Comprehensive Conservation Plan Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

              Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
September 2004
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
PO Box 457
953 Jackson County Road #32
Walden, Colorado 80480-0457
and
Division of Refuge Planning
Region 6
PO Box 25486 DFC
Lakewood, CO 80225
Approved by:
Ralph O. Morgenweck
Regional Director, Region 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Denver, Colorado
Date
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Submitted by:
Ann Timberman
Project Leader
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Walden, Colorado
Concurred with:
Dave Wiseman
Refuge Program Supervisor
Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska
Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Denver, Colorado
and
Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D.
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System
Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Denver, Colorado
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Date
Date
Date
Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Area Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Purpose of and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Refuge Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Legal and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2 Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Riparian Habitats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Wetland Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Meadow Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Upland Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5 Implementation and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Monitoring and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6 Socioeconomic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Socioeconomic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Expected Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
vi Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Appendix A. Key Legislation and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Appendix B. Compatibility Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix C. Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Appendix D. Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Appendix E. Section 7 Biological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Appendix F. Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Appendix G. Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Appendix H. Habitat Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Appendix I. Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Appendix J. Species List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Appendix K. Refuge Operating Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Appendix L. Maintenance Management Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
1. Vicinity map for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. North Park area of Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Physical features of North Park, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Platte River watershed of Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Base map of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Waterfowl fl yways within the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Eco-regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. Habitat management units of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. Wetland complexes of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11. Public use of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Tables
1. Existing partnerships, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Private lands within Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Private lands outside Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Special-status wildlife, fi sh, plant, and amphibian species potentially occurring on
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5. Estimated annual visitors to Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6. Current and target staff for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
7. Overall funding needs for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8. Funding needs for facilities, equipment, and maintenance at Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9. Summary of the economic analysis for the comprehensive conservation plan, Arapaho
National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10. Summary of the economic effects associated with the comprehensive conservation plan,
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
11. Employment for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
12. Personal income for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
13. Annual expenditures for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
14. Combined refuge personnel and non-salary expenditures in Jackson County, Colorado . . . . . . . . . 76
15. Land area management in Jackson County and Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
16. Estimated annual visitors and daily expenditures, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge,
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Summary
Birth of a Plan
This is a summary of the comprehensive
conservation plan for the Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge in Jackson County, Colorado. This plan,
approved in 2004, will guide management of the
refuge for the next 15 years.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012
for each national wildlife refuge in the system.
The Need
The plan is needed to address problems that could
negatively affect fi sh, wildlife, plants, and habitats.
The plan determines opportunities for people to
use the refuge in ways that are compatible with
resource conservation and refuge purposes.
The Purpose
The purpose of the plan is to
■ provide a clear statement of desired conditions
■ provide guidance for management decisions
■ ensure management is consistent with laws,
policies, and plans
■ provide an opportunity for the public to help
shape the future of the refuge
■ provide a clear understanding of management
actions and priorities
■ provide a sound basis for budget requests
Purposes of the Refuge
The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was
established in 1967, primarily to provide suitable
nesting and rearing habitat for migratory birds.
It was created, in part, to offset losses of nesting
habitats in the prairie wetland region of the
Midwest.
A national wildlife refuge is different from multiple-use
public land—it is closed to the public unless
specifi c uses are determined compatible with the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
purposes of the refuge.
Headwaters of the North Platte
The breathtaking, windswept basin known as
North Park forms the headwaters of the North
Platte River. At the heart of North Park in north-central
Colorado, lies the Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge.
The Illinois River crosses and irrigates the refuge,
which is situated at an elevation of 8,200 feet. This
water sustains the wetlands, meadows, and riparian
areas and the migratory birds and native wildlife
that depend on these habitats.
A Wealth of Resources
As snow-capped mountains towering over North
Park shed their wintry blankets and fl ow water
to the lowlands, refuge habitats welcome wild
travelers and sustain local plants and animals.
The refuge hosts more than 300 different animals,
and annually produces 6,000–8,000 ducks.
Irrigated hay meadows furnish nesting habitat
for waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds. Brood-rearing
habitat for waterfowl has been created or
enhanced in 72 wetlands.
History of the “Bullpen”
Ute and Arapaho peoples shared North Park’s
wealth of natural resources. The large numbers of
bison that grazed the basin led Native Americans to
refer to this area as the “bullpen.”
Born of the need to protect habitat for migratory birds,
the refuge has grown from a 4,400-acre ranch in the
1960s to an area today of quality riparian and upland
habitats. [Gadwall with brood pictured.]
Virginia Heitman
x Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Abundant furbearers and waterfowl seized the
attention of European trappers and hunters.
Prospectors were attracted by the likelihood of a
wealth of minerals. These activities spearheaded
exploration, leading to settlement.
A ranching heritage was established, and it
continues to dominate the area’s culture. Beef cattle
and nationally renowned mountain hay are major
sources of income for today’s ranchers in North
Park.
Government naturalists studied the area’s resources
during the 1920s–60s and urged the establishment
of a national wildlife refuge. This happened at a
time when migratory birds, especially waterfowl
and other water birds, were suffering enormous
habitat and population declines nationwide.
Engaging the Community
With the refuge at the core, but the health of the
entire North Park area as the thrust, refuge staff
engaged the Colorado community, government
agencies, Native American tribes, organizations,
and congressional representatives.
The vision and goals can only be met through close
coordination with the local community, partners,
and volunteers.
The regional director for Region 6 of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service sent letters inviting
participation in development of the plan to agencies
and tribal governments.
Representatives from the Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S.
Geological Survey responded to the invitation and
joined the planning team.
Vision for a Future Landscape
Wildlife and their habitats come fi rst in
management of the refuge, before all other uses.
The plan places great importance on the role the
refuge has in the North Park ecosystem—for the
environment and the residents of North Park.
Vision Statement
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed to
benefi t the diversity of plants and wildlife found in
this high mountain valley of the southern Rocky
Mountains.
The refuge and its resources are also managed for
the benefi t of the citizens of the United States.
The refuge includes wetland, meadow, sagebrush
uplands, and riparian communities that provide
habitat for large mammals, Neotropical migratory
birds, nesting waterfowl, fi shes, and species of
concern from national and regional conservation
plans.
In particular, efforts by refuge staff to restore
the Illinois River channel hydrology and areas
of sagebrush uplands, and to effectively manage
wetlands and meadows, contribute to the ecological
integrity of the refuge, North Park, and the overall
North Platte River system.
Through wildlife-dependent recreation and
education, people have opportunities to learn of the
wonder and signifi cance of North Park’s fauna and
fl ora.
Firsthand experiences with the refuge encourage
people to participate as stewards, not only of the
refuge, but also of the natural resources in their
own communities.
Working in collaboration with the local community
and other agencies and organizations helps the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage the refuge
as a contributing ecological, cultural, and economic
component of the unique mountain valley within
which it sits.
Refuge staff listens to the public.
USFWS
Summary xi
An Ideal and Steps to Get There
The refuge seeks to be a conservation force that
promotes sound resource management and helps in
the preservation of North Park’s historical heritage.
The plan looks at the role of the refuge and its
partners to provide the residents of North Park—
along with its wildlife and plants—with diverse and
productive habitats.
Goals
The plan sets the following goals for the Arapaho
National Wildlife Refuge.
Riparian Habitats. Provide a riparian community
representative of historic fl ora and fauna in a high
valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to provide
habitat for migratory birds, mammals, and river-dependent
species.
Wetland Habitats. Provide and manage natural
and constructed permanent and semipermanent
wetlands (in three wetland complexes) to provide
habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds,
wading birds, and associated wetland-dependent
wildlife.
Meadow Habitats. Provide and manage irrigated
grass-dominated meadows, historically developed
for hay production, to support sage grouse broods,
waterfowl nesting, and meadow-dependent
migratory birds.
Upland Habitats. Provide an upland community
representative of the historical fl ora and fauna in
a high valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to
provide habitat for sage grouse, large mammals,
and other shrub-associated species.
Cultural Resources. The cultural resources of the
refuge are preserved, protected, and interpreted for
the benefi t of present and future generations.
Public Use. Through wildlife-dependent recreation
and education, people of a range of abilities and
interests are able to learn of, and appreciate, the
natural resources of this unique high mountain
park. Thereby, citizens become better stewards
of nature in their own communities and stronger
supporters of the refuge specifi cally and the
National Wildlife Refuge System generally.
Research. The refuge is a learning platform for
compatible research that assists management
and science of high mountain park sage-steppe
communities.
Partnerships. A wide range of partners joins with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in promoting and
implementing the refuge vision.
Strategies
Habitat management tools are used to maintain
and enhance habitat for waterfowl, as well as other
wildlife. These include a variety of grazing and non-grazing
strategies, prescribed fi re, invasive plant
control, and the most important tool for refuge
wetlands—water management.
Management techniques such as adjusting grazing
and prescribed fi re levels, and water manipulation
will benefi t wildlife by providing seasonal life-cycle
requirements.
Monitoring will show progress on meeting the
plan’s goals. The plan can be revised after 5 years if
unexpected effects or situations happen, or to take
into consideration new information, guidance, and
technology.
Outcomes of the Plan
Meeting the plan’s goals will create an ecologically
functional system of habitats.
Wildlife and plants will prosper alongside
ranching practices, preserving the natural and
cultural heritage of this unique area of the Rocky
Mountains.
The refuge will become
■ an area where people can enjoy and learn from
wildlife-related recreation and where cultural
resources are protected and cherished
■ a place where people, partners, and refuge staff
work together for the welfare of human and
wildlife communities
Red-winged Blackbirds
© Cindie Brunner
xii Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Habitats and Wildlife
The refuge will improve habitats that are in poor
condition.
■ restoration of riparian habitats
■ study of uplands
Restored riparian and meadow habitats will benefi t
more wildlife species than at present—not only
waterfowl, but also Neotropical migratory birds,
shorebirds, and a large variety of insects and
mammals.
North Park will benefi t from partnerships with
the refuge that promote sound habitat and wildlife
management.
Cultural Resources
The refuge will identify, evaluate, and protect
cultural resources. Interpretation of cultural
resources and their importance to North Park’s
wildlife will be encouraged.
Air and Water Quality
Increased visitation and road travel is not expected
to have long-term impacts on the quality of the air
in North Park.
There will be marked improvement in water quality.
Habitat restoration efforts should create conditions
to better trap sediments and create shade that will
improve water quality. This will improve the overall
habitat quality for a variety of wildlife.
Public Use
Hunting will be promoted as a sound wildlife
management activity to achieve refuge goals.
Related facilities will be improved.
As stream habitat and fi sheries are restored, the
refuge will promote fi shing activities.
The refuge will provide, and encourage
development of, resources to improve wildlife
photography and observation.
Environmental education will focus on how and why
the refuge intensively manages habitats to achieve
goals. The education program will address not only
the ecology of the refuge, but of the entire North
Park area.
Interpretive facilities will be used to promote sound
wildlife management. Interpretation will explain
the role that agriculture and ranching have had in
the conservation of habitats and wildlife.
Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic conditions of North Park, especially
in Walden, are expected to improve as refuge
activities lead to increased visitation throughout
North Park.
Public use activities will not only promote
appreciation of wildlife, but will also encourage
visitors to return to North Park. The sale of items
and services such as equipment, lodging, and meals
will contribute to the economy.
The plan will have some negative economic effects
due to decreases in cattle grazing needed to meet
habitat goals. The reductions from current grazing
levels may be from 10–64 percent, depending on
habitat conditions.
The historic Case Barn was modeled after a New
Zealand sheep barn.
USFWS/Rhoda Lewis
Recreational activities such as fi shing, hunting, wildlife
observation, and hiking can be enjoyed on the refuge.
