Ouray National wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental Assessment

              Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ouray
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Environmental Assessment
National Wildlife Refuge
2 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
February 2000
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge
266W 100N Suite #2
Vernal, UT 84078
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 3
Table of Contents
Introduction/Background ............................................................................. 5
Refuge Overview
History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management
Purpose and Need for Plan ............................................................................. 6
NWRS Mission .................................................................................................. 13
Refuge Purpose ................................................................................................. 13
Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................. 13
Legal and Policy Guidance .............................................................................. 13
Planning Process
Description of Planning Process ..................................................................... 14
Planning Issues and Opportunities ................................................................ 14
Riparian Restoration and Overbank Flooding ...................................... 14
Nonnative Plants ....................................................................................... 15
Selenium ..................................................................................................... 16
Mosquitos.................................................................................................... 16
Summary Refuge and Resource Description ........................................... 19
Geographic/Ecosystem Flyway Setting ........................................................ 19
Refuge Habitats ................................................................................................ 20
Riverine ....................................................................................................... 23
Riparian ...................................................................................................... 23
Brennan Bottom ................................................................................. 24
Johnson Bottom.................................................................................. 24
Leota Bottom ...................................................................................... 29
Wyasket Bottom ................................................................................. 30
Sheppard Bottom ............................................................................... 31
North and South Roadside Draw ............................................. 32
Moist-soil Units ........................................................................... 32
Croplands ..................................................................................... 33
Woods Bottom ..................................................................................... 33
Uplands ....................................................................................................... 34
Semidesert Shrubland ....................................................................... 34
Grassland ............................................................................................. 34
Clay Bluffs ........................................................................................... 34
Refuge Wildlife .................................................................................................. 35
Riverine ....................................................................................................... 35
Riparian ...................................................................................................... 36
Uplands .......................................................................................................
Semidesert Shrubland and Grassland ............................................. 37
Clay Bluffs ........................................................................................... 37
Special Status Species ...................................................................................... 38
Threatened and Endangered ................................................................... 39
Species of Management Concern ............................................................ 39
Public Use ....................................................................................................... 40
Refuge Cultural and Paleontological Resources .......................................... 40
Refuge Land Acquisition ................................................................................. 43
Special Management Areas ............................................................................. 43
Refuge Fire Management ................................................................................ 43
Water Rights ...................................................................................................... 44
GIS Mapping Data Needs ............................................................................... 44
4 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Management Direction
Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Refuge Goals .............................................................................................. 45
Refuge Objectives and Strategies ........................................................... 45
Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................ 57
Funding and Personnel .................................................................................... 57
Permanent Personnel Needed ................................................................. 57
Step-down Management Plans ....................................................................... 57
Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................................. 58
Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................... 59
Appendix A. Glossary ....................................................................................... 60
Appendix B. Bibliography/References .......................................................... 63
Appendix C. RONS List .................................................................................. 66
Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations ................................................. 75
Appendix E. Compliance Requirements ....................................................... 84
Appendix F. Mailing List ................................................................................. 86
Appendix G.List of Preparers ......................................................................... 88
Appendix H.Species Lists of OurayNational Wildlife Refuge
Including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, fish, and plants. ...... 89
Appendix J. Final Environmental Assessment: Acquisition and Enhance-ment
of Floodplain Habitats Along the Upper Colorado, Green, and
Gunnison Rivers as Part of the Recovery Program For Endangered
Colorado River Fishes. .................................................................................... 117
Appendix K. Environmental Assessment: An Element of the Recovery
Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin:
Levee Removal Project ................................................................................... 122
Appendix L. Water Rights .............................................................................. 126
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 5
Introduction/Background
In the Uintah Basin of northeastern Utah lies the 11,987-acre Ouray
National Wildlife Refuge. Located about 30 miles southwest of Vernal, the
Refuge protects riparian woodland, bottomland wetlands, and grasslands
bordering the Green River (see Map 1 and 2). Geographically, the Refuge
is long and narrow covering about 19 square miles. The Refuge was
established on May 25, 1960, under authority of the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929 and Public Land Order 2730, and land
acquisition was initiated in 1961 using Duck Stamp funding. Most of the
acreage is owned in fee title (5,032 acres), 3,110 acres was transferred
from the BLM, 2,692 acres is leased from the Ute Tribe, and 1,153 is
leased from the State of Utah (see Map 3).
The Refuge was originally established to provide prime breeding, resting,
and feeding areas for migratory waterfowl. Early in its history, much of
the Refuge’s floodplain and wetland habitats were altered with the
construction of dikes and levees to gain control over seasonal water flow
from the Green River. Impounded marsh units were created to provide
secure water, food, and nesting cover for waterfowl. Since the construction
of Flaming Gorge Dam upstream, the Green River system has changed
dramatically resulting in long-term loss and degradation of riparian
habitats and wildlife species dependent on them. The Refuge’s riparian
habitat is now critically important to protect declining fish and migratory
bird species using the Green River corridor.
The greatest challenge in managing the Refuge lies in determining the
area’s optimum ecological potential given past and present human
intervention. Refuge managers will be required to perform a balancing act
in managing for all trust species. Numerous uncertainties exist over the
habitat’s potential to be restored in the presence of human-regulated river
flows and the overabundance of nonnative plants and animals. The newly
proposed management direction will require collection of additional
historic (both pre- and post-Flaming Gorge Dam construction) and
present day vegetative and wildlife inventories and habitat structure and
composition data. Past emphasis on waterfowl production had very little
need for this data and it is not presently available to the Refuge staff. A
need also exists to further study levee removal modifications and to assess
keeping man-made impoundments and the 150 acres of croplands. It is
feared that if abandoned, these intensively altered sites will become
dominant stands of nonnative vegetation. Modern day invasive species
control technology, and limited resources offer no reassurance that these
areas can be restored. This Plan identifies, through goals and objectives,
some of the sites which presently lend themselves to restoration. The
Refuge presently lacks much of the data needed to pursue large scale
restoration, so proposes to collect information on which to base well
informed management decisions. Some of the man-made impoundments
cannot be restored without posing serious problems to existing roads,
water control structures, fences, public use facilities, and buildings. It is
anticipated that the accomplishment of the identified goals will require
much, if not all, of the 15-year planning period.
6 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Refuge Overview
History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management
Purpose and Need for Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 over
93 million acres of public land and water which provides habitat for more
than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, and insects.
Comprehensive conservation plans (CCP) were mandated by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Act requires that
all lands and waters of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) be
managed in accordance with an approved CCP that guides management
decisions, sets forth strategies for achieving Refuge purposes, and
contributes to the System mission. This CCP establishes the goals,
objectives, and strategies that will guide the management of Ouray
National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years. It will serve as the basis
for more detailed step-down management plans and budgets. The Plan is
comprehensive in the sense that it addresses all activities that occur on
the Refuge, though activities and strategies are stated broadly. Detailed
descriptions of strategies or activities will appear in step-down plans.
Refuge objectives are established based on the Refuge purposes, other
Federal laws, National Wildlife Refuge System goals, Service policies and
directives.
The Refuge was originally established as a prime waterfowl production
area which would also provide needed resting and feeding areas for
migratory birds traveling along the Green River corridor. The current
management strategy of the Refuge takes into account new biological
information and insight into the importance of western riparian and
floodplain systems to a variety of fish and wildlife species. Human
demands on water resources have resulted in loss, alteration, and
degradation of riparian habitats. The species dependent upon such river
systems have declined throughout the western states, contributing to
population declines of the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, whooping crane,
Uintah Basin hookless cactus, and four species of fish native to the Green
River. All these species have been placed on the federally threatened and
endangered species list since the Refuge was established in 1960.
Managers now realize that Refuge floodplains cannot easily be
transformed into wetlands intensively managed for waterfowl production.
The riparian corridor, overlooked as a major habitat type in the early
1960’s, is critical and supports tremendous biological diversity (Knopf et
al., 1988). The listing of the razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow in
1987 has posed new required management considerations under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. The proposed plan will de-emphasize
waterfowl production and shift management emphasis toward
enhancement of riparian and wetland habitat for waterfowl, other
migratory birds, and endangered fish species.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 7
8 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 9
10 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 11
12 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 13
NWRS Mission
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.”
Refuge Purpose
The Ouray NWR was established on May 25, 1960, by the authority of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. Land acquisition was initiated
in November 1960, and the Refuge became operational in late 1961 for
“use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.”
Refuge Vision Statement
The Green River corridor is a ribbon of riverine, riparian, and seasonal
wetland habitats threading through the arid desert lands of southwest
Wyoming, northwest Colorado, and eastern Utah. Historically many
species of birds and other wildlife depended on this corridor for navigation
and provided a chain of feeding and resting areas along their migration
paths each year. Because of a broad array of changes in land-use and
water development projects in the western states, riparian habitats are
now rare, and the species dependent on them in decline (Howe and Knopf
1991).
The most vital contribution Ouray National Wildlife Refuge can make to
the Upper Colorado River Ecosystem (UCRE) is to restore and enhance
riparian woodlands and seasonal wetlands along its 12 River miles. The
11,987-acre Refuge will be managed for a variety of native plants and
wildlife with emphasis on migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use. The Refuge
welcomes visitors and will provide them with opportunities to understand
and appreciate the vital role riverine systems play in the arid west.
Opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation such as wildlife
observation, photography, hunting and fishing will also be provided.
Information generated from the research conducted under this Plan will
enhance understanding and cooperation among local land-use interests,
residents, and management agencies. The Refuge will work with
individuals, organizations, and agencies to promote wildlife conservation
in the Green River Basin. As a result, the unique biological resources, and
natural beauty of the Green River will be enhanced and restored for
future generations.
Legal and Policy Guidance
Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the Refuge purpose as described in its establishing
legislation, executive orders, Service laws and policy, and international
treaties. Key concepts and guidance for the System are covered in the
System Administration Act of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962,
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual, and, most recently, through the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. Appendix E contains a partial list of other
Federal laws governing the administration of the System.
14 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Planning Process
Description of Planning Process
The Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan is
guided by the established purposes of the Refuge, the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service compatibility
standards, other Service policies, plans and laws directly related to
Refuge Management. This Plan establishes the goals, objectives,
strategies, and monitoring and evaluation for the Refuge.
The Plan will be used to prepare step-down management plans and revise
existing plans, performance standards and budgets which describe specific
actions to be taken by the Refuge. The effects of major management
actions will be monitored and evaluated to provide information to future
managers as to the result of actions taken.
Issues addressed in this Plan were identified by the public, Refuge staff,
and cooperating agencies. A formal effort was made to obtain input from
local residents, Refuge visitors, and from individuals who have expressed
interest in the Refuge. Public comment was solicited through an open
house held at the Refuge on April 27, 1996; a news release was sent to
public officials, local, State, and other Federal agencies, local groups and
interested individuals, and the circulation of questionnaires.
The duration of the CCP is 15 years; however, the Plan may be revised if
necessary within that time. The CCP will supersede the Refuge Master
Plan written in 1962.
Planning Issues and Opportunities
Four issues are of particular concern when planning future management
actions for Ouray NWR. These include degradation and loss of riparian
habitat, invasion of nonnative plants, selenium control, and mosquito
production.
Riparian Restoration and Overbank Flooding
The use of overbank flooding as a management option has become an issue
for the Refuge and for the Green River in general. Periodic high River
flows helped create and maintain bottomland wetlands (bottoms) in low
areas adjacent to the River (Cooper and Severn 1994). These wetlands
historically supported many species of wildlife such as endemic native fish
and migratory birds. Now that much of the River course is controlled by
levees and the Flaming Gorge Dam, overbank flooding is a rare event
(FLO Engineering 1996). Special status wildlife species that depend upon
these wetlands during part of their life cycle are the endangered Colorado
pikeminnow (previously known as Colorado squawfish) razorback sucker
and the bald eagle. Three of four endangered Colorado River fish are
found in the Green River near the Refuge, and two of them have been
found in Refuge wetlands (Modde 1997, Modde and Wick 1997, Modde and
Irving 1998).
