Comprehensive Conservation Plan Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan i
Contents
Summary...................................................... S-1
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................. 1
Area Description ...................................... 1
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and Refuge System .................................. 5
Purpose of and Need for the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan ....... 6
History of Refuge Establishment,
Acquisition, and Management................ 7
Refuge Purpose ........................................ 9
Refuge Vision Statement........................ 9
Refuge Goals ............................................. 9
Legal and Policy Guidance.................... 10
Chapter 2. Planning Process ....................... 11
Description of Planning Process .......... 11
Planning Issues....................................... 12
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource
Descriptions................................................... 14
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting............ 14
Topography ............................................. 15
Soils .......................................................... 15
Water ....................................................... 15
Water Rights .......................................... 16
Climate..................................................... 16
Habitat and Vegetation......................... 16
Wildlife..................................................... 19
Cultural Resources and History of
Refuge Lands.......................................... 24
Fire Occurrence and History................ 25
Visitor Services ...................................... 25
Wilderness............................................... 26
Socioeconomics ....................................... 27
Chapter 4. Management Direction ............. 28
Management for Wildlife Diversity..... 28
Habitat..................................................... 31
Ecological Integrity ............................... 34
Visitor Services ...................................... 42
ii Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Cultural Resources ................................ 46
Partnerships............................................ 48
Chapter 5. Implementation and
Monitoring ..................................................... 50
Personnel................................................. 50
Funding.................................................... 50
Step-down Management Plans............. 51
Partnership Opportunities.................... 52
Monitoring and Evaluation................... 52
Plan Amendment and Revision............ 53
Tables
Table 1. Estimated waterfowl
populations from 1997 to 2002. ........... 20
Table 2. Estimated waterfowl
production from 1988 to 1995.............. 20
Table 3. Nest success of rookery sites
for colonial wading birds by
species for the years 1994-1996. ......... 21
Table 4. Nest success of colonial
wading birds in Refuge units for
the years 1994-1996.............................. 21
Table 5. Public use at Fish Springs
NWR, 1995-2002................................... 26
Table 6. Unit drawdown and
prescribed burning sequence.............. 28
Table 7. Target water elevations for
marsh units under 1991 Marsh
Management Plan................................. 32
Table 8. Suggested indicator species. ........ 33
Table 9. Step-down management plans
for Fish Springs NWR. ....................... 51
Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii
Figures
Figure 1. Interior Basin Ecosystem
and National Wildlife Refuges in
Utah. ........................................................ 2
Figure 2. Ancient Lake Bonneville. ............. 3
Figure 3. Fish Springs National
Wildlife Refuge Units and Pools.......... 4
Figure 4. Fish Springs NWR about
1958 at Time of Refuge
Establishment......................................... 8
Figure 5. Habitat Types. ............................. 18
Figure 6. Harrison Unit Restoration......... 38
Figure 7. Hunting. ........................................ 44
Figure 8. Public Use..................................... 45
Figure 9. Proposed Organizational
Chart for Fish Springs NWR............. 50
Glossary
Appendices
Appendix A. Key Legislation and Policies
Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C. Planning Team
Appendix D. Environmental Compliance
Appendix E. Section 7 Biological Evaluation
Appendix F. Mailing List
Appendix G. Species List for Fish Springs
NWR
Appendix H. Refuge Operating Needs
System
Appendix I. Maintenance Management
System
Bibliography
Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-1
This document is a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Fish
Springs National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
The CCP will guide management of Refuge
operations, habitat restoration and visitor
services for the next 15 years by providing
clear goals and objectives, implementation
strategies, and recommended staffing and
funding for the Refuge.
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), comprising 17,992 acres, is located
in western Utah in Juab County. Springs
flowing from the eastern base of the Fish
Springs Range feed a 10,000-acre saline
marsh divided into nine impoundments. The
remaining portion comprises 6,000 acres of
mud and alkali flat and 2,000 acres of
semidesert upland. The Refuge provides
the only important wetland habitat for a 70-
mile radius, attracting hundreds of
wetland-dependent species during
migration. Since Refuge establishment,
more than 278 species of birds have been
seen at Fish Springs NWR, 61 of which
nest on the Refuge. Fish Springs NWR was
established by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission in 1959 “…for
use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory
birds.”
The goals set forth in the CCP for Fish
Springs NWR are:
Habitat: Improve and maintain habitat
for nesting and wintering migratory
birds and other wildlife populations of
the Bonneville Basin.
Ecological Integrity: Perpetuate the
native biodiversity of the Bonneville
Basin as represented on Fish Springs
NWR.
Cultural Resources: Preserve, protect,
and promote an understanding of cultural
resources on Fish Springs NWR.
Visitor Services: Promote an
understanding and appreciation of the
fish, wildlife, and natural and cultural
history of Fish Springs NWR by
providing high quality environmental
education, interpretation, and wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities for
persons of all abilities.
Partnerships: Promote partnerships to
preserve and enhance the natural
characteristics of the Bonneville Basin
ecosystem in which Fish Springs NWR
plays a key role.
These goals will help fulfill the mission and
goals of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 stipulates that a written
assessment must be made of any action
proposed by an agency of the Federal
Government that significantly affects the
quality of the human environment or has
significant impacts on the affected State or
Federal land. NEPA also requires Federal
decision makers to study, develop, and
describe appropriate alternatives to the
recommended action. Views of other
Federal and State agencies and the public
are solicited during the decision making
process. An environmental assessment
(EA) was prepared to accompany the Draft
CCP. The proposed action was to prepare
and implement the CCP, or Management
for Wildlife Diversity Alternative.
Summary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Area Description
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), located in western Utah in Juab
County (Figure 1 and Figure 2), is one of
the most isolated refuges in the lower 48
states. The nearest neighbors reside in
Callao, Utah, a ranching community of
about 45 people, 24 miles west of the
Refuge. The nearest communities with
services are Dugway Proving Ground,
Utah, 63 miles to the northeast and Delta,
Utah, 78 miles to the southeast. The Refuge
consists of 17,992 acres of fee-title land
surrounded on the east, west, and south by
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
holdings and on the north by the U.S.
Army’s Dugway Proving Ground. Springs
flowing from the eastern base of the Fish
Springs Range feed a 10,000-acre saline
marsh divided into nine impoundments
(Figure 3). The remaining portion
comprises 6,000 acres of mud and alkali flat
and 2,000 acres of semidesert upland.
Fish Springs NWR sits in a valley at the
eastern front of the Fish Springs Range.
The Great Salt Lake Desert is to the north,
with the small Thomas and Dugway Ranges
to the east and the House Range to the
south closing the basin. The valley is about
10 miles wide and 20 miles long. The Fish
Springs Range is characterized by rocky
outcroppings and lava peaks with some
areas devoid of vegetation. The Refuge is
entirely within the Interior Basins
ecoregion. Within the expanse of that
ecoregion, the Refuge lies within the sub-unit
known as the Bonneville Basin.
The Refuge was established because of its
historic attraction to waterfowl. During fall
migrations, 30,000 ducks have been
recorded. Since establishment, more than
278 species of birds have been seen at Fish
Springs NWR, 61 of which are known to
nest on the Refuge. The Refuge provides
the only important wetland habitat for a 70-
mile radius. Consequently, the Refuge
attracts hundreds of wetland-dependent
species during migration. More than 40
species spend the winter at the Refuge.
Fish Springs NWR has an extraordinarily
rich and diverse human history. As a source
of bountiful resources in a very arid and
often hostile environment, it has likely been
a focal point of human existence as long as
11,000 years. Evidence of such pre-historic
occupation can be found over nearly all of
the Refuge. Two caves within the Refuge
boundary, located on the east face of the
northern tip of the Fish Springs Range, are
part of a National Archaeological District.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Fish Springs NWR
Interior Basin Ecosystem and
National Wildlife Refuges in Utah
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 1
15
15
50
174
36
84
80
70
84
80
80
15
70
Ancient Lake Bonneville 15
Figure 2
Eastern Great Basin
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Units and Pools
Figure 3
T11S
T10S
R14W
R13W
R14W
R13W
T12S
T11S
Fish Springs, Utah
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 1. Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Euro-American history of the Refuge
begins in 1827 with the first documented
visit to the marsh by famed mountain man
and pioneering explorer Jedediah Smith.
Smith stopped at Fish Springs on one of his
trips to California. The first documented
Euro-American occupation at the marsh
was in 1859. In 1860, Fish Springs became a
stop on the Pony Express Route and
Overland Stage routes. In 1861, the
Transcontinental Telegraph line passed
through Fish Springs. In 1913, the Lincoln
Highway, the nation’s first transcontinental
automobile road, passed through Fish
Springs to skirt the often impassable salt
flats to the north. It is estimated that at the
peak usage period for the Lincoln Highway,
over 5,000 cars passed each year, compared
to less than 2,500 cars currently. Several
segments of the Lincoln Highway are still
visible in Refuge uplands.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System was
started 100 years ago with an Executive
Order, signed by President Theodore
Roosevelt, protecting pelicans, ibises, and
spoonbills on a small and unpretentious
island from market hunters. In 1997, the
mission and administrative policy for all
refuges in the Refuge System was
established with the passage of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act. It also outlined the
importance of the six priority public uses
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental
education, and interpretation) and how they
should be promoted, except where
incompatible with the purpose of the
individual refuge or the Refuge System as a
whole. A formal process for determining
compatibility was also established with this
Act. From the first Executive Order to the
most recent Act, the overriding principle
that guides the Refuge System is that
wildlife comes first.
The Service, which administers the Refuge
System, is the only Federal agency whose
primary responsibility is fish, wildlife, and
plant conservation. The National Wildlife
Refuge System is the world’s largest and
most diverse collection of lands set aside
specifically for wildlife. The Mission of the
Refuge System is, “To administer a
national network of lands and waters for
the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of
Americans.” Goals of the Refuge System
are aimed at fulfilling this mission. Some
major goals are to provide for specific
classes of wildlife species for which the
Federal government is ultimately
responsible. These “trust resources” are
defined by the purpose of the refuge and
include threatened and endangered species,
migratory birds, and anadromous fish. Most
refuges provide breeding, migration, or
wintering habitat for these species. Nearly
all refuges also supply habitat for big game
species and resident or non-migratory
wildlife as well.
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System are:
1. To fulfill our statutory duty to
achieve refuge purpose(s) and
further the Refuge 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,
interjurisdictional fish, and marine
mammal populations.
4. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife,
and plants.
Chapter 1. Introduction
6 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
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.
Individual refuges provide specific
requirements for the preservation of trust
resources. For example, migratory bird
refuges in Utah provide important wetland
habitats to support populations of birds as
required by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (MBCA). Fish Springs
NWR supports migrating and breeding
populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and
water birds. These birds migrate to and
from at least 10 different states and several
Canadian provinces. After visiting Fish
Springs NWR, many move on to winter on
refuges in the southwest or breed on
refuges in Alaska. This network of lands is
critical to these birds’ survival; any
deficiency in one location will affect these
species and the entire network’s ability to
maintain adequate populations.
Other refuges may provide habitat for
endangered plants or animals that exist in
unique habitats found only in very few
locations. Refuges in these situations
promote the protection of local populations
and their habitat. By providing a broad
network of lands throughout the United
States with secure habitat and
opportunities for recovery, refuges help
prevent species from being listed as
endangered.
Under the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, six wildlife-dependent
recreational uses are recognized
as priority public uses of refuge lands.
These are hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, envi-ronmental
education, and interpretation.
These and other uses are allowed on
refuges only after finding that they are
compatible with the purpose of the refuge.
Uses are allowed through a special regula-tion
process, individual special use permits,
and sometimes through State fishing and
hunting regulations.
Purpose of and Need for the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The purpose of the CCP is to describe the
goals established for Fish Springs NWR,
and the objectives and strategies needed to
meet the goals. The goals for Fish Springs
NWR are presented in Chapter 4.
The CCP is needed for several reasons.
Loss of habitat in the Pacific Flyway has
been substantial and continuous, primarily
through conversion of wetlands to
agriculture. The scope of Federal trust
resources has expanded to include
threatened and endangered species.
Knowledge among wildlife professionals has
expanded. Legislative mandates to protect
cultural resources must be met. A need
exists to describe how Fish Springs NWR
can best contribute to efforts to protect our
wildlife resources for present and future
generations.
The CCP will provide the Refuge Manager
with a 15-year management plan for the
conservation of wildlife, fish, and plant
resources and their related habitats, while
providing opportunities for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The
CCP, when fully implemented, will achieve
Refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge
System mission; maintain and, where
Chapter 1. Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
appropriate, restore the ecological integrity
of the Refuge and the Refuge System; and
meet other mandates.
History of Refuge Establishment,
Acquisition, and Management
The lands comprising Fish Springs NWR
have been part of the Service’s National
Wildlife Refuge System since 1959. The
authorization for the creation of the Fish
Springs NWR dates from Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission approval on June
18, 1958. The first property acquisition was
recorded on March 10, 1959, when 2,160
acres were purchased from the Fish
Springs Livestock and Fur Company, and
160 acres were purchased from Charles and
Buelah Walker of Salt Lake City, Utah. On
March 12, 1959, about 1,455 acres were
purchased from the State of Utah. During
that same time period, 14,097 acres were
withdrawn from existing public domains
under Public Land Order 1942 for inclusion
in the Refuge. An additional 120 acres of
lands were withdrawn from public domain
holdings under Public Land Order 2563 in
1961, bringing the acreage total to the
present 17,992.
