Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 1
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Browns Park
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
2 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 3
4 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 5
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background
Background ................................................................................................ 1
Purpose and Need for Plan ....................................................................... 1
Planning Process ....................................................................................... 1
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission ................................................ 1
Planning Issues and Opportunities
Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 2
Habitat ....................................................................................................... 2
People ......................................................................................................... 2
Refuge and Resource Description
Geographic/Ecosystem/Flyway Setting................................................... 7
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife .................................................................... 8
Water Manipulations .............................................................................. 8
Fire ......................................................................................................... 8
Grazing ................................................................................................... 8
Wetlands .................................................................................................... 9
Riparian ..................................................................................................... 10
Grassland ................................................................................................... 10
Uplands-Semidesert Shrubland ............................................................... 10
Uplands-Pinyon-Juniper ........................................................................... 17
Uplands-Rock/Cliff .................................................................................... 17
Special Status Species ............................................................................... 18
Public Use .................................................................................................. 20
Refuge Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 21
Refuge Land Acquisition ........................................................................... 21
Refuge Fire Management ......................................................................... 22
Refuge Water Rights ................................................................................. 22
Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Refuge Establishment and Purpose ......................................................... 25
Refuge Mission .......................................................................................... 25
Refuge Goals .............................................................................................. 25
Wildlife ................................................................................................... 25
Habitat ................................................................................................... 25
People ..................................................................................................... 25
Refuge Objectives and Strategies ............................................................. 26
Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 26
Habitat ....................................................................................................... 27
Wetlands .................................................................................................... 27
Riparian ..................................................................................................... 28
Grasslands ................................................................................................. 28
Semidesert Shrublands ............................................................................. 29
Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands ....................................................................... 29
People ......................................................................................................... 30
Plan Implementation
Funding and Personnel Requirements ..................................................... 31
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................ 32
Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................ 32
Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................ 32
6 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Appendices
Appendix A. Wildlife Species of Browns Park NWR............................... 33
Appendix B. Water Rights ....................................................................... 37
Appendix C. Key Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................... 39
Appendix D. Environmental Assessment ............................................... 41
Appendix E. References ........................................................................... 45
Appendix F. List of Preparers ................................................................. 47
Appendix G. Project Description Worksheets ......................................... 49
Appendix H. Compatibility Determination .............................................. 65
Appendix I. Section 7 Consultation ......................................................... 67
Appendix J. Mailing List of Agencies and Individuals ............................ 73
Appendix K. Finding of No Significant Impact ........................................ 75
Appendix L. Summary of Public Involvement ........................................ 79
Maps
1. Vicinity Map ......................................................................................... 3
2. General Refuge Map ............................................................................ 5
3. Wetland Vegetation Communities ........................................................ 11
4. Riparian Vegetation Communities ....................................................... 13
5. Upland Vegetation Communities ......................................................... 15
6. Proposed Refuge Expansion ................................................................ 23
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 7
Introduction and Background
Background
Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) has been a
part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) since 1963.
Located in northwest Colorado along the Green River as it
flows through the remote valley known as Browns Park
(or Browns Hole), the 13,455-acre Refuge was formally
established by Public Land Order 4973, December 11, 1970
(see Map 1). Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and
the Refuge Recreation Act, the purposes of Browns Park
NWR are to provide sanctuary for migratory birds, to
provide for suitable fish and wildlife dependent recreation,
protection of natural resources, and conservation of
endangered and threatened species.
The Refuge possesses three key wildlife values: its wetlands
provide important migration and breeding habitat for
waterfowl and waterbirds, riparian habitat provides
important migration and breeding habitat for songbirds, and
Refuge uplands provide critical winter habitat for large
mammals such as mule deer, elk, and pronghorn. Browns
Park NWR also provides unique and important values for
people. Wildlife, solitude, scenery, and cultural history
combine to make the Refuge a national treasure (see Map 2).
Purpose and Need for Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal
agency with responsibility for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats. The Service
manages a diverse network of more than 500 National
Wildlife Refuges, a System which encompasses more than
92 million acres of public land and water which provides
habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals,
fish, and insects.
Past management of the Refuge has varied greatly. Although
past managers used the best information available to them at
the time, oftentimes their efforts were short-term, disjointed,
and counterproductive. As a result, many management
issues went unaddressed. It is now apparent that the need
exists for a long-term comprehensive plan that considers the
true purpose and values of the Refuge, these unaddressed
issues, and all aspects of Refuge management.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) were mandated
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 (Act) . The Act requires that all lands and waters
of the National Wildlife Refuge System be managed in
accordance with an approved Plan that guides management
decisions, sets forth strategies for achieving Refuge
purposes, and contributes to the System mission.
Benefits of the Plan are several: better long-term
continuity in Refuge management, better understanding
of Refuge management actions for Refuge staff members
and visitors, a clear description of future development and
funding needs, and the assurance that Refuge management
will fulfill the mission of the System and the specific
purposes for which the Refuge was established.
Planning Process
The Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan is guided by the established purposes of
the Refuge, the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service compatibility
standards, and other Service policies, plans, and laws
directly related to Refuge management. This Plan
establishes the goals, objectives, management guidelines
and strategies, and monitoring and evaluation strategies
for the Refuge.
The Plan will be used to prepare step-down management
plans, revise existing plans, and performance standards
and budgets which describe specific actions to be taken by
the Refuge over the next 15 years. Given that new
information and guidance frequently arise, the Plan will be
updated as necessary. The effects of major management
actions will be documented to provide information to future
managers as to the effects of actions taken.
A questionnaire was distributed to Refuge neighbors and
some of the known Refuge users in an effort to get comments
and ideas. The questionnaire was also distributed at two open
houses, one held in Craig, Colorado and the other at Refuge
headquarters. Although the turnout was light at the open
houses, responses to the questionnaires were received
from a number of individuals. The Refuge is quite remote
and surrounded by public land, so it has few close
neighbors. Most interested individuals are not from the
local area and have been difficult to identify and contact.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission
National wildlife refuges are all about wildlife. The mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a
national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within
the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
8 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Planning Issues and Opportunities
Issues to be addressed in the Plan were identified by the
public, the Refuge staff, and other Service employees. A
formal effort was made to obtain input from Refuge
neighbors and Refuge visitors, though this can be difficult in
such a remote location. The range of issues are as diverse as
the individuals providing them; however, several common
themes emerged. Issues fall into broad categories of
Wildlife, Habitat, and People and are discussed below.
Wildlife
Refuge wildlife species are far ranging and impacted by
activities that occur beyond the Refuge boundary. The
opportunity exists for Refuge staff to engage in wildlife
conservation in the surrounding ecosystem and to better
protect and manage the Refuge through expansion.
Habitat
Opportunities exist to better focus Refuge habitat
management efforts on the needs of special status
species and other wildlife for which the Refuge provides
essential habitat.
The Nelson and Warren wetland units are plagued by an
overabundant canopy coverage of emergent vegetation that
makes them less useful for many species of waterfowl,
shorebirds, and other waterbirds. The opportunity exists to
change the water management regime in these units to
better control coverage of emergent vegetation and
diversify and increase foods for migratory birds.
The Horseshoe and Grimes wetland units provide very
little habitat as compared to the costs of operating them.
The units have never held water well, and the cost of
continuously pumping to maintain them is high. The area
is infested with nonnative plants. The opportunity exists
to restore these units to seasonal wet meadow or upland
habitats. Water rights currently used to maintain these
units must be evaluated for transfer to other uses.
Riparian habitat is declining along the Green River on
the Refuge due to the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam
and the continuing invasion of nonnative plants. The
opportunity exists to restore this habitat.
People
Facilities to meet the minimum needs of Refuge visitors are
lacking or outdated. Orientation kiosks are not placed at the
entrance points of the Refuge, and many first-time visitors
get lost. Many of these needs are not currently addressed
because of lack of funds and staff time. Opportunities to
inform visitors and raise their appreciation for wildlife are
being missed. Photography and other wildlife dependent
recreation is currently limited. Some facilities on the
Refuge do not meet the Federal standards of accessibility
for people with disabilities. The opportunity exists to more
fully develop public use on the Refuge.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 9
10 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 11
12 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 13
Refuge and Resource Description
Geographic/Ecosystem/Flyway Setting
Biogeographers have divided North America into
provinces; natural regions that share similar climate,
soils, topography, and vegetation. The Refuge lies within
the Middle Rocky Mountains province; however, it is also
adjacent to the Wyoming Basin province and the Colorado
Plateau province. The Refuge includes a mixture of habitats
from all three provinces and consequently provides habitat
for 300 terrestrial wildlife species (222 birds, 68 mammals,
11 reptiles, and 4 amphibians - listed in Appendix A).
In 1994, refuges were directed to become involved with
wildlife conservation in the ecosystem that surrounds
them. Part of the rationale was that wildlife on field
stations are affected by influences way beyond the
station’s boundary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
organized into watershed-based ecosystems, and Browns
Park lies in the Upper Colorado River Ecosystem.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming and
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge in Utah are two other
National Wildlife Refuges included in this ecosystem.
The three Refuges share many similarities. All are
located along the Green River and have significant
amounts of wetland and riparian habitat.
The Upper Colorado River Ecosystem incorporates the
watersheds, headwaters, tributaries (including the Green
River), and mainstem of the Colorado River in Wyoming,
Utah, and Colorado. The aquatic systems in this region
are vital not only for native wildlife but also for millions of
people in seven arid southwestern states. Once naturally
diverse, many of these systems have been fragmented and
degraded as a result of water development projects, land-use
practices, and introduction of nonnative animals and
plants. In 1994, an interagency planning team met to
develop broad goals and objectives for the Upper Colorado
River Ecosystem. Resource issues identified for the
Ecosystem are closely related to resource issues and
concerns raised by the staff of Browns Park NWR. Goals
developed by the ecosystem planning team are
summarized below.
P Goal: Restore and maintain an aquatic system capable of
supporting the diversity of native aquatic communities
to achieve recovery of listed and candidate species and
prevent the need for future listings.
P Goal: Reverse the current trend (riparian and wetland
loss/degradation); restore, maintain, and enhance the
species composition, the extent and spacial distribution
of wetland/riparian habitats.
P Goal: Promote terrestrial biological diversity and
ecosystem stability through sound land management
practices thereby avoiding fragmentation, degradation,
and loss of terrestrial habitats.
The Refuge is located west of the continental divide and
considered part of the Pacific Flyway. It is also included
in the Intermountain West Joint Venture region of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan developed
to restore waterfowl populations in North America.
Other regional wildlife resource planning efforts that
may affect management of the Refuge have been
conducted by the Service, other Federal agencies,
States, and conservation interest groups. Such initiatives
also include cooperative management plans for Pacific
Flyway migratory bird species. Species for which plans
exist include the Rocky Mountain population of Canada
geese, western Canadian arctic snow geese, Pacific
Flyway Ross’ goose, Rocky Mountain population of
greater sandhill crane, Rocky Mountain population of
trumpeter swan, western population of tundra swan, and
Western Management Unit of mourning dove.