In the fall of 1997 and spring of 1998, the Recovery Implementation
Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin
(Recovery Program), in cooperation with the Refuge, breached levees in
Woods Bottom, Leota Bottom, and Johnson Bottom to evaluate habitat
and wildlife responses to a planned seasonal floodplain inundation.
Responses by nonnative and native fish, other wildlife, and plants are
being recorded to gauge the effects of reestablishing overbank flooding.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 15
Nonnative Plants
Ouray NWR, like most modified landscapes, has been invaded by a variety
of nonnative plants, some of which were introduced as ornamental plants.
Nonnative plants usually flourish in disturbed landscapes and tend to out-compete
native plants (Di Tomaso 1998, Olson 1999). The current River
flow regime and other on-site modifications or limitations (e.g., lack of
independent water control to manipulate varying water depths or flood
regimes within units) does not favor native riparian plant communities and
contributes to the spread of nonnative species (Laubhan 1997). As a result,
less habitat exists that supports native wildlife (Trammel and Butler 1995,
Schmidt and Whelan 1999) resulting in either smaller population sizes or
less diversity in species that are native to the River corridor (Knopf and
Olson 1984, Kerpez and Smith 1987, DeLoach 1989). Additionally, many
nonnative plants alter the physical characteristics of the system. Some
species change the chemical profile of the soil (Di Tomaso 1998) or
increase soil erosion, sedimentation, and flooding that are better
minimized by native vegetation along riparian areas (DeLoach 1989,
Sheley et al. 1995, Wiesenborn 1996). The nonnative plants of major
concern to the Refuge are: saltcedar (Tamarix sp.), perennial pepperweed
(Lepidium latifolium), Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and
Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens).
The exact degree of infestation and species composition is presently
unknown. A current cursory estimate on the degree of infestation by
species and bottom site is shown under Goal A, Objective 1. The Refuge
staff recognizes the need to map and identify the degree of infestation and
species composition as a means of baseline information on which to gauge
efforts being carried out. The Refuge staff is proposing the use of a Global
Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) to
record and map infestations as one of its strategies within Goal A.
Current invasive weed management techniques being employed include
both mechanical and chemical techniques. The only biological control
agent currently available for species known to occur on the Refuge is a
soil nematode (Subanguina picridus) for Russian knapweed. The Refuge
staff experimented with the nematode with very little success. The staff
works closely with the Uintah County Extension Office, Uintah County
Weed Department, and other land management agencies in an effort to
improve communications and control techniques.
The Uintah County Weed Department annually sprays 50 acres of Refuge
roadsides with a tank mix of Escort and 2,4-D amine to help control the
spread of perennial pepperweed. The Refuge is currently treating salt
cedar, perennial pepperweed, Russian knapweed, and Russian olive with
the following techniques:
Salt cedar - tank mix of 50 percent Round-Up and 50 percent Arsenal
applied foliarly
- experimenting with above mix on resprouts following burning
- experimenting with straight Arsenal as a foliar application
Perennial pepperweed - Escort/2,4-D amine 50:50 mix
- experimenting with straight Escort (with and
without mowing)
Russian knapweed - 2,4-D amine within farm field
- Escort/2,4-D amine on roadsides
Russian Olive - 2,4-D Ester stump treatment
- Arsenal stump treatment
The Refuge staff continues to experiment with numerous techniques
which have been researched and proven to work in other states.
16 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Selenium
Accumulation of high concentrations of selenium within the Refuge is a
serious issue which poses life threatening health problems for wildlife.
Selenium is a naturally occurring element found in the soil, water, and
vegetation within and adjacent to Refuge lands. Selenium is essential for
most living organisms but can be toxic when concentrated (Hamilton et al., 1996,
Waddell pers. comm.). For the past nine years, the Service’s Ecological
Services Division, in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
has been conducting extensive studies of selenium to determine the levels
and distribution of selenium in soil, water, and wildlife in and adjacent to
the Refuge. Numerous dead birds and deformed bird embryos have been
found. Based on data collected thus far, selenium on the Refuge has been
linked to water flows through the Roadside Draw located in the southwest
corner of the Refuge and impoundments in the immediate area. Approximately
$2.5 million has been spent to minimize the flow and accumulation of water
in the Roadside Draw. Despite the Service’s efforts, high concentrations of
selenium still occur, and data indicates farm irrigation occurring north of
the Refuge leaches selenium from the soil and is discharged on the Refuge
via groundwater (Waddell pers. comm.).
In an effort to prevent additional increases in water flow through the Roadside
Draw, the Refuge requested that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
consider Refuge objectives in their land-use planning of areas adjacent to the
Refuge. BLM has agreed with our request and has incorporated necessary
wording into the Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plan. The Refuge
staff is continuing the cleanup of contaminated sites.
The Refuge, with the assistance of the Ecological Services Division and the USGS,
is currently evaluating levee removal to provide dilution of the concentrated
selenium. This proposal would in essence return this site to the way it once
functioned prior to construction of the protective dike. This proposal involves
partial removal of the Sheppard Bottom protective dike, and modification to the
interior dikes of S3 and S5. A separate Environmental Assessment will be
prepared in the year 2000 for this project. Please refer to the Selenium Project
(Map 4) for additional information.
Mosquitos
Refuge wetlands produce large numbers of mosquitos. This creates serious
conflicts with neighboring communities and concern over mosquito borne
Western Equine and St. Louis Encephalitis. The Uintah County Mosquito
Abatement District (UCMAD), in cooperation with the Refuge, has
applied the larvicide BTI (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis), a biological
control to Refuge wetlands, in an attempt to reduce the mosquito population.
Malathion is also used, but only as a last resort when disease vectors are
present, and the areas fogged are on administrative and upland sites.
Refuge cooperation exists in the form of cost sharing for BTI (when the
budget allows), monitoring of mosquito populations using a light trap, and
providing access for monitoring and control. The Refuge cooperates with the
District’s effort to suppress mosquitos as long as it does not conflict with
the purpose of the Refuge. In 1999, a total of 9,712 acres were treated with
BTI and 170 acres were treated with malathion (the acreage includes
repeat treatments of the same sites). A sentinel flock of domestic poultry
located on a nearby ranch is routinely checked for mosquito borne
infectious diseases.
The Refuge is also currently evaluating the use of other mosquito control
chemicals including the larvicide Agnique, and community bat box construction
and placement in cooperation with the Boy Scouts of America and other
interested volunteers. Potential conflicts can exist between mosquito
control and providing food, shelter, and cover for endangered fish and
migratory birds.
The Refuge greatly appreciates the professional working relationship and
the numerous accomplishments UCMAD has made on the Refuge.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 17
18 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 19
Summary Refuge and
Resource Description
Geographic/Ecosystem Flyway Setting
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is organized into watershed based
ecosystems (see Map 5). The Ouray NWR, Browns Park NWR in
Colorado, and the Seedskadee NWR in Wyoming all lie within the Upper
Colorado River Ecosystem (UCRE). All three refuges are similar in that
they are located along the Green River.
The UCRE 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. An
interagency planning team met in 1994 to develop broad goals and
objectives for the UCRE. Resource issues identified by the team for the
Ecosystem are closely related to resource issues and concerns raised by
the staff of Ouray NWR. The goals developed are:
P 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 Reverse the current trend (of decline in wetland and riparian
habitats); restore, maintain, and enhance the species composition, the
extent and spatial distribution of wetland/riparian habitats.
P Promote terrestrial biological diversity and ecosystem stability
through sound land management practices thereby avoiding
fragmentation, degradation, and loss of terrestrial habitats.
Ouray NWR is also included in the Intermountain West Joint Venture
region of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Other
regional wildlife resource planning efforts which may affect management
of the Ouray NWR 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 goose, western Canadian Arctic snow goose, Pacific
Flyway Ross’ goose, Rocky Mountain population of trumpeter swan,
western population of tundra swan, Rocky Mountain population of greater
sandhill cranes and Western Management Unit of mourning dove.
The Refuge lies within the Uintah Basin, a subdivision of the Colorado
Plateau physiographic province. Refuge habitats include about 19 square
miles of riverine, riparian, and upland habitats. Benchlands are held up by
upper strata of the Uinta Formation, which form rounded and sculptured
bluffs bordering the River valley. Pleistocene and earlier terrace gravel
cover the benchlands. Bottoms and alluvial fans derived from the benches
cover the margins of river terraces in the valley. Elevation ranges from
5,072 feet above sea level atop Leota Bluff, to 4,650 feet along the Green
River at the south end of Sheppard Bottom.
In some years, the Refuge area receives suitable flows from the Green
River and the Yampa River to adequately flood critical floodplain habitat
for the endangered Colorado River Fishes. The Refuge serves as a
partner and cooperator in the Recovery Program. Many of the necessary
habitat conditions required by the endangered fish are also conducive to
migratory bird management.
20 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Refuge Habitats
National, regional, and local efforts have been made to simplify,
standardize, and describe habitat classifications. For example, Cowardin
et al. (1979) developed a classification system for wetlands and deepwater
habitats in the United States. In 1997, Dall et al. proposed a system for
mapping riparian areas in the western United States. More specifically,
Hansen et al. (1995) developed a classification for Montana’s riparian
areas. To be directly useful for management, classification and
identification of certain habitats and areas must be gleaned from these
existing systems but refined for a particular management area (i.e., Ouray
NWR). On the Refuge, three general habitat categories occur: riverine,
riparian, and uplands. The following defines and describes these general
habitat categories, including improvements or developments within
riparian areas. Specific impoundment surface acres, capacities, and
maximum pool elevations are shown in Table 1.
*Based on FLO Engineering’s Ouray NWR Bottomland Sites Elevation/
Area/Capacity Tables Final Report (Revised 8/97)
Table 1. Ouray NWR Wetland Area/Capacity Elevation Table*
Pool Designation Pool Capacity
Surface Acres
Pool Capacity
Acre-Feet
Full Pool
Elevation
J-1
J-2
J-3
J-4
31
41
58
16
146
42
74
35
16
267
4667.00
4666.00
4666.00
4666.00
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-7A
L-8
L-9
L-10
57
88
107
84
80
99
120
20
118
83
151
1016
157
230
382
340
222
362
275
40
289
227
553
3077
4668.00
4668.00
4666.00
4666.00
4663.00
4664.00
4662.00
4662.00
4662.00
4662.00
4664.00
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
12
10
88
12
50
11
10
8
11
16
56
4656.00
4656.00
4656.00
4656.50
4656.00
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
95
260
217
70
129
771
177
314
703
196
399
2200
4658.00
4658.00
4658.00
4658.00
4658.00
Woods Main
Woods Back
309
91
400
850
124
974
4655.00
4655.00
Wyasket Pond
Wyasket Lake
253
1393
1646
644
3267
3911
4663.00
4661.00
Total AC/CAP: 4029 10485
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 21
22 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 23
Riverine
Riverine, as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979), is any
wetland or deepwater habitat contained within a
channel, with the exception of wetlands dominated by
trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses,
or lichens. Within the Refuge boundary, 12 miles of the
Green River meet this definition which equates to
approximately 1,180 acres.
The Green River watershed encompasses 45,000 square
miles, originating in Wyoming’s Wind River Range and
stretching 730 miles through Colorado and finally
connecting to the Colorado River in Canyonlands
National Park, Utah. The northern Refuge boundary
begins approximately 120 River miles downstream from
Flaming Gorge Dam. The Green River receives
additional flows from the unregulated Yampa River that
lies between the dam and the Refuge, with an average of
two flow peaks per year (Collier et al. 1996, Laubhan
1997).