Interest in the possibility of establishing a
national wildlife refuge at the base of the
Fish Springs Range was as early as 1934.
During that year, J. Clark Salyer, Director
of the Migratory Bird Program under the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of
Biological Survey, became aware of land in
the area with potential waterfowl values
that might be for sale. He directed George
Mushback, Game Management Agent-In-
Charge of the Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge, to visit the area and file a report.
While Mushback reported that he felt that
it would “offer very good possibilities for
nesting, feeding, and concentration” of
waterfowl, no further action was taken on
acquisition at that time.
Renewed interest by Director Ira
Gabrielson in 1938 led to additional on-site
surveys. Charles C. Sperry, tasked with
assessing waterfowl food supplies, reported
that they were quite limited and that Fish
Springs should not be considered for
addition to the National Wildlife Refuge
System. A visit by C. S. Williams, a wildlife
biologist assigned to the Wildlife Research
Lab at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge,
in September of 1938 resulted in a report
that indicated that Fish Springs “in the
past has been a good waterfowl area. By
proper management it can be made even
better.” However, Vanez T. Wilson, the
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
Manager, visited the area in December of
1938 and reported that “the Fish Springs
area, in my opinion, does not lend itself to
extensive development.” No further
reconnaissance of the Fish Springs area
was noted until a summer visit in 1941 by
Reuel Janson who reported that “the Fish
Springs marsh possesses considerable
qualification for a waterfowl refuge.” No
further written record has been found until
1958 when acquisition of the Refuge was
approved (Figure 4).
A Master Plan for the “Physical and
Biological Development” of the Refuge was
written in 1960. Construction of the
physical infrastructure for impounding the
springs was implemented in three phases
between 1961 and 1965. Phase One included
the excavation of the Main Distribution
Canal, which runs through the center of the
Refuge and the north dike on Harrison
Unit. Phase Two, begun in 1962, included
the construction of the north dike of Avocet
Unit and the north dike of Curlew Unit.
Phase Three, completed from 1963 to 1965,
involved the construction of all remaining
major dikes and structures for Mallard,
Shoveler, Egret, Pintail, Ibis, and Gadwall
Units.
Chapter 1. Introduction
8 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Fish Springs NWR about 1958 at Time of Refuge Establishment.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Biological “objectives” identified in the
original Master Plan included: providing
resting and feeding areas for tundra swans,
Canada geese, redheads, mallards, and
greater sandhill cranes; inducing Canada
goose nesting; and re-establishing nesting
use of the area by greater sandhill cranes.
Public use plans in the original Master Plan
included parking areas and designated
access routes to the public hunting area,
preservation of items of historical interest,
establishment of a picnic area near the
Thomas Ranch house, and designation of a
tour route through the marsh.
Refuge Purpose
Fish Springs NWR was established under
the MBCA by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission. The stated
purpose is “…for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C.
715d). Past management at the Refuge was
focused on waterfowl production. However,
after many years of trying, waterfowl
production never reached a substantial
level. From 1991 to 1995, the Refuge
Manager and the Regional Office of the
Service reviewed and discussed the best
use for the Refuge. It was decided that
marsh management should be altered to
accommodate the habitat needs of other
migratory birds as well, namely shorebirds
and water birds. The MBCA supports this
because the Refuge supports many birds
other than waterfowl.
Refuge Vision Statement
Fish Springs NWR will continue to
conserve native fish, wildlife, plants and
their habitats. Water and a diversity of
habitats will be available to migratory birds
and other indigenous wildlife within the
physiographic region known as the
Bonneville Basin of the Interior Basin
ecoregion. The Refuge is vital to the
conservation of migratory birds,
interjurisdictional fish, threatened and
endangered species, and the habitats on
which these species depend. The Refuge
will continue to be managed in accordance
with sound management principals to
provide a wide range of wildlife-related
recreation and learning opportunities,
including hunting, wildlife observation, and
connecting with nature. The preservation
and sharing of the cultural past of the area,
both on a local and national scale, is an
added benefit of Fish Springs NWR.
Refuge Goals
􀁑􅄠 Overall Goal: Provide habitat for
maximum wildlife diversity.
􀁑􅄠 Habitat: Improve and maintain
habitat for nesting and wintering
migratory birds and other wildlife
populations of the Bonneville Basin.
􀁑􅄠 Ecological Integrity: Perpetuate
the native biodiversity and physical
characteristics of the Bonneville
Basin as represented on Fish Springs
NWR.
􀁑􅄠 March Restoration of Harrison
Unit: Restore a portion of Fish
Springs NWR to the native
biodiversity and physical
characteristics of the Bonneville
Basin as represented on Fish
Springs, including unimpeded
hydrological, physical, and biological
components.
􀁑􅄠 Cultural Resources: Preserve,
protect, and promote an
understanding of cultural resources
on Fish Springs NWR.
􀁑􅄠 Visitor Services: Promote an
understanding and appreciation of
the fish, wildlife, and natural and
cultural history of Fish Springs
NWR by providing high quality
environmental education,
interpretation, and wildlife-
Chapter 1. Introduction
10 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
dependent recreational opportunities
for persons of all abilities.
􀁑􅄠 Partnerships: Promote partnerships
to preserve and enhance the natural
characteristics of the Bonneville
Basin ecosystem in which Fish
Springs NWR plays a key role.
Legal and Policy Guidance
Administration of the Department of the
Interior, the Service, and the National
Wildlife Refuge System is guided by
international treaties, Federal laws, and
Presidential Executive Orders. Refuge
management options are further refined by
administrative guidelines established by
the Secretary of the Interior and policy
guidelines established by the Director of
the Service.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines,
and policy guidelines assist the Refuge
Manager in making decisions pertaining to
soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other
natural resources, historic and cultural
resources, research, and recreation on
refuge lands.
Other key legislative policies that direct
management of refuges include the
Endangered Species Act (1973), Clean
Water Act (1977), Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act (1965), Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (1918), and Executive
Order 12996 Management and General
Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (1996). These and other Acts and
Executive Orders that guide Refuge
System activities are listed in Appendix A.
The Service also provides its own policy
guidelines, which can be found in refuge
manuals.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Description of Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plans
(CCPs) provide a clear and comprehensive
statement of desired future conditions for
each refuge or planning unit. CCPs provide
long-range guidance and management
direction to achieve refuge purposes, help
fulfill the Refuge System mission, and
maintain or restore the ecological integrity
of each refuge and the Refuge System.
Additional goals of the CCP process
include using science and sound
professional judgment to support
management decisions, ensuring the six
priority public uses receive consideration
during the preparation of the CCP,
providing a public forum for stakeholders
and interested parties to have input into
refuge management decisions, and
providing a uniform basis for funding.
The CCP planning process consists of the
following eight steps. Although the steps
are listed sequentially, CCP planning and
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) documentation can be iterative.
Some of the steps may be repeated, or
more than one step can occur at the same
time.
1. Preplanning - form core team,
identify needs
2. Identify Issues and Develop
Vision - gather public input on
issues
3. Develop Goals and Objectives -
from issues, resource relationships,
legal responsibilities
4. Develop and Analyze Alternatives
- including the Proposed Action
5. Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA
Document - assess environmental
effects, gather public comments on
draft plan
6. Prepare and Adopt Final Plan
7. Implement Plan, Monitor and
Evaluate
8. Review and Revise Plan
Comprehensive conservation planning
efforts for Fish Springs began in March
1999 with a meeting of regional
management and planning staff and field
station employees from Fish Springs NWR
at Refuge headquarters in Utah. At that
meeting, a Core Planning Team, consisting
of the Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, U.S. Army Dugway Proving
Ground, and the Utah State Historical
Society was designated. A Notice of Intent
to prepare a CCP was published in the
Federal Register in September of that
same year (64 Fed. Reg. 49228 (September
10, 1999)). Public Issues Workbooks were
distributed during the Refuge’s annual
Open House, also in September. From
there, work progressed on developing draft
Refuge vision, goals, and objectives.
However, work was discontinued in
September 2000 due to changes in Refuge
management and priorities for the regional
planning division.
Planning efforts were re-initiated in
November of 2001. Issues Workbooks were
Chapter 2. Planning Process
Chapter 2. Planning Process
12 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
sent to 40 individuals and organizations in
February 2002, followed by two public
meetings in March⎯one in Salt Lake City,
the other in Partoun, Utah. Neither public
meeting was attended by the public. Eight
completed Issues Workbooks were
returned to the Core Planning Team.
Further scoping was conducted during a
Core Planning Team meeting in April 2002
where each Team member was given the
opportunity to discuss concerns,
recommendations, and ideas. The Core
Planning Team then revised the draft
Refuge vision, goals, and management
alternatives and evaluated the
environmental consequences of each
alternative.
The CCP, signed by the Regional Director,
provides direction to the Refuge Manger
and staff. Copies of the CCP will be
provided upon request to all interested
parties.
Planning Issues
Issues identified during the scoping
process are presented here. This is a
synopsis of all comments received,
including those from individuals,
organizations, State agencies, and other
Federal agencies.
Wildlife and Habitat
There was support for managing the
Refuge for a diversity of wildlife, with the
current emphasis in marsh areas on
waterfowl, shorebirds, and other water
birds. The quality of the high desert
shrubland habitat should be improved.
Some concern exists for the well-being of
endangered and threatened species and
State species of concern. Additionally,
some respondents called for protecting
invertebrates in the springs, with
particular emphasis given to controlling
the spread of the nonnative snail,
Melanoides tuberculata. A number of
respondents saw the need for a greatly
enhanced biological inventory and
assessment program. Some support
occurred for expanding the Refuge into
nearby salt-flats and springs.
Exotic Species
Concern about the spread of exotic species,
both plant and animal, was expressed.
Increased control efforts are needed.
However, concern with the use of
chemicals to control weeds was also
expressed.
Cultural Resources
There was support for the University of
Utah to continue its archaeological summer
field school on the Refuge. The two caves
on the Refuge should be excavated.
Interpretation of cultural and historic
resources should be improved and
expanded.
Public Use
Respondents were happy with the level of
public access on the Refuge. Development
of a nearby off-site campground to
accommodate visitors was recommended.
Conflicting opinions on hunting and
trapping were voiced. Some felt a goose
hunt should be implemented in addition to
current hunting opportunities. Others
supported no hunting or trapping on the
Refuge, believing these activities are
incompatible with the purpose of the
Refuge. It was also requested that the
Service work on eliminating the
inconsistencies in hunting regulations on
different refuges within Utah.
Administration/Operations
The need for additional staff for the Refuge
was a concern for some respondents. The
Refuge is especially in need of a biologist.
A request was made to break down the
Refuge budget into administration,
conservation, and public use/hunting for
Chapter 2. Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
comparison purposes. Partnerships with
Dugway Proving Ground should be
expanded in light of the commonality
between the two regarding habitat types
and species present, especially threatened
and endangered species.
14 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Fish Springs NWR, located in western
Utah in Juab County (Figure 1 and Figure
2), is one of the most isolated refuges in the
lower 48 states. The nearest neighbors
reside in Callao, Utah, a ranching
community of about 45 people 24 miles
west of the Refuge. The nearest
communities with services are Dugway
Proving Ground, Utah, 63 miles to the
northeast and Delta, Utah, 78 miles to the
southeast. The Refuge consists of 17,992
acres of fee-title land surrounded on the
east, west, and south by Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) holdings and on the
north by the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving
Ground. Springs flowing from the eastern
base of the Fish Springs Range feed a
10,000-acre saline marsh divided into nine
impoundments (Figure 3). The remaining
of the Refuge comprises 6,000 acres of mud
and alkali flat and 2,000 acres of semidesert
upland.
The Refuge lies entirely within the
Interior Basins ecoregion. Within the
expanse of that ecoregion, the Refuge is
within the subunit known as the Bonneville
Basin. The Bonneville Basin comprises the
area once covered by the prehistoric Lake
Bonneville (Figure 2). Lake Bonneville, a
landlocked basin about the size of the State
of Montana, was filled about 35,000 years
ago and fluctuated with wet and dry cycles
until about 15,000 years ago, inundating
much of the eastern portions of the Great
Basin. At that time, the lake rose to a level
that breached a pass in southern Idaho,
eroded a large cut, and began draining into
the Snake and Columbia Rivers. After a
period of about 6 months, Lake Bonneville
dropped an estimated 400 feet.
Over the next 4,500 years, Lake Bonneville
continued to drop from evaporative losses
exceeding inflows. Based on consistent
carbon dating for the first organic layer in
soil coring samples, the University of Utah
has determined that the lake receded to
the point where Fish Springs became a
marsh type wetland about 11,400 years
ago.
Wetlands found at the Refuge are
associated with of a series of thermal
springs that emerge from a fault line at the
base of the east slope of the Fish Springs
Range. Five major and several minor
springs and seeps provide an average flow
of about 29 cubic feet per second resulting
in an average annual inflow of about 22,000
acre-feet of water. All Refuge springs
exhibit thermal influence with the average
spring water temperature being 74 degrees
Fahrenheit. The springs are high in
dissolved minerals, which results in a
water pH of about 7.8. Groundwater
recharge for the Refuge springs is believed
to be regional rather than local due to the
large volume in such an arid climate.