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is located in
northwestern Colorado. The refuge is part of the
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge complex, which
also includes four satellite refuges in Wyoming:
Bamforth, Hutton Lake, Mortenson Lake, and
Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuges (fi gure 1–
vicinity map).
This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
addresses management of the Arapaho National
Wildlife Refuge. A future planning effort will result
in a CCP for the satellite refuges.
This chapter includes the following topics:
■ area description
■ purpose of and need for the CCP
■ refuge overview
■ refuge vision
■ legal and policy guidance
Area Description
The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is located in
an intermountain, glacial basin south of the town
of Walden, the county seat of Jackson County.
The 8,200-foot elevation basin is approximately
30 miles wide and 45 miles long. The basin is
commonly known as “North Park” since it is the
most northerly of three such “parks” in Colorado.
Jackson County is contained within the basin that
lies in the northern tier of Colorado counties
(fi gure 2–North Park).
Forming the headwaters of the North Platte
River, the basin opens north into Wyoming and
is rimmed on the west by the Park Range, on the
south by the Rabbit Ears Range, and on the east
by the Medicine Bow Range (fi gure 3–physical
features of North Park). Elevation ranges from
7,800 to 12,965 feet above sea level. The fl oor of the
basin is interspersed with many slow, meandering
streams that come together in the north-central
part of the county to form the North Platte River.
Main tributary rivers are the Michigan, Illinois,
Canadian, and Grizzly (fi gure 4–Platte River
watershed).
A major portion of the bottomland along the
streams is irrigated hay meadow and pasture.
The low rises between streams are dry grassland
and sagebrush uplands. The picture changes
rapidly on the edges of the basin, where the land
pitches abruptly upward to the mountaintops.
Aspen, spruce, pine, and fi r cover the slopes up to
timberline at about 11,000 feet, then tundra and
rock up to the mountain summits.
The ecosystems in North Park have developed
through hundreds of years in a fi re-dependent
system, with fi re as an important, dominating
infl uence. High elevations and a short growing
season, with a cool, often moist, climate infl uences
the fi re regime. The area’s class 4 fi re regime
consists of combined crown fi res and severe surface
fi res (with a 25- to 100-year return interval). Most
woody vegetation or stand elements were killed
over large areas.
The fi re regime in North Park has been altered,
which subsequently changed the cultural activities,
e.g., grazing patterns over a 100-year period.
Early explorers noted tall grasses found in North
Park. Native Americans dubbed North Park the
“bullpen,” referring to the bison inhabiting the
area. This gives an indication that the area may
have been more dominated by grasses and, thus,
likely was more infl uenced by fi re than the present
sagebrush-dominated condition. Records for North
Park indicate little signifi cant wildfi re activity in
the past 50 years.
Native Peoples and European
Settlement
Prior to 1820, the Ute peoples spent their
summers in North Park, living on mule deer, bison,
pronghorn, and many other kinds of game. The
severity of the winters forced both the Native
Americans and the game down to lower altitudes in
the fall.
Sunset View From the Refuge
Everett and Nancy Collin
4 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Jackson County, Colorado
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 1. Vicinity map for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Chapter 1—Introduction 5
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Jackson County, Colorado
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 2. North Park area of Colorado
6 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 3. Physical features of North Park, Colorado
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Jackson County, Colorado
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 1—Introduction 7
Platte River Watershed
Mountain-Prairie Region
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 4. Platte River watershed of Colorado
8 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Arapaho peoples also made frequent hunting
trips into North Park, coming in from the southwest
over a pass described by Lt. John F. Fremont,
as one of the most beautiful he had ever seen.
The Utes and Arapahos were bitter enemies and
many battles occurred when they chanced to
meet. Besides their well-worn trails, other mute
evidence of Native American life of pre-settlement
time still exists in North Park. A band of Utes
who participated in the 1879 massacre in Meeker,
Colorado, fl ed to North Park after the incident.
Several large, log tepees left by this band of Utes
still stand in a sheltered, secluded spot.
The fi rst Europeans to visit and explore North Park
were probably trappers, who were in northwestern
Colorado as early as 1819. Beaver were particularly
abundant along North Park’s streams. In 1820,
Joseph Bijeau told of the good trapping he had
experienced in North Park a few years prior, while
with the Chateau and DeMunn expedition. Jacques
Laramie trapped in North Park in 1820 for the
Northwest Fur Company. He was followed by a
party of trappers headed by Alexander Sinclair
and Robert Bean, who trapped beaver in 1825.
A number of trappers visited North Park into the
1840s, including Peg Smith, John Gantt, Kit Carson,
Henry Fraeb, Calvin Jones, Bill Williams, Jim
Baker, Jim Bridger, Sublette, Gervais, and Vasquez.
In 1855, the famous Irish hunter, Sir George Gore,
made a spectacular hunting trip through North
Park, killing thousands of mule deer, bison, and
pronghorn.
Miners and prospectors followed the trappers and
hunters to North Park. James O. Pinkham was one
of the fi rst prospectors in North Park and began
panning gold in the area in the early 1870s. Pinkham
spent the long, cold winters in Laramie, Wyoming,
and the summers in North Park. He believed that
North Park was the richest and fi nest country
in the world, and built a home there in 1874.
Mr. Pinkham interested others in North Park
through his tales of rich placer land. By 1875,
nearly 100 men were prospecting for placer gold
around the Rabbit Ears, Independence, and Owl
Mountains.
During August and September 1879, George Bird
Grinnell—naturalist, writer, and hunter—entered
North Park to collect museum specimens. Traveling
by horse from the train station in Laramie,
Wyoming, this 29-year-old Yale graduate noted,
“The country at this point had been burned
over and was black and extremely desolate in
appearance. I inquired the cause of the fi re and
learned from the owner of the ranch (Pinkham)
that the burn had been made to clear off the
sagebrush which takes up so much room that might
be occupied by grass.” Several days later, while
camped on a meadow along the North Platte River,
Grinnell writes, “. . . was perhaps a mile and a half
wide, a superb level meadow, covered with fi ne
grass, on which in the morning and evening from
two to fi ve hundred pronghorn were in sight at one
time. Sage and dusky grouse, ducks, and jackrabbits
abounded here also . . . . It is only necessary to get
back from the road to fi nd both mule deer and elk.”
The fi rst settlers lived on wild game, and hunting
was as important for the men as attending to
their ranch work. North Park, in the late 1880s,
was a paradise of game. Thousands of pronghorn
summered in there before migrating to the lower
valleys in Wyoming during the winter. Hundreds
of mule deer and elk were in North Park, but their
numbers diminished after the arrival of settlers.
Few bison remained in the area when the fi rst
settlers came, and they soon disappeared. Many
bears, mountain lions, mountain sheep, and beaver
existed in North Park in the early days, along with
thousands of sage grouse, blue grouse, and ducks.
No trout existed in any North Park streams when
the fi rst settlers came; however, in the 1880s,
settlers stocked the streams with eastern brook
trout and rainbow trout.
In 1880, large numbers of cattle were driven down
from the railroad lines in Laramie, Wyoming.
However, the winter of 1883–84 was severe, and
half of the stock died. As a result, most of the
ranchers purchased mowers and rakes prior to the
following summer’s haying season in preparation
for putting up wild hay for winter feed. Hay has
historically been the main agricultural crop in
Jackson County, with about 100,000 acres being in
native mountain hay and only 370 acres in other
crops. For years, all the hay was fed inside North
Park; in 1914, ranchers began to bale and sell the
hay outside North Park.
By the early 1890s, North Park was fairly well
settled in every direction and was a central point
when securing supplies became necessary. As a
result, the town of Walden (elevation 8,100 feet) was
established in the middle of North Park. Walden
was located near two wagon roads from Laramie to
Teller City and from Albany to Granby. The town
was named after Marcus Walden, postmaster of the
nearby settlement of Sage Hen Springs.
Chapter 1—Introduction 9
Today in North Park
Since the 1890s, North Park has been known for
high waterfowl productivity. Historically, high,
river fl ows in the spring fl ooded meadows, which
provided suitable nesting habitat for a host of
nesting bird species, especially waterfowl. Today,
North Park serves as the second most productive
waterfowl area in Colorado.
Jackson County is rural and sparsely populated with
a population of only 1,577 individuals (2000 census
data). Approximately 900 individuals live within the
Walden city limits. The economy of Jackson County
is based primarily on agriculture and recreation.
Additionally, mining and logging have provided
economic stimulus to the county. The economic base
has been fairly stable throughout the history of
Jackson County, with some fl uctuations caused by
the instability of the mining and logging industry.
Ranching, including both hay production and cattle,
continues to be the dominant land use of North
Park. Fortunately, the traditional ranching history
of North Park has not only produced hay and cattle,
it has preserved and protected thousands of acres of
wildlife habitat.
Recreation is becoming more and more economically
important to Jackson County. The county’s many
streams, lakes, uplands, forests, and mountains
are mostly open to public access. These areas offer
unusual opportunities for outdoor recreational
activities such as hunting, fi shing, bird watching,
backpacking, camping, snowmobiling, cross-country
skiing, bicycling, and horseback riding.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
To fulfi ll the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Congress has charged the agency with
conserving and managing migratory birds,
endangered species, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fi sh, and certain marine mammals.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is working with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
for the continuing benefi t of the American people.
The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, manages
migratory bird populations, restores nationally
signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores
wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers
the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign
governments with their conservation efforts. It
also oversees the Federal Aid Program, which
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars (from
excise taxes on hunting and fi shing equipment) to
state wildlife agencies.
The Service operates more than 540 national
wildlife refuges and waterfowl production areas,
70 national fi sh hatcheries, 64 fi shery resource
offi ces, and 78 ecological services fi eld stations.
The National Wildlife Refuge System of the Service
is the world’s largest collection of lands set aside
specifi cally for the protection of wildlife. The fi rst
unit of the refuge system was created in 1903,
when President Theodore Roosevelt designated
3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery
in Florida, as a bird sanctuary.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System is to administer a network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefi t of present
and future generations of Americans.”
Today, the refuge system encompasses more than
95-million acres, located in all 50 states and a
number of U.S. Territories.
The refuge system provides habitat for native
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fi shes,
invertebrates, and plants “trust resources” for
which the Federal Government is ultimately
responsible. It plays a vital role in preserving
endangered and threatened species, preventing
species from becoming endangered, and offers
wildlife-dependent recreation for over 34 million
visitors annually.
Purpose of and Need for the Plan
Initiated by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, comprehensive
conservation plans (CCPs) will be developed for
all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Plans must
include public involvement in their development,
and must set forth strategies to fulfi ll the refuge
Northern Pintail
© Cindie Brunner
10 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
short-grass prairie regions of eastern Colorado,
and mixed-grass prairie regions of Nebraska and
Kansas. The primary ecological processes affecting
this system are climate, cultivation, grazing, and
fi re. The ecosystem is arid with an average annual
precipitation between 8 to 16 inches per year.
Approximately 85 percent of the Platte/Kansas
Rivers ecosystem is privately owned. The
remainder is primarily owned and managed by
State and Federal agencies.
The Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem planning
team, with input from partners and fi eld stations,
identifi ed and prioritized three primary geographic
sub-units: mixed-grass prairie, mountain, and short-grass
prairie. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
falls within the mountain sub-unit of the ecosystem
plan and plays a vital role in uplands management
and protection. Within each geographic sub-unit,
priorities were established based on signifi cance
in the ecosystem, species diversity, risk or threat
to the entire ecosystem, public benefi ts, and trust
resources. Also considered were legal mandates,
opportunity for partnerships, likelihood of success,
and cost effectiveness.
Refuge Overview
On August 15, 1967, the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission approved the fi rst
land acquisition project for the establishment of
the refuge. The original land purchase was the
Allard Ranch of 4,433.07 acres. Subsequently, nine
additional land tracts were purchased, and land
exchanges completed with the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management and the State of Colorado.