The dam, erected in 1962, has forever altered the timing
of flows (see Figure 1 and 2 for pre- and post-dam
flows). Historically, the Green River would begin to rise
in March, peak in June, and decline in July. Many native
fish species found nowhere else evolved with this
variability in River flow and sediment concentration and
temperatures specific to the Green River. Under
influence of Flaming Gorge Dam, the Green River’s
high flows now coincide with releases to power peak
electrical demands of summer and winter, but the total
amount of water released per year has not significantly
changed (Collier et al. 1996). Daily peak electrical
demands result in daily River flow fluctuations that can
be as extreme as 1.5 feet per day as recorded 107 miles
downstream from the dam at Jensen, Utah (Valdez
1989). Even though these present-day permutations
present obstacles to endangered fish recovery and
habitat restoration, the Green River continues to be the
lifeline of Ouray NWR and its flora and fauna.
Riparian
Riparian as defined by Dall and others (1997): “. . .are plant communities
contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface hydrologic features
of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (rivers, streams,
lakes, or drainage ways). Riparian areas have one or both of the following
characteristics: 1) distinctively different vegetative species than adjacent
areas, and 2) species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting more
vigorous or robust growth forms. Riparian areas are usually transitional
between wetland and upland.” (See Map 6 and 7).
National Wetland Inventories (NWI) following the Cowardin and others
(1979) classification have recently been completed for Ouray NWR.
However, these data are based on 1983, color infrared (CIR) aerial
photography. This particular year saw the onset of a 100-year flood event.
Therefore, the information gleaned from the NWIs represent a best-case
scenario from an ecological standpoint. For example, Hansen (1994) states
that recent research has shown that most cottonwood and willow
recruitment is due mainly to very large flooding events and not to average
flow events. Although 100-year flood events are best-case scenarios, today,
management on a daily basis is more on-line with average flows.
Figure 1. Pre-Dam Average Annual Flows
Figure 2. Post-Dam Average Annual Flows
24 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
With the exception of the NWI, no other riparian or wetland ecological
site classification has been completed on or near the Refuge (Hansen
1994). Therefore in the CCP, the definition of “riparian” will follow Dall,
et. al. 1997, but the data used will be from the NWI (following Cowardin
1979). Although Cowardin describes vegetation by life forms within
classes such as forested (trees), scrub/shrub, emergents, etc., and since
complete baseline biological inventories and other assessments (e.g.,
structure and composition of existing vegetation) are lacking for the
Refuge, additional discussion of vegetation by bottoms is in general terms
and based on casual or anecdotal observations. Additional recommendations
and information have been provided during 1- and 2-day field visits and
on-site assessments by Murray Laubhan (Midcontinent Ecological
Science Center), Leigh Fredrickson (Gaylord Laboratory), Paul L.
Hansen (University of Montana), Charlie Pelizza (Lake Andes NWR), and
several others.
The CCP describes Refuge management units defined by previous
Refuge staffs and that probably date back to the inception of this Refuge.
These management units (previously identified as bottoms or distinct
natural forming depressions between the River’s edge and the uplands)
are Brennan, Johnson, Leota, Wyasket, Sheppard, and Woods or Old
Charley Wash.
Several intermittent streams drain the adjacent uplands located on and off
the Refuge. Only the stream habitat associated with the North and South
Roadside Draw near the main entrance to the Refuge will be discussed in
the CCP because it has been the most impacted by human presence.
Brennan Bottom
Brennan Bottom is the northernmost (upstream) bottomland on the
Refuge. Most of the bottomland is privately owned, but it falls within the
executive boundary of Ouray NWR. All inventoried wetlands (ca. 154
acres) in Brennan are classified as palustrine (see Cowardin et al. 1979 for
more information). Approximately 77 acres of seasonally flooded
emergent wetlands comprise 50 percent of the classified wetlands. Other
temporarily flooded wetlands are forested (51 acres), scrub/shrub (24
acres), and impounded unconsolidated shore (2 acres) (USFWS, Brennan
Basin 1999). The approximately 160 acres in Refuge ownership are
associated uplands (i.e., areas that are not wetlands). Uplands will be
discussed in a later section. As most of the classified wetlands in Brennan
are in private ownership, the Refuge has no active water management
capabilities.
Johnson Bottom
Approximately 250 acres of inventoried wetlands exist in Johnson Bottom
(USFWS, Brennan Basin 1999). In 1983, 73 percent (182 acres) of the
wetlands were classified as lacustrine. The lacustrine wetland is an
impounded, intermittently exposed, artificially flooded aquatic bed.
Presently, this represents the bulk of Johnson Bottom units J-1 through J-
4. The remaining acreage (68 acres) is classified as palustrine. Specifically,
three acres are artificially/temporarily impounded emergent wetlands, 21
acres are temporarily flooded forest, and 44 acres are scrub/shrub
wetlands (USFWS, Brennan Basin 1999).
The four units within Johnson Bottom provide deep, open-water habitat.
Aquatic submergent vegetation is currently nonexistent due to water
turbidity caused by common carp. The vegetation that does occur on the
outer edges consists primarily of cattail and hardstem bulrush. Although
the dominance of these species is not known, other vegetation specific to
the forested and scrub/shrub classifications include cottonwoods, willow
species, Russian olive, Tamarix, greasewood, and sagebrush.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 25
26 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 27
28 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 29
These four man-made impoundments are essentially managed as one unit,
with the gravity flow inlet coming into J-1 and Green River water fed on
through to J-4. Three interior dikes that subdivide this wetland have
deteriorated over the years and do not allow for independent
management. A management decision was made in 1988 to remove the
electric line from a permanent pump station located in this remote area.
Partial levee removal along the southeast corner of J-4 was completed in
March 1998 and is designed to flood at River flows of 13,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs). Construction of a new drain structure/fish kettle in the
southeast corner of J-3 was completed in the fall of 1999. Both projects
were constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation and funded by the
Recovery Program. A proposal is being considered to remove what is left
of the three interior dikes that subdivide this wetland.
Leota Bottom
More than 1,250 acres of wetlands classified as palustrine occur in Leota
Bottom. According to 1983 aerial photography, temporarily flooded
wetlands in Leota are emergent (40 acres), scrub/shrub (158 acres), and
forested (220 acres). Other classified wetlands in Leota are excavated,
semipermanently flooded unconsolidated bottom (0.47 acres), seasonally
flooded emergent (4 acres), and impounded artificially/seasonally flooded
scrub/shrub (24 acres). However, the bulk of palustrine wetlands in Leota
are comprised of impounded artificially/semipermanently flooded
emergent wetlands (808 acres) (USFWS, Brennan Basin 1999), which
approximates the area in Leota units L-1 through L-10, including L-7A.
The eleven units within Leota Bottom provide an array of habitat
gradients from pockets of deep to shallow open-water and areas of open-water
interspersed with aquatic emergents. Cattail and hardstem bulrush
are also the dominant plant species within these impoundments. Similar to
Johnson Bottom the dominant species are not known, but other vegetation
specific to the forested and scrub/shrub classifications include
cottonwoods, willow species, Russian olive, Tamarix, squaw bush,
greasewood, and sagebrush.
Of all the wetland sites on the Refuge, Leota has been the most
intensively developed. Water sources for the Leota impoundments are the
Green River and Pelican Lake. Green River water can either be pumped
or gravity fed into the wetland complex through L-2. A new inlet structure
and gauging station was constructed in 1997 to make gravity flow more
feasible. Pelican Lake water can be gravity fed via pipeline into L-10. In
March 1998, partial levee removal adjacent to L-7 and L-7A was
accomplished and is designed to flood at River flows of 15,000 cfs and
20,000 cfs. A new drain structure/fish kettle located at the south end of the
complex, was constructed in June 1999. These projects were constructed
by the Bureau of Reclamation and funded by the Recovery Program and
the Refuge Flood Relief Funds. Texas crossings or spillways were
constructed in 1999 between L-1/L-2, L-2/L4, L1/L3, L4/L6, and L6/L8.
The spillways relieve hydrologic pressure exerted on interior dikes and
thus minimize water erosion.
30 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Wyasket Bottom
Of the 1,373 acres of inventoried wetlands that exist in Wyasket Bottom,
67 percent (924 acres) are lacustrine and 33 percent (449 acres) are
palustrine. Relatively speaking, these acreages correspond to what has
been managed as Wyasket Lake and Wyasket Pond within this bottom. Of
the lacustrine wetlands, 39 acres are temporarily flooded, 868 acres are
seasonally flooded, and 17 acres are semipermanently flooded. The
temporarily and seasonally flooded lacustrine wetlands are further
classified as impounded, artificially flooded, and unconsolidated shore,
whereas the semipermanent lacustrine wetland is further classified as
excavated and unconsolidated bottom. The classified palustrine wetlands
are temporarily, seasonally, semipermanently, and artificially flooded. The
temporarily flooded palustrine wetlands include scrub/shrub (175 acres),
forested (151 acres), impounded artificially flooded emergent (17 acres),
and emergent (2 acres). Additional classifications and modifiers of the
seasonally flooded palustrine wetlands are impounded, artificially flooded
unconsolidated shore (16 acres) and emergent (3 acres), emergent (5
acres), and unconsolidated shore (0.37 acres). The semipermanently
flooded palustrine wetlands include the following additional classifications
and modifiers, impounded, artificially flooded emergent (77 acres) and
excavated, artificially flooded aquatic bed (3 acres) (USFWS, Brennan
Basin, Ouray SE, and Ouray 1999).
When flooded, Wyasket Lake functions as a natural moist-soil unit
producing an abundance of foods in the form of seeds and invertebrates
for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. The predominant
emergent plant species are dock and smartweeds, with some fringes of
reed canarygrass. Sago pondweed is the dominant submergent vegetation
in Wyasket Lake.
Wyasket Pond has a history of overabundant emergent vegetation. Cattail
and hardstem bulrush are the dominant plant species covering almost the
entire pond. The dominance of other species is not known, but other
vegetation specific to the forested and scrub/shrub classifications in
Wyasket Bottom include cottonwoods, Russian olive, Tamarix, squaw
bush, greasewood, and sagebrush.
Wyasket Bottom is the least developed wetland site on the Refuge and
floods naturally at a river flow of 18,000 cfs. Green River water can be
diverted to Wyasket Pond via gravity flow inlet or pump station, although
the pump station has not been used since 1991. This water can also be
diverted to Wyasket Lake through the Wyasket Pond inlet structure, but
careful consideration must be given to this practice. Diverting water to
Wyasket Lake during the runoff period can set the stage for a mid-to-late
summer drawdown, triggering an outbreak of avian botulism. Therefore,
the Refuge staff has recently decided against actively diverting water to
Wyasket Lake at River flows less that 18,000 cfs.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 31
Sheppard Bottom
All 967 acres of inventoried wetlands in Sheppard are temporarily,
seasonally, and semipermanently flooded palustrine wetlands. Further
modifiers and classification of temporarily flooded palustrine wetlands are
forested (84 acres), scrub/shrub (78 acres), emergent (6 acres), and
impounded, artificially flooded scrub/shrub (0.61 acres). Two acres of
unconsolidated shore temporarily flooded wetlands exist in this Bottom.
Additional classification of semipermanently flooded palustrine wetlands
include excavated, artificially flooded emergent (770 acres), impounded,
artificially flooded aquatic bed (20 acres), and emergent (7 acres)
(USFWS, Ouray and Pelican Lake 1999).
During the NWI inventory of 1983, Sheppard Bottom units S-1 through S-
5 were inundated and were thus classified as 770 acres of excavated
palustrine, artificially/semipermanently flooded emergent wetlands. This
may not reflect the area’s average condition and illustrates the need to
further refine, describe, and qualify data that was recorded in 1983 with
what is generally present over time. Additionally, moist-soil units were
created north and adjacent to Sheppard Bottom Unit 4 since the CIR
photographs were taken in 1983. These moist-soil units (ca. 50 acres)
would probably be classified as palustrine, unconsolidated bottom,
artificially flooded, impounded wetlands. Furthermore, about 150 acres of
farm fields or croplands are considered to lie within Sheppard Bottom.