Carbon-14 analysis aging indicates that
water emanating from the Refuge springs
probably fell as precipitation from 9,000 to
14,000 years ago.
The wetlands of Fish Springs NWR are
about 75 miles south of the Great Salt Lake
and are a major migration point for
wetland birds migrating to and from the
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
lake. The wetlands of Fish Springs NWR
comprise a greater acreage than all of the
wetlands combined in all directions for a
distance of more than 70 miles. As such,
the Refuge provides critical migration
habitat for a diverse array of wetland
birds. Located on the eastern edge of the
Pacific Flyway, the Refuge receives
waterfowl from the Canadian Arctic and
several Prairie Provinces, as well as birds
originating in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,
and Utah.
Topography
Fish Springs NWR is located in a valley at
the eastern front of the Fish Springs
Range. The Great Salt Lake Desert to the
north, the small Thomas and Dugway
Ranges to the east, and the House Range
to the south close the basin. The valley is
about 10 miles wide and 20 miles long. The
Fish Springs Range is characterized by
rocky outcroppings and lava peaks with
some areas devoid of vegetation. The peaks
are full of caves and crevices.
The Great Basin is composed
topographically of long, narrow, and steep
mountain ranges running north-south with
fairly flat basins between these mountain
ranges. The basin, where the Fish Springs
marsh is found, is bordered on the west by
the Fish Springs Range and on the east by
the Dugway and Thomas Ranges. The
Refuge Headquarters sits at an elevation
of 4,330 feet and the highest point in the
surrounding mountains is 8,523 feet. The
portion of the Refuge supporting wetlands
is very flat with a minimum elevation of
4,287 feet and a maximum elevation of
4,305 feet.
Between the marsh and the Fish Springs
Mountains to the west is a belt (about 6,000
acres) of semidesert uplands composed
primarily of greasewood and shadscale.
These uplands are flat to gently rolling and
soon give way to the shallow marsh.
Ancient Lake Bonneville once covered the
area except for the peaks of the ranges.
The elevation of the Refuge varies from
4,285 to 4,700 feet with a small portion of
the Fish Springs Range accounting for
elevations above 4,350 feet.
The Refuge’s topography was significantly
altered in the 1960s with the construction
of nine dikes at varying distances from the
springs. The dikes created nine
impoundments on the Refuge (clockwise
from Refuge headquarters: Mallard,
Shoveler, Pintail, Harrison, Gadwall, Ibis,
Egret, Curlew and Avocet (Figure 3).
Soils
The semidesert uplands leading from the
Fish Springs Range to the marsh contain
alluvial soils with a high gravel content.
Mud and alkali flats surround the eastern,
northern, and southern limits of the marsh
areas. The marsh soils are generally sandy-clay,
about 6 feet deep. These soils occur on
top of an impervious hardpan layer. Peat
deposits, 4 feet deep or less, occur in the
drainage areas downstream from the major
springs. These soils are mildly alkaline,
having a pH of about 8.0.
In the southern part of the Refuge and
along the northern boundary are extensive
areas of extremely alkaline soil⎯the salt
flats. On the western edge of the Refuge,
rocky outcrops produce an accompanying
ground cover of coarse fractured rock.
Alluvial deposits of coarse gravel are
located in two areas west of the marsh.
These deposits were left when ancient
Lake Bonneville receded.
Water
After establishment of Fish Springs NWR
in 1959, the approximately 10,000-acre
marsh was divided into nine units that
receive their water supply from warm
saline springs rising under artesian
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
16 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
pressure and emanating at the base of the
Fish Springs Range. These springs receive
recharge from precipitation falling on the
Fish Springs Range and Deep Creek
Range 25 miles to the west. In addition,
some spring recharge may occur from deep
ground-water movement from Deep Creek,
Snake and Tule Valleys. Movement of
groundwater over these large distances is
through unconsolidated basin fill as well as
solution openings and fractures in the
deep, consolidated carbonate rock. The age
of the spring water is estimated to be
about 10,000 years.
All excess water flows into the Great Salt
Lake Desert, which adjoins the Refuge to
the north. The Refuge is in an arid
environment and is the only source of
water for many miles. This oasis attracts a
variety of species not common to the rest
of the Service’s Mountain-Prairie Region.
Water Rights
The Service holds water rights to 43.88 cfs
of spring flow originating on the Refuge.
The United States acquired the following
three Certificates of Appropriation of
Water (state perfected water rights) when
land was purchased for the Refuge:
Water Right Number 18-51
Certificate No: 1996
Application No: 9922
Flow Rate: 5.0 cfs North Spring
Priority Date: 04/16/1926
Water Right Number 18-59
Certificate No: 2077-a
Application No: 10661
Flow Rate: 10 cfs South Spring
Priority Date: 04/30/1929
Water Right Number 18-66
Certificate No: 2112
Application No: 11020
Flow Rate: 10 cfs Middle Spring
Priority Date: 11/13/1931
After Refuge establishment, the Service
filed Application No. A33136 (later
assigned as Certificate 13087, Water Right
Number 18-215) for an additional 18.88 cfs
from the springs. This right, included with
the certificated 25 cfs, appropriates a total
of 43.88 cfs from the springs. Application
No. A-40386, Water Right Number 18-331,
0.1 cfs, is for a domestic well with a priority
date of 10/08/1970.
The Service controls 100 percent of the
water rights on the Refuge with no other
users. While the Services’ water right is
roughly 44 cfs, the current annual flow
from the springs is about 28.69 cfs. The
spring water is warm (around 74 degrees
Fahrenheit) and saline, with conductivity
readings of 3,000 to 5,000 umhos at the
source.
Climate
The climate at Fish Springs NWR is arid.
The average annual precipitation is 8
inches, with most precipitation falling in
the spring and fall. Wide temperature
fluctuations typical of desert environments
occur daily and seasonally. Temperatures
can range from 109 degrees Fahrenheit in
summer to minus 19 degrees Fahrenheit in
winter. High moisture losses during the
summer occur through evapotranspiration
as a result of low humidity and high
ambient temperatures. Dry thunderstorms
are common during the summer. Winter
temperatures can remain well below
freezing for several days at a time with
snowfall averaging 15 inches per year. The
frost-free season generally runs from late-
April through mid-October. Wind speeds
are generally light to moderate.
Habitat and Vegetation
Six habitat types exist on the Refuge⎯five
vegetation communities and open water
(Figure 5). These habitat types are:
􀁑􅄠 Great Basin Arid Shrubland
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
􀁑􅄠 Great Basin Cold Desert Shrubland
􀁑􅄠 Great Basin Cold Desert Grassland
􀁑􅄠 Shallow Water Marsh and Wetland
􀁑􅄠 Alkali Mud Flat
􀁑􅄠 Open Water
The Great Basin Arid Shrubland habitat
type (516 acres) is found on the west side of
the Refuge in the uppermost reaches.
Dominant species include Mormon tea
(Ephedra nevadensis) and rabbit brush
(Chrysothamnus nauseous and C.
albidus). Forbs include globe mallow
(Sphaeralcea coccinea) and evening
primrose (Oenothera caespitosa).
The Great Basin Cold Desert Shrubland
habitat type (1,577 acres) is found at
slightly lower elevations than the Great
Basin Arid Shrubland. This habitat type
also occupies areas on the west side of the
Refuge as well as much smaller patches
along the north, east, and south sides of the
marshlands. This community is dominated
by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus),
shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), and
fourwing saltbrush (Atriplex canascens).
The Great Basin Cold Desert Grassland
habitat type (4,328 acres) is found in mostly
large patches interspersed with open
water, wetlands, and mud flats throughout
the marsh area in all nine impoundments.
The soil in these areas is sub-irrigated or
flooded only seasonally. Primary plant
species include saltgrass (Distichlis
stricta), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus
airoides), and Baltic rush (Juncus
arcticus).
The Shallow Water Marsh and Wetland
habitat type (3,225 acres) is found in much
of the Refuge marsh where water depth is
less than 18 inches. Included in this type
are Olney’s three-square bulrush (Scirpus
americanus), alkali bulrush (Scirpus
paludosus), hardstem bulrush (Scirpus
acutus), common reed (Phragmites
australis), cattail species (Typha
domingensis and T. latifolia), and spike
rush (Eleocharis rostellata).
Alkali Mud Flat (6,437 acres), where
subsaturated soils and very high salt levels
are predominant, are found primarily on
the east and south side of the Refuge.
Vegetative diversity is severely limited
under these conditions with pickle weed
(Allenrolfea occidentalis) and samphire
(Salicornia utahensis) being common in
the lower portions and alkali sacaton,
saltgrass and greasewood found in areas
where dunes have formed.
Many Open Water (1,784 acres) areas
contain submerged plant species. These
communities are the most robust and
diverse on the southern end of the Refuge
where salt levels are lowest, and the least
diverse in the northern reaches where salt
levels in the late summer can be quite high.
Plant species include wigeongrass (Ruppia
maritima), coontail (Ceratophyllum
demersum), spiny najad (Najas marina),
sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus),
muskgrass (Chara spp.), and filamentous
algae.
The only trees native to the Fish Springs
area are a few scattered junipers in the
higher portions of the uplands. A turn of
the century planting consisting of Fremont
cottonwoods (Populus fremonti) and
silverleaf poplars (Populus alba) exists at
the Thomas Ranch Watchable Wildlife
Area. This planting is of cultural
significance because although Fremont
cottonwoods are not native to Fish
Springs, these were planted by early
settlers to the area and provide a historical
context for the Refuge consistent with the
Refuge mission. A thin shelterbelt of
Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and
Habitat Types
Figure 5
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Siberian elm (Ulmus primula) surrounds
the Headquarters and residential area.
Unlike other areas of the Great Basin,
Russian olive does not readily spread into
the marsh at Fish Springs (likely due to
unfavorable soils). Several isolated patches
of willow exist near the springs.
The primary noxious weeds in the area are
saltcedar (Tamarix ramossisima),
whitetop (Cardaria draba), and squarrose
knapweed (Centaurea virgata). Mature
stands of saltcedar exist along the north
boundary with the majority of the Refuge
containing only scattered young plants.
Whitetop is a recent invader that is
confined to multiple small and discrete
stands. This plant is a concern in other
parts of the State because it is a noxious
weed. It is hoped that annual chemical
treatments by the Refuge staff will
eradicate the plant. The isolation of the
Refuge from other seed sources makes
reinfestation in the near future unlikely.
Squarrose knapweed is also a recent
invader. This plant first became
established along the county road skirting
the south and west boundaries of the
Refuge. It can now be found in the western
uplands of the Refuge, as well as
throughout the Fish Springs Range. Sheep,
along the mandated livestock driveway,
are believed to be the most important
factor in its continued spread.
A list of plants on the Refuge can be found
in Appendix G.
Wildlife
Birds
The Refuge was established because of the
historical attraction of waterfowl to its
wetland habitat. During fall migrations, up
to 30,000 ducks⎯ predominantly mallard,
pintail, wigeon, and green-winged
teal⎯have been recorded (Table 1). During
the fall and winter, Great Basin Canada
geese average around 1,000 birds, and 40 to
100 tundra swans are also present. Recent
production records are indicated in Table 2.
Since establishment, more than 278 species
of birds have been observed at Fish
Springs (Appendix G); 61 are known to
nest on the Refuge. The Refuge provides
the only important wetland habitat for a
70-mile radius. Consequently, the Refuge
attracts hundreds of wetland-dependent
species during migration. More than 40
species spend the winter at the Refuge.
Great blue herons and black-crowned night
herons are year-round marsh residents. A
large variety of shorebirds are present
during the summer months.
The Refuge hosts a surprisingly wide
variety of songbirds. Breeding species
include common yellowthroat, yellow
warbler, marsh wren, house finch, yellow-headed
and red-winged blackbirds,
savannah sparrow, and Say’s phoebe.
Migrant and wintering species include
loggerhead shrike, Wilson’s warbler,
yellow-rumped warbler, western tanager,
pine siskin, and American goldfinch.
Commonly observed year-round Refuge
residents include northern harrier, golden
eagles, bald eagles, red-tailed hawks,
rough-legged hawks, and prairie falcons.
Winter residents include rough-legged
hawk, American kestrel, and prairie
falcons. Great horned and short-eared owls
are found on the Refuge but are seldom
seen.
Colonial nesting wading birds were
monitored at Fish Springs NWR from 1994
through 1996 (Ward and Ward 1996). The
Service currently manages the marsh
system to provide high quality habitat for
colonial nesting birds, including white-faced
ibis, snowy egret, black-crowned
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
20 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Estimated waterfowl populations from 1997 to 2002.
