparian habitat. The
toad is rare but should frequent all the habitat types. Leopard frogs have
been observed in the riparian habitat and also in irrigation ditches in the
meadow habitat. Chorus frogs can be found in the wetland, meadow, and
riparian areas; they are the most abundant amphibian on the Refuge.
Invertebrates
Some sampling of invertebrates has been done on Refuge wetland and
riparian areas. Wetland invertebrates were the most diverse with 20
different families represented in the sampling. Stream sampling identified 17
different taxa in the Illinois River. Further sampling of invertebrates to
establish a quantitative baseline would assist in identifying problems in
wetlands and riparian areas in the future.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 43
Threatened, Endangered ,and Candidate Species and Other Wildlife
Species of Special Concern
Table 3 lists special status wildlife, fish, amphibian species that are known to
use habitat types on Arapaho NWR. This list includes Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, Candidate Species, and Species of Concern (Source:
Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service).
Table 3. Special Status Wildlife, Fish, Plant, and Amphibian Species
Potentially Occurring on Arapaho NWR
Common Name Seasonal
Occurrence1
Federal and State Status2 Date Last
Observed3
Birds
American Peregrine Falcon SR CDOW SC WOL2001
Bald Eagle YR USFWS Threatened (proposed
delisting)
WOL2002
Western Burrowing Owl B, M CDOW Threatened WOL2002
Ferruginous Hawk SR CDOW SC WOL2002
Northern Sage Grouse B, YR CDOW SC WOL2002
Long-billed Curlew M, SR CDOW SC WOL2000
White Pelican SR CDOW SC WOL2002
Mammals
River otter YR, B CDOW Endangered WOL2001
Fish
Northern Redbelly Dace YR CDOW Endangered No Records
Plants
North Park Phacelia YR USFWS Endangered WOL 2002
Amphibians
Northern Leopard Frog YR CDOW SC WOL2002
Wood Frog YR CDOW SC WOL1994
1 Seasonal occurrence: B =breeding (assumes summer resident); SR = summer resident (no evidence of breeding);
YR = year-round resident; M = migrant
2 See Glossary for special status definitions
3 WOL = Refuge Wildlife Observation Log. Includes data through 2002.
4 CDOW = Colorado Division of Wildlife
5 SC= Species of Concern
6 Threatened - See Appendix B for definition
7 Endangered - See appendix B for definition
44 - Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The bald eagle, a federally-listed species, is an intermittent visitor on the
Refuge; it is a year-round resident of the county. Nesting habitat does not
exist on the Refuge but the eagle does use all habitat types for foraging. The
peregrine falcon, which is proposed for Federal de-listing, is also an
intermittent visitor on the Refuge using all the habitat types for foraging.
Burrowing owl, Ferruginous hawk, northern sage grouse, long-billed curlew,
and white pelican are all listed as Colorado State Special Concern species.
Burrowing owls have been documented as nesting on the Refuge with an
occurrence of one nest found every 5 years. They are more commonly
observed as a migrant in the fall of the year. Ferruginous hawk can be seen
in the spring, summer, and fall foraging on Refuge habitats. Northern sage
grouse are an abundant year-round resident of the Refuge. The grouse use
the upland, riparian, and meadow habitats for breeding (one lek found on
Refuge), nesting, foraging, and broo