Comprehensive Conservation Plan Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

September 2004

Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 457 953 Jackson County Road #32 Walden, Colorado 80480-0457 and Division of Refuge Planning Region 6 PO Box 25486 DFC Lakewood, CO 80225

Approved by:

Ralph O. Morgenweck Date Regional Director, Region 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, Colorado

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Submitted by:

Ann Timberman Date Project Leader Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Walden, Colorado

Concurred with:

Dave Wiseman Date Refuge Program Supervisor Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, Colorado and

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date Assistant Regional Director National Wildlife Refuge System Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, Colorado

Contents

Summary ...... ix 1 Introduction ...... 1 Area Description...... 3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 9 Purpose of and Need for the Plan ...... 9 Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem...... 10 Refuge Overview ...... 10 Refuge Vision Statement ...... 13 Legal and Policy Guidance ...... 14

2 Planning Process...... 17 Public Involvement ...... 19 Planning Issues ...... 19

3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions...... 27 Physical Resources ...... 29 Biological Resources ...... 31 Cultural Resources ...... 40 Special Management Areas ...... 40 Public Use ...... 41

4 Management Direction ...... 45 Riparian Habitats...... 48 Wetland Habitats ...... 50 Meadow Habitats ...... 52 Upland Habitats ...... 55 Cultural Resources ...... 56 Public Use ...... 57 Research ...... 61 Partnerships ...... 62

5 Implementation and Monitoring ...... 65 Personnel...... 67 Funding ...... 68 Step-down Management Plans ...... 68 Partnerships ...... 68 Monitoring and Evaluation...... 69 Plan Amendment and Revision...... 70

6 Socioeconomic Analysis ...... 71 Socioeconomic Setting ...... 74 Expected Economic Impacts ...... 75 Glossary ...... 79 vi Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix A. Key Legislation and Policies ...... 89 Appendix B. Compatibility Determination ...... 91 Appendix C. Planning Team ...... 100 Appendix D. Environmental Compliance ...... 101 Appendix E. Section 7 Biological Evaluation ...... 103 Appendix F. Consultation and Coordination ...... 116 Appendix G. Mailing List ...... 121 Appendix H. Habitat Rationale ...... 123 Appendix I. Water Rights ...... 156 Appendix J. Species List...... 158 Appendix K. Refuge Operating Needs ...... 166 Appendix L. Maintenance Management Projects ...... 167 Bibliography ...... 169 List of Figures and Tables

Figures 1. Vicinity map for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 4 2. North Park area of Colorado ...... 5 3. Physical features of North Park, Colorado ...... 6 4. Platte River watershed of Colorado ...... 7 5. Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem...... 11 6. Base map of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 12 7. Waterfowl flyways within the United States ...... 29 8. Eco-regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 29 9. Habitat management units of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 32 10. Wetland complexes of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 34 11. Public use of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 42 Tables 1. Existing partnerships, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 14 2. Private lands within Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 24 3. Private lands outside Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 24 4. Special-status wildlife, fi sh, plant, and amphibian species potentially occurring on Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 39 5. Estimated annual visitors to Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 43 6. Current and target staff for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 67 7. Overall funding needs for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado...... 68 8. Funding needs for facilities, equipment, and maintenance at Arapaho National Wildlife

Refuge, Colorado ...... 68 9. Summary of the economic analysis for the comprehensive conservation plan, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 73 10. Summary of the economic effects associated with the comprehensive conservation plan, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 73 11. Employment for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 ...... 74 12. Personal income for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 ...... 75 13. Annual expenditures for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 75 14. Combined refuge personnel and non-salary expenditures in Jackson County, Colorado ...... 76 15. Land area management in Jackson County and Colorado ...... 77 16. Estimated annual visitors and daily expenditures, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ...... 77

Summary

Birth of a Plan

This is a summary of the comprehensive conservation plan for the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge in Jackson County, Colorado. This plan, approved in 2004, will guide management of the refuge for the next 15 years. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each national wildlife refuge in the system.

The Need Heitman Virginia Born of the need to protect habitat for migratory birds, The plan is needed to address problems that could the refuge has grown from a 4,400-acre ranch in the negatively affect fi sh, wildlife, plants, and habitats. 1960s to an area today of quality riparian and upland habitats. [Gadwall with brood pictured.] The plan determines opportunities for people to use the refuge in ways that are compatible with resource conservation and refuge purposes. Headwaters of the North Platte The Purpose The breathtaking, windswept basin known as North Park forms the headwaters of the North The purpose of the plan is to Platte River. At the heart of North Park in north- central Colorado, lies the Arapaho National Wildlife ■ provide a clear statement of desired conditions Refuge. ■ provide guidance for management decisions ■ ensure management is consistent with laws, The Illinois River crosses and irrigates the refuge, policies, and plans which is situated at an elevation of 8,200 feet. This water sustains the wetlands, meadows, and riparian ■ provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future of the refuge areas and the migratory birds and native wildlife that depend on these habitats. ■ provide a clear understanding of management actions and priorities A Wealth of Resources ■ provide a sound basis for budget requests As snow-capped mountains towering over North Park shed their wintry blankets and fl ow water Purposes of the Refuge to the lowlands, refuge habitats welcome wild travelers and sustain local plants and animals. The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was The refuge hosts more than 300 different animals, established in 1967, primarily to provide suitable and annually produces 6,000–8,000 ducks. nesting and rearing habitat for migratory birds. It was created, in part, to offset losses of nesting Irrigated hay meadows furnish nesting habitat habitats in the prairie wetland region of the for waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds. Brood- Midwest. rearing habitat for waterfowl has been created or enhanced in 72 wetlands. A national wildlife refuge is different from multiple- use public land—it is closed to the public unless History of the “Bullpen” specific uses are determined compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and Ute and Arapaho peoples shared North Park’s purposes of the refuge. wealth of natural resources. The large numbers of bison that grazed the basin led Native Americans to refer to this area as the “bullpen.” x Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Abundant furbearers and waterfowl seized the The regional director for Region 6 of the U.S. attention of European trappers and hunters. Fish and Wildlife Service sent letters inviting Prospectors were attracted by the likelihood of a participation in development of the plan to agencies wealth of minerals. These activities spearheaded and tribal governments. exploration, leading to settlement. Representatives from the Colorado Division of A ranching heritage was established, and it Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. continues to dominate the area’s culture. Beef cattle Geological Survey responded to the invitation and and nationally renowned mountain hay are major joined the planning team. sources of income for today’s ranchers in North Park. Vision for a Future Landscape Government naturalists studied the area’s resources during the 1920s–60s and urged the establishment Wildlife and their habitats come fi rst in of a national wildlife refuge. This happened at a management of the refuge, before all other uses. time when migratory birds, especially waterfowl and other water birds, were suffering enormous The plan places great importance on the role the habitat and population declines nationwide. refuge has in the North Park ecosystem—for the environment and the residents of North Park. Engaging the Community Vision Statement

With the refuge at the core, but the health of the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed to entire North Park area as the thrust, refuge staff benefit the diversity of plants and wildlife found in engaged the Colorado community, government this high mountain valley of the southern Rocky agencies, Native American tribes, organizations, Mountains. and congressional representatives. The refuge and its resources are also managed for The vision and goals can only be met through close the benefit of the citizens of the United States. coordination with the local community, partners, The refuge includes wetland, meadow, sagebrush and volunteers. uplands, and riparian communities that provide habitat for large mammals, Neotropical migratory birds, nesting waterfowl, fi shes, and species of concern from national and regional conservation plans. In particular, efforts by refuge staff to restore the Illinois River channel hydrology and areas of sagebrush uplands, and to effectively manage wetlands and meadows, contribute to the ecological integrity of the refuge, North Park, and the overall North Platte River system. Through wildlife-dependent recreation and education, people have opportunities to learn of the wonder and significance of North Park’s fauna and fl ora. Firsthand experiences with the refuge encourage people to participate as stewards, not only of the refuge, but also of the natural resources in their own communities. Working in collaboration with the local community and other agencies and organizations helps the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage the refuge as a contributing ecological, cultural, and economic component of the unique mountain valley within

USFWS which it sits. Refuge staff listens to the public. Summary xi

An Ideal and Steps to Get There Strategies Habitat management tools are used to maintain The refuge seeks to be a conservation force that and enhance habitat for waterfowl, as well as other promotes sound resource management and helps in wildlife. These include a variety of grazing and non- the preservation of North Park’s historical heritage. grazing strategies, prescribed fire, invasive plant control, and the most important tool for refuge The plan looks at the role of the refuge and its wetlands—water management. partners to provide the residents of North Park— along with its wildlife and plants—with diverse and Management techniques such as adjusting grazing productive habitats. and prescribed fire levels, and water manipulation will benefit wildlife by providing seasonal life-cycle Goals requirements. The plan sets the following goals for the Arapaho Monitoring will show progress on meeting the National Wildlife Refuge. plan’s goals. The plan can be revised after 5 years if unexpected effects or situations happen, or to take Riparian Habitats. Provide a riparian community into consideration new information, guidance, and representative of historic fl ora and fauna in a high technology. valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat for migratory birds, mammals, and river- dependent species. Wetland Habitats. Provide and manage natural and constructed permanent and semipermanent wetlands (in three wetland complexes) to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and associated wetland-dependent wildlife. Meadow Habitats. Provide and manage irrigated grass-dominated meadows, historically developed for hay production, to support sage grouse broods, waterfowl nesting, and meadow-dependent migratory birds. Upland Habitats. Provide an upland community Red-winged Blackbirds representative of the historical fl ora and fauna in © Cindie Brunner a high valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat for sage grouse, large mammals, and other shrub-associated species. Outcomes of the Plan Cultural Resources. The cultural resources of the Meeting the plan’s goals will create an ecologically refuge are preserved, protected, and interpreted for functional system of habitats. the benefi t of present and future generations. Wildlife and plants will prosper alongside Public Use. Through wildlife-dependent recreation ranching practices, preserving the natural and and education, people of a range of abilities and cultural heritage of this unique area of the Rocky interests are able to learn of, and appreciate, the Mountains. natural resources of this unique high mountain park. Thereby, citizens become better stewards The refuge will become of nature in their own communities and stronger ■ an area where people can enjoy and learn from supporters of the refuge specifically and the wildlife-related recreation and where cultural National Wildlife Refuge System generally. resources are protected and cherished ■ a place where people, partners, and refuge staff Research. The refuge is a learning platform for work together for the welfare of human and compatible research that assists management wildlife communities and science of high mountain park sage-steppe communities. Partnerships. A wide range of partners joins with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in promoting and implementing the refuge vision. xii Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Habitats and Wildlife The refuge will provide, and encourage development of, resources to improve wildlife The refuge will improve habitats that are in poor photography and observation. condition. ■ restoration of riparian habitats ■ study of uplands Restored riparian and meadow habitats will benefi t more wildlife species than at present—not only waterfowl, but also Neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, and a large variety of insects and mammals. North Park will benefi t from partnerships with the refuge that promote sound habitat and wildlife management.

Cultural Resources Recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and hiking can be enjoyed on the refuge. The refuge will identify, evaluate, and protect cultural resources. Interpretation of cultural resources and their importance to North Park’s Environmental education will focus on how and why wildlife will be encouraged. the refuge intensively manages habitats to achieve goals. The education program will address not only the ecology of the refuge, but of the entire North Park area. Interpretive facilities will be used to promote sound wildlife management. Interpretation will explain the role that agriculture and ranching have had in the conservation of habitats and wildlife. Socioeconomics Socioeconomic conditions of North Park, especially in Walden, are expected to improve as refuge activities lead to increased visitation throughout North Park. USFWS/Rhoda Lewis The historic Case Barn was modeled after a New Zealand sheep barn. Public use activities will not only promote appreciation of wildlife, but will also encourage visitors to return to North Park. The sale of items Air and Water Quality and services such as equipment, lodging, and meals will contribute to the economy. Increased visitation and road travel is not expected to have long-term impacts on the quality of the air The plan will have some negative economic effects in North Park. due to decreases in cattle grazing needed to meet habitat goals. The reductions from current grazing There will be marked improvement in water quality. levels may be from 10–64 percent, depending on Habitat restoration efforts should create conditions habitat conditions. to better trap sediments and create shade that will improve water quality. This will improve the overall habitat quality for a variety of wildlife. Public Use Hunting will be promoted as a sound wildlife management activity to achieve refuge goals. Related facilities will be improved. As stream habitat and fisheries are restored, the refuge will promote fi shing activities. 1 Introduction

1 Introduction

The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is located in by the Medicine Bow Range (fi gure 3–physical northwestern Colorado. The refuge is part of the features of North Park). Elevation ranges from Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge complex, which 7,800 to 12,965 feet above sea level. The floor of the also includes four satellite refuges in Wyoming: basin is interspersed with many slow, meandering Bamforth, Hutton Lake, Mortenson Lake, and streams that come together in the north-central Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuges (fi gure 1– part of the county to form the North Platte River. vicinity map). Main tributary rivers are the Michigan, Illinois, Canadian, and Grizzly (figure 4–Platte River This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) watershed). addresses management of the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge. A future planning effort will result A major portion of the bottomland along the in a CCP for the satellite refuges. streams is irrigated hay meadow and pasture. The low rises between streams are dry grassland This chapter includes the following topics: and sagebrush uplands. The picture changes ■ area description rapidly on the edges of the basin, where the land ■ purpose of and need for the CCP pitches abruptly upward to the mountaintops. Aspen, spruce, pine, and fi r cover the slopes up to ■ refuge overview timberline at about 11,000 feet, then tundra and ■ refuge vision rock up to the mountain summits. ■ legal and policy guidance The ecosystems in North Park have developed through hundreds of years in a fi re-dependent system, with fi re as an important, dominating Area Description influence. High elevations and a short growing season, with a cool, often moist, climate infl uences The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is located in the fire regime. The area’s class 4 fi re regime an intermountain, glacial basin south of the town consists of combined crown fires and severe surface of Walden, the county seat of Jackson County. fires (with a 25- to 100-year return interval). Most The 8,200-foot elevation basin is approximately woody vegetation or stand elements were killed 30 miles wide and 45 miles long. The basin is over large areas. commonly known as “North Park” since it is the most northerly of three such “parks” in Colorado. The fire regime in North Park has been altered, Jackson County is contained within the basin that which subsequently changed the cultural activities, lies in the northern tier of Colorado counties e.g., grazing patterns over a 100-year period. (figure 2–North Park). Early explorers noted tall grasses found in North Park. Native Americans dubbed North Park the “bullpen,” referring to the bison inhabiting the area. This gives an indication that the area may have been more dominated by grasses and, thus, likely was more infl uenced by fi re than the present sagebrush-dominated condition. Records for North Park indicate little signifi cant wildfi re activity in the past 50 years. Native Peoples and European Settlement Prior to 1820, the Ute peoples spent their Everett and Nancy Collin Sunset View From the Refuge summers in North Park, living on mule deer, bison, pronghorn, and many other kinds of game. The severity of the winters forced both the Native Forming the headwaters of the North Platte Americans and the game down to lower altitudes in River, the basin opens north into Wyoming and the fall. is rimmed on the west by the Park Range, on the south by the Rabbit Ears Range, and on the east 4 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Jackson County, Colorado

Figure 1. Vicinity map for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Chapter 1—Introduction 5

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Jackson County, Colorado

Figure 2. North Park area of Colorado 6 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Colorado Jackson County, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Figure 3. Physical features of North Park, Colorado Chapter 1—Introduction 7 Platte River Watershed Mountain-Prairie Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Figure 4. Platte River watershed of Colorado 8 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The Arapaho peoples also made frequent hunting wide, a superb level meadow, covered with fi ne trips into North Park, coming in from the southwest grass, on which in the morning and evening from over a pass described by Lt. John F. Fremont, two to five hundred pronghorn were in sight at one as one of the most beautiful he had ever seen. time. Sage and dusky grouse, ducks, and jackrabbits The Utes and Arapahos were bitter enemies and abounded here also . . . . It is only necessary to get many battles occurred when they chanced to back from the road to find both mule deer and elk.” meet. Besides their well-worn trails, other mute evidence of Native American life of pre-settlement The first settlers lived on wild game, and hunting time still exists in North Park. A band of Utes was as important for the men as attending to who participated in the 1879 massacre in Meeker, their ranch work. North Park, in the late 1880s, Colorado, fl ed to North Park after the incident. was a paradise of game. Thousands of pronghorn Several large, log tepees left by this band of Utes summered in there before migrating to the lower still stand in a sheltered, secluded spot. valleys in Wyoming during the winter. Hundreds of mule deer and elk were in North Park, but their The first Europeans to visit and explore North Park numbers diminished after the arrival of settlers. were probably trappers, who were in northwestern Few bison remained in the area when the fi rst Colorado as early as 1819. Beaver were particularly settlers came, and they soon disappeared. Many abundant along North Park’s streams. In 1820, bears, mountain lions, mountain sheep, and beaver Joseph Bijeau told of the good trapping he had existed in North Park in the early days, along with experienced in North Park a few years prior, while thousands of sage grouse, blue grouse, and ducks. with the Chateau and DeMunn expedition. Jacques Laramie trapped in North Park in 1820 for the No trout existed in any North Park streams when Northwest Fur Company. He was followed by a the first settlers came; however, in the 1880s, party of trappers headed by Alexander Sinclair settlers stocked the streams with eastern brook and Robert Bean, who trapped beaver in 1825. trout and rainbow trout. A number of trappers visited North Park into the 1840s, including Peg Smith, John Gantt, Kit Carson, In 1880, large numbers of cattle were driven down Henry Fraeb, Calvin Jones, Bill Williams, Jim from the railroad lines in Laramie, Wyoming. Baker, Jim Bridger, Sublette, Gervais, and Vasquez. However, the winter of 1883–84 was severe, and In 1855, the famous Irish hunter, Sir George Gore, half of the stock died. As a result, most of the made a spectacular hunting trip through North ranchers purchased mowers and rakes prior to the Park, killing thousands of mule deer, bison, and following summer’s haying season in preparation pronghorn. for putting up wild hay for winter feed. Hay has historically been the main agricultural crop in Miners and prospectors followed the trappers and Jackson County, with about 100,000 acres being in hunters to North Park. James O. Pinkham was one native mountain hay and only 370 acres in other of the fi rst prospectors in North Park and began crops. For years, all the hay was fed inside North panning gold in the area in the early 1870s. Pinkham Park; in 1914, ranchers began to bale and sell the spent the long, cold winters in Laramie, Wyoming, hay outside North Park. and the summers in North Park. He believed that North Park was the richest and fi nest country in the world, and built a home there in 1874. Mr. Pinkham interested others in North Park through his tales of rich placer land. By 1875, nearly 100 men were prospecting for placer gold around the Rabbit Ears, Independence, and Owl Mountains. During August and September 1879, George Bird Grinnell—naturalist, writer, and hunter—entered North Park to collect museum specimens. Traveling by horse from the train station in Laramie, Wyoming, this 29-year-old Yale graduate noted, “The country at this point had been burned By the early 1890s, North Park was fairly well over and was black and extremely desolate in settled in every direction and was a central point appearance. I inquired the cause of the fi re and when securing supplies became necessary. As a learned from the owner of the ranch (Pinkham) result, the town of Walden (elevation 8,100 feet) was that the burn had been made to clear off the established in the middle of North Park. Walden sagebrush which takes up so much room that might was located near two wagon roads from Laramie to be occupied by grass.” Several days later, while Teller City and from Albany to Granby. The town camped on a meadow along the North Platte River, was named after Marcus Walden, postmaster of the Grinnell writes, “. . . was perhaps a mile and a half nearby settlement of Sage Hen Springs. Chapter 1—Introduction 9

Today in North Park The Service operates more than 540 national wildlife refuges and waterfowl production areas, Since the 1890s, North Park has been known for 70 national fi sh hatcheries, 64 fi shery resource high waterfowl productivity. Historically, high, offi ces, and 78 ecological services fi eld stations. river fl ows in the spring flooded meadows, which provided suitable nesting habitat for a host of The National Wildlife Refuge System of the Service nesting bird species, especially waterfowl. Today, is the world’s largest collection of lands set aside North Park serves as the second most productive specifically for the protection of wildlife. The fi rst waterfowl area in Colorado. unit of the refuge system was created in 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt designated Jackson County is rural and sparsely populated with 3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery a population of only 1,577 individuals (2000 census in Florida, as a bird sanctuary. data). Approximately 900 individuals live within the Walden city limits. The economy of Jackson County is based primarily on agriculture and recreation. Additionally, mining and logging have provided economic stimulus to the county. The economic base has been fairly stable throughout the history of Jackson County, with some fl uctuations caused by the instability of the mining and logging industry. Ranching, including both hay production and cattle, continues to be the dominant land use of North Park. Fortunately, the traditional ranching history of North Park has not only produced hay and cattle, it has preserved and protected thousands of acres of Northern Pintail wildlife habitat. © Cindie Brunner Recreation is becoming more and more economically important to Jackson County. The county’s many The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge streams, lakes, uplands, forests, and mountains System is to administer a network of lands are mostly open to public access. These areas offer and waters for the conservation, management, unusual opportunities for outdoor recreational and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, activities such as hunting, fi shing, bird watching, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats backpacking, camping, snowmobiling, cross-country within the United States for the benefi t of present skiing, bicycling, and horseback riding. and future generations of Americans.”

Today, the refuge system encompasses more than The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 95-million acres, located in all 50 states and a number of U.S. Territories. To fulfill the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Congress has charged the agency with The refuge system provides habitat for native conserving and managing migratory birds, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fi shes, endangered species, anadromous and inter- invertebrates, and plants “trust resources” for jurisdictional fi sh, and certain marine mammals. which the Federal Government is ultimately responsible. It plays a vital role in preserving The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered and threatened species, preventing is working with others to conserve, protect, and species from becoming endangered, and offers enhance fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats wildlife-dependent recreation for over 34 million for the continuing benefi t of the American people. visitors annually.

The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, manages Purpose of and Need for the Plan migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores Initiated by the National Wildlife Refuge System wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers Improvement Act of 1997, comprehensive the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign conservation plans (CCPs) will be developed for governments with their conservation efforts. It all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System also oversees the Federal Aid Program, which of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Plans must distributes hundreds of millions of dollars (from include public involvement in their development, excise taxes on hunting and fi shing equipment) to and must set forth strategies to fulfill the refuge state wildlife agencies. 10 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan system mission, as well as the purposes for which short-grass prairie regions of eastern Colorado, the refuge was established. and mixed-grass prairie regions of Nebraska and Kansas. The primary ecological processes affecting This CCP provides a 15-year guidance for the this system are climate, cultivation, grazing, and management of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge. fire. The ecosystem is arid with an average annual Management goals and objectives were developed precipitation between 8 to 16 inches per year. for the refuge (chapter 4–management direction). Approximately 85 percent of the Platte/Kansas Based on the life requirements of selected wildlife Rivers ecosystem is privately owned. The species, these goals and objectives provide specifi c remainder is primarily owned and managed by targets toward which refuge staff will manage. State and Federal agencies. Future management efforts will focus on achieving these goals and objectives for the benefit of wildlife The Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem planning and the American people. team, with input from partners and fi eld stations, identified and prioritized three primary geographic Wildlife has first priority in the management of sub-units: mixed-grass prairie, mountain, and short­ refuges. Recreation or other uses are allowed if grass prairie. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Six falls within the mountain sub-unit of the ecosystem wildlife-dependent recreational activities will be plan and plays a vital role in uplands management emphasized—wildlife observation and photography, and protection. Within each geographic sub-unit, hunting, fi shing, environmental education, and priorities were established based on signifi cance interpretation. in the ecosystem, species diversity, risk or threat to the entire ecosystem, public benefits, and trust resources. Also considered were legal mandates, Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem opportunity for partnerships, likelihood of success, and cost effectiveness. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has divided the country into 53 watershed-based ecosystem management units. The Platte/Kansas Rivers Refuge Overview ecosystem unit encompasses approximately 182,000 square miles of the central Great Plains of the On August 15, 1967, the Migratory Bird United States (fi gure 5–Platte/Kansas Rivers Conservation Commission approved the fi rst ecosystem). The Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem land acquisition project for the establishment of covers portions of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and the refuge. The original land purchase was the Wyoming. Allard Ranch of 4,433.07 acres. Subsequently, nine additional land tracts were purchased, and land Ecosystem Vision exchanges completed with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the State of Colorado. The vision of the Platte/Kansas Rivers eco-team is to provide partnership-based, landscape-level On September 26, 1967, the Migratory Bird conservation for the diversity and abundance of Conservation Commission, acting under the natural resources within the ecosystem. The team authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, envisions approved the established area known as the ■ landscapes that exhibit natural, healthy, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is ecological processes 23,243 acres in size and is located in Jackson County (figure 6–base map). Purchased acres total 18,451, ■ ongoing protection of threatened, endangered, while 4,792 acres were withdrawn. and endemic species ■ protection and promotion of native prairie Refuge complex staff administers an additional vegetation 21,717 acres on the Wyoming satellite refuges, for a total of 44,960 acres under complex management. ■ involvement of all stakeholders in decision- making processes ■ recognition that partnerships are the key to Purposes success National wildlife refuges are established for a particular purpose. Formal establishment is Ecosystem Description generally based on a statute or executive order that specifies a purpose for that refuge. However, This diverse area begins at the headwaters of the refuges can also be established by the Service North and South Platte Rivers, high in the Rocky using the authorization found within laws such Mountains. It includes the sagebrush uplands of as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird north-central Colorado and southeastern Wyoming, Conservation Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Chapter 1—Introduction 11

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem Mountain-Prairie Region

Region 6 Mountain-Prairie Region

Figure 5. Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem 12 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Jackson County, Colorado

Figure 6. Base map of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Chapter 1—Introduction 13

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was established The refuge headquarters is located 8 miles south for the following purposes: of Walden, on Highway 125. A full-time staff of six ■ “. . . for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for employees and four seasonal employees works to any other management purpose, for migratory manage the refuge wetlands, irrigation system, birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d, Migratory Bird wildlife habitats, and visitor facilities. Conservation Act) The refuge accommodates approximately 7,200 ■ “. . . for the development, advancement, visitors annually (5-year average 1998–2002). The management, conservation, and protection of 6-mile auto tour route, the walking trail, and fish and wildlife resources . . . ” [16 U.S.C. § 742f Brocker Overlook account for the majority of (a)(4)] “. . . for the benefit of the United States visitor use. Approximately 500 recreation days Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its are provided to hunters and anglers. The refuge activities and services. Such acceptance may is open to limited hunting opportunities for small be subject to the terms of any restrictive or game, waterfowl, sage grouse, and pronghorn. affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude . . . ” The lower one-third of the refuge provides fi shing (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) opportunities for brown and rainbow trout. These two broad statements provide the sideboards to guide future management of the refuge. Partnerships The refuge promotes partnership opportunities to Management and Use accomplish natural resource-related goals both on and off the refuge. Existing partnerships include Since 1967, the refuge has been managed primarily groups and agencies shown in table 1 (next page). for waterfowl nesting and production. Using existing irrigation ditches for the water-delivery system, the refuge staff constructed or enhanced 72 wetland impoundments in the Illinois River. Refuge Vision Statement These impoundments, and associated wet-meadow As part of the planning process, the refuge staff habitats, provide the habitat necessary to produce and planning team reviewed past national, regional, waterfowl. and complex planning documents and current The refuge provides quality habitat for many planning guidance. Using the legislation and plans, mammals and other birds common to high- the planning team developed the following vision mountain, sagebrush-steppe environments. The statement for the refuge. willow riparian area alone supports more than 40 ■ Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed species of songbirds (Neotropical migrants) during to benefit the diversity of plants and wildlife part of their migration or nesting cycle. Sage found in this high mountain valley of the grouse are common on the refuge, and wet-meadow southern Rocky Mountains. The refuge and its habitats provide critical feeding areas for sage resources are also managed for the benefi t of grouse young. the citizens of the United States. Moose, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn are common ■ The refuge includes wetland, meadow, wildlife species on the refuge. These big-game sagebrush uplands, and riparian communities species migrate on and off the refuge; however, an that provide habitat for large animals, average of 1,200 elk, 200 pronghorn, and 20 moose Neotropical migratory birds, nesting waterfowl, may inhabit the refuge at any one time. fishes, and species of concern from national and regional conservation plans. In particular, Managing invasive plants and limiting their efforts by refuge staff to restore the Illinois impact on vegetative resources of the refuge is a River channel hydrology, riparian areas, and priority. The refuge falls within the invasive plant sagebrush uplands, and to effectively manage management area of the North Platte headwaters. wetlands and meadows, contribute to the ecological integrity of the refuge, North Park, Refuge staff work closely with the Jackson County and the overall North Platte River system. weed coordinator to ensure adequate control of ■ Through wildlife-dependent recreation and invasive plants. education, people have opportunities to learn Grazing is the primary management tool used to of the wonder and significance of North Park’s manage meadow and upland habitats. Seven grazing fauna and flora. Firsthand experiences with cooperators help maintain and enhance grassland the refuge encourage people to participate as habitats. Water-level manipulation, irrigation, fi re, stewards, not only of the refuge, but also of the mowing, harrowing, and disking are additional tools natural resources in their own communities. used to improve grassland and wetland habitats. 14 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table 1. Existing partnerships, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Name Partnership Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) wildlife and fi shery habitat improvement, resource sharing, law enforcement CDOW Habitat Partnership Program reduction of cattle and big-game conflicts throughout North Park

Colorado Scenic Byways overlooks and roads development, interpretation

Colorado State Forest Service natural resources improvement projects, forest management plans, fi re management Colorado State University assistance with planning, wildlife research, and habitat management

Jackson County invasive plant management, fire support

Natural Resource Conservation Service assistance with soils and vegetative management

Owl Mountain Partnership land health improvement projects on public and private lands, grazing management plans, wildlife watering areas, and sagebrush management projects Platte/Kansas Rivers Eco-team assistance with funding and planning natural resource projects

National Center for Atmospheric research snowpack characteristics to create reliable snowpack models Research Sage Grouse Working Group sage grouse habitat protection and enhancement

U.S. Bureau of Land Management partner in several programs, equipment sharing, resource sharing

USDA Forest Service partner in several programs, equipment sharing, fire management, resource sharing U.S. Geological Survey cooperative wildlife research, planning, and water monitoring projects

■ Working in collaboration with the local National Wildlife Refuge System. Use of any area community and other agencies and within the refuge system was permitted, provided organizations helps the U.S. Fish and Wildlife such uses were compatible with the major purposes Service manage the refuge as a contributing for which such areas were established. ecological, cultural, and economic component of the unique mountain valley within which it sits. Appendix A contains descriptions of other laws and policies that are related to national wildlife refuges. Legal and Policy Guidance National Wildlife Refuge System

National wildlife refuges are guided by Improvement Act ■ the mission and goals of the U.S. Fish and The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1997 amends the Refuges System System Administration Act by including a unifying mission for the refuge system, a formal process ■ the legal purpose of the refuge unit as described in the enabling legislation or executive orders for determining compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge be managed under a ■ international treaties comprehensive conservation plan. Specifi c details ■ federal laws and regulations regarding additional amendments are available ■ Service policies through the refuge or regional Service offi ces. The National Wildlife Refuge System This Act states that wildlife conservation is the Administration Act of 1966, as amended, provides priority of refuge system lands and that the guidelines and directives for administration of the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the Chapter 1—Introduction 15