Waterfowl 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coot 12,361 3,695 11,235 2,891 7,280 9,800
Tundra Swan 103 120 101 79 87 102
Canada Goose 847 598 858 445 760 1,060
Mallard 1,705 1,669 1,088 435 1,272 1,398
Gadwall 2,052 974 1,102 572 1,862 2,000
Pintail 4,275 1,927 4,609 1,333 7,895 3,267
Green-winged Teal 3,661 1,458 3,120 1,539 1,778 2,032
Cinnamon Teal 1,234 524 1,256 142 376 272
American Wigeon 4,805 281 2,367 495 2,754 5,443
Shoveler 804 883 847 389 374 180
Redhead 1,102 1,206 780 600 455 480
Canvasback 141 91 109 126 128 141
Ring-necked Duck 243 800 280 550 201 316
Lesser Scaup 11 58 140 89 222 72
Bufflehead 137 168 206 239 87 97
Ruddy Duck 287 96 440 119 128 79
Table 2. Estimated waterfowl production from 1988 to 1995.
Waterfowl 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Mallard 70 59 160 96 44 39 119 233
Pintail 370 43 125 59 94 29 62 54
Redhead 350 153 375 173 474 49 128 175
Canvasback 50 5 53 16 157 7 5 23
Shoveler 20 35 64 51 115 15 43 56
Gadwall 110 146 226 129 435 50 236 254
Cinnamon Teal 120 123 328 161 209 35 144 156
Ruddy Duck 50 24 47 52 168 6 17 35
Subtotal 1,140 588 1,378 737 1,696 230 754 986
Canada Goose 75 22 33 18 31 34 24 19
American Coot 300 678 943 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,515 1,288 2,354 755 1,727 264 778 1,005
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
night heron, and great blue heron. The
marsh system is spring-fed, providing
consistent, year-to-year nesting habitat
that is independent of annual and seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation (Ward and
Ward 1996). The number and locations of
rookery sites varied over the 3 years of
monitoring (Table 3). In 1994 the main
rookery was in Pintail Slough, shifting to
the Mallard Unit with some birds nesting
in the south Curlew Unit in 1995, and by
1996 the Mallard Unit was virtually the
only active rookery (Ward and Ward 1996).
The total number of nests and nest success
also varied between years with nest
success relatively high for all species
(Table 4).
Mammals
Forty-eight species of mammals have been
recorded on the Refuge. The majority of
these species are small rodents (19) and
bats (11). Coyotes, jackrabbits, and
introduced muskrats are commonly seen
residents. A small mule deer population
uses the Refuge, primarily in late summer
and fall. Pronghorn antelope are seen
occasionally along the Refuge’s western
boundary.
Coyotes and badgers are regularly
observed. Pocket gophers, wood rats,
kangaroo rats, and antelope squirrels are
among the more numerous smaller
mammals. The Refuge supports a healthy
muskrat population, which inadvertently
assists in maintaining open water areas
within the various units.
Reptiles, Fish, and Amphibians
Twelve reptiles, four fish, and two
amphibian species are found at Fish
Table 3. Nest success of rookery sites for colonial wading birds by species for the years 1994-1996.
Number of Nests Successful Nests Nest Success (%)
Unit
1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996
Pintail 295 0 0 181 N/A N/A 70 N/A N/A
Mallard 74 491 421 40 427 368 54 87 87
Egret 9 0 0 6 N/A N/A 67 N/A N/A
Curlew 0 21 2 N/A 5 0 N/A 24 0
Total 342 512 423 227 432 368 66 84 87
Table 4. Nest success of colonial wading birds in Refuge units for the years 1994-1996.
Number of Nests Successful Nests† Nest Success (%)
Species
1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996
W.F. Ibis 164 200 147 108 169 121 66 85 82
S. Egret 135 204 191 85 159 174 63 78 91
B.C.N.
Heron
37 99 76 28 95 64 76 96 84
B.G. Heron 1 7 7 1 7 7 100 100 100
C. Egret 5 2 2 5 2 2 100 100 100
Total 342 512 423 227 432 368 66 84 87
†A nest in which one or more eggs hatch.
Source: Ward and Ward 1996.
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
22 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Springs NWR (Appendix G). The small
mosquito fish and both amphibian species
(bullfrog and leopard frog) were likely
introduced in a bullfrog farm that operated
in a major portion of the Middle Springs
area from the early 1950s until about 1970
(Hovingh 1993; Service 1987). The
mosquito fish is found throughout the
canals and water units. Bullfrogs occur in
House Spring and Walter Spring and areas
connected to the main channel by
permanent water flow (McKell et al.
undated). Bullfrogs are found in springs
and the main channel where water
temperatures were greater than 66
degrees Fahrenheit; bullfrogs are not
found in Avocet, Curlew, Shoveler, Egret,
Ibis, Gadwall, Pintail or Harrison Units or
road side pools with water temperature
less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit (McKell et
al. undated). Leopard frogs occur along the
main channel and in dense vegetation at
the edge of canals and pools with water
temperatures greater than 60 degrees
Fahrenheit (McKell et al. undated).
Leopard frogs are native to Utah;
however, according to Hovingh (1993),
leopard frogs are believed to be introduced
into Fish Springs NWR from nearby
populations. Bullfrogs are introduced
predators that prey on other frogs, fish and
waterbirds, sometimes leading to the
extirpation of native fauna (McKell et al.
undated; Lawler et al. 1999). Bullfrogs and
leopard frogs have restricted patterns of
distribution and abundance, possibly due to
bullfrog predation on leopard frogs (McKell
et al. undated). There is no evidence that
bullfrogs impact least chub (Banta, pers.
comm. 2004).
The least chub, a candidate species, has
been successfully reintroduced into
Walter’s Spring with additional releases
planned in the coming years. The Utah
chub is the most numerous fish on the
Refuge.
Invertebrates
Aquatic invertebrates (aquatic insects) are
an important part of the diet of breeding
migratory birds. Drawdowns and burns of
marsh ponds simulate the wet/dry cycles of
a natural wetland and release stored
nutrients (Faulkner and Cruz 1992; Kadlec
1962). Aquatic invertebrate populations
were monitored in 1983, 1984, and 1990-
1997. Sampling of invertebrates at Fish
Springs NWR in 1997 and a summary of
data from 1990 to 1997 indicated that
invertebrate abundance increases following
drawdown and burning (Halley 1997).
Nonaquatic insects have not been
inventoried or monitored. Thirty-eight
families of aquatic invertebrates have been
identified from Refuge waters.
Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate
Species
Three federally listed threatened and
endangered species are found in Juab
County: bald eagle, yellow-billed cuckoo,
and Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. The bald
eagle is listed as a threatened species and is
known to winter at Fish Springs NWR. The
bald eagle was downlisted from
endangered to threatened in 1995 and the
Service has proposed to delist the species
due to population recovery. The bald eagle
is an opportunistic forager during winter,
often relying on rabbits, injured waterfowl,
and carrion and typically roosts communally
during winter (Stalmaster 1987). Between
two to five bald eagles are typically observed
on the Refuge during winter. Currently, the
trees at the Thomas Ranch Watchable
Wildlife Area provide the only suitable
roosting site for the eagles, although a recent
pole planting near South Spring may provide
an additional site in the future.
The yellow-billed cuckoo (cuckoo) is a
neotropical migratory bird. The decline of
the western population of the yellow-billed
cuckoo due to loss of riparian habitat has
been reported consistently (Tate and Tate
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
1982; Finch 1992). The Service identified a
distinct western population segment of the
cuckoo and determined that there was
substantial information to indicate that the
listing was warranted, but precluded by
higher priority listing actions (66 Fed. Reg.
38611 (July 25, 2001)). This species has
been added to the Service candidate list.
Fish Springs NWR contains no potential
habitat for the cuckoo.
The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (orchid) is
federally listed as threatened. The orchid
occurs at elevations below 6,500 feet in
moist to wet alluvial meadows, flood plains
of perennial streams, and around springs
and lakes (Service 1992). Once thought to
be fairly common in low elevation riparian
areas in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, the
orchid is currently rare in all three states.
Generally, the vegetative cover
surrounding the orchid is relatively open.
Dense, overgrown sites are not conducive
to orchid establishment. Where the orchid
is found, soils are typically alluvial deposits
of sandy, gravelly material that are
saturated to within 18 inches of the surface
for at least part of the growing season. No
surveys have been conducted on the Fish
Springs NWR to determine the potential
occurrence of the orchid on the Refuge.
It is believed that Fish Springs NWR once
harbored the least chub, currently a
proposed endangered fish found only in
springs of the Bonneville Basin. The fish
has been reintroduced into Deadman and
Walter’s Springs. Only the reintroduction
into Walter’s Spring has been successful.
These populations are considered by Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources (Utah
DWR) as experimental.
The Fish Springs pond snail was described
in 1890. Some empty shells were found by
Russell (1971). Dr. D.W. Taylor declared
the pond snail extinct after a 1986 survey.
No known resident endangered,
threatened, or candidate plant species exist
on the Refuge.
The Pacific Coast population of the
western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus) is considered a distinct
population segment and was listed as a
federally threatened species in 1993 (58
Fed. Reg. 12864 (March 5, 1993)); however,
the interior population of snowy plover was
determined not to warrant listing (59 Fed.
Reg. 58982 (November 15, 1994)). On
March 22, 2004, the Service issued a 90-
Day Finding on a Petition to Delist the
Pacific Coast Population of the western
snowy plover and initiated a 5-year review
(69 Fed. Reg. 13326 (March 22, 2004)). The
western snowy plover is a small shorebird
that typically breeds on alkali flats and
alongside reservoirs, sewage and
evaporation ponds (Andrews and Righter
1992; Kingery 1998) in the interior U.S.
This species nests on the ground on
beaches, dry mud or salt flats and sandy
shores of rivers lakes and ponds.
In northern Utah, snowy plovers usually
nest in areas devoid of vegetation,
generally in recently exposed alkaline flats
(Paton and Edwards 1992). Nesting in
northern Utah occurs from mid-April to
mid July (Paton and Edwards 1991, 1992).
Complete clutches may be lost due to high
water, adverse weather, trampling by
cattle and large mammals or disturbance
by humans. Predation by gulls, common
raven, red fox, skunk, raccoon and coyote
can result in high rates of clutch failure in
some years (Page et al. 1985; Paton and
Edwards 1991, 1992). Predation by
mammalian and avian predators, including
coyote, ravens and possibly Great Basin
gopher snakes, appears to contribute to
low production of plovers at Fish Springs
NWR (Banta, pers. comm. 2004). The
current annual success rate for snowy
plovers nesting on Fish Springs NWR is
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
24 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
unknown. Predator exclusion fences have
proven effective for reducing mammalian
predation on piping plovers (Mayer and
Ryan 1991; Andrews et al. 1999) and have
been proposed as a management tool to
reduce nest losses for snowy plover (TNC
1998).
Cultural Resources and History of
Refuge Lands
Fish Springs NWR has a very rich and
diverse human history. Archaeological
investigations on the Refuge have
documented use of the area to the Early
Archaic Period (ca. 7,000-8,000 B.P.).
Recent studies have indicated that Lake
Bonneville receded to expose the Fish
Springs marsh about 11,400 years ago,
which have led archaeologists to conclude
that Paleoindian occupation within a few
hundred years of that date was likely.
Evidence of human use of the area through
the Late Archaic has been found on the
Refuge. Evidence of more recent
occupation by the Fremont culture has
been documented at Fish Springs NWR as
well. There are few Fremont culture sites
from western Utah but they likely
occupied the area from 700 to 1,500 years
ago. The Goshiute tribe, an ethnographic
branch of the Western Shoshonean culture,
occupied the Refuge from the 1400s to the
1900s.
Two caves within the Refuge boundary,
located on the east face of the northern tip
of the Fish Springs Range, are part of a
National Archeological District. Numerous
other sites, evidenced by large expanses of
lithic scatter, support occupation over
thousands of years. Inventory efforts by
the University of Utah Archaeology Field
School over the last several years have
documented 11 major sites. Most of the
activity around the marsh is attributed to
chipping artifacts and hunting, which
assumes that the marsh supported a
substantial wildlife population during the
prehistoric period.
The first documented Euro-American
occupation of the marsh was in 1859.
George Chorpenning established a station
on his mail route to Nevada. This outpost
was little more than a thatched shed.
In 1860, the Pony Express and Overland
Stage purchased Chorpenning’s mail
obligations, and Fish Springs became a
stop of note on a very inhospitable section
of that arduous route. In 1861, the
Transcontinental Telegraph line passed
through Fish Springs and that entity
proved to be the death knell for the Pony
Express. The Pony Express assets were
sold and the mail delivery route shifted
north of the Great Salt Lake to parallel the
transcontinental railroad. The route
through Fish Springs, however, proved to
Pony Express Marker
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
be a superior stage route for transporting
passengers, and some form of stage service
was maintained through the area until the
1920s.
There is little record of activities in the
marshes of Fish Springs from 1870 through
1890. By the early 1890s, John Thomas
established a ranch on the edge of the
marsh and was raising cattle and horses,
which he provided to the adjacent Utah
and Galena mining operations. He also
provided lodging, meals, and hay to the
stage service, and sold supplies to the
shepherds who wintered enormous flocks
of sheep in the region during the winter.
Thomas occupied the ranch until his death
in 1917.
In 1913, the Lincoln Highway, the nation’s
first transcontinental automobile road, was
built across the Thomas Ranch. This route
became a very lucrative source of income
for Thomas for several years. In 1919, the
completion of the Goodyear Cutoff, about
20 miles north of the marsh, eliminated
much of the Lincoln Highway traffic.