On September 26, 1967, the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission, acting under the
authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
approved the established area known as the
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is
23,243 acres in size and is located in Jackson County
(fi gure 6–base map). Purchased acres total 18,451,
while 4,792 acres were withdrawn.
Refuge complex staff administers an additional
21,717 acres on the Wyoming satellite refuges, for a
total of 44,960 acres under complex management.
Purposes
National wildlife refuges are established for a
particular purpose. Formal establishment is
generally based on a statute or executive order
that specifi es a purpose for that refuge. However,
refuges can also be established by the Service
using the authorization found within laws such
as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.
system mission, as well as the purposes for which
the refuge was established.
This CCP provides a 15-year guidance for the
management of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge.
Management goals and objectives were developed
for the refuge (chapter 4–management direction).
Based on the life requirements of selected wildlife
species, these goals and objectives provide specifi c
targets toward which refuge staff will manage.
Future management efforts will focus on achieving
these goals and objectives for the benefi t of wildlife
and the American people.
Wildlife has fi rst priority in the management of
refuges. Recreation or other uses are allowed if
they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Six
wildlife-dependent recreational activities will be
emphasized—wildlife observation and photography,
hunting, fi shing, environmental education, and
interpretation.
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has divided
the country into 53 watershed-based ecosystem
management units. The Platte/Kansas Rivers
ecosystem unit encompasses approximately 182,000
square miles of the central Great Plains of the
United States (fi gure 5–Platte/Kansas Rivers
ecosystem). The Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem
covers portions of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and
Wyoming.
Ecosystem Vision
The vision of the Platte/Kansas Rivers eco-team
is to provide partnership-based, landscape-level
conservation for the diversity and abundance of
natural resources within the ecosystem. The team
envisions
■ landscapes that exhibit natural, healthy,
ecological processes
■ ongoing protection of threatened, endangered,
and endemic species
■ protection and promotion of native prairie
vegetation
■ involvement of all stakeholders in decision-making
processes
■ recognition that partnerships are the key to
success
Ecosystem Description
This diverse area begins at the headwaters of the
North and South Platte Rivers, high in the Rocky
Mountains. It includes the sagebrush uplands of
north-central Colorado and southeastern Wyoming,
Chapter 1—Introduction 11
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem
Mountain-Prairie Region
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Region 6
Mountain-Prairie Region
Figure 5. Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem
12 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Jackson County, Colorado
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 6. Base map of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Chapter 1—Introduction 13
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was established
for the following purposes:
■ “. . . for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d, Migratory Bird
Conservation Act)
■ “. . . for the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and protection of
fi sh and wildlife resources . . . ” [16 U.S.C. § 742f
(a)(4)] “. . . for the benefi t of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its
activities and services. Such acceptance may
be subject to the terms of any restrictive or
affi rmative covenant, or condition of servitude . . . ”
(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
These two broad statements provide the sideboards
to guide future management of the refuge.
Management and Use
Since 1967, the refuge has been managed primarily
for waterfowl nesting and production. Using
existing irrigation ditches for the water-delivery
system, the refuge staff constructed or enhanced
72 wetland impoundments in the Illinois River.
These impoundments, and associated wet-meadow
habitats, provide the habitat necessary to produce
waterfowl.
The refuge provides quality habitat for many
mammals and other birds common to high-mountain,
sagebrush-steppe environments. The
willow riparian area alone supports more than 40
species of songbirds (Neotropical migrants) during
part of their migration or nesting cycle. Sage
grouse are common on the refuge, and wet-meadow
habitats provide critical feeding areas for sage
grouse young.
Moose, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn are common
wildlife species on the refuge. These big-game
species migrate on and off the refuge; however, an
average of 1,200 elk, 200 pronghorn, and 20 moose
may inhabit the refuge at any one time.
Managing invasive plants and limiting their
impact on vegetative resources of the refuge is a
priority. The refuge falls within the invasive plant
management area of the North Platte headwaters.
Refuge staff work closely with the Jackson County
weed coordinator to ensure adequate control of
invasive plants.
Grazing is the primary management tool used to
manage meadow and upland habitats. Seven grazing
cooperators help maintain and enhance grassland
habitats. Water-level manipulation, irrigation, fi re,
mowing, harrowing, and disking are additional tools
used to improve grassland and wetland habitats.
The refuge headquarters is located 8 miles south
of Walden, on Highway 125. A full-time staff of six
employees and four seasonal employees works to
manage the refuge wetlands, irrigation system,
wildlife habitats, and visitor facilities.
The refuge accommodates approximately 7,200
visitors annually (5-year average 1998–2002). The
6-mile auto tour route, the walking trail, and
Brocker Overlook account for the majority of
visitor use. Approximately 500 recreation days
are provided to hunters and anglers. The refuge
is open to limited hunting opportunities for small
game, waterfowl, sage grouse, and pronghorn.
The lower one-third of the refuge provides fi shing
opportunities for brown and rainbow trout.
Partnerships
The refuge promotes partnership opportunities to
accomplish natural resource-related goals both on
and off the refuge. Existing partnerships include
groups and agencies shown in table 1 (next page).
Refuge Vision Statement
As part of the planning process, the refuge staff
and planning team reviewed past national, regional,
and complex planning documents and current
planning guidance. Using the legislation and plans,
the planning team developed the following vision
statement for the refuge.
■ Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed
to benefi t the diversity of plants and wildlife
found in this high mountain valley of the
southern Rocky Mountains. The refuge and its
resources are also managed for the benefi t of
the citizens of the United States.
■ The refuge includes wetland, meadow,
sagebrush uplands, and riparian communities
that provide habitat for large animals,
Neotropical migratory birds, nesting waterfowl,
fi shes, and species of concern from national
and regional conservation plans. In particular,
efforts by refuge staff to restore the Illinois
River channel hydrology, riparian areas, and
sagebrush uplands, and to effectively manage
wetlands and meadows, contribute to the
ecological integrity of the refuge, North Park,
and the overall North Platte River system.
■ Through wildlife-dependent recreation and
education, people have opportunities to learn
of the wonder and signifi cance of North Park’s
fauna and fl ora. Firsthand experiences with
the refuge encourage people to participate as
stewards, not only of the refuge, but also of the
natural resources in their own communities.
14 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
■ Working in collaboration with the local
community and other agencies and
organizations helps the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service manage the refuge as a contributing
ecological, cultural, and economic component of
the unique mountain valley within which it sits.
Legal and Policy Guidance
National wildlife refuges are guided by
■ the mission and goals of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge
System
■ the legal purpose of the refuge unit as described
in the enabling legislation or executive orders
■ international treaties
■ federal laws and regulations
■ Service policies
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended, provides
guidelines and directives for administration of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. Use of any area
within the refuge system was permitted, provided
such uses were compatible with the major purposes
for which such areas were established.
Appendix A contains descriptions of other laws and
policies that are related to national wildlife refuges.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 amends the Refuges System
Administration Act by including a unifying
mission for the refuge system, a formal process
for determining compatible uses on refuges, and a
requirement that each refuge be managed under a
comprehensive conservation plan. Specifi c details
regarding additional amendments are available
through the refuge or regional Service offi ces.
This Act states that wildlife conservation is the
priority of refuge system lands and that the
Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the
Table 1. Existing partnerships, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Name Partnership
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) wildlife and fi shery habitat improvement, resource sharing, law
enforcement
CDOW Habitat Partnership Program reduction of cattle and big-game confl icts throughout North Park
Colorado Scenic Byways overlooks and roads development, interpretation
Colorado State Forest Service natural resources improvement projects, forest management plans, fi re
management
Colorado State University assistance with planning, wildlife research, and habitat management
Jackson County invasive plant management, fi re support
Natural Resource Conservation Service assistance with soils and vegetative management
Owl Mountain Partnership land health improvement projects on public and private lands, grazing
management plans, wildlife watering areas, and sagebrush management projects
Platte/Kansas Rivers Eco-team assistance with funding and planning natural resource projects
National Center for Atmospheric
Research
research snowpack characteristics to create reliable snowpack models
Sage Grouse Working Group sage grouse habitat protection and enhancement
U.S. Bureau of Land Management partner in several programs, equipment sharing, resource sharing
USDA Forest Service partner in several programs, equipment sharing, fi re management, resource
sharing
U.S. Geological Survey cooperative wildlife research, planning, and water monitoring projects
Chapter 1—Introduction 15
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge
must be managed to fulfi ll both the specifi c purposes
for which it was established and the mission of the
refuge system.
Lands within the refuge system are different from
other public lands in that they are closed to all
public uses unless specifi cally and legally opened.
Unlike other federal lands that are managed under
a multiple-use mandate (e.g., national forests
administered by the USDA Forest Service and
public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management), the refuge system is managed
specifi cally for the benefi t of fi sh and wildlife
resources.
The Act defi nes six priority wildlife-dependent
recreational uses.
■ wildlife observation
■ wildlife photography
■ hunting
■ fi shing
■ environmental education
■ interpretation
Use Compatibility
Compatibility is a legal requirement of all refuge
uses. By federal law, all uses of national wildlife
refuges, including wildlife-dependent recreational
activities, must be formally determined to be
compatible.
A compatible use is “a use that, in the sound
professional judgment of the refuge manager,
will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfi llment of the mission of the refuge
system or the purposes of the refuge.” Sound
professional judgment is further defi ned as “a
fi nding, determination, or decision that is consistent
with the principles of sound fi sh and wildlife
management and administration, available science
and resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and
other infrastructure), and adherence with applicable
laws.” No use of a national wildlife refuge may be
allowed unless determined to be compatible.
Uses that have been determined to be compatible
for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge include the
following:
■ wildlife observation and photography
■ hunting
■ fi shing
■ environmental education
■ interpretation
Additionally, habitat management tools include,
but are not limited to, fi re, mowing, grazing,
invasive plant control (chemical, mechanical, and
physical methods), Dixie harrowing, fencing, water
management, routine refuge maintenance activities,
and public use related structures (appendix B).
Cow Moose With Twins
© William H. Miller
2 Planning Process
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
guides the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, along with the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the
established purposes of the refuge, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service compatibility standards, and other
Service policies, plans, and laws related to refuge
management.
This plan establishes habitat-based goals,
objectives, strategies, and monitoring priorities
for refuge management. The plan will be used to
prepare more specifi c step-down management plans
that address programs such as hunting, fi shing, and
environmental education, with annual priorities and
budgets.
Comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) are
initiated, developed, and published in a 2-year time
frame. The plan duration is 15 years; however,
the plan may be revised if necessary. This CCP
supersedes current management plans.
Key steps in the planning process include the
following:
■ preplanning
■ identifying issues and developing a vision
■ gathering information
■ developing alternatives
■ assessing environmental effects
■ identifying the proposed alternative
■ publishing a draft plan and soliciting public
comments
■ reviewing the comments and making
appropriate changes to the draft plan
■ preparing the fi nal plan for approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
regional director
The planning team for this CCP (appendix C)
coordinated these steps, working with the public
and partners.
The associated environmental analysis (see
the draft CCP document) is the basis for the
“Environmental Action Statement” and Finding of
No Signifi cant Impact” found in appendix D.
A biological evaluation for the CCP was completed
in compliance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (appendix E).
Projects completed by the refuge will be monitored
and documented to ensure progress toward
achieving overall refuge goals. Step-down plans also
provide fl exibility to accommodate annual changes
in refuge staff levels, funding, equipment, and other
resources.
Public Involvement
Issues addressed in this plan were identifi ed by
the public, refuge staff, and cooperating agencies.
Details about the public involvement process are
shown in appendix F. The mailing list for this
document is in appendix G.