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental A compatible use is “a use that, in the sound health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge professional judgment of the refuge manager, must be managed to fulfill both the specifi c purposes will not materially interfere with or detract for which it was established and the mission of the from the fulfillment of the mission of the refuge refuge system. system or the purposes of the refuge.” Sound professional judgment is further defi ned as “a Lands within the refuge system are different from finding, determination, or decision that is consistent other public lands in that they are closed to all with the principles of sound fish and wildlife public uses unless specifically and legally opened. management and administration, available science Unlike other federal lands that are managed under and resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and a multiple-use mandate (e.g., national forests other infrastructure), and adherence with applicable administered by the USDA Forest Service and laws.” No use of a national wildlife refuge may be public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of allowed unless determined to be compatible. Land Management), the refuge system is managed specifically for the benefit of fish and wildlife Uses that have been determined to be compatible resources. for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge include the following: The Act defines six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. ■ wildlife observation and photography ■ hunting ■ wildlife observation ■ fi shing ■ wildlife photography ■ environmental education ■ hunting ■ interpretation ■ fi shing ■ environmental education Additionally, habitat management tools include, ■ interpretation but are not limited to, fire, mowing, grazing, invasive plant control (chemical, mechanical, and physical methods), Dixie harrowing, fencing, water Use Compatibility management, routine refuge maintenance activities, Compatibility is a legal requirement of all refuge and public use related structures (appendix B). uses. By federal law, all uses of national wildlife refuges, including wildlife-dependent recreational activities, must be formally determined to be compatible. © William H. Miller © William Cow Moose With Twins

2 Planning Process

2 Planning Process

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service achieving overall refuge goals. Step-down plans also guides the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge provide fl exibility to accommodate annual changes Comprehensive Conservation Plan, along with the in refuge staff levels, funding, equipment, and other mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the resources. established purposes of the refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service compatibility standards, and other Service policies, plans, and laws related to refuge Public Involvement management. Issues addressed in this plan were identifi ed by This plan establishes habitat-based goals, the public, refuge staff, and cooperating agencies. objectives, strategies, and monitoring priorities Details about the public involvement process are for refuge management. The plan will be used to shown in appendix F. The mailing list for this prepare more specific step-down management plans document is in appendix G. that address programs such as hunting, fi shing, and environmental education, with annual priorities and budgets. Comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) are initiated, developed, and published in a 2-year time frame. The plan duration is 15 years; however, the plan may be revised if necessary. This CCP supersedes current management plans. Key steps in the planning process include the following: ■ preplanning ■ identifying issues and developing a vision ■ gathering information ■ developing alternatives ■ assessing environmental effects ■ identifying the proposed alternative ■ publishing a draft plan and soliciting public comments USFWS ■ reviewing the comments and making Interested participants learn more about comprehensive appropriate changes to the draft plan conservation planning. ■ preparing the fi nal plan for approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Planning Issues regional director The planning team for this CCP (appendix C) Primary issues concerning future management of coordinated these steps, working with the public the refuge include the following: and partners. ■ changing from a species-based management approach to a habitat-based management The associated environmental analysis (see approach the draft CCP document) is the basis for the ■ sage grouse preservation and management “Environmental Action Statement” and Finding of No Signifi cant Impact” found in appendix D. ■ use of grazing as a wildlife management tool ■ water management A biological evaluation for the CCP was completed in compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Additionally, continued close coordination with the Species Act (appendix E). Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) is critical to plan success. Projects completed by the refuge will be monitored and documented to ensure progress toward 20 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The following issues are described below: History ■ prairie dogs With a peak elevation of 9,200 feet, this 800-acre ■ Pole Mountain tract contains significantly different habitats than ■ grazing the rest of the refuge. Pole Mountain has private ■ elk land on three sides and a piece of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to the south that has no ■ sage grouse hunting public access to it. Similarly, the Service does not ■ inholdings own a permanent access easement to the property, ■ invasive plants and gains access across private land by virtue of a positive working relationship with a neighboring Prairie Dogs landowner. Much of the more open upland areas, as well as Pole Mountain is dominated by sagebrush uplands drier areas within meadow/riparian habitats, on (50 percent) and mixed, aspen/conifer forest the refuge support prairie dogs. In 2002, the white- (50 percent), which is common throughout the tailed prairie dog was petitioned for listing under county where uplands meet the forest. This the Endangered Species Act; a finding is expected property is grazed annually, and invasive plants are by October 2004. monitored and controlled. Minimal wildlife monitoring has been conducted at Issues Pole Mountain. Wildlife use includes mule deer, elk, blue grouse, porcupine, and a variety of passerine The white-tailed prairie dog is very popular with birds. Although the area has wildlife value, it the visiting public and, to many, is a symbol of the does not match current or future objectives of the west. However, most local ranchers see the prairie remainder of the refuge. dog as a pest that competes with livestock for food, and creates burrows that are potentially dangerous to cattle and horses. Issues The habitat at Pole Mountain does not meet Actions purposes of refuge establishment and is not unique in the area in terms of habitat or wildlife use. Few It is appropriate management options are available for habitat for the refuge to improvement. consider prairie dog needs and Several entities are interested in the land for potential impacts various reasons. to them when ■ members of the local sage grouse working management group—to trade these lands for others in the decisions are being county to protect sage grouse habitat made. ■ the CDOW—for big-game management; The CCP process however, they currently have a moratorium on has addressed acquiring new lands potential impacts ■ local ranchers—for use as grazing land to this species. ■

USFWS developers—for home sites Prairie Dog Actions Pole Mountain This CCP calls for the divestiture of the Pole Mountain property within 5 years (option 3 During 1993, the Service acquired lands owned by below) using the priority criteria listed in option E.B. Shawver and formerly known as the Stelbar 4. Until that time, refuge staff will ensure proper Ranch. As part of the “all-or-nothing” purchase stewardship of the land, but minimal management of lands adjacent to the refuge, this acquisition will occur, as follows: included an isolated tract of land known as Pole Mountain (T7N, R81W, Sections 33 and 34, ■ Place a conservation easement on the property 6th Principal Meridian), located approximately prior to sale or trade to ensure wildlife benefi ts 6 miles southwest of the refuge in Jackson County, of the area remain intact. Colorado. ■ Continue grazing at recent levels, as deemed appropriate by management. Chapter 2—Planning Process 21

■ Continue invasive plant control efforts as part of per acre. Grazing records from 1969 to 1991 were the pest management agreement with the county. destroyed in an offi ce fi re. From 1991 to 2001 ■ Obtain a right-of-way access to the property for (excepting 1993 for which data is unavailable), management and public use. 46–74 percent of the refuge was grazed annually at a refuge-wide average rate between 0.52 and 0.71 ■ If the tract is not divested, create a forest and AUMs per acre. Actual rates vary signifi cantly rangeland management plan for the area prior depending on the site, with some uplands being as to update of this CCP. low as 0.01 AUMs per acre and some meadows as Seven options were considered for the Pole high as 2.18 AUMs per acre. Mountain tract. Grazing in meadow/riparian areas has generally 1. Keep the Pole Mountain tract, survey, re-sign, not commenced until after August 1 to minimize and change/add refuge objectives to include this disturbance to nesting waterfowl. Uplands are parcel. sometimes grazed earlier, but grazing does not 2. Work with Colorado State Forest Service generally commence until June 1. Grazing systems (CSFS) to develop and implement a forest used have included high-intensity, short-duration management plan for Pole Mountain. (Holistic Resource Management-type), rest- rotation, light annual grazing, and complete rest. 3. Divest the Pole Mountain tract through appropriate government regulations. Issues 4. Trade the Pole Mountain tract for (in priority order) There is little refuge-specific data available to a. Refuge inholdings assess how past grazing practices have or will effect proposed habitat objectives, due to the following: b. Lands and waters adjacent to the refuge that are manageable to reach objectives listed in ■ All data from 1969–1991 was destroyed in an this CCP offi ce fi re. c. Lands and waters adjacent to other refuges, ■ Any available data from other studies did not where it would help achieve their goals and necessarily address the objectives as defi ned objectives, for refuges in this CCP and, therefore, is of limited use for assessment purposes. i. In Colorado ii. In Region 6 of the Service Although grazing practices to date have not harmed iii. Anywhere in the Nation habitats, current levels of grazing probably will not d. Lands with a natural resource interest by meet CCP objectives, and some reduction in grazing other Federal land management agencies will be required. With more intensive monitoring of habitats to assess how well objectives are being 5. Place a conservation easement on the Pole met, a better understanding of appropriate grazing Mountain property prior to divestment to limit levels should be developed. or preclude development on the tract. 6. Secure a legal right-of-way easement to assure Actions access to Pole Mountain. 7. Open Pole Mountain to hunting of all species, Livestock grazing has been the preferred according to State of Colorado regulations. management tool used on the refuge because the effect on vegetative communities is more controllable and predictable than other available Grazing management tools. All known and available Cattle and sheep had grazed the lands that now management tools will be assessed for suitability of comprise the refuge, for nearly a century prior to use in achieving defined habitat objectives. acquisition. Since establishment of the refuge in Other treatment options include the following: 1967, grazing has continued to be the most common management tool to manipulate refuge habitats, ■ Prescribed fi re—Some prescribed fire has been especially meadows. Immediately after land used and more may be planned in the future. purchases, some grazing was permitted as part of Prescribed fire, when used according to policy, purchase agreements, and some areas were rested can accomplish removal of excess decadent to establish waterfowl nesting cover. growth and reset successional stages, creating a diversity of wildlife habitat. Prescribed fi re may be used in all habitat types to help meet History management objectives. From 1969 to 1982, 47–95 percent of the refuge ■ Haying/mowing—Minimal haying occurred on was grazed annually at a refuge-wide rate varying some parcels as agreements of purchase, but between 0.4 and 1.2 animal-unit months (AUMs) was short-lived. Haying would be effective in 22 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

removal of vegetative growth, but the primary late 1980s, elk began to show up regularly in the objective of haying would likely be to remove winter, until about 500 were common on and around decadent growth. In this case, hay quality the refuge from December to March. Most of the would probably be poor, so fi nding someone animals would disperse for higher ground as the interested in doing the work may be diffi cult. snow melted in the spring, but some began to stay Mowing would successfully remove decadent along the Illinois River year-round. By the mid­ growth, and the cut grass would ultimately 1990s, a resident herd of approximately 150 elk had break down to form litter and duff needed to become established. meet objectives. This could be very costly in time and energy compared to other tools. History ■ Fertilizing—Applying fertilizers is an option to increase plant growth, and is used by many The number of elk using the refuge is continuing to in the county to increase hay production. Cost, grow and, with recent drought conditions, recent equipment, and time deter its use at present, growth may be more than usual. It is unknown if but this tool should be considered if habitat this is a short-term gain in numbers with a likely objectives are not being met by other means. decrease when conditions change, or if the elk have found a new place and are here to stay. It is also ■ Mechanical treatments—These are treatments unknown whether the increase in elk on the refuge typically associated with efforts to manipulate is proportional to the increase throughout the sagebrush and could include using a disc, county, or if elk are occurring in a higher (or lower) aerator, roller/chopper, Dixie harrow, or similar proportion on the refuge. implements. Several hundred acres around the county have been treated in recent years in an The wintering herd has continued to grow to the effort to open up and vary the age diversity of point that winter counts conducted by the CDOW sagebrush stands and increase plant diversity; in late December 2002 found about 2,400 elk on and success of these projects is still being assessed. near the refuge. Elk typically are scattered into several herds that vary in size, but often occur in a This CCP has estimated grazing numbers of herd of about 1,000 animals. During winter months 3,050–7,650 AUMs annually, and represents (November through March), elk numbers vary approximately 36–90 percent of the 1996–2001 considerably but average 1,000–1,400 animals. average. This assumes an average use of between 0.4 and 1.0 AUMs per acre of grazable acres for riparian areas and meadows, and 0.05 to 0.15 AUMs on uplands. Although not guaranteed, the plan assumes some grazing will likely occur every year to help achieve objectives on and off the refuge. Close coordination will occur with grazing permittees to combine and meet the refuge’s needs and permittees’ operational needs as much as possible for timing, areas, and to a certain extent, numbers. Permittees in good standing have a reasonable expectation of how many AUMs will be available to them for the upcoming year, barring extenuating circumstances such as drought. If a permittee has intentions of not grazing any longer on the refuge, their previously permitted areas will be evenly distributed to the remaining Elk permittees, to spread out use on the refuge and © Cindie Brunner meet objectives. If all permittees are still interested in continued use in 2 years, all permits will be decreased annually approximately 5–10 percent North Park also has a resident herd. The CDOW from 1996 to 2001 averages until objective levels initiated a distribution management hunt on private are met. Thereafter, grazing levels will be driven lands to thin this resident herd and disperse some of entirely by habitat needs based on identifi ed its numbers off private lands. This effort had short- objectives. term success in reducing the resident herd size. Management hunts will probably continue to be Elk used by CDOW to control the resident herd size. During the general, rifle, big-game, hunting Until the mid- to late 1980s, seeing elk on or near seasons, the resident elk herd on the refuge the refuge, at any time of year, was a rarity. In the typically becomes more noticeable. As the later Chapter 2—Planning Process 23 hunting seasons progress, more elk move onto If elk are on the refuge, they are not on private the refuge from the forested areas of the county. lands potentially damaging property or consuming With the exception of some private lands scattered forage meant for livestock. The problem is that around the county, the refuge is the only place on they do not stay just on the refuge, so the potential the south end of North Park where the elk are not exists for them to travel to adjoining private land pursued during the general seasons. and do damage. As numbers of elk using the refuge grows, so will the possibility of damage to private Issues resources. Although a large, wintering elk herd is a magnifi cent As more elk move onto the refuge during the wildlife resource to behold, other things need to be general, rifle-hunting season, an impression is considered. The first is that the refuge, though fairly created with some hunters that “all the elk are large, cannot be all things for all wildlife. A point on the refuge,” especially if the animals are hard comes where too many individuals of one species to find in other locations. The refuge is composed (elk) can negatively affect the habitat for another mainly of sagebrush uplands, meadow, and open species or group of species (waterfowl). With one of areas, without many places for elk to hide, and they the purposes for establishing the refuge being used typically are in large herds at this time. as a sanctuary for migratory birds, too many elk could keep this purpose from being met. The lands surrounding the refuge are very open and the hunting that occurs on these areas often When on the refuge, elk are foraging, and trampling includes radio use, pushing animals with vehicles and eating grasses that are being managed as and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), party hunting, and habitat for other wildlife. Elk can also have a severe over-limits of animals. In general, this does not impact on willow stands. Habitat objectives in this fit refuge system requirements, as outlined in the CCP identify maintenance of grasslands and willows refuge manual, to offer a quality hunting experience to varying degrees for wildlife benefi ts. Although that promotes “positive hunting values and hunter elk use the refuge extensively during the winter ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship.” months, they do not use it exclusively, making it more difficult to determine what the cumulative Chronic-wasting disease (CWD) has been impact of their use may be. A method needs to be documented in white-tailed and mule deer and elk developed to estimate elk use and impact to the in Jackson County. Though these are typically state refuge. issues, the refuge staff is also concerned, since elk use is high on the refuge. The potential for other Historically, ranching was the primary use of North diseases and their risk of spread rises dramatically Park, and that continues to be the case in much of because of the large herd sizes. the county. Elk, as grazers and potential competitors with cattle, can get into hay harvested for livestock Actions and cause damage to fences and other ranch structures. Habitat objectives will be met with range management practices including prescribed Elk will continue to concentrate in areas of the livestock grazing since it is a controllable tool. Elk county and, depending on the landowner and the use and impact on habitats will be monitored. number of elk in the particular herd, the perspective of whether an elk problem exists or not may change. A protocol will be developed for action when management objectives are not being met, using A landowner that does not rely on livestock for their management tools such as elk hazing, hunting, livelihood may view 100 elk as a valuable resource, and transplant. The protocol should defi ne what but may view 300 as a problem. Similarly, a circumstances will trigger these actions and when. landowner relying on the land to make a living might Coordination with CDOW will be critical to address view the 100 animals as too many. It is important to potential impacts to other parts of the county. find an elk population size that achieves refuge goals and meets North Park herd management objectives. Herbivory (elk, moose, and cattle) studies will be A large, visible, herd of elk can be a reminder that initiated to assess the independent and cumulative herd objectives have been surpassed. When that impacts to riparian, upland, and meadow habitats herd is on the refuge, it may seem to some that they by these species. Studies will be conducted in are in a likely spot to reduce numbers. conjunction with the state and other partners to evaluate impacts. Exclosures were installed in 2003 Elk, by law, are a state-owned resource, and high elk to begin the evaluation process. numbers may lead to resource or economic problems ■ The primary concerns are the lack of willow elsewhere in the county. The refuge will work with regeneration, the percent cover provided by the CDOW to address elk issues on the refuge and willows, and willow density along the Illinois throughout North Park. River channel. Willow regeneration along the 24 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Illinois River is slow, and small willow shoots concerned citizens and agencies formed the North are frequently grazed to a 1-inch height. Elk Park sage grouse working group. The mission of damage to riparian areas is well documented in the group is to develop, implement, and monitor the scientific literature (see riparian habitats in a conservation plan to maintain a viable sage appendix H). grouse population in Jackson County. Historically, ■ A hunting plan will be developed, working the refuge has supported sage grouse hunting in with the state, for land on and adjacent to accordance with State regulations and seasons. the refuge. This strategy could include a late- season, limited hunt for youth and disabled Action hunters. A protocol would outline the need for and administration of additional hunts based The refuge proposes to continue to offer sport- on such considerations as game damage, herd hunting opportunities for sage grouse, in reduction, and habitat degradation. accordance with State regulations and seasons. Upland habitats will be monitored and evaluated to ■ Elk numbers and elk damage are not improve conditions for nesting and brood-rearing necessarily a linear relationship. Snow depth, sage grouse (see upland habitats in appendix H). temperature, duration of feeding, and a host of other factors may determine wintering elk The refuge will support the purpose and guiding impacts. Elk wintering on the refuge may principles of the North Park greater sage grouse minimize game damage on adjacent private lands. conservation plan. Sage Grouse Management Inholdings Greater sage grouse are only found in sagebrush- Non-federally owned lands within public land areas dominated rangelands in western North America. are known as inholdings. Table 2 displays non- Sage grouse are dependent on sagebrush for winter federally owned lands that lie within the approved cover, nesting, and feeding habitat. North Park acquisition boundary of Arapaho National Wildlife supports habitat for the greater sage grouse and Refuge. a viable grouse population. However, over the last 40 years, the population has exhibited extreme fl uctuations. Table 2. Private lands within Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Tract Approximate Acreage Private landowner A 160 Private landowner B 480 Private landowner C 200 Private landowner D 2,960 Private landowner E 24 Total 3,824

Non-federally owned lands that lie outside the approved boundary of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge are described in table 3.

Table 3. Private lands outside Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Tract Approximate Acreage Private landowner F 18 Everett and Nancy Collin Sage Grouse Hen With Young Total 18

Issues Issues In 1998, because of increased local concerns about These inholdings represent valuable wildlife habitat the status of sage grouse in North Park, a group of and are of interest to the refuge. Chapter 2—Planning Process 25

Action species. Progress to date for these four species has been quite good. Persistence and diligence will be Following the Service acquisition policy and necessary to keep them out over the long term. guidelines, the refuge plans to acquire only these properties on a willing-seller/willing-buyer basis. Careful scouting and fast action will be required to Additionally, the refuge will attempt to acquire prevent the following, off-refuge, invasive plants mineral resource interests on lands within the from occurring on the refuge—spotted, diffuse, and existing boundary. Minerals extraction may destroy Russian knapweeds, as well as Dalmatian toadfl ax, wildlife habitats, and prevent goals and objectives leafy spurge, and Dyers woad. from being met. Invasive Plants The refuge mirrors much of the rest of North Park in its species mix of invasive plants. Canada thistle has a strong foothold in Jackson County. This species has a noticeable presence along ditch banks, dikes, and in the edges of riparian and sub-irrigated areas. Four other species, declared by the county to be noxious, have been found on the refuge in small amounts, totaling less than 5 acres—musk thistle, yellow toadflax, whitetop, and houndstongue. A handful of other invasive plants have been found in minute amounts on nearby lands—spotted, diffuse, and Russian knapweeds, as well as Dalmatian toadflax, and leafy spurge. These species have been especially troublesome along highway rights-of-way. Issues Managing invasive plants and limiting their impact on the refuge is a great concern. Actions As a landowner within the North Platte headwaters weed management area, the refuge works closely with Jackson County and the county weed coordinator. This partnership goes back to a 1986 weed- management document and includes 13 public, private, and local entities. Jackson County, although somewhat isolated from more serious invasive plant problems of nearby landscapes, is at the forefront in keeping out several invasive plant species. Management approaches have been developed in conjunction with the county weed coordinator and are annually monitored for effectiveness. Mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical tools are employed in combination, in hopes of eliminating these unwanted, invasive plants. Treatment of Canada thistle is generally limited to areas around facilities and areas incurring heavy public use. All known occurrences of musk thistle, yellow toadflax, whitetop, and houndstongue are attacked every year with a strategy appropriate to each

3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions

3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, situated at an health. Ecosystem teams should be the primary elevation of 8,200 feet, is located in an inter­ delivery mechanism for establishing priorities and mountain glacial basin in north-central Colorado. identifying areas of greatest conservation concern The refuge is situated along the western edge of the in their ecosystems (Fulfilling the Promise, 1999). central waterfowl fl yway (fi gure 7).

Figure 7. Waterfowl flyways within the United States Figure 8. Eco-regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jackson County opens north into Wyoming and is rimmed on the west by the Park Range, on the The following sections describe the resources and south by the Rabbit Ears Range, and on the east by use of the refuge: the Medicine Bow Range. The basin fl oor between ■ physical resources these ranges is locally known as North Park and ■ biological resources encompasses approximately 600 square miles. The basin is relatively fl at with an elevation range of ■ cultural resources 7,900–8,300 feet. ■ special management areas Slow, meandering streams, which crisscross the ■ public use basin, fl ow toward the north-central part of the basin to form the North Platte River. Most of the floodplain is irrigated meadow (irrigated to produce Physical Resources a single hay crop per year), while sagebrush grasslands characterize the adjacent low rises. The climate, geology, and soils of the refuge are Sagebrush uplands are the dominant vegetative described below. In addition, a brief description is community and encompass 80 percent of North Park. given for the water, reserved, and mineral rights related to the refuge. Bailey (1995) described the Jackson County area as part of the southern Rocky Mountain eco-region. Climate The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to natural resource management and has identifi ed 53 The climate is semiarid—characterized as having watershed-based, eco-regions in the United States short, cool summers followed by long, cold winters. (figure 8). Within this approach, the refuge lies within the boundaries of the Platte/Kansas Rivers Temperatures and precipitation vary greatly with ecosystem. elevation and location. Mean annual air temperature in Walden, near the center of North Park, is 36.4 The Service is developing a nationally coordinated degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature extremes are approach involving ecosystem teams, partners, minus 39 degrees to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, based on and stakeholders to preserve natural resources the National Weather Bureau’s 30-year average data. for the American people. Ecosystem teams are fundamental to the Service in sustaining good land 30 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The average length of the growing season in Walden Soil Resources is 43 days. The average date for the last killing frost in Walden is July 1, and the average fi rst killing Soils that have the capacity to reproduce the same frost is August 14, based on North Park weather kinds, amounts, and proportions of range plants are station’s 70-year average. The relatively short frost- grouped into range sites. Fletcher (1981) defi ned free season inhibits any form of agriculture, except 15 different range sites and 2 forest types within hay near fl oodplain areas. Jackson County. Five range sites (fl oodplains) are found on the refuge. The mean rainfall in Walden is 10.83 inches of precipitation annually. Annual precipitation ■ Randman-Blackwell-Dobrow association (deep, generally increases as elevation increases, from the poorly drained, dominantly sandy soils) floor to the outer edge of North Park. Elevation ■ Spicerton-Stumpp association (deep, well- ranges from slightly below 8,000 feet on the valley drained, sandy loams and clay loams on bench floor to 12,965 feet on Clarks Peak. Seventy percent and upland sites); Fluetch-Bosler-Tealson of the annual precipitation falls as snow. Walden association (deep and shallow, well-drained, averages 53 inches of snow per year, the lowest sandy loams) of any point in North Park. The highest average ■ Tiagos-Cabin association (deep, well-drained, monthly precipitation occurs in March, April, May, fine, sandy loams); and Coalmont-Brinkerton- and August (Lischka et al. 1983). Aaberg association (moderately deep, of soft shale and well-drained sandy loams) Geological Resources The refuge contains 31 North Park is a structural basin between the individual soil types Precambrian granites, gneisses and schists of the within the 5 range Medicine Bow and Park Ranges and Independence sites (Fletcher 1977). Mountain. The sandstones, conglomerates, and Dominant soil types shales of the Tertiary Coalmont Formation include Spicerton sandy dominate the surface geology of the North Park loam, Fluetsch-Tiagos floor. Coal is found in the lower members of the association, Bosler formation (Hail 1968). sandy loam, and the Boettcher-Bundyman The North Park Formation overlies the Coalmont association. These soils Formation and consists of white, calcareous are found on slopes less conglomerates. The Coalmont Formation is exposed than 15 percent, and along a long, narrow, syncline ridge trending generally have slow to northwest from Owl Mountain to the confl uence moderate permeability. of Roaring Fork and Grizzly Creeks. The syncline Mean soil temperature includes Owl Ridge and Peterson Ridges. at Walden is 58 degrees Fahrenheit. Pierre Shale underlies the Coalmont Formation and is exposed primarily in the northwestern and northeastern quadrants of North Park. Evidence Water Resources of Tertiary volcanics is obvious along the south and Rights boundary of North Park. Quantities of breccia and other volcanics are common in the Rabbit Ears The refuge is located on Range in the form of dikes, plush, flows, and ash. the Illinois River and its tributaries. The Illinois Significant glacial activity occurred in North Park River is tributary to the during the Pleistocene. Fluviatile gravels and inter- Michigan River, which fluvial terraces are examples of the infl uence of Everett and Nancy Collin Prairie Lupine is tributary to the glacial activity upon the current landscape of North North Platte River. Park’s floor. Several natural lakes in the area are likely the remnants of Pleistocene glaciation. Prior to settlement, the bottoms and meadows of the Illinois River and its tributaries fl ooded Winds also influenced the geology of North Park. annually from snow melt and spring runoff, Prevailing southwesterly winds, possibly caused creating significant waterfowl nesting habitat. With by the low ridge between Rabbit Ears Peak settlement, much of the natural floods and pond and Arapaho Pass, have deposited fi ne grains of creation were reduced, with irrigated meadows alluvium, some of which reaches thicknesses of 30 replacing ponds and marshes. feet. Winds may have created several shallow lakes within the basin, including Hebron Sloughs, located Since the refuge’s first land acquisition in 1967, southwest of the refuge (Lischka et al. 1983). the Service created new wetland habitat through Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 31 the management of acquired irrigation and along Highway 125, through the length of the east stock reservoirs, diversion of water into natural side of the refuge and across the Case tract on the depressions, and diversion of water into Service- south side. constructed ponds. With the purchases of land tracts, the refuge The refuge has a decreed diversion rate of 515.05 acquired surface mineral rights on all its land cubic feet per second, most of which is diverted except the transfers from Bureau of Land from the Illinois River. Lesser amounts are diverted Management (BLM). The refuge owns the majority from tributaries of Willow, Spring, Potter, and of the subsurface mineral rights; the State of Antelope Creeks. This water is either ditched for Colorado, BLM, and private landowners hold the storage in 9 decreed reservoirs and 73 un-decreed remainder. ponds, or ditched to meadows for direct irrigation. The refuge has decreed rights to 7,626.4 acre-feet Biological Resources for reservoir and pond initial fi lls and refi lls, and is seeking an additional 2,582.5 acre-feet of junior Refuge habitats provide for a variety of animals and storage rights. The total capacity of refuge storage plants. Brief descriptions of these resources follow; units is 5,678.5 acre-feet. Approximately 814 surface more details can be found in appendix H. acres in ponds and approximately 9,499 acres are irrigated meadow grass. Habitat Management Units Since 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has measured Illinois River fl ow at gauging stations at Habitat on the refuge can be divided into four broad the upstream and downstream ends of the refuge to types: riparian, wetland, meadow, and upland. determine the effect of diversions, wildlife use, and Acreages for each habitat type were calculated return fl ow on river discharge. using geographic information system (GIS) Groundwater is present in an unconfi ned, sand, software (Environmental Systems Research and gravel alluvial aquifer, which underlies the Institute’s ArcView), with refuge boundary entire refuge. The water table is shallow, with the topographic base maps and map layers from the elevation of the groundwater table approximating national wetland inventory (NWI). the water-surface elevations in nearby rivers, Estimating width of the historic fl oodplain—using creeks, reservoirs, and ponds. topography and vegetative community changes as a The Colorado Division of Water Resources, guide—determined width of the riparian area. commonly referred to as the State Engineer’s Meadow habitats were derived primarily using Office, administers the refuge’s water rights maps from the NWI, with corrections for recent according to the prior appropriation doctrine. wetland additions. Whereas much of the refuge’s acquired land has Acreage of the other three habitat types was senior appurtenant water rights, conversion of subtracted from the refuge’s base acreage to ranch land to wildlife habitat has required obtaining calculate upland acreage. junior water rights that cannot be exercised in dry or semidry years. Descriptions of the refuge’s habitat types follow.