However, due to the precariousness of that
section during winter, a substantial amount
of Lincoln Highway traffic continued to
pass through the Fish Springs route until
1927. It is estimated that at the peak usage
period for the Lincoln Highway more than
5,000 cars passed each year, compared to
less than 2,500 cars currently. Several
segments of the Lincoln Highway are still
visible in Refuge uplands.
Between 1917, when John Thomas died,
and 1925, the patented land around the
marsh passed through several owners. By
1925 most of that land was owned by Tass
Claridge and Jim Harrison, doing business
as the Fish Springs Livestock and Fur
Company. This property remained in their
possession until 1959 when it was
purchased fee-title by the Service for
inclusion in the Refuge.
Fire Occurrence and History
Fire records prior to Refuge establishment
are not readily available. Due to
topography and the sparse vegetation
surrounding the Refuge, fire in the area
was probably a localized phenomenon.
With the abundant fuel in the form of dead
dry marsh vegetation, frequent lightning
storms, and the use of the area by nomadic
tribes, all of the ingredients necessary for
fires were present. It is assumed that fire
historically was a relatively common
occurrence in the marsh area and was a
determinant in the existing vegetation. It
is known that post-settlement landowners
periodically burned the marsh to improve
its grazing potential. Wildfires were
“apparently not a problem” for these prior
landowners (Service 1960).
Since Refuge establishment in 1959, 54
fires have been reported on the Refuge (50
prescribed burns within marsh units and
four wildfires - all human caused).
Prescribed burns have varied from 1 acre
to 1,630 acres. Based on a review of the fire
history, a wildfire frequency of one fire
every 10 years has been established.
Visitor Services
In spite of its isolation, Fish Springs NWR
has historically hosted 2,000 to 3,000
visitors each year (Table 5). Most come to
enjoy wildlife-oriented recreational
opportunities in the Refuge’s uncrowded
environment. Fish Springs public uses
include waterfowl hunting, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education and
interpretation.
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
26 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Fish Springs NWR provides one of the
highest quality public waterfowl hunting
opportunities to be found in the western
United States. Waterfowl hunting
opportunities include ducks, geese, and
coots, in accordance with State regulations.
Hunter densities rarely exceed one hunter
per 200 acres. Opportunities exist for
waterfowl hunting by hunters with
mobility impairment. The hunting seasons
do not conflict with the waterfowl nesting
season.
Recreational use other than hunting in the
spring and summer months have
contributed to an overall increase in visitor
numbers. Many come to the Refuge in the
process of exploring the rich human history
of the area, reaching back into time to
more than 11,000 years before present. The
Refuge hosts two events annually to
provide the public with special
opportunities to learn first-hand about the
Refuge’s resource-rich environment.
The Refuge maintains an auto-tour route
that traverses a good cross section of the
diverse habitats and provides exceptional
opportunities for wildlife viewing and
photography. The Thomas Ranch
Watchable Wildlife Area provides a
welcomed shady respite for visitors who
have traveled through the dusty, hot, and
dry conditions that must be traversed from
any cardinal direction to reach the Refuge.
While visits by scout groups and schools
are not as frequent as is the case on many
refuges, those that do visit find the Refuge
to be a wonderful outdoor classroom.
Providing service projects, merit badge
counseling, and environmental education
enhances the visitor experience and
understanding of the Refuge for most of
these young visitors.
Wilderness
A wilderness review is the process used by
the Service to determine whether to
recommend lands or waters in the National
Wildlife Refuge System to Congress for
designation as wilderness. The Service is
required to conduct a wilderness review
for each refuge as part of the CCP process.
Land or waters that meet the minimum
criteria for wilderness are identified in a
CCP and further evaluated to determine
whether they merit recommendation for
inclusion in the Wilderness System.
According to Section 13 of the Service’s
Director’s Order No. 125 (July 2000), in
order for a refuge to be considered for
wilderness designation, all or part of the
Refuge must:
􀁑􅄠 Be affected primarily by the forces
of nature, with the human imprint
substantially unnoticeable
􀁑􅄠 Have outstanding opportunities for
solitude or primitive and unconfined
type of recreation
􀁑􅄠 Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres
or be sufficient in size to make
practical its preservation and use in
an unimpaired condition, or be
capable of restoration to wilderness
character through appropriate
management, at the time of review
􀁑􅄠 Be a roadless island
Table 5. Public use at Fish Springs NWR, 1995-
2002.
Year Visits
1995 2,642
1996 2,982
1997 2,890
1998 2,957
1999 3,092
2000 2,881
2001 2,049
2002 2,376
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Fish Springs NWR is not recommended for
inclusion in the Wilderness System because
it does not meet the above criteria. The
Refuge has considerable evidence of past
human use, and is not roadless.
Socioeconomics
Population and Demographics
Utah’s 2003 population was estimated to be
2.39 million, increasing 2.0% from 2002.
Although the state continues to experience
net in-migration, natural increase accounts
for the majority of Utah’s population
growth (State of Utah 2004). According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, Utah ranked
eighth among states with a population
growth rate of 1.4% from 2002 to 2003.
During the same period, the U.S. rate of
growth was 1.0%.
The Western region grew the fastest in the
1990s, with the population in the State of
Utah growing from 1,722,850 in 1990 to
2,233,169 in 2000, an increase of 29.6%,
while the national population growth rate
was slightly less at 13.2%. The population
in Juab County grew from 5,817 in 1990 to
8,238 in 2000, an increase of 42% for the
1990s (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Utah’s
population is expected to increase about
2.6% annually through 2010.
About 96.6% of the Juab County population
consider themselves to be white (compared
to 75% nation wide). About 2.6% consider
themselves to be Hispanic or Latino in
origin (compared to 12.5% nation wide),
and 1.0% consider themselves to be
American Indian (compared to 0.9%
nationwide) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Employment
With about 22,000 employees, the State of
Utah is the largest employer in Utah.
Health care services and education are the
next three top employers while the federal
government (mainly defense) occupies the
number five rank.
Since 1994, the rate of job growth has
fallen from 6.2% to 0.9% in 2001. This is
Utah’s slowest job growth since 1983 and
well below the long-term average of 3.5%.
Education and health services led the state
in job growth from 2000 to 2003. Financial
activity, professional and business services,
and government (except state government)
experienced positive job growth, while
many industries experienced a decline in
job growth. Utah’s 2003 unemployment
rate was 5.8%. On average, there were
68,900 Utahans unemployed in 2003.
Income
Utah’s average annual nonagricultural pay
was $30,500 during 2003, up 1.4% from
2002. After seven years of solid gains in
which wages grew faster than inflation,
wages matched inflation during 2002, but
grew less than inflation during 2003.
28 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Management for Wildlife Diversity
Refuge management will focus on
providing habitat for maximum wildlife
diversity including migratory birds, and
native mammal, mollusk, invertebrate, and
amphibian communities. Habitat needs for
species other than migratory birds that
have not been addressed adequately in
past management efforts will be fully
integrated into management efforts.
Ensuring that the full complements of
fauna and flora historically represented on
the Refuge are recognized and that full
efforts to understand and meet the habitat
requirements for these species will be a
priority.
Minor changes in water regimes and
management activities at eight of the nine
ponds will be directed toward creating
diverse habitats in terms of water depth,
vegetation composition, and habitat
structure. Other new strategies include
enhancing areas to provide potential
rookeries for nesting colonial wading birds,
expanding efforts in threatened and
endangered species recovery, and
conducting a bathymetric survey.
Restoration of the Harrison Unit will be
pursued on an experimental basis. Efforts
will focus on restoring to the extent
possible historical hydrological, physical
and biological conditions to the marsh.
Refuge management also will focus on
enhancing the native high desert shrubland
community. Natural and prescribed fires
will be managed in accordance with the
Wildland Fire Management Plan (2002).
Weed management described in the
Integrated Pest Management Plan (2003)
will continue.
Water management of eight of nine ponds
(Figure 3) will include a 5-year drawdown
rotation and associated burning (Table 6).
Water levels in the ponds will be
maintained to create optimum conditions
for waterfowl production. The goal is to
maintain waterfowl migration, wintering,
and production habitat. Water
management will also maintain water
salinity at minimum levels through winter
flushing and maintaining water flows
throughout the Refuge.
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Table 6. Unit drawdown and prescribed burning
sequence.
Unit(s) Year1 Drain Burn Fill
Mallard -
Gadwall
2003 Feb Sept Oct
Avocet -
Spring2
2004 Feb Sept Oct
Curlew-
Ibis
2005 Feb Sept Oct
Pintail -
Shoveler
2006 Feb Sept Oct
Egret -
Harrison
2007 Feb Sept Oct
1This sequence is repeated every 5 years. Dry
units are burned according to an approved
Prescribed Burning Plan. Currently, however,
units with large dense stands of Phragmites
australis (Avocet, Mallard, Curlew, Shoveler,
and Harrison) are not burned due to concerns
that fire aids the spread of this invasive species.
2Spring unit is not drawn down, but 1/3 is
burned during the same year that Avocet is
drawn down.
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Studies indicate that full pool management
is not as productive as management
involving drawdowns, whereby
management intentionally simulates wet
and dry cycles of a natural wetland.
McKnight and Low (1969) conducted a
study within the Fish Springs NWR marsh
from 1966 to 1968. Their study revealed
that marsh units that had been drained,
allowed to dry, and then flooded showed a
tremendous increase in waterfowl use and
production. Brood census data showed that
the newly flooded areas were much more
attractive to duck broods than the
undisturbed marsh areas, and were more
heavily used by waterfowl in general.
Drawdowns play an important role in the
rate at which nutrients are released into
the food chain. The rate of plant material
decay is increased. This in turn provides
more food to invertebrates in the form of
decaying organic matter or detritus.
According to Refuge surveys,
invertebrates experience a subsequent
population explosion upon reflooding, with
both species richness and abundance
increasing (Ward and Ward 1996). This
provides improved foraging for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and water birds. Drawdown in
many units results in an invasion of the
original pool bottom by opportunistic
vegetation, primarily fivehook bassia
(Bassia hyssopifolia) and summer cypress
(Kochia scoparia). These plants produce a
seed crop that is used by migrating
waterfowl when these units are reflooded.
The weed crop also provides critical
structural habitat used by the burgeoning
populations of aquatic invertebrates after
reflooding. Salt cedar (Tamarisk
ramosissima) also appears within most
units when the ponds are drawn down;
however, this species is killed at nearly
100% after refilling before the plants have
developed enough to provide structural
habitat for invertebrates or a food source
(seed) for waterfowl.
Fire, another important marsh
management tool, increases the rate at
which nutrients are returned back to the
soil, setting back succession and
invigorating new plant growth. As wetland
vegetation becomes rank, it is of little
value to many marsh birds and prescribed
burning can improve marsh habitat for
migratory waterbirds.
Since 1988, the marsh units at Fish Springs
NWR have been dewatered and burned on
a set 5-year rotation (Table 6). Draining
the units begins in February and
reflooding begins between late September
and December. Target levels are reached
between March and mid-April. These
target levels are flexible based on specific
seasonal conditions and the professional
judgment of the Refuge Manager. Not
enough water is available to have all units
completely filled during summer and early
fall, so some units are left at less than
target levels during those times. This
actually creates better shorebird nesting
and foraging habitat in the spring.
Prior to the summer of 2003, efforts to
control Phragmites were spring chemical
applications of a glyphosate herbicide after
the unit had been dewatered and subject to
a spring prescribed burn. This method
proved to be ineffective in controlling the
spread of Phragmites on the Refuge. In
July 2003, the Refuge experimented with a
new approach to the control of Phragmites.
Stands of Phragmites were mowed in July
and August, and glyphosate herbicide was
applied in September after the re-growth
had reached 2 to 3 feet tall. Five areas
were treated with this method in FY 2003
and will be monitored for 2 years to
determine the effectiveness. Initial results
appear encouraging.
This new method of a late summer/early
fall manipulation (mowing or burning) to
the Phragmites, combined with a fall or
Chapter 4. Management Direction
30 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
spring application of a glyphosate
herbicide, will be used in FY 2004 on
several sites. The Refuge also will
incorporate new techniques in the Avocet
Unit, which is scheduled to be burned in
September 2004. Several dense
Phragmites stands on higher sites in the
unit will be disked after the burn in late
September. Some sites will be disked once,
and other sites will be disked twice to
expose the roots to hot desiccating
temperatures. Disking will be followed by
an application of a glyphosate herbicide in
October on some sites, and in the spring on
other sites after re-growth starts. All sites
will be monitored for 2 years to determine
the effectiveness of the control methods
used.
The high desert shrubland is defined for
management purposes as the combined
Great Basin Arid Shrubland and Great
Basin Cold Desert Shrubland presented on
Figure 5. These two shrublands are found
on the west side of the Refuge and in
smaller patches along the north, east and
south sides of the marshlands. Dominant
shrubs include Mormon tea, rabbitbrush
species, greasewood, shadscale and
fourwing saltbrush.
Currently, the high desert shrubland
community on Fish Springs NWR is not
actively managed. This community
historically has been a low management
priority and management has been passive.