Planning Issues
Primary issues concerning future management of
the refuge include the following:
■ changing from a species-based management
approach to a habitat-based management
approach
■ sage grouse preservation and management
■ use of grazing as a wildlife management tool
■ water management
Additionally, continued close coordination with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) is critical to
plan success.
2 Planning Process
Interested participants learn more about comprehensive
conservation planning.
USFWS
20 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The following issues are described below:
■ prairie dogs
■ Pole Mountain
■ grazing
■ elk
■ sage grouse hunting
■ inholdings
■ invasive plants
Prairie Dogs
Much of the more open upland areas, as well as
drier areas within meadow/riparian habitats, on
the refuge support prairie dogs. In 2002, the white-tailed
prairie dog was petitioned for listing under
the Endangered Species Act; a fi nding is expected
by October 2004.
Issues
The white-tailed prairie dog is very popular with
the visiting public and, to many, is a symbol of the
west. However, most local ranchers see the prairie
dog as a pest that competes with livestock for food,
and creates burrows that are potentially dangerous
to cattle and horses.
Actions
It is appropriate
for the refuge to
consider prairie
dog needs and
potential impacts
to them when
management
decisions are being
made.
The CCP process
has addressed
potential impacts
to this species.
Pole Mountain
During 1993, the Service acquired lands owned by
E.B. Shawver and formerly known as the Stelbar
Ranch. As part of the “all-or-nothing” purchase
of lands adjacent to the refuge, this acquisition
included an isolated tract of land known as Pole
Mountain (T7N, R81W, Sections 33 and 34,
6th Principal Meridian), located approximately
6 miles southwest of the refuge in Jackson County,
Colorado.
History
With a peak elevation of 9,200 feet, this 800-acre
tract contains signifi cantly different habitats than
the rest of the refuge. Pole Mountain has private
land on three sides and a piece of Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) land to the south that has no
public access to it. Similarly, the Service does not
own a permanent access easement to the property,
and gains access across private land by virtue of a
positive working relationship with a neighboring
landowner.
Pole Mountain is dominated by sagebrush uplands
(50 percent) and mixed, aspen/conifer forest
(50 percent), which is common throughout the
county where uplands meet the forest. This
property is grazed annually, and invasive plants are
monitored and controlled.
Minimal wildlife monitoring has been conducted at
Pole Mountain. Wildlife use includes mule deer, elk,
blue grouse, porcupine, and a variety of passerine
birds. Although the area has wildlife value, it
does not match current or future objectives of the
remainder of the refuge.
Issues
The habitat at Pole Mountain does not meet
purposes of refuge establishment and is not unique
in the area in terms of habitat or wildlife use. Few
management options are available for habitat
improvement.
Several entities are interested in the land for
various reasons.
■ members of the local sage grouse working
group—to trade these lands for others in the
county to protect sage grouse habitat
■ the CDOW—for big-game management;
however, they currently have a moratorium on
acquiring new lands
■ local ranchers—for use as grazing land
■ developers—for home sites
Actions
This CCP calls for the divestiture of the Pole
Mountain property within 5 years (option 3
below) using the priority criteria listed in option
4. Until that time, refuge staff will ensure proper
stewardship of the land, but minimal management
will occur, as follows:
■ Place a conservation easement on the property
prior to sale or trade to ensure wildlife benefi ts
of the area remain intact.
■ Continue grazing at recent levels, as deemed
appropriate by management.
Prairie Dog
USFWS
Chapter 2—Planning Process 21
■ Continue invasive plant control efforts as part of
the pest management agreement with the county.
■ Obtain a right-of-way access to the property for
management and public use.
■ If the tract is not divested, create a forest and
rangeland management plan for the area prior
to update of this CCP.
Seven options were considered for the Pole
Mountain tract.
Keep the Pole Mountain tract, survey, re-sign,
and change/add refuge objectives to include this
parcel.
Work with Colorado State Forest Service
(CSFS) to develop and implement a forest
management plan for Pole Mountain.
Divest the Pole Mountain tract through
appropriate government regulations.
Trade the Pole Mountain tract for (in priority
order)
Refuge inholdings
Lands and waters adjacent to the refuge that
are manageable to reach objectives listed in
this CCP
Lands and waters adjacent to other refuges,
where it would help achieve their goals and
objectives, for refuges
In Colorado
In Region 6 of the Service
Anywhere in the Nation
Lands with a natural resource interest by
other Federal land management agencies
Place a conservation easement on the Pole
Mountain property prior to divestment to limit
or preclude development on the tract.
Secure a legal right-of-way easement to assure
access to Pole Mountain.
Open Pole Mountain to hunting of all species,
according to State of Colorado regulations.
Grazing
Cattle and sheep had grazed the lands that now
comprise the refuge, for nearly a century prior to
acquisition. Since establishment of the refuge in
1967, grazing has continued to be the most common
management tool to manipulate refuge habitats,
especially meadows. Immediately after land
purchases, some grazing was permitted as part of
purchase agreements, and some areas were rested
to establish waterfowl nesting cover.
History
From 1969 to 1982, 47–95 percent of the refuge
was grazed annually at a refuge-wide rate varying
between 0.4 and 1.2 animal-unit months (AUMs)
1.
2.
3.
4.
a.
b.
c.
i.
ii.
iii.
d.
5.
6.
7.
per acre. Grazing records from 1969 to 1991 were
destroyed in an offi ce fi re. From 1991 to 2001
(excepting 1993 for which data is unavailable),
46–74 percent of the refuge was grazed annually at
a refuge-wide average rate between 0.52 and 0.71
AUMs per acre. Actual rates vary signifi cantly
depending on the site, with some uplands being as
low as 0.01 AUMs per acre and some meadows as
high as 2.18 AUMs per acre.
Grazing in meadow/riparian areas has generally
not commenced until after August 1 to minimize
disturbance to nesting waterfowl. Uplands are
sometimes grazed earlier, but grazing does not
generally commence until June 1. Grazing systems
used have included high-intensity, short-duration
(Holistic Resource Management-type), rest-rotation,
light annual grazing, and complete rest.
Issues
There is little refuge-specifi c data available to
assess how past grazing practices have or will effect
proposed habitat objectives, due to the following:
■ All data from 1969–1991 was destroyed in an
offi ce fi re.
■ Any available data from other studies did not
necessarily address the objectives as defi ned
in this CCP and, therefore, is of limited use for
assessment purposes.
Although grazing practices to date have not harmed
habitats, current levels of grazing probably will not
meet CCP objectives, and some reduction in grazing
will be required. With more intensive monitoring
of habitats to assess how well objectives are being
met, a better understanding of appropriate grazing
levels should be developed.
Actions
Livestock grazing has been the preferred
management tool used on the refuge because
the effect on vegetative communities is more
controllable and predictable than other available
management tools. All known and available
management tools will be assessed for suitability of
use in achieving defi ned habitat objectives.
Other treatment options include the following:
■ Prescribed fi re—Some prescribed fi re has been
used and more may be planned in the future.
Prescribed fi re, when used according to policy,
can accomplish removal of excess decadent
growth and reset successional stages, creating
a diversity of wildlife habitat. Prescribed fi re
may be used in all habitat types to help meet
management objectives.
■ Haying/mowing—Minimal haying occurred on
some parcels as agreements of purchase, but
was short-lived. Haying would be effective in
22 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
removal of vegetative growth, but the primary
objective of haying would likely be to remove
decadent growth. In this case, hay quality
would probably be poor, so fi nding someone
interested in doing the work may be diffi cult.
Mowing would successfully remove decadent
growth, and the cut grass would ultimately
break down to form litter and duff needed to
meet objectives. This could be very costly in
time and energy compared to other tools.
■ Fertilizing—Applying fertilizers is an option
to increase plant growth, and is used by many
in the county to increase hay production. Cost,
equipment, and time deter its use at present,
but this tool should be considered if habitat
objectives are not being met by other means.
■ Mechanical treatments—These are treatments
typically associated with efforts to manipulate
sagebrush and could include using a disc,
aerator, roller/chopper, Dixie harrow, or similar
implements. Several hundred acres around the
county have been treated in recent years in an
effort to open up and vary the age diversity of
sagebrush stands and increase plant diversity;
success of these projects is still being assessed.
This CCP has estimated grazing numbers of
3,050–7,650 AUMs annually, and represents
approximately 36–90 percent of the 1996–2001
average. This assumes an average use of between
0.4 and 1.0 AUMs per acre of grazable acres for
riparian areas and meadows, and 0.05 to 0.15 AUMs
on uplands.
Although not guaranteed, the plan assumes some
grazing will likely occur every year to help achieve
objectives on and off the refuge. Close coordination
will occur with grazing permittees to combine and
meet the refuge’s needs and permittees’ operational
needs as much as possible for timing, areas, and to a
certain extent, numbers. Permittees in good standing
have a reasonable expectation of how many AUMs
will be available to them for the upcoming year,
barring extenuating circumstances such as drought.
If a permittee has intentions of not grazing any
longer on the refuge, their previously permitted
areas will be evenly distributed to the remaining
permittees, to spread out use on the refuge and
meet objectives. If all permittees are still interested
in continued use in 2 years, all permits will be
decreased annually approximately 5–10 percent
from 1996 to 2001 averages until objective levels
are met. Thereafter, grazing levels will be driven
entirely by habitat needs based on identifi ed
objectives.
Elk
Until the mid- to late 1980s, seeing elk on or near
the refuge, at any time of year, was a rarity. In the
late 1980s, elk began to show up regularly in the
winter, until about 500 were common on and around
the refuge from December to March. Most of the
animals would disperse for higher ground as the
snow melted in the spring, but some began to stay
along the Illinois River year-round. By the mid-
1990s, a resident herd of approximately 150 elk had
become established.
History
The number of elk using the refuge is continuing to
grow and, with recent drought conditions, recent
growth may be more than usual. It is unknown if
this is a short-term gain in numbers with a likely
decrease when conditions change, or if the elk have
found a new place and are here to stay. It is also
unknown whether the increase in elk on the refuge
is proportional to the increase throughout the
county, or if elk are occurring in a higher (or lower)
proportion on the refuge.
The wintering herd has continued to grow to the
point that winter counts conducted by the CDOW
in late December 2002 found about 2,400 elk on and
near the refuge. Elk typically are scattered into
several herds that vary in size, but often occur in a
herd of about 1,000 animals. During winter months
(November through March), elk numbers vary
considerably but average 1,000–1,400 animals.
North Park also has a resident herd. The CDOW
initiated a distribution management hunt on private
lands to thin this resident herd and disperse some of
its numbers off private lands. This effort had short-term
success in reducing the resident herd size.
Management hunts will probably continue to be
used by CDOW to control the resident herd size.
During the general, rifl e, big-game, hunting
seasons, the resident elk herd on the refuge
typically becomes more noticeable. As the later
© Cindie Brunner
Elk
Chapter 2—Planning Process 23
hunting seasons progress, more elk move onto
the refuge from the forested areas of the county.
With the exception of some private lands scattered
around the county, the refuge is the only place on
the south end of North Park where the elk are not
pursued during the general seasons.
Issues
Although a large, wintering elk herd is a magnifi cent
wildlife resource to behold, other things need to be
considered. The fi rst is that the refuge, though fairly
large, cannot be all things for all wildlife. A point
comes where too many individuals of one species
(elk) can negatively affect the habitat for another
species or group of species (waterfowl). With one of
the purposes for establishing the refuge being used
as a sanctuary for migratory birds, too many elk
could keep this purpose from being met.
When on the refuge, elk are foraging, and trampling
and eating grasses that are being managed as
habitat for other wildlife. Elk can also have a severe
impact on willow stands. Habitat objectives in this
CCP identify maintenance of grasslands and willows
to varying degrees for wildlife benefi ts. Although
elk use the refuge extensively during the winter
months, they do not use it exclusively, making it
more diffi cult to determine what the cumulative
impact of their use may be. A method needs to be
developed to estimate elk use and impact to the
refuge.