This classification with the potential farmed (f) modifier was not
interpreted from the 1983 CIR photographs (see below for more
information on moist-soil units and croplands).
Similar to Wyasket Pond, Sheppard Bottom units S-1 through S-5 become
almost entirely covered with cattail and hardstem bulrush with the
exception of a few scattered pockets of open water and encroachment of
Tamarix. Other dominant species are not known, but other vegetation
specific to the forested and scrub/shrub classifications in Sheppard
Bottom include cottonwoods, Russian olive, Tamarix, and squaw bush. S-2,
S-3, S-4, and S-5 were burned in 1999 to reduce emergent vegetation cover
and to reduce fuel loads that could damage surrounding cottonwoods with
potential wildfire.
Water for Sheppard Bottom is received from the Green River via a gravity
flow inlet and pump station. Similar to all bottoms, inundation of
Sheppard also occurs through “subup” or subsurface water movement
caused by River flows. Correlation of specific River flows (e.g., cubic feet
per second or cfs) with “subup” need to be determined for all of the
Bottoms on the Refuge to facilitate better management decisions and
planning. Water is also provided to Sheppard Bottom from Pelican Lake
via gravity flow pipeline and seep/spring flows from Roadside Draw.
32 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
North and South Roadside Draw
Water has not been impounded in this Draw since 1996 because of
selenium concentrations that pose health risks (e.g., deformities, reduced
reproduction, etc.,) to wildlife. However, during the NWI inventory of
1983 the habitat in the North and South Roadside Draw was classified as
impounded semipermanently flooded palustrine wetlands. Specifically, the
North Draw has 36 acres of classified emergent and 0.38 acres of classified
aquatic bed wetlands, while the South Draw has 7 acres of classified
emergent and 6 acres of classified aquatic bed wetlands. The South Draw
is bordered by 21 acres of temporarily flooded, emergent, palustrine
wetlands (USFWS, Pelican Lake and Ouray 1999). Regardless of the
classifications based on 1983 CIR photographs, remnants of the ponds
exist but flows from the intermittent stream and natural spring seeps are
no longer impeded.
Presently, reed canarygrass is the dominant plant species in the roadside
Draw. Efforts have been made to establish cottonwoods by pole planting
and have met with little success. Other vegetation present includes willow
species, phragmites or common reed, Russian Olive, Tamarix, Russian
knapweed, perennial pepperweed, cattail, and cocklebur.
Water in the Roadside Draw collects from irrigation overflow and springs
or seeps containing high selenium concentrations. The Pelican Lake
pipeline project was conceived in the early 1990’s in an attempt to reduce
the amount of contaminated water entering Refuge wetlands. Since no
significant decrease occurred in contaminated water flow after the
pipeline was constructed, the Roadside Ponds were retired from use in
1996. The Parker moist-soil management units were created in part in
1997 to offset these wetland losses.
Moist-soil Units
The Parker Tract moist soil management units were constructed in March
1997. Five independently controlled impoundments exist, P-1 through P-5,
that total 50 acres. Pelican Lake is the primary water source for these
impoundments via gravity flow pipeline. Each unit has its own inlet, and
outlets that connect with a drain canal that empties into S-1. Structures
occur between units which allow for water to be diverted from unit to unit.
Green River water can also be diverted via the Sheppard inlet by backing
this water into the units through the drain structures. This water should
only be used as a last resort as it contains an extraordinary amount of salt
cedar and perennial pepperweed seed during the runoff period, which
readily germinates on exposed mud flats in mid-to-late summer.
The dominant vegetation in some of these units is alkali bulrush. Because
of shallow water and the absence of common carp, this tract has the
potential to produce an abundance of vegetative and invertebrate food for
waterbirds. Production will be dictated by the ability to control or
regulate salinity within these units, which may limit the germination of
smartweeds, wild millets, and other preferred vegetation.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 33
Croplands
Croplands, or agriculture fields, comprise less than 1 percent (150 acres)
of the total Refuge acreage. Agricultural activities such as plowing,
discing, seeding, and irrigating are undertaken by a local landowner under
a cooperative farming agreement. Crops are planted on a rotation basis
and consist of alfalfa, small grains such as barley, and row crops such as
grain sorghum or milo. Refuge croplands augment available forage for
migratory birds, mule deer, elk, and other resident wildlife. Nearly 1,000
Canada geese and 2,000 mallards have been counted on these fields at any
one time. Western meadowlark, red-winged blackbird, American
goldfinch, horned lark, and savannah sparrow benefit from the croplands
on the Refuge. Bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and golden eagle also use
croplands either by preying directly on birds or feeding on bird carcasses.
For the near future, Refuge farm fields will be maintained to produce
grain crops. Simply retiring the fields would create nonnative plant
infestations unless careful revegetation planning is done. If new
revegetation techniques are developed, a slow transition will be made
toward establishing native seedbearing plants that will support migratory
birds.
Woods Bottom
Inventoried wetlands in Woods Bottom equal 478 acres. Eighty-six acres
are classified as artificially/semipermanently flooded, aquatic bed
lacustrine wetlands. The remaining 392 acres are classified palustrine
wetlands. Specifically, 86 acres are temporarily flooded forested and 81
acres are scrub/shrub wetlands. Additionally, 19 acres are temporarily/
artificially flooded emergent and 4 acres are scrub/shrub wetlands. The
rest are seasonally/artificially flooded emergent (169 acres) and
unconsolidated shore (33 acres) wetlands (USFWS, Ouray 1999).
The predominant emergent plant species are smartweeds and dock, with
some fringes of reed canarygrass. Sago pondweed is the dominant
submergent vegetation in Woods Main Pool and Backside Pool. The
dominance of other species is not known, but other vegetation specific to
the forested and scrub/shrub classifications in Woods Bottom include
cottonwoods, Russian olive, Tamarix, and squaw bush.
Woods Bottom is the southernmost (downstream) wetland bottomland
habitat on the Refuge. It is divided into two areas by an interior dike,
creating a large main pool to the east. The western portion consists of
some open water between fingers of high sand dunes. Green River water
is delivered by gravity flow either through the inlet on the north side or
the drain structure on the south side of the main pool. No permanent
pumpsite exists for this location.
Woods Bottom was the first wetland bottomland site on Refuge to be
enhanced/restored as nursery habitat to benefit native endangered fishes
and is managed cooperatively with the Recovery Program. The drain
structure was modified in 1993 with the construction of a fish kettle to
facilitate handling and processing of fish. In the fall of 1997, levee removal
occurred along the south side of the backside pool which allows for
flooding at River flows of 13,000 cfs. Flooding occurs naturally into the
main pool at flows of 14,000 cfs. More recently, Woods Bottom is also being
operated for nonnative fish removal and has potential for growout of
hatchery-produced wild-strain endangered fishes.
34 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Riparian habitat decline along the Green River has been occurring since
the construction of Flaming Gorge Dam (Hansen 1994, Laubhan 1997).
Native riparian vegetation historically evolved with a dynamic hydrologic
regime. Spring flooding and the deposition of fine textured soil is
especially important to cottonwood phenology. Dam operations have
eliminated historic spring flooding, sifted fine textured soils, and
stabilized the water regime allowing nonnative plants to thrive and
spread. Nonnatives that are displacing some of the native vegetation
include perennial pepperweed or giant whitetop, tamarisk or saltcedar,
Russian-olive, and some Russian knapweed. All of the nonnatives are
scattered throughout this habitat and are mixed with other species except
for tamarisk and pepperweed which has formed monotypic stands.
Uplands
For the purposes of this document, uplands are defined as those areas that
are neither riverine nor riparian. However, on the Refuge and from a
management perspective, uplands are further divided into three
categories; semidesert shrubland, grasslands, and clay bluffs. Uplands
have received little attention and, therefore, habitat and wildlife
information is lacking. The following discussions are in general terms.
Acreage figures are estimates and may not be accurate.
Semidesert Shrubland
Approximately 2,669 acres of semidesert shrubland cover the Refuge.
Greasewood, rubber and low rabbitbrush, spiny hopsage, shadscale,
fourwing saltbush, winterfat, big sagebrush, bud sagebrush, black
sagebrush, Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread, sand dropseed, and
nonnative cheatgrass occur on this upland habitat type. This habitat also
supports the state and federally threatened Uintah Basin hookless cactus.
Semidesert shrubland habitat is scattered within the boundary of the
Refuge but generally occurs in the transition zone between riparian areas
and the clay bluffs.
Grassland
Alkali sacaton, inland saltgrass, western wheatgrass, Great Basin wildrye,
desert paintbrush, Nelson and scarlet globemallow can be found in the
1,520 acres of grassland that occur on the Refuge. This habitat, like
semidesert shrublands, is scattered within the boundary of the Refuge,
but generally occurs above the clay bluffs on what is locally referred to as
a bench.
Clay Bluffs
Little is known about the relative importance of the 1,935 acres of barren
clay bluffs that occur on the Refuge. These clay bluffs make up part of the
geological Morrison Formation formed during the Jurassic period of the
Mesozoic era. Although this upland is practically devoid of vegetation on
the surface, it is believed to be rich in dinosaur artifacts (Morris and
Stubben 1994).
As previously stated, less is known about upland habitats on the Refuge.
Before reasonable objectives for management of this habitat can be
developed, a better understanding of the existing flora and fauna is
needed. This must be accomplished through baseline biological
inventories, determining the potential natural communities for uplands,
gleaning information from other scientific sources as they become
available, etc.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 35
Refuge Wildlife
Information on certain wildlife species and their needs is readily available
while information on other species is sorely lacking. For example, a wealth
of knowledge exists on waterfowl and production because previous Refuge
management emphasis was placed on these species. Concerted efforts are
underway to determine the needs of migratory songbirds, small mammals,
reptiles and amphibians, and insects using baseline biological inventory
techniques as mist-netting, point counts, and trapping. For the purposes
of the CCP and particularly this section, the following discussion on
wildlife is in general terms and by habitat. Other information included in
the riparian habitat section involves a brief discussion on avian botulism in
Wyasket Bottom. Because of the lack of specific information, discussion of
wildlife is combined for semidesert shrubland and grassland in the upland
section. Following the description on wildlife by habitat, a brief discussion
is provided on special status species that occur or have occurred on the
Refuge.
Riverine
At different times of year, the Green River is a primary roost area for
Canada and snow geese, mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, American
wigeon, green-winged teal, and common merganser. Shorebirds such as
greater and lesser yellowlegs, willet, and killdeer, benefit from the shallow
water margins adjacent to riverbanks and sandbars. Mule deer, elk,
moose, and black bear utilize the Green River as a watering source. Other
mammals that are Green River or water obligate species include beaver
and northern river otter. Several nonnative fish species exist in the River
and likely displace the state and federally endangered bonytail, Colorado
pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker. Over 40 nonnative
fish species have been introduced to the Colorado River System and of
those, green sunfish, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, black bullhead,
northern pike, fathead minnow, and red shiner have also become
established in the Green River (B. Haines pers. comm).
As for many rivers of the western states, the Green River is the lifeblood
of the semidesert ecosystem in which the Refuge lies. The River provides
habitat for many species of wildlife, some of which are state and federally
threatened or endangered. The Green River also serves as a landmark
feature for many migratory bird species providing orientation during
migration.
36 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Riparian
Representative bird and mammal species that depend on riparian areas
for breeding include great blue heron, Canada goose, mallard, green-winged
teal, mourning dove, yellow-billed cuckoo, great horned owl,
Lewis’ woodpecker, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, northern
flicker, western kingbird, black-capped chickadee, house wren, warbling
vireo, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, spotted towhee, northern
oriole, beaver, northern river otter, porcupine, and meadow vole. Many
other Refuge wildlife species are probably dependent on riparian habitats.