Sufficient water rights are held by the refuge to Riparian Habitat implement goals and objectives (appendix I). The riparian habitat covers 4,374 acres on the refuge. It is composed of the channel, fl oodplain, Reserved Rights and Privately Owned and transitional upland fringe along portions of the Mineral Estate Illinois River and Spring Creek. Purchase of some land tracts on the refuge were Historically, the fl oodplain and transitional fringe subject to existing rights-of-way at the time of have been considered irrigated meadow. However, purchase. Some of these rights-of-way include this plan uses the terms channel, fl oodplain, and Jackson County Roads 31, 32, and 34. The Colorado transitional fringe because these components more State Highway Department owns a 100-foot right- appropriately represent the collective functions and of-way on Highway 125 and a 50-foot right-of-way processes of riparian habitats. on Highway 14. Such designation allows management potential of Additional rights-of-way include buried telephone the entire area to be more thoroughly evaluated lines along Highway 125 and 14, and power lines (figure 9–habitat management units). 32 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Units

Figure 9. Habitat management units of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado 33

These willow species are found along the Illinois Wetland Habitat River: Drummonds’s whiplash willow Wetland habitat includes 824 acres of natural willow and created ponds and lakes up to the high water mountain willow mark, excluding surrounding meadows and coyote willow planeleaf willow riparian corridors. Ponds and lakes, henceforth Geyer’s willow referred to as basins or wetlands, were delineated using both NWI maps and refuge coverage maps. Grass species common to these moist soil areas Approximately 79 shallow wetlands exist on the include the following: refuge (fi gure 6–base map). bluejoint reedgrass tufted hairgrass For management purposes, three wetland timothy saltgrass complexes were developed: the Case, Illinois, mannagrass Nebraska sedge and Soap Creek complexes (fi gure 10–wetland smooth brome rush species complexes). The majority (90 percent) of wetland meadow foxtail Nuttall’s basins are constructed. The purpose for these alkaligrass artificial wetlands is to offset wetland losses meadow barley occurring elsewhere in the central fl yway. Nevada bluegrass redtop Maintenance of these facilities provides benefi ts sloughgrass winter bentgrass to a host of wetland-dependent species, including waterfowl. The runs and pools in the river channel typically contain aquatic vegetation including waterweed, Specific wetland objectives only account for pondweed, and fi lamentous algae. Canada thistle is approximately 50 percent of the total wetland the main invasive plant in this area. surface area to be managed in a given year. Drought, evaporative losses, periodic drawdowns Wildlife species that use the riparian-habitat for aquatic vegetation enhancement, dike grasslands include waterfowl such as northern maintenance activities, and fall migration pintail, mallard, gadwall, and green-winged teal. drawdowns account for the remainder of the Sage grouse broods use these areas to forage for wetland surface area. high-protein invertebrates. Aquatic vegetation of wetland habitats includes The willow complex supports at least 40 species of both emergent species (e.g., cattail, spike rush, migrating songbirds such as yellow warbler and and bulrush) and submerged species (e.g., sago willow fl ycatcher, along with moose, river otter, pondweed, leafy pondweed, and widgeongrass). beaver, and wintering elk. Water birds—including Invertebrate abundance is high in wetland basins. common snipe, spotted sandpiper, sora, American Common invertebrates include true bugs, as well white pelican, and black-crowned night-heron— as invertebrate families of the water boatman, extensively use this habitat type. backswimmer, predacious diving beetle, and crawling water beetles. Invertebrates are a critical food source to many waterfowl and shorebirds. Waterfowl species include both diving ducks (e.g., lesser scaup, canvasback, redhead, and ruddy duck) and puddle ducks (e.g., mallard, northern shoveler, gadwall, and American wigeon). Over-water nesting birds such as the black-crowned night-heron, white-faced ibis, marsh wren, coot, and blackbirds also extensively use wetland habitats. Meadow Habitat Meadow habitat includes 2,683 acres of grasslands and old hay meadows, except those along the

Cornell Lab of Ornithology riparian corridor, which are considered riparian Yellow Warbler habitat. These historically irrigated fi elds provide the majority of the nesting habitat for waterfowl, The cold-water system of the Illinois River supports shorebirds, and songbirds. Meadow habitats 7 species of native and non-native fi sh and at least represent common feeding, resting, and loafi ng 17 taxa of aquatic invertebrates. areas for most birds and mammals on the refuge (figure 9–habitat management units). 34 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Wetland Complexes

Figure 10. Wetland complexes of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 35

The following vegetation, primarily native plants, is wetland, meadow, and riparian descriptions. Many common to meadow habitat: upland habitats exhibit a mosaic pattern around slenderbeak sedge golden sedge meadow sites; these sites are generally managed as meadows (fi gure 9–habitat management units). capitate sedge softleaf sedge Hayden’s sedge new sedge Historical reports of the sagebrush-steppe plant narrowleaf sedge valley sedge community are conflicting, and pre-settlement community conditions may never be fully known. elk sedge Colorado rush woolly sedge Baltic rush The focus of past management efforts has been devoted to wetland-dependent birds, therefore Nebraska sedge dagger-leaf rush information is limited about the upland plant dunhead sedge longstyle rush community. beaked sedge tuberous rush Available information suggests that sagebrush shortbeak sedge fi eld woodrush historically was the dominant plant species, water sedge smallfl owered although perhaps taller (greater than 3 meters) woodrush plants may have existed. Grass species common to these moist soil areas Floristic diversity in North Park has likely include the following: decreased, especially within the grasses and forbs. bluejoint reedgrass sloughgrass Management efforts for the past 50 years have attempted to increase grass and forb abundance timothy tufted hairgrass through mechanical and chemical means. mannagrass saltgrass smooth brome Nuttall’s In general, the sagebrush plant community appears alkaligrass to be in fair condition, but given the lack of basic meadow foxtail information, management alternatives are diffi cult meadow barley redtop to define. Therefore, management objectives Nevada bluegrass winter bentgrass center on developing an upland habitat database that defines plant species, location, abundance, and The following are common forbs: characteristics. sulphur buckwheat small bluebells Secondly, the refuge proposes to “experiment” Hood’s phlox cinquefoil with 4,000 acres of uplands to create a preferred longleaf phlox early cinquefoil plant community structure. Lessons learned will be applied to larger pieces of upland habitats. rosy pussytoes stonecrop silvery lupine wormleaf stonecrop Upland vegetation consists primarily of the prairie lupine daisy species following shrubs: groundsel species beardtongue mountain big Douglas sagebrush rabbitbrush narrow-leaved maertensia Wyoming big broom snakeweed sagebrush gray horsebrush Canada thistle is the main invasive plant in this area. alkali sagebrush black greasewood Wildlife species that use the meadow habitat fringed sage winterfat include waterfowl such as the northern pintail, black sagebrush northern shoveler, gadwall, and green-winged teal. rubber rabbitbrush Sage grouse broods use these areas to forage for high-protein invertebrates. Snipe broods and other The grasses below are dominant in the uplands: grassland-nesting songbirds use this habitat type, muttongrass western along with elk, pronghorn, and coyote. Nevada bluegrass wheatgrass Upland Habitat Sandberg blue grama bluegrass elk sedge The upland habitat consists of 14,285 acres of bottlebrush needle and thread a shrub-steppe plant community dominated squirreltail by sagebrush, drought-tolerant perennial green needlegrass bunchgrasses, and forbs. Idaho fescue bluebunch Uplands are the dominant refuge habitat type wheatgrass and include all lands not accounted for in the 36 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Common forbs are listed below: Canada goose is an abundant species that is the fi rst sulphur buckwheat small bluebells to arrive in the spring and the last to migrate in the fall. The geese use wetland, riparian, and meadow Hood’s phlox cinquefoil habitats for foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing. longleaf phlox early cinquefoil rosy pussytoes stonecrop Wading birds are water birds that usually do not swim or dive for food, but wade in shallow edges of silvery lupine stonecrop water for prey. Black-crowned night-heron, great prairie lupine wormleaf blue heron, and white-faced ibis are the common groundsel species daisy species breeding species on the refuge. beardtongue narrow-leaved The ibis and black-crowned night-heron use maertensia wetlands with heavy cattail/hardstem bulrush vegetation for nesting and brood-rearing. They Invasive plants include yellow toadfl ax and musk forage in riparian, meadow, and wetland areas. thistle and occur primarily in disturbed sites. Sage grouse are a sagebrush-obligate species, requiring sagebrush plants for cover and food. Vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage thrasher are songbirds common to the uplands.

Elk, mule deer, and pronghorn are common big- game users of upland habitats. Wildlife Resources A broad diversity of wildlife reflects the refuge’s habitat diversity. The great blue heron uses riparian habitat primarily Only those species that are residents or frequent for nesting and foraging, but can be observed in visitors to the refuge are discussed below. Many wetlands. species, especially birds, may infrequently inhabit or migrate through the refuge. Shorebirds are most often found foraging for food along the water margins; they use the refuge as a All species of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and migratory stopover and some nest there. American reptiles are listed in appendix J. avocet, willet, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, and Wilson’s phalarope are the common nesters. Birds Avocet and willet mainly use the wetland habitat A large number of ducks and Canada geese depend for their needs. The killdeer is more of a generalist on wetland, riparian, and meadow habitats for and can be found in all habitats. foraging, nesting, brood-rearing, and molting. The most common type of ducks breeding on the refuge The spotted sandpiper and common snipe reside include lesser scaup, gadwall, American wigeon, mostly in riparian habitat. Wilson’s phalarope use northern shoveler, and cinnamon teal. the meadow and riparian habitats for nesting and forage; they rear young in the wetlands. Black- Most of the ducks common to the refuge use the necked stilt is an occasional nester in the wetlands. three habitats listed above and, occasionally, some species use the upland habitat. These ducks include Dowitchers, yellowlegs, and other sandpipers the green-winged teal, mallard, northern pintail, use the area for a stopover during spring and fall cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, blue-winged teal, migration. gadwall, and American wigeon. Other water birds are represented by a variety Redhead, ruddy duck, and lesser scaup depend on of species. Pied-billed grebe, eared grebe, and wetlands for most of their life needs, with the scaup American coot use wetlands for nesting, foraging, and redhead nesting in meadows occasionally. and brood-rearing. Virginia rail, sora rail, and common snipe use the meadow/riparian habitats The ring-necked duck, canvasback, and buffl ehead extensively. are generally spring and fall migratory visitors, but the canvasback does infrequently nest on the American white pelican, double-crested cormorant, refuge. The common merganser primarily inhabits and California gull do not nest on the refuge but riparian areas to meet their life requirements. use the area for foraging. Black and forester’s terns Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 37 nest in areas of dense sedge, cattail, and bulrush, season. These birds rely heavily on riparian habitat and forage in the wetlands. for foraging, cover, and nesting: Raptors consist of several families of hawks, common nighthawk western kingbird falcons, and owls. The most common raptors of the belted kingfi sher gray catbird refuge include the following: willow fl ycatcher Wilson’s warbler northern harrier American kestrel warbling vireo savannah sparrow Swainson’s hawk prairie falcon house wren fox sparrow rough-legged hawk short-eared owl marsh wren song sparrow golden eagle great horned owl yellow warbler Lincoln’s sparrow Only the golden eagle and great horned owl are MacGillivray’s white-crowned year-round residents. The rough-legged hawk is a warbler sparrow winter visitor while the rest of the birds are present common in the spring, summer, and fall. yellowthroat The raptors use all habitats for nesting and A few of these species also use the meadow and foraging. Red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, wetland habitat for nesting or foraging, such as sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper’s hawk use the the savannah sparrow and the marsh wren. The area occasionally. cliff, barn, and tree swallows use a combination of habitats including wetland, riparian, and meadow. Upland bird species rely on the uplands primarily to subsist. Several of the common upland birds are Resident and migrant songbirds breed in North sage grouse, horned lark, sage thrasher, vesper America and migrate throughout a limited North sparrow, and Brewer’s sparrow. American range: The sage grouse and horned lark are year-round mountain bluebird pine siskin residents. The sage grouse resides primarily in the American robin American uplands, but uses the edges of riparian and meadow dark-eyed junco goldfi nch habitats. rosy fi nch lark bunting The sage thrasher, horned lark, and sparrows depend on the upland area for nesting, but may These birds use riparian, meadow, and upland forage in the other habitats. habitats. Red-winged, yellow-headed, and Brewer’s blackbirds use both wetlands and riparian for Neotropical migrants are birds that breed in North nesting and foraging. Species such as the black- America—north of Mexico—but winter in Mexico, capped chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, and Central and South America, or the West Indies. ruby-crowned kinglet use woody, riparian areas for foraging, but tend to nest off the refuge. The northern fl icker is the most common woodpecker. This species inhabits riparian willow habitat, but also uses uplands and meadows. Other less common woodpeckers include downy and hairy woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsucker. Mammals Big game animals common to the refuge include pronghorn, mule deer, moose, and elk. As many as 20 moose can be found on the refuge at any one time, spending most of their time in the riparian habitat. The mule deer population is approximately 40 animals that roam on and off the refuge, spending

Everett and Nancy Collin time in the riparian, meadow, and upland habitats. House wren White-tailed deer, with a population of about 20 animals, use the same areas as mule deer. The following species are commonly found on the refuge during either migration or the nesting Pronghorn use the upland habitat primarily, but can be found in the riparian and meadow habitats. 38 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Pronghorn use the refuge in the spring, summer, The low flows of the split are ultimately responsible and fall, with a population of about 50 animals for trout giving way to the more tolerant native present at any one time. In the winter, the species. pronghorn generally move north off the refuge, making them a rare sight in the area. These species are common in the Illinois River on the refuge: brown trout creek chub rainbow trout long-nosed sucker northern redbelly white sucker dace Johnny darter fathead minnow Potter and Spring Creeks are tributaries of the Illinois River. These creeks provide little fi shery habitat, with only a few native fish such as long- nosed sucker, white sucker, fathead minnow, and creek chub found in them. Many of the wetlands will not support a fi shery, with water depth and winter survival being the limiting factors. The most common fish found in the Pronghorn wetlands is the fathead minnow, a native fi sh that © Cindie Brunner has evolved in this type of habitat. A resident herd of approximately 150 elk resides Reptiles and Amphibians primarily in the riparian area in the southern half of the refuge and on neighboring land. The wandering garter snake is the only reptile known to inhabit the refuge. Sightings of this snake During the winter (November through March) the are rare, with only one or two seen in a year. refuge and surrounding area hosts about 1,200 elk. These animals are usually in several herds and use Amphibians are slightly more numerous with the riparian, meadow, and upland habitats. following species: barred tiger salamander, western toad, wood frog, northern leopard frog, and striped The refuge has many small mammals, which use all chorus frog. habitat types depending on their life requirements. Chorus frogs Common species of small mammals are listed below: are found in Nuttall’s cottontail montane vole the wetland, Tiger Salamander white-tailed muskrat meadow, and © Cindie Brunner jackrabbit riparian areas; porcupine they are the most abundant amphibian on the least chipmunk coyote refuge. The salamanders are primarily associated Wyoming ground long-tailed weasel with the wetlands but are seen in all habitats. squirrel mink The wood frog has been documented once on the white-tailed prairie refuge, in riparian habitat. The western toad is dog badger striped skunk extremely rare, as the habitat types on the refuge beaver are not ideal for this species. Leopard frogs have deer mouse been observed in the riparian habitat and in irrigation ditches in the meadow habitat. Fish Invertebrates The Illinois River and wetlands are two main types of aquatic communities present on the refuge. The Some sampling of invertebrates has been done on Illinois River is a transition stream. wetland and riparian areas. Wetland invertebrates were the most diverse, with 20 different families The river begins as a trout stream at the represented in the sampling. Stream sampling headwaters and down to the southern end of the identified 17 different taxa in the Illinois River. refuge, to a native species stream by the time it reaches the northern half of the refuge. The Further sampling of invertebrates to establish a splitting of the stream channel into two channels quantitative baseline would assist in identifying appears to be the basis of this fi shery transition. problems in wetland and riparian areas in the future. Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 39

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Long-billed curlews are observed every few years. Species and Other Species of Special Concern White pelicans nest off the refuge on MacFarlane Reservoir, frequenting the refuge to forage in Table 4 lists special-status wildlife, fi sh, and wetland and riparian habitats. amphibians that are known to use habitat types on The river otter is a State of the refuge. Colorado endangered species. The bald eagle, a federally-listed species, is an The otter was intermittent visitor on the refuge and a year-round reintroduced resident of the county. Nesting habitat does not into a watershed exist on the refuge but the eagle does use all habitat south of the refuge. types for foraging. Several otters (an The peregrine falcon, which is proposed for federal average of one per year) de-listing, is also an intermittent visitor, using all have been observed in the the habitat types for foraging. southern half of the refuge’s Burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, northern sage River Otter riparian habitat. grouse, long-billed curlew, and white pelican are © Cindie Brunner State of Colorado special-concern species. Little is known about the northern redbelly dace Burrowing owls nest on the refuge, with an on the refuge. This State of Colorado endangered occurrence of one nest found every 5 years. They species is found in the Illinois River. are a migrant in the fall of the year. Ferruginous hawk occurs in the spring, summer, and fall, Northern leopard and wood frogs are special- foraging on refuge habitats. concern species for the State of Colorado. The leopard frog is common and found in riparian and Northern sage grouse are an abundant year-round meadow habitats. Wood frogs occur along the resident. The grouse use the upland, riparian, and Illinois River, south of refuge headquarters. meadow habitats for breeding (one lek found on the refuge), nesting, foraging, and brood-rearing.

Table 4. Special-status wildlife, fish, plant, and amphibian species potentially occurring on Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Seasonal Date Last Common Name Occurrence1 Federal and State Status2 Observed3 Birds American peregrine falcon SR CDOW species of concern 2004 bald eagle YR USFWS threatened species (proposed delisting) 2004 western burrowing owl B, M CDOW threatened species 2004 ferruginous hawk SR CDOW species of concern 2004 northern sage grouse B, YR CDOW species of concern 2004 long-billed curlew M, SR CDOW species of concern 2004 American white pelican SR CDOW species of concern 2004 Mammals river otter YR, B CDOW endangered species 2004 Plants North Park phacelia YR USFWS endangered species 2004 Amphibians northern leopard frog YR CDOW species of concern 2004 wood frog YR CDOW species of concern 2004 Source: Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1Seasonal occurrence: B=breeding (assumes summer resident), SR=summer resident (no evidence of breeding), YR=year-round resident, M=migrant. 2See glossary for special-status definitions. CDOW=Colorado Division of Wildlife; USFWS=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3Data is from the refuge’s wildlife observation log. 40 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and bison kill sites, although uncommon, have been Cultural Resources reported in North Park. Humans have used the mountains of Colorado for The first European visitors to New Park (now thousands of years. Spear points dating to the known as North Park) were probably trappers. Paleoindian Period have been recovered in North Alexander Sinclair and Robert Bean headed the Park. The Paleoindian Period extends from 12000 first known party of trappers in 1825. Several B.C. to around 5740 B.C. famous trappers, miners, and hunters made their way through North Park. Kit Carson, Jim Baker, Although numerous other Paleoindian sites have Sublette, Gervais and Vasquesz, Calvin Jones, been located in Middle Park, including evidence of Henry Fraeb, John Gantt, and Pegleg Smith visited bison hunting 10,000 years ago, known occurrences North Park in the 1840s. of Paleoindian occupation in North Park have been limited to small campsites. Some archaeologists The second western expedition of John C. Fremont think Paleoindian groups lived in the Parks year- took him through North Park in 1844. Sir George round; others propose winter camps in the foothills Gore passed through the area on a hunting with exploitation of various mountain resources expedition in 1855, and found mule deer, elk, beaver, during summer months. bear, and mountain sheep. By 1917, most of the game species were gone. The Archaic Period followed the Paleoindian Period and lasted until A.D. 150. Hunters used Cyrus Mendenhall darts and throwing sticks called atlatls. There began grazing cattle was also a higher reliance on small game and in North Park in 1879. plant resources. A major drought on the Plains By 1885, the beef (ca. 5000–2500 B.C.) caused change to settlement industry was booming, and subsistence patterns. People moved into the and North Park had its mountains for longer periods and exploited a wider share of large ranches. variety of plant and animal resources. Increased moisture during the latter part of the Archaic Overgrazing and severe Period brought people back onto the Plains, but winters decimated herd the mountains continued to be an important part of sizes in the area and by their subsistence. Activity increased in North Park 1889 ranching was no during this period. longer as profitable as it Blue Grama had been. The Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 150–1540) saw the introduction of the bow and arrow and In the late 1800s, the economy of North Park ceramics. Bison hunting again became an important shifted to mining. Mining of coal, gravel, fl uorspar, part of the economy, but the people of this period copper, silver, and gold—along with logging and continued to rely on a variety of available plant ranching—became the main economic developments and animal resources. Researchers have proposed of the area. a seasonal round of activities. People would leave Cultural resource studies have been completed on their foothills winter camps and head north into approximately 50 percent of the refuge. Signifi cant the Laramie Basin, then south through North and cultural resources have been located, including Middle Parks, collecting and hunting until fall. prehistoric stone circles and open campsites, From there, they would turn east to hunt bighorn and historic ranches, graves, and other features sheep along the Continental Divide on their way associated with Euro-American settlement of back to the foothills. North Park. Future efforts will continue to identify The Protohistoric Period starts with European existing cultural resources and protect them from contact, around A.D. 1540. Of the modern tribes, the degradation. A detailed cultural resource overview Utes are most often associated with the mountains of North Park (Larson and Letts 2003) is available and long-term utilization of the resources of North from the Service’s regional archaeologist. Park. There are also historic accounts of visits to North Park by the Shoshone, Arapaho, and Cheyenne peoples. Special Management Areas

Archaeological sites in North Park are generally Limited special management areas currently small and associated with seasonal use of the area. exist on the refuge. The refuge has no wilderness They include open campsites and lithic scatters with designation or other similar land-use restriction stone circles (tepee rings) located along the ridges. beyond refuge policy. Culturally scarred trees and wickiups in forested areas represent Protohistoric Ute use. Rock art Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge does not contain any area that qualifies for wilderness designation. Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 41

All the lands within the refuge have been highly will be first priority, based on its proximity to manipulated and contain roads, since it was a the auto tour route. This site is located on an working ranch prior to its becoming a refuge. existing road, therefore, the potential for litter, vandalism, and trespass will be higher. Signage The only specific historical or cultural areas include and additional law enforcement patrols will be grave sites, which will continue to be protected. used to minimize these confl icts. The refuge is operating under a 1982 habitat management plan that provides guidance for land management. This CCP replaces the 1982 plan. Public Use Additionally, the refuge uses a hunting plan and zone system (management units A, B, and C) The annual number of visits to the refuge is to distribute hunters, anglers, and other public estimated at 7,200, which is an average for the past uses. This hunting plan will remain in effect until 6 years. This estimate is based broadly on a traffi c completion of step-down management plans for counter on the auto tour route, visitors entering public use and hunting. the visitor center, and general observation. Table 5 summarizes estimated visits in four categories from This CCP identified other issues that may require 1997–2002. special management, as follows: Figure 11 displays location information for the ■ North Park phacelia—Preservation of this plan’s approved public use. endangered plant may require fencing and plans to minimize disturbance and ensure the The visitor center is open Monday through Friday survival and recovery of the species. (7:00 am–4:30 pm). Information, regulations, and ■ Elk road closures—During winter months, the universally accessible restrooms are available refuge will continue to close roads to minimize during the same hours. disturbance to wintering elk. Coordination with

the CDOW and implementation of the revised, A general leaflet contains a refuge map, describes step-down management plan for hunting may the refuge and its management, addresses habitats, alter this strategy. lists wildlife interpretational and recreational activities, and cites regulations. ■ Multi-use trail—Although this trail will be located on the refuge boundary to minimize Three other leaflets provide information for wildlife and habitat disturbance, the potential refuge visitors: wildlife list, hunting guide, and for litter and trespass will be higher. Signage self-guided auto tour. The leaflets are available in and additional law enforcement patrols will be three dispensers (auto tour entrance, headquarters used to minimize these confl icts. entrance, and Brocker Overlook) and at the visitor ■ Owl Ridge Overlook—Located 0.25 mile south center. of the headquarters, this site will facilitate viewing of moose, elk, and mule deer. This site Compatible Wildlife-Dependent is located on an existing road, therefore, the potential for litter and trespass will be higher. Recreation Signage and additional law enforcement patrols Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge offers visitors a will be used to minimize these confl icts. variety of self-guided recreation opportunities. The ■ Case Barn interpretive site—Located along Improvement Act states that public use of a refuge the auto tour route, this site may facilitate may be allowed only historical interpretation of North Park and the where the use is role ranching has played to preserve wildlife compatible with habitats. The refuge will pursue partners to the refuge system rehabilitate and interpret these important mission and the structures. This site is located on an existing purpose of the road; therefore, the potential for litter, individual refuge. vandalism, and trespass will be higher. Signage and additional law enforcement patrols will be The Improvement used to minimize these confl icts. Act sets forth a ■ Hampton Barn—Depending on the outcome of current standard by the review by the State Historical Preservation which the Secretary Office, the site may be used to facilitate of the Interior historical interpretation of North Park and the shall determine role ranching has played to preserve wildlife whether such habitats. The refuge anticipates only developing uses are compatible. The term “compatible use” one barn interpretive site. The Case Barn means a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 42 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Public Use

Figure 11. Public use of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 43

Table 5. Estimated annual visitors to Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Visitor Activity 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Observation and interpretation 6,762 6,361 6,263 6,360 7,220 7,496 Hunting 357 228 302 522 152* 61* Fishing 64 84 70 45 34* 18* Environmental education 65 132 162 180 167 135 Total 7,248 6,805 6,797 7,107 7,575 7,710 *Severe drought conditions limited hunting and fi shing opportunities. recreational use or any other use that, in the Fishing sound professional judgment of the Service, will not materially interfere with or detract from the Fishing is limited to designated areas of the Illinois fulfillment of the system’s mission or refuge’s River. The Illinois River runs north, through the purpose. east side of the refuge. Three parking areas provide fi shing access. Wildlife observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation Fishing is in accordance with State of Colorado are the six priority public uses of the National fishing regulations for the Illinois River. The refuge Wildlife Refuge System. is closed to fishing from June 1 to July 31 each year to minimize disturbance to nesting waterfowl. Wildlife Observation and Photography Environmental Education Wildlife observation with interpretation is the most popular public use on the refuge (table 5). Most Environmental education activities are limited observation activity occurs on the auto tour route at the refuge, with an on-demand approach. The and interpretive nature trail. refuge staff has worked with various groups such as Boy and Girl Scouts, colleges, the county extension ■ The auto tour route is on the west side of the refuge and passes through meadow, wetland, office, and local elementary and junior and senior and upland areas, offering a diversity of wildlife high schools. viewing (fi gure 11–public use). The wetlands on this route offer optimum waterfowl and water bird viewing. Programs and talks have included the following: ■ The interpretive nature trail is just south of ■ “Day in the Woods,” the visitor center and meanders through a ■ “Water Carnival,” riparian area (fi gure 11–public use). This area is great for birding and the chance to encounter ■ junior and senior high school science class mammals large and small. requirements, ■ Scout badge work, Hunting ■ summer hands-on environmental work for college students, and Hunting seasons begin in late August with archery season for pronghorn, and continue through mid- ■ special programs for International Migratory January. The most common species hunted are Bird Day. pronghorn, sage grouse, Canada goose, and ducks.

Other species that are open to hunting include USFWS Nuttall’s cottontail, white-tailed jackrabbit, The refuge hosts the outdoor science class for North American coot, common snipe, Virginia rail, sora, Park Middle School. and mourning dove. Certain areas are closed to hunting to protect Interpretation refuge facilities, limit public use confl icts, and provide resting and feeding habitat for migratory There are three interpretive kiosk sites: auto tour birds (fi gure 11–public use). Closed areas such as entrance, headquarters entrance, and Brocker the Case tract (unit A) are posted with signs and Overlook. These sites have panels with information mapped in the hunting leafl et. ranging from refuge management activities to specific wildlife species. 44 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The self-guided tour route has numbered signs along the route corresponding to the tour route brochure. The interpretive nature trail is signed with information about management tools and wildlife species found in riparian and wetland habitats. The refuge staff is in the midst of a contract to update the interpretive information for the visitor center. The new displays should be in place by September 2004. The Brocker Overlook is currently under modification and construction. The updated, improved overlook will be completed by September 2004. Several brochures are available: The wildlife brochure is a list of all wildlife species documented on the refuge, along with the best time of year for viewing each species. The hunting brochure contains regulations and a map of the hunting units. The self-guided auto tour brochure contains basic refuge information, map, viewing tips, and interpretation for the auto tour route signs. Non-wildlife-dependent Recreation Currently, some non-wildlife-dependent uses occur on the refuge. These uses include biking, cross-county skiing, picnicking, and horseback riding. These uses are infrequent and not a major management concern. However, they are not authorized uses of the refuge; law enforcement personnel handle these inappropriate uses. The refuge will strive to eliminate these non­ wildlife-dependent uses by maintaining quality signage and brochures for all users. 4 Management Direction

4 Management Direction

Development of refuge goals and objectives climate, lessons learned from previous management involved the melding of multiple sources of efforts, and the likelihood of success. information: (1) the review and interpretation of national plans and existing scientifi c literature; This chapter presents management direction for (2) an evaluation of habitat conditions; and (3) the the following habitats and resources, public use, and personal knowledge of planning team participants. other management aspects: ■ riparian habitats Objectives were derived using species’ habitat requirements (appendix H). Many species ■ wetland habitats deemed important in national plans were used as ■ meadow habitats “indicators,” to prepare objectives that satisfy the ■ upland habitats needs of multiple species. ■ hunting Other consulted sources of information included ■ fi shing Partners in Flight lists, Audubon Watch lists, Bird ■ wildlife observation and photography Conservation Region lists, and the refuge’s wildlife observation logs. ■ environmental education and interpretation ■ cultural resources Constraints considered during plan formulation ■ research include number of employees, fi nancial resources, equipment availability, harsh winter conditions, arid ■ partnerships Virginia Heitman Virginia Moose 48 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

■ less bank stability, resulting in potential for Riparian Habitats increased sedimentation The riparian habitat goal will be met through the ■ decreased shade over the stream, resulting in objectives and strategies that follow. increased water temperatures for trout ■ sparse woody vegetation for use by songbirds Goal or other wildlife Provide a riparian community representative of A section of river further downstream from the historical fl ora and fauna in a high valley of the proposed reestablishment site has had livestock southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat for grazing removed for 8 years, but has shown little migratory birds, mammals, and river-dependent willow regeneration. species. Given the growth characteristics of willows, Detailed habitat rationale is described in appendix H. these results lead to the conclusions that there is either significant herbivory other than livestock Objective restraining willow expansion, and/or hydrology has been altered enough with upstream diversions and Restore 50–100 acres of dense (40–100 percent) recent drought conditions that lack of groundwater willow in patches greater than 0.5 acre and 20 is keeping willow establishment from occurring. meters wide in the central third of the Illinois River (from the north end of the island to the confl uence With this in mind, willow plantings will only be done with Spring Creek), to connect existing willow in association with fencing, and consideration of patches by 2014. Maintain 535 acres of dense willow hydrological needs will be used as well. in patches in the upper third of the Illinois River Possible methods of increasing groundwater needs to benefi t nesting Neotropical migratory songbirds will include the following: (yellow warbler and willow flycatcher) and resident moose, river otter, and beaver. ■ diversion of less water upstream for other refuge purposes Strategies ■ location of willow plantings adjacent to existing beaver dams to take advantage of higher water ■ Plant willow along the stream corridor, combined with 8-foot fences, to exclude large tables near these ponds herbivores. ■ placement of logs and other natural materials in the stream to create simulated beaver dams ■ Manipulate water refuge-wide, which may involve decreased diversions, to maintain in- and raise water tables adjacent to areas to be stream flows for willow establishment. planted ■ Construct small, artificial dams in the river Monitoring will be essential to document to raise water tables locally and aid in willow reestablishment efforts and to note any signifi cant establishment. changes to existing willow communities. ■ Establish a vegetation-monitoring plan to assess health of established willow stands, and Objective measure and document success or changes needed in reestablishment efforts. Plan should Provide 3,630–3,845 acres, over a 5-year average, include herbivory and hydrology factors. of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed primarily of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, ■ Monitor wildlife to document changes in wildlife and forbs) characterized by 10–30 centimeters use and possible correlations to changes in visual obstruction reading, 0–10 centimeters duff habitat. layer, minimal (less than 5-percent) bare ground, ■ Experiment with alternative willow restoration and less than 40-percent (canopy closure) willow by strategies. 2019, to benefit nesting waterfowl (northern pintail, ■ In partnership with the Jackson County northern shoveler, gadwall, and green-winged teal) weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest and sage grouse broods. management plan for the refuge. Strategies Rationale ■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to Sections of the Illinois River on the refuge had stimulate or maintain meadow conditions. willows removed prior to acquisition by the Service, ■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help probably in an effort to increase hay yields. These stimulate vegetative growth. open stretches of river have the following: ■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol. Chapter 4—Management Direction 49

■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that per acre, resulting in the removal of approximately correlates wildlife use and habitat condition. 100–350 AUMs of forage. ■ Consider elk hunting as a management tool. Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use Rationale data, will be needed to document that objective levels are correct. This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The Objective combination of resting, grazing, and burning, combined with irrigation, where available and Provide a properly functioning river channel practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. characterized by a well-defined thalweg, outside river edges deeper than inside edges, a river It is anticipated that, on average, one-third to two- sinuosity of 2.0–2.5, pool spacing every 7–9 channel thirds of this area will require grazing at an average widths active point-bar formation, and gradients rate of 0.4–1.0 animal unit months (AUMs) per acre, in riffles that are higher than in pools by 2019. resulting in the removal of approximately 1,950– A properly functioning river channel is needed 4,200 AUMs of forage. to benefit willow establishment for Neotropical migrants and indirectly provide suitable habitat for Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use native and non-native fi shes. data, will be needed to document that objective levels are correct. Strategies