Historically, ranching was the primary use of North
Park, and that continues to be the case in much of
the county. Elk, as grazers and potential competitors
with cattle, can get into hay harvested for livestock
and cause damage to fences and other ranch
structures.
Elk will continue to concentrate in areas of the
county and, depending on the landowner and the
number of elk in the particular herd, the perspective
of whether an elk problem exists or not may change.
A landowner that does not rely on livestock for their
livelihood may view 100 elk as a valuable resource,
but may view 300 as a problem. Similarly, a
landowner relying on the land to make a living might
view the 100 animals as too many. It is important to
fi nd an elk population size that achieves refuge goals
and meets North Park herd management objectives.
A large, visible, herd of elk can be a reminder that
herd objectives have been surpassed. When that
herd is on the refuge, it may seem to some that they
are in a likely spot to reduce numbers.
Elk, by law, are a state-owned resource, and high elk
numbers may lead to resource or economic problems
elsewhere in the county. The refuge will work with
the CDOW to address elk issues on the refuge and
throughout North Park.
If elk are on the refuge, they are not on private
lands potentially damaging property or consuming
forage meant for livestock. The problem is that
they do not stay just on the refuge, so the potential
exists for them to travel to adjoining private land
and do damage. As numbers of elk using the refuge
grows, so will the possibility of damage to private
resources.
As more elk move onto the refuge during the
general, rifl e-hunting season, an impression is
created with some hunters that “all the elk are
on the refuge,” especially if the animals are hard
to fi nd in other locations. The refuge is composed
mainly of sagebrush uplands, meadow, and open
areas, without many places for elk to hide, and they
typically are in large herds at this time.
The lands surrounding the refuge are very open
and the hunting that occurs on these areas often
includes radio use, pushing animals with vehicles
and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), party hunting, and
over-limits of animals. In general, this does not
fi t refuge system requirements, as outlined in the
refuge manual, to offer a quality hunting experience
that promotes “positive hunting values and hunter
ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship.”
Chronic-wasting disease (CWD) has been
documented in white-tailed and mule deer and elk
in Jackson County. Though these are typically state
issues, the refuge staff is also concerned, since elk
use is high on the refuge. The potential for other
diseases and their risk of spread rises dramatically
because of the large herd sizes.
Actions
Habitat objectives will be met with range
management practices including prescribed
livestock grazing since it is a controllable tool. Elk
use and impact on habitats will be monitored.
A protocol will be developed for action when
management objectives are not being met, using
management tools such as elk hazing, hunting,
and transplant. The protocol should defi ne what
circumstances will trigger these actions and when.
Coordination with CDOW will be critical to address
potential impacts to other parts of the county.
Herbivory (elk, moose, and cattle) studies will be
initiated to assess the independent and cumulative
impacts to riparian, upland, and meadow habitats
by these species. Studies will be conducted in
conjunction with the state and other partners to
evaluate impacts. Exclosures were installed in 2003
to begin the evaluation process.
■ The primary concerns are the lack of willow
regeneration, the percent cover provided by
willows, and willow density along the Illinois
River channel. Willow regeneration along the
24 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Illinois River is slow, and small willow shoots
are frequently grazed to a 1-inch height. Elk
damage to riparian areas is well documented in
the scientifi c literature (see riparian habitats in
appendix H).
■ A hunting plan will be developed, working
with the state, for land on and adjacent to
the refuge. This strategy could include a late-season,
limited hunt for youth and disabled
hunters. A protocol would outline the need for
and administration of additional hunts based
on such considerations as game damage, herd
reduction, and habitat degradation.
■ Elk numbers and elk damage are not
necessarily a linear relationship. Snow depth,
temperature, duration of feeding, and a host
of other factors may determine wintering elk
impacts. Elk wintering on the refuge may
minimize game damage on adjacent private lands.
Sage Grouse Management
Greater sage grouse are only found in sagebrush-dominated
rangelands in western North America.
Sage grouse are dependent on sagebrush for winter
cover, nesting, and feeding habitat. North Park
supports habitat for the greater sage grouse and
a viable grouse population. However, over the last
40 years, the population has exhibited extreme
fl uctuations.
Issues
In 1998, because of increased local concerns about
the status of sage grouse in North Park, a group of
concerned citizens and agencies formed the North
Park sage grouse working group. The mission of
the group is to develop, implement, and monitor
a conservation plan to maintain a viable sage
grouse population in Jackson County. Historically,
the refuge has supported sage grouse hunting in
accordance with State regulations and seasons.
Action
The refuge proposes to continue to offer sport-hunting
opportunities for sage grouse, in
accordance with State regulations and seasons.
Upland habitats will be monitored and evaluated to
improve conditions for nesting and brood-rearing
sage grouse (see upland habitats in appendix H).
The refuge will support the purpose and guiding
principles of the North Park greater sage grouse
conservation plan.
Inholdings
Non-federally owned lands within public land areas
are known as inholdings. Table 2 displays non-federally
owned lands that lie within the approved
acquisition boundary of Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge.
Table 2. Private lands within Arapaho National
Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Tract Approximate Acreage
Private landowner A 160
Private landowner B 480
Private landowner C 200
Private landowner D 2,960
Private landowner E 24
Total 3,824
Non-federally owned lands that lie outside the
approved boundary of Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge are described in table 3.
Table 3. Private lands outside Arapaho National
Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Tract Approximate Acreage
Private landowner F 18
Total 18
Issues
These inholdings represent valuable wildlife habitat
and are of interest to the refuge.
Sage Grouse Hen With Young
Everett and Nancy Collin
Chapter 2—Planning Process 25
Action
Following the Service acquisition policy and
guidelines, the refuge plans to acquire only these
properties on a willing-seller/willing-buyer basis.
Additionally, the refuge will attempt to acquire
mineral resource interests on lands within the
existing boundary. Minerals extraction may destroy
wildlife habitats, and prevent goals and objectives
from being met.
Invasive Plants
The refuge mirrors much of the rest of North Park
in its species mix of invasive plants. Canada thistle
has a strong foothold in Jackson County. This
species has a noticeable presence along ditch banks,
dikes, and in the edges of riparian and sub-irrigated
areas. Four other species, declared by the county to
be noxious, have been found on the refuge in small
amounts, totaling less than 5 acres—musk thistle,
yellow toadfl ax, whitetop, and houndstongue.
A handful of other invasive plants have been found
in minute amounts on nearby lands—spotted,
diffuse, and Russian knapweeds, as well as
Dalmatian toadfl ax, and leafy spurge. These species
have been especially troublesome along highway
rights-of-way.
Issues
Managing invasive plants and limiting their impact
on the refuge is a great concern.
Actions
As a landowner within the North Platte headwaters
weed management area, the refuge works closely
with Jackson County and the county weed
coordinator. This partnership goes back to a 1986
weed- management document and includes 13
public, private, and local entities. Jackson County,
although somewhat isolated from more serious
invasive plant problems of nearby landscapes, is at
the forefront in keeping out several invasive plant
species.
Management approaches have been developed
in conjunction with the county weed coordinator
and are annually monitored for effectiveness.
Mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical
tools are employed in combination, in hopes of
eliminating these unwanted, invasive plants.
Treatment of Canada thistle is generally limited to
areas around facilities and areas incurring heavy
public use.
All known occurrences of musk thistle, yellow
toadfl ax, whitetop, and houndstongue are attacked
every year with a strategy appropriate to each
species. Progress to date for these four species has
been quite good. Persistence and diligence will be
necessary to keep them out over the long term.
Careful scouting and fast action will be required to
prevent the following, off-refuge, invasive plants
from occurring on the refuge—spotted, diffuse, and
Russian knapweeds, as well as Dalmatian toadfl ax,
leafy spurge, and Dyers woad.
3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, situated at an
elevation of 8,200 feet, is located in an inter-mountain
glacial basin in north-central Colorado.
The refuge is situated along the western edge of the
central waterfowl fl yway (fi gure 7).
Figure 7. Waterfowl fl yways within the United States
Jackson County opens north into Wyoming and
is rimmed on the west by the Park Range, on the
south by the Rabbit Ears Range, and on the east by
the Medicine Bow Range. The basin fl oor between
these ranges is locally known as North Park and
encompasses approximately 600 square miles. The
basin is relatively fl at with an elevation range of
7,900–8,300 feet.
Slow, meandering streams, which crisscross the
basin, fl ow toward the north-central part of the
basin to form the North Platte River. Most of the
fl oodplain is irrigated meadow (irrigated to produce
a single hay crop per year), while sagebrush
grasslands characterize the adjacent low rises.
Sagebrush uplands are the dominant vegetative
community and encompass 80 percent of North Park.
Bailey (1995) described the Jackson County area as
part of the southern Rocky Mountain eco-region.
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to
natural resource management and has identifi ed 53
watershed-based, eco-regions in the United States
(fi gure 8). Within this approach, the refuge lies
within the boundaries of the Platte/Kansas Rivers
ecosystem.
The Service is developing a nationally coordinated
approach involving ecosystem teams, partners,
and stakeholders to preserve natural resources
for the American people. Ecosystem teams are
fundamental to the Service in sustaining good land
health. Ecosystem teams should be the primary
delivery mechanism for establishing priorities and
identifying areas of greatest conservation concern
in their ecosystems (Fulfi lling the Promise, 1999).
Figure 8. Eco-regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
The following sections describe the resources and
use of the refuge:
■ physical resources
■ biological resources
■ cultural resources
■ special management areas
■ public use
Physical Resources
The climate, geology, and soils of the refuge are
described below. In addition, a brief description is
given for the water, reserved, and mineral rights
related to the refuge.
Climate
The climate is semiarid—characterized as having
short, cool summers followed by long, cold winters.
Temperatures and precipitation vary greatly with
elevation and location. Mean annual air temperature
in Walden, near the center of North Park, is 36.4
degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature extremes are
minus 39 degrees to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, based on
the National Weather Bureau’s 30-year average data.
3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
30 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The average length of the growing season in Walden
is 43 days. The average date for the last killing frost
in Walden is July 1, and the average fi rst killing
frost is August 14, based on North Park weather
station’s 70-year average. The relatively short frost-free
season inhibits any form of agriculture, except
hay near fl oodplain areas.
The mean rainfall in Walden is 10.83 inches of
precipitation annually. Annual precipitation
generally increases as elevation increases, from the
fl oor to the outer edge of North Park. Elevation
ranges from slightly below 8,000 feet on the valley
fl oor to 12,965 feet on Clarks Peak. Seventy percent
of the annual precipitation falls as snow. Walden
averages 53 inches of snow per year, the lowest
of any point in North Park. The highest average
monthly precipitation occurs in March, April, May,
and August (Lischka et al. 1983).
Geological Resources
North Park is a structural basin between the
Precambrian granites, gneisses and schists of the
Medicine Bow and Park Ranges and Independence
Mountain. The sandstones, conglomerates, and
shales of the Tertiary Coalmont Formation
dominate the surface geology of the North Park
fl oor. Coal is found in the lower members of the
formation (Hail 1968).
The North Park Formation overlies the Coalmont
Formation and consists of white, calcareous
conglomerates. The Coalmont Formation is exposed
along a long, narrow, syncline ridge trending
northwest from Owl Mountain to the confl uence
of Roaring Fork and Grizzly Creeks. The syncline
includes Owl Ridge and Peterson Ridges.
Pierre Shale underlies the Coalmont Formation
and is exposed primarily in the northwestern and
northeastern quadrants of North Park. Evidence
of Tertiary volcanics is obvious along the south
boundary of North Park. Quantities of breccia and
other volcanics are common in the Rabbit Ears
Range in the form of dikes, plush, fl ows, and ash.