14 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife
Climate, soils, and topography ultimately determine
vegetation communities. Vegetation communities are
habitats for wildlife. Many wildlife species show strong
preferences for certain habitat types. They have evolved
along with their habitats and, as a result, are highly
dependent on them. Much of the biological information in
this section is from unpublished data collected on the
Refuge over its 36 year history.
The habitats on the Refuge can be separated into five broad
types: wetlands, riparian, grassland, semidesert shrubland,
and pinyon-juniper. Rock/cliff can be considered a habitat
sub-type, as it occurs within the five broad habitats, and
many species make use of it. These five broad habitats and
the one sub-type are discussed below as they exist on the
Refuge. Wildlife species that use the Refuge and are
dependent on these habitat types for breeding are also
discussed.
Refuge habitats are actively managed to benefit certain
wildlife species. Managers have a variety of “tools”
available to improve or alter habitats as needed. The
tools most commonly used on Browns Park include
water level manipulation with dikes, levees, water control
structures and pumps, prescribed fire, and grazing.
Water Manipulations:
In wetlands, water levels are closely controlled to
provide optimum growing conditions for important
forage plants used by migratory waterbirds. The Butch
Cassidy, Log Lake, and Flynn wetland units are usually
managed to maintain deep permanent water required by
migrating diving ducks and other breeding waterfowl.
The Spitzie, Warren, Hoy, and Nelson units are either
flooded or allowed to remain dry during the growing
season on a rotating basis to encourage the growth of
highly nutritious moist soil plants. During spring or fall
migration, these wetland units are shallowly flooded to
make these plants and their associated insects available
to migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. When the units
become dominated by emergent vegetation (cattail and
bulrush) they are allowed to dry up completely for
controlled burning. Once burned, an agricultural disc is
dragged through the unit to break up, expose, and kill
the rhizomes of emergent plants to retard their spread.
Fire:
Fire is a tool used for a variety of reasons. Most commonly
it is used to set vegetation back to an earlier successional
stage and diversify the structure of habitats. In grasslands,
it is used to remove residual vegetation and dead litter,
increase the vigor of grass plants, and to control the
encroachment of brushy species. On the Refuge, it is
frequently used to prepare a site for a subsequent
treatment. In areas infested with nonnative plants, it is
used to remove residual vegetation that would interfere
with herbicide application. Where tamarisk grows to a large
size in continuous stands, herbicides are largely ineffective.
Fire is used to kill the above-ground portion of the plants.
When the plants resprout, they are sprayed; the herbicide
is then transported more effectively to the rootball where it
can kill the entire plant.
The Refuge must comply with Colorado State air quality
regulations and obtains particulate emissions source
permits prior to all prescribed burns. While fire is very
efficient in terms of cost per acre, its use in sensitive
areas (riparian areas and around Refuge facilities) can be
risky and demands careful planning.
Grazing:
Historically, grazing was applied widely as a management
tool before it was determined to be incompatible with the
needs of ground nesting birds, especially ducks. Winter-long
grazing in riverbottom areas removes residual
vegetation that ground nesting birds need to hide nests
from predators. While this particular use and timing of
grazing was deemed incompatible, it does not preclude
using grazing to control vegetation in other habitats. For
a grazing program to be beneficial to the Refuge, it would
have to meet a number of conditions: it would have to be
confined primarily to uplands, grazing treatments in
riverbottom areas would require a highly cooperative and
responsive permittee to hire a full-time herder, grass
plants would need to be monitored to ensure that less
than 50 percent of the above ground portion of the plants
were being consumed, administration of the program
must not take staff time away from high priority habitat
projects in wetland and riparian areas, the permittee
must ensure that the grazing program is conducted as
directed by Refuge staff, and no additional fences will
need to be erected that will impede wildlife movements.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 15
Wetlands
Approximately 1,245 acres of wetland habitat exists on
the Refuge. This includes both deep-water and shallow
marshes and wet meadows. Hardstem bulrush (Scirpus
acutus) and cattail (Typha latifolia) are the dominant
plant species. This habitat exists in seven active marsh
units throughout the length of the Refuge adjacent to the
Green River (see Map 3). From upstream to downstream,
the names of the active marsh units are: Butch Cassidy,
Hog Lake, Flynn, Spitzie, Warren, Nelson, and Hoy.
Refuge species that depend on this habitat for breeding
include pied-billed grebe, American bittern, gadwall,
American wigeon, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, northern
shoveler, northern pintail, green-winged teal, canvasback,
redhead, ring-necked duck, ruddy duck, Virginia rail,
sora, American coot, marsh wren, red-winged blackbird,
yellow-headed blackbird, tiger salamander, Woodhouse’s
toad, northern leopard frog, mink, and muskrat.
The American bittern, northern harrier, and white-faced
ibis are listed as species of management concern.
Wetlands on the Refuge provide important breeding
habitat for bitterns and harriers. Ibis do not currently nest
on the Refuge; however, approximately 300 utilize Refuge
wetland habitats during spring and fall migration. Bitterns
nest in large areas of emergent vegetation, especially
hardstem bulrush. Harriers prefer large areas of dense,
high grass, usually adjacent to wetlands.
A great number of migratory waterbirds rely on wetland
habitat on the Refuge for foraging and resting during
spring and fall migration. Browns Park contains the only
significant wetland habitat for miles around. Peak use
can total approximately 20,000 waterbirds in April-May
and again in October.
The Butch Cassidy wetland unit is fed by water diversions
from Beaver Creek, a perennial stream crossing the
Refuge. Additional diversions from the creek irrigate
grasslands and create wet meadow habitat. The six
remaining wetland units are flooded with water
pumped from the Green River. The Refuge staff diverts
approximately 12,000 acre-feet of water annually from
all sources. The Service’s Draft Biological Opinion on the
operation of Flaming Gorge Dam reviewed the Refuge’s
water depletion from the River when analyzing the effects
on four endangered Colorado fish species, and found this
depletion to be consistent with its recommendations.
Current water rights (Appendix B) are ample for the
wetland management outlined in the CCP.
The Nelson and Warren wetland units have a history of
problems with overabundant emergent vegetation. Up to
90 percent of these units are covered with hardstem
bulrush. Very little open water exists making these units
less valuable for waterfowl and shorebirds.
The Horseshoe and Grimes wetland units were retired in
1996 due to their inability to hold water, the continuing
spread of nonnative plants, and the high costs of pumping
water, maintaining equipment, and applying herbicides.
Historically, the units’ value to wildlife was low. Retirement
of these wetland units will also reduce the Refuge’s annual
water withdrawals from the Green River, benefitting
endangered fishes of the Colorado River system downstream.
16 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Riparian
This habitat includes the narrow ribbon of trees along the
creeks and rivers on the Refuge. Approximately 1,112 acres
of riparian habitat exists on the Refuge. The dominant plant
species are Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii),
narrow-leaved cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), river
birch (Betula fontinalis), buffaloberry (Shepherdia
argentea), three-leaved sumac (Rhus aromatica), boxelder
(Acer negundo), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua). On the
Refuge, this habitat exists along Beaver Creek, Vermillion
Creek, and the Green River (see Map 4).
Riparian habitat along the Green River has been declining
since the construction of Flaming Gorge Dam upstream.
Riparian plants evolved with a dynamic river hydrologic
regime. Spring flooding and the deposition of fine textured
soil was especially important to cottonwood. The dam has
eliminated spring flooding, sifted out the fine textured soils,
and stabilized the water regime allowing nonnative plants to
thrive and spread. Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium
latifolium), saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), Russian
knapweed (Centaurea repens), and leafy spurge
(Euphorbia esula) have been the most troublesome
nonnative plants. Pepperweed occupies 54 acres in pure
stands but is scattered over approximately 1,000 acres
where it is mixed in with other species. Likewise, saltcedar
occupies 12 acres in pure stands but is scattered over
approximately 100 acres. Russian knapweed occurs in
scattered clumps on approximately 100 acres. Leafy spurge
occurs as widely scattered individual plants (fewer than 100
plants total) over approximately 10 acres.
Refuge species that depend on this habitat for breeding
include great blue heron, Barrow’s goldeneye, common
merganser, spotted sandpiper, yellow-billed cuckoo,
western screech-owl, willow flycatcher, Eastern kingbird,
house wren, yellow warbler, Bullock’s oriole, moose,
beaver, and river otter.
Riparian forest provides habitat for the greatest number
of migratory bird species on the Refuge. Countless
numbers and species of birds rely on the riparian forest
of the Green River to migrate to and from their breeding
areas to the north. Refuge bird inventory work indicates
that this habitat is especially important to migrating
warbling vireo, orange-crowned warbler, yellow warbler,
northern waterthrush, MacGillivray’s warbler, Wilson’s
warbler, yellow-breasted chat and other species. Birds
use this habitat for foraging, roosting, and cover during
migration. Forest breeding birds that winter in Central
and South America are not capable of migrating through
the arid semidesert shrubland of Utah, Colorado, and
Wyoming. Instead, they rely on the north-south riparian
forest corridor of the Colorado and Green Rivers to get
them to breeding areas at higher latitudes and elevations.
Grassland
Approximately 1,906 acres of grassland habitat exists on
the Refuge. Dominant plant species in this habitat include
alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), inland saltgrass
(Distichlis spicata), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum
smithii), and Great Basin wildrye (Elymus cinereus).
Grasslands are found primarily along Beaver Creek, the
Green River, and Ryegrass Draw (see Map 5).
Refuge species that depend on this habitat for breeding
include savannah sparrow and montane vole. Refuge
grasslands provide winter range for approximately 400
elk during normal winters; harsh winters may bring as
many as 1,200. Mule deer also forage in grassland and
other areas during winter.
Uplands-Semidesert Shrubland
Approximately 7,930 acres of semidesert shrubland
exists on the Refuge. The dominant plant species are big
sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata), black sagebrush
(Artemesia nova), greasewood (Sarcobatus
vermiculatus), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.),
spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), shadscale (Atriplex
confertifolia), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata),
Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), needle-and-thread
(Stipa comata), sand dropseed (Sporobolus
cryptandrus), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). This
habitat covers much of the uplands throughout the
Refuge.
Refuge species that rely on this habitat for breeding
include sage grouse, burrowing owl, short-eared owl,
loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow,
sage sparrow, Ord’s kangaroo rat, and sagebrush vole.
Loggerhead shrike and Brewer’s sparrow are listed as
species of management concern. Semidesert shrublands on
the Refuge provide important
breeding habitat for both species.
Loggerhead shrike have very
specific habitat requirements.
They prefer nesting in isolated
clumps of greasewood or other
shrubs in close proximity to
powerlines for perching, barbed
wire fences for food caches, and
unvegetated areas for foraging.
Brewer’s sparrow prefers
nesting in arid shrubs such as greasewood or sagebrush of
moderate height (2 to 5 feet) and high to moderate density.
Sage grouse are declining throughout their range in
western states. Two leks have been located on the
Refuge, and it is likely several others exist.
The Refuge provides winter range for mule deer and, to a
lesser extent, pronghorn. Approximately 1,000 mule
deer winter on the Refuge each year. Pronghorn usually
number less than 50.