Historical grazing was removed when the
Service acquired the Refuge (Banta, pers.
comm. 2004). A fence was constructed in
the mid-1990s to remedy illegal trespass
from livestock on surrounding BLM and
U.S. Army properties. Overgrazing of
desert shrublands can significantly reduce
vegetation diversity and species
composition (Bock and Bock 1993;
Fleischner 1994). Past cattle grazing and
current sheep drives along the county road
(Pony Express Trail) on the west side of
the Refuge have promoted the spread of
invasive weeds and the understory of large
patches of the high desert shrubland
community is dominated by cheatgrass.
Fires in western high desert shrubland
communities have had a profound impact
on vegetation composition and structure.
Young and Evans (1978) found that
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) increases on
post burned areas, frequently out-competing
native flora. An increase in fire
frequency in shrublands can cause a
gradual loss or in some cases dramatic
change from a shrub community to an
annual dominated community. This shift in
plant species composition alters
competitive and fire dynamics to maintain
annual dominance on the affected sites
(Taush et al. 1995). Fire management is
conducted on Fish Springs NWR in
accordance with the Wildlife Fire
Management Plan (2001). Fire is
suppressed in shrubland habitats and used
as a tool to achieve identified management
goals. Prescribed burning of dewatered
units is conducted in the fall.
Overall Goal: Provide habitat for
maximum wildlife diversity.
Rationale: Shifting the focus of Refuge
management from enhancing and
protecting breeding, wintering and
migration habitat primarily for migratory
birds to providing habitat to maximize
wildlife diversity will require a substantive
shift in management practices. Restoration
of a portion of the Refuge to mimic
historical conditions will be a departure
from management objectives and
prescriptions of the last 40 years. To
successfully implement marsh restoration,
it is critical to prepare a detailed Habitat
Management Plan that will carefully
develop and implement habitat
management goals, objectives, and
strategies.
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Objective: Within 5 years develop a
Habitat Management Plan that provides
the following:
􀁑􅄠 Specific characterization of the
existing biological conditions,
including: vegetation composition,
distribution, and abundance of
exotics (plant and animal);
vegetation structure (e.g., height,
density); and wildlife occurrence,
distribution, abundance,
productivity and seasonal habitat
use patterns.
􀁑􅄠 Description of existing ecological
structure and functions, including
food web interactions, predator/prey
relationships, foraging patterns and
relationships, competition.
􀁑􅄠 Detailed objectives and strategies
and the rationale to support the
strategies.
􀁑􅄠 Detailed description of the expected
outcome of habitat management
strategies.
􀁑􅄠 Detailed methods and management
tools to be used to meet objectives.
􀁑􅄠 Detailed inventory and monitoring
surveys to evaluate the success of
selected strategies, a discussion on
how surveys will be used and data
assumptions associated with
surveys.
Habitat
Goal: Improve and maintain habitats for
nesting and wintering migratory birds and
other wildlife populations of the Bonneville
Basin.
Rationale: Fish Springs NWR, by virtue
of its substantial wetlands, is one of the
most important habitats in the eastern
Bonneville Basin. Use of these wetlands by
migrating, wintering, and nesting birds is
critical to many species that are found in
western Utah. The Refuge is the largest
wetland for a radius of over 70 miles and
provides such habitat to literally tens of
thousands of migratory birds as well as
being a true oasis in a very arid region
which supports a very diverse population
of native wildlife. Efforts to maintain and
improve a diverse mosaic of habitats are
critical to providing high quality habitat in
an area where wetlands and relatively
pristine desert shrub communities are
exceptionally limited.
Objectives:
1. Throughout the life of this Plan,
provide nesting and brood-rearing
habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and
water birds by maintaining diverse
aquatic habitat, adequate food sources,
stable water levels during nesting, and
enhancing colonial wading bird nesting
habitat.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Drawdown two units each year
(Table 6) to maintain an adequate
invertebrate supply as a food source
and to recycle nutrients through
decomposition and prescribed
burning.
􀁑􅄠 Bring five to six units to optimal
stable water levels (Table 7) by mid-
April when waterfowl, shorebirds,
and water birds are selecting nest
sites.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain stable water levels through
mid-June for shorebirds and water
birds in five to six units to prevent
flooding or drying of nests.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain stable water levels through
mid-July for waterfowl in three to
four designated units to prevent
flooding or drying of nests.
􀁑􅄠 Seek expert consultation on
subdividing northern impoundments
(Pintail, Ibis, and Gadwall Units) to
Chapter 4. Management Direction
32 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
improve production habitat (i.e.,
stabilized water through hatching)
for waterfowl.
􀁑􅄠 Within 12 years, provide suitable
habitat components (dense hardstem
bulrush stands, appropriate water
depths, lack of disturbance,
protection from prescribed burns) to
support expansion of existing
rookeries for colonial nesting wading
birds (great blue heron, snowy
egret, cattle egret, white-faced ibis).
2. Over the next 15 years, maintain
existing seasonal closures to minimize
disturbance to nesting, wintering, and
migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and
waterbirds.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Close entire Refuge to all forms of
boating April 15 to August 15 to
protect breeding waterbirds (Table
8).
􀁑􅄠 Keep 10,746 acres (60 percent of the
Refuge) as year-round sanctuary
areas.
􀁑􅄠 Close all roads except the Pony
Express Road and the core auto-tour
route from April 15 - August 15.
3. Within 5 years of CCP approval,
consult with experts and conduct a
bathymetric survey to better characterize
the Refuge and its resources.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Identify and monitor indicator
species that best represent the
various refuge habitats. Indicator
species, such as suggested in Table
8, will be developed in consultation
with appropriate experts and a
better understanding of the specific
habitat dynamics of the Refuge and
Table 7. Target water elevations for marsh units under 1991 Marsh Management Plan.
Unit
Target Water
Elevation
Water Surface
Acres
Average Depth
(feet) Acre-feet
Avocet 4298.50 575 1.6 920
Mallard 4298.74 192 1.5 288
Curlew 4294.50 480 1.5 720
Shoveler 4295.601 245 1.5 368
Pintail 4286.00 395 1.7 672
Egret 4291.39 380 1.5 570
Ibis 4288.80 235 2.2 517
Harrison 4282.00 620 1.7 1,054
Gadwall 4282.002 430 1.8 774
Total 3,552 5,883
1 Target water elevation shown here for Shoveler Unit is 0.26 feet lower than originally designated in the
Marsh Management Plan. With this slight modification, more islands pop-up or are just below the water,
creating better foraging for shorebirds.
2 Gadwall Unit is actually managed at a much lower water elevation in order to create 25 to-35 more acres
of shallowly flooded mudflats for western snowy plover foraging. The Refuge Manager determines at
which level to stop filling this unit on a yearly basis according to water availability.
Source: Service 1991.
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
species that best represent selected
habitat.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct a complete bathymetric
survey of all marsh impoundments in
order to determine how much
habitat or surface water is created
at varying water elevations for each
unit.
4. Provide spring and fall migration
foraging habitat for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and water birds. This
involves providing a variety of habitat in
each marsh unit, including shallowly
flooded (# 4 inches) and sub-irrigated
saltgrass for shorebirds, and emergent
vegetation in water 4 to 12 inches deep for
water birds.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Drawdown two units each year
(Table 6) to maintain an adequate
invertebrate supply as a food source
and to recycle nutrients through
decomposition and prescribed
burning.
􀁑􅄠 Partially draw down water in some
units and increase water in other
units during the early spring
(March) to exploit resources not
normally available, providing new
foraging areas. Where and to what
extent water is drawn down will be
based on the condition and
topography of each unit.
􀁑􅄠 Delay impoundment drawdowns
until March 15 or later in those units
scheduled for full drawdown but not
scheduled for prescribed burning.
􀁑􅄠 Cut off water to three to four units
in mid- to late June to allow
shrinkage through
evapotranspiration and evaporation
to create mudflats in late summer
and into fall.
􀁑􅄠 Allow water to drop in three to four
other units after mid-July when
waterfowl nesting is completed until
mid-September. During this time,
water is still allowed to flow in, but
at a rate less than
evapotranspiration and evaporation.
Begin refilling units after mid-
September.
Table 8. Suggested indicator species.
Species Arrival Nest Eggs Hatch Fledge
American
Bittern
April April-June May-Mid July June-August July-August
Virginia
Rail/Sora
April April-Early
May
June-Early
July
July-August August
Common
Yellowthroat
April May-July June-July June-July July-August
Marsh Wren April Mid April-
Early May
Mallard March April April-July May-July July-August
Least Chub Resident
Utah Chub Resident
Possible Negative Indicators
Gambusia
Muskrat
Chapter 4. Management Direction
34 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
5. Within 3 years of CCP approval,
identify any threatened, endangered or
sensitive plant species or rare plant
communities identified by the Service or
Utah Department of Natural Resources
that exist on the refuge, particularly
within the high desert shrubland
community.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Determine historical native floral
composition of the high desert
shrubland community, within 3
years.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct a complete vegetation
survey to determine current
composition of the high desert
shrubland community and create a
layer for the GIS database.
6. Within 7 years of CCP approval,
develop a plan to restore the high desert
shrubland community to the historical
native composition.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Compare current and desired
conditions to determine how much
restoration is necessary.
􀁑􅄠 Research appropriate restoration
methods such as herbicides,
prescribed fire, biological controls or
mechanical controls. Refuge
managers can use some of these
control methods to stimulate new
growth, remove unhealthy
vegetation, recycle soil nutrients, or
create fuel breaks to isolate or
protect critical shrub communities
from cheatgrass invasion.
􀁑􅄠 Determine necessary resources,
budget, specific actions, and time-frame
for project.
􀁑􅄠 Determine indicator species (e.g.,
plants, birds, invertebrates) for
monitoring health of restored
communities.
􀁑􅄠 Begin implementation of selected
appropriate restoration actions.
Ecological Integrity
Two goals have been developed under the
Ecological Integrity Management
Direction. A Refuge-wide goal and a
specific goal for restoring the Harrison
Unit to a more historical function as a
braided marsh. Restoration of the Harrison
Unit complies with the intent of the
Refuge Administration Act, and strategies
were developed following Service guidance
(601 FWS).
Refuge-wide Goal: Perpetuate the native
biodiversity and physical characteristics of
the Bonneville Basin as represented on
Fish Springs NWR.
Rationale: Efforts to gather inventory
data on current use by avian species and
attempting to reduce the impacts of
various influences such as military
overflights and invasive vegetation will be
vital to maintain the ecological systems at
Fish Springs NWR. The physical
environment of the Refuge also contains
several sites of importance to the
understanding of the history of Lake
Bonneville. Ensuring that these sites are
protected from unreasonable degradation
will ensure that the scientific values are
maintained for future research needs and
interpretation.
Specific actions will be taken on behalf of
species of concern, including federally
listed species or species proposed for
listing. Listed species are Federal trust
resources, with the Service having a
responsibility to aid their recovery
whenever possible. Species proposed for
listing are not officially Federal trust
resources but are species of concern. Any
efforts the Service can make on their
behalf is appropriate, and may even help
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
prevent the species from being listed.
Certainly, these efforts are compatible
with the Refuge Purpose.
Objectives:
1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, and
every 5 years thereafter, assess the status
of native biodiversity on the Refuge.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Conduct community level biological
surveys. Include surveying for small
mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds,
marsh birds, water birds, raptors,
passerines, reptiles and amphibians,
carnivores, and invertebrates.
Create appropriate layers for the
GIS database.
􀁑􅄠 Repeat a complete set of community
level surveys every 5 years. Update
GIS database accordingly.
􀁑􅄠 Continue bimonthly bird
counts/index, spring and fall mist-netting,
and spring and fall
shorebird surveys.
2. Within 5 years of CCP approval,
develop a plan to maintain the diversity
and distribution of native spring snails.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Establish current distribution and
densities of all spring snails and
create a layer for the GIS database.
􀁑􅄠 Identify very limited native species,
monitor them for population declines
and threats, and determine
appropriate protection and
restoration actions.
􀁑􅄠 Refer to historical snail surveys on
snail distribution in springs,
including work done by the
Smithsonian.
􀁑􅄠 Determine the impact of nonnative
snails (Melanoides tuberculata) on
native snails and other species.
􀁑􅄠 Investigate ways to eliminate
nonnative snails.
3. Within 5 years of CCP approval,
rewrite the Marsh Management Plan to
maintain native species richness of the
marsh plant communities.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Develop GIS-based vegetation
database showing current diversity
and distribution of marsh plant
Communities. Determine if any
relict populations of endemic species
exist. Update database as necessary.
􀁑􅄠 Consult with experts on how to
restore and maintain native marsh
plant communities and relict
populations.
􀁑􅄠 Evaluate the use of prescribed fire
in maintaining native plant
communities through a review of the
existing literature, experimentation
and monitoring, and
opportunistically through research.
4. Reduce whitetop by 60 percent and
squarrose knapweed by 60 percent within
3 years, tamarisk by 90 percent within 15
years, and cattail stand density by 50
percent within 15 years.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Develop GIS-based vegetation
database showing current
distribution as a baseline. Update
database as necessary.
􀁑􅄠 Cooperate with the Bureau of Land
Management to treat area above the
Refuge for squarrose knapweed.
􀁑􅄠 Treat invasive species with
appropriate chemical control agents
and mechanical methods.