Because previous management emphasis was placed on waterfowl and
waterfowl production within these riparian habitats, other wildlife species
and their life history requirements were overlooked. Local knowledge and
studies conducted in similar areas have shown the significance of riparian
habitats to a host of species (Chaney et al. 1990, Knopf et al. 1988).
The restoration/enhancement of riparian habitat, particularly wetland
bottoms, may be a critical link to endangered fish recovery. These bottoms
provide food and cover essential to the survival of larval razorback
suckers during their “critical period” (i.e., survival from larval stage to
juvenile stage) (Wydoski and Wick 1998). Although the importance of
these habitats to endangered fish recovery is recognized, many bottoms
are no longer connected to the River because of increased sediment
deposits and reduced flows. In conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Recovery Program, efforts are underway to “restore natural flows”
through these bottoms by removing or breaching containment levees
along the River, particularly along Johnson, Leota, Woods, and portions of
Sheppard Bottoms. These projects were initiated to restore native fish
habitat, but will likely meet Refuge objectives by improving riparian and
wetland habitat for migratory birds. The effects of levee removal on the
biota in these areas is being carefully monitored and evaluated.
Wyasket Lake, the least altered unit on the Refuge, hosts thousands of
waterfowl and hundreds of waterbirds. Even as the Lake benefits wildlife,
it also poses a threat to wildlife. Because Wyasket Lake has been less
modified, a more “natural” regime of periodic spring flooding, summer
drawdown and dry up occur. This, coupled with biotic and abiotic factors,
may be the cause of recent avian botulism outbreaks that have resulted in
up to 1,000 waterbird deaths per year. Botulism is a naturally occurring
bacteria of wetland soils that multiplies when water recedes, water and
soil temperatures rise during summer, and plant material decomposes
(Locke and Friend, 1987). Birds feeding in the area can pick up the
bacteria, become ill, and die. Bird carcasses produce more bacteria, and
other birds that feed on maggots on or near them become ill as well. Avian
botulism outbreaks were documented in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999. It is
probable that outbreaks occurred prior to 1995; however, they went
undetected due to lack of staff on the ground to make these kinds of
observations.
It is important to keep in mind that these riparian habitats serve many
species of animals directly and indirectly. For example, birds of prey such
as bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and great-horned owl reap the benefits of
the smorgasbord (ducks, shorebirds, gulls) that utilize these wetlands. The
wandering garter snake, Woodhouse’s toad, boreal chorus frog, and
northern leopard frog benefit from riparian habitats. Historically, some of
these riparian habitats are believed to have provided important nursery
habitats for the state and federally endangered razorback sucker. This is
one of the major reasons additional riparian habitats are being restored
through breaching levees in Woods, Leota and Johnson Bottoms. Riparian
habitats serve as natural filters for our most precious resource, water, and
enhance the area’s aesthetics that people have come to enjoy. As water
developments and diversions increase throughout the western United
States, the riparian habitat that occurs on the Refuge will be of greater
importance to existing plant and wildlife species that depend upon these
riparian corridors.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 37
Uplands
Semidesert Shrubland and Grassland
Animal species using this habitat for some or all of their life cycle include
burrowing owl, short-eared owl, American kestrel, loggerhead shrike,
sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, Ord’s kangaroo rat, black
and white-tailed jackrabbit, desert cottontail, white-tailed antelope
squirrel, mule deer, and pronghorn. Eastern fence lizard, short-horned
lizard, side-blotched lizard, western whiptail, yellow-bellied racer, smooth
green snake, and western rattlesnake make their permanent home in the
semidesert shrubland of the Refuge.
Clay Bluffs
Through casual observation and anecdotal evidence, it is known that the
bluffs provide nesting areas for golden eagle and American kestrel, and
provide perching sites for golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, ferruginous
hawk, prairie falcon and peregrine falcon. Horned lark and western
meadowlark can also be observed on the bluffs. The clay bluffs, caves,
cracks, and crevices also provide wintering homes for the Great Basin
gopher snake, short-horned lizard, and especially the western rattlesnake.
The few small caves may serve as dens for mountain lions and other
species yet to be confirmed as occurring on the Refuge, such as spotted,
Townsend’s big-eared, and Mexican free-tailed bats.
More emphasis needs to be placed on studying Refuge upland habitats to
conserve the species dependent on them, to develop an appropriate
management direction, and to understand the importance of this habitat
within the UCRE.
38 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Special Status Species
A special status species is one that is either listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, or listed by State protective acts. Additionally, Utah lists species of management concern due to population
declines, limited distribution range, or both. For purposes of this Plan, these are also considered special status
species. The Refuge provides habitat for 26 special status species of wildlife and plants (see Table 2).
1Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 1998. Utah Sensitive Species List.
2SE=State Endangered, ST=State Threatened, FE=Federally Endangered, FT=Federally Threatened, SP=Special concern because of
decrease in population, distribution, and/or habitat availability, SD=Special concern because requires specific habitat that is limited or
restricted, SP/SD=Special concern due to both a declining population and limited range.
3Common=likely to be seen in suitable habitat, Uncommon=present, but not certain to be seen, Occasional=seen only a few times during a
season, Rare=seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years.
Spring=March-May, Summer=June-August, Fall=September-November, Winter=December-February.
*Indicates that bird is a confirmed nester on Refuge.
Table 2. Special Status Species of Ouray National Wildlife Refuge1
SPECIES STATUS2 ABUNDANCE3 PRIMARY REFUGE
HABITAT USE
BIRDS
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Ferruginous Hawk
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Northern Goshawk
Swainson's Hawk*
Caspian Tern
Black Tern
Burrowing Owl*
Short-eared Owl
Common Yellowthroat
American White Pelican
Osprey
Sage Grouse
Long-billed Curlew*
Lewis' Woodpecker
Blue Grosbeak
ST, FT
SE
SE
ST
ST
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SD
SD
SP/SD
SP/SD
SP/SD
SP/SD
Rare Spring, Occasional Fall, Common Winter
Rare Spring and Fall
Rare Summer
Occasional Summer
Uncommon Summer
Rare Winter
Uncommon Spring, Summer, Fall
Rare Spring, Summer, Fall
Uncommon Spring, Fall, Common Summer
Uncommon Spring, Summer, Fall
Uncommon Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter
Uncommon Spring, Summer, Fall
Occasional Spring, Summer, Common Fall
Rare Spring, Summer, Fall
Rare Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter
Rare Spring, Summer, Fall
Common Spring, Summer, Uncommon Fall
Uncommon Spring, Summer, Fall
Riparian Habitats & Wetlands/Bottomlands
Wetland/Bottomlands
Riparian Habitats
Semidesert Shrubland
Riparian Habitats
Riparian Habitats
Grassland
Wetlands/Bottomlands
Wetlands/Bottomlands
Grassland
Grassland
Wetlands/Bottomlands
Wetlands/Bottomlands
Riverine & Riparian Habitats
Semidesert Shrubland
Grassland & Wetlands/Bottomlands
Riparian Habitats
Riparian Habitats & Wetlands Bottomlands
MAMMALS
Northern River Otter
Lynx
SP/SD
SP/SD
Uncommon resident with sightings increasing
Rare, Observed only once on Refuge
Riverine & Wetlands/Bottomlands
FISH
Bonytail
Colorado Pikeminnow
Humpback Chub
Razorback Sucker
Roundtail Chub
SE,FE
SE,FE
SE,FE
SE,FE
ST
No wild bonytail caught in several years
Ouray reach is an important nursery habitat area
Severely reduced in numbers
Green River only known spawning areas,
Severely reduced in numbers
Reduced in numbers and distribution
Riverine
Riverine & Wetlands/Bottomlands
Riverine
Riverine & Wetlands/Bottomlands
Riverine
REPTILES
Smooth Green Snake SP/SD Uncommon, Distribution is unclear Wetlands/Bottomlands
PLANTS
Uintah Basin Hookless Cactus ST,FT Common Dry gravel terraces
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 39
Threatened and Endangered
Federally endangered or threatened species that occur or have occurred
on the Refuge include the bald eagle, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow,
humpback chub, razorback sucker, and Uintah Basin hookless cactus.
State listed species and species of management concern include peregrine
falcon, southwestern willow flycatcher, ferruginous hawk, yellow-billed
cuckoo, and roundtail chub. Seven of these species are regularly
encountered on the Refuge throughout different seasons of the year.
Sightings of the peregrine falcons on the Refuge are increasing. During
spring and fall, peregrines can often be observed hunting for waterbirds
over wetlands and bottomlands. Bald eagles have become a common sight
particularly during fall and winter when upwards of 30 individuals have
been observed in one day. Eagles watch for prey from large standing
cottonwood trees along the River’s edge or along some of the bottomlands.
Another relative of the falcon and eagle, the ferruginous hawk, can be
seen occasionally hunting over the expanse of the semidesert shrubland
on the Refuge during summer.
The federally endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker and
the state threatened roundtail chub can be found within the Refuge’s
stretch of the Green River. Ouray National Fish Hatchery is augmenting
the extant populations of these fish that occur on the Refuge and adjacent
to the Refuge. Additionally, efforts are being coordinated through the
Recovery Program and other agencies to mimic natural river-flows that
may aid in the recovery of these species that are on the brink of extinc-tion.
Surveys conducted in 1997 revealed that the Uintah Basin hookless cactus
is more common on the Refuge than once believed. A survey undertaken
in 1988 revealed the existence of 1,260 individual plants, while a count in
1997 led to the discovery of an additional 846 plants; bringing the known
total of the Uintah Basin hookless cactus on the Refuge to 2,106 individu-als.
This cactus is typically found towards the top of gravel covered
terraces. The Refuge has the potential to serve as a good learning ground
on the biology of this species as this habitat is not presently manipulated
for habitat management in any manner.
Species of Management Concern
Species of management concern (Table 2), whether because of population
declines, limited distribution range, or both that occur or have occurred on
the Refuge include northern goshawk, Swainson’s hawk, Caspian tern,
black tern, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, common yellowthroat,
American white pelican, osprey, sage grouse, long-billed curlew, Lewis’
woodpecker, blue grosbeak, northern river otter, and smooth green snake.
Black tern, American white pelican, and Lewis’ woodpecker are commonly
observed on the Refuge. Although listed as uncommon, northern river
otter and smooth green snake observations on the Refuge are increasing.
Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, long-billed curlew, and Lewis’ wood-pecker
have been confirmed as nesting on the Refuge.
Some of these species make use of the Refuge for only a brief period.
However brief the stay may be, the Refuge provides a vital haven for
feeding, resting, and loafing which cannot be found for many miles
around.
40 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Public Use
No accurate counts of Refuge visitors have been kept, but current
estimates are 10,000 visitors per year. Visitation includes school tours and
programs, teacher workshops, senior citizen tours, boy scouts, and
hunters and anglers. Most public use occurs from April through
November.
Wildlife observation is the major public use activity on the Refuge. The
Refuge’s 12-mile auto tour route is enjoyed by many throughout the year.
From spring wild flowers and broods of ducklings to large numbers of
mule deer in the fall and winter, viewers are drawn from the local
communities and throughout the area. Bird watching is rapidly becoming
a popular activity on the Refuge.
Hunting and fishing are also popular. The opportunity to harvest mule
deer, waterfowl, and ring-necked pheasants attracts hunters from across
Utah. The public may hunt for deer, waterfowl and pheasant in Leota
Bottom and for deer and pheasant in Johnson and Wyasket Bottoms.
Fishing is allowed only on the Green River. Fishing for channel catfish is a
popular activity among many local residents. State prescribed seasons and
hunting regulations apply on the Refuge.
Additional wildlife-dependent public uses include wildlife photography,
interpretation and environmental education. Compatible activities that
support some or all of these uses also include canoeing and rafting on the
Green River, sightseeing, bicycling and horseback riding on designated
roads, and hiking.