Signifi cant glacial activity occurred in North Park
during the Pleistocene. Fluviatile gravels and inter-fl
uvial terraces are examples of the infl uence of
glacial activity upon the current landscape of North
Park’s fl oor. Several natural lakes in the area are
likely the remnants of Pleistocene glaciation.
Winds also infl uenced the geology of North Park.
Prevailing southwesterly winds, possibly caused
by the low ridge between Rabbit Ears Peak
and Arapaho Pass, have deposited fi ne grains of
alluvium, some of which reaches thicknesses of 30
feet. Winds may have created several shallow lakes
within the basin, including Hebron Sloughs, located
southwest of the refuge (Lischka et al. 1983).
Soil Resources
Soils that have the capacity to reproduce the same
kinds, amounts, and proportions of range plants are
grouped into range sites. Fletcher (1981) defi ned
15 different range sites and 2 forest types within
Jackson County. Five range sites (fl oodplains) are
found on the refuge.
■ Randman-Blackwell-Dobrow association (deep,
poorly drained, dominantly sandy soils)
■ Spicerton-Stumpp association (deep, well-drained,
sandy loams and clay loams on bench
and upland sites); Fluetch-Bosler-Tealson
association (deep and shallow, well-drained,
sandy loams)
■ Tiagos-Cabin association (deep, well-drained,
fi ne, sandy loams); and Coalmont-Brinkerton-
Aaberg association (moderately deep, of soft
shale and well-drained sandy loams)
The refuge contains 31
individual soil types
within the 5 range
sites (Fletcher 1977).
Dominant soil types
include Spicerton sandy
loam, Fluetsch-Tiagos
association, Bosler
sandy loam, and the
Boettcher-Bundyman
association. These soils
are found on slopes less
than 15 percent, and
generally have slow to
moderate permeability.
Mean soil temperature
at Walden is 58 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Water Resources
and Rights
The refuge is located on
the Illinois River and its
tributaries. The Illinois
River is tributary to the
Michigan River, which
is tributary to the
North Platte River.
Prior to settlement, the bottoms and meadows
of the Illinois River and its tributaries fl ooded
annually from snow melt and spring runoff,
creating signifi cant waterfowl nesting habitat. With
settlement, much of the natural fl oods and pond
creation were reduced, with irrigated meadows
replacing ponds and marshes.
Since the refuge’s fi rst land acquisition in 1967,
the Service created new wetland habitat through
Prairie Lupine
Everett and Nancy Collin
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 31
the management of acquired irrigation and
stock reservoirs, diversion of water into natural
depressions, and diversion of water into Service-constructed
ponds.
The refuge has a decreed diversion rate of 515.05
cubic feet per second, most of which is diverted
from the Illinois River. Lesser amounts are diverted
from tributaries of Willow, Spring, Potter, and
Antelope Creeks. This water is either ditched for
storage in 9 decreed reservoirs and 73 un-decreed
ponds, or ditched to meadows for direct irrigation.
The refuge has decreed rights to 7,626.4 acre-feet
for reservoir and pond initial fi lls and refi lls, and
is seeking an additional 2,582.5 acre-feet of junior
storage rights. The total capacity of refuge storage
units is 5,678.5 acre-feet. Approximately 814 surface
acres in ponds and approximately 9,499 acres are
irrigated meadow grass.
Since 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
measured Illinois River fl ow at gauging stations at
the upstream and downstream ends of the refuge to
determine the effect of diversions, wildlife use, and
return fl ow on river discharge.
Groundwater is present in an unconfi ned, sand,
and gravel alluvial aquifer, which underlies the
entire refuge. The water table is shallow, with the
elevation of the groundwater table approximating
the water-surface elevations in nearby rivers,
creeks, reservoirs, and ponds.
The Colorado Division of Water Resources,
commonly referred to as the State Engineer’s
Offi ce, administers the refuge’s water rights
according to the prior appropriation doctrine.
Whereas much of the refuge’s acquired land has
senior appurtenant water rights, conversion of
ranch land to wildlife habitat has required obtaining
junior water rights that cannot be exercised in dry
or semidry years.
Suffi cient water rights are held by the refuge to
implement goals and objectives (appendix I).
Reserved Rights and Privately Owned
Mineral Estate
Purchase of some land tracts on the refuge were
subject to existing rights-of-way at the time of
purchase. Some of these rights-of-way include
Jackson County Roads 31, 32, and 34. The Colorado
State Highway Department owns a 100-foot right-of-
way on Highway 125 and a 50-foot right-of-way
on Highway 14.
Additional rights-of-way include buried telephone
lines along Highway 125 and 14, and power lines
along Highway 125, through the length of the east
side of the refuge and across the Case tract on the
south side.
With the purchases of land tracts, the refuge
acquired surface mineral rights on all its land
except the transfers from Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The refuge owns the majority
of the subsurface mineral rights; the State of
Colorado, BLM, and private landowners hold the
remainder.
Biological Resources
Refuge habitats provide for a variety of animals and
plants. Brief descriptions of these resources follow;
more details can be found in appendix H.
Habitat Management Units
Habitat on the refuge can be divided into four broad
types: riparian, wetland, meadow, and upland.
Acreages for each habitat type were calculated
using geographic information system (GIS)
software (Environmental Systems Research
Institute’s ArcView), with refuge boundary
topographic base maps and map layers from the
national wetland inventory (NWI).
Estimating width of the historic fl oodplain—using
topography and vegetative community changes as a
guide—determined width of the riparian area.
Meadow habitats were derived primarily using
maps from the NWI, with corrections for recent
wetland additions.
Acreage of the other three habitat types was
subtracted from the refuge’s base acreage to
calculate upland acreage.
Descriptions of the refuge’s habitat types follow.
Riparian Habitat
The riparian habitat covers 4,374 acres on the
refuge. It is composed of the channel, fl oodplain,
and transitional upland fringe along portions of the
Illinois River and Spring Creek.
Historically, the fl oodplain and transitional fringe
have been considered irrigated meadow. However,
this plan uses the terms channel, fl oodplain, and
transitional fringe because these components more
appropriately represent the collective functions and
processes of riparian habitats.
Such designation allows management potential of
the entire area to be more thoroughly evaluated
(fi gure 9–habitat management units).
32 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Management Units
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 9. Habitat management units of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
33
These willow species are found along the Illinois
River:
Drummonds’s
willow
coyote willow
Geyer’s willow
whiplash willow
mountain willow
planeleaf willow
Grass species common to these moist soil areas
include the following:
bluejoint reedgrass
timothy
mannagrass
smooth brome
meadow foxtail
meadow barley
Nevada bluegrass
sloughgrass
tufted hairgrass
saltgrass
Nebraska sedge
rush species
Nuttall’s
alkaligrass
redtop
winter bentgrass
The runs and pools in the river channel typically
contain aquatic vegetation including waterweed,
pondweed, and fi lamentous algae. Canada thistle is
the main invasive plant in this area.
Wildlife species that use the riparian-habitat
grasslands include waterfowl such as northern
pintail, mallard, gadwall, and green-winged teal.
Sage grouse broods use these areas to forage for
high-protein invertebrates.
The willow complex supports at least 40 species of
migrating songbirds such as yellow warbler and
willow fl ycatcher, along with moose, river otter,
beaver, and wintering elk. Water birds—including
common snipe, spotted sandpiper, sora, American
white pelican, and black-crowned night-heron—
extensively use this habitat type.
The cold-water system of the Illinois River supports
7 species of native and non-native fi sh and at least
17 taxa of aquatic invertebrates.
Wetland Habitat
Wetland habitat includes 824 acres of natural
and created ponds and lakes up to the high water
mark, excluding surrounding meadows and
riparian corridors. Ponds and lakes, henceforth
referred to as basins or wetlands, were delineated
using both NWI maps and refuge coverage maps.
Approximately 79 shallow wetlands exist on the
refuge (fi gure 6–base map).
For management purposes, three wetland
complexes were developed: the Case, Illinois,
and Soap Creek complexes (fi gure 10–wetland
complexes). The majority (90 percent) of wetland
basins are constructed. The purpose for these
artifi cial wetlands is to offset wetland losses
occurring elsewhere in the central fl yway.
Maintenance of these facilities provides benefi ts
to a host of wetland-dependent species, including
waterfowl.
Specifi c wetland objectives only account for
approximately 50 percent of the total wetland
surface area to be managed in a given year.
Drought, evaporative losses, periodic drawdowns
for aquatic vegetation enhancement, dike
maintenance activities, and fall migration
drawdowns account for the remainder of the
wetland surface area.
Aquatic vegetation of wetland habitats includes
both emergent species (e.g., cattail, spike rush,
and bulrush) and submerged species (e.g., sago
pondweed, leafy pondweed, and widgeongrass).
Invertebrate abundance is high in wetland basins.
Common invertebrates include true bugs, as well
as invertebrate families of the water boatman,
backswimmer, predacious diving beetle, and
crawling water beetles.
Invertebrates are a critical food source to many
waterfowl and shorebirds. Waterfowl species
include both diving ducks (e.g., lesser scaup,
canvasback, redhead, and ruddy duck) and puddle
ducks (e.g., mallard, northern shoveler, gadwall, and
American wigeon). Over-water nesting birds such
as the black-crowned night-heron, white-faced ibis,
marsh wren, coot, and blackbirds also extensively
use wetland habitats.
Meadow Habitat
Meadow habitat includes 2,683 acres of grasslands
and old hay meadows, except those along the
riparian corridor, which are considered riparian
habitat. These historically irrigated fi elds provide
the majority of the nesting habitat for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and songbirds. Meadow habitats
represent common feeding, resting, and loafi ng
areas for most birds and mammals on the refuge
(fi gure 9–habitat management units).
Yellow Warbler
Cornell Lab of Ornithology
34 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Wetland Complexes
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 10. Wetland complexes of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 35
The following vegetation, primarily native plants, is
common to meadow habitat:
slenderbeak sedge
capitate sedge
Hayden’s sedge
narrowleaf sedge
elk sedge
woolly sedge
Nebraska sedge
dunhead sedge
beaked sedge
shortbeak sedge
water sedge
golden sedge
softleaf sedge
new sedge
valley sedge
Colorado rush
Baltic rush
dagger-leaf rush
longstyle rush
tuberous rush
fi eld woodrush
smallfl owered
woodrush
Grass species common to these moist soil areas
include the following:
bluejoint reedgrass
timothy
mannagrass
smooth brome
meadow foxtail
meadow barley
Nevada bluegrass
sloughgrass
tufted hairgrass
saltgrass
Nuttall’s
alkaligrass
redtop
winter bentgrass
The following are common forbs:
sulphur buckwheat
Hood’s phlox
longleaf phlox
rosy pussytoes
silvery lupine
prairie lupine
groundsel species
narrow-leaved
maertensia
small bluebells
cinquefoil
early cinquefoil
stonecrop
wormleaf stonecrop
daisy species
beardtongue
Canada thistle is the main invasive plant in this area.
Wildlife species that use the meadow habitat
include waterfowl such as the northern pintail,
northern shoveler, gadwall, and green-winged teal.
Sage grouse broods use these areas to forage for
high-protein invertebrates. Snipe broods and other
grassland-nesting songbirds use this habitat type,
along with elk, pronghorn, and coyote.
Upland Habitat
The upland habitat consists of 14,285 acres of
a shrub-steppe plant community dominated
by sagebrush, drought-tolerant perennial
bunchgrasses, and forbs.
Uplands are the dominant refuge habitat type
and include all lands not accounted for in the
wetland, meadow, and riparian descriptions. Many
upland habitats exhibit a mosaic pattern around
meadow sites; these sites are generally managed as
meadows (fi gure 9–habitat management units).