􀁑􅄠 Based on results of experimental
control conducted in the Avocet
Unit, investigate feasibility of using
Chapter 4. Management Direction
36 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
biological controls for squarrose
knapweed and tamarisk.
􀁑􅄠 Once target levels are reached,
continue to treat invasive species as
needed to prevent re-spreading.
5. Within 6 years of CCP approval,
determine the effects of management
practices on the spread of Phragmites
australis.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Develop GIS-based vegetation
database showing current
distribution as a baseline. Update
database as necessary.
􀁑􅄠 Monitor spread of Phragmites
australis after prescribed fire and
pool drawdowns.
􀁑􅄠 Experiment with chemical and
mechanical control on Phragmites
australis to determine if there is any
effective level of control.
􀁑􅄠 Set target for Phragmites australis
reduction upon completion of above
efforts.
6. Continually preserve sites of
geological significance for
geomorphological research; both known
sites and those identified by experts in
the future.
Strategies:
����􅄠 Do not disturb sites through any
earthmoving operations.
􀁑􅄠 Do not fill, level, or flood sites.
7. Continue to work to minimize impacts
of military overflights on wildlife.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Monitor violations of established
rules stipulating flying at least 3,000
feet above the Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Continue dialog with the U.S. Air
Force when violations occur and how
to avoid future violations.
􀁑􅄠 Request involvement of the
Service’s Utah Resident Agent in
Charge when needed.
8. Within 10 years of CCP approval,
achieve a nesting success rate of 40
percent for snowy plovers nesting on the
Refuge.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Measure current nesting success
rates of snowy plovers.
􀁑􅄠 Construct elevated nest sites in
suitable nesting units.
􀁑􅄠 Install electric fencing around
nesting areas and experiment with
the use of scents to condition
predators to the presence of the
fence.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct an annual census in
cooperation with staff of Dugway
Proving Ground.
9. Within 15 years of CCP approval,
establish future roosting sites for bald
eagles, a threatened species, on the
Refuge.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Plant three to four Fremont
cottonwood trees in two sites in
areas with minimum potential for
disturbance (e.g., Spring Unit).
10. Re-establish the least chub, a
candidate species, in North, Deadman,
Walter, House, and Percy Springs over
the next 10 years.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Continue to make structural
adaptations of water management
facilities to create structural
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
barriers to mosquito fish (Gambusia
affinis) infestation.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct multiple removal
treatments of nonnative fishes to try
and eradicate invasive species in the
target springs.
􀁑􅄠 Move fish from existing Refuge
stocks, or from other stocks through
Utah DWR, to enhance genetic
diversity in nonsystemic sites.
11. Continually inventory, monitor and
protect habitat for threatened,
endangered and sensitive wildlife
species.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Continue to monitor habitat and
populations of wintering bald eagles
and least chub.
􀁑􅄠 Look for new opportunities to
cooperate with Utah DWR on the
introduction/re-introduction of
spotted frog and other sensitive
wildlife native to the Bonneville
Basin.
􀁑􅄠 Continually monitor spring
discharges.
􀁑􅄠 Continue to look for additional
cooperative opportunities with Utah
DWR, universities and other
agencies to inventory, monitor and
enhance sensitive species habitat.
Marsh Restoration of Harrison Unit
Goal: Restore a portion of Fish Springs
NWR to the native biodiversity and
physical characteristics of the Bonneville
Basin as represented on Fish Springs,
including unimpeded hydrological, physical
and biological components (Figure 6).
Rationale: The Harrison Unit is supplied
by a single, isolated spring (North Spring)
and retains much of the drainage
topography evident in pre-Refuge aerial
photography making this unit suitable for
restoration. Consistent with and
complementary to the Ecological Integrity
goal and current Service guidance, marsh
restoration of the Harrison Unit will
perpetuate the native biodiversity and
physical characteristics endemic to the
area. Little information is available on the
specific ecological conditions of the Refuge
prior to Refuge development and the
restoration goal has little to no baseline
available to establish objectives or
measure success. The Refuge is also unique
within the Bonneville Basin limiting the
Refuge’s ability to use a similar site for
comparison.
Restoration ecology can be defined as “The
return of an ecosystem to a close
approximation of its conditions prior to
disturbance” (National Resource Council
1992). Ecological systems are dynamic and
the restoration objectives will focus on
restoring the ecological functions and
processes that permit natural succession.
The restoration of the Harrison Unit will
involve four primary steps:
1) Establishing a baseline inventory to
include 3 years of data collection of the
flora and fauna prior to any direct
management implementation of the
restoration process.
2) Conducting management activities, such
as dike removal, to restore unimpeded
hydrological, physical, chemical, and
biological processes.
3) Designing monitoring strategies to
evaluate both short term and long-term
trends in ecosystem (community) structure
and functions (water table dynamics,
biodiversity, complete food web, resilience
to invasive species). Short-term (1 to 3
years) monitoring to determine
establishment and recovery of hydrological
and biological components, and long-term
Harrison Unit Restoration
Figure 6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
(10 years and more) monitoring to
determine management effects on
community structure and functions.
4) Refining and establishing new objectives
and success criteria based on monitoring
that leads to new management activities.
These primary steps will be implemented
in a phased approach with monitoring and
evaluation of the success of each phase
being conducted before proceeding to the
next phase. Phase I will remove check
dikes and water control structures from
water channels to restore unimpeded flow
to braided channels. Phase II will breach
dikes in the Harrison Unit at natural
drainage channels. Phase III, if data
indicate restoration is warranted, will
remove the entire dike system of the
Harrison Unit.
Objectives:
1. Establish a 3-year baseline inventory
of existing soil, water, vegetation and
fauna conditions of the North Springs
stream channels and Harrison Unit pool
within 4 years of CCP approval.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Obtain various expert opinions on
the likelihood of a successful
restoration effort and relative
benefits to the wildlife using that
area being considered for
restoration.
􀁑􅄠 Establish Refuge-wide baselines
to be used for comparison and
monitoring purposes.
􀁑􅄠 Partner with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service
to characterize current soil
conditions.
􀁑􅄠 Gather baseline data by 2009 on
current flows using portable
flumes from a minimum of four
locations within the unit (spring,
midway on feeder canal, inlet to
Harrison Pool, below Harrison
Pool).
􀁑􅄠 Continually monitor spring
discharges.
􀁑􅄠 Establish a minimum of ten
shallow ground water
monitoring locations by 2006
using simple, inexpensive
measuring techniques such as
drive point piezometers. This
monitoring will provide a simple
assessment of changes in water
tables and ground water flow
that could be correlated with
changes in vegetation and
community structure
􀁑􅄠 Coordinate with U.S. Army
Dugway Proving Ground during
3-year baseline inventory period
to address issues related to
water flow onto Army property.
􀁑􅄠 Establish a baseline inventory
for vegetation within the
Harrison Unit. Establish long-term
(permanent) transects that
traverse all macro vegetation
communities for monitoring. Map
all plant communities within the
Harrison Unit, both native and
non-native species.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct weed and invasive plant
mapping by 2008 when the
Integrated Pest Management
Plan is developed, including
areas of tamarisk, Phragmites,
knapweed, fivehook bassia and
summer cypress.
􀁑􅄠 Monitor response of invasive
plant species to large-scale soil
disturbance.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct annual bi-monthly bird
surveys of Harrison Unit during
refuge-wide survey periods
conducted between March 15 and
May 1, and between July 15 and
September 1.
Chapter 4. Management Direction
40 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
􀁑􅄠 Conduct annual shorebird
surveys specific to Harrison Unit
on weeks opposite the bi-monthly
bird survey.
􀁑􅄠 Establish a baseline inventory of
small mammals found within the
plant communities in the
Harrison Unit. Establish long-term
(permanent) transects or
grids, and predator scent
stations within the Harrison
Unit when the Wildlife
Inventory Plan is developed by
2007. Transects will be co-located
with vegetation
transects.
2. Within 3 years of approval of the CCP,
develop a set of indicator species that best
represent habitat within the Harrison
Unit and Refuge-wide as described
earlier, and that also provide response
data for habitat change.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Consult with experts to develop
a list of indicator species (Table
8) that best indicate changes in
hydrologic factors, vegetation
cover, and composition, wetland
salinity, and biodiversity.
􀁑􅄠 Develop indicator metrics and
methods for monitoring indicator
species that best meet objectives
such as number of individuals
per unit, by season, reproductive
success, species distribution, and
seasonal habitat.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct pre- and post-monitoring
of target indicator
species.
3. During the course of one complete
drawdown of Harrison Pool in 2007
(Table 6), conduct a complete on-the-ground
assessment of the unit to evaluate
current conditions and how the major
original watercourses can be restored
and how to restore them.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Compare aerial photos from pre-development
with current aerial
photos. Overlay original pre-development
marsh photos on
structural/dike map to identify
natural watercourses and any
remnants that may remain.
􀁑􅄠 Survey remnant channels.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct fly-over to see how
much integrity exists in main
drainages.
􀁑􅄠 Create GIS overlays for current
and historical channels.
􀁑􅄠 Contract with a hydrologic
engineering firm to conduct
complete hydrologic assessment.
􀁑􅄠 Assess complications associated
with invasive species
introduction resulting from soil
and vegetation disturbance from
restoration of the landscape.
4. Restore unimpeded hydrological
processes to the North Spring (Harrison
Unit) in three phases to be completed in
5-year increments.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Remove check dikes and water
control structures by 2010 to
restore unimpeded flow to
braided channels (Phase I).
􀁑􅄠 Breach dikes at natural drainage
channels by 2015 (Phase II).
􀁑􅄠 Remove dike system and any
berm that diverts, channelizes,
or prevents natural flows by
2020 (Phase III).
􀁑􅄠 Allow unimpeded hydrological
processes to restore natural
channels.
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
􀁑􅄠 Monitor and evaluate success of
each phase before proceeding to
next phase.
5. Annually monitor natural vegetation
succession within the Harrison Unit.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Continue to monitor vegetation
composition, and community
structure on a yearly basis using
the line transects established in
the baseline inventory.
Additional vegetation transects
will have to be established once
the pool is removed. Plant
community (vegetation)
characteristics that may be
monitored can include: species
richness, ocular estimates of
ground cover (bare ground,
grass/forbs, exotic, and litter),
shrub cover, shrub height.
􀁑􅄠 Establish research partnerships
with local colleges and
universities to monitor and
research vegetation communities
and ecological functions.
􀁑􅄠 Evaluate the need to plant
native vegetation by 2009 when
the Habitat Management Plan is
developed.
6. Upon implementation of the
restoration of the Harrison Unit,
annually monitor wildlife presence,
abundance, and areas of use based on the
evaluation of the original watercourses
within 5 years of CCP approval.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Continue to monitor small
mammal transects or grids and
predator scent stations on a
yearly basis. Additional small
mammals transects will have to
be established once the pool is
removed. Data collected on small
mammals may include species
richness, abundance, and guilds.
􀁑􅄠 Continue annual refuge-wide
bird surveys and shorebird
surveys specific to Harrison Unit
on weeks opposite the bi-monthly
bird survey between
March 15 and May 1 and
between July 15 and September
1.
􀁑􅄠 Map and monitor wading bird
nesting colonies (if any) that
become established.
􀁑􅄠 Establish research partnerships
with local colleges and
universities to monitor and
research animal communities
and ecological functions, such as
predator/prey relationships,
competition, resource
partitioning.
7. Within 5 years of Plan approval,
develop and implement an invasive
species plan for the Harrison Unit to
annually monitor the effects of
restoration on the resource.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Map and control the spread of
non-native and invasive plant
species, including tamarisk,
knapweed, bassia and summer
cypress with appropriate
chemical control agents and
mechanical methods, according
to the Integrated Pest
Management Plan.
􀁑􅄠 Establish study plots to evaluate
the efficacy of noxious weed
treatments and weed responses
to altered hydrology and
disturbed soils.
􀁑􅄠 Identify and contain any non-native
animal species with the
Harrison Unit, including house
Chapter 4. Management Direction
42 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
mice, mosquito fish, bull frog,
leopard frog and non-native
snails, according to the Habitat
Management Plan
8. Consult with Utah DWR to explore the
potential for restoration of least chub in
the Harrison Unit over the next 10 years.
􀁑􅅁 Annually monitor the least chub
in the Harrison Unit over the
next 10 years and benchmark
data against recovery rates in
other units.
9. Develop adaptive management
simultaneously with the three phases of
marsh restoration described in Objective
4, which allows the Refuge Manager to
adapt strategies to better meet objectives
or determine whether to proceed with
restoration.
Strategies:
􀁑􅅅 Evaluate quality of monitoring data.
􀁑􅅒 Re-evaluate restoration approach.
􀁑􅅅 Evaluate if further restoration is
warranted.
Visitor Services
Goal: Promote an understanding and
appreciation of the fish, wildlife, and
natural and cultural history of Fish Springs
NWR by providing high quality
environmental education, interpretation,
and wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities for persons of all abilities.
Rationale: Increased efforts in visitor
services and the reinitiation of a goose
hunt will provide additional recreational
opportunities at the Refuge. The Refuge
will maintain an auto-tour route that
traverses a cross section of the habitats
and provides opportunity for wildlife
viewing and photography. The construction
of an interpretive boardwalk and an
observation platform will further enhance
wildlife viewing and photography. Scout
groups visiting Fish Springs will find the
Refuge to be a wonderful outdoor
classroom. Providing service projects,
merit badge counseling, and environmental
education will enhance the visitor
experience and understanding of the
Refuge for most of these young visitors.