Loggerhead Shrike
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 17
18 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 19
20 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 21
22 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 23
Uplands-Pinyon-Juniper
Approximately 1,083 acres of pinyon-juniper habitat
exists on the Refuge. As the name implies, the dominant
plant species are Colorado pinyon pine (Pinus edulis)
and Utah juniper (Sabina osteosperma). Pinyon-juniper
is found in homogeneous stands along the southern
border and in scattered clumps throughout the Refuge.
Refuge species that rely on this habitat for breeding
include gray flycatcher, pinyon jay, juniper titmouse,
black-throated gray warbler, and pinyon mouse.
Active management of this habitat has not occurred in
the past nor is any planned for the future.
Uplands-Rock/Cliff
Although a great deal of this sub-habitat exists on the
Refuge, it is mostly interspersed with pinyon-juniper
woodland making the acreage difficult to determine. On
the Refuge, this habitat is found along the Green River
above Hog Lake and along the southern border.
Refuge species that rely on this sub-habitat for breeding
include turkey vulture, golden eagle, peregrine falcon,
prairie falcon, white-throated swift, common raven, rock
wren, canyon wren, California myotis, western small-footed
myotis, long-eared myotis, little brown myotis,
fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, western pipistrelle,
big brown bat, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat,
pallid bat, cliff chipmunk, spotted skunk, and tree lizard.
24 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Special Status Species
For the purposes of this Plan, a special status species is
one that is designated as an Endangered or Threatened
Species or Species of Management Concern under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) and/or
State protective acts. Twenty-two special status wildlife
species use the Refuge. However, it provides important
habitat for only eight; American bittern, white-faced ibis,
bald eagle, northern harrier, peregrine falcon, loggerhead
shrike, Brewer’s sparrow, and river otter. The northern
harrier, loggerhead shrike, and Brewer’s sparrow are
the most abundant special status species on the Refuge.
The federally endangered Colorado pike minnow inhabits
the Green River. The Refuge does not have control of the
habitat of the pike minnow as the State of Colorado has
jurisdiction over the River below the high water line.
Pike minnow are infrequently caught by Refuge anglers
and are observed from riverbanks on the Refuge. Service
biologists working on the recovery of the pike minnow do
not believe that the fish are breeding in this reach of the
River. They feel the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam
has lowered the water temperature of the Green River to
the extent that it is too cold for pike minnow spawning.
For this reason, the reach of the Green River passing
through the Refuge is not designated as critical habitat
for the species.
The river otter is a State-listed Endangered Species.
Otters reintroduced to the Green River below Flaming
Gorge Dam have colonized the Refuge and are frequently
sighted in the River and in Refuge marshes each year.
Young of the year have also been sighted, indicating that
breeding is occurring on or adjacent to the Refuge.
Bald eagles, listed as a Threatened Species, are found in
riparian habitat on the Refuge during the winter. These
birds use the large trees for perch sites where they hunt
for fish in the River. Approximately 30 eagles spend the
winter on the Refuge each year. The peregrine falcon
(recently removed from the Federal list of endangered
and threatened species) is frequently observed hunting
for waterbirds over Refuge marshes during the spring,
summer, and fall. Nesting occurs adjacent to the Refuge
in Lodore Canyon within Dinosaur National Monument.
The Ute ladies-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) is
a federally listed Threatened Species. It has been
documented along the Green River in Browns Park and
recently found within the floodplain of the Green River
on the Refuge. Table 1 lists Special Status Species
occurring on the Refuge.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 25
Table 1. Special Status Species of Browns Park NWR
Species Status Abundance Primary Habitat Use
Peregrine Falcon ENDA Unco Migr Unco Summ Marsh
Ute Ladies-tresses ENDA Rare Riparian
Bald Eagle THRE Comm WintRare Summ Riparian
White-faced Ibis SPMC FaCo Migr Rare Summ Marsh
Trumpeter Swan SPMC Rare Wint Marsh
Northern Goshawk SPMC Rare Migr Riparian
Ferruginous Hawk SPMC Rare Migr SD Shrubland
Mountain Plover SPMC Rare Migr SD Shrubland
Black Tern SPMC Unco Migr Marsh
Burrowing Owl SPMC Rare Migr Rare Summ SD Shrubland
Common Loon SPMC Rare Migr Marsh
American Bittern SPMC Unco Migr Unco Summ Marsh
Northern Harrier SPMC Comm Migr FaCo Summ Grassland
Long-billed Curlew SPMC Rare Migr Rare Summ Grassland
Yellow-billed Cuckoo SPMC Rare Migr Rare Summ Riparian
Short-eared Owl SPMC Unco Migr Unco Summ SD Shrubland
Olive-sided Flycatcher SPMC Unco Migr Riparian
Gray Flycatcher SPMC FaCo Migr FaCo Summ PJ Woodland
Bewick’s Wren SPMC FaCo Migr FaCo Summ PJ Woodland
Loggerhead Shrike SPMC Comm Migr Comm Summ SD Shrubland
Virginia’s Warbler SPMC FaCo Migr Unco Summ Riparian
Brewer’s Sparrow SPMC Comm Migr Comm Summ SD Shrubland
River Otter ENDA* Unco Resi Marsh
KEY:
Status
ENDA=Endangered; *=State-listed
SPMC=Species of Management Concern
THRE=Threatened
Abundance
Abun=Abundant
Comm=Common
FaCo=Fairly Common
Unco=Uncommon
Rare=Rare
Season
Resi=Resident (Year-round)
Migr=Migrant (Spring and/or Fall)
Wint=Winter
Summ=Summer
26 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Public Use
Browns Park NWR is located in the remote northwest
corner of Colorado, 95 miles from the nearest town of
Craig, Colorado. The Refuge offers a number of wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities for people in a
setting that combines abundant wildlife, beautiful
scenery, solitude, and rich old-west history. This unique
mixture can be found nowhere else in the System and
makes the Refuge one of its hidden treasures. Access
and location limit visitation to about 10,000 visits each
year. Plans underway to pave the primary access route
from Utah into Browns Park will likely increase visitation.
Wildlife-dependent recreational activities occurring on
the Refuge primarily include the six priority public uses
defined in the Refuge System Improvement Act:
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation.
Hunting is allowed on the Refuge for mule deer, elk,
cottontail rabbit, ducks, geese, coots, and mourning
doves. The Refuge lies within State of Colorado limited
quota quality hunting units for deer and elk making this
a world class hunting area for those species. Waterfowl
hunting is allowed on the Butch Cassidy and Hog Lake
wetland units and throughout the Green River corridor.
A waterfowl hunting blind for persons with disabilities is
available on Hog Lake.
Fishing on the Refuge is primarily for cold-water species
as the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam has lowered the
temperature of the Green River in this area. Brown trout
are relatively common in deep portions of the River
where the structure and good current exists. Fishing is
allowed along Beaver Creek for brook trout and native
Colorado River cutthroat trout. Some questions arise as
to whether these two fish populations still exist. A fishing
pier for persons with disabilities is available on the Green
River near Hog Lake.
Wildlife observation occurs throughout the Refuge and
at all seasons of the year. Two campgrounds are
currently available to facilitate wildlife watching at dawn
and dusk in this remote area. Minimal development of
one of the campgrounds is needed to define campsites
and parking, replacement of a pit toilet, and to provide
safe fire rings. Visitor use does not justify development
or operation of both campgrounds. The Refuge will form
a small working group to review both sites and discuss
potential closure of one and development of the other.
The working group will use criteria such as safe
accommodation of vehicles and horse trailers, water
availability, tree canopy and shade, need for and costs of
maintenance, etc., to determine which site might be
closed. A 10-mile wildlife drive passes through the
Refuge on the north side of the River. An overlook has
been built off of the wildlife drive above the Spitzie
wetland unit. A birdwatching foot trail has been
developed along Beaver Creek near Refuge Headquarters.
Development of bird, mammal, amphibian, and reptile
checklists will facilitate wildlife observation.
Photography is allowed throughout the Refuge, but no
special facilities exist. A boardwalk and photo blind could
be placed on the Spitzie wetland unit to enhance this use.
Opportunities for environmental education are somewhat
limited due to the Refuge’s remote location. Special
events preplanned with schools have been successful.
The Refuge currently holds International Migratory
Bird Day and National Wildlife Refuge Week events each
year.
Interpretation opportunities are numerous on the Refuge,
but they remain undeveloped to date. Interpretation is
currently limited to kiosk signs at Headquarters and on the
wildlife drive. A brochure describing the area’s cultural
history, interpretive signs for the birdwatching trail and
wildlife drive, and exhibits for the visitor contact area of
Headquarters would enhance the Refuge’s efforts to
explain the Service mission and purposes for which the
Refuge was established.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 27
Refuge Cultural Resources
The Browns Park area is rich in cultural resources. The
earliest visible cultural sites belong to the Fremont Indian
culture that occupied Browns Park from approximately
300AD. Granaries, or storage buildings that held corn,
remain today. This same culture left petroglyphs, rock
carvings of strange peoples and animals, on rock slabs on
and near the Refuge. Sometime after the Fremonts
disappeared, a portion of the Shoshone or Snake Tribe
arrived and began spending winters in the relatively mild
climate of Browns Park. Tepee rings and other less
dramatic evidence remain on the Refuge. During the
Shoshone occupation, Euro-American trappers and traders
entered the Valley. Three of these traders built a fort they
christened Fort Davy Crockett. Sometime after the fur
trade dissolved, cattle ranchers entered the Valley and
began grazing the surrounding area. Not long after,
outlaws, including such notables as Butch Cassidy and the
Wild Bunch, set up in the Valley because it offered
shelter from the law and for their rustled livestock.
Three National Historic Sites exist on the Refuge. The
Lodore School is a schoolhouse that was erected in 1911.
The Refuge permits the Browns Hole Homemakers
Club to maintain and use the School for community
events. The Two Bar Ranch is a late 19th century ranch
that was winter headquarters for Ora Haley, a powerful
rancher during that time. Fort Davy Crockett is the
third Site on the Refuge. A possible fort site was
excavated on the Refuge in 1984. While there is little
doubt that the Fort existed on the Refuge, the results of
the excavation did not conclusively prove the location.
Cultural resources on the Refuge are managed according
to a myriad of Federal Acts (Appendix C). The Service’s
regional archaeologist and the Colorado State Historic
Preservation Office are consulted before any ground
disturbing activities are undertaken on the Refuge.
Cultural resource sites are not currently limiting
Refuge management.
Refuge Land Acquisition
The executive boundary established by Congress
encompasses 13,455 acres. Approximately 2,000 acres of
inholdings remain to be acquired. Approximately 1,310
acres are leased from the State of Colorado, and 200
acres are owned by Vermillion Land and Livestock.
Approximately 490 acres are owned by the State of
Colorado. Part of the State’s tracts are managed by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife as a State Wildlife Area.
The other parts of the State’s tracts are leased by the
Service using migratory bird management funds.
Acquisition of these remaining lands is a high priority.