Current public use facilities include an informational kiosk with a nearby
picnic table and outhouses, an auto tour route with observation tower, a
visitor center, and parking areas for hunters, anglers, observers and
photographers (see Map 8). The kiosk contains general Refuge
information, a changeable panel, a cork board for posting hunting
regulations, fishing regulations, and Refuge hours, and leaflet dispensers.
The tour route displays and information leaflet need updating to reflect
changes in the landscape and management practices. Some informational
and directional signs on the Refuge have recently been updated.
Refuge Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Limited cultural resource studies have been conducted on lands included
in the Refuge. Information on the cultural history of the Uintah Basin is
sketchy and difficult to compile. Much of the Refuge was disturbed many
years ago during construction of dikes, levees, and roads so few intact
sites remain to be surveyed. In recent years, seven project-specific
cultural and paleontological resource surveys and inventories were
conducted in Brennan Basin, the Ouray L-9/10 borrow site, for a
powerline for Ouray NWR, the Pelican Lake Pipeline, and the Ouray
National Fish Hatchery and water pipeline sites. Five prehistoric sites
(one of which may be the site previously identified) and four isolated finds
of prehistoric material (mostly lithic acquisition materials) were located.
Reports of these surveys are on file at the Refuge office. In 1998, three
projects sites for Leota Bottom levee and spillway construction were
surveyed with no materials found. A thorough inventory of potential
cultural and paleontological resource sites is needed for the majority of
Refuge lands. Other than an interpretive sign on Leota Bluff describing
explorations by John Wesley Powell, no cultural or paleontology exhibits
or materials have been developed for the Refuge.
The earliest archaeological work done in the Refuge vicinity was by John
Wesley Powell in 1869 and 1871. No prehistoric sites were reported by
Powell from his explorations along the Green River through the Refuge.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 41
42 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 43
In the early 1940’s, Harvard University collected a large sample of fossil
mammal specimens dating to the Late Eocene (38 to 56 million years ago)
Uinta Formation from a site they called Leota Quarry. It has been
determined that this site falls within the boundaries of Ouray NWR. The
University of Utah Department of Anthropology conducted a survey of
the proposed Refuge in 1961. One surface site on the bank of the Green
River in Leota Bottom and scattered artifacts on the River terraces were
identified. They determined that it was not necessary to salvage the little
prehistorical material on Refuge lands. In 1978, the Smithsonian Institute
also conducted a paleontological study on this site. Several skulls of small
sheep-like artiodactyls were found. Judging from the quantity as well as
the quality of specimens, they felt additional collecting is definitely
warranted, but none has been done to date.
Refuge Land Acquisition
The present acreage of the Ouray NWR totals 11,987. This Refuge
acreage is made up of 2,692 acres of leased Ute Tribal lands, 1,153 acres of
land leased from the State of Utah, 3,110 acres transferred from the BLM,
and 5,032 acres of land purchased in fee title. The Executive Order
boundary of the Refuge includes 13,984 acres (see executive order
boundary map). It is the desire of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
purchase all lands within the Executive Order boundary, including all
leased lands, when they become available and/or from willing sellers.
The Recovery Program is actively pursuing acquisition and enhancement
of floodplain habitats through wildlife easements along the Green, Upper
Colorado, and Gunnison Rivers (see Appendix J. for description and
Environmental Assessment). Easements on the Green River will become
part of the Refuge System and will be monitored and enforced by the
Refuge staff.
Special Management Areas
To be proposed for Wilderness designation, an area must contain at least
5,000 contiguous, roadless acres. No Refuge lands meet this criteria, so no
Wilderness designation is being pursued. The Green River in the region of
Ouray NWR is not currently being considered for Wild and Scenic River
designation as it does not meet 2 basic designation criteria. The River is
not free flowing, and the majority is altered by protective levees and
diking.
Refuge Fire Management
Fire management on the Ouray NWR presently consists of prescribed
fire, hazardous fuels reduction, and wildfire suppression preparedness.
The Refuge is a partner in the Uintah Basin Interagency Fire Center in
Vernal, for wildland and prescribed fire activities. Prescribed fire at Ouray
has been primarily used as a vegetation management tool in wetlands to
control cattail and other emergent vegetation. Fire was also used
experimentally to control nonnative plants such as perennial pepperweed
in upland areas with mixed results. The challenge in utilizing prescribed
fire to manage Refuge wetlands comes in preventing the spread of the fire
into neighboring cottonwood and willow stands which results in injury or
mortality of many trees. Fire damage and windthrow have contributed to
the degradation of the Refuge’s riparian corridor. Prescribed burning of
wetlands adjacent to the riparian corridor is an appropriate tool used to
manage this ecotype as fire is a naturally occurring event for these plant
communities. The use of fire requires a thorough understanding of fire
behavior and use of wide fire breaks to protect sensitive habitats. A more
thorough analysis of prescribed fire and benefits to specific Refuge
habitats needs to be completed and addressed in the Fire Management
Plan to properly use this tool to achieve habitat management objectives.
44 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Water Rights
Utah’s Water Appropriation System requires permits for surface water
and groundwater use, under general administrative supervision of the
State Engineer, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Rights. A water right is appurtenant to the land, but may be severed,
transferred, exchanged, or sold. Any change in point of diversion, type of
use, amount, or season of use requires approval of the State Engineer. All
surface and groundwater uses are regulated. In times of shortage,
domestic use has priority over all other uses, regardless of priority date.
Forfeiture occurs when a water right has not been used for five years.
Abandonment occurs when the owner’s intent to abandon is proven
without regard to nonuse.
Currently, the Refuge holds state water rights sufficient to manage
wetlands and marshes to meet its goals. For descriptions and details on
these rights refer to Appendix L.
GIS Mapping Data Needs
Presently, GIS capabilities on Ouray include ArcView 3.0 and a Trimble
GeoExplorer. In the future, periodic upgrades or additions in hardware
(e.g., computer, monitor, plotter, etc.) and software (e.g., ArcView 3.2 or
ArcInfo) may be required. Maps that are available include digital raster
graphs (DRGs), NWIs, and other data (prescribed burn areas, trap
locations, impoundment areas, etc.) collected locally by Refuge staff.
Other GIS data desired for management planning, include digital
orthophoto quads (DOQs), videography, replication of NWI during an
average flow year, vegetation mapping to complement habitat mapping,
etc. Because gaps exist in electronic mapping databases for the Uintah
Basin, compiling and sharing existing data will be possible through
partnerships with other agencies, universities, and on-site mapping.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 45
Management Direction
Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Refuge Goals
The following goals are derived from the Refuge System mission, Refuge
purpose, other Service landscape and species plans, and from the
management issues discussion in the preceding pages of this Plan.
A. Restore and enhance riparian and wetland habitats for migratory
birds that depend upon the Green River corridor.
B. Provide habitats that support the recovery of federally listed and
Utah state special status species on or adjacent to the Refuge.
C. Maintain healthy grassland and semidesert shrubland habitats for
wildlife.
D. Minimize wildlife exposure to environmental contaminants on or
adjacent to the Refuge.
E. Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
F. Increase awareness of the Refuge and the role of the Refuge in
fisheries and wildlife management, the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and the UCRE for visitors and local communities through
environmental education, interpretation, and compatible recreation.
G. Provide protection for cultural and paleontological resources on the
Refuge and educate visitors about these sites.
Refuge Objectives and Strategies
P Goal A: Restore and enhance riparian and wetland habitats for
migratory birds that depend upon the Green River corridor.
Habitats that occurred historically along the Green River were used by an
array of bird species migrating through the arid west between wintering
and breeding areas. Human related activities altered the characteristics of
River flows, and subsequently, plant communities sustained by the River
have been drastically altered. Migratory birds and other wildlife-dependent
on the River ecosystem have declined as a result. The Refuge
will work to enhance the quality of riparian and wetland habitats to
protect this vital migration corridor.
Six well defined bottoms or naturally occurring floodplain depressions
exist within the Refuge. They contain the riparian and wetland habitats so
vital for migratory birds and native fishes. Each bottom differs in its
infrastructure, floodability and plant community, requiring differing
management actions to promote restoration and enhancement.
Baseline plant and animal biological data for the Refuge is very limited.
The collection of these data will be the starting point towards
accomplishing this goal. Wildlife inventories and vegetation mapping will
be initiated for each bottom. Funds are currently available for this bio-monitoring
through FY2000 Refuge Operations Needs ($230k over 3
years). A description of how riparian and wetland objectives will be
carried out on each bottom are identified as strategies.
46 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Objective 1. Improve structure and composition of woody and
herbaceous riparian communities to provide nesting, feeding, loafing,
and resting habitat for migratory birds.
Some of the migratory songbird species which may benefit from the
proposed management actions include Lewis’ woodpecker yellow-billed
cuckoo, western kingbird, black-capped chickadee, warbling vireo, yellow
warbler, yellow-breasted chat, spotted towhee, and northern oriole. Once
baseline information is collected, as proposed within the following
strategies, a detailed Habitat Management Plan identifying each species
habitat needs will be prepared.
Strategy: Investigate each bottom’s vegetative climax potential,
floodability, and potential contribution to its host of wildlife species.
Strategy: Recreate the 1983 NWI inventory and wetland classification
survey for average water conditions.
Brennan Bottom
Strategies:
T Collect baseline fauna and flora inventories and map vegetation by 2003.
T Evaluate Brennan’s floodability and assess its potential climax
condition under the new Flaming Gorge regulated flow releases.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years, using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative
vegetation using GIS and field groundtruthing. Current cursory
estimates of nonnative vegetation which exist within Brennan are:
whitetop 20 percent, Russian olive 1 percent.
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five-year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Ensure oil and gas extraction activities do not negatively affect
desired habitat responses.
T Investigate private inholding acquisition of sensitive riparian habitats
from willing sellers.
T Repair, post, and maintain four miles of fence to prevent livestock
trespass.
Johnson Bottom
Strategies:
T Collect baseline fauna and flora inventories and map vegetation by 2003.
T Evaluate Johnson’s floodability and assess its potential climax
condition under the new Flaming Gorge regulated flow releases.
T Evaluate vegetative response to depth, timing, duration, and
frequency of flooding.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years, using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative
vegetation using GIS and field groundtruthing. Current cursory
estimates of nonnative vegetation which exist within Johnson are:
saltcedar 30 percent, whitetop 20 percent, Russian olive 1 percent.
T Remove three interior crossdikes to restore functional hydrology, facilitate
draining, recovery of endangered fish, and the removal of nonnative fish.
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Maintain two miles of fence to prevent livestock trespass.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 47
Leota Bottom
Strategies:
T Collect baseline fauna and flora inventories and map vegetation by 2003.
T Evaluate Leota’s floodability and assess its potential climax condition
under the new Flaming Gorge regulated flow releases.
T Evaluate vegetative response to depth, timing, duration, and
frequency of flooding.
T Evaluate removal of L1,3,5,7 and 7a dikes to promote restoration and
enhancement of the riparian habitat for all dependant species.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years, using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative vegetation
using GIS and field groundtruthing. Current cursory estimate of
nonnative vegetation which exist within Leota are: saltcedar 20 percent,
whitetop 10 percent, Russian knapweed 1 percent, Russian olive 5 percent.
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Document, collect, and dispose of birds affected by botulism outbreaks.
Wyasket Bottom
Strategies:
T Collect baseline fauna and flora inventories and map vegetation by 2003.
T Evaluate Wyasket’s floodability and assess its potential climax
condition under the new Flaming Gorge regulated flow releases.
T Evaluate vegetative response to depth, timing, duration, and
frequency of flooding.
T Evaluate removal of Wyasket Pond dike to promote restoration and
enhancement of the riparian habitat for all dependant species.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years, using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative vegetation using
GIS and field groundtruthing. Current cursory estimate of nonnative
vegetation which exist within Wyasket are: saltcedar 20 percent, whitetop 10
percent, Russian knapweed 1 percent, Russian olive 5 percent.
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five ear intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Maintain seven miles of fence to prevent livestock trespass.