Objective ■ Map river channel and identify problem areas. Prioritize stretches for rehabilitation. Provide 210–425 acres, over a 5-year average, of ■ Alter irrigation diversions as needed to assist a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed in-stream restoration. primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, ■ Install in-stream structures as necessary to forbs, and rushes) characterized by greater than adjust thalweg, create point bars, adjust depth 30 centimeters visual obstruction reading, 10–20 ratios, increase sinuosity, and adjust pool centimeters duff layer, minimal (less than 5-percent) spacing. bare ground, and less than 40-percent (canopy closure) willow, from mid-April through August, ■ Monitor wildlife and vegetative response to by 2009, to benefi t nesting waterfowl (mallard, these strategies. gadwall, northern pintail, and scaup), songbirds (savannah sparrow and meadowlark). Rationale Strategies Mapping the river to identify current characteristics is needed to defi ne where ■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to restoration is needed. stimulate or maintain meadow conditions. Increasing fl ows in the river by diverting less water ■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help on upstream refuge water rights may assist in stimulate vegetative growth. maintaining higher water tables, especially when ■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol. used in conjunction with in-stream restoration ■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that projects. correlates wildlife use and habitat condition. Documenting vegetative, fi shery, and wildlife ■ In partnership with the Jackson County response is necessary to ensure that the projects weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest are working. management plan for the refuge. Rationale This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The combination of resting, grazing, and burning, combined with irrigation, where available and practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. Brook Trout To meet and maintain the taller vegetation and duff © Cindie Brunner layers identified, it is anticipated that rest will be used more for this objective. It is anticipated that, on average, one-third to one-half of this area will require grazing at an average rate of 0.4 –1.0 AUMs 50 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Objective To make an off-refuge project succeed, resources normally reserved for refuge purposes such as Establish a private lands program to encourage water or vegetative cover could be used. These restoration of degraded riparian zones through would not be long-term commitments of refuge funding and technical assistance by 2009, to resources, but rather a management decision that accomplish similar objectives as those defi ned a short-term diversion of these resources would for the refuge. High priority areas are those that better be served to benefit the ecosystem as a have immediate influence on the refuge because of whole. drainage or proximity. Strategies Wetland Habitats

■ Add a full-time private lands position to the The wetland goal will be met through the objectives staff. and strategies that follow. ■ Work with local partners and willing landowners to identify, prioritize, and restore Goal degraded areas in North Park. Provide and manage natural and constructed Objective permanent and semipermanent wetlands (in three wetland complexes) to provide habitat for Work with partners to address land health issues migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and throughout Jackson County. Existing partnerships associated wetland-dependent wildlife. will be maintained and new ones fostered to address landscape issues in Jackson County by 2014. Objective Strategies Maintain 10 acres of, and attempt to establish in one other wetland basin, tall (greater than 60 ■ Continue active refuge participation in the sage grouse working group, North Park wetlands centimeters visual obstruction reading) emergent focus group, Owl Mountain partnership, North vegetation in water depths greater than Park habitat partnership program, and any 4 centimeters over a 5-year period, to provide other group formed with the goals of improving nesting habitat for over-water nesting birds (black­ land health and stewardship in Jackson County. crowned night-heron, white-faced ibis, coot, rail, waterfowl, marsh wrens, and blackbirds). ■ Partner with the Jackson County weed coordinator to manage and minimize invasive Strategies plants on the refuge and throughout Jackson County. ■ Manipulate water levels, including drawdowns, and maintain water levels in specifi c wetlands ■ Effect variations in water diversion fl ows and/or grazing regimes to enhance habitat from spring to fall when possible. conditions. ■ Develop and apply a plan for transplanting cattail and hardstem bulrush into specifi c ■ Use adaptive management techniques to implement new management ideas. wetlands. ■ Develop and use an over-water, nesting-bird Rationale monitoring plan. The refuge has the ability and resources available to ■ Develop and implement an annual water restore and maintain a productive riparian area for management plan as a component of an overall the benefi t of wildlife, fisheries, water quality, and a habitat management plan. healthy landscape, while also using local agriculture. The streams within the refuge boundaries are a Rationale small fragment of those located within Jackson Wetlands with tall, dense vegetation provide a County, Colorado. By working with interested litter layer for use by nesting water birds, as well landowners and partners, the possibility exists of as flooded emergent litter for macroinvertebrate expanding the benefi ts of a healthy riparian zone production. throughout North Park. Manipulation of water levels will contribute From time-to-time, projects may be proposed to maintaining the existing wetlands with tall within the county by other agencies, non­ emergent vegetation. Transplanting cattail and government organizations, or private landowners, hardstem bulrush in wetlands with the highest which have a benefit to ecosystem health and potential for success will help increase the wildlife outside the refuge boundary. availability of this type of habitat. The criteria Chapter 4—Management Direction 51

for such wetlands would be based on such things ■ Develop and apply a wetland emergent and as water control abilities, evaporation rates, and submergent vegetation-monitoring plan. distribution. ■ Develop and implement an annual water management plan as a component of an overall Timing of needed drawdowns for expansion of the habitat management plan. tall, dense vegetation will be planned in such a way as to get maximum benefit for all wetland objectives such as during shorebird migration or to stimulate Objective submergent, aquatic vegetation beds. Provide 20 percent of the wetland acres, over a Monitoring water bird species will help assess the 5-year average, of emergent vegetation greater level of success for habitat management. than 25 centimeters tall with visual obstruction reading greater than 80 percent of vegetation height in water depths 4–18 centimeters, to provide escape cover and foraging habitat for dabbling duck broods and molting ducks, and foraging habitat for water birds. Strategies

■ Manipulate water levels, including full and partial drawdowns, and maintain water levels in wetlands from spring to fall when water is available and conditions are appropriate. ■ Use tillage of dry wetlands as a management tool. ■ Rehabilitate and maintain dikes and infrastructures. ■ Conduct waterfowl surveys. ■ Monitor monthly wetland bird use. ■ Develop and apply a wetland, emergent and submergent vegetation-monitoring plan. ■ Develop and implement an annual water Marsh Wren management plan as a component of an overall © Cindie Brunner habitat management plan.

Objective Rationale The availability of a variety of wetland habitat Provide 10 percent of the wetland acres, over a 5­ conditions may benefit a greater diversity of year average, in short (less than 10 centimeters), wildlife species and support species for longer sparse (less than 10 centimeters visual obstruction periods in their annual life cycle. reading) emergent vegetation in water depths less than 4 centimeters, from April to August, The above two objectives contribute to habitats— to provide foraging habitat for shorebirds and varying from shallowly flooded, short, sparse waterfowl, as well as nesting and brood-rearing emergents to both shallow water and moderately habitat for shorebirds. dense cover. Water manipulation techniques including drawdowns and back fl ooding can be used Strategies to create these conditions. ■ Manipulate water levels, including full and Monitoring to evaluate the response of the fl ora partial drawdowns, and maintain water levels and fauna will indicate success of management in specific wetlands from spring to fall when techniques. possible. ■ Use tillage of dry wetlands as a management Short-term variations of habitat objectives may tool. be considered, on a case-by-case basis, to promote other important ecosystem projects within North ■ Rehabilitate and maintain dikes and Park. infrastructures. ■ Conduct shorebird surveys. ■ Monitor monthly wetland bird use. 52 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Objective ■ Develop a plan to identify wetland habitats throughout North Park. Provide 10–20 percent of wetland acres within each ■ Consider wetland development opportunities as wetland complex, over a 5-year average, with they become available. 70-percent coverage of submergent, aquatic vegetation species (pondweed and widgeongrass) ■ Continue participation in the North Park in wetlands of greater than 18 centimeters water wetland focus group. depth, to provide invertebrates and seed sources for ■ Establish a monitoring plan for created habitats foraging water birds, especially waterfowl broods, to ensure benefits are realized. and escape cover for diving ducks. Rationale Strategies Since the refuge is only part of the total North Park ■ Manipulate water levels, including full and landscape efforts, to look beyond the boundaries is partial drawdowns, and maintain water levels important in an ecosystem approach. Many wetland in wetlands from spring to fall when water is potentials exist in North Park, and working to available and conditions are appropriate. restore or create these wetlands will benefi t not only wildlife, but society as well. ■ Use tillage of dry wetlands as a management tool. To achieve the most positive results, priority ■ Rehabilitate and maintain dikes and projects will be close to existing wetland complexes, infrastructures. reasonably well-functioning river segments, or ■ Conduct waterfowl surveys and brood counts. larger reservoirs. ■ Monitor monthly wetland bird use. Wetland management would mimic above refuge ■ Develop and apply a wetland, submergent objectives when possible. Work would be completed vegetation-monitoring plan. with the help of others to identify wetland habitats ■ Develop and implement an annual water throughout North Park, in partnership with willing management plan as a component of an overall stakeholders to restore, protect, and improve habitat management plan. wetland habitats for wildlife use. Demonstration areas would be set up for the Rationale practice of sound, wetland habitat management and Submergent vegetation provides complex structure water levels in wetlands would be improved from for macroinvertebrate production and a seed source spring to fall when possible. for foraging water birds. Pondweed and widgeongrass both produce a Meadow Habitats food resource (plant foods and invertebrates) for waterfowl and broods. These submergents are used The meadow goal will be met through the objectives by other wetland birds for nesting, foraging, and and strategies that follow. escape habitat. A variety of drawdown schedules and tillage Goal are used to enhance the growth of these plants. Provide and manage irrigated, grassland-dominated Monitoring the responses of plant and wildlife will meadows historically developed for hay production, gauge the level of success in providing this habitat. to support sage grouse broods, waterfowl nesting, Objective and meadow-dependent migratory birds. Detailed habitat rationale is described in appendix H. Enhance the existing private lands program to encourage creation and restoration of wetlands in North Park and surrounding areas through funding Objective and technical assistance by 2009, to accomplish the Provide 20–50 acres, over a 5-year average, of same objectives as on the refuge. a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed Strategies primarily of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, and forbs) characterized by less than 20 centimeters height, less than 10 centimeters visual obstruction ■ Obtain funding and full-time equivalency for a reading, with dry to moist soils (no standing water), Partners for Fish and Wildlife position. adjacent to (within 50 meters) or intermingled with ■ Work with willing stakeholders to create and sagebrush (10- to 25-percent sage canopy cover), restore wetlands in North Park. from early-June to late-July, to benefit sage grouse broods. Chapter 4—Management Direction 53

Strategies

■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to stimulate or maintain meadow conditions. ■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help stimulate vegetative growth. ■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol. ■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that correlates wildlife use and habitat condition. ■ In partnership with the Jackson County weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest management plan for the refuge. Objective Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Provide 1,650–1,850 acres, over a 5-year average, © Cindie Brunner of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, forbs, and rushes) characterized by 10–30 centimeters Objective visual obstruction reading, 0–10 centimeters duff Provide 630–790 acres, over a 5-year average, of layer, and minimal (less than 5-percent) bare ground a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed from mid-April to the end of July, to benefi t nesting primarily of native plants (grasses, sedges, forbs, waterfowl (gadwall, northern shoveler, northern and rushes) characterized by greater than pintail, and green-winged teal) and sage grouse 30 centimeters visual obstruction reading, broods. 10–20 centimeters duff layer, and minimal (less Strategies than 5-percent) bare ground, to benefi t nesting waterfowl (mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, ■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to and scaup) and songbirds (savannah sparrow and stimulate or maintain meadow conditions. meadowlark). ■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help Strategies stimulate vegetative growth. ■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol. ■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to stimulate or maintain meadow conditions. ■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that correlates wildlife use and habitat condition. ■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help stimulate vegetative growth. ■ In partnership with the Jackson County weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest ■ Working with partners, develop a vegetation- management plan for the refuge. monitoring protocol. ■ Working with partners, develop a wildlife- Rationale monitoring plan that correlates wildlife use and This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation habitat condition. to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The ■ In partnership with the Jackson County combination of resting, grazing, and burning, weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest combined with irrigation, where available and management plan for the refuge. practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. Rationale It is anticipated that, on average, one-third to two-thirds of this area will require grazing at an This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation average rate of 0.4–1.0 AUMs per acre, resulting in to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The the removal of approximately 950–2,100 AUMs of combination of resting, grazing, and burning, forage. combined with irrigation, where available and practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. To Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use meet and maintain the taller vegetation and duff data, will be needed to document that objective layers specified, it is anticipated that rest will be levels are achieved, and whether or not objectives used more for this objective. are correct. It is anticipated that, on average, one-third to one- half of this area will require grazing at an average rate of 0.4–1.0 AUMs per acre, resulting in the removal of approximately 350–700 AUMs of forage. 54 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use Strategies data, will be needed to document that objective levels are achieved and whether results support ■ Continue active refuge participation in the sage species requirements. grouse working group, North Park wetlands focus group, Owl Mountain partnership, North Objective Park habitat partnership program, and any other group formed with the goals of improving Short-term variations of habitat objectives land health and stewardship in Jackson County. may be considered on a case-by-case basis for ■ Partner with the Jackson County weed important ecosystem projects within North Park. coordinator to manage and minimize invasive Identification of these variations will be assessed plants on the refuge. every 5 years. Rationale Strategies The refuge has the ability and resources available ■ Work with partners to identify potential to maintain productive meadows for the benefi t projects in the county. of wildlife, water quality, and a healthy landscape, ■ Implement variations in water diversion, while also using local agriculture. grazing regimes, and other refuge management There are thousands of acres of private hay strategies as deemed appropriate. meadows in the country managed very much like Rationale the refuge’s meadows, with the exception that the refuge does not cut hay. From time-to-time, projects may be proposed within the county by other agencies, non­ This results in a significant amount of meadow government organizations, or private landowners, habitat being created annually on private land which have a benefit to ecosystem health and that may, or may not, meet its wildlife-production wildlife outside of the refuge boundary. potential depending on site-specifi c management. Resources normally reserved for refuge purposes By working with interested landowners and such as water or vegetative cover could be used partners, the possibility exists of expanding the occasionally to help make a project successful. wildlife benefi t of meadows on the refuge and These would not be long-term commitments of maintaining the benefi ts that are occurring off- resources, but rather a cooperative management refuge. decision that a short-term diversion of these resources would better be served to benefi t the ecosystem as a whole.

Objective Establish a private lands program to provide funding and technical assistance to encourage wildlife-compatible land management practices in meadow habitats by 2009, to accomplish objectives similar to those of the refuge. Strategies

■ Add a full-time private lands position to the staff. ■ Work with local partners and willing landowners to identify, prioritize, and restore degraded areas and create new wildlife habitat in North Park.

Objective Work with partners to address land health issues Columbine throughout Jackson County. Existing partnerships © Cindie Brunner will be maintained and new ones fostered to address landscape issues in the county by 2014. Chapter 4—Management Direction 55

■ Use rest of varying lengths of time as a Upland Habitats management tool. The uplands goal will be met through the objectives ■ Develop and implement an integrated pest and strategies that follow. management plan. ■ Use a variety of mechanical treatments of the Goal habitat as a management tool. ■ Develop and implement a vegetation- Provide a sagebrush/grassland upland community monitoring plan. representative of the historical fl ora and fauna in ■ Develop and implement a wildlife-monitoring a high valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to program. provide habitat for sage grouse, large mammals, and other shrub-associated species. ■ In partnership with the Jackson County weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest Detailed habitat rationale is described in appendix H. management plan for the refuge. Objective Rationale Provide 2,000 acres, over a 5-year average, of The refuge has five primary range sites that uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70-percent support sagebrush/grassland uplands. The sage) greater than 25 centimeters height and 2,000 acres of each of the above objectives are 20- to 30-percent canopy cover, greater than 20­ scattered within several of these range types and percent grass cover, and greater than 10-percent intermingled with meadow areas. A completed forbs (native species preferred), to benefi t sage inventory of uplands will assist in specifi cally grouse, vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, elk, and defining these areas. pronghorn. Sagebrush/grassland uplands in a mosaic of Strategies patchy sagebrush, with openings of grasses and forbs across the landscape, reflect the needs of ■ Complete a sagebrush/grassland upland habitat most wildlife species. Moderate livestock grazing inventory. ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 AUM per acre in intensity, combined with rest, will help maintain these acres. ■ Use cattle grazing at varying stock rates, seasons, and intensities as a management tool. This rest-rotational coverage will promote plant diversity, nutrient cycling, and cover. ■ Use rest of varying lengths of time as a management tool. Controlling or eliminating invasive plants that ■ Develop and implement an integrated pest reduce the abundance and diversity of native forbs management plan. in the sagebrush/grassland habitats is important. Mechanical treatments will be considered for small ■ Use a variety of mechanical treatments of the areas to increase grass and forb components of the habitat as a management tool. site. ■ Develop and implement a vegetation- monitoring plan. Monitoring the response of the fl ora and fauna will aid in assessing the success of the tools applied and ■ Develop and implement a wildlife-monitoring program. help improve these methods. Objective Objective Provide 2,000 acres, over a 5-year average, of Manage the remaining 10,225 acres of sagebrush/ uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70-percent grassland uplands based on a better understanding sage) greater than 40 centimeters height and of refuge habitats, wildlife usage, and affected greater than 30-percent canopy cover, less than variables using best management practices by 2014. 20-percent grass cover, and greater than 5-percent Strategies forbs (native species preferred), to benefi t Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, and pronghorn. ■ Complete an upland habitat inventory, if Strategies financial resources are available. ■ Conduct research and monitor outcomes of ■ Complete a sagebrush/grassland upland habitat upland habitats over the next 15 years. inventory. ■ Develop habitat-based goals and objectives for ■ Use cattle grazing at varying stock rates, the remaining uplands (10,000 acres). seasons, and intensities as a management tool. 56 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

■ Use cattle grazing at varying stock rates, height and grass/forb abundance to benefi t nesting seasons, and intensities as a management tool. and wintering sage grouse, songbirds (vesper ■ Use rest of varying lengths of time as a sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and management tool. Swainson’s hawk) and pronghorn. This information will focus on the tools that might get more upland ■ Develop and implement an integrated pest acreage into the first two objectives. management plan. ■ Use a variety of mechanical treatments of the In working with the entire North Park habitat as a management tool. landscape, some habitat objectives may change to accommodate actions deemed essential elsewhere ■ Develop and implement a program for prescribed fi re. in the upland habitats of North Park to improve the overall quality of wildlife habitat. ■ Coordinate with existing projects, research, and monitoring efforts in the area. Objective ■ Short-term variations of habitat objectives may be considered on a case-by-case basis for Manage known populations of North Park phacelia important ecosystem projects within North to ensure its continued existence. Park. Strategies Rationale ■ Initiate research to understand the plant’s life In an effort to manage the sagebrush/grassland history and develop a management plan. uplands, an inventory of what the refuge has is ■ Develop a monitoring plan for the existing and essential. A variety of tools is available to provide a new phacelia populations. structurally diverse shrub community, with a grass- forb component, to support migratory birds and ■ Work with other entities to preserve North other wildlife species. Park phacelia populations throughout North Park. Livestock grazing used in moderation at rates ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 AUM per acre will be Rationale used. It is anticipated that approximately one-third The North Park phacelia is the only known to one-half of the uplands will be grazed annually, federally listed endangered plant species on the resulting in 450–1,200 AUMs of forage being refuge. The plant is only found in North Park, with removed. several scattered populations. Only two known Rest also needs to be used in moderation; too much populations of the plant exist on refuge lands. Little rest can result in dominate brush communities is known about its life history, so management is that prevent herbaceous species from recovering. limited. Grazing, used in conjunction with rest, can enhance Research on the life history of the plant is essential. the nutrient cycles, plant regrowth, and plant As part of a partnership approach, information community diversity. and management techniques will be shared to help Efforts to control or eradicate invasive plants will ensure the continued existence of the phacelia and help maintain the diversity of plant life required eventually the down-listing of the species. to provide wildlife habitat needs. Mechanical treatments break up the soil and remove a variable percent of the brush species, depending on the Cultural Resources coverage, to promote grasses and forbs growth. The cultural resources goal will be met through the Historically, frequencies of fire in the upland were objectives and strategies that follow. low and occurred as small, patchy fi res. Prescribed fire may be beneficial in some upland sites to control dense stands of sagebrush so that herbaceous Goal species can increase. The cultural resources of the refuge are preserved, protected, and interpreted for the benefi t of present The use of other upland habitat projects in the area and future generations. with range types similar to the refuge will help to identify successful methods for manipulating habitat to reach objectives. Objective A portion of these sagebrush/grassland upland Identify cultural resources and protect them from acres will be used to establish research plots to degradation by 2014. get a better understanding of how to increase sage Chapter 4—Management Direction 57

Strategies Public Use ■ Complete a cultural resources survey, as needed, for management purposes. The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (P.L. 105-57) requires that each refuge be managed ■ Determine National Register of Historic Places to fulfill the refuge system mission as well as the specifi c status for the Hampton, Allard, and Case purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. Barns. ■ Protect cultural resources by minimizing The Act also declares that compatible wildlife- disturbance in sensitive areas. dependent recreational uses are legitimate and appropriate priority general public uses of the ■ When possible, preserve historical records by conducting oral interviews with local residents. refuge system. ■ Apply for monies such as grants and These six uses (hunting, fi shing, wildlife maintenance management funds to restore and observation, wildlife photography, environmental preserve the Case Barn. education, and interpretation) are to receive ■ Support provisions within the Archaeological enhanced consideration in planning and Resources Protection Act by developing a plan management over all other general public uses of for managing refuge archaeological resources. the refuge system. These activities receive a special focus because they Objective help foster an appreciation and understanding of wildlife and the outdoors. Encourage protection of cultural resources and interpretation of their importance to North Park Wildlife conservation wildlife resources by 2014. is always the top obligation of national Strategies wildlife refuges. ■ Determine the historical status of Hampton However, when Barn; make a decision to keep or eliminate the compatible, these barn. wildlife-dependent ■ Interpret the history of North Park at the recreational uses are Brocker Overlook. to be strongly © William H. Miller © William ■ Develop an interpretive area within the encouraged on Eared Grebe with Young headquarters building that demonstrates the refuges. connectivity of the refuge with the remainder of Consequently, these six activities are fi rst in line for North Park. the refuge’s available staff and fi nancial resources. ■ When requested and dependent on available funding, collaborate with other individuals Although other public uses may be allowed on and agencies to protect and preserve cultural refuges, the process for considering proposed uses resources that relate to wildlife throughout other than priority uses is more stringent and these North Park. uses must be reevaluated more frequently. Rationale A compatibility determination is required for a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other A broader cultural resource role needs to be public use of a refuge. A compatible use is one described for the refuge. The philosophy is to that, in the sound professional judgment of the comply with existing cultural resource-related laws refuge manager, will not materially interfere and policies and to protect cultural resources from with or detract from fulfillment of the refuge degradation. system mission or refuge purposes. Compatibility determinations for public uses are found in Protection and interpretation of cultural resources appendix B. that relate to North Park wildlife is encouraged. Interpreting the role of ranches in the preservation Arapaho public use opportunities are combined into of habitat can serve as an example for visitors to five categories and include the following: learn and gain a greater appreciation for wildlife and their habitats. ■ hunting ■ fi shing ■ wildlife observation and photography ■ environmental education and interpretation ■ other uses 58 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Each public use evaluation contains a specifi c list Strategies of objectives, a list of strategies, and a supporting rationale statement. ■ In partnership with the State of Colorado and North Park Chamber of Commerce, disseminate information about hunting opportunities on the refuge and throughout North Park. ■ Provide hunting brochures and information to hunters at the headquarters building. ■ Assist Colorado Division of Wildlife off-refuge with law enforcement, hunter recruitment, and hunter education when requested. Objective

Everett and Nancy Collin Maintain facilities and improve as necessary by Wild Rose 2014, to provide a quality recreational hunting experience while minimizing resource damage. Goal Strategies Through wildlife-dependent recreation and ■ Develop parking areas (fi gure 11–public use) education, people of a range of abilities and using post and cable methods and minimize interests are able to learn of and appreciate the resource damage caused by vehicles. Parking natural resources of this unique high-mountain areas also provide opportunities to inform the park. Thereby, citizens become better stewards hunting public about rules and regulations. of nature in their own communities and stronger ■ Where needed for resource protection, develop supporters of the refuge specifically and National permanent gates that can be locked to prevent Wildlife Refuge System generally. resource damage. ■ Develop a travel management plan that will re­ Hunting vegetate two-track roads (fi gure 11–public use) not needed for maintenance, law enforcement, The following objectives and strategies will lead to hunting access, or other management purposes. meeting the overall public use goal. ■ Develop a signage plan that enhances public Objective appreciation for the National Wildlife Refuge System, understanding of refuge management Provide recreational hunting opportunities activities, public use, and safety. consistent with refuge goals and objectives and that facilitate North Park wildlife management Rationale objectives by 2014. The refuge is part of a larger system of lands Strategies known as North Park. Given that many wildlife species in North Park migrate on and off the refuge ■ Working with the State, develop a hunting step- (waterfowl, elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and sage down management plan that provides hunting grouse), the refuge hunting program affects more opportunities to meet North Park and refuge than just refuge lands. objectives. ■ Provide a quality hunting experience for a The key to success is a strong working relationship variety of users by separating types of hunting with sportsmen and sportswomen and with the opportunities. State of Colorado, along with incorporation of refuge hunting goals and objectives into a step- ■ When compatible, on request, provide special- use permits for hunters with disabilities. down management plan for hunting. Objective Additional hunting opportunities will be determined in conjunction with the refuge objectives, the Work with the State of Colorado in promoting community, and the state. The refuge will continue sound hunting practices as a wildlife management to work with the state in promoting sound hunting tool by 2014. practices as a wildlife management tool. Public use facilities may be modified or expanded to include emphasis on hunting, both on the refuge and in North Park. The refuge will engage in Chapter 4—Management Direction 59 partnerships to disseminate information on hunting and promote sport-fishing opportunities throughout opportunities throughout North Park. North Park. The refuge may continue to use habitat The Illinois River fi shery is infl uenced by management units A, B, and C to provide resting management actions that occur upstream of the areas for migratory birds, minimize confl icts refuge. Logically, it is important that the refuge between hunters and visitors, and distribute assist when requested with habitat projects that hunting pressure. However, the ABC system may impact the Illinois River upstream of the refuge and be modified during development of a step-down when deemed valuable to refuge wildlife resources. management plan for hunting. Similarly, habitats throughout North Park are Fishing connected through a system of waterways. Refuge efforts to improve aquatic habitats, when The following objectives and strategies will lead to requested, benefi t all in North Park. The downside meeting the overall public use goal. to this strategy involves using very limited personnel and resources on areas other than strictly Objective refuge grounds, which may result in refuge goals Where compatible, opportunities for fi shing will and objectives being delayed or not being met. be provided by 2019, based on refuge goals and Partnerships are the key to success when funds objectives. and personnel are limited. The refuge strives to Strategies be included as a partner on fi shery-related habitat improvement projects in North Park. ■ Encourage fi shing opportunities on the refuge in accordance with state seasons and Wildlife Observation and Photography regulations and refuge management objectives. Close fi shing during June and July to protect The following objectives and strategies will lead to nesting waterfowl and other riparian nesting meeting the overall public use goal. species. Objective ■ Evaluate angler impacts to goals and objectives. Enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and photography by 2017, based on refuge habitat goals ■ Work with the state to develop a step-down management plan for sport fi shing. and objectives. Objective Strategies Where possible, expand fi shing opportunities ■ Rebuild Brocker Overlook. throughout North Park and help promote fi shing as ■ Construct a multi-use trail from Walden to a recreational activity by 2014. Brocker Overlook. ■ Enhance the auto tour road. Strategies ■ Maintain the visitor center for distribution of ■ Provide fi shing information and regulations to information. visitors when requested. ■ Keep brochures current with updated ■ When requested, assist the state with fi sheries information. planning issues in North Park. ■ Complete and maintain the boardwalk section ■ Assist the state with law enforcement, fi shery of the interpretive nature trail. management, fi sheries sampling, fi sheries ■ Build a moose observation platform. habitat projects, and spawning throughout North Park when requested. ■ Construct wildlife photography blinds on the auto tour route. ■ In partnership with others, enhance fi shery habitats in North Park. ■ Establish use limitations for wildlife observation and photography based on habitat ■ Monitor Illinois River gauges on the upstream goals and objectives. and downstream end of the refuge to evaluate river fl ows. ■ Maintain and potentially modify existing facilities to reflect new management strategies. Rationale Rationale The above objectives encourage the refuge staff to not only provide sport-fishing opportunities on the Current visitation to the refuge ranges from 7,000– Illinois River, but also to develop partnerships with 9,000 visits, with a visit defined as a person crossing the state and others to improve fi shery habitats the refuge boundary. 60 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Many opportunities to enhance viewing and ■ Use existing environmental education photography of wildlife while maintaining habitat opportunities as they occur, such as the water goals are available. Each strategy should be carnival, bird banding, refuge fi eld trips, and designed to facilitate a quality experience for the “Day in the Woods.” visitor while fulfilling refuge goals and objectives. ■ Develop programs for students and volunteers Objective to assist with management tasks. Assist with funding, construction, and program Objective development to enhance wildlife photography and Incorporate the refuge and its niche in the North observation in North Park by 2019. Park landscape in other environmental education Strategies and interpretive messages developed in the county by 2014. ■ In partnership with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and others, construct and Strategies provide observation facilities for moose and ■ In partnership with other land management other desirable species. agencies, non-governmental organizations, local ■ Pursue funding and partners to assist with the schools, and private individuals, expand the construction of viewing/photography blinds at network of environmental education programs various other locations in North Park. and facilities in North Park. ■ Assist partners with revision of the “Watching ■ Hire an outdoor recreation planner to conduct Wildlife in North Park” guide. outreach and education activities on the refuge ■ Create partnerships with other wildlife- and North Park. oriented organizations and individuals. ■ In partnership with other entities, develop interpretive material involving the land Rationale management of North Park to identify the role Recreation plays a major role in the economy of of the refuge. North Park. Wildlife viewing and photography Objective are key factors in the recreational opportunities available. Enhancing these uses will be benefi cial Update interpretive messages to refl ect recent to the economy as well as creating a better wildlife issues and concerns (elk and sage understanding of wildlife and its habitats. grouse), habitat-based decision-making, and local agricultural uses (how they are not mutually Environmental Education and Interpretation exclusive on or off the refuge), by 2009. The following objectives and strategies will lead to Strategies meeting the overall public use goal. ■ Replace signs on kiosks, overlooks, trails, and Objective visitor center; replace pamphlets; and update the refuge’s website to reflect a message of the Work with partners, including the North Park refuge working for wildlife and county-wide School District, to provide opportunities and environmental interests. facilities to conduct fi ve environmental education ■ Rehabilitate the Case Barn and develop an programs per year based on habitat goals and interpretive site presenting the relationship objectives, by 2014. between the county’s ranching history and Strategies wildlife. ■ Interpret prehistoric cultural resources of the ■ Work with partners to develop specifi c refuge in relation to natural resources found in environmental education programs covering: North Park. —habitat management practices and principles —the natural history of North Park Rationale —agriculture and wildlife The refuge is located almost in the geographic —the life history of various local species including center of North Park. It is known to most residents waterfowl, sage grouse, elk, and moose as a major part of the county landscape, but exactly what the refuge does and how it contributes to —North Park and its importance to Colorado that landscape is not fully understood. Similarly, waterfowl most out-of-county visitors do not understand how —how a refuge comes into existence and what the lands surrounding the refuge complement its its role is wildlife-oriented goals. —water issues and needs Chapter 4—Management Direction 61

An outdoor recreation planner position will Strategies facilitate integration of environmental education at the refuge and in ■ Continue operation of the rifle range to Jackson County schools. facilitate law enforcement fi rearms re- Articulating the history of qualification for refuge and CDOW offi cers, North Park and how the and other local law enforcement agencies on refuge and the surrounding request. lands benefi t each other ■ Identify and prioritize non-refuge mineral will be beneficial to all rights within refuge boundaries. interests. ■ Acquire, on a willing-seller basis, priority mineral rights. Other Uses ■ Continue operation of the Allard gravel pit to support both refuge and roads (on-refuge) The following objectives requirements. and strategies will lead to meeting the overall public Rationale use goal. USFWS Wild Iris Compatible, non-wildlife-dependent uses should be Objective limited to less sensitive areas based on habitat goals Encourage compatible, non-wildlife-dependent uses, and objectives. but limit to less sensitive areas based on habitat The refuge views mineral resource development goals and objectives by 2009. as having negative impacts on wildlife habitat. Strategies Non-federally owned minerals within the refuge boundary must be identified and purchased, on a ■ Allow walking leashed dogs, horseback riding, willing-seller basis, to minimize future resource and bicycling along designated roads. damage. ■ Use law enforcement, signs, information, and The rifle range will continue to operate as it brochures to minimize impacts of other non­ facilitates refuge and North Park law enforcement wildlife-dependent public uses. needs. The travel management plan must meet ■ Prepare and implement a travel management compatibility determination standards, and plan to minimize vehicle impacts to refuge facilitate management and public use requirements. habitats. The Allard gravel pit supports the refuge and roads (on refuge) and will remain active to support goals Objective and objectives. Consider non-wildlife-dependent public uses and their benefi ts to North Park and its residents by 2009. Research

Strategies The research goal will be met through the ■ With partners, design and construct the Case objectives and strategies that follow. Barn interpretive site. Incorporate North Park and refuge history and the preservation Goal of wildlife habitats as a theme in the interpretation. The refuge is a learning platform for compatible research that assists management and augments ■ Encourage partners to be sensitive to wildlife needs when developing recreational the science of high-mountain park, sage-steppe opportunities in North Park. communities. ■ Continue to allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to plow snow windbreaks along Objective Highway 125 (appendix B). Identify and promote the biological research needed to help achieve the refuge’s habitat goals and Objective objectives by 2009. Allow compatible, non-wildlife-dependent uses that support the refuge mission by 2014. Strategies

■ Identify and prioritize habitat management research needs. ■ Conduct in-house research on priority needs. 62 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

■ Promote the refuge research needs within the scientifi c community. Partnerships ■ Encourage research that focuses on the refuge’s The partnerships goal will be met through the habitat management goals. objectives and strategies that follow. Objective Goal Identify and promote non-biological research as it A wide range of partners joins with the U.S. Fish relates and contributes to achieving habitat goals and Wildlife Service in promoting and implementing and objectives on the refuge and within North Park the refuge vision. by 2009. Strategies Objective

■ Identify and prioritize research related to The refuge will participate in partnerships that refuge and North Park wildlife in other promote sound wildlife management by 2009. disciplines’ needs. Strategies ■ Encourage research in non-biological disciplines that facilitates the refuge in achieving goals and ■ Engage in partnerships that result in wildlife objectives. and land-health improvements. ■ Allow and encourage research that focuses on ■ Participate in the habitat partnership program, natural resource management goals throughout Owl Mountain partnership, sage grouse North Park. working group, Colorado Wetlands Initiative, Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem team, and Rationale others to protect, enhance, and restore wildlife habitats. These objectives and strategies focus on identifying ■ Work with partners to achieve goals and and implementing the biological research needs of objectives. the refuge and North Park. ■ Work with the Colorado Historical Society and Research will focus on achieving the habitat goals other partners to restore and rehabilitate the and objectives outlined in this plan. Identifi ed Case Barn interpretive site. research needs can then be promoted within the ■ Develop a conservation easement on Pole scientifi c community and actively encouraged by Mountain property. refuge staff. ■ Work with Colorado Land Trust and others to Proposed research not falling within the categories help acquire lands and mineral rights within identified would generally not be allowed. the refuge’s approved boundaries. Minerals Conversely, research meeting identifi ed refuge extraction may cause habitat disturbance needs could be supported within the refuge. with funding, lodging, equipment sharing, etc. Objective

Disturbance to resident Maintain existing, and form new, partnerships to wildlife and habitat is the achieve wildlife-related goals and objectives on the primary concern. refuge and within North Park by 2009. Limiting non-refuge Strategies identified projects will minimize unnecessary ■ Promote new partnerships (consider Ducks disturbance and habitat Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Safari Club damage. International, Audubon, Sierra Club, and others) to assist with achieving the refuge and North Park natural resource goals. ■ Strive to develop a refuge “friends” group within 15 years to provide support through outreach and volunteer efforts on a variety of projects. ■ Establish a full-time private lands coordinator position stationed at the refuge, to assist in Cooper’s hawk wildlife habitat enhancement throughout North © Cindie Brunner Park. Chapter 4—Management Direction 63

Rationale These objectives and strategies describe the potential level of partnership activity that will improve wildlife habitats throughout North Park. The refuge staff will form partnerships to promote sound wildlife management within and outside the refuge. The refuge will actively participate in partnerships that result in improvements to land health and provide appropriate wildlife habitat in North Park. The refuge will collaborate with partners on management of critical wildlife habitats in North Park. The private lands position will enable the Service to contribute its biological expertise and resources to private and public landowners when requested.