The Refuge is surrounded by public land administered
by the BLM. The area is managed for multiple uses,
potentially including oil and gas development, mining,
and off-road vehicle use. A large, active natural gas field
exists just outside of Browns Park within Clay Basin, Utah.
The potential exists for such development on BLM lands
around the Refuge. Currently no leases for oil or gas
development or mining exists. BLM rates the area’s
potential as low-intermediate to high-intermediate. A
secondary threat to the Refuge is continued gravel
mining. These activities pose threats to the vegetation,
soils, Green River water quality, and resident and
migratory wildlife. The construction of a gravel pit just
outside the current boundary demonstrates that the
Refuge may be vulnerable to development that impacts
wildlife and the quality of wildlife-dependent recreational
experiences for Refuge visitors.
A related issue involves hunting, camping, and off-road
vehicle use. Regulations over such uses differ markedly
between surrounding BLM land and the Refuge. Even
though Refuge land is fenced and posted every quarter
mile along the boundary, confusion still prevails.
People enter the Refuge thinking they are still on
BLM administered land and often violate Refuge
regulations.
The Refuge has initiated a land transfer of BLM tracts
between the current boundary and Highway 318
(approximately 6,002 acres) that would allow for improved
management and identification of lands protected for
wildlife and reduce confusion over permitted uses. A
Preliminary Project Proposal has been approved by the
Service (see Map 6). Fee title ownership by the Service
would be pursued through a Public Land Order and land
transfer from BLM. Since winter grazing of livestock is
critical to the BLM permittee who currently leases the
lands in this area, a grazing lease would be considered by
the Service through a Special Use Permit. Moffat County
leases a gravel pit in the transfer area and uses it to
maintain local roads; including roads on the Refuge. If this
area is acquired by the Refuge, a Special Use Permit would
be considered to allow the County continued use of the
pit. The land acquisition process will comply with NEPA
regulations and will provide further opportunities for
public comment and review of proposals.
28 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Refuge Fire Management
Vegetation on and near the Refuge is very prone to
wildfire. The surrounding area has the highest incidence
of wildfire in the contiguous United States. For this
reason, the Refuge is a cooperator in an interagency fire
suppression agreement that covers northwestern
Colorado. A similar agreement with adjacent areas in
Utah is expected in the future. Two to three temporary
firefighters are hired each summer to staff wildland fire
engines based on the Refuge. Housing these firefighters
has been a problem. Housing is not available on or off the
Refuge. A bunkhouse is badly needed to meet fire
suppression obligations.
Refuge Water Rights
A description of the Refuge’s current water rights is
included in Appendix C.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 29
30 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 31
Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Refuge Establishment and Purpose
This section contains the heart of strategies that will
define the management direction for the Refuge for the
next 15 years (1999-2014). This direction is based on the
Refuge System mission, the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, the purposes for which
the Refuge was established, goals defined for the Upper
Colorado River Ecosystem, as well as agency policies
and directives. Under the Migratory Bird Conservation
Act, the Refuge’s purpose is “ . . . for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.” Under the Refuge Recreation Act, the
Refuge’s purpose is, “suitable for: 1) incidental fish and
wildlife-dependent recreational development, 2) the
protection of natural resources, and 3) the conservation
of endangered species or threatened species. . . .” The
goals that follow are based primarily on the management
issues discussed earlier and fall into three categories:
wildlife, habitats, and people. These strategies may be
refined or amended as specific tasks are completed or
new research and information come to light.
Refuge Mission
The Refuge mission is based on the Refuge’s purposes
and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission which
are briefly discussed in the Introduction/Background.
Refuge Mission: Conserve, manage, and restore a
diversity of wildlife and a diversity of habitats important
to migratory birds and other species, while providing
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
The essence of the Refuge’s mission is that the emphasis
will be on wildlife, habitats, and people (wildlife-dependent
recreation).
Refuge Goals
The following goals are derived from the Refuge mission
and information found in previous sections of this Plan.
The fulfillment of these objectives and strategies will
depend on available funding and staff levels.
Wildlife
P Conserve wildlife within the Refuge and the surrounding
ecosystem.
Habitat
P Manage Refuge wetlands to meet the migratory and/
or breeding requirements of American bittern,
northern harrier, white-faced ibis, waterfowl, shore
birds, and other waterbirds.
P Manage Refuge riparian habitat to meet the migratory
and/or breeding requirements of birds dependent on the
Green River corridor.
P Manage Refuge grasslands to meet the breeding
requirements of migratory birds and the wintering
requirements of mule deer and elk.
P Manage Refuge semidesert shrublands to meet the
breeding requirements of loggerhead shrike,
Brewer’s sparrow, other migratory birds, and sage
grouse and the wintering requirements of mule deer,
pronghorn, and elk.
P Manage Refuge pinyon-juniper habitat to meet the
breeding requirements of migratory birds.
People
P Provide opportunities for wildlife dependent recreation
that are compatible with the Refuge’s purposes for the
benefit of all people.
32 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Refuge Objectives and Strategies
An objective is one way to accomplish a specific goal.
Objectives describe who, what, when, where, and why.
The who in all cases is the Refuge. The when follows each
objective. Strategies listed under each objective describe
how it will be accomplished. Goals, objectives, and
strategies for this Plan follow.
Wildlife
The Refuge staff does very little to directly manage
populations of resident wildlife on the Refuge. This is the
province of the Colorado Division of Wildlife that primarily
manages game species through hunting and trapping.
Refuge problems with too many or too few game animals
are resolved through consultation with the Division. Refuge
wildlife management is more passive, habitat oriented, and
focused on protections from harmful activities. The Refuge
does have the authority to close or restrict hunting,
trapping, fishing, or public access to specific areas within
the boundary. Because wildlife (especially migratory birds)
are so wide ranging, conservation becomes challenging and
requires coordination with many agencies, organizations,
and individuals.
Other areas managed for wildlife or natural resources in
the Browns Park locale include the Browns Park State
Waterfowl Area, Dinosaur National Monument, and the
Craig and Vernal Districts of the Bureau of Land
Management. Currently, Refuge staff cooperates with
their activities. The Refuge Manager represents the
Service on the Northwest Colorado Coordinated
Resource Management steering committee as well. This
committee is made up of natural resource managers and
users to seek consensus solutions to natural resource
use conflicts in the area.
Goal: Conserve wildlife within the Refuge and the
surrounding ecosystem.
Objective: The Refuge staff will support wildlife
conservation programs within the Green River Basin in
Colorado to provide for the greater habitat needs of Refuge
wildlife and to benefit wildlife in the surrounding ecosystem.
Year 1- 15
Strategies:
P Represent the Service and the Refuge on the
Northwestern Colorado Coordinated Resource
Management steering committee.
P Continue to provide technical expertise to agencies,
organizations, and individuals for the benefit of
wildlife conservation within the Green River Basin in
Colorado.
Objective: Reduce threats to Refuge wildlife from
conflicting land uses that could occur adjacent to the
Refuge boundary. Year 1-5
Strategy:
P Acquire from 6,000 to 12,000 acres of adjacent BLM
administered land through interagency land transfer.
P In cooperation with the BLM land-use planning
process, propose habitat protections to be included in
the Little Snake Resource Management Plan
reflecting Refuge concerns over potential land uses
adjacent to the Refuge.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 33
Habitat
Browns Park NWR provides habitat for 300 species of
wildlife. Habitat management that favors some species
will not favor others. Priorities need to be set to insure
optimum habitat for the most important species. The
Refuge was established under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Refuge Recreation Act as discussed
in the Refuge Establishment and Purpose section. These
Acts list migratory birds and endangered and threatened
species as high priorities. Habitat needs of the three
federally listed species known to occur on the Refuge
(peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and Ute’s ladies-tresses)
can be met with little active management. The Refuge
provides habitat for over 200 species of migratory birds.
Among the migratory birds, several were identified
earlier as Special Status species. Besides migratory
birds, the Refuge provides important habitat for resident
wildlife species such as mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and
sage grouse (nonmigratory bird). Habitat management on
the Refuge will focus on providing habitat for migratory
birds (including Special Status species), and resident
wildlife that the Refuge is important to.
Good habitat is the key to wildlife conservation. Habitat
management is the most important activity on the
Refuge. Separate goals have been developed for each
habitat type identified in the Resource Description
Section of this Plan. These goals and objectives call for
increased research and habitat monitoring activities and
will require a full-time Wildlife Biologist and a part-time
Biological Technician to apply, monitor, and analyze
habitat treatments.
Wetlands
Goal: Manage Refuge wetlands to meet the migratory
and/or breeding requirements of American bittern,
northern harrier, white-faced ibis, waterfowl, shorebirds,
and other water birds.
Objective: The Refuge staff will manage for contiguous
blocks of tall emergent vegetation no smaller than five
acres on the Butch Cassidy, Hog Lake, and Flynn
wetland units to meet the breeding requirements of
American bittern. Years 1-15
Strategies:
P Protect contiguous blocks of hardstem bulrush
during periodic emergent plant control in these units.
Limit drawdown to only one of these three units
during the breeding season.
P Conduct annual spring call surveys of bittern to
monitor response to management. Such management
will also benefit sora and Virginia rail. Portions of
these wetlands will be managed for waterfowl and
other waterbirds.
Objective: The Refuge staff will manage for contiguous
blocks of wet meadow habitat no smaller than five acres
in the Ryegrass and Beaver Creek areas, and the Butch
Cassidy, Hog Lake, Flynn, Spitzie, Warren, Nelson, and
Hoy wetland units to meet the breeding requirements of
northern harrier. Years 1-15
Strategy:
P In the spring, flood wet meadows in Ryegrass and
Beaver Creek, and allow water to seep out of the
seven wetland units to maintain the tall grass
necessary for harrier nesting and foraging. Leave
small hummocks within thick, tall grass dry for nest
sites. This will also provide forage areas for white-faced
ibis, waterfowl, and some shorebirds.
Objective: The Refuge staff will manage for large areas
of open, shallow water not exceeding a mean depth of
four inches during spring and/or fall migration in the
Nelson, Warren, and Hoy wetland units to meet the
migratory requirements of white-faced ibis, dabbling
waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Years 1-15
Strategies:
P Manage Nelson and Warren wetland units as seasonal
wetlands using moist soil management techniques.
Time annual soil exposure to coincide with the start
of the growing season for hardstem bulrush
(approximately June 1).
P Periodically drawdown, burn, and disc these wetland
basins to maintain an emergent canopy coverage of
less than 30 percent.
P Establish transects to measure encroachment of
bulrush and growth of forage vegetation.
P This water regime should control emergent
vegetation in Warren and Nelson wetland units.
Water management determines in a large part what
foods are available for migrating waterbirds, and the
depth, duration, and timing of the wet period are all
important. Periodic drawdowns accelerate
decomposition and are important for nutrient cycling.
Flooding a marsh after it has been drawn-down for a
growing season makes a large amount of invertebrate
and plant food available to birds. Flooding a marsh
seasonally, such that it is only wet during a short
period in the spring and fall, can influence the type
and coverage of wetland plants found there.