Historical reports of the sagebrush-steppe plant
community are confl icting, and pre-settlement
community conditions may never be fully known.
The focus of past management efforts has been
devoted to wetland-dependent birds, therefore
information is limited about the upland plant
community.
Available information suggests that sagebrush
historically was the dominant plant species,
although perhaps taller (greater than 3 meters)
plants may have existed.
Floristic diversity in North Park has likely
decreased, especially within the grasses and forbs.
Management efforts for the past 50 years have
attempted to increase grass and forb abundance
through mechanical and chemical means.
In general, the sagebrush plant community appears
to be in fair condition, but given the lack of basic
information, management alternatives are diffi cult
to defi ne. Therefore, management objectives
center on developing an upland habitat database
that defi nes plant species, location, abundance, and
characteristics.
Secondly, the refuge proposes to “experiment�����
with 4,000 acres of uplands to create a preferred
plant community structure. Lessons learned will be
applied to larger pieces of upland habitats.
Upland vegetation consists primarily of the
following shrubs:
mountain big
sagebrush
Wyoming big
sagebrush
alkali sagebrush
fringed sage
black sagebrush
rubber rabbitbrush
Douglas
rabbitbrush
broom snakeweed
gray horsebrush
black greasewood
winterfat
The grasses below are dominant in the uplands:
muttongrass
Nevada bluegrass
Sandberg
bluegrass
bottlebrush
squirreltail
Idaho fescue
bluebunch
wheatgrass
western
wheatgrass
blue grama
elk sedge
needle and thread
green needlegrass
36 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Common forbs are listed below:
sulphur buckwheat
Hood’s phlox
longleaf phlox
rosy pussytoes
silvery lupine
prairie lupine
groundsel species
narrow-leaved
maertensia
small bluebells
cinquefoil
early cinquefoil
stonecrop
stonecrop
wormleaf
daisy species
beardtongue
Invasive plants include yellow toadfl ax and musk
thistle and occur primarily in disturbed sites.
Sage grouse are a sagebrush-obligate species,
requiring sagebrush plants for cover and food.
Vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage
thrasher are songbirds common to the uplands.
Elk, mule deer, and pronghorn are common big-game
users of upland habitats.
Wildlife Resources
A broad diversity of wildlife refl ects the refuge’s
habitat diversity.
Only those species that are residents or frequent
visitors to the refuge are discussed below. Many
species, especially birds, may infrequently inhabit
or migrate through the refuge.
All species of birds, mammals, fi sh, amphibians, and
reptiles are listed in appendix J.
Birds
A large number of ducks and Canada geese depend
on wetland, riparian, and meadow habitats for
foraging, nesting, brood-rearing, and molting. The
most common type of ducks breeding on the refuge
include lesser scaup, gadwall, American wigeon,
northern shoveler, and cinnamon teal.
Most of the ducks common to the refuge use the
three habitats listed above and, occasionally, some
species use the upland habitat. These ducks include
the green-winged teal, mallard, northern pintail,
cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, blue-winged teal,
gadwall, and American wigeon.
Redhead, ruddy duck, and lesser scaup depend on
wetlands for most of their life needs, with the scaup
and redhead nesting in meadows occasionally.
The ring-necked duck, canvasback, and buffl ehead
are generally spring and fall migratory visitors,
but the canvasback does infrequently nest on the
refuge. The common merganser primarily inhabits
riparian areas to meet their life requirements.
Canada goose is an abundant species that is the fi rst
to arrive in the spring and the last to migrate in the
fall. The geese use wetland, riparian, and meadow
habitats for foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing.
Wading birds are water birds that usually do not
swim or dive for food, but wade in shallow edges of
water for prey. Black-crowned night-heron, great
blue heron, and white-faced ibis are the common
breeding species on the refuge.
The ibis and black-crowned night-heron use
wetlands with heavy cattail/hardstem bulrush
vegetation for nesting and brood-rearing. They
forage in riparian, meadow, and wetland areas.
The great blue heron uses riparian habitat primarily
for nesting and foraging, but can be observed in
wetlands.
Shorebirds are most often found foraging for food
along the water margins; they use the refuge as a
migratory stopover and some nest there. American
avocet, willet, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, and
Wilson’s phalarope are the common nesters.
Avocet and willet mainly use the wetland habitat
for their needs. The killdeer is more of a generalist
and can be found in all habitats.
The spotted sandpiper and common snipe reside
mostly in riparian habitat. Wilson’s phalarope use
the meadow and riparian habitats for nesting and
forage; they rear young in the wetlands. Black-necked
stilt is an occasional nester in the wetlands.
Dowitchers, yellowlegs, and other sandpipers
use the area for a stopover during spring and fall
migration.
Other water birds are represented by a variety
of species. Pied-billed grebe, eared grebe, and
American coot use wetlands for nesting, foraging,
and brood-rearing. Virginia rail, sora rail, and
common snipe use the meadow/riparian habitats
extensively.
American white pelican, double-crested cormorant,
and California gull do not nest on the refuge but
use the area for foraging. Black and forester’s terns
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 37
nest in areas of dense sedge, cattail, and bulrush,
and forage in the wetlands.
Raptors consist of several families of hawks,
falcons, and owls. The most common raptors of the
refuge include the following:
northern harrier
Swainson’s hawk
rough-legged hawk
golden eagle
American kestrel
prairie falcon
short-eared owl
great horned owl
Only the golden eagle and great horned owl are
year-round residents. The rough-legged hawk is a
winter visitor while the rest of the birds are present
in the spring, summer, and fall.
The raptors use all habitats for nesting and
foraging. Red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk,
sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper’s hawk use the
area occasionally.
Upland bird species rely on the uplands primarily
to subsist. Several of the common upland birds are
sage grouse, horned lark, sage thrasher, vesper
sparrow, and Brewer’s sparrow.
The sage grouse and horned lark are year-round
residents. The sage grouse resides primarily in the
uplands, but uses the edges of riparian and meadow
habitats.
The sage thrasher, horned lark, and sparrows
depend on the upland area for nesting, but may
forage in the other habitats.
Neotropical migrants are birds that breed in North
America—north of Mexico—but winter in Mexico,
Central and South America, or the West Indies.
The following species are commonly found on the
refuge during either migration or the nesting
season. These birds rely heavily on riparian habitat
for foraging, cover, and nesting:
common nighthawk
belted kingfi sher
willow fl ycatcher
warbling vireo
house wren
marsh wren
yellow warbler
MacGillivray’s
warbler
common
yellowthroat
western kingbird
gray catbird
Wilson’s warbler
savannah sparrow
fox sparrow
song sparrow
Lincoln’s sparrow
white-crowned
sparrow
A few of these species also use the meadow and
wetland habitat for nesting or foraging, such as
the savannah sparrow and the marsh wren. The
cliff, barn, and tree swallows use a combination of
habitats including wetland, riparian, and meadow.
Resident and migrant songbirds breed in North
America and migrate throughout a limited North
American range:
mountain bluebird
American robin
dark-eyed junco
rosy fi nch
pine siskin
American
goldfi nch
lark bunting
These birds use riparian, meadow, and upland
habitats. Red-winged, yellow-headed, and Brewer’s
blackbirds use both wetlands and riparian for
nesting and foraging. Species such as the black-capped
chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, and
ruby-crowned kinglet use woody, riparian areas for
foraging, but tend to nest off the refuge.
The northern fl icker is the most common
woodpecker. This species inhabits riparian willow
habitat, but also uses uplands and meadows. Other
less common woodpeckers include downy and hairy
woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsucker.
Mammals
Big game animals common to the refuge include
pronghorn, mule deer, moose, and elk. As many
as 20 moose can be found on the refuge at any one
time, spending most of their time in the riparian
habitat.
The mule deer population is approximately 40
animals that roam on and off the refuge, spending
time in the riparian, meadow, and upland habitats.
White-tailed deer, with a population of about 20
animals, use the same areas as mule deer.
Pronghorn use the upland habitat primarily, but can
be found in the riparian and meadow habitats.
House wren
Everett and Nancy Collin
38 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Pronghorn use the refuge in the spring, summer,
and fall, with a population of about 50 animals
present at any one time. In the winter, the
pronghorn generally move north off the refuge,
making them a rare sight in the area.
A resident herd of approximately 150 elk resides
primarily in the riparian area in the southern half of
the refuge and on neighboring land.
During the winter (November through March) the
refuge and surrounding area hosts about 1,200 elk.
These animals are usually in several herds and use
riparian, meadow, and upland habitats.
The refuge has many small mammals, which use all
habitat types depending on their life requirements.
Common species of small mammals are listed below:
Nuttall’s cottontail
white-tailed
jackrabbit
least chipmunk
Wyoming ground
squirrel
white-tailed prairie
dog
beaver
deer mouse
montane vole
muskrat
porcupine
coyote
long-tailed weasel
mink
badger
striped skunk
Fish
The Illinois River and wetlands are two main types
of aquatic communities present on the refuge. The
Illinois River is a transition stream.
The river begins as a trout stream at the
headwaters and down to the southern end of the
refuge, to a native species stream by the time
it reaches the northern half of the refuge. The
splitting of the stream channel into two channels
appears to be the basis of this fi shery transition.
The low fl ows of the split are ultimately responsible
for trout giving way to the more tolerant native
species.
These species are common in the Illinois River on
the refuge:
brown trout
rainbow trout
northern redbelly
dace
fathead minnow
creek chub
long-nosed sucker
white sucker
Johnny darter
Potter and Spring Creeks are tributaries of the
Illinois River. These creeks provide little fi shery
habitat, with only a few native fi sh such as long-nosed
sucker, white sucker, fathead minnow, and
creek chub found in them.
Many of the wetlands will not support a fi shery,
with water depth and winter survival being the
limiting factors. The most common fi sh found in the
wetlands is the fathead minnow, a native fi sh that
has evolved in this type of habitat.
Reptiles and Amphibians
The wandering garter snake is the only reptile
known to inhabit the refuge. Sightings of this snake
are rare, with only one or two seen in a year.
Amphibians are slightly more numerous with the
following species: barred tiger salamander, western
toad, wood frog, northern leopard frog, and striped
chorus frog.
Chorus frogs
are found in
the wetland,
meadow, and
riparian areas;
they are the most abundant amphibian on the
refuge. The salamanders are primarily associated
with the wetlands but are seen in all habitats.
The wood frog has been documented once on the
refuge, in riparian habitat. The western toad is
extremely rare, as the habitat types on the refuge
are not ideal for this species. Leopard frogs have
been observed in the riparian habitat and in
irrigation ditches in the meadow habitat.
Invertebrates
Some sampling of invertebrates has been done on
wetland and riparian areas. Wetland invertebrates
were the most diverse, with 20 different families
represented in the sampling. Stream sampling
identifi ed 17 different taxa in the Illinois River.
Further sampling of invertebrates to establish a
quantitative baseline would assist in identifying
problems in wetland and riparian areas in the future.
Pronghorn
© Cindie Brunner
Tiger Salamander
© Cindie Brunner
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 39
Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate
Species and Other Species of Special Concern
Table 4 lists special-status wildlife, fi sh, and
amphibians that are known to use habitat types on
the refuge.
The bald eagle, a federally-listed species, is an
intermittent visitor on the refuge and a year-round
resident of the county. Nesting habitat does not
exist on the refuge but the eagle does use all habitat
types for foraging.
The peregrine falcon, which is proposed for federal
de-listing, is also an intermittent visitor, using all
the habitat types for foraging.
Burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, northern sage
grouse, long-billed curlew, and white pelican are
State of Colorado special-concern species.