48 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Sheppard Bottom
Strategies:
T Collect baseline fauna and flora inventories and map vegetation by 2003.
T Evaluate Sheppard’s floodability and assess its potential climax
condition under the new Flaming Gorge regulated flow releases.
T Evaluate vegetative response to depth, timing, duration, and
frequency of flooding.
T Maintain 0.5 miles of fence to prohibit livestock trespass.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years, using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative vegetation using
GIS and field groundtruthing. Current cursory estimates of nonnative
vegetation which exist within Sheppard are: saltcedar 25 percent, whitetop 30
percent, Russian knapweed 1 percent, Russian olive 5 percent.
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Remove a portion of S-3 protective dike and all of the S-3/S-5 dike to
allow flushing of selenium and reestablishment of riparian habitat.
T Reduce hazardous fuel loads in a 5-acre site south of S-3 to prevent
potential wildfire damage.
Woods Bottom
Strategies:
T Collect baseline fauna and flora inventories and map vegetation by 2003.
T Evaluate Wood’s floodability and assess its potential climax condition
under the new Flaming Gorge regulated flow releases.
T Evaluate vegetative response to depth, timing, duration, and
frequency of flooding.
T Maintain two miles of fence to prohibit livestock trespass.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years, using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative
vegetation using GIS and field groundtruthing. Current cursory
estimates of nonnative vegetation which exist within Sheppard are:
saltcedar 20 percent, whitetop 20 percent, Russian olive 5 percent.
T Evaluate removal of the center dike to improve its hydrologic flow and
riparian habitat.
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Continue coordination of water management with the Recovery
Program to facilitate riparian habitat improvements and the recovery
of endangered fish.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 49
Objective 2. Improve structure and composition of submergent and
emergent wetland communities to provide nesting, feeding, loafing,
and resting habitat for migratory birds.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan de-emphasizes the production of
waterfowl, but by no means will it ignore this habitat use. Many species of
waterbirds utilize the Refuge��s man-made and natural wetlands for
nesting, loafing, feeding, and migrational stopover habitat. Although the
Refuge proposes to restore many areas back to riparian woodland habitat
some areas do not readily lend themselves to this conversion and are
better managed as natural and/or man-made wetlands.
Refuge wetlands will be managed under a wet/dry rotational scheme
which will provide the greatest diversity of habitat and food for migratory
waterbirds. At present, many of the Refuge’s water management facilities
(headgates, stoplog structures, inlet structures and outlet structures) are
in a state of disrepair and needed repairs are identified as strategies. A
need also exists to collect information on the sub-up potential (river flow-influenced
groundwater which rises to the surface within each wetland) of
each unit.
Some of the habitat conditions which will be sought are: varying water
depths, and a mosaic of varying vegetative structure and composition. At
any one time, some wetlands will remain dry, some will contain less than
50 percent vegetative cover, and some will contain more. Wetland units
will be managed so that a cycle of dry, shallow water, deep water, sparse
vegetation, and dense vegetation is maintained over time. The types of
food or protective cover will differ under each condition, but in any one
year, a broader variety of conditions will exist. This will provide essential
habitats for migratory waterbirds during spring and fall migration.
Because of the dynamic nature of the arid Uintah Basin, in some years,
enough water will not be available to produce the desired ratio. Under
depressed water years, the Refuge will provide habitat which is most
conducive to those conditions. Individual bottoms (excepting the Parker
Tract) will be managed as a single unit, not as a collection of separate
internal impoundments. For example, Sheppard Bottom contains five
impoundments. These will be manipulated to contribute to the quality of
the Bottom as a whole. In any case, internal impoundments cannot
realistically be managed separately because of subsurface water seepage
and other water control constraints.
Monthly avian surveys will be conducted on all wetlands to provide
managers with the information necessary to enhance or maintain the area.
Baseline biological inventories of vegetation and wildlife will be conducted
for each wetland. Refuge Operation Needs funds totaling $230,000 are
available to complete this project over the next three years.
Some of the known migratory bird species that utilize Refuge wetland
habitats include northern harrier, white-faced ibis, eared, western and
pied-billed grebes, dabbling and diving ducks, great blue heron, American
bittern, red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds, marsh wren, black-crowned
night heron, and many shorebirds. Many of these birds also use
the Green River.
Strategy: Recreate the 1983 NWI inventory and wetland classification
survey for average water conditions.
50 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Johnson Bottom
Strategies:
T Evaluate Johnson’s wetland potential to provide a more diverse emergent/
submergent/open water wetland mosaic under varying water availability.
T Collect baseline inventory fauna and flora inventories and map
vegetation by 2003.
T Assess each wetland impoundment sub-up potential for management
purposes (at what cfs does the river flow for sub-up to occur).
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Evaluate use of fire, drying, discing, mowing, and root plowing to
maintain open water.
T Coordinate with the Recovery Program on proposed habitat management
actions (flooding, draining, mosquito abatement, integrated pest management,
etc.) to ensure that fish recovery objectives are not negatively impacted.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years using biological,
mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative vegetation using
GIS and field groundtruthing. A current cursory estimate of nonnative
vegetation which exists within Johnson’s wetlands is: saltcedar 10 percent,
whitetop 10 percent, Russian olive 2 percent.
T Protect great blue heron rookery site from prescribed and wild fires.
T Pursue funds for reconstructing Johnson’s inlet structure.
T Remove all interior dikes to encourage a more natural hydrologic flood
and drawdown regime.
Leota Bottom
Strategies:
T Evaluate Leota’s wetland potential to provide a more diverse emergent/
submergent/open water wetland mosaic under varying water availability.
T Collect baseline inventory fauna and flora inventories and map vegetation by
2003.
T Assess each wetland impoundment sub-up potential for management
purposes (at what cfs does the river flow for sub-up to occur).
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses caused
by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Evaluate use of fire, drying, discing, mowing, and root plowing to
maintain open water.
T Coordinate with the Recovery Program on proposed habitat
management actions (flooding, draining, mosquito abatement,
integrated pest management, etc.) to ensure that fish recovery
objectives are not negatively impacted.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years using biological,
mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative vegetation using
GIS and field groundtruthing. A current cursory estimate of nonnative
vegetation which exists within Leota’s wetlands is: saltcedar 10 percent,
whitetop 20 percent, Russian olive 2 percent, Russian knapweed 1 percent.
T Remove existing unproductive nesting islands and form 2 to 3 larger
islands with improved design and rehabilitated cover within L10.
T Replace all degraded water control structures on interior diked units.
T Evaluate removal of L1,3,5,7 and 7a dikes and its effect on the Leota wetland
complex.
T Document, collect, and dispose of birds affected by botulism outbreaks.
T Raise L-9/L-10 dike 18-24 inches to improve open water to emergent
vegetation ratio.
T Evaluate the function and efficiency of 6 new spillways.
T In conjunction with Ouray National Fish Hatchery, improve management
of hatchery effluent discharge.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 51
Wyasket Bottom
Strategies:
T Evaluate Wyasket’s wetland potential to provide a more diverse
emergent/submergent/open water wetland mosaic under varying water
availability.
T Collect baseline inventory fauna and flora inventories and map
vegetation by 2003.
T Assess each wetland impoundment sub-up potential for management
purposes (at what cfs does the river flow for sub-up to occur).
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Evaluate use of fire, drying, discing, mowing, and root plowing to
maintain open water.
T Coordinate with the Recovery Program on proposed habitat
management actions (flooding, draining, mosquito abatement,
integrated pest management, etc.) to ensure that fish recovery
objectives are not negatively impacted.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative
vegetation using GIS and field groundtruthing. A current cursory
estimate of nonnative vegetation which exists within Wyasket’s
wetlands is: saltcedar 20 percent, whitetop 20 percent, Russian olive 3
percent, Russian knapweed 1 percent.
T Document, collect, and dispose of birds affected by botulism outbreaks.
T Determine the need to flood Wyasket Pond on a year-by-year basis to
provide migration and nesting habitat for Virginia rail, sora, and
American bittern.
T Reestablish floodwater flow through Wyasket Pond into Wyasket Lake
by either levee removal or construction of new spillways.
T Evaluate removal of the entire Wyasket Pond dike to reestablish
hydrologic flow and improve overall wetland habitat.
Parker Tract
Strategies:
T Control nonnative plants using biological, mechanical, and chemical
means.
T Flood units with Pelican Lake pipeline water only, as water from the
Green River carries whitetop and saltcedar seed. If Pelican Lake water
is not available, leave the units dry.
T Leave at least one unit dry by rotation each year and document the
effects to vegetation and invertebrate production.
T Create a management model using Moist Soil Advisor software.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
52 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Sheppard Bottom
Strategies:
T Evaluate Sheppard’s wetland potential to provide a more diverse
emergent/submergent/open water wetland mosaic under varying water
availability.
T Collect baseline inventory fauna and flora inventories and map
vegetation by 2003.
T Assess each wetland impoundment sub-up potential for management
purposes (at what cfs does the river flow for sub-up to occur).
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Evaluate use of fire, drying, discing, mowing, and root plowing to
maintain open water.
T Coordinate with the Recovery Program on proposed habitat
management actions (flooding, draining, mosquito abatement,
integrated pest management, etc.) to ensure that fish recovery
objectives are not negatively impacted.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative
vegetation using GIS and field groundtruthing. A current cursory
estimate of nonnative vegetation which exists within Sheppard’s
wetlands is: saltcedar 10 percent, whitetop 20 percent, Russian olive 5
percent.
T Pursue funds to replace all water control structures within Sheppard
allowing necessary water management to provide the preferred
wetland habitat.
Woods Bottom
Strategies:
T Evaluate Wood’s wetland potential to provide a more diverse
emergent/submergent/open water wetland mosaic under varying water
availability.
T Collect baseline inventory fauna and flora inventories and map
vegetation by 2003.
T Assess each wetland impoundment sub-up potential for management
purposes (at what cfs does the river flow for sub-up to occur).
T Conduct aerial photography, with the assistance of the Bureau of
Reclamation, at five year intervals to gauge vegetative responses
caused by new management techniques.
T Replicate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) under average, post-dam
Green River Flow Conditions.
T Evaluate use of fire, drying, discing, mowing, and root plowing to
maintain open water.
T Coordinate with the Recovery Program on proposed habitat
management actions (flooding, draining, mosquito abatement,
integrated pest management, etc.) to ensure that fish recovery
objectives are not negatively impacted.
T Reduce nonnative plants by 75 percent within 15 years using
biological, mechanical, and chemical methods, which may include and
burning and reseeding.
T Accurately map and quantify existing coverages of nonnative
vegetation using GIS and field groundtruthing. A current cursory
estimate of nonnative vegetation which exists within Wood’s wetlands
is: saltcedar 20 percent, whitetop 20 percent, Russian olive 3 percent,
Russian knapweed 1 percent.
T Remove interior levee to reestablish a more natural flood and
drawdown regime.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 53
  Goal B: Provide habitats that support the recovery of federally
listed and Utah State special status species on or adjacent to the
Refuge.
The needs of threatened and endangered migratory birds and fish that
use the Refuge will be provided for by habitat goals such as riparian
woodland and wetland enhancement and restoration. Enhancing and
restoring wetland and riparian habitats will be conducted to improve food,
and cover requirements for bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, razorback
sucker, and Colorado pikeminnow in accordance with documented
literature.
Providing for this multitude of species is indeed a delicate balancing act.
In most cases the proposed management actions can be conducted in such
a way that these species can all be taken into consideration. Managing for
multiple species will be most feasible in those areas selected to be
managed under mimicked natural conditions.
Objective 1. Provide habitats that support the recovery of Colorado
River endangered fishes (razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow,
humpback chub).
The Refuge is currently supporting recent levee removal projects within
the Refuge. Much data remains to be gathered and analyzed to show the
effectiveness of levee removal and the utilization of these sites by
endangered fish. The Colorado River Recovery Program continues to
investigate and research other alternatives which may be conducive
towards recovering endangered fish.