5 Implementation and Monitoring

5 Implementation and Monitoring

Current staffing at the Arapaho National Wildlife This chapter describes resources and actions Refuge consists of six permanent and four seasonal needed to carry out this CCP. employees. Additional permanent and seasonal ■ personnel staff will be required to implement the strategies in the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and ■ funding effectively monitor the fl ora and fauna to determine ■ step-down management plans if the goals and objectives in the plan are being met. ■ partnerships The refuge has an annual base budget of $381,700 ■ monitoring and evaluation based on fi scal year 2002 fi gures. These monies ■ plan amendment and revision support salaries for six permanent personnel and annual operating expenses for the refuge complex. Personnel The current budget represents the minimum needed to maintain current annual activities. It Table 6 shows the current staff and additional, does not adequately support the complex’s habitat target staff required to fully implement the CCP. management, biological monitoring, maintenance, public use, and education programs, or the If all positions are funded, the refuge complex’s complex’s facilities and structures. staff will be able to carry out all aspects of this plan. This would provide maximum benefits to wildlife, Projects that have adequate funding and staffi ng maximum efficiency, and improved facilities. Full will receive priority for accomplishment. Staffi ng staffing would also provide for increased public use. and funding are requested for the 15-year period of the CCP.

Table 6. Current and target staff for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Current Staff Target Staff Management Project leader, GS-12 Complex project leader, GS-13 Refuge operations specialist, GS-11 Supervisory refuge operations specialist, GS-12 Refuge operations specialist, GS-9/11* Private lands biologist, GS-9/11

Biology Wildlife biologist, GS-9/11 Complex wildlife biologist, GS-11 Career, seasonal, wildlife biological technician, Wildlife biologist, GS-9* GS-6 Career-seasonal, wildlife biological technician, Seasonal biological technicians, GS-4 to GS-5 GS-6 (3–4 positions) Seasonal biological technicians, GS-3 to GS-5 (4–5 positions)* GIS coordinator/data manager, GS-9/11*

Public use Outdoor recreation planner (dual-function law enforcement), GS-9/11*

Administration Administrative assistant, GS-8 Administrative offi cer, GS-9* Administrative assistant, GS-5/6*

Maintenance Maintenance worker, WG-8 Equipment operator, WG-10 Career-seasonal, maintenance worker (irrigator), WG-8 Career-seasonal, maintenance worker, WG-8*

*Position shared with other stations in Wyoming under management by the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge complex. 68 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

in this plan. These were mostly projects that Funding were required to be included in the MMS, such as equipment and vehicle replacement, for an Projects required to carry out the CCP are listed in additional $1,964,000 in funding. appendices K and L, which display funding needs through two different systems. ■ The refuge operations needs system (RONS) Step-down Management Plans documents requests to Congress for funding and staffing needed to carry out projects above Managers in the Service have traditionally used the the existing base budget. Amounts shown refuge manual to guide fi eld-station management. include a start-up cost for each program, along Policy in the manual provides direction for with yearly costs that are signifi cantly less. developing a wide variety of plans that are used to ■ The maintenance management system (MMS) prepare annual work schedules, budgets, and public documents the equipment, buildings, and other use and land management actions. property that require repair or replacement. The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides the All of the RONS projects in appendix K directly following: support the implementation of the CCP. Table 7 is a ■ general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, summary of funding for these projects. endangered species, public use and partnership objectives Table 7. Overall funding needs for Arapaho ■ examples of strategies that might be used to National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado complete the objectives

Expense Start-up Needs Annual Needs The purpose of step-down management plans is to Personnel $792,000 $430,000 provide detail to the managers and employees who Facilities $541,000 $ 0 will implement the strategies described in the CCP. Habitat projects $192,000 $ 36,000 Through the guidance provided in the CCP, refuge staff will revise or develop several step-down Research/studies $383,000 $ 10,000 management plans to be carried out over the next 15 years. Other funding needs include the maintenance or replacement of existing equipment and facilities. Step-down management plans to be revised or In the past, the complex has had a large backlog developed include the following: of these funding needs. However, in recent years, ■ habitat management plan much of the funding has been provided to eliminate a large number of the backlog projects. ■ public use plan ■ fi sheries management plan Table 8 lists the remaining needs required to carry out the CCP and maintain structures and ■ Illinois River rehabilitation plan equipment to a safe, productive standard for the 15 ■ integrated pest management plan years of the plan. ■ archaeological resources protection plan ■ hunting management plan Table 8. Funding needs for facilities, equipment, ■ water management plan and maintenance at Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado ■ fire management plan ■ habitat monitoring plan Expense Cost ■ wildlife monitoring plan Water-control structures and dikes $ 146,000 ■ station safety plan Road, gates, and fences $2,341,000 Buildings and facilities $ 516,000 Public use facilities $ 276,000 Partnerships Equipment $ 531,000 Partnerships are an integral part of existing Vehicles $ 60,000 refuge management and are the key to successful management in the future. A list of the top 18 maintenance priorities is located in the MMS table in appendix L. The refuge is not an ecosystem, rather it represents merely an island of wildlife habitat. The refuge is The remaining MMS projects do not directly dependent on wildlife and habitats provided by affect CCP implementation and were not included Chapter 5—Implementation and Monitoring 69

other land managers throughout North Park and ■ Adaptive management will be used to the central fl yway. incorporate new information into existing monitoring techniques. The refuge is not sustainable alone; in fact, it is ■ Periodic evaluations of vegetation community dependent on other habitats and lands that progress will be used to direct future surround it to be functional, and by itself may management strategies. serve little wildlife value. —Dr. Richard Knight Monitoring strategies were evaluated and are included in this plan. The CCP strives to recognize this connection to, ■ All habitat management activities will be and dependence on, other lands. Past and current monitored to assess whether the desired effect agricultural practices have provided benefi ts for on wildlife and habitat components has been wildlife in North Park. achieved. The livelihood of ranchers largely has been ■ Baseline surveys will continue for waterfowl, dependent on maintaining a healthy plant big game, and small-game species. community. As a result, many plant and wildlife ■ Baseline surveys will be conducted for wildlife species have benefi ted from these practices. species for which existing or historical numbers Ranching has impeded urban development that and occurrence is not well known. adversely affects natural communities. Ranchers are one of the land stewards that have protected ■ It is also important to conduct studies that and preserved wildlife habitats for the past 125 monitor wildlife response to increased public years. Sustainable ranching is one key to continued use (multi-use trail and moose overlook) to protection of North Park natural resources. assess impacts of these activities on wildlife. The refuge will cooperate and develop partnerships Required step-down management plans that have with other land managers in North Park to improve been identified will further refi ne monitoring, wildlife habitats. The refuge has identified a new, methods, techniques, and locations. Additionally, private-lands coordinator position within the CCP the step-down plan will identify how, when, and who to facilitate partnerships. will conduct the monitoring. The CCP recommends that short-term variations Habitat monitoring methods and frequency are in management be considered to accommodate being developed cooperatively with wildlife other wildlife-related projects within North Park. researchers within the U.S. Geological Survey. For example, the refuge would consider allowing Evaluation of those methods will occur periodically, additional grazing AUMs to accommodate a and the refuge will consult with U.S. Geological 2-year rest following Dixie harrow treatment on Survey, universities, and other professionals to adjacent Bureau of Land Management lands. The ensure proper data collection and analysis. downside to this approach is that the refuge will achieve its habitat objectives at a slower pace Wildlife research will be encouraged at the because resources are diverted away from refuge refuge. The staff will actively pursue research lands. However, the benefits of combining refuge opportunities, especially those that advance resources with other land managers will result in understanding or answer questions related to improved land health for North Park and the refuge. Additionally, the CCP encourages other partners to join habitat improvement efforts. Through partnerships, the refuge will serve as a demonstration site for sound, land management practices.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is essential to successful implementation of the CCP. ■ The new habitat-based goals and objectives will change the past monitoring practices. ■ Vegetative community function and structure will drive management actions. 70 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan refuge management. Research that enhances monitoring (techniques or data analysis) will be encouraged. The staff will work with researchers to ensure that the studies are applicable and compatible with refuge objectives. Research that does not relate to refuge goals and objectives will be discouraged. Goals, objectives, and strategies are identifi ed in the CCP. Periodic reviews (a minimum of every 5 years) will ensure goals and objectives are being met. Monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process.

Plan Amendment and Revision

The CCP will guide management on the refuge for the next 15 years. This CCP is signed by the Service’s Region 6 director, and provides regional direction to the station project leader. The project leader at the station will review the CCP every 5 years to determine if it needs revision. In the case of severe circumstances, the project leader has the authority to modify management actions to respond appropriately. The plan will be revised no later than 2018. 6 Socioeconomic Analysis

6 Socioeconomic Analysis

The U.S. Geological Survey’s biological resources Table 9 summarizes the economic analysis for the division (BRD) prepared a socioeconomic study CCP. during the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) ■ Under current management, economic activity process. The entire study “Regional Economic directly related to all refuge operations would Effects of Current and Proposed Management generate an estimated 14.7 jobs and $458,634 in Alternatives for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge” Jackson County. is included in the draft CCP and environmental ■ Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, assessment. refuge activities would account for 20.7 jobs and The following summary of the study focuses on $570,106 in personal income in Jackson County. the economic effects estimated to result during ■ Current refuge management activities account implementation of this CCP. for 1.8 percent of county employment.

Table 9. Summary of the economic analysis for the comprehensive conservation plan, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Total Staffi ng and Recreational Effects Budgeting Impacts Grazing Activities Activities Aggregate Impacts Direct Effects Annual income $736,625 $24,407 to $67,780 $29,918 $790,950 to $834,323 Jobs 18.2 1.2 to 3.4 2.1 21.5 to 23.7 Total Effects Annual income $811,883 $47,518 to $131,959 $39,308 $898,709 to $983,150 Jobs 22.4 2.5 to 6.9 2.5 27.4 to 31.8 % of County Employment 2.4 to 2.8

Table 10 summarizes the estimated economic effects Current refuge management activities account for for carrying out this plan. 1.8 percent of county employment. Under current management, economic activity Further background information used for this directly related to all refuge operations would analysis is summarized in the following descriptions generate an estimated 14.7 jobs and $458,634 in of the socioeconomic setting and expected economic Jackson County. impacts. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, refuge activities would account for 20.7 jobs and $570,106 in personal income in Jackson County.

Table 10. Summary of the economic effects associated with the comprehensive conservation plan, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Total Staffi ng and Effects Budgeting Impacts Grazing Activities Aggregate Impacts Direct Effects Income ($/year) +$375,689 $0 to -$43,373 +$332,316 to +$375,689 Jobs +9.0 0 to -2.2 +6.8 to +9.0 Total Effects Income ($/year) +$413,044 $0 to -$84,441 +$328,603 to +$413,044 Jobs +11.1 0 to -4.4 +6.7 to +11.1 74 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The 2000 census reported the make-up of the county Socioeconomic Setting population as follows: Walden, neighboring Arapaho National Wildlife ■ 6.5 percent are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin Refuge to the north, is an historic mountain town ■ 92.1 percent are persons of white (not Hispanic established in the 1800s with a strong ranching or Latino) origin heritage. Its business community provides most ■ 0.3 percent are black or African American persons of the essential goods and services, however ■ 0.8 percent are American Indian and Alaska county residents must travel to bigger cities to Native persons purchase larger durable goods (e.g., cars and major appliances) and specialty items. ■ 0.1 percent are Asian persons For this analysis, a region (and its economy) was Fifty-seven percent of the county population 25 defined as all counties within a 30- to 60-mile radius years and older were high school graduates, and of the impact area. Only spending that took place 11 percent were college graduates (U.S. Census within this local area was included as stimulating Bureau). the changes in economic activity. The size of the region influenced both the amount of spending Employment captured and the multiplier effects. Based on the relative self-containment in terms of retail trade and According to the Town of Walden (2001), distance of Walden, Jackson County was assumed to employment in Jackson County is starting to comprise the economic region for this analysis. rebound since the closure of the lumber mill in 1994. Ranching, retail trade, government, timbering, mining, support services, and recreation are major Population employers. Major exports include livestock, native The 2000 census estimated Jackson County’s mountain hay, timber, oil, and carbon dioxide (Town population at 1,577 persons (U.S. Census Bureau). of Walden 2001). More than 900 of the county’s residents reside in Local and state employment is shown in table 11. Walden, leaving more than a million acres inhabited In 2000, 60.6 percent of county jobs were in private by less than 700 people (Town of Walden 2001). wage and salary employment (i.e., people who work While Colorado experienced a 30.6-percent for someone else) as compared to 85.6 percent for population increase from 1990–2000, Jackson the State of Colorado. Self-employment in Jackson County’s population decreased 1.7 percent over the County accounted for the remaining 39 percent of same period. In 2000, the population per square mile county jobs and grew by 92 percent from 1970 to in Jackson County averaged one person, while the 1997 (Morton 2000). state’s average was 41.5 persons.

Table 11. Employment for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 Jackson County State of Colorado Number Percent of Number Percent of Industry of Jobs County Total of Jobs State Total Total farm 245 21.6 44,406 1.5 Total non-farm 889 78.4 2,916,514 98.5 Private 687 60.6 2,534,168 85.6 Agricultural services, forestry, and fi shing (D) — 39,364 1.3 Mining (D) — 22,634 0.8 Construction 108 9.5 226,475 7.6 Manufacturing 56 4.9 217,473 7.3 Transportation and utilities 57 5.0 162,241 5.5 Wholesale trade (D) — 121,306 4.1 Retail trade 148 13.1 493,168 16.7 Insurance and real estate (D) — 304,660 10.3 Services 192 16.9 946,847 32.0 Government 202 17.8 382,346 12.9 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2002. (D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this are included in the total. Chapter 6—Socioeconomic Analysis 75

According to the Town of Walden (2001), while more In 1999, tourism-related jobs (mostly hunting) than two-thirds of employment is in agriculture, provided almost 17 percent of county employment only one-fifth of the county’s income is generated by and 12 percent of total income (Seidl and Garner agriculture. Agricultural-related income (includes 2001). farming and agricultural services) fell from 35 percent of total, county personal income in 1973 According to Colorado Department of Local Affairs to just 8 percent of total personal income in 1997 (2001), traditional tourism is transitioning to (Morton 2000). Table 12 displays personal income second-home tourism where more affl uent visitors for Jackson County and Colorado. and retirees are purchasing seasonal homes in Colorado mountain communities. Tourism and construction have started to play larger roles in the county’s economy (Town of In 1999, retirees and tourism combined provided Walden 2001). Most of these jobs are found in the almost 30 percent of county employment and more retail trade (supplies, souvenirs, restaurants, and than 50 percent of total base income (Seidl and grocery stores) and service (hotels, gas stations, Garner 2001). amusement, and recreation activities) sectors in an economy.

Table 12. Personal income for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 Non-farm Personal Farm Personal Per Capita Area Personal Income Income Income Personal Income Jackson County $32,567,000 $32,713,000 -$146,000 $20,612 State of Colorado $140,224,394,000 $139,579,510,000 $664,884,000 $32,434

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2002.

anticipated to cost $430,000. Additional, non- Expected Economic Impacts salary expenditures are estimated to cost $46,000 annually($36,000 for habitat projects and Economic impacts are typically measured in terms $10,000 for research and studies). It is assumed of number of jobs lost or gained, and the associated that approximately 60 percent of non-salary result on income. Economic input-output models are expenditures will still be spent locally in the commonly used to determine how economic sectors Jackson County economy (table 13). will and will not be affected by demographic, economic, and policy changes. Table 13. Annual expenditures for Arapaho National The economic impacts of the implementing the CCP Wildlife Refuge, Colorado were estimated using IMPLAN, a regional input- output modeling system developed by the USDA Salary Non-salary Total Forest Service (Olson and Lindall 1996). $822,543 $151,207 $973,750 Refuge Jobs and Income Because of the way industries interact in an economy, a change in the activity of one industry Refuge administration and activities generate affects activity levels in several other industries. 11.3 jobs and $398,839 in personal income in For example, an increase in funding could have the Jackson County and account for 1 percent of total following effects. employment in the county. ■ The refuge could start new projects or hire Current staffing at the refuge consists of six additional staff members. permanent and four seasonal employees, accounting —This added revenue would directly fl ow for an annual payroll (including salaries and to the businesses from which the refuge benefits) of $392,543 in 2002. purchases goods and services and to the new In addition to providing salaries and benefi ts, refuge employees. the refuge purchased goods and services totaling —As additional supplies are purchased or $105,207 in 2002, approximately 60 percent of which as new staff members spend their salaries was spent locally in the Jackson County economy. within the community, local businesses would purchase extra labor and supplies to meet the Additional annual funding needed for the target increase in demand for additional services. staff organization (see table 6 in chapter 5) is 76 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

—The income and employment resulting 1997, 69 ranches (55 percent) held public grazing from refuge purchases and refuge employees’ permits with at least one federal agency. The spending of salaries locally represents the Bureau of Land Management accounted for most direct effects of refuge management activities of these permits followed by the USDA Forest within Jackson County. Service (U.S. Census Bureau). ■ To increase supplies to local businesses, input Pastures on Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge suppliers must also increase their purchases of currently lease for cattle grazing to six local inputs from other industries. permittees, accounting for 2.9–4.7 percent of the —The income and employment resulting from total grazing capacity in the county. these secondary purchases by input suppliers are the indirect effects of refuge management The current average grazing level of 8,470 animal activities within the county. unit months (AUMs) converts to an average of 1,738 —The input supplier’s new employees use their head per month on the refuge during the typical incomes to purchase goods and services. grazing season (averaging 4.5 months). —The resulting increased economic activity The sales associated with the current level of head from new employee income is the induced grazed on the refuge account for an estimated effect of visitor spending. 3.4 jobs and $67,780 in labor income in the range- fed cattle industry and 6.9 jobs (0.61 percent of The sums of the direct, indirect, and induced county employment) and $131,959 in labor income effects describe the total economic effect of refuge throughout the county. management activities in Jackson County (table 14). This CCP estimates the same range in grazing Table 14. Combined refuge personnel and non-salary number reductions from the 1996–2001 average expenditures in Jackson County, Colorado base levels. It anticipates a range of grazing numbers from 3,050 to 7,650 AUMs annually, Current Target representing approximately a 10- to 64-percent Effects Management Management reduction from the 1996–2001 average. Direct Effects ■ For a 10-percent reduction in grazing, 7,650 Annual income $360,936 $736,625 AUMs would be allowed on the refuge, supporting 1,570 head for 4.5 months. This Jobs 9.2 18.2 reduction of 168 head would result in a revenue Indirect and Induced Effects loss of $46,933. There would be a decrease of Annual income $37,903 $75,258 less than 1 job (0.3) and $6,562 in labor income in the range-fed cattle industry. It would have Jobs 2.1 4.2 an impact of less than 1 job (0.6) and a decrease Total Effects of $12,775 in labor income throughout Jackson County. Annual income $398,839 $811,883 ■ For a 64-percent reduction in grazing, 3,050 Jobs 11.3 22.4 AUMs would be allowed on the refuge, % of County Employment 1.0 2.0 supporting 626 head for 4.5 months. This reduction of 1,112 head would result in a revenue loss of $310,213. There would be a Grazing Activities decrease of 2.2 jobs and $43,373 in labor income in the range-fed cattle industry. It would According to the 1997 census of agriculture (U.S. decrease countywide employment by 4.4 jobs Census Bureau), there were 126 ranches in Jackson (-0.39-percent of county employment) and labor County, totaling 477,063 acres (46 percent of the income by $84,441. county area). Seventy percent of the operators listed ranching as their principal occupation, Under this CCP, it is anticipated the permittees while 30 percent listed ranching as a secondary will be able to depend on the refuge for a portion occupation. of their operations. While most of the permittees transfer to private land, it may be that permittees Jackson County’s cattle and calf inventory with high dependence on the refuge as part of their numbered 47,683, with 26,549 cattle and calves sold operation would have to cut production. in 1997 (U.S. Census Bureau). Livestock production accounted for $12.3 million in sales (88 percent of all Recreational Activities ranch product sales) in Jackson County in 1997. The abundance of recreational opportunities on Jackson County had 364,255 acres of total pasture federal and state lands makes Jackson County a land in 1997. Of the 126 ranches in the county in popular recreation and tourism destination. Besides Chapter 6—Socioeconomic Analysis 77 the refuge, this county is home to the following activities, estimated number of refuge visitors, and areas: estimated daily expenditures related to use of the ■ Mount Zirkel, Never Summer, Rawah, and refuge. North Platte River Wilderness Areas Tourists usually buy a wide range of goods and ■ Sand Hills Recreation Area services while visiting an area. Major expenditure ■ Routt National Forest categories include lodging, food, and supplies. Refuge personnel estimate that non-local visitors ■ Colorado State Forest participating in hunting, fi shing, and environmental ■ More than 180,000 acres managed by the education activities are state residents that live Bureau of Land Management along the front range of Colorado (Fort Collins, ■ Numerous state wildlife areas, including one of Denver, and Colorado Springs). Therefore, state two gold medal trout lakes resident spending profiles for big-game hunting, small-game hunting, waterfowl hunting, and These lands have many diverse uses including, freshwater fi shing were used. recreation, wildlife management, livestock grazing, woodland products, and mineral resources. The Estimates for non-local interpretation and Federal and State Governments manage 64 percent observation visitors are that approximately 40 of Jackson County’s land area (table 15). The refuge percent are state residents from the front range accounts for 2.4 percent of the county’s land area area and 60 percent are non-resident visitors. and 4.6 percent of county land managed by the Federal Government. Although the economic impacts associated with current refuge visitation are somewhat limited The refuge offers visitors a variety of recreation in terms of overall tourism activities in the area, opportunities including wildlife observation and the refuge plays an important part in the overall photography, hunting, fi shing, environmental recreational opportunities and scenic open education, and interpretation. Table 16 displays the space that makes North Park a popular tourist destination.

Table 15. Land area management in Jackson County and Colorado

Total Federal Private State and Private Land Area State Land Land Land Federal Land Land Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (%) (%) Jackson County 1,036,497 124,765 541,073 370,659 64 36 Colorado 66,614,080 3,318,346 24,615,790 38,679,945 42 58 Source: Seidl and Garner 2001.

Table 16. Estimated annual visitors and daily expenditures, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Daily Expenditures (per person per day) Activity Number of Visitors State Residents (355) Non-residents (6,751) Interpretation and observation 6,593 $15 $100 Environmental education 141 $15 no data Waterfowl hunting 280 $21 no data Big-game hunting 15 $39 no data Small-game hunting 18 $42 no data Fishing 59 $28 no data Total 7,106

Glossary

Glossary

adaptive management—a process in which policy compatible use—a wildlife-dependent recreational decisions are implemented within a framework of use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound scientifically driven experiments to test predictions professional judgment of the director, will not and assumptions inherent in management plan. materially interfere with or detract from the Analysis of results help managers determine fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife whether current management should continue as is Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge or whether it should be modified to achieve desired (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility conditions. determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identified stipulations or limits necessary allelopathic—a plant that is able to suppress to ensure compatibility. the growth of other plants by releasing toxic substances. comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—a document that describes the desired future conditions of alternative—(1) a reasonable way to fi x the the refuge, and provides long-range guidance and identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 management direction for the refuge manager to CFR 1500.2); (2) alternatives are different means accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, contributing to the National Wildlife Refuge and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service System mission (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). Manual 602 FW 1.5). animal-unit month—a measure of the quantity of concern—see definition of issue. livestock forage. Equivalent to the amount of forage needed to support a 1,000-pound animal (or one cow/ cover type—present vegetation of an area. calf pair) for 1 month. cultural resource—the remains of sites, structures, biological control—the use of organisms or viruses to or objects used by people in the past. control invasive plants or other pests. cultural resource inventory—a professionally biological diversity—the variety of life and its conducted study designed to locate and evaluate processes, including the variety of living organisms, evidence of cultural resources present within a the genetic differences among them, and the defined geographic area. Inventories may involve communities and ecosystems in which they occur various levels, including background literature (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1.2B). The National search, comprehensive field examination to Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous identify all exposed physical manifestations of species, biotic communities, and ecological cultural resources, or sample inventory to project processes. Also referred to as biodiversity. site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to canopy—a layer of foliage, generally the upper-most determine eligibility for the National Register layer, in a forest stand. Can be used to refer to mid­ follows the criteria found in .36 CFR 60.4 (Service level or understory vegetation in multi-layered Manual 614 FW 1.7). stands. Canopy closure is an estimate of the amount of overhead tree cover (also canopy cover). cultural resource overview—a comprehensive document prepared for a fi eld offi ce that discusses, categorical exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX)—a among other things, its prehistory and cultural category of actions that do not individually or history, the nature and extent of known cultural cumulatively have a significant effect on the human resources, previous research, management environment and have been found to have no such objectives, resource management confl icts or issues, effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and a general statement on how program objectives pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act should be met and conflicts resolved. An overview (40 CFR 1508.4). should reference or incorporate information from