Burrowing owls nest on the refuge, with an
occurrence of one nest found every 5 years. They
are a migrant in the fall of the year. Ferruginous
hawk occurs in the spring, summer, and fall,
foraging on refuge habitats.
Northern sage grouse are an abundant year-round
resident. The grouse use the upland, riparian, and
meadow habitats for breeding (one lek found on the
refuge), nesting, foraging, and brood-rearing.
Long-billed curlews are observed every few years.
White pelicans nest off the refuge on MacFarlane
Reservoir, frequenting the refuge to forage in
wetland and riparian habitats.
The river otter is a State of
Colorado endangered species.
The otter was
reintroduced
into a watershed
south of the refuge.
Several otters (an
average of one per year)
have been observed in the
southern half of the refuge’s
riparian habitat.
Little is known about the northern redbelly dace
on the refuge. This State of Colorado endangered
species is found in the Illinois River.
Northern leopard and wood frogs are special-concern
species for the State of Colorado. The
leopard frog is common and found in riparian and
meadow habitats. Wood frogs occur along the
Illinois River, south of refuge headquarters.
Table 4. Special-status wildlife, fi sh, plant, and amphibian species potentially occurring on Arapaho National
Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Common Name
Seasonal
Occurrence1 Federal and State Status2
Date Last
Observed3
Birds
American peregrine falcon
bald eagle
western burrowing owl
ferruginous hawk
northern sage grouse
long-billed curlew
American white pelican
SR
YR
B, M
SR
B, YR
M, SR
SR
CDOW species of concern
USFWS threatened species (proposed delisting)
CDOW threatened species
CDOW species of concern
CDOW species of concern
CDOW species of concern
CDOW species of concern
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
Mammals
river otter YR, B CDOW endangered species 2004
Plants
North Park phacelia YR USFWS endangered species 2004
Amphibians
northern leopard frog
wood frog
YR
YR
CDOW species of concern
CDOW species of concern
2004
2004
Source: Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1Seasonal occurrence: B=breeding (assumes summer resident), SR=summer resident (no evidence of breeding),
YR=year-round resident, M=migrant.
2See glossary for special-status defi nitions. CDOW=Colorado Division of Wildlife; USFWS=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3Data is from the refuge’s wildlife observation log.
© Cindie Brunner
River Otter
40 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Cultural Resources
Humans have used the mountains of Colorado for
thousands of years. Spear points dating to the
Paleoindian Period have been recovered in North
Park. The Paleoindian Period extends from 12000
B.C. to around 5740 B.C.
Although numerous other Paleoindian sites have
been located in Middle Park, including evidence of
bison hunting 10,000 years ago, known occurrences
of Paleoindian occupation in North Park have been
limited to small campsites. Some archaeologists
think Paleoindian groups lived in the Parks year-round;
others propose winter camps in the foothills
with exploitation of various mountain resources
during summer months.
The Archaic Period followed the Paleoindian
Period and lasted until A.D. 150. Hunters used
darts and throwing sticks called atlatls. There
was also a higher reliance on small game and
plant resources. A major drought on the Plains
(ca. 5000–2500 B.C.) caused change to settlement
and subsistence patterns. People moved into the
mountains for longer periods and exploited a wider
variety of plant and animal resources. Increased
moisture during the latter part of the Archaic
Period brought people back onto the Plains, but
the mountains continued to be an important part of
their subsistence. Activity increased in North Park
during this period.
The Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 150–1540)
saw the introduction of the bow and arrow and
ceramics. Bison hunting again became an important
part of the economy, but the people of this period
continued to rely on a variety of available plant
and animal resources. Researchers have proposed
a seasonal round of activities. People would leave
their foothills winter camps and head north into
the Laramie Basin, then south through North and
Middle Parks, collecting and hunting until fall.
From there, they would turn east to hunt bighorn
sheep along the Continental Divide on their way
back to the foothills.
The Protohistoric Period starts with European
contact, around A.D. 1540. Of the modern tribes, the
Utes are most often associated with the mountains
and long-term utilization of the resources of North
Park. There are also historic accounts of visits
to North Park by the Shoshone, Arapaho, and
Cheyenne peoples.
Archaeological sites in North Park are generally
small and associated with seasonal use of the area.
They include open campsites and lithic scatters with
stone circles (tepee rings) located along the ridges.
Culturally scarred trees and wickiups in forested
areas represent Protohistoric Ute use. Rock art
and bison kill sites, although uncommon, have been
reported in North Park.
The fi rst European visitors to New Park (now
known as North Park) were probably trappers.
Alexander Sinclair and Robert Bean headed the
fi rst known party of trappers in 1825. Several
famous trappers, miners, and hunters made their
way through North Park. Kit Carson, Jim Baker,
Sublette, Gervais and Vasquesz, Calvin Jones,
Henry Fraeb, John Gantt, and Pegleg Smith visited
North Park in the 1840s.
The second western expedition of John C. Fremont
took him through North Park in 1844. Sir George
Gore passed through the area on a hunting
expedition in 1855, and found mule deer, elk, beaver,
bear, and mountain sheep. By 1917, most of the
game species were gone.
Cyrus Mendenhall
began grazing cattle
in North Park in 1879.
By 1885, the beef
industry was booming,
and North Park had its
share of large ranches.
Overgrazing and severe
winters decimated herd
sizes in the area and by
1889 ranching was no
longer as profi table as it
had been.
In the late 1800s, the economy of North Park
shifted to mining. Mining of coal, gravel, fl uorspar,
copper, silver, and gold—along with logging and
ranching—became the main economic developments
of the area.
Cultural resource studies have been completed on
approximately 50 percent of the refuge. Signifi cant
cultural resources have been located, including
prehistoric stone circles and open campsites,
and historic ranches, graves, and other features
associated with Euro-American settlement of
North Park. Future efforts will continue to identify
existing cultural resources and protect them from
degradation. A detailed cultural resource overview
of North Park (Larson and Letts 2003) is available
from the Service’s regional archaeologist.
Special Management Areas
Limited special management areas currently
exist on the refuge. The refuge has no wilderness
designation or other similar land-use restriction
beyond refuge policy.
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge does not contain
any area that qualifi es for wilderness designation.
Blue Grama
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 41
All the lands within the refuge have been highly
manipulated and contain roads, since it was a
working ranch prior to its becoming a refuge.
The only specifi c historical or cultural areas include
grave sites, which will continue to be protected.
The refuge is operating under a 1982 habitat
management plan that provides guidance for land
management. This CCP replaces the 1982 plan.
Additionally, the refuge uses a hunting plan and
zone system (management units A, B, and C)
to distribute hunters, anglers, and other public
uses. This hunting plan will remain in effect until
completion of step-down management plans for
public use and hunting.
This CCP identifi ed other issues that may require
special management, as follows:
■ North Park phacelia—Preservation of this
endangered plant may require fencing and
plans to minimize disturbance and ensure the
survival and recovery of the species.
■ Elk road closures—During winter months, the
refuge will continue to close roads to minimize
disturbance to wintering elk. Coordination with
the CDOW and implementation of the revised,
step-down management plan for hunting may
alter this strategy.
■ Multi-use trail—Although this trail will be
located on the refuge boundary to minimize
wildlife and habitat disturbance, the potential
for litter and trespass will be higher. Signage
and additional law enforcement patrols will be
used to minimize these confl icts.
■ Owl Ridge Overlook—Located 0.25 mile south
of the headquarters, this site will facilitate
viewing of moose, elk, and mule deer. This site
is located on an existing road, therefore, the
potential for litter and trespass will be higher.
Signage and additional law enforcement patrols
will be used to minimize these confl icts.
■ Case Barn interpretive site—Located along
the auto tour route, this site may facilitate
historical interpretation of North Park and the
role ranching has played to preserve wildlife
habitats. The refuge will pursue partners to
rehabilitate and interpret these important
structures. This site is located on an existing
road; therefore, the potential for litter,
vandalism, and trespass will be higher. Signage
and additional law enforcement patrols will be
used to minimize these confl icts.
■ Hampton Barn—Depending on the outcome of
the review by the State Historical Preservation
Offi ce, the site may be used to facilitate
historical interpretation of North Park and the
role ranching has played to preserve wildlife
habitats. The refuge anticipates only developing
one barn interpretive site. The Case Barn
will be fi rst priority, based on its proximity to
the auto tour route. This site is located on an
existing road, therefore, the potential for litter,
vandalism, and trespass will be higher. Signage
and additional law enforcement patrols will be
used to minimize these confl icts.
Public Use
The annual number of visits to the refuge is
estimated at 7,200, which is an average for the past
6 years. This estimate is based broadly on a traffi c
counter on the auto tour route, visitors entering
the visitor center, and general observation. Table 5
summarizes estimated visits in four categories from
1997–2002.
Figure 11 displays location information for the
plan’s approved public use.
The visitor center is open Monday through Friday
(7:00 am–4:30 pm). Information, regulations, and
universally accessible restrooms are available
during the same hours.
A general leafl et contains a refuge map, describes
the refuge and its management, addresses habitats,
lists wildlife interpretational and recreational
activities, and cites regulations.
Three other leafl ets provide information for
refuge visitors: wildlife list, hunting guide, and
self-guided auto tour. The leafl ets are available in
three dispensers (auto tour entrance, headquarters
entrance, and Brocker Overlook) and at the visitor
center.
Compatible Wildlife-Dependent
Recreation
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge offers visitors a
variety of self-guided recreation opportunities. The
Improvement Act states that public use of a refuge
may be allowed only
where the use is
compatible with
the refuge system
mission and the
purpose of the
individual refuge.
The Improvement
Act sets forth a
current standard by
which the Secretary
of the Interior
shall determine
whether such
uses are compatible. The term “compatible use”
means a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent
42 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Public Use
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 11. Public use of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 43
recreational use or any other use that, in the
sound professional judgment of the Service, will
not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfi llment of the system’s mission or refuge’s
purpose.
Wildlife observation and photography, hunting,
fi shing, environmental education, and interpretation
are the six priority public uses of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Wildlife observation with interpretation is the most
popular public use on the refuge (table 5). Most
observation activity occurs on the auto tour route
and interpretive nature trail.
■ The auto tour route is on the west side of the
refuge and passes through meadow, wetland,
and upland areas, offering a diversity of wildlife
viewing (fi gure 11–public use). The wetlands on
this route offer optimum waterfowl and water
bird viewing.
■ The interpretive nature trail is just south of
the visitor center and meanders through a
riparian area (fi gure 11���public use). This area
is great for birding and the chance to encounter
mammals large and small.
Hunting
Hunting seasons begin in late August with archery
season for pronghorn, and continue through mid-
January. The most common species hunted are
pronghorn, sage grouse, Canada goose, and ducks.
Other species that are open to hunting include
Nuttall’s cottontail, white-tailed jackrabbit,
American coot, common snipe, Virginia rail, sora,
and mourning dove.
Certain areas are closed to hunting to protect
refuge facilities, limit public use confl icts, and
provide resting and feeding habitat for migratory
birds (fi gure 11–public use). Closed areas such as
the Case tract (unit A) are posted with signs and
mapped in the hunting leafl et.
Fishing
Fishing is limited to designated areas of the Illinois
River. The Illinois River runs north, through the
east side of the refuge. Three parking areas provide
fi shing access.
Fishing is in accordance with State of Colorado
fi shing regulations for the Illinois River. The refuge
is closed to fi shing from June 1 to July 31 each year
to minimize disturbance to nesting waterfowl.
Environmental Education
Environmental education activities are limited
at the refuge, with an on-demand approach. The
refuge staff has worked with various groups such as
Boy and Girl Scouts, colleges, the county extension
offi ce, and local elementary and junior and senior
high schools.
Programs and talks have included the following:
■ “Day in the Wo