Strategies:
T Provide site and operations support for the Ouray National Fish
Hatchery and associated research efforts.
T Participate in the Recovery Program’s levee removal project in Leota
Bottom, Johnson Bottom, and Woods Bottom. (For additional
information please refer to the Environmental Assessment titled
“Levee Removal Project of the Floodplain Habitat Restoration
Program” dated February, 1997, Appendix K)
T Provide staff support for enforcement and monitoring of select wildlife
easements acquired to restore and preserve endangered fish habitat.
(For additional information please refer to the Environmental
Assessment titled “Acquisition and Enhancement of Floodplain
Habitats” dated May, 1998)
T Assist the Recovery Program with removal of nonnative fish in Woods,
Leota, and Johnson bottoms
Objective 2: Maintain populations of the Uintah Basin hookless
cactus.
The Refuge’s role in recovering the Uintah Basin hookless cactus is
primarily one of caretaker. Management for this species consist of
mapping locations and avoiding disturbances to known stands.
Strategies:
T Conduct field surveys at four year intervals to locate any new stands
of cactus and to assess the condition of existent stands.
T Identify new potential, suitable sites and avoid disturbance of the area.
54 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
  Goal C: Maintain healthy grassland (Indian rice grass, shadscale
etc.) and semidesert shrubland habitats for wildlife.
Objective: Investigate whether management techniques exist that can
insure the health of cold desert grasslands.
Strategies:
T Measure extent of nonnative vegetation, and select and experiment
with techniques to reduce and contain its spread.
T Maintain fences to control trespass of cattle or feral horses.
T Determine historical fire return intervals and how prescribed fire may
help maintain this healthy grassland.
T Modify existing fences to allow the passage of pronghorn.
T Develop baseline inventory and monitoring plans for grassland birds
(burrowing owl, sparrows) and vegetation.
  Goal D: Minimize wildlife exposure to environmental
contaminants on or adjacent to the Refuge.
Potential large scale irrigation system development, authorized through
the Desert Land Entry Act of 1877, on BLM lands north of the Refuge
may magnify selenium contamination in Refuge wetlands. Excess
irrigation runoff that leaches through naturally occurring selenium-laden
soils can become contaminated. As the Refuge lies in a lowland area below
agricultural fields, irrigation water may ultimately deposit more selenium
on the Refuge. The Refuge will continue its close working relationship
with the BLM on this issue.
The Refuge is proposing partial removal of the protective levee and
modifications to the interior dikes of S3 and S5 to facilitate the dilution of
selenium within Sheppard Bottom. Please refer to the Issues Section
(Selenium) and the Selenium Project Map (#4) for additional information
on this proposed project.
Objective 1: Reduce the selenium concentration on 240 acres within
Sheppard Bottom S-3/S-5.
Strategies:
T The Refuge will actively work with Ecological Services, the National
Irrigation Water Quality Program, the Bureau of Land Management,
and other experts to minimize selenium contamination in North and
South Roadside Draw, in Sheppard Bottom and any other portions of
the Refuge.
T The Refuge will assist with sampling and data collection, and
contribute funding to the program.
T The Refuge will propose partial removal of the protective levee and
complete removal of the S-3/S-5 dike to allow flow through to the
Green River. A separate Environmental Assessment will be prepared
for this project.
T Disperse contaminated water to accelerate evaporation, encourage
growth of phreatophytes.
T Transplant cottonwoods and willow along South Roadside Draw to
convert the existing open-water wetland into a riparian corridor.
T Participate with other agencies and the general public during regional
irrigation water planning and development.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 55
  Goal E: Ouray NWR will promote and enhance opportunities for
compatible wildlife- dependent recreation.
Objective: Provide opportunities for wildlife photography, wildlife
observation, hunting, and fishing.
Strategies:
T By the year 2005, two new nature trails will be developed. Both trails
will provide access to riparian and wetland habitats. These trails will
be interpreted, and at least one will be universally accessible.
Solicitation for potential challenge cost share partners will be initiated
upon approval of this Plan.
T The Refuge will continue to provide hunting and fishing opportunities.
Huntable species will include mule deer, waterfowl and ring-necked
pheasant in defined units of the Refuge. Fishing in accordance with
State regulations is allowed along the Green River. At least one
hunting and one fishing site will be made universally accessible.
T Evaluate feasibility of opening Johnson Bottom to waterfowl hunting.
  Goal F: Increase awareness of the Refuge and the role of the
Refuge in wildlife and fisheries management, the National
Wildlife Refuge System, and the UCRE for visitors and local
communities through environmental education, and
interpretation.
Objective: Inform visitors and local communities about the fish and
wildlife that depend on the Green River and the Refuge’s role in
protecting these resources.
Strategies:
T Ouray NWR will renovate the self-guided auto-tour route through
Sheppard Bottom and Leota Bluff. By the year 2003, current signs will
be replaced with stand-alone interpretive signs to provide information
about Refuge habitat, migratory birds, endangered fish, and the NWR
system.
T By the year 2000, Refuge staff will revise the general brochure to
update information and to comply with the Service’s publications
format. Additionally, distribution of the brochure in local communities
will be increased.
T Refuge personnel will dedicate 8-10 days every spring and fall to
conduct Refuge tours with local schools and community groups. A local
volunteer will be recruited and trained to assist with tours and possibly
expand the program.
T During the annual spring open house, Refuge staff and volunteers will
focus on topics related to Migratory Bird Day, Wetlands Day, Fishing
Week, and other natural resource issues. Topics showcased in the fall
will include the National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wildlife
Refuge Week, and wildlife-dependent uses of the Refuge, such as
hunting and fishing.
T Refuge staff will continue to participate in community events, teacher
workshops, and natural resource career development workshops for
students in an effort to strengthen community recognition and support
of the USFWS mission.
56 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
  Goal G: Provide protection for cultural and paleontological
resources on the Refuge and educate visitors about these sites.
Objective 1: Protect cultural and paleontological resources on the
Refuge.
Strategies:
T Consult with local experts from other land management agencies,
individuals, and interested groups to compile information on potential
cultural and paleontological resource sites and materials in the Refuge
area.
T Conduct a cultural resource overview for the Refuge area.
T Develop a cultural resource/paleontological management plan. The
plan will describe Refuge-wide resource inventories, define what
stabilization and protection measures will be needed at located sites.
Objective 2: Inform visitors and the local community about cultural
and paleontological resources on the Refuge.
Strategy:
T Incorporate messages about these resources into existing educational
materials by designing interpretive and educational exhibits and
brochures to raise the awareness of visitors about these resources.
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000 57
Implementation and Monitoring
Plan implementation is contingent upon the following additional funding
and personnel.
Funding and Personnel
Permanent Personnel Needed
Funding for two additional permanent employees is needed to implement
this Plan. The new Biological Technician position will be responsible for
Colorado River Wildlife Management Area easement enforcement and
monitoring and assisting the refuge biologist. With the addition of the
Colorado River Wildlife Management Area ,the level of complexity merits
grade increases for the Refuge Manager and Refuge Operations
Specialist.
Step-down Management Plans
In addition to administrative plans required by national policies and
guidance, step-down plans that need periodic revision or will need to be
developed to augment this CCP include:
- Habitat Management Plan - Wildlife Inventory Plan
- Cultural/Paleontological Resource Plan - Wildlife Conservation Plan
- Hunting Plan - Public Use Plan
- Integrated Pest Management Plan - Water Management Plan
- Fire Management Plan - Trapping Plan
Project Estimated
Project Cost
Create Nature Trails $17,000
Complete Disabled Access Hunting and Fishing Sites $25,000
Renovate Self-Guided Auto Tour Route $19,000
Develop Refuge Interpretive Brochures $5,000
Control Selenium Contamination $95,000
Increase Treatment of Pest Plants $98,000
Apply Habitat Treatments and Monitoring (Easement Work etc.) $200,000
Current Personnel Personnel Needed
Refuge Manager, GS-12 Refuge Manager, GS-13
Sup. Refuge Operation Specialist, GS-11 Sup. Refuge Operation Specialist, GS-12
Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-10 Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-10
Maintenance Worker, WG-8
(shared with Ouray Fish Hatchery)
Maintenance Worker, WG-8
(full-time Refuge)
Wildlife Biologist, GS-9/11 Wildlife Biologist, GS-11
Outdoor Recreation Planner, GS-9 Outdoor Recreation Planner, GS-11
Administrative Support Assistant, GS-7
(shared w/Jones Hole and Ouray Hatcheries)
Administrative Support Assistant, GS-8
(shared with Ouray Hatchery)
Vacant Biological Technician, GS-5/6
58 Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - February 2000
Monitoring and Evaluation
Refuge staff will continue to monitor avian (e.g., migratory songbirds)
productivity and survivorship through the continuation of the constant
effort mist-netting (CEMN). Mist-netting has been conducted in riparian
areas on Ouray since 1996 and should continue as long as feasible to
evaluate management and control of nonnatives, varying flooding regimes
as dictated by the flow out of Flaming Gorge, and other changes as may
occur naturally or artificially. Additionally, point counts will be conducted
throughout the length of the riparian area occurring on the Refuge to
complement CEMN. Also, vegetation on point counts will be monitored
according to standards as provided by the Region.
Baseline inventories of small mammals, reptiles and amphibians were
initiated during spring and summer of 1999. These inventories have
verified certain species’ occurrence on the Refuge, such as the Merriam’s
shrew. Although the efforts carried out are respectable, they still fall short
of a complete inventory, as our previous efforts failed to sample some of
the known species that occur on the Refuge. Obtaining this information is
vital for evaluating future management plans, such as prescribed burning,
nonnative weed control, mowing, and other efforts outlined in the CCP.
Levee removal or breaching has occurred in Johnson, Leota, and Woods Bottom
to benefit endangered fish, particularly razorback suckers and Colorado
pikeminnow. The Recovery Program, UDWR, and other researchers including
Utah State University continue to monitor and evaluate the actual benefits of
these levee removals to endangered fish recovery and riparian vegetation
regeneration (e.g., cottonwoods and willows). Management decisions within levee
removal sites may be reached using recommendations provided by the
researchers. In the future, proposed levee removals on the Refuge will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis and on recommendations provided by past
research.
Before appropriate management objectives can be developed for riparian
and upland habitats, past, present, and potential vegetation structure and
composition needs to be determined. Past information can be gathered
using aerial photographs of riparian areas before regulated flows, soil
surveys, existing diaries of explorers, and Refuge annual narratives.
Present information can be collected through baseline inventories, while
potential vegetation structure information can be gleaned from the
scientific literature on potential natural communities or climax communities. Only
when past, present, and potential vegetation structure and composition
are determined and evaluated for compatibility with present day conditions (e.g.,
river flows, nonnative vegetation, etc.), can specific objectives and
monitoring techniques be developed for riparian and upland habitats.
In order to control the rate of spread of nonnative species such as Tamarix,
Russian olive, Russian knapweed, and perennial pepperweed, Refuge staff
will evaluate different treatments and control mechanisms for the most
efficient form of suppression. We will evaluate the use of different chemicals,
concentrations, chemicals in combination with mechanical treatments like mowing
and discing, prescribed burning, and chemicals in combination with prescribed
burning. Plots of various sizes with various treatments assigned to each
plot will be used to monitor the effects of the different treatments.
Implementation of the Plan will be monitored throughout its effective
period (2000 through 2014).
Accomplishment of objectives listed in this Plan will be monitored annually by the
Refuge Manager’s supervisor. Monitoring of accomplishments is critical to the
implementation of the Plan.
It is reasonable to believe that substantial changes could occur within the Service
during the next 15 years. The objectives of the Plan will be examined a minimum
of every five years to determine if revisions are necessary and to allow the addition
or deletion of objectives.
Ouray National Wil