Hardstem bulrush requires persistent water to
increase its coverage. Discing marsh soils to a depth
that removes the bulrush rhizomes is sometimes
necessary to control bulrush encroachment.
34 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Riparian
Goal: Manage Refuge riparian habitat to meet the
migratory and breeding requirements of birds dependent
on the Green River corridor and to maintain populations
of Ute ladies-tresses orchid.
Objective: The Refuge staff will treat, restore, and
protect a minimum of 100 acres of riparian habitat per
year for the benefit of migratory birds. Year 1-15
Strategies:
P Participate in Service negotiations with Bureau of
Reclamation for restoration of pre-dam river
conditions on the Green River below Flaming Gorge
Dam.
P Support research on riparian habitats on the Refuge.
P Collect, propagate, out-plant, and protect native
genotypes of dominant riparian tree, shrub, and grass
species (including Fremont’s cottonwood, silver
buffaloberry, inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton, Great
Basin wildrye, western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass).
P Treat areas infested with nonnative plants using the
most efficient integrated pest management techniques
(such as chemical, mechanical, and biological controls).
Monitor habitat responses to these treatments using
vegetation transects and mapping.
P Protect cottonwood trees used by bald eagles as
hunting perches from fire and beaver damage,
especially those adjacent to the River.
P Hire a full-time Wildlife Biologist to apply, monitor,
and analyze habitat management treatments.
Objective: The Refuge will restore riparian habitat in the
Horseshoe and Grimes wetland units to improve wildlife
habitat. Year 3-5
Strategies:
P Remove water control structures and level dikes.
P Remove tamarisk trees.
P Drill native grass seed and out-plant native shrub and
tree species.
P Control pest plants that establish on disturbed soils.
P Reevaluate water rights currently used to support
these units.
Objective: Maintain populations of Ute ladies-tresses
occurring on Refuge lands.
Strategy:
P Monitor existing colonies of Ute ladies-tresses orchid
on the Refuge. Identify essential habitat and protect
from disturbance.
Grasslands
Goal: Manage Refuge grasslands to meet the breeding
requirements of migratory birds and the wintering
requirements of mule deer and elk.
Objective: The Refuge staff will provide a diversity of
grassland habitats in the Beaver Creek and Ryegrass
areas and along the Green River to meet the breeding
requirements of grassland obligate species such as
savannah sparrow and provide winter forage for mule
deer and elk. Year 1-15
Strategies:
P Use fire to keep grasslands vigorous. Interseed native
grass species in smooth brome dominated areas.
P Treat areas infested with nonnative plants using the
most efficient integrated pest management
techniques (such as chemical, mechanical or biological
control).
P Monitor habitat responses to treatments using
vegetation transects and mapping.
P Hire a part-time Biological Technician to monitor
habitat treatments.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 35
Semidesert Shrublands
Goal: Manage Refuge semidesert shrublands to meet
the breeding requirements of loggerhead shrike,
Brewer’s sparrow, other migratory birds, and sage
grouse, and the wintering requirements of mule deer,
pronghorn, and elk.
Objective: The Refuge staff will provide breeding habitat
for loggerhead shrike including isolated clumps of
mature greasewood (nesting cover) in close proximity to
powerlines (perching), barbed wire fencing (food caching),
and bare ground areas including roadways (foraging)
with emphasis on those sites currently used by nesting
shrikes. Year 1-15
Strategies:
P Cooperate with State and County governments to
protect habitat in rights-of-way meeting the criteria
described above. This management primarily involves
lands outside the Refuge boundary.
P Conduct annual nest monitoring of appropriate sites
on and adjacent to the Refuge.
Objective: The Refuge staff will manage for contiguous
blocks of semidesert shrubland of no less than five acres,
composed of shrubs from 3 feet to 5 feet tall, to meet the
breeding requirements of Brewer’s sparrow with
emphasis on areas currently used by nesting sparrows.
Year 1-15
Strategies:
P Survey for Brewer’s sparrow during June in appropriate
habitat to determine areas with the greatest density of
singing males.
P Protect these areas from management actions that
would reduce shrub structure needed for nesting (i.e.,
fire).
Objective: In areas not being managed for loggerhead
shrike or Brewer’s sparrow, the Refuge staff will provide
a diversity of semidesert shrubland micro-habitats to
meet the breeding requirements of sage grouse, sage
sparrow, sage thrasher, and to provide winter habitat for
mule deer and pronghorn. Year 1-15
Strategies:
P Open up areas dominated by greasewood that have
Great Basin wildrye in close proximity with
controlled burning. Protect stands of Wyoming big
sagebrush from fire.
P In known sage grouse breeding areas, keep lek sites
free of woody vegetation. Although they are not a
migratory bird, sage grouse are declining throughout
their range and are worthy of special emphasis. Sage
sparrow and sage thrasher are also dependent on
mature sagebrush stands. Mule deer and pronghorn
are managed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife
(CDOW) ; however, the Refuge provides critical
winter range for them.
P Survey the Browns Park area for sage grouse leks
annually.
P Monitor treatment sites for vegetative and wildlife
response.
Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands
Goal: Maintain Refuge pinyon-juniper woodlands to
provide habitat for breeding Neotropical migratory
birds, resident perching birds, and raptors.
Objective: The Refuge staff will protect the limited
amount of pinyon-juniper habitat within the boundary
from disturbance. Year 1-15
Strategy:
P Suppress wildfires burning in or threatening this
habitat when suppression actions would not be unduly
hazardous.
36 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
People
Managing public use on national wildlife refuges involves
delicate balance. At what point does wildlife-dependent
recreation compromise the very resources the Refuge
was designed to protect? It is hard to say. In most cases,
the best strategy is to provide recreation opportunities,
monitor the resulting impacts to wildlife where possible,
and to err on the side of wildlife protection. Allowing
people to recreate on the Refuge benefits wildlife
indirectly. Visitors will learn about the needs of wildlife
they come to see and will appreciate and support the
mission and goals of Browns Park NWR and the Service.
A full-time Outdoor Recreation Planner or Refuge
Operations Specialist will be needed to plan, implement,
and evaluate the public use program proposed in the
CCP.
Goal: Provide opportunities for wildlife dependent
recreation that are compatible with Refuge purposes for
the benefit of all people.
Objective: The Refuge staff will provide quality hunting
and fishing opportunities that will not adversely affect
local or regional populations of game species. Year 1-15
Strategies:
P Allow limited hunting of mule deer, elk, cottontail
rabbit, and mourning dove. Vehicle access will be
minimized to improve hunt quality and avoid
disturbance to wildlife.
P Allow waterfowl and coot hunting on no more than
two marshes and the Green River corridor during any
one season.
P Allow fishing along Beaver Creek and the Green River
corridor. Refuge wetlands and Vermillion Creek do
not support populations of sport fish.
Objective: The Refuge staff will provide quality, accessible
opportunities for wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation for the
benefit of all people. Year 1-15
Strategies:
P Maintain an overlook above Spitzie marsh.
P Maintain a birdwatcher’s trail along Beaver Creek.
P Fully develop one campground to facilitate wildlife
observation during dawn and dusk in this remote area.
Completion date: 2001
P Develop a bird checklist. Completion date: 2001
P Develop a mammal, reptile, and amphibian checklist.
Completion date: 2001
P Develop and place kiosks at the eastern and western
ends of the Refuge along Colorado Highway 318.
Completion date: 2002
P Develop a fully accessible boardwalk and photo blind
on Spitzie marsh. Completion date: 2003
P Develop a brochure that interprets the cultural
history of Browns Park. Completion date: 2003
P Develop interpretive signs and displays for the
birdwatcher’s trail, wildlife drive, and visitor contact
area of Refuge Headquarters. Completion date: 2002
P Upgrade basic visitor facilities to accommodate persons
with disabilities or provide comparable experiences
for disabled visitors. Completion date: 1999-2013
P Conduct International Migratory Bird Day and
National Wildlife Refuge Week events on the Refuge
annually.
P Hire a full-time Outdoor Recreation Planner or
Refuge Operations Specialist to plan, implement, and
evaluate the public use program as proposed.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 37
Plan Implementation
This section briefly outlines what will be required in additional funding and personnel to implement this Plan.
Funding and Personnel Requirements
These are the estimated costs to implement the major elements of the CCP. See Appendix G for descriptions.
Project Projected Cost
Construct bunkhouse to support temporaries and acquire management information .......................................... $210,000
Finish development of one campground ...................................................................................................................... $ 95,000
Develop interpretive signs, exhibits and brochures ................................................................................................... $ 75,000
Develop wildlife checklists and construct two kiosks ................................................................................................ $ 65,000
Reduce pest plants ....................................................................................................................................................... $ 55,000
Restore Horseshoe and Grimes Units ........................................................................................................................ $ 90,000
Complete accessibility modifications and developments ........................................................................................... $ 50,000
Hire biologist to apply habitat treatments and monitor (see personnel needed below) ......................................... $323,000
Hire Outdoor Recreation Planner to develop opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation ............................ $313,000
(see personnel needed below)
Hire seasonal Biological Technician to manage pest plants (see personnel needed below) .................................. $100,000
Construct outlets for the Flynn and Hog Lake Units ............................................................................................... $ 65,000
Construct boardwalk and observation blind in Spitzie Unit ...................................................................... ................ $ 80,000
Permanent Personnel Needed to Implement the Plan
Funding for two additional permanent employees and one seasonal employee is needed to implement this Plan.
Current Personnel Personnel Needed
Refuge Manager, GS-12 --------------------------------------- Refuge Manager, GS-12
Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-09 ----------------------- Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-11
Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-10 ---------------- Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-10
Maintenance Worker, WG-8 ---------------------------------- Maintenance Worker, WG-8
Administrative Support Assistant, GS-5------------------- Administrative Support Assistant, GS-6
Position nonexistent ------------------------------------------- Wildlife Biologist, GS-9
Position nonexistent ------------------------------------------- Outdoor Recreation Planner/Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-9
Position nonexistent ------------------------------------------- Biological Technician, Career Seasonal, GS-7
38 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Step-Down Management Plans
In addition to administrative plans required by national
policies and guidance, step-down plans that will need to
be developed include:
P Wildlife Conservation Plan (Completion Date: 2002)
This will further describe site-specific actions
necessary to manage or protect wildlife within the
Refuge and the surrounding ecosystem.
P Habitat Management Plan (Completion Date: 2000)
The Habitat Management Plan will address long-term
management of the broad habitat types found on
the Refuge. It will include methods to monitor the
health and effectiveness of treatments on habitats.
Individual sections featuring each broad habitat type
on the Refuge (marsh, riparian, grassland, semidesert
shrubland, pinyon-juniper) will be included in the Plan.
This is a departure from previous stand-alone plans.
The marsh habitat management section will replace
the current Water Management Plan. The Wildlife
Inventory Plan and the Fire Management Plan will
also be incorporated into this Plan.
P Public Use Plan (Completion Date: 2001) This will
address the long-term development of public use
facilities and the management of public use on the
Refuge. The Hunting Plan, which addresses the
specifics of hunting on the Refuge including species,
locations, and special regulations, will now be a
section of this Plan.