CDOW SC—Colorado Division of Wildlife species of a fi eld offices background or literature search special concern. described in section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW CFR—Code of Federal Regulations. 1.7). 82 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan demography—the quantitative analysis of population environmental assessment (EA)—a concise public structure and trend. document, prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, that briefl y discusses the depredation—damage inflicted on agricultural crops purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such or ornamental plants by wildlife. action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis designate—an invasive plant whose populations in a of impacts to determine whether to prepare an region or area are such that all seed production can environmental impact statement or finding of no be prevented within a calendar year. significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). environmental impact statement (EIS)— designated wilderness area—an area designated by a detailed the United States Congress to be managed as part written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of of the National Wilderness Preservation System the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). the environmental impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be disturbance—significant alteration of habitat avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., uses of the environment versus the maintenance wildland fi re) or human-caused (e.g., timber and enhancement of long-term productivity, and harvest) events. any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.1 I). Dixie harrow—a farming implement pulled behind a tractor, which reduces sagebrush density by fauna—all the vertebrate and invertebrate animals breaking off sagebrush plants. Typically, one pass of an area. over sagebrush removes 60–70 percent of the live Federal trust resources— sagebrush plants. a resource managed by one entity for another who holds the ownership. The early seral stage—an area that is in the primary Service holds in trust many natural resources for stages of ecological succession. the people of the United States of America as a result of Federal acts and treaties. Examples are ecological succession—the orderly progression of an species listed under the Endangered Species Act, area through time from one vegetative community migratory birds protected by international treaties, to another in the absence of disturbance. For anadromous fish once they enter inland U.S. example, an area may proceed from grass-forb waterways, and native plant and wildlife species through aspen forest to mixed-conifer forest. found on a National Wildlife Refuge. ecosystem—a dynamic and interrelating complex of Federal trust species—all species where the Federal plant and animal communities and their associated government has primary jurisdiction, including non-living environment. federally endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain ecosystem management—management of natural marine mammals. resources using system wide concepts to ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are finding of no significant impact (FONSI)—a document maintained at viable levels in native habitats prepared in compliance with the National and basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated Environmental Policy Act, supported by an indefi nitely. environmental assessment, that briefl y presents why a Federal action will have no signifi cant endangered species (Federal)—a plant or animal effect on the human environment and for which an species listed under the Endangered Species Act environmental impact statement, therefore, will not that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). significant portion of its range. fi re regime—a description of the frequency, severity, endangered species (State)—a plant or animal and extent of fire that typically occurs in an area or species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated vegetative type. in Colorado within the near future if factors contributing to its decline continue. Populations fl ora—all the plant species of an area. of these species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a fl oriferous—fl ower-bearing plant. signifi cant degree. forb—broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; for example, endemic species—plants or animals that occur a columbine. naturally in a certain region and whose distribution fragmentation— is relatively limited to a particular locality. the process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches. Glossary 83 geographic information system (GIS)—a computer issue—any unsettled matter that requires a system capable of storing and manipulating spatial management decision, e.g., a Service initiative, data. opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, goal—descriptive, open-ended, and often broad public concern, or the presence of an undesirable statement of desired future conditions that conveys resource condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW a purpose but does not define measurable units 1.5). (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). management alternative—see alternative. habitat—suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and management concern—see issue. reproduction; the place where an organism typically lives. management opportunity—see issue. habitat type—see vegetation type. microhabitat—habitat features at a fine scale; often identifies a unique set of local habitat features. habitat restoration—Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions migration—seasonal movement from one area to and processes, and/or to healthy forestlands, another and back. rangelands, and aquatic systems. mission statement—succinct statement of a unit’s historic range of variability (HRV)—The natural purpose and reason for being. fluctuation of components of healthy ecosystems mitigation—measures designed to counteract over time. In this EIS, HRV refers to the range environmental impacts or to make impacts less of conditions and processes that are Rely to have severe. occurred prior to settlement of the project area by people of European descent (approximately the monitoring—the process of collecting information to mid-1800s), which would have varied within certain track changes of selected parameters over time. limits over time. Historic range of variability is discussed in this document as a reference point National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)— to establish a baseline set of conditions for which requires all agencies, including the Service, to suffi cient scientifi c or historical information is examine the environmental impacts of their available to enable comparison to current condition. actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and indicator species—A species of plant or animals that implementation of all actions. Federal agencies is assumed to be sensitive to habitat changes and must integrate NEPA with other planning represents the needs of a larger group of species. requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA Also referred to as a key species. documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 1500). inholding—Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife refuge. national wildlife refuge (NWR)—a designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within integrated pest management—Methods of managing the National Wildlife Refuge System. undesirable species, such as weeds, including: education; prevention; physical or mechanical National Wildlife Refuge System—various categories methods of control; biological control; responsible of areas administered by the Secretary of the chemical use; and cultural methods. Interior for the conservation of fi sh and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction; all invasive plant—a plant species designated by lands, waters, and interests therein administered Federal or state law as generally possessing one or by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the more of the following characteristics: aggressive protections and conservation of fi sh and wildlife or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host that are threatened with extinction; wildlife ranges; of serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or game ranges; wildlife management areas; or not common to the United States. According to the waterfowl production areas. Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed (i.e., invasive plant) is one that causes disease National Wildlife Refuge System mission—the mission or had adverse effects on humans or the human is to administer a national network of lands and environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the waters for the conservation, management, and agriculture and commerce of the Untied States and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife, to public health. and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefi t of present and future inviolate—not violated or profaned; pure. generations of Americans. 84 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan native species—species that normally live and thrive planned benefi ts to one or more objectives of forest in a particular ecosystem. management, wildlife management, or hazard reduction. Neotropical migratory bird—a bird species that breeds north of the U.S.–Mexico border and winters preferred alternative—the alternative determined primarily south of this border. by the decision maker to best achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes Notice of Intent (NOI)—in the case of a Federal to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge action, such as analyzed in this document, an NOI System; addresses the significant issues; and is is a notice that an environmental impact statement consistent with principles of sound fi sh and wildlife will be prepared and considered (40 CFR 1508.22). management. Published in the Federal Register. public—individuals, organizations, and groups; objective—a concise target statement of what will officials of Federal, State, and local government be achieved, how much will be achieved, when and agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may where it will be achieved, and who is responsible include anyone outside the core planning team. It for the work. Objectives are derived from goals includes those who may or may not have indicated and provide the basis for determining management an interest in Service issues and those who do or do strategies. Objectives should be attainable and not realize that Service decisions may affect them. time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated public domain—lands to which the United States quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively obtained title through such actions as treaty, (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). purchase, and annexation, and for which title has never been conveyed out of United States physiognomy—external aspect. ownership. planning area—may include lands outside existing public involvement—a process that offers affected planning unit boundaries that are being studied for and interested individuals and organizations an inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System opportunity to become informed about, and to and partnership planning efforts. It may also express their opinions on, Service actions and include watersheds or ecosystems that affect the policies. In the process, these views are studied planning area. thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public planning team—a team generally consists of a views is given in shaping decisions for refuge planning team leader; refuge manager, staff, and management. biologists; staff specialists or other representatives public involvement plan—broad long-term guidance of Service programs, ecosystems, or regional offi ces; for involving the public in the comprehensive and other governmental agencies as appropriate. planning process. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A planning team prepared the purpose of the refuge—specified purpose for a comprehensive conservation plan. national wildlife refuge; found in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, planning unit—a single refuge; an ecologically or agreement, public land order, donation document, administratively related complex of refuges; or or administrative memorandum establishing, distinct unit of a refuge. authorization, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or plant association—a classification of plant refuge subunit. communities based on the similarity in dominants of recreation day—calculated as one visitor entering all layers of vascular species in a climax community. refuge lands for any purpose and for any length of plant community—an assemblage of plant species time. unique in its composition; occurs in particular Record of Decision (ROD)—a concise public record of locations under particular influences. A refl ection decision prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant or integration of the environmental infl uences to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, identification of all alternatives considered, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall. Denotes identification of the environmentally preferable a general kind of climax plant community, e.g., alternative, a statement as to whether all practical ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. means to avoid or minimize environmental harm prescribed fire— the skillful application of fi re to from the alternative selected have been adopted natural fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel (and if not, why they were not), and a summary of moisture, and soil moisture that allow confi nement monitoring and enforcement where applicable for of fire to a predetermined area and produces the any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish Glossary 85 refuge goal—see goal. migratory birds, important game species including white-tailed deer, furbearers such as American refuge operating needs system (RONS)—a national marten, important prey species including red- database that contains the unfunded operational backed vole, or significant keystone species such as needs of each refuge. Projects included are those beaver. required to implement approved plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. special status species—plants or animals that have been identified through either Federal law, state refuge use—any activity on a refuge, except law, or agency policy, as requiring special protection administrative or law enforcement activity carried of monitoring. Examples include federally listed out by or under the direction of an authorized endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate Service employee. species; state-listed endangered, threatened, refuge purpose—see purpose of the refuge. candidate, or monitor species; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species of management concern; refuge revenue sharing—a 1978 Act (Public Law and species identified by the Partners in Flight 95-469) authorizes payments to counties in which program as being of extreme or moderately high Service-owned land is located. The amount of the conservation concern. payment is computed based on things such as the step-down management plans— appraised value of Service fee land, number of acres plans that provide of fee land, and net receipts collected by the Service the details necessary to implement management for certain activities permitted on reserve lands strategies identified in the comprehensive (lands withdrawn from the public domain). conservation plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). rest—free from biological, mechanical, or chemical strategy— manipulation; referring to refuge lands. a specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to riparian area—an area or habitat that is transitional meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; including 1.5). streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant thalweg— communities and their associated soils that have a line following the lowest part of a valley free water at or near the surface. An area whose whether under water or not; the line of continuous components is directly or indirectly attributed maximum descent from any point on a land surface to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; or one crossing all contour lines at right angles; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes subsurface water percolating beneath and in the the land immediately adjoining and directly same direction as a surface stream course. influenced by streams. For example, riparian threatened species (federal)—a plant or animal vegetation includes any and all plant-life growing on species listed under the Endangered Species Act the land adjoining a stream and directly infl uenced that are likely to become endangered within the by the stream. foreseeable future throughout all or a signifi cant seral stage—any plant community whose plant portion of their range. composition is changing in a predictable way; threatened species (state)—a plant or animal species characterized by a group of species or plant likely to become endangered in Colorado within community that will eventually be replaced by the near future if factors contributing to population a different group of species or plant community, decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. for example, an aspen community changing to a coniferous forest community. tiering—the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements with subsequent sinuosity—wavy serpentine form of a river channel. narrower statements of environmental analysis, Sinuosity of 2.0–2.5 indicates that the river channel incorporating by reference, the general discussions direction changes every 2.0–2.5 river widths. and concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR sound professional judgment—a fi nding, 1508.28). determination, or decision that is consistent with trust species—see federal trust species. principles of sound fi sh and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, understory—any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) and adherence to the requirements of the Refuge is below or closer to the ground than canopies of Administration Act and other applicable laws. other plants. species of concern—those plant and animal species, unit objective—see objective. while not falling under the definition of special status species, that are of management interest by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 86 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—the mission of withdrawn—land and interest in land owned by the the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with United States, administered by the Bureau of Land others to conserve, protect, and enhance fi sh and Management, are withdrawn from public domain to wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefi t be administratively controlled by the U.S. Fish and of the American people. Wildlife Service for management as a unit or part of a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. vegetation type (habitat type, forest cover type)—a land classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. vision statement—a concise statement of the desired future condition of the planning unit, based primarily upon the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). watershed—the region draining into a river, river system, or body of water. wilderness—see designated wilderness area. wilderness study area—land and water identifi ed through inventory as meeting the defi nition of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the following criteria: (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of human work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; and (3) has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is suffi cient in size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). wildfi re—a free-burning fi re requiring a suppression response; all fire other than prescribed fi re that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). wildland fire— every wildland fi re is either a wildfi re or a prescribed fire (Service Manual 621 FW 1.3). wildlife corridor—a landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective transport of animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated to conservation functions. Such corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic, including frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the once-in-a-lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are transition habitats and need not contain all the habitat elements required for long-term survival or reproduction of its migrants. wildlife-dependent recreation—use of a refuge involving hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 specifi es that these are the six, priority, general public uses of the System. Appendices

Appendix A Key Legislation and Policies

Many procedural and substantive requirement of federal and applicable state and local laws and regulations affect refuge establishment, management, and development. The following list identifies the key federal laws and policies that were considered during the planning process or that could affect future refuge management.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—directs presents four principles to guide management of the agencies to consult with native traditional religious System. leaders to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to protect and preserve Native American Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— religious cultural rights and practices. directs federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—prohibits sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid discrimination in public accommodations and adversely affecting the physical integrity of such services. sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. Antiquities Act (1906)—authorizes the scientifi c investigation of antiquities on federal land and Executive Order 13287 Preserve America (2003)— provides penalties for unauthorized removal of establishes policy for the Federal Government objects taken or collected without a permit. to provide leadership in preserving America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection, Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic (1974)—directs the preservation of historic and properties owned by the Federal Government, and archaeological data in federal construction projects. by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as partnerships for the preservation and use of historic amended—protects materials of archaeological properties. interest from unauthorized removal or destruction Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—requires the use and requires federal managers to develop plans and of integrated management systems to control schedules to locate archaeological resources. or contain undesirable plant species, and an Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—requires federally interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to other federal and state agencies. be accessible to persons with disabilities. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—establishes a Clean Water Act (1977)—requires consultation with comprehensive national fi sh and wildlife policy the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major and broadens the authority for acquisition and wetland modifi cations. development of refuges. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)— Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—promotes allows the conservation of migratory waterfowl and directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into the offset or prevention of serious loss of wetlands agreements with private landowners for wildlife by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential management purposes. habitat, and for other purposes. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—establishes Endangered Species Act (1973)—requires all federal procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, agencies to carry out programs for the conservation or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird of endangered and threatened species. Conservation Commission. Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act Executive Order 11988 (1977)—directs each federal (1934)—authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to agency to provide leadership and take action to waterfowl hunting. reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the natural Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—designates and beneficial values served by the fl oodplains. the protection of migratory birds as a federal Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public responsibility. This Act enables the setting of Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)— seasons, and other regulations including the closing defines the mission, purpose, and priority public of areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also migratory birds. 90 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended— establishes as policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd­ 668ee. (Refuge Administration Act)—defi nes the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defi nes a unifying mission for the System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife System Administration Act of 1966. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990)—requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or possession. Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses. Rehabilitation Act (1973)—requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to ensure that anybody can participate in any program. Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998—amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefi t of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes. Appendix B Compatibility Determination 92 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 93 94 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 95 96 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 97 98 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 99 Appendix C Planning Team

This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by members of the planning team for the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge’s CCP. Many others contributed insight and support (see appendix F).The draft CCP and environmental assessment were written by refuge staff and the refuge planner, with input from other team members.

Team Member Position Work Unit

Randy Bilbeisi maintenance worker Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Lynne Caughlan economist (USGS–BRD), Fort Collins, CO Chuck Cesar wildlife biologist Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Walden, CO biologist, geographic information U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Division of Sean Fields system (GIS) specialist Planning, Lakewood, CO Patricia Fiedler hydrologist USFWS, Water Resources Division, Lakewood, CO

Terri Follet administrative support assistant Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO fish and wildlife biologist, Bernardo Garza USFWS, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, CO planning team leader David Hamilton biologist USGS–BRD, Fort Collins, CO professor of landscape Paul Hellmund Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO architecture Pam Johnson wildlife biologist Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

Greg Langer project leader 1999–2003 Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

Mark Lanier refuge operations specialist Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

Murray Laubhan biologist USGS–BRD, Jamestown, ND USFWS, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Rachel Laubhan biologist Jamestown, ND Rhoda Lewis regional archaeologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO

Deb Parker writer-editor USFWS, Division of Planning, Lakewood, CO

Barbara Shupe former writer-editor, 1997–2003 USFWS, Division of Planning, Lakewood, CO former biological science Todd Stefanic Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO technician Ann Timberman project leader Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO USFWS, Division of Educational and Visitor Services, Melvie Uhland outdoor recreation planner Lakewood, CO J. Wenum district wildlife manager Colorado Division of Wildlife, Gunnison, CO Appendix D Environmental Compliance 102 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix E Section 7 Biological Evaluation 104 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 105 106 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 107 108 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 109 110 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 111 112 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 113 114 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 115 Appendix F Consultation and Coordination

The refuge manager of Arapaho National Wildlife to become involved in the planning process. The Refuge was assigned primary responsibility for following table and narratives further describe the planning in the summer of 2000. consultation and coordination conducted during the CCP development. The refuge, with the help of a consultant, prepared a stakeholder involvement plan to ensure all The refuge staff and planning team wish to thank interested parties and stakeholders could have all who provided comments, issues, and concerns— opportunities to express their concerns and the commenters’ efforts and information greatly raise issues that would be addressed in the enhanced this CCP. comprehensive conservation plan (CCP). The refuge invited the public, tribes, other agencies, government officials, organizations, and universities

Date Action Outcome

Publication of Notice of Intent (to prepare Public notification of the upcoming June 2000 the CCP) in the Federal Register preparation of the CCP

Development of draft focus areas, September 2000–May 2001 Biological workshops with agencies habitat goals, and habitat objectives

January 2001 Congressional tour of the refuge Discussions about the CCP

January 2001 County commissioner tour of the refuge Discussions about the CCP

News releases about public meetings Public notification of opportunities for February 2001 sent to the Jackson County Star and involvement in the CCP process Coloradoan (Fort Collins) newspapers Public scoping meetings in Walden and February 2001 Issues summary Fort Collins, CO

April 2001 Public scoping Issues summary

Increased chapter member CCP presentation to the Fort Collins April 2001 understanding of the CCP planning Chapter of the Audubon Society process Landscape issues meeting with agencies June 2001 Issue identifi cation and Colorado State University

June 2001 Riparian area workshop with agencies Field visit of riparian areas

Release of draft CCP and environmental Receipt of public comments about the September 2003 assessment (EA) for public review draft CCP and EA

Increased public understanding of the September 2003 Public meeting in Walden, CO draft CCP and EA Appendix F—Consultation and Coordination 117

Agency and Local Government Coordination These individuals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and other agencies and Several meetings and workshops were conducted organizations were of enormous help through their with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) review and input on the drafts of this CCP. and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), whose lands adjoin the refuge. This coordination was to The refuge manager invited the Jackson County ensure that proposed management activities not Commissioners to a tour of the refuge on January 22, only benefi t the refuge’s habitats and wildlife, but 2001. complement efforts by these agencies. In addition, The manager provided the commissioners with agency input has been sought in crucial habitat and briefing packets and gave them an overview of wildlife management decisions. the CCP process and purpose. This meeting also The talents and knowledge provided by the diverse served to obtain comments from the attending group of contributors below dramatically improved commissioners and answer their questions on the the vision and completeness of this plan. refuge and the CCP process.

Contributor Position Agency David Anderson former cooperative fi sh and wildlife unit leader USGS–BRD John Arkins biologist BLM Greg Auble biologist USGS–BRD Crystal Bechaver biological technician USFWS, Region 6 Steve Berendzen refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6 John Blankenship former assistant regional director USFWS, Region 6 Ayeisha Brinson economist (intern) USGS–BRD Christina Clements graduate student Colorado State University Ron Cole former refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6 Rick Coleman assistant regional director, NWRS USFWS, Region 6 Jim Coyle biologist USGS–BRD Beth Dickerson biologist USFWS, Rocky Mountain Arsenal Josh Dilley district wildlife manager CDOW John Esperance branch chief, land protection planning USFWS, Region 6 Sheri Fetherman chief, educational and visitor services USFWS, Region 6 Jaymee Fojtik former GIS specialist USFWS, Region 6 Jim Gammonley biologist CDOW Liza Graham biologist CDOW Galen Green fi re ecologist USFWS, Region 6 David Hamilton biologist USGS–BRD Dave Harr range manager BLM Dale Henry former refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6 Jerry Jack range scientist BLM Rick Kahn wildlife manager CDOW Ken Kehmeier fi shery biologist CDOW Linda Kelly branch chief, refuge planning USFWS, Region 6 Ken Kerr fire management officer USFWS, Region 6 Wayne King biologist, NWRS USFWS, Region 6 Richard Knight professor of wildlife biology Colorado State University Carl Korschgen GIS specialist USGS–BRD Lee Lamb researcher USGS–BRD Lisa Langer volunteer USFWS, Region 6 Rachel Laubhan biologist USGS–BRD 118 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Contributor Position Agency Miriam Mazel realty operations manager USFWS, Region 6 Bridget McCann former refuge planner USFWS, Region 6 Ken McDermond former assistant regional director, NWRS USFWS, Region 6 Adam Misztal former refuge planner USFWS, Region 6 Ralph D. Morgenweck regional director USFWS, Region 6 Eugene Patten retired refuge manager USFWS Brad Petch wildlife biologist CDOW Phadrea Ponds economist USGS–BRD Steve Porter wildlife biologist CDOW Ray Rauch retired refuge manager USFWS Jason Rohwender wildlife biologist USFWS, Ecological Services Rick Schroeder biologist USGS–BRD Mike Scott wildlife biologist USGS–BRD Larry Shanks former refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6 Ron Shupe deputy assistant regional director, NWRS USFWS, Region 6 Kirk Snyder district wildlife manager CDOW Michael Spratt division chief, refuge planning USFWS, Region 6 Pete Torma wildlife biologist BLM Rod VanVelson fi shery biologist CDOW Carl Waller wildlife biologist BLM Ken Waller wildlife biologist BLM Al White soil conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service Harvey Wittmier division chief, realty USFWS, Region 6

Public Involvement were received before, during, and after scoping and during the comment period phases of the CCP Public meetings were held in the City of Walden process. (adjacent to the refuge) and Fort Collins (in the front range of Colorado) in February 2001 to try Public Comments to reach out to as many stakeholders as possible. The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all Public meetings were held on February 15, 2001, in input received from the public. Comments received Walden and February 16, 2001, in Fort Collins. during the public review period for the draft CCP During these meetings, refuge personnel gave a and EA have been compiled and summarized, succinct audio-visual presentation of the history followed by responses from the Service. These and resources of the refuge. They described the issues, concerns, and comments were provided need for the CCP and the process for environmental by individuals, agencies, local governments, and analysis. A question and answer session was held, organizations concerned about the natural resources and the public was asked for comments and issues. of the refuge. The issues raised during the public meetings were Comment 1—The draft CCP and EA need to inscribed on easel paper. Attendees were invited adequately describe baseline conditions. to submit further issues or questions to the refuge in writing. Questionnaires and CCP summary Response: The offi ce fi re of 1997, as noted in the handouts were distributed during these events. comment, was indeed tragic in that past data that may have been invaluable for determining baseline Public comments were received and used data for this plan was lost. While it is true that “the throughout the planning process. Issues and refuge has had six years to gather this data” since concerns in the draft CCP and EA were identifi ed the fire, the refuge has not obtained the needed through discussions with planning team members data due to a variety of circumstances. Given this and key contacts, and through the public scoping lack of information, there will be an emphasis on process. Comments were received orally at gathering baseline data early in the operation of the meetings, via e-mail, and in writing. Comments Appendix F—Consultation and Coordination 119 plan, which will be used to assess and re-assess plan Response: If the refuge were a closed ecosystem, objectives. assessment of returning carnivores would be appropriate. Since the impact of returning large Comment 2—More information is needed about the carnivores would have significant implications to issue related to white-tailed prairie dogs. private lands, as well as to several state and federal agencies, this discussion would be beyond the scope Several comments were made regarding white- and intent of a refuge CCP. tailed prairie dogs. Comment 5—The Service must not support non­ Response: While the refuge can and will work with native fi sheries that contribute to the imperilment oil companies to minimize impacts from exploration of native species. on refuge lands, this activity cannot be prohibited on lands where mineral rights are held by others. A comment suggested native trout are negatively impacted by the non-native brown and rainbow Response: Hunting of prairie dogs is not currently trout in the North Platte drainage. The statement permitted, and there have been no discussions to is made that refuge efforts should be spent on allow this use. This will be clarified in the fi nal CCP. recovery of “imperiled native fi sh.” Response: Although impacts to prairie dogs of Response: There are no trout native to the North management actions were not directly addressed Platte River. Similarly, there is no available in the draft CCP, a short narrative will be added evidence that any of the fish native to the Illinois to the final CCP. Issuance of the final CCP will not River is imperiled. Fish stocking on the refuge be postponed until a finding is made on the listing by the State of Colorado has occurred in the past, petition. If that finding is positive for listing, the but on a very intermittent basis. Consequently, refuge will address white-tailed prairie dogs with the statement on page 46 of the CCP regarding all management decisions, as required under the periodic stocking on the refuge will be removed. Endangered Species Act. The management needs The Improvement Act lists fishing as a priority statement supplied is a valuable tool in the CCP public use of refuges that will be encouraged if process and was appreciated. compatible with purposes of refuge establishment. Response: The intent of the research goal is that By managing to maintain healthy streams, fi shing research should benefi t the biological knowledge of opportunities and proper habitat for native fi sh the refuge and North Park. Thus, most research should be maintained. proposed for biological learning of prairie dogs Comment 6—More information is needed about would probably be allowed. The refuge has the refuge work relating to the North Park phacelia. option to not allow research that is deemed incompatible with refuge purposes of establishment Response: Assertions were made that the refuge or inappropriate for refuge needs. has had decades to work on the phacelia. Although the phacelia was listed as endangered in 1982 and Comment 3—Sage grouse hunting should not be had a recovery plan completed in 1986, it was not allowed on the refuge. discovered on the refuge until 1995. The 308-acre Response: The National Wildlife Refuge field where the two known phacelia populations are Improvement Act lists hunting as a priority located have been grazed three times since 1995 public use on refuges when deemed compatible. at a rate no higher than 0.19 animal unit months Refuge staff were active participants in the (AUMs) per acre. formulation of the North Park Greater Sage Response: Concern was noted that the CCP states Grouse Conservation Plan, accepted December that a phacelia management plan will be completed 2001. The plan recommends conservation actions by 2010. This does not preclude completion before dependent on the 3-year average of males on leks. that date. If a life history study can be funded, For populations greater than 850 males, the hunting management plans would likely soon follow. A recommendation is a 7-day season with a bag limit thorough study of the life history and needs of the of two birds and possession limit of four birds. plant (RONS project #98002, appendix K) needs to Populations have exceeded this number since 1998, be conducted prior to making decisions on how to while allowing the aforementioned season structure manage it. Livestock grazing may be an impact (a longer season was allowed in 1998 and 1999). The to phacelia. However, this phacelia is found in refuge will continue to be a contributing member disturbed sites, populations have maintained of the local sage grouse working group and will viability with the current grazing regime since address grouse hunting issues as outlined by the discovery, and the plant has survived 100 plus years CDOW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies. of livestock grazing in the area. It is prudent to fi nd Comment 4—Carnivore restoration could benefi t elk out if the effects of grazing are positive or negative management. on the plant before making management decisions on grazing. 120 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Comment 7—Livestock grazing impacts should be Comment 12—High elk numbers could severely evaluated more carefully. impact other wildlife populations on the refuge. Response: This is a true statement and, as described Response: Refuge staff are working with CDOW to on page 21 of the draft CCP, the refuge intends to address the issue. evaluate and adapt the grazing program to ensure this tool is being used properly to achieve the Comment 13—Some changes are needed for public habitat objectives defined in the CCP. access on the refuge. Comment 8—Either bring back bison or allow Response: These issues will be addressed by natural processes to be the only management on completion of step-down management plans for upland habitats for migratory birds. public use and travel management. Several comments suggested a hands-off Comment 14—Alternatives B and D appear to be the management style, or one that incorporated bison, same. might be a more environmentally sound approach. Response: Most of the proposed action (alternative Response: Early in the planning process, a hands- D) did come from Alternative B. off management style was presented as a possible Comment 15—How will staff time be shared among management strategy. However, refuge staff the other refuges in the complex if proposed staff determined this approach would not allow goals increases occur? and objectives to be met, nor would it fulfi ll the purposes for which Congress established the Response: The amount of time employees would refuge. Grazing is a tool used by wildlife managers spend at a particular station will depend on to invigorate and maintain healthy grass stands work priorities for a given year, and will be a necessary for migratory bird nesting. In North management decision when and if these positions Park, cattle are applied as a tool generally in mid- to are fi lled. late summer for grassland management. No cattle are wintered on the refuge. Bison could fill a role similar to cattle; however, bison are not currently available in North Park. In addition, fences would require modifi cation to accommodate the use of bison. Returning the refuge to a natural or an earlier successional stage was also determined to not be feasible. Humans have altered the fl ood plain through irrigation and haying practices. The cost of restoration is prohibitive and moves away from the purposes for which the refuge was established. Comment 9—Dog walking and riding bicycles on roads open to vehicle travel needs to be considered. Response: The decision was made to change the language of the strategy addressing these other uses of the refuge to reflect that walking leased dogs and riding bicycles may be allowed on designated roads and trails as deemed appropriate by management. Comment 10—Some roads may be open to hunting but possibly not to other uses. Response: These issues will be addressed in the hunting, travel management, and public use step- down management plans. Comment 11—Use of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles should not be allowed on the refuge. Response: Operations of these vehicles by the public are not permitted as they are incompatible with purposes of establishment for the refuge. Appendix G Mailing List

Federal Officials State Officials U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado Governor Bill Owens Washington, D.C. Colorado State Representative Al White Fort Collins, CO, offi ce—Keith Johnson Colorado State Senator Jack Taylor U.S. Senator Wayne Allard, Washington, D.C. Englewood, CO, office—Kristine A. Pollard State Agencies U.S. Representative Scott McInnis, Washington, D.C. Glenwood Springs, CO, offi ce—William Endriss Colorado Department of Natural Resources Colorado Division of Wildlife Federal Agencies Meeker, CO—Brad Petch Walden, CO—Josh Dilley, Kirk Snyder, Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling, CO— J. Wenum Chuck Cesar Fort Collins, CO—Jim Gammonley, Rick Kahn, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO Steve Porter Natural Resource Conservation Service, Jackson Steamboat Springs, CO—Liza Graham, Jim County, Walden, CO Hicks, Sue Werner USDA Forest Service, Walden, CO—Chuck Oliver Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado State Forest, Jackson County, Walden, CO Air Quality Branch, CO Colorado State Historic Preservation Offi ce, Alamosa-Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Denver, CO complex, CO Colorado State Parks and Recreation, Walden, CO Albuquerque, NM Colorado Water Commissioner, Walden, CO Anchorage, AK Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Arlington, VA Springfi eld, IL Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge, ND Atlanta, GA Local Governments Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge, CO Denver, CO Jackson County Ecological Services Field Offi ce, CO Administrator Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge, UT Commissioners Fort Snelling, MN Extension Offi ce Hadley, MA Sheriff’s Offi ce Juneau, AK Soil Conservation District Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT Weed Coordinator Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, MT Mayor Kyle Fliniau Portland, OR Sacramento, CA Newspapers Shepherdstown, WV Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD Jackson County Star, Walden, CO Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, WY Steamboat Pilot, Steamboat Springs, CO Sherwood, OR The Coloradoan, Fort Collins, CO U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO—David Hamilton, Schools, Universities, and Libraries Murray Lauhban, Rick Schroeder Colorado State University, Fort Collins and Tribal Officials Walden, CO Jackson County Library, Walden, CO Southern Ute Indian Tribe Mesa State College Arapaho Tribe Business Committee North Park School District, Walden, CO Pawnee Tribe Northwestern University, Evanston, IL— Professor Friesema University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 122 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Individuals 53 persons Organizations Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO Colorado Ducks Unlimited Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. Fund for Animals, Silver Spring, MD KRA Corporation, Fish and Wildlife Reference Section, Bethesda, MD National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C. National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, WV National Wildlife Refuge Association, Colorado Springs, CO—Brent Giezentanner North Park Cattlewomen’s Association, Walden, CO North Park Chamber of Commerce, Walden, CO North Park Fair Board Association, Walden, CO North Park Habitat Partnership Program, Walden, CO North Park Stockgrowers Association, Cowdrey, CO North Park Water Conservancy District, Walden, CO Owl Mountain Partnership, Walden, CO Sage Grouse Working Group, Walden, CO The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C. The Wildlife Society, Central Mountain and Plains Section, Fort Collins, CO Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Appendix H Habitat Rationale