Additional staff, as requested (see Funding
and Personnel sections), will make
increased efforts in outreach and
environmental education possible, thereby
enhancing public understanding and
appreciation for Fish Springs NWR and
the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Objectives:
1. Provide waterfowl hunting
opportunities for up to 2,000 visits
annually (Figure 7).
Duck Blind on Fish Springs NWR
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Continue to open up to 40 percent of
the Refuge to duck and coot hunting
(no swans or snipe).
􀁑􅄠 Reinitiate a goose hunt on the
Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Continue an annual youth hunt.
􀁑􅄠 Increase law enforcement presence
during hunting season.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain and advertise availability
of three universally accessible
hunting blinds.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain parking areas and roads for
hunter vehicle access.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain all hunting related signs on
the Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Identify areas open to hunting and
inform the public about Refuge
hunting regulations through signs,
news releases, pamphlets, and
printed State hunting regulations.
􀁑􅄠 Produce a new Refuge Hunt Plan
within 2 years.
􀁑􅄠 Produce a hunting tear sheet
meeting Service graphic standards.
􀁑􅄠 Post hunting information, such as
harvest data and availability of
universally accessible hunting
blinds, on Refuge web site.
2. Within 5 years of CCP approval,
provide opportunities for up to 5,000
visitors annually to participate in
wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and interpretation (Figure
8).
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Open Refuge roads to public access
as described on Figure 8. Only core
auto-tour route open from April 15
to August 15; close all other roads
during that period.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain all directional signs on the
Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain 9-mile self-guided auto-tour
route with interpretive signs.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain universally accessible
Thomas Ranch Watchable Wildlife
Area.
􀁑􅄠 Allow boating (no gas motors) for
wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and interpretation on
areas open to the public except for
the period from April 15 to August
15.
􀁑􅄠 Exclude year-round sanctuary
areas.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain three universally
accessible wildlife observation and
photography blinds.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain a native plant exhibit near
the Headquarters building.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain the Visitor Contact Kiosk
and Headquarters exhibits.
􀁑􅄠 Construct a universally accessible
interpretive boardwalk trail that
extends into the marsh area and two
viewing platforms. Include
interpretive panels along the
boardwalk and at the viewing
platforms that discuss natural and
human history of the Fish Springs
area.
􀁑􅄠 Produce a Refuge general brochure
in the Service graphic standard.
􀁑􅄠 Update and reprint the Refuge
Wildlife List as needed.
􀁑􅄠 Conduct a special event each year
for International Migratory Bird
Day.
􀁑􅄠 Host an annual Refuge Open House
or similar public event.
􀁑􅄠 Provide interpretive or
environmental education discussions
and/or tours for groups as
requested. Include discussions about
contribution of the Refuge to
wildlife resources and ecosystem
functioning.
Hunting
Figure 7
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
T11S
T10S
R14W
R13W
R14W
R13W
T12S
T11S
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Public Use
Figure 8
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
T11S
T10S
R14W
R13W
R14W
R13W
T12S
T11S
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4. Management Direction
46 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
􀁑􅄠 Co-sponsor other special events as
opportunities arise.
3. Upon approval of the CCP, implement
at least five different outreach efforts to
foster appreciation for the resources of
Fish Springs NWR and the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Accommodate and host Boy Scouts
and Girl Scouts as requested. Trips
usually include a Refuge tour,
service project, merit badge
counseling, and environmental
education activities. Allow troops to
camp at Thomas Ranch Watchable
Wildlife Area with special permit
when deemed compatible.
􀁑􅄠 Host one to two school visits to the
Refuge and make two to four visits
to area schools annually, with the
target being to increase the number
of students reached each year from
50/year currently to 200/year.
􀁑􅄠 Make three presentations to
professional and/or civic
organizations annually.
􀁑􅄠 Write press releases announcing
public events.
􀁑􅄠 Visit County Commissioners at least
once a year.
􀁑􅄠 Visit regional offices of State and
Federal Congressional
representatives once a year.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain a Refuge web site with
current information.
4. Within 3 years of CCP approval,
increase the Refuge volunteer program to
reach 1,000 donated hours/year.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Organize three volunteer days each
year with the goal of accomplishing a
major task during each event.
Provide all necessary training,
materials, and lodging as needed.
Schedule the event in conjunction
with national volunteer efforts, such
as Volunteer Week, National Public
Lands Day or Earth Day, or in
conjunction with special events on
the Refuge, such as Migratory Bird
Day or the Open House. Write a
press release announcing each
Volunteer Day and project to be
accomplished. Write a press release
after each Volunteer Day that
recognizes volunteer efforts and
what was accomplished during the
event.
􀁑􅄠 Notify area schools, civic groups,
and hunting, birding, and
environmental organizations of
volunteer opportunities on the
Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Work with the Service’s regional
volunteer coordinator to develop a
volunteer program that meets
Refuge needs.
􀁑􅄠 Provide room and board for
volunteers working on the Refuge
for extended periods.
􀁑􅄠 Provide two or more trailer pads for
volunteer use.
Cultural Resources
Goal: Preserve, protect, and promote an
understanding of cultural resources on
Fish Springs NWR.
Rationale: Access for archaeologists will
be limited but the majority of the cultural
resources would still be reasonably
accessible due to their proximity to roads
that would remain on the Refuge’s west
side. Enhanced and expanded efforts to
inventory and analyze yet unmapped
cultural resources sites, fully
understanding known sites, and vigilant
protection of these critical and
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
irreplaceable trust resources will allow a
better understanding of the human history
of the eastern Bonneville Basin. This
additional information, coupled with that
which is already known about the area, can
provide for a richer and more complete
interpretation of the Fish Springs area.
Efforts to provide increased interpretation
of important sites and a cultural resources
brochure that provides an overview of the
Refuge’s substantial cultural resource
values will increase the public’s
understanding of the important role Fish
Springs has played for humans through the
ages and appreciation for the Service’s
responsibility to protect some of this
nation’s important cultural resources.
Previous work done on the Refuge has
suggested such a rich assemblage of
prehistoric and historic cultural resource
sites and resources that the entire Refuge
should be nominated as a National
Archeological District. Such a designation
will bring increased visibility to the
tremendous cultural resources protected
within the Refuge’s boundary and will
likely be valuable in ensuring that full
consideration of management project
impacts is given in relation to these
resources in the future.
Objectives:
1. Increase preservation and protection of
known archaeological resources on the
Refuge, within 10 years.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Increase law enforcement presence
during peak times of public use.
􀁑􅄠 Use standard law enforcement
practices to protect known resources
on the Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Upgrade existing barricades on two
caves known to have been used by
prehistoric cultures; replace vertical
barricades with horizontal
barricades to allow access by bats.
􀁑􅄠 Install remote sensing devices on
the two caves.
􀁑􅄠 Catalog, map, and remove surface
artifacts in limited cases where
public use poses a severe threat.
􀁑􅄠 Enforce closures of year-round
sanctuary areas; most known
archaeological sites are within these
areas.
􀁑􅄠 Consult with the Regional Historic
Preservation Officer prior to all
proposed ground-disturbing actions.
􀁑􅄠 Avoid areas of known cultural
resources and potential sensitive
areas when practical during
management actions.
􀁑􅄠 Investigate the suitability of
nominating the entire Refuge as a
National Archeological District.
2. Within 15 years of CCP approval,
perform a complete cultural resources
survey to identify important cultural
resources on the Refuge.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Continue to host the University of
Utah archaeological summer field
school whenever possible.
􀁑􅄠 Contract with a qualified
organization to complete a cultural
resources inventory.
􀁑􅄠 Produce a cultural resources overlay
for the GIS database.
3. Within 15 years of CCP approval, have
two known archaeologically important
caves excavated.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Work with existing partners, such as
University of Utah, Brigham Young
University, Institute of Archaeology
at University of Nevada - Las
Chapter 4. Management Direction
48 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Vegas, and University of Nevada -
Reno, to develop a grant proposal to
fund the project.
􀁑􅄠 Provide nonmonetary support to
partners, such as vehicles, lodging,
and computer support.
4. Within 7 years of CCP approval,
develop and implement an expanded
cultural and historic interpretation
program to include four new initiatives.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Design and install an interpretive
display at the Thomas Ranch
Watchable Wildlife Area. Display
will discuss the uses of the Fish
Springs area from prehistoric
occupation up to the early days of
the Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Construct a turnout along the Pony
Express Route where the Lincoln
Highway runs close by. Include an
interpretive display that discusses
the Fish Springs area as a major
transportation corridor through time
and a foot trail to the remnant
portion of the Lincoln Highway.
􀁑􅄠 Design and install an interpretive
sign for the Fish Springs Pony
Express site.
􀁑􅄠 Produce a leaflet that provides
information on the rich prehistoric
and historic cultural resources of the
Refuge.
􀁑􅄠 Maintain cultural resources display
and Lincoln Highway marker and
sign in Headquarters building.
Partnerships
Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve
and enhance the natural characteristics of
the Bonneville Basin ecosystem in which
Fish Springs NWR plays a key role.
Rationale: It is not enough that staff from
Fish Springs NWR simply strive to
provide critical habitat in a very arid and
harsh environment. Coordination with a
diverse array of partners is necessary to
ensure that the Refuge can maximize its
contribution to natural resource
conservation at the landscape level.
Fostering and increasing opportunities for
participation in and contribution to larger
landscape and regional level conservation
initiatives will help ensure that the Refuge
meets this obligation. Opportunities for
academic institutions, other Federal, State,
and county agencies, non-government
organizations, and private citizens to
partner with the Refuge to further this
goal are nearly unlimited and can provide a
important leveraging of resources toward
this end.
The capability of the Refuge staff to
participate in and contribute to these
potential partnerships, which are geared
toward protecting wildlife, cultural, and
physical resources at the landscape level,
will be maximized. The capability of the
Refuge to provide critical habitats for the
full complement of native flora and fauna
will be enhanced and a broader array of
species of concern will be a focus of
management. Increased participation in
partnerships will enable the Refuge to
realize more fully the context of its
habitats and populations relative to
landscape level efforts and should allow it
to focus resources to best complement
those efforts and the National Wildlife
Refuge System and Service missions.
Objectives:
1. Participate in local partnering
opportunities over the next 15 years that
will benefit the Refuge by increasing
knowledge of Refuge resources or
accomplishing specific tasks.
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Continue partnership with
University of Utah’s Museum of
Natural History. Currently, this
partnership has resulted in
archaeological, geomorphological,
and small mammal research being
conducted on the Refuge, but the
Cooperative Agreement covers
many other disciplines.
􀁑􅄠 Continue partnerships with
Brigham Young University and
Southern Utah University, which
focus on biological research projects.
􀁑􅄠 Continue cooperative efforts with
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
(e.g., least chub re-introduction,
fencing, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife).
􀁑􅄠 Assist in the formation of the
Eastern Bonneville Basin
partnership with Dugway Proving
Ground, Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, and The Nature
Conservancy. The focus of this
partnership is common natural
resources management issues.
2. Within 3 years of CCP approval, renew
participation in existing national and
international partnerships at the
regional level.
Strategies:
􀁑􅄠 Renew participation in Partners in
Flight, an international bird
conservation program.
􀁑􅄠 Renew participation in the
Intermountain West Joint Venture
All Birds Conservation planning
efforts.
􀁑􅄠 Initiate participation in the
Intermountain West Regional
Shorebird Plan team.
50 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Personnel
Fish Springs NWR currently has a staff of
four full-time employees and one career
seasonal (8 to 9 months/year). This Plan calls
for the addition of three new full-time
employees and converting the career
seasonal to full-time, an overall increase of
3.5 FTE (Figure 9). These increases will
greatly enhance the biological programs on
the Refuge, which currently lacks a full-time
biological staff.
Funding
In fiscal year 2003, Fish Springs NWR had a
baseline budget of $330,000 to fund annual
operating expenses, including staff salaries.
Station backlogs are identified in two
databases. The Maintenance Management
System (MMS) identifies maintenance
project needs for the Refuge. Currently, this
database documents $9.5 million in
maintenance backlogs for Fish Springs
NWR. The Refuge Operations Needs
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring
Figure 9. Proposed Organizational Chart for Fish Springs NWR.
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51
System (RONS) identifies all other Refuge
project needs, such as increased staffing and
specific on-the-ground projects. This
database currently documents $1.3 million in
first year costs and $250,000 in recurring
annual costs for project needs for Fish
Springs NWR. The top 15 Refuge Operating
Needs System (RONS) and top 10
Management Maintenance System (MMS)
priority projects are presented in
Appendices H and I, respectively.
The cost of implementing the CCP will mean
supplementing the current baseline budget
with those funds needed to accomplish all
projects identified in the RONS and MMS
databases. As stated above, the RONS
identifies $1.3 million in first year costs and
$250,000 in recurring annual costs for project
needs for Fish Springs NWR. These costs
include the expansion of habitat management
activities, increased research and monitoring
efforts, and the increased staffing level
identified.
The cost of implementing marsh restoration
in