Additional step-down plans that will need modification
or amendment as a result of this CCP include Fire
Management, Grassland Management, Hunting, Water
Management, Wildlife Inventory, and Land Management.
The Refuge had previously developed a Master Plan that
will be superseded and replaced by the CCP.
Partnership Opportunities
Potential partners that could assist the Refuge with
implementation of the Plan are as follows:
Grand Valley Audubon Society: The Society may be
interested in “adopting” the Refuge by volunteering to
help with the workload associated with the Plan. Adopt-
A-Refuge is a National Audubon initiative.
Colorado Division of Wildlife: The Refuge staff will
work with the Division to manage the populations of
game species on the Refuge.
Moffat County: The Refuge staff will coordinate
nonnative plant control with Moffat County Weed and
Pest.
Craig Area Chamber of Commerce: The Refuge staff
will cooperate with the Chamber to dispense information
to hunters and other Refuge visitors.
Dinosaur National Monument: The Refuge will share
staff, equipment, and professional expertise with the
Monument.
Bureau of Land Management: The Refuge will share
staff, equipment, and professional expertise with the
John Jarvie National Historic Site and the Little Snake
Resource Area.
Craig Interagency Dispatch Center: The Refuge staff
will cooperate with Craig Dispatch for wildfire suppression
within the ecosystem.
Northwest Colorado Coordinated Resource Management:
The Refuge staff will maintain involvement for the
betterment of natural resource conservation within the
surrounding ecosystem.
Dinosaur Nature Association: The Refuge staff will
seek support from this existing cooperating association.
Browns Park State Waterfowl Refuge: The Refuge
staff will cooperate with the State for wildlife conservation
in Browns Park.
Browns Hole Homemakers Club: The Refuge will
permit the Browns Hole Homemakers Club to manage
and maintain the Lodore School National Historic Site.
Browns Park Sportsmen’s Club: The Refuge staff will
request the assistance of the Sportsmen’s Club for
selected wildlife projects.
Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership: Grazing
permittee on adjacent BLM lands and potential future
Refuge permittee.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Accomplishment of objectives in the CCP will be monitored
annually by the Refuge Manager’s supervisor. The
Refuge Manager’s annual performance evaluation will be
tied to the accomplishment of objectives that are scheduled
for that performance year. An Annual Work Plan will be
submitted to his/her supervisor in the first quarter of
each fiscal year. The Work Plan will outline projects
scheduled for completion in that year including those
detailed in the CCP. The staff will assess progress on
strategies, revise and critique ongoing projects, and share
observations and biological data through regular meetings
with the Refuge Manager. Specific strategies include
biological monitoring to evaluate the outcome or effects of
the action.
It is reasonable to believe that substantial changes could
occur within the next 15 years. The objectives of the Plan
will be examined a minimum of every five years to
determine if they are still valid and to allow the addition
or deletion of objectives or strategies.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 39
Appendix A
Wildlife Species of Browns Park NWR
Birds
Loons
Common Loon Gavia immer
Grebes
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus
Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis
Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis
Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
Pelicans
American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Cormorant
Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Bitterns, Herons
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Snowy Egret Egretta thula
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis
Green Heron Butorides virescens
Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Ibis, Stork
White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi
Vultures
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura
Geese
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens
Canada Goose Branta canadensis
Swans
Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus
Ducks
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Gadwall Anas strepera
American Wigeon Anas americana
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors
Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata
Northern Pintail Anas acuta
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca
Canvasback Aythya valisineria
Redhead Aythya americana
Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula
Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus
Common Merganser Mergus merganser
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator
Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Hawks, Kites, Eagles
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus
Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
Falcons
American Kestrel Falco sparverius
Merlin Falco columbarius
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus
Gallinaceous Birds
Chukar (Introduced) Alectoris chukar
Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus
Rails, Gallinules
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola
Sora Porzana carolina
American Coot Fulica americana
Cranes
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis
40 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Plovers
Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus
Stilt, Avocet
Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus
American Avocet Recurvirostra americana
Sandpipers
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla
Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago
Phalaropes
Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus
Gulls
Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan
Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis
California Gull Larus californicus
Terns
Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri
Black Tern Chlidonias niger
Pigeons, Doves, Parakeet
Rock Dove (Introduced) Columba livia
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Cuckoos
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Owls
Barn Owl Tyto alba
Western Screech-Owl Otis kennicottii
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia
Long-eared Owl Asio otus
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus
Goatsuckers
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii
Swifts
White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis
Hummingbirds
Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri
Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope
Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus
Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus
Kingfisher
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Woodpeckers
Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus
Flycatchers
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii
Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus
Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii
Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii
Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri
Cordilleran Flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis
Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya
Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens
Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Shrikes
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor
Vireo
Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior
Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus
Jays, Magpies, Crows, Ravens
Western Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma californica
Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus
Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana
Black-billed Magpie Pica pica
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common Raven Corvus corax
Lark
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris
Swallows
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 41
Chickadees, Titmice, Verdin, Bushtit
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus
Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli
Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus griseus
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Nuthatches
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
Creeper
Brown Creeper Certhia americana
Wrens, Dipper
Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus
Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus
Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii
House Wren Troglodytes aedon
Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus
Kinglets
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
Gnatcatchers
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
Thrushes, Bluebirds
Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana
Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides
Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi
Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus
American Robin Turdus migratorius
Thrashers
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum
Starling
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Pipits
American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens
Waxwings
Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Warblers
Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata
Virginia’s Warbler Vermivora virginiae
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata
Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens
Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla
Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis
MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens
Tanagers
Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana
Towhee, Sparrows
Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus
Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina
Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus
Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus
Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata
Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli
Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis
Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus
Grosbeaks, Buntings
Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus
Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea
Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena
Blackbirds, Orioles
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Western Meadowlark Surnella neglecta
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula
Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii
Scott’s Oriole Icterus parisorum
Finches
Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Leucosticte australis
Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra
Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea
Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus
Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis
Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus
42 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Mammals
Merriam’s Shrew Sorex merriami
Montane Shrew Sorex monticolus
California Myotis Myotis californicus
Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum
Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis
Little brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus
Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes
Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans
Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis
Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus
Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans
Western Pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus
Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus
Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii
Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus
Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
Mountain Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttalii
Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus
White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii
Cliff Chipmunk Tamias dorsalis
Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus
Hopi Chipmunk Tamias rufus
Yellow-bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris
Wyoming Ground Squirrel Spermophilus elegans
Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel
Spermophilus lateralis
Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel
Spermophilus tridecemlineatus
White-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys leucurus
Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides
Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus
Great basin Pocket Mouse Perognathus parvus
Ord’s Kangaroo Rat Dipodimys ordii
American Beaver Castor canadensis
Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis
Canyon Mouse Peromyscus critinus
Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatis
Pinyon Mouse Peromyscus truei
Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster
Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea
Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus
Montane Vole Microtus montanus
Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus
Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Common Porcupine Erithizon dorsatum
Coyote Canis latrans
Gray Wolf Canus lupus
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes
Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Black Bear Ursus americanus
Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos
Ringtail Bassariscus astutus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata
Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes
Mink Mustela vison
American Badger Taxidea taxus
Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilus
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitus
Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis
Mountain Lion Felis concolor
Bobcat Lynx rufus
American Elk Cervus elaphus
Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus
White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus
Moose Alces alces
Pronghorn Antilocapra americana
Bison Bison bison
Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis
Reptiles
Short-horned Lizard Phrynosoma douglassii
Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporous graciosus
Eastern Fence Lizard Sceloporous undulatus
Tree Lizard Urosaurus ornatus
Side-blotched Lizard Uta stansburiana
Western Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris
Racer Coluber constrictor
Striped Whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus
Great Basin Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucus
Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans
Western Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis
Amphibians
Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum
Great Basin Spadefoot Scaphiopus intermontanus
Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii
Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 43
Appendix B
Water Rights
Colorado water law recognizes the doctrine of prior
appropriation based on first-in-time, first-in-right. The
special water courts issues decrees, establish conditions
and limitation on use and resolve disputes. A Conditional
water right covers use until such time as proof of
beneficial use has been submitted and the right is
decreed as Absolute.
The State Engineer administers surface and groundwater
diversions, through division superintendents, under court
decrees.
Water rights may be sold; however, any change in use,
point of diversion, season-of-use, or quantity requires
court approval and a new decree, which must satisfy all
objectors who may be injured by the change. Changes
are generally limited to the historic consumptive use, not
the total amount diverted.
Rate
Ditch cfs
Beaver Creek
Apple 3.0 *
Beaver 2.0
Beaver Enl. # 15.0
Dejournette #1 1.0
Dejournette #1
Enl. 3.0
Goodman 5.0 *
Jarvie 2.0
Jarvie Enl. #1 13.0
McKnight #1 5.0
McKnight #2 3.0
Pie 3.0
Thomas Doudle #1 1.66 *
Thomas Doudle #1
Enl. 4.34 *
Thomas Doudle #2 3.0 *
Walker 3.0
Carma Spring
Carma .25 *
Vermillion Creek
Lodore 20.00
The Browns Park NWR holds numerous Absolute water
rights on ditches from Beaver Creek, Carma Spring, the
Green River and Vermillion Creek as listed below.
The Service also entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding dated May 24, 1990, with the Colorado
Division of Wildlife (CDOW) in which CDOW is
guaranteed use of 12 cfs of the decreed Beaver Creek
ditches as noted below by an asterisk (*). The intent of
the MOU was to guarantee a minimum flow in Beaver
Creek by alternating water diversions between the two
agencies.
Rate
Ditch cfs
Green River
Allen 2.6
Allen Enl. #1 3.4
Carr 5.0
Flynn Bottom 12.0
Flynn Bottom 8.0
Grimes 15.0
Hog Lake 9.0
Horseshoe 9.0
Horseshoe Enl. #1 1.0
Hoy 10.0
L. Watson 12.0
Leonard 7.66
Nelson 9.0
Nelson Enl. #1 1.0
Spitzie 9.0
Spitzie Enl. #1 3.0
Warren 9.0
Warren Enl. #1 1.0
44 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 45
Appendix C
Key Legal and Policy Guidance
Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific
investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides
penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or
collected without a permit.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the
protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility.
This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other
regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or
non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes
procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of
areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act
(1934): Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to
waterfowl hunting.
Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a
comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and
broadened the authority for acquisition and development
of refuges.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the
Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with
private landowners for wildlife management purposes.
Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of
refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible
with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient
funds are available to manage the uses.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses
the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal land, outer
continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for
land acquisition under several authorities.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-
668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): Defines the
National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the
Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such
use is compatible with the major purposes for which the
refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act
clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System;
establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six
priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, or environmental education and
interpretation); establishes a formal process for
determining compatibility; established the responsibilities
of the Secretary of Interior for managing and protecting the
System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended
portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as
amended: Establishes as policy that the Federal
Government is to provide leadership in the preservation
of the nation’s prehistoric and historic resources.
Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally
owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be
accessible to persons with disabilities.
National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires
the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.
Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal
agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species.
Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic
accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all
facilities and programs funded by the Federal government
to ensure that anybody can participate in any program.
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974):
Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological
data in Federal construction projects.
Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the
Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland
modifications.
Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each Federal agency
shall provide leadership and take action to reduce the
risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on
human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial
values served by the floodplains.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978):
Directs agencies to consult with native traditional
religious leaders to determine appropriate policy
changes necessary to protect and preserve Native
American religious cultural rights and practices.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) as
amended: Protects materials of archaeological interest
from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires
Federal managers to develop plans and schedules to
locate archaeological resources.
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The
purpose of the Act is “To promote the conservation of
migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious
loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other
essential habitat, and for other purposes.”
Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of
integrated management systems to control or contain
undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary
approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State
agencies.
46 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (1990): Requires Federal agencies and museums to
inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate
cultural items under their control or possession.
Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits
discrimination in public accommodations and services.
Executive Order 12996 Management and General
Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public
uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also
presents four principles to guide management of the
System.
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996):
Directs Federal land management agencies to
accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian
sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid
adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred
sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality
of sacred sites.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 47
Appendix D
Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
I. Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................... 42
II. Description of Alternatives ........................................................................ 42
Alternative 1 - No Action ............................................................................ 42
Alternative 2 - Implement the Browns Park CCP (Preferred) ............. 42
III. Affected Environment ................................................................................ 42
IV. Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 42
A. Impacts to the Biological Environment ............................................... 42
B. Impacts to the Physical Environment ................................................. 43
C. Impacts to the Human Environment ................................................... 43
48 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
I. Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to
publicly disclose the possible environmental
consequences that implementation of the Browns Park
CCP could have on the quality of the physical, biological,
and human environment, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Refer to the
Introduction/Background section of the CCP for a
description of need for a plan. Preparation of
Comprehensive Conservation Plans is authorized under
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 as amended.
II. Description of Alternatives
Alternative 1 - No Action
Under the “No Action” alternative, the Service would
continue current Refuge management and not implement
the Browns Park CCP.
P The current level of operational funding and staffing
would continue.
P Refuge visitor facilities would receive minor repairs
or improvements. No major projects would be
proposed. Recreational opportunities would not be
expanded.
P The condition of Refuge wildlife habitats would not
change significantly. No new habitat restoration plans
or activities would be initiated.
P Refuge cultural resource sites would continue to
receive their current level of protection.
Alternative 2 - Implement the Browns Park
CCP (Preferred)
Under this alternative, the Service would implement the
CCP and establish the Refuge’s direction pursuant to
the goals, objectives, and strategies contained in the
CCP.
P Restoration of riparian plant communities, control of
nonnative plants, improved wetland and upland
management, restoration of unproductive wetlands,
and development of habitat monitoring methods will
result in increased habitat quality and diversity for
Refuge wildlife.
P Improvement of visitor use facilities and information
will increase public use opportunities on the Refuge.
P Development of interpretive displays and brochures
will result in better understanding and appreciation
of the Refuge and its importance.
P Increasing Refuge participation in regional
management organizations will result in improved
support and coordinated protection for wildlife and its
habitat within the Green River ecosystem.
Implementation of the Plan within the next 15 years will
require additional agency funding for specific objectives, two
additional permanent employees, as well as partnerships
with other Federal land management agencies, State and
local government, private conservation and historical
groups, and local landowners. Refer to the Refuge Goals,
Objectives, and Strategies sections of the CCP for a detailed
description of the proposed actions.
III. Affected Environment
The affected environment is described in the Resource/
Refuge Description sections of the CCP.
IV. Environmental Consequences
This chapter evaluates the two alternatives on the basis
of consequences or impacts to the environment.
Alternative 1, “No Action,” is the status quo alternative
where current conditions and trends of management,
public use, and land use and ownership are projected into
the foreseeable future. Alternative 2, the preferred
alternative, implements the CCP. Analysis of Alternative
2 focuses on anticipated environmental change in
comparison to conditions remaining under Alternative 1.
A. Impacts to the Biological Environment
P Alternative 1 would result in no substantial changes in
wildlife populations, habitat quality, or biodiversity as it
is described in the CCP. The Refuge would continue its
current level of habitat management activity. No new
habitat restoration projects would be carried out. Habitat
quality and the wildlife populations dependent on these
habitats would probably decline slowly as a result of
continuing infestation of nonnative plants, and continuing
decline in riparian cottonwood regeneration. As Refuge
habitats continue to degrade, plant diversity and production
will continue to decline, adversely affecting the area’s
wildlife. Wildlife inventory and habitat monitoring research
will not be accomplished with current Refuge staffing.
The Refuge will continue its involvement on the Northwestern
Colorado Coordinated Resource Management
committees and continue to provide technical support for
agencies, organizations, and individuals to benefit the
wildlife of the Green River Basin.
P Alternative 2 would result in increased habitat quality
in marsh, riparian, and upland habitats throughout the
Refuge. As a result, the wildlife species dependent on
these habitats will increase or stabilize. Implementing
wildlife inventories will allow evaluation of wildlife
responses to habitat manipulations.
Controlling emergent vegetation coverage in the Warren
and Nelson units, either by burning or managing water
levels, will result in an increase of useable marsh habitat
for waterbirds. Optimum emergent plant coverage for
these marshes should be 50 percent. Currently, the
marsh is from 70 to 90 percent covered by vegetation.
Retiring the Horseshoe and Grimes units may appear to
decrease available wetland habitat, but as these units
were never productive for marsh dependent wildlife, it
will not have a significant long-term effect. The cost of
pumping water and repairs and maintenance is high, and
the areas could serve more efficiently as upland habitats.
The largest infestations of nonnative plants on the Refuge
occur in these units. Their eradication will benefit a
broader range of wildlife over a larger area.
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 49
Designing a prescription for high spring river flows for
the Green River in cooperation with the Bureau of
Reclamation will restore cottonwood groves and other
riparian plant communities along the River. Migratory
birds will benefit especially, as this will help maintain the
habitat corridors upon which they depend as they pass
through the area in the spring and fall.
Development of the Habitat Monitoring Plan and use of
the resulting program of prescribed fire will maintain a
diverse mosaic of grassland and brushland habitats for
wintering ungulates, ground nesting birds, and other
resident wildlife.
Acquiring the remaining land tracts within the currently
approved Refuge boundary will bring wildlife habitats on
these tracts under management control of Refuge staff.
Habitat restoration and enhancement will then be
possible as described in the CCP. An increase in high
quality habitat for wildlife will result.
B. Impacts to the Physical Environment
P Alternative 1 will have no measurable affect on the
soils and air quality of the region. Water quality in
Refuge wetlands and riparian areas may degrade slowly
as the decline of riparian plant communities expose
aquatic organisms to high summer temperatures and
possible bank erosion. Overabundant emergent
vegetation in Refuge marshes may degrade water
quality.
Refuge cultural resources would continue to receive
protection under this alternative. Cultural resources are
managed according to several Federal Acts and through
an agreement with the Browns Hole Homemakers Club.
No ground disturbing activities are carried out without
consulting the Colorado State Historic Preservation
Office. Currently, no plans are in place that will impact
historical sites on the Refuge.
P Alternative 2 will result in improved water quality in
riparian habitats through restoration of sheltering native
willow and cottonwood communities. More efficient
control of emergent marsh vegetation will improve water
quality resulting in higher quality feeding habitats for
marsh dependent birds. With habitat restoration
objectives proposed in the CCP, erosion of upland soils
will slowly decrease as native upland plant communities
are reestablished.
Cultural resource sites will continue to be protected
under the CCP. No specific proposals are in place that
will affect these sites on the Refuge, although with new
partnerships developed as a result of the CCP,
identification and restoration of sites would be possible.
The Lodore School National Historic Site will continue
to be available for use by the Browns Hole Homemakers
Club.
C. Impacts to the Human Environment
P Alternative 1 would allow minor improvements to the
existing recreational use program to continue. It would
result in no significant changes in use of the Refuge but
would not specifically improve education, interpretation,
hunting or fishing opportunities for Refuge visitors. The
primary road access route from Utah into Browns Park
is to be paved in the near future, and the Refuge can
expect an increase in visitation and demand for
opportunities and facilities. This Alternative does not
address the resulting need for improved or expanded
recreational facilities.
P Alternative 2 would result in improvements to basic
visitor facilities, including interpretive signing,
construction of information kiosks, and development of
leaflets that clearly describe recreational opportunities,
provide wildlife species checklists, give historical
information, and explain regulations.
This alternative will also result in major site
improvements to at least one campground. Currently,
the Crook Campground area spreads out over a large
area with no site designations or fire protection for
cottonwood groves or the Refuge subheadquarters.
Interpretive displays and signs will be developed to
enhance visitors’ understanding of the Refuge and its
management practices. Improved education of visitors
will lead to long-term protection of the Refuge, the
wildlife that depends upon its presence, and preserve the
cultural and historical sites present in Browns Park.
Implementing the CCP will enable the Refuge to pursue
partnerships with the Dinosaur Nature Association
resulting in increased support for the wildlife recreation
program on the Refuge.
50 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 51
Appendix E
References
Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A
Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat.
Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 pp.
Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Little Snake
Resource Management Plan and Record of
Decision. Bureau of Land Management. 54 pp.
Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong.
1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of
Natural History and University Press of Colorado.
467 pp.
Goodrich, S. and E. Neese. 1986. Uinta Basin Flora. U.S.
Government Printing Office: 1986-676-140/40008. 320
pp.
Hammerson, G.A. 1986. Amphibians and Reptiles in
Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 130 pp.
Holt, H.R. 1997. A Birder’s Guide to Colorado. American
Birding Association, Inc. 392 pp.
Mutel, C.F. and J.C. Emerick. 1992. From Grassland to
Glacier: The Natural History of Colorado and the
Surrounding Region. Johnson Printing. 290 pp.
National Park Service. Dinosaur Bird Checklist.
Dinosaur National Monument. 2 pp.
National Park Service. Dinosaur National Monument
Herptile List. Unpublished document. 2 pp.
National Park Service. Dinosaur National Monument
Mammal List. Unpublished document. 2 pp.
Sundance Museum. Checklist of Amphibians and
Reptiles in Colorado. Unpublished document. 4 pp.
Thornton, B.J., H.D. Harrington and R.L. Zimdahl. 1974.
Weeds of Colorado. Colorado State University.
Bulletin 514-S Revised. 211 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Birds of Browns
Park National Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity. Browns
Park National Wildlife Refuge. 5 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Kirwin National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Management Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 63 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Kirwin National
Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment and
Draft Comprehensive Management Plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 132 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Migratory Nongame
Birds of Management Concern in the United States:
The 1995 List. U.S. Government Printing Office:
1996-404-991/44014. 22 pp.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1989. National Wildlife
Refuges: Continuing Problems With Incompatible
Uses Call for Bold Action. U.S. General Accounting
Office. 84 pp.
52 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 53
Appendix F
List of Preparers
This Plan was written by Michael J. Bryant, Refuge
Manager and Allison Banks. Map products were
generated by Jaymee Fojtik. Drafts were reviewed and
edited by Wayne King, Carol Taylor, Larry Shanks,
Barbara Shupe, and Allison Banks.
54 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 55
Appendix G
Project Description Worksheets
56 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 57
Unfunded Operating Needs - Listed by Station Rank
Browns Park NWR
Orgcode: 65550 Type: NWR State(s): CO District: NE, KS, CO, UT
MONITORING & STUDIES: Studies & Investigations
MEASURES: 10 studies will be conducted: 5% of effort will be off-refuge
Much of the wildlife and habitat management, studies, and research on the Refuge is conducted by temporary Range Technicians,
volunteer Wildlife Biology Interns, and university researchers. This fieldwork provides much of the critical information necessary for
sound wildlife and habitat management on the Refuge. Refuge Range Technicians are also responsible for fire suppression in the local area
(one of the most active wildfire areas in the country), and are critical to the Refuge’s use of prescribed fire to benefit wildlife. The Refuge
is located 90 miles from town, so housing must be provided for these 6 to 12 people. The current situation is dire. Technicians, Interns, and
researchers are occupying old travel trailers, a mobile home scheduled for demolition, and camping out. This project would fund the
construction of a bunkhouse/dormitory and ensure that this important fieldwork continues.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED ($000): Recurring First Year
One-Time Base Need
Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations: Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Equipment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Services/Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Miscellaneous Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TOTAL Operations Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 10 210
ADDITIONAL PERMANENT STAFF NEEDED: FTE’s Cost ($000)
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Biologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Resource Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Education/Recreation Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Clerical/Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Maintenance/Equipment Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
TOTAL FTEs Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
EMPHASIS: 0% Critical health & safety - deferred maintenance; 0% Critical health & Safety - capital improvement; 0% Critical
resource protection - deferred maintenance; 0% Critical resource protection - capital improvement; 0% Critical mission
- deferred maintenance; 0% Compliance & other deferred maintenance; 100% Other capital improvements.
OUTCOMES*: ES WF OMB HEC IAF SDA RW PED FAR PRC TOT
10 20 20 20 10 10 10 100
PLANNING LINKS: Station CCP approved 10/97+
Project supports the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Project #: 99005 RANK - STATION: 1 DISTRICT: 999 REGION: 999 NATIONAL: 999
*OUTCOMES:
ES - Endangered & threatened species SDA - Special designation areas
WF - Waterfowl RW - Resident wildlife
OMB - Other migratory birds FAR - Fish/aquatic resources
HEC - Healthy ecosystems PED - Public education
IAF - Interjurisdictional & anadromous fish PRC - Public recreation
1
58 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
10: wildlife surveys will be conducted
MEASURES: 5000 new visitors will be served; 10,000 existing visitors will be served; 100% will support the top 6 priority public uses
The remote location of the Refuge makes it difficult for people to pursue wildlife dependent recreation without a campground. Although
the Refuge currently has two designated camping areas, more development of one and closure of the other is necessary to minimize issues
of fire protection, habitat damage, and maintenance workload. This project would allow site planning and development of the Crook
campground including: campsite designation, tables, fire rings, pit toilets, parking areas, and vehicle barriers. Facilities would be
accessible to persons with disabilities. Work would be contracted.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED ($000): Recurring First Year
One-Time Base Need
Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations: Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Equipment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Services/Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Miscellaneous Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TOTAL Operations Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5 95
ADDITIONAL PERMANENT STAFF NEEDED: FTE’s Cost ($000)
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Biologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Resource Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Education/Recreation Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Clerical/Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Maintenance/Equipment Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
TOTAL FTEs Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
EMPHASIS: 0% Critical health & safety - deferred maintenance; 0% Critical health & Safety - capital improvement; 0% Critical
resource protection - deferred maintenance; 0% Critical resource protection - capital improvement; 0% Critical mission
- deferred maintenance; 0% Compliance & other deferred maintenance; 100% Other capital improvements.
OUTCOMES*: ES WF OMB HEC IAF SDA RW PED FAR PRC TOT
100 100
PLANNING LINKS: Station Goal/Objective; Station CCP approved 10/97+
Project supports an objective in the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Project #: 97002 RANK - STATION: 2 DISTRICT: 045 REGION: 157 NATIONAL:
*OUTCOMES:
ES - Endangered & threatened species SDA - Special designation areas
WF - Waterfowl RW - Resident wildlife
OMB - Other migratory birds FAR - Fish/aquatic resources
HEC - Healthy ecosystems PED - Public education
IAF - Interjurisdictional & anadromous fish PRC - Public recreation
2
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 59
10: wildlife surveys will be conducted
MEASURES: 5,000 new visitors will be served; 10,000 existing visitors will be served
The Refuge possesses numerous opportunities for interpretation of nationally significant natural and cultural history, yet these opportuni-ties
have been ignored due to funding limitations. Interpretation is needed to help visitors understand the values the Refuge was
established to protect. This project would provide this important interpretation by developing: interpretive signs for the wildlife drive and
birder’s foot trail, interpretive exhibits for the visitor contact area in Refuge headquarters, and a cultural resources brochure.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED ($000): Recurring First Year
One-Time Base Need
Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations: Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Equipment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services/Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Miscellaneous Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5
TOTAL Operations Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5 75
ADDITIONAL PERMANENT STAFF NEEDED: FTE’s Cost ($000)
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Biologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Resource Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Education/Recreation Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Clerical/Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Maintenance/Equipment Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
TOTAL FTEs Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
EMPHASIS: 0% Critical health & safety; 0% Critical resource protection; 50% Critical mission; 50% Other important needs.
OUTCOMES*: ES WF OMB HEC IAF SDA RW PED FAR PRC TOT
100 100
PLANNING LINKS: Station Goal/Objective; Station CCP approved 10/97+
Project supports objective in the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Project #: 97003 RANK - STATION: 3 DISTRICT: 061 REGION: 153 NATIONAL:
*OUTCOMES:
ES - Endangered & threatened species SDA - Special designation areas
WF - Waterfowl RW - Resident wildlife
OMB - Other migratory birds FAR - Fish/aquatic resources
HEC - Healthy ecosystems PED - Public education
IAF - Interjurisdictional & anadromous fish PRC - Public recreation
3
60 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
10: wildlife surveys will be conducted
MEASURES: 5000 new visitors will be served; 10000 existing visitors will be served; 100 % will support the top 6 priority public uses
The Refuge provides remarkable opportunities for wildlife observation in a setting of beauty and solitude. Unfortunately, funding has
been inadequate to provide wildlife checklists and kiosks for orientation. This project would provide the funding, to develop and print a
bird checklist, and a mammal, reptile and amphibian checklist, and to construct and install two orientation kiosks. This project would
facilitate wildlife observation on the Refuge. Work would be contracted.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED ($000): Recurring First Year
One-Time Base Need
Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations: Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Equipment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Services/Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Miscellaneous Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5
TOTAL Operations Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5 65
ADDITIONAL PERMANENT STAFF NEEDED: FTE’s Cost ($000)
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Biologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Resource Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Education/Recreation Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Clerical/Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Maintenance/Equipment Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
TOTAL FTEs Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
EMPHASIS: 0% Critical health & safety - deferred maintenance; 0% Critical health & Safety - capital improvement; 0% Critical
resource protection - deferred maintenance; 0% Critical resource protection - capital improvement; 0% Critical mission
- deferred maintenance; 0% Compliance & other deferred maintenance; 100% Other capital improvements.
OUTCOMES*: ES WF OMB HEC IAF SDA RW PED FAR PRC TOT
100 100
PLANNING LINKS: Station CCP approved 10/97+; Station Goal/Objective
Project supports an objective in the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Project #: 99001 RANK - STATION: 4 DISTRICT: 060 REGION: 152 NATIONAL:
*OUTCOMES:
ES - Endangered & threatened species SDA - Special designation areas
WF - Waterfowl RW - Resident wildlife
OMB - Other migratory birds FAR - Fish/aquatic resources
HEC - Healthy ecosystems PED - Public education
IAF - Interjurisdictional & anadromous fish PRC - Public recreation
4
Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 61
150: new acres will be managed
MEASURES: 2000 acres will be treated; 2000 acres infested by target species; 2000 acres will be treated chemically; 50 acres will be
treated mechanically; 10 acres will be treated biologically
Riverbottom habitat on the Refuge is important to numerous species and numbers of migratory birds for migration and breeding. Pest
plants have invaded many riverbottom sites on the Refuge, and are supplanting native plant species that are important to migratory birds.
This project would fund the treatment and control of these plants at the scale necessary to reduce their coverage. Approximately 1000
acres would be treated annually for approximately 5 years. Such efforts should reduce the pest plant threat on the Refuge to a mainte-nance
level that the Refuge staff is capable of handling.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED ($000): Recurring First Year
One-Time Base Need
Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations: Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Equipment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services/Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 40
Miscellaneous Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5
TOTAL Operations Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 45 55
ADDITIONAL PERMANENT STAFF NEEDED: FTE’s Cost ($000)
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Biologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Resource Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Education/Recreation Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Clerical/Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Maintenance/Equipment Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
TOTAL FTEs Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
EMPHASIS: 0% Critical health & safety; 100% Critical resource protection; 0% Critical mission; 0% Other important needs.
OUTCOMES*: ES WF OMB HEC IAF SDA RW PED FAR PRC TOT
30 40 30 100
PLANNING LINKS: FWS Ecosystem Goal/Plan; Station Goal/Objective; Station CCP approved 10/97+
Project supports an objective in the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Project #: 97006 RANK - STATION: 5 DISTRICT: 014 REGION: 083 NATIONAL:
*OUTCOMES:
ES - Endangered & threatened species SDA - Special designation areas
WF - Waterfowl RW - Resident wildlife
OMB - Other migratory birds FAR - Fish/aquatic resources
HEC - Healthy ecosystems PED - Public education
IAF - Interjurisdictional & anadromous fish PRC - Public recreation
5
62 Browns Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
15000: new acres will be managed
MEASURES: 300 Refuge acres will be restored.
Wetland units were created in the Horseshoe and Grimes areas of the Refuge. Although great efforts were made to get these units to
function, ultimately neither unit held water to the degree necessary to be beneficial to wildlife, and instead these areas became infested
with pest plants. This project would restore the previous topography and native grass and shrubs in the Grimes and Horseshoe marsh
units. Old dikes, powerpoles, delivery ditches and pump stations would be removed. Native grass and shrubs would be reestablished.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED ($000): Recurring First Year
One-Time Base Need
Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations: Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Equipment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services/Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 10
Miscellaneous Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TOTAL Operations Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 20 90
ADDITIONAL PERMANENT STAFF NEEDED: FTE’s Cost ($000)
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Biologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Resource Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Education/Recreation Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Clerical/Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Maintenance/Equipment Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
TOTAL FTE’s Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
EMPHASIS: 0% Critical health & safety; 0% Critical resource protection; 0% Critical mission; 100% Other important needs.
OUTCOMES*: ES WF OMB HEC IAF SDA RW PED FAR PRC TOT
10 10 60 10 10 100
PLANNING LINKS: Station Goal/Objective; Station CCP approved 10/97+
Project supports an objective in the Refuge’s Comprehensive