Riparian Habitat floodplain has been reduced [conservative estimate of 137 meters on each side of channel]; and (3) The riparian habitat (4,374 acres) on Arapaho width of transitional upland fringe has increased National Wildlife Refuge is composed of the [137 meters from channel to base of hillslope]. channel, fl oodplain, and transitional upland fringe Obviously, these assumptions form the basis along portions of the Illinois River and Spring for fundamental decisions that have been made; Creek. Historically, the refuge staff has considered thus, they pervade the entire decision-making the fl oodplain and transitional fringe collectively framework. Although acceptable at the current as irrigated meadow. However, we have chosen time, such assumptions should be validated in to use channel, floodplain, and transitional fringe the near future. This is particularly critical when in this document because these components more considering management options within riparian appropriately represent the collective functions systems because hydroperiod is a primary function and processes of riparian habitats, and such a that determines vegetation composition and designation allows management potential of the productivity (Cooper 1986). In some cases, such as entire area to be more thoroughly evaluated. restoration of the willow community, validation of these assumptions must occur prior to initiating Although the channel is well-defined as the portion management activities. Otherwise, the probability of the riparian zone with flowing surface water of success will be reduced greatly, staff time will (The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration be wasted, and funding will not be used effi ciently. Working Group 1998), delineation of the fl oodplain Information necessary to make decisions regarding and the transitional upland fringe is more diffi cult future management of the riparian system will because characteristics used to separate these two likely include magnitude and duration of peak and components are temporally dynamic. The fl oodplain low flows, bankfull discharge, stage vs. discharge is a highly variable area on one or both sides of the relationships, and seasonal groundwater changes. stream channel that is inundated by fl oodwaters at More detail on the information and equipment some interval. Two methods describe the fl oodplain: necessary to validate assumptions occurs later in hydrological and topographical. The hydrological this section. floodplain is the land adjacent to the base fl ow channel residing below bankfull elevation that is inundated about 2 years out of 3 (The Federal Goal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group Provide a riparian community representative of 1998). In contrast, the topographical fl oodplain the historic fl ora and fauna in a high valley of the is the land adjacent to the channel (including the southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat hydrologic fl oodplain) up to an elevation reached for migratory birds, large mammals, and river- by a flood peak of a given frequency (e.g., 100­ dependent species. year floodplain) (The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998). In some cases, Explanation these two metrics can result in the same delineation of the fl oodplain. Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). In the The transitional upland fringe is the zone between western United States, this is particularly true the fl oodplain and the surrounding upland with respect to riparian systems (Johnson et al. landscape. This zone can incorporate numerous 1977). In general, riparian habitats often support landscape features and vegetation communities a higher diversity of plant species, higher density, (e.g., forests and prairies). However, all transitional and more variable structure than associated upland fringes have one common attribute: they uplands (American Fisheries Society 1980). Current are distinguishable from uplands by their greater information indicates that riparian habitat along connection to the fl oodplain and stream (The the Illinois River supports a diverse assemblage Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working of rushes, sedges, grasses, and numerous species Group 1998). Objective 4 contains further discussion of willows (refuge fi les). Although birch (Betula of Illinois River form and function. spp.) and alder (Alnus spp.) are common along the Assumptions that were used during the decision- Michigan River, another tributary of the North making process included (1) channel incision has Platte River in North Park, these species currently occurred (See objective 4); (2) the width of the are not present along the Illinois River, and they 124 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan were not mentioned in the historical documents in patches in the lower third of the Illinois River located. Historically, the distribution of vegetation to benefi t nesting Neotropical migrant songbirds communities was highly variable because dynamic (yellow warbler, willow flycatcher) and resident river fl uctuations, herbivory, and local climatic moose and beaver. changes resulted in a constantly changing plant mosaic. Rationale The ability of riparian systems to support a diverse Woody vegetation is a common component on the assemblage of vertebrates is also well-documented Illinois River fl oodplain. Although cottonwood (Pashley et al. 2000). In fact, riparian habitats are (Populus spp.) is native to this region and some disproportionately more important for support of individual trees currently exist on the refuge, this wildlife than any other type of ecological habitat species occurs primarily at historic home sites (Cooper 1986). For example, fl oodplain vegetation and the staff does not consider reestablishment a provides habitats for more species of birds than priority. Rather, willow (Salix spp.) is the primary other vegetation associations in western North genera composing the woody component along America (Stanley and Knopf 2000), and in northern the river. Based on available information, as many Colorado, 82 percent of breeding bird species use as eight willow species are known to occur on riparian vegetation (Knopf 1985). Collectively, the the refuge, including sandbar willow (S. exigua), components (channel, fl oodplain, transitional upland Geyer’s willow (S. geyeriana), Wolf’s willow fringe) comprising this system provide habitat (S. wolfi i), diamondleaf willow (S. planifolia), for fi shes, large and small mammals, amphibians, Bebb willow (S. bebbiana), mountain willow (S. reptiles, wetland-dependent birds (waterfowl, monticola), whiplash willow (S. caudata), and shorebirds, wading birds), and a large diversity blueberry willow (S. pseudocordata) (refuge of passerines including Neotropical migrants and records; Canon and Knopf 1984). Additional shrub grassland birds. Species of primary management species that represent minor components include interest on the refuge include migratory birds interior rose (Rosa woodsii) and golden currant (Neotropical migrants, grassland birds, waterfowl, (Ribes aureum) (Stanley and Knopf 2000). shorebirds), whereas large mammals and channel dependent vertebrates (river otter, fishes) are a Several reasons exist for restoring and maintaining secondary focus. the willow community. First, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) of The potential for the refuge to manage for historic 1997 requires the refuge system to preserve unique flora remains high because seedbanks and budbanks or historic habitats if it is compatible with the are resilient (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982; Leck purpose of the refuge (16 U.S.C. 668d). Estimates 1989). Rather, the greatest challenge will be the of riparian habitat loss in the United States range ability to manage hydroperiods and herbivory in a from 70–90 percent (Council on Environmental manner necessary to: (1) stimulate establishment Quality 1978, Swift 1984); thus, protection of and ensure survival of some plant species (e.g., this habitat type is critical (Cooper 1986). At the willows); (2) mimic the structural variability current time, the extent and width of the woody required by different vertebrates; and (3) provide component of the riparian community on the refuge vegetation communities in a spatial confi guration is completely absent along several reaches in the required by certain area-sensitive vertebrates. The northern 33 percent of the refuge. Second, riparian ability to successfully manage for this diverse array plant communities (including willow) play an of plant communities will ultimately determine important role in the maintenance of water quality the populations of vertebrates that will inhabit and aquatic habitat, support distinct vegetation the riparian corridor. Although the refuge staff communities, and afford high-quality terrestrial believes that the majority of fauna that historically wildlife habitat (Thomas et al. 1979; Windell et al. occurred within the corridor will be supported 1986; Naiman et al. 1993; Stocek 1994). Finally, the by the following objectives, populations of some purpose for refuge establishment was to provide species will likely be lower than historic levels due habitat for migratory species (16 U.S.C. 715d). to constraints on area available and management Among this large assemblage are species (referred potential. to as Neotropical migrants) that migrate between South and North America. Objective Neotropical migratory species account for 45 Restore (50–100 acres) of dense (40- to 100-percent) percent of 58 area-sensitive bird species in willow in patches greater than 0.2 hectares and 20 riparian habitats (Freemark et al. 1995). Further, meters wide in the central third of the Illinois River many members of this species group currently (from the north end of the island to the confl uence are declining throughout much of their range with Spring Creek) to connect existing willow (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995) and some species patches and maintain 535 acres of dense willow (e.g., southwestern willow fl ycatcher) are listed as threatened or endangered (U.S. Fish and Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 125

Wildlife Service 1995). Approximately 50 percent of willow to the north would reduce the distance of the Neotropical migrants reported as declining between willow communities on the Illinois and are dependent on woody vegetation for foraging Michigan River and potentially provide benefi ts to and nesting (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). In a wider range of passerines by providing breeding arid climates such as Colorado, riparian habitats habitat, travel corridors to larger patches of woody represent obligate or preferred nesting sites habitat, and migratory stopover habitat (Winker et and support higher densities and diversities of al. 1992; Haas 1995; Thurmond et al. 1995; Machtans migrating and nesting birds (Carothers and Johnson et al. 1996; Kilgo et al. 1998; Hagar 1999). 1975; Stevens et al. 1977; Knopf 1985). The parameters used to determine the amount and The refuge currently supports some Neotropical structural characteristics of willow were based migrants that nest in woody vegetation. Research on available information. However, much of this conducted on the refuge indicate that yellow research was conducted in riparian areas outside warblers, American robins, song sparrows, of Colorado; thus, applicability to riparian habitats savannah sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, on the refuge may not be direct because a given brown-headed cowbirds, willow fl ycatchers, species, patterns in habitat use can vary from one Lincoln’s sparrows, and white-crowned sparrows geographic area to another (Hutto 1992), within represent greater than 90 percent of the breeding and among years (Karr and Freemark 1985), individuals within the local avifauna (Knopf et al. and diurnally (Stacier 1992). However, a lack of 1988). However, abundance of some species is low perfect or even moderate knowledge cannot be an and certain species known to occur in North Park impediment to conservation action (Pashley et al. have not been observed on the refuge (Knopf, 2000). unpublished data, refuge fi les). Although the causes for the lack of occurrence are unknown, a potential The exact dimensions (width, length) of the woody reason may be area size and isolation of willows. riparian community necessary to benefi t the most Past research on the requirements of breeding bird birds have received much discussion (Darveau communities suggests that area, in combination et al. 1993; Spackman and Hughes 1995). Several with isolation of woodland, is one of the most studies have indicated that widths greater than important considerations in maintaining natural 100 meters are required to support an unaltered diversity of breeding bird populations (Robbins 1979; bird assemblage (Keller et al. 1993; Hodges and Whitcomb et al. 1981; Askins et al. 1987; Blake and Krementz 1996; Kilgo et al. 1998; but see Gates Karr 1987; Lynch 1987). and Gysel 1978 for potential of areas to function as ecological traps). For example, riparian widths In general, species richness increases with the of 40–50 meters supported densities less than 50 area or width of riparian forests (Stauffer and Best percent of that observed in interior balsam fi r 1980; Dobkin and Wilcox 1986; Keller et al. 1993; forests (Whitaker and Montevecchi 1999). However, Freemark et al. 1995). Further, the abundance they did indicate that widths greater than 20 of migrants typically is higher in the interior of meters would provide benefi ts to a relatively riparian habitats (Szaro and Jakle 1985). However, diverse bird assemblage. Similar results have been the types of species and amount of use are often reported in other regions of the United States. influenced by geographic orientation and the type of Higher bird densities but fewer species were adjacent habitats. For example, species abundance documented in narrow (16–20 meter) versus wide can differ depending on slope (Dobkin and Wilcox (40–60 meter) riparian zones in Georgia (Thurmond 1986) and surrounding habitat types (Carothers et al. 1995), Quebec (Darveau et al. 1995), Rocky et al. 1974), and nest density can differ depending on Mountains (Kinley and Newhouse 1997), and orientation of habitat relative to migration pathways Oregon (Hagar 1999). Based on this information, the (Gutzwiller and Anderson 1992). refuge staff will attempt to establish willows in a minimum of 20-meter-wide zones along the Illinois Thus, the refuge staff has decided to restore River. However, the extent to which this objective additional areas of willow along the central portion can be accomplished is currently unknown because of the Illinois River and maintain or improve the the width of the current fl oodplain must fi rst be willow community along the southern extent of defi ned. the refuge. A primary reason for restoring willows along the central portion of the refuge is that Length, in addition to width, must also be research conducted in many areas of North America considered in determining the optimum shape of has suggested that habitat confi guration (size, riparian zones because proximity to edge infl uences shape, and geographical orientation) infl uences the use by many Neotropical migratory species relative importance of riparian habitats (Freemark (Whitcomb et al. 1981). We searched published et al. 1995); either by affecting presence or information on breeding habitat requirements of abundance (Askins and Philbrick 1987; Villard et al. Neotropical migratory birds occurring in Jackson 1995) and movements (Sutcliffe and Thomas 1996) County, Colorado to estimate the minimum area of species. In this context, increasing the extent required. Of the species for which information was 126 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan located, veery was the species with the largest area (Martin 1988). For example, the number of species requirement (20 hectares in Maryland; Robbins et observed often is correlated with increasing al. 1989). Based on an average width of 20 meters, foliage diversity (height, density). Although this the riparian zone would have to exceed 500 meters relationship is often explained as a function of in length to support breeding veery. Riparian increasing foraging niche space or food abundance areas with these dimensions would provide (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961; Willson 1974; potential breeding habitat for other Neotropical Martin 1984), information also exists that observed species, including but not limited to house wren, relationships result from correlation with suitable warbling vireo, orange-crowned warblers, nest sites (Oniki 1985; Martin 1988). Regardless, northern waterthrush, yellow-billed cuckoo, yellow such a relationship indicates that greater structural warbler, willow flycatcher, hairy woodpecker, diversity will support a greater number of species. downy woodpecker, white-breasted nuthatch, and Although the upper limits of vertical diversity western wood pewee (Galli et al. 1976, Robbins et along the Illinois River is somewhat constrained al. 1989, Hagar 1999; table A). However, based on because the woody component is almost exclusively the estimated area requirement (225 hectares) of shrubs (willow), management can be directed red-shouldered hawk, these areas will not support toward increasing horizontal diversity and vertical breeding raptors (Robbins et al. 1989). Although diversity less than 10 meters. However, objectives willow restoration at this scale may be ideal, the for habitat management must be relatively broad ability to accomplish an objective of this magnitude because riparian systems are dynamic and many is unknown because critical information on the habitat management practices (e.g., fi re, hydrology) functions of the river. Therefore, the refuge will cannot be controlled at the fi nite levels necessary to restore 50–100 acres of dense willows, in smaller affect a minute change in conditions (e.g., 40- to 45­ patch sizes of 0.5 acres for the 15-year plan, which percent canopy closure). will provide habitat for many edge and interior edge Neotropical species (table A). The refuge established structural requirements of the woody riparian community based on the In addition to area, structure is also an important breeding requirements of birds because: (1) component determining the types and abundance breeding requirements are more narrow than of species using wooded riparian habitats (Fleming migratory requirements; and (2) birds distribute and Giuliano 1998, Dieni and Anderson 1999). Bird among different layers of vegetation (Anderson species numbers typically increase with the density and Shugart 1974; Willson 1974; Martin 1984). Some and distribution of foliage among vertical strata information on the specific habitat requirements (Martin 1988). This is not surprising since birds are of species occurring in North Park was available, known to actively select habitat on the basis of such but most information was of a general nature that proximate factors as landscape features, terrain, provided undefi ned descriptions (e.g., dense/sparse, substrate, vegetative structure, or arrangement tall/short). We constructed a table A using this type of vegetation (Wiens 1969). In general, a more of information for individual bird species for the heterogeneous habitat allows co-occurrence of more purpose of identifying broad structural components species (May 1986) because species-specifi c habitat that would be managed within the woody riparian requirements are met (Karr 1982) and because component. We then used available quantifi able species may be spatially segregated (Martin 1986). information available for several species to defi ne In addition, some studies using artifi cial nests these broad terms. have found an inverse relation between predation rates and vegetation complexity in nesting habitat Research conducted on the refuge indicates that (Bowman and Harris 1980, Ratti and Reese 1988). yellow warblers select nest sites characterized by Therefore, the refuge has established guidelines the horizontal arrangement of willow, including to promote multiple shrub layers by managing for average distance to nearest willow (0.16 meter), variable heights ranging from 1–10 meters within average distance to farthest willow (0.4 meter), the woody riparian zone. and the average distance to the nearest willow in each of 4 quadrants (0.16 meter) (Knopf and Of all structural components that potentially Sedgwick 1992). This information suggests yellow influence habitat use by woodland passerines, warblers require clumps of uniform-sized bushes most studies have identified nesting and foraging characterized by moderate canopy closure. In a substrate as the two most important. If these similar study conducted on willow fl ycatchers, components are classified according to general nest sites were characterized by smaller distances groups (i.e., foraging=ground, low foliage, high between willow (0.8 + 0.2 meter [mean + standard foliage; nesting=cavity, ground, low foliage, error]) and greater willow the nest tree and 4 high foliage), comparisons indicate that a high nearest trees in each quadrant; larger willow percentage of variation in species numbers and patches and smaller gaps (0.4 + 0.5 meter) in 0.07­ species richness among areas are explained by hectare circular plots around nest sites, and greater viewing structure at this level of complexity willow coverage (49.3 + 2.3 percent) and less non­ Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 127

Table A. General breeding habitat requirements of selected woodland birds in North Park, Colorado

Breeda Neste Foragef Minimum Height Height Species Type Type Type General Habitat Characteristicsk patch (ha) (m) (m) open, moist, deciduous woods with good American Redstart I 118.0 F 4-12 A,F 3-6 undergrowth of shrubs/young trees Blackbird, Red-winged E 24.0 F <3 F <3 Bluebird, Mountain E C prefer forest edges and open habitats Chickadee C F >3 - >15 aspen/cottonwood preferred Black-capped IE 4.7 Mountain C F >3 - >15 prefer cattail or low streamside thickets; Common Yellowthroat IE 2.3 F <3;<0.5 F,G <3;<5.5 require open water Cowbird, Brown-headed E 2.3

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed IE 2.3 F <3; 0.5-6 old growth with dense understory

Dove, Mourning E 2.3 Flicker, Northern IE 1.8 C G Flycatcher Dusky F <3 dense shrubby understory mature conifer with little ground cover; Hammond’s 3-31 F 6-12 limited understory; some occur in shrubs conifers with snags and clearings; early post- Olive-sided Eb F 4.5-21 A fire communities; nearby water 2–3 layers of shrubs preferred; presence of water; dense shrub patches with openings for nesting; nest in areas with trees 3–15 m with or without distinct overstory and very Willow E 1.2 F 0.6-18h dense <2 m; forage in areas <10 m wide; shrub patches with canopy cover 40–100% and foliage density 50–70% in nesting shrub layerh Grosbeak, Rose- IE 24.0 breasted shortgrass with considerable bare ground Horned lark G G and grasses <3 cm; widely spaced shrubs <25 cm tall Jay, Stellar’s F >3 F >3 requires clear, slow-moving water; nest Kingfisher, Belted G W within 800 m of water; perching/nest sites limiting Nuthatch White-breasted I 4.7 C B prefer conifers/aspen over riparian

Red-breasted Ib C B Robin, American E 1.8 F >3 G

Solitaire, Townsend’s G F,G <3 forage in open areas of understory 128 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table A. General breeding habitat requirements of selected woodland birds in North Park, Colorado

Breeda Neste Foragef Minimum Height Height Species Type Type Type General Habitat Characteristicsk patch (ha) (m) (m)

Sparrow

Field E 28.0 dense/shrubby understory associated with Fox G G water boggy areas w/willows/sedges/aspen; wet ground for foraging; nest in dense sedges; Lincoln’sb E G G associated with warblers (yellow, Wilson’s), sparrows (song, fox, white-crowned), and dusky fl ycatcher avoid areas with extensive tree cover; prefer intermediate vegetation height and density, Savannah >10g sparse or low (<3 m) shrubs; forb:grass (25:75) requires grasslands, bare ground for foraging, and dense shrubs for nesting; White-crowned Eb G G associated with Wilson’s warbler and sparrows (fox, Lincoln’s) Swallow, violet-green C A Thrush prefer conifer/hardwood; leaf litter for Hermit F 1-3 F,G <2 foraging; drier than Swainson’s thrush similar to veery but less dense understory and larger willows growing in larger patches; associated with Swainson’s F 1-1.5 A sparrows(fox, song, Lincoln’s, white- crowned), warblers (yellow, Wilson’s), and fl ycatchers (dusky, willow) dry brushy areas with open spaces Towhee, Green-tailed F,G <3 G between shrubs Veeryb I 28.0 G G; <1.5 thick/dense understory widely spaced trees with little Vireo, Warbling 7.0d F >3 F >3-16 undergrowth and open canopy Warbler large shrubs; similar to orange-crowned MacGillivray’s F <3 F <3 warblers dense willows; associated with Virginia’s Orange-crowned F,G F >3; ALL and MacGillivray’s warblers Virginia’s G dense understory Wilson’s dense willows require tall singing posts and open space; breeding primarily in willows 1–2 m; Yellow E 0.05-0.45j F 0-15h A,F 0-16i shrub densities 60–80% optimal; avoid widely spaced shrubs and forests with closed canopiesi Yellow-rumped F 1.2-15 F,G prefer conifer/aspen Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 129

Table A. General breeding habitat requirements of selected woodland birds in North Park, Colorado

Breeda Neste Foragef Minimum Height Height Species Type Type Type General Habitat Characteristicsk patch (ha) (m) (m) Waterthrush, Northern thick/dense willows Woodpecker Downy IE 16.2 C 1.2-12 small, young trees with low canopy Hairy I 1.8 C 1.5-18 B mature forests with dense canopy; snags nests in shrubs (low density); requires trees with Wood Pewee, Western F 2-24 6-23 exposed branches Wren, House E 2.3 C F <3 prefer aspen/cottonwood aFrom Blake and Karr (1987). Patches sampled ranged from 1.8–600 ha. Habitat classifi cation (I=interior; IE=interior and edge) based on literature (Kendeigh 1982, Bohlen 1978, Whitcomb et al. 1981) and authors’ experience in Illinois. bFrom Whitaker and Montevecchi (1999). cRobbins et al. (1989) report 20 ha as minimum. dMaximum territory size according to Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1998). eFrom Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1998) and Martin (1988); C=cavity, F=foliage, G=ground.fFrom Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1998) and Martin (1988); A=air, B=bark, F=foliage, G=ground, W=water. gFrom Illinois (Herkert et al. 1993). hFrom Sogge et al. (1997). iFrom Morse (1966), Hutto (1981), Schroeder (1982), Knopf and Sedgwick (1992), Stevenson and Anderson (1994), Briskie (1995), Dunn and Garrett (1997), Lowther et al. (1999). jTerritory size, which is not equivalent to minimum patch size; from Fryendall (1967) and Lowther et al. (1999). kFrom Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1998) unless otherwise noted. willow coverage (50.7 + 12.4 percent) in 0.32­ was lower in forest/shrub edges compared to forest/ hectare circular plots surrounding the nest site field edges (57.4-percent shrub cover; 17.4-percent (Sedgwick and Knopf 1992). vertical cover, 14.7-meter shrub height). In western Oregon, the abundance of orange-crowned warblers, In the Wind River Range of Wyoming, the MacGillivray’s warblers, white-crowned sparrows, abundance of western wood-pewees and warbling house wrens, northern fl ickers, and Stellar’s jays vireos was greater in unburned aspen forests were greatest in logged sites, whereas Hammond’s because of greater canopy cover (46.9 percent) flycatcher abundance was greatest in unlogged sites and canopy depth (4.6 meter) compared to burned (Hagar 1999). Of the habitat variables quantifi ed aspen forests (18.3 percent canopy cover; 4.1­ in this study, the number of live stems, stems meter canopy depth) (Dieni and Anderson 1999). greater than or equal to 50 centimeters dbh, and In addition, orange-crowned warblers and dusky snags greater than 30 centimeters dbh were lower flycatchers were observed more in areas of (P less than 0.05) in logged (90.1 + 18.6 live stems, unburned sites; presumably because of greater 14.6 + 3.4 stems greater than 50 centimeters, shrub cover (19.6 percent in unburned sites and 8.6 and 11.2 + 1.8 snags) compared to unlogged sites percent in burned sites). However, overall species (139.3 + 15.5 live stems, 51.2 + 10.7 stems greater richness did not differ between unburned and than 50 centimeters, 18.3 + 3.2 snags), suggesting burned sites suggesting these species are tolerant that species abundances are related to structural of relatively wide ranges of habitat structure. characteristics effected by tree density (e.g., canopy A comparison of forest/field edges and forest/shrub closure, canopy depth) and cavity availability. edges in Pennsylvania suggest that the abundance Achieving the conditions stated in this objective of song sparrows, chipping sparrows, common should ensure some suitable habitat for the range yellowthroats, and brown-headed cowbirds were of Neotropical bird species that occur in North greater, and rose-breasted grosbeaks were lower, Park, including species that require dense, shrubby in forest/shrub edges (Fleming and Giuliano 1998). habitats and those species that require more open, Comparison of structural features densities (not widely-spaced woody cover. Regardless of area interpretable) within an area defined by indicated requirements, however, the ability of the refuge that shrub canopy cover (76.3 percent between to provide breeding habitat for the complete 0-2 meters) and vertical cover (68.8 percent) were assemblage of birds potentially occurring on the greater and sapling height (5.0 meters maximum) refuge will not be possible. For example, many 130 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan species considered (table A) require cavities for and seedling establishment on alluvial sands on nesting, but potential cavity sites are limited on sites that are not susceptible to mechanical damage the refuge because willow is the dominant woody by flooding and rain (Moss 1938; Engstrom 1948; vegetation. Therefore, accomplishing this objective Segelquist et al. 1993). Therefore, even if slims and will not provide habitat for the entire assemblage of bare-root stock are used, success will be dependent birds known to occur in this habitat type. However, largely on the ability to control groundwater it may provide potential breeding habitat for fluctuations, particularly rate, duration, and depth several Neotropical species that currently do not of groundwater decline (Segelquist et al. 1993). breed on the refuge. Results of some studies indicate that a gradually Although based on breeding requirements of declining water table promotes root growth to a Neotropical birds, numerous other species will also greater depth than a static water table (Fenner benefit from increasing the willow community on et al. 1984; Segelquist et al. 1993). Thus, minor the refuge. For example, the target dimensions of groundwater fl uctuations can be advantageous, woody riparian habitat will also provide migratory but extreme fluctuations will tend to result in habitat for numerous passerines, forage and cover mortality. For cottonwood (P. deltoides), available for large mammals (e.g., moose, elk, mule deer) information suggests that rates of decline exceeding (Allen et al. 1987; Snyder 1991), and migratory and 2 centimeters per day (Segelquist et al. 1993) and breeding habitat for several species of waterfowl 4 centimeters per day (Mahoney and Rood 1991) (e.g., mallard, gadwall, and teal) (Colorado Breeding result in significant mortality. Results of these Bird Atlas 1998). Further, riparian buffers along studies provide useful information for estimating small headwater streams (e.g., Illinois River) the level of groundwater control necessary. may be instrumental in maintaining populations However, if established from seed, willow may be of amphibians associated with riparian habitat in more sensitive to groundwater fl uctuations the closed-canopy forests (Vesely 1997). first month following germination; willow seeds obtain moisture from a smaller volume of sediment Strategies (Friedman et al. 1995). Numerous strategies have been used to successfully Another consideration that must be accounted for is reintroduce willows, including establishment the possibility of mortality following establishment. from seed, planting slims or bare-root stock, and Although willow seedlings are capable of excavation and movement of existing willows withstanding fl oods for two growing season (Svejcar et al. 1991; Friedman et al. 1995; Houle and (Walters et al. 1980), they also are susceptible to Babeux 1998; Pezeshki et al. 1998). The viability mortality through scouring during subsequent and costs of each method varies depending on local high fl ows (Everitt 1968; Segelquist et al. 1993; environmental conditions and availability of a plant Friedman 1993). Such events are common within source. Information necessary to decide on the best the channel and on the floodplain during certain strategy of restoration includes data on dates of portions of the year. Once established, various seed fall, area that can be expected to receive seed, other factors (e.g., herbivory, fi re) can potentially area that experiences surface fl ooding, groundwater cause significant mortality. Although strategies fl uctuations (including peaks, seasonal fl uctuations, (e.g., sleeves, exclosures, and fi re breaks) exist for etc.) at different elevations within the fl oodplain and reducing the impact of these mortality factors, the transitional fringe, current vegetation conditions, best solution(s) will likely vary depending on site and water management capabilities (surface and conditions and location. Therefore, the refuge staff groundwater). will evaluate options and make decisions on a site­ by-site basis. In general, germination of willow seed requires bare, moist substrates that are free of shade Objective (Johnson et al. 1976; Bradley and Smith 1986; Rood and Mahoney 1990; Scott et al. 1993). Provide 3,630–3,845 acres, over a 5-year average, Appropriate conditions can be created using of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed several combinations of strategies, including fi re, primarily of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, herbicides, scraping sod, and water management forbs) characterized by 10-30 centimeters VOR, (Friedman et al. 1995). During the initial 0-10 centimeters duff layer and minimal (less than establishment phase, however, soil moisture 5 percent) bare ground and less than 40-percent conditions are critical to ensure survival (Pezeshki (canopy closure) willow to benefit nesting waterfowl et al. 1998). Seedlings of most cottonwood and (pintail, shoveler, gadwall, green-winged teal) and willow species are intolerant of low moisture sage grouse broods. (McLeod and McPherson 1973; Krasny et al. 1988). Numerous studies have indicated that rainfall alone is insufficient to support seed germination Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 131

Objective al. 1993; Vickery et al. 1994). Therefore, as with the willow community, size and dimension of the Provide 210–700 acres, over a 5-year average, of area must be considered. Some species typically a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed do not nest in small grassland fragments (Samson primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, forbs, 1980; Herkert 1994; Vickery et al. 1994) or near and rushes) characterized by greater than 30 grassland edges (Johnson and Temple 1986; Delisle centimeters VOR, 10-20 centimeters duff layer and 1995; Helzer 1996) because nest depredation and minimal (less than 5 percent) bare ground, and less parasitism are often higher (Johnson and Temple than 40-percent (canopy closure) willow from mid- 1986; Johnson and Temple 1990; Burger et al. 1994). April through August to benefi t nesting waterfowl A literature review of species known to nest in this (mallard, gadwall, pintail, scaup), songbirds region suggests that most are found on grasslands (savannah sparrow, meadowlark), and foraging greater than 5 hectares, but nest densities of these shorebirds if fl ooded (snipe, phalarope, white-faced species are much higher if the grassland is greater ibis, sora, curlew, willet). than 30-50 hectares (Helzer 1996; Herkert 1994; Johnson and Temple 1990; Martin and Gavin 1995). Rationale Currently, the size of grass-dominated habitats is not limiting, but the size of areas conforming to each Herbaceous vegetation is a component of riparian of the objectives is currently unknown. The refuge systems nationwide. The dominant herbaceous staff will evaluate current conditions based on the species within the Illinois River corridor are parameters in each objective and ensure that blocks primarily perennial species classified as obligate of sufficient size are provided in each category. or facultative wetland plants that are tolerant of temporary surface fl ooding and seasonally high In addition, species that use fl oodplain grasslands groundwater tables. These species, including have varying requirements with regards to foods rushes, sedges, grasses, and forbs are adapted to and structural requirements for nesting and brood- the short growing season (less than 40 days), low rearing. The refuge established requirements annual precipitation (less than 10 inches), and high for vegetation structure based primarily on the annual evapo-transpiration rates characteristic breeding requirements of grassland nesting ducks of North Park. The species composition has been and ground-nesting grassland birds. Most of the modified by the introduction of additional grasses, information used to establish requirements for but invasive, nonnative species currently occupy these species was from studies in other geographic less than 5 percent of the land base and current areas and some of the studies used undefi ned terms floristics do not appear to be reducing the value of (e.g., dense, tall, thick) rather than numeric values. the area to wildlife (refuge fi les). However, it was the best information available and future monitoring will help determine the The primary species of management concern in the extent to which the information is applicable to the grassland-dominated portion of the riparian zone refuge. Table B summarizes the information used to are nesting waterfowl and grassland-dependent identify grassland requirements. passerines. Both groups represent trust resources for the refuge. The enabling legislation for the The most important structural characteristics refuge specifi cally identifi es waterfowl production are vegetation height and density, residual cover as a purpose of the refuge. Grassland birds, (duff), and shrub density. Differences in grass cover although not specifically mentioned, are migratory required by breeding birds can be separated into and currently declining in many areas of North two broad groups based on nesting requirements. America (Herkert 1995). The most abundant duck Species, including mallard, scaup, and gadwall species nesting on the refuge are blue-winged teal, require taller, denser cover to conceal nests (Holm gadwall, scaup, wigeon, mallard, and pintail (refuge 1984; Livezey 1981; Lokemoen et al. 1984; Austin files). Based on refuge banding records, monitoring et al. 1998; LeSchack et al. 1997), whereas other avian productivity and survivorship (MAPS) species, such as pintail, teal, western meadowlark, station data (refuge fi les), Partners in Flight Savannah and vesper sparrows, bobolink, and (PIF) scores (Pashley et al. 2000), and regional upland sandpiper prefer shorter, less dense cover species of concern (refuge fi les), grassland birds (Madden 1996; Skinner et al. 1984; Lanyon 1994; of management interest are savannah sparrow, Wheelwright and Rising 1993; Livezey 1981; Austin western meadowlark, vesper sparrow, bobolink, and Miller 1995; Kantrud and Higgins 1992). The upland sandpiper, and Wilson’s phalarope. cover requirements for both groups are provided by a combination of new growth and residual Numerous studies have demonstrated that vegetation often referred to as duff or litter. grassland size is an important factor determining avian use of grasslands for both foraging and Most waterfowl and gallinaceous birds depend on nesting (Wiens 1969; Herkert 1991; Madden 1996; residual vegetation for initial nesting attempts and Greenwood et al. 1995; Clark 1977; Herkert et duff is an extremely important factor in nest site selection by dabbling ducks and ground-nesting 132 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table B. General Breeding Habitat Requirements of Selected Grassland Birds in North Park, Colorado

General Nest Territory Patch Grass Forbs Shrubs Duff VOR Species Habitat Type (ha) (ha) (%) (%) (%) (cm) (cm) Characteristics

>5c; mod. a a 35 m 0-3 nest in dense western b sensitivec, m 10-22 1.2­ G 2-13 32-52 m vegetation with meadow­ depredation highb low-mod.b 2.0 little or thick litter lark less on highb nob covers,t >130aa 24-41m 2.9-5.3m 2-7n, sensitived, 0-4 27a, very open country may occur e territorya, n littled, sparse with short Savannah <5g, 0-20 1-6 nesta, 1.4­ G .05-1.25d 25:75 vegetation, sparrow >10 in Ill.c, shrublessf well­ 2.4m 21-42m forbs: moist grassy >40 for 50% developedd grassi, meadows,u occurrencel 15-40m 2.5-5.7m 16-30m sparsely a or patchily vesper 30 0-7n 0-3a distributed sparrow 0-10n shrubs with good grass coveru

>50 for 50% 0-4 a grassy meadows occurrencel, 28a territory r m m with nearby bobolink G .45-2.0 much higher 32-48 12-30 a 18-31m 1-6 nest forbs and high densities >30 s r litter cover than <10 1.1-5.3m 48-50 o and 43­ 14.7 mallard G 49 cm >20q tallp tall vegetation cover in native scaup G 16o prairie, meadow, or sparse shrubw 22-24 blue- and 37­ winged G 15.1o dense, tall covers 39 cm teal tallp open sites with northern low vegetation, G sparse 11.7o pintail residual cover of short grassesx

48-60 cm tallp, o 17.3 dense grasses, gadwall G 25 and forbs, or shrubsy >30 cm >20q tally

low grass/sedge or fairly dense common low, low woody G 2-12z snipe sparsek growth with open terrain nearbys Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 133

Table B. General Breeding Habitat Requirements of Selected Grassland Birds in North Park, Colorado

General Nest Territory Patch Grass Forbs Shrubs Duff VOR Species Habitat Type (ha) (ha) (%) (%) (%) (cm) (cm) Characteristics

0-15 and upland thick, mid-height G <30 cm 0-8n sandpiper grasslandss talln moist sedge/rush sparse meadows with Wilson’s G to mod. <20j low vegetation phalarope densej and adjacent open waters aWiens (1969) hHerkert (1991) oHolm (1984) uSchaid et al. (1983) bDechant et al. (1999) iHerkert et al. (1993) pLivezey (1981) vMueller (1999) cHelzer (1996) jKantrud and Higgins (1992) qLokemoen et al. (1984) wAustin et al. (1998) dSwanson (1998) kArnold (1994) rMartin and Gavin (1995) xAustin and Miller (1995) eWheelwright and Rising (1993) lHerkert (1994) sColorado Breeding Bird Atlas yLeSchack et al. (1997) fArnold and Higgins (1986) mMadden (1996) (1998) zWilliamson (1960) gPotter (1972) nSkinner et al. (1984) tLanyon (1994) aaJohnson and Temple (1990) grassland birds (Wiens 1969; Clark 1977; Kirsch et In addition, some species of management interest al. 1978; Leopold 1933). Ground-nesting grassland are dependent on the presence of forbs in birds and dabbling ducks preferring shorter, grasslands either as a nesting site for females or as less dense cover (e.g., northern pintail and teal) song perches for males. Based on the requirements are typically found where duff layers are less of western meadowlark, Savannah sparrow, vesper than 10 centimeters (Swanson 1998; Wiens 1969; sparrow, and bobolink, the literature indicates Madden 1996). In contrast, dabbling ducks nesting that a minimum composition of 10-percent forbs in the San Luis Valley of Colorado use denser is required (Wiens 1969; Skinner et al. 1984; cover characterized by duff layers that exceed 10 Madden 1996; Dechant et al. 1999). Although centimeters (Laubhan and Gammonley, unpublished currently unknown, the refuge will determine the data). forb composition of grassland-dominated habitats through monitoring and use various strategies to The effects of these characteristics on avian either maintain or improve the forb community. grassland use are most obvious in grasslands subject to different management practices. For Based on a review of the literature, the species example, a study at Malheur National Wildlife of management interest are tolerant of scattered Refuge (Clark 1977) showed that duck nest woody vegetation. In fact, some nesting dabbling densities were highest where grazing and mowing ducks (e.g., mallard, green-winged teal, and were prohibited the previous season, intermediate gadwall) will build nests at the base of shrubs where partial mowing but no grazing were allowed, (Austin et al. 1998; Kingery 1998; LeSchack et and lowest where grazing and mowing were al. 1997). Ground-nesting grassland birds are unrestricted the previous season. Higher residual somewhat less tolerant of woody vegetation but cover on the ungrazed and unmowed units was many are found in grasslands with 10- to 40-percent the single best parameter explaining the higher shrub cover (Madden 1996, Schaid et al. 1983). nest densities (Clark 1977). Other duck nesting Although scattered willows are likely to become studies have shown similar results (Reeves 1954; established within the grasslands, no attempt will Salyer 1962; Martz 1967; Oetting and Cassell 1971). be made to reduce willows until canopy closure Structural changes have more varied consequences exceeds 40 percent because many species are for non-game birds. For example, studies in tolerant of such conditions. Alberta and Saskatchewan found that some species preferred the structural conditions in ungrazed The refuge used the above information to establish and unmowed grasslands (Savannah sparrow, the two grassland objectives. Management to Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit), other species achieve these objectives will occur in the portion preferred grazed or mowed grasslands (horned lark, of the floodplain that will not be restored to McCown’s longspur, chestnut collared longspur), willows. The relative proportion of habitat in each while some species were unaffected by grazing objective is not equal; however, objective 3 (10-30 or mowing (western meadowlark, clay-colored centimeters VOR) is being weighted more heavily. sparrow) (Owens and Myres 1973; Maher 1973; This decision was based largely on the capability Karuziak et al. 1977). to manage the riparian corridor for both habitat 134 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan types. Past modifications limit the ability of the E-channel as low gradient, meandering riffl e/pool refuge to manage some areas for dense cover. For morphology stream with low width to depth ratio example, the highest elevations that is thought to and little deposition occurring. E-channels are be only minimally impacted by groundwater, and is considered to be the most stable channel types and known to be difficult to irrigate, are best suited for will encourage willow development; they provide objective 3, and whereas the areas nearest the river the best habitat for trout. These are very effi cient are likely to be easier to obtain conditions stated in and stable streams found in broad valley/meadows objective 2. over alluvial materials and characterized by well vegetated banks. Minimizing disturbance to Strategies streambanks will facilitate E-channel development. Because extensive areas of grasslands currently A thalweg is the deepest point on a stream channel exist within the riparian habitat, management will cross section, and typically the deepest point on be directed primarily toward maintaining existing the valley floor. Functioning streams exhibit well areas. This will be accomplished by numerous defined thalwegs that move side to side as a stream methods, including but not limited to water meanders. Sinuosity is the ratio of the valley slope management, prescribed fire, grazing management, to the stream slope. E-channels exhibit sinuosity and haying. These management practices affect of greater than 1.2, but 2.0–2.5 is preferred. Pool vegetation height, density, grass:forb ratio, and spacing for E-channels is generally every four duff layer and thus avian use of grasslands (Clark to seven channel widths. Point bar formation is 1977; Mundinger 1976; Oetting and Cassel 1971; another characteristic of streams that transport Salyer 1962; Enright 1971; Kaiser 1976; Kirsch water and sediment efficiently. Stream gradients and Higgins 1976; Owens 1971; Owens and Myres are defined as the rise/run along the longitudinal 1973; Maher 1973; Dambach 1944; Madden 1996). profile of the stream. Functioning streams exhibit Initially grasslands will be monitored to assess higher gradients over riffle areas (Rosgen 1996). current structural conditions, forb distribution, and nonnative distribution. In areas of low (less than 10 Rationale percent) forb composition, attempts will be made to increase this component by seeding in combination This objective recognizes the altered Illinois with the above listed activities. Areas that contain River condition. The refuge will strive to produce greater than 10 percent nonnative species (i.e., a naturally functioning channel, given fl ow and less than 90 percent natives) will be identifi ed and irrigation shortcomings. Understanding the attempts made to reduce the composition of these location and functional processes of the fl oodplain plants using herbicides, biological control, water and transitional fringe are crucial to improving level management, or other management practices management on the refuge because these processes that have proven useful in other areas. determine the potential composition and structure of vegetation and, therefore, the associated wildlife Objective benefits (Pashley et al. 2000). In addition, a greater understanding of these Given the altered river fl ow regime, provide a processes will allow the refuge staff to identify properly functioning river channel characterized by potential management strategies that have a high a well defined thalweg, outside river edges that are probability of success. However, delineation of the deeper than inside edges, a river sinuosity of 2.0– floodplain and transitional upland fringe along the 2.5, pool spacing every 7–9 channel widths, active Illinois River that traverses the refuge is diffi cult. point bar formation, and gradients in riffles that are higher than in pools to benefi t willow establishment First, the hydrology of the river in North Park for Neotropical migrants, and indirectly provide has been altered greatly; thus, it is not possible suitable habitat for native and non-native fi shes. to assume that historic indicators (e.g., location of landforms) can be used to define these components. Rosgen (1996) developed a stream classifi cation This statement is based on the fact that an system that provided guidelines for identifi cation extensive irrigation and water storage system of stream channel types. This stream classifi cation has been developed within the riparian system. system utilizes the following criteria: channel However, the impacts of these developments are gradient, sinuosity, width/ratio, dominate difficult to quantify because the historic gauge particle size of bed and bank material, channel station on the refuge has been removed. entrenchment, channel confi nement, landform features and stream bank stability. Utilizing this Second, even if existing gauges were still in place, stream classification system, the Illinois River many of the original alterations leading to water on the refuge is classified as a C-channel. The diversions occurred prior to the establishment preferred, and most stable channel, is an E-channel of USGS gauge stations. This is supported by (narrower and deeper). Rosgen (1996) describes an conversations with the state water engineer Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 135 and local ranchers who have stated that water discharge may have been reduced compared to management has not changed appreciably in the historical. This latter observation is supported by: last 100 years and 50 years, respectively. The (1) dominance of large substrates (e.g., cobble) in refuge attempted to confirm these statements the river channel; (2) increased sedimentation in by comparing USGS data from 1935–1939 and palustrine basins that have been developed within 1995–1999 that was collected at Rand, Colorado the riparian corridor; and (3) lack of signifi cant (http://nwis-colo.cr.usgs.gov and http://co.water. point-bar formation within the channel. usgs.gov/nwis/). Several diversions (e.g., McFarland Reservoir, landowner ditches) occur between Irrigation practices may remove the peak water the gauge and the refuge boundary; thus, the flows, alter sediment loads, and change the usefulness of this information for purposes of duration of water events critical to stream function. refuge management is poor. Regardless, the data Collectively, this information suggests that the confirms that the hydrology of the river, at least at equilibrium equation is currently unbalanced. this location, has not changed appreciably during During a December 2000 workshop, these the past 40 years based on comparisons of peak factors were considered in relation to a channel discharge, fl ow duration curves and seven day evolution diagram that depicts the current stage of minimum fl ows. disequilibrium and theoretically may help predict future changes in habitat or stream morphology In general, the Illinois River at Rand is (The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration characterized by: (1) peak flows (500–600 cfs) in Working Group 1998). Based on the diagram spring that are of short duration; (2) 90 percent of produced by Simon (1989), the staff classifi ed flows do not exceed 5 cfs; and (3) minimum daily the channel as either degrading or degrading­ flows are about 2 cfs. Further, a spatial comparison and-widening. Characteristics associated with of the river channel on the refuge indicates the river this classifi cation include large scallops and bank has not undergone appreciable lateral migration retreat, reduction or fl attening in bank angles, during this period. a flow line that is low relative to the top of the bank, and a prediction that a new fl oodplain will be Although it is not possible to mathematically developed (Simon 1989). derive the location and extent of the fl oodplain and transitional fringe because both current and Despite the fact that the refuge currently lacks pre-development information is unavailable, the detailed information necessary to quantify current refuge staff has evaluated the riparian system and predict future channel changes, available within the limits of their ability and have concluded information suggests that the elevation of the the channel is in a state of change even though channel is lower than historic conditions. Because management has remained relatively static during the intensity and frequency of flooding is important the past few decades. This conclusion is supported in determining community structure and system by several subjective assessments. First, an functions (Odum 1978), this directional change October 2000 evaluation of several river reaches affects not only the channel, but also the fl oodplain using the Rosgen method (Rosgen 1996) suggests and associated fringe (Baxter 1977; Lillehammer the river is functional-at-risk. Specifi c factors and Saltveit 1984). For example, lower channel identified during the evaluation included evidence elevation, coupled with lower peak fl ows, reduces of channel incision, reduction in fi ne sediment load, the frequency, duration, and extent of overbank and occasional mass failure of banks (i.e., sloughing). flooding. Consequently, the current width of the Further, indications of the direction of change can floodplain, as defined by hydrologic parameters, be assessed by placing these observations in the is narrower than the historic fl oodplain. Although context of the channel equilibrium equation (Lane the current extent of the floodplain has not been 1955). quantified, staff observations during the past 15 years indicate that the maximum extent surface Qs • D50 % Qw • S, where… water extends onto the fl oodplain is about 137

Qs = sediment discharge, D50 is sediment particle size, meters(150 yards). Consequently, the transitional Q is streamflow, and S = stream slope upland fringe has encroached toward the channel w during the past four decades. Channel equilibrium occurs when all four of the above variables are in balance. If one variable More information must be obtained on the current changes, one or more of the other variables must hydrology of the riparian zone prior to initiating increase or decrease proportionally (The Federal restoration efforts. Data on bankfull discharge, Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group seasonal and peak flows, and stage vs. discharge 1998). In the case of the Illinois River on the relationships must be developed. This will require refuge, channel incision suggests stream slope establishing gauge stations to monitor river fl ows, may be increasing, whereas the small amount of placement of peizometers (or other equipment) fine sediment suggests that sedimentation size or perpendicular to the channel at various locations to monitor groundwater fl uctuations, and obtaining 136 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan elevation data at several points along the channel. General Consideration of Areas In combination, this information will allow areas with highest potential for restoration to be Specifi ed selected, identify the best method of restoration The area of each habitat component (defi ned by (e.g., seeds, slims), and allow development of the objectives) will vary over time depending on most appropriate water management strategies at annual and seasonal conditions (e.g., river fl ow, different sites within the riparian zone. precipitation). Efforts to restore the Illinois River channel will In addition, it is likely that some areas originally most likely improve the refuge fi shery resource. meeting the conditions of one objective will develop Fish are primarily found only in the Illinois River conditions that meet another objective. For and other aquatic sites, including Potter Creek, example, grasslands with less cover (objective 3) Spring Creek and refuge ponds, represent poor may develop more cover (objective 2). Such changes fishery habitat. Water depth and winter survival is (succession) are natural and have many benefi ts the limiting factor in most of these systems. Winter­ (e.g., nutrient cycling, soil stabilization) other than kill is a common problem with many of the lakes on providing wildlife habitat. Therefore, the refuge has the refuge and throughout North Park. Fish species established broad tolerances in the area (hectare) found in the other aquatic sites include longness of each habitat that will be provided. This is based dace, creek chub, white sucker, long-nosed sucker, on the concept that disturbance-driven spatial and fathead minnow, and johnny darter (Kehmeier temporal variability is a vital attribute of nearly all 2001). ecological systems (Landres et al. 1999). The Illinois River is a transition stream, Further, managing within the constraints of site beginning as a trout stream in the headwaters and variability and history is easier, requires fewer transitioning to a native species stream by the external subsidies, and is more cost effective than time it meets the Michigan River. This transition attempting to achieve management goals that appears to occur as the river crosses the refuge. are outside the bounds of the system (Allen and The lower flows experienced at the north end of Hoekstra 1992). Conditions that collectively fall the refuge may be responsible for the trout giving within the established ranges will be suffi cient to way to the more tolerate native species. Trout are provide some habitat for species of interest in most, not native to North Park streams. Sampling in 1998 if not all, years. found that upstream from the refuge, the fi shery is dominated by brook and brown trout at or near carrying capacity of 114 kilograms per hectare of Wetland biomass. Sampling near the Allard bridge found a To facilitate discussion and future management high diversity of habitats, and the highest species planning, the refuge staff defined wetland habitat count (six native species and one nonnative). Brown as all natural and created ponds and lakes up to trout are reproducing and demonstrate recruitment the high water mark, excluding the surrounding in the Illinois River. Rainbow trout were not meadows and riparian corridor. This habitat, sampled in 1998; however, they may exist because henceforth referred to as basins or wetlands, of previous Colorado Division of Wildlife stocking composes 824 acres based on National Wetland efforts. Sampling downstream of the Ward Ditch Inventory (NWI) land coverage for the refuge. No. 1 found mostly native species mentioned above. Three wetland complexes were identifi ed for Instream structure is limited to willow root management purposes, mainly based on location: balls, aquatic vegetation (Elodia, Potamogeton, Case, Illinois River, and Soap Creek. Meadow and filamentous algae) and small woody debris. habitat is defined as the grasslands/old hay Beaver dams, common on the upstream end of the meadows on all areas of the refuge except those system, help the system become more dynamic and along the riparian corridor (which are considered provide excellent angling opportunities. Continued part of the riparian habitat) and consist of 2,683 stream bank protection is critical to sustaining acres. the fi shery resource. Degraded stream banks Of the wetlands on the refuge, about 10 percent exhibit shallow water spread over a wide stream are natural freshwater basins and about 90 channel. Deep water pools are critical to sustain percent are created freshwater basins. Meadows healthy fi sh populations. Fishery habitat efforts characteristically occur adjacent to wetland basins must focus restoring natural structure and function in lowland sites and in the more upland areas that to the Illinois River and will result in better are irrigated. The Illinois River, Spring Creek, Soap fishery habitat. A fishery management step-down Creek, and Potter Creek fl ow through the refuge management plan will be prepared by 2005. and are the major source of water to basins and meadows through natural subsurface and surface flows and via a complex ditch irrigation system. Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 137

Origination of the ditches occurs both on- and off- private landowners mostly for domestic and stock refuge with the Illinois River as the major water use (Voegeli 1965). Three major reservoirs (Case source. Other surface and groundwater resources 1, 2, and 3), germ and the fish hatchery ponds were also affect the timing, duration, frequency, and created prior to refuge establishment. However, the depth of flooding among sites. majority of semipermanent/permanent basins were created by the refuge. Goals Largely due to past ranching practices and the construction of various water control structures Wetland Goal (including ditches), the extent of sagebrush habitat has declined and the structure and composition Provide and manage natural and constructed of many of the sagebrush and wetland systems permanent and semipermanent wetlands (in three have changed. Because the historic conditions of wetland complexes) to provide habitat for migratory these sites are largely unknown, a complete and waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and associated accurate description of the structural and functional wetland-dependent wildlife. modifications that have occurred is not possible. Nonetheless, the complex of roads and ditches on Meadow Goal the refuge has invariably altered historic hydrologic Provide and manage irrigated, grass-dominated regimes by impounding more water for longer meadows historically developed for hay production, periods in some areas and less water for shorter to support sage grouse broods, waterfowl nesting, periods in other areas. and meadow-dependent migratory birds. Differences among wetlands and meadows vary Justifi cation largely due to: (1) refuge infrastructure (e.g., roads and ditches that affect water fl ow, control Water resources are limited in the west and a structures); (2) management (e.g., fl ooding, burning, variety of wetland types (e.g., permanently fl ooded grazing, no action); (3) position in the landscape wetlands, seasonally fl ooded meadow) are needed (e.g., degree of slope in and around basin or to provide the required life resources of migratory meadow, size of depression, aspect/solar exposure, birds and other wildlife. Wetland systems are horizontal and vertical proximity to the river and characterized by their fl ooding patterns (e.g., water table, juxtaposition of habitat types); and (4) timing, frequency, duration, depth) (Mitsch and soil characteristics (water-holding capacity, organic/ Gosselink 1993) that directly and indirectly mineral content). Collectively, these characteristics determine plant productivity and wildlife use. of basins and meadows affect water quality and the Wetland complexes (proximate wetlands with availability of moisture and nutrients that infl uence different hydrologic regimes) often favor the plant composition and productivity (Mitsch and availability of resources for wetland-dependent Gosselink 1993). Different types, abundances, wildlife in dry and wet years. and distributions of plants create varied habitat conditions that, in turn, support a diversity of Wetland and meadow on the refuge have been wildlife. altered by various artificial disturbances. Because North Park is a cold mountain desert, we assume Plants in and around wetlands characteristically are that historically, aside from the river, most of the distributed in zones largely based on differences water sources likely were temporal and/or seasonal. in soil and moisture (Castelli et al. 2000). Plants in Early (circa 1900) settlers of Colorado created wetland habitat on include species that are adapted grassland meadows and dry-land crops in river to semipermanent/permanent fl ooding regimes bottomlands and adjacent sagebrush habitat where (standing water), a short growing season (33 days), soils were suitable and irrigation was possible high daily and annual temperature fl uctuations (25– (Rogers 1964). 40°F, -49–96°F, respectively), and cold mean annual temperatures (36.5°:F) (climate data from various With the intent of maximizing cattle production, sources in Kuhn et al. 1983). Species in wetland previous landowners presumably used seeps, habitat are dominated by perennials, including springs, natural contours, and areas with high submergents (e.g., sago pondweed, widgeongrass), water tables to create much of the meadows and tall emergents (e.g., cattail and bulrush), and perhaps a few of the artificial basins. These areas short emergents (a mix of grasses, rushes, sedges, were used as watering holes, productive range sites, and forbs). The short emergent sites occurring and irrigated hay meadows. Reports indicate that within the high water mark likely are a result of irrigated hay meadows were common in Jackson fluctuating water levels among dry and wet years County before refuge establishment (Rogers 1964). and, therefore, are limited in size and relatively Historical records show that at least fi ve selected short-lived when high water levels persist. These wells on the refuge were drilled around 1956 by short emergent areas within wetland habitat are a continuum into meadow habitat (e.g., Windell et 138 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan al. 1986). Thus, while the boundary defi ning the of conditions (e.g., height, density, composition, margins of wetland and meadow sites remains the water depth) must be provided within each of same (i.e., defined by the high water mark), the the habitat types (i.e., upland, riparian, wetland, habitat conditions within each habitat type may meadow) at particular times in the year (e.g., vary within seasons and among years. Nonetheless, nesting, migration). Each objective describes periodic disturbances (e.g., fl ooding/drying) are a range of habitat conditions that is within the necessary to continually provide diverse habitat management capabilities of the refuge. Collectively, conditions and to maintain system productivity. these objectives support a high diversity of wildlife species. The ability for the refuge to provide (1) wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, Wetlands wading birds, and associated wildlife; and (2) meadow habitat for sage grouse broods, waterfowl The refuge will try to manipulate wetlands to nesting, and meadow-dependent migratory birds fulfill the habitat needs of the diverse wetland- has been achieved in past and recent years (refuge dependent wildlife. Much of the information on fi les). Regardless, adaptive management practices wetland species-habitat relationships results from will be implemented to improve the quality studies conducted outside the intermountain region. and quantity of those resources and to increase While the existing information describes potentially management efficiency (cost vs. benefit). In this important relationships, we must consider the process, changes on- and off-refuge that potentially source of information (e.g., what, where, when, why, influence management are considered. and how data collected) when actual and theoretical outcomes do not coincide. The relative importance of a particular habitat or wildlife species often changes or new information Wetland habitat selection by water birds is (e.g., species-habitat relationships or management largely dependent on species and scale (Brown strategies) influences management approach. For and Dinsmore 1986; Gibbs et al. 1991; Orians and example, sage grouse has become a species of Wittenberger 1991). Studies have demonstrated concern in North Park, and we are evaluating how that wetland use by breeding birds that are we can best support the species throughout the wide-ranging (e.g., black tern, northern pintail) is annual cycle (nesting, brooding, and wintering). greatly infl uenced by landscape level features (e.g., landscape heterogeneity, wetland isolation/density, Wetland and Meadow Objectives surrounding habitat types and conditions), while use by other birds (e.g., Virginia rail, pied-billed grebe) Rationale largely is affected by habitat characteristics within the area of the nest wetland (e.g., local vegetation Because the habitat characteristics (e.g., vegetation conditions; Brown and Dinsmore 1986; Naugle et al. composition and structure) on the refuge are not 1999; Naugle et al. 2001). Farmer and Parent (1997) currently quantifi ed, we used the known habitat indicated that the foraging effi ciency of migrating requirements of a select group of wildlife species shorebirds increases when the distance between to facilitate the process of writing habitat-based small wetlands decreases, forming a complex. objectives. Required resources of the selected species effectively represent the range of potential At the wetland scale, habitat characteristics that habitat conditions that naturally may have occurred variably affect wetland use by water birds largely in wetland and meadow. As stated in the goal, include wetland size and type, distance to shore, wetland habitat on the refuge will be managed amount and distribution of shoreline vegetation, for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading distance to nearest open water, distance to nearest birds, and associated wetland-dependent wildlife. vegetated edge, surface water area, and the Thus, particular attention was paid to wetland- interspersion of cover and open water areas. Weller dependent species and species of refuge concern and Spatcher (1965) recorded differences in the and consideration was given to multiple bird abundance and distribution of many bird species in conservation plans/lists (e.g., State and Federal relation to changes in habitat condition of the marsh threatened and endangered species, Partners and at nest sites. in Flight, Bird Conservation Regions). Further, While bird species numbers and diversity were species habitat requirements typically vary among highest when the cover:water ratio reached 50:50 life cycle events (e.g., migrating, nesting, and (hemi-marsh), the interspersion of cover and open brood-rearing) and, therefore, the chronologies of water areas seemed even more important. For these species events were identified with respect example, grebes and waterfowl preferred areas to refuge use periods to maximize resource with waterways through the emergent vegetation availability (see chronology charts, fi gures A–G). that connected various pools. Studies also show Because the life requisites of plants and wildlife that hemi-marsh conditions do not satisfy the vary temporally and among species, different types requirements of all species and preferences of Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 139 Figure B. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure B. Habitat use chronology, Figure A. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure A. Habitat use chronology, 140 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Figure D. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure D. Habitat use chronology, Figure C. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure C. Habitat use chronology, Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 141 Figure F. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Habitat use chronology, Figure F. Figure E. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure E. Habitat use chronology, 142 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Figure G. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure G. Habitat use chronology, Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 143 cover:water interspersion for a given species may of submergent vegetation (Nelson and Kadlec 1984). vary temporally (Weller and Spatcher 1965; Murkin Invertebrate matter is a primary source of protein et al. 1997). for many wetland and terrestrial birds (Fredrickson and Reid 1986). Waterfowl especially rely on In another study, habitat preferences of the invertebrate matter as a component of their diet horned, eared, and pied-billed grebes largely during the breeding (Bartonek and Hickey 1969; differed according to basin size and the amount and Krapu and Reinecke 1992; Baldassarre and Bolen distribution of shoreline vegetation. Horned grebes 1994) and brood-rearing seasons (Sudgen 1973; Cox selected smaller ponds than eared and pied-billed et al. 1998). grebes, whereas pied-billed grebes used ponds with relatively more shoreline vegetation relative to Achievability the other grebe species. In part, these differences were attributed to behavioral characteristics. The current coverage of tall emergent vegetation Typically, horned and pied-billed grebes nested in (primarily cattail [Typha spp.]) is extremely limited. isolation and needed visual separation, while eared Our attempt to maintain the estimated 10 acres that grebes nested colonially and needed more space for currently exists is largely experimental as we learn nesting. more about our ability to manage for the desired habitat condition described in the objective. We The importance of distance parameters in believe it is possible because it exists in similar high habitat selection is less clear likely due to how it elevation parks in Colorado, specifically South Park differentially relates to bird behavior (e.g., solitary and the San Luis Valley. Our present concern is that vs. colonial nesters, secretive vs. social species, some of our wetland basins have margin slopes that territoriality) and other habitat variables (e.g., do not favor plant germination. In addition, some wetland size (Boe 1993), proximity to other habitat of our basins possibly have enough sedimentation types). accumulation and turbidity to adversely effect germination of some plant species. Most of the The significance of microhabitat characteristics sedimentation comes through the ditches that enter in determining bird use within a wetland, such the ponds. Wang et al. (1994) found that sediment as structure (plant height and density), plant loads of 0.2–0.4 centimeters decreased cattail seed composition, litter, and area, was discussed in the germination by 60–90 percent. Further, coarse- riparian habitat section. Those same concepts textured sediments had more adverse effects similarly apply to other habitat types, including on seedling density compared to fi ne-textured wetland habitat. In addition, water depth at sediments (Dittmar and Neely 1999). nesting and foraging sites are distinctive features of wetland habitat that greatly affect bird use. If sedimentation has occurred, the source (e.g., Relationships between water depth and water bird bank erosion, inflow from adjacent uplands or use are discussed under the objectives below. ditches), extent (e.g., current sediment load, seed burial, turbidity), and rate of sedimentation (e.g., Objective retention/re-suspension of potential of bottom Maintain 10 acres of, and attempt to establish materials, past and current rates of infl ow, wind in one other wetland basin, tall (greater than 60 action, shoreline slope) should be examined. This centimeters VOR) emergent vegetation in water information in addition to our ability to manage depths greater than 4 centimeters over a 5-year water levels may indicate which sites have period to provide nesting habitat for over-water the highest management potential for cattail nesting birds (black-crowned night-heron, white- establishment. faced ibis, waterfowl, marsh wrens, coots, and Strategies blackbirds). To encourage germination and establishment of Value cattail, experimental wetland basins that show the highest potential for cattail establishment would The most conspicuous attribute of this habitat need to be selected. Selection criteria may include condition is the tall, dense vegetation that provides water control capabilities, rates of evaporation (e.g., the necessary nesting cover for large-bodied wading how fast less than 1 inch of water becomes a mudfl at birds (e.g., black-crowned night-heron, white-faced and how soon mudflat dries out completely), amount ibis) and more secretive water birds (e.g., rails). and distribution of existing cattail in each basin, and No other habitat objective shares this feature. The shoreline conditions (slope). Our ability to expose vegetation density largely is a function of the litter mudflats when temperatures are optimal for cattail or duff layer (the amount of new and residual plant germination (25–35°C) would have to be evaluated growth), commonly used by water birds as nesting for relatively dry, average, and wet years. substrate. As well, flooded emergent litter is important for macroinvertebrate production in the For established cattail stands, effective spring (Nelson et al. 1990), prior to the emergence management requires periodic disturbance. 144 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Disturbance characteristics (e.g., fl ooding depth, Following germination, cattail establishment may frequency, duration) and timing in relation to the occur fastest in 1-inch water depth, though it is annual cycle of cattail growth will largely determine able to grow well in saturated soils and in water 6 cattail response (Beule 1979; Apfelbaum 1985; Sojda inches deep (Bedish 1967). Once mature plants are and Solberg 1993). established, cattail may tolerate a range of water depths (generally less than 20 inches). However, An understanding of the environmental conditions extended periods of deep (greater than 26 inches) that favor and discourage cattail germination and fl ooding have stressed cattail plants and may growth likely will improve our ability to manage terminate growth (Apfelbaum 1985; Sojda and for the desired habitat condition described in Solberg 1993). In Wisconsin, cattail endured water the objective. Cattail reproduces by seed and depths of 3 feet (91 centimeters) for less than two vegetatively via rhizomes. full growing seasons before a die-back was observed Germination of cattail occurs in shallow water (Beule 1979). depths (e.g., less than 0.5 inch of water, Sojda and In the process of managing to favor cattail Solberg 1993) and on mudflats (van der Valk and germination, other benefi ts are gained depending Davis 1978; Sojda and Solberg 1993) under a wide on the timing of a drawdown or fl ooding event. range of temperatures (Sojda and Solberg 1993). For example, food resources may be made Results of greenhouse experiments indicated that available as a result of a drawdown during spring cattail germination required fl ooding (Bedish 1967). or fall migration. A drawdown may also stimulate Cattail germination seemed best in water 1 inch submerged aquatic vegetation beds. deep when light and temperatures were optimal (Bedish 1967; Weller 1975). Under fi eld conditions, Objective most studies show germination of cattail occurs after mudfl ats have been exposed (Beule 1979). Provide 10 percent of the wetland acres over a 5­ Subsequent shallow fl ooding may promote seedling year average in short (less than 10 centimeters), establishment (discussed below). Fully saturated sparse (less than 10 centimeters VOR) emergent or fl ooded soils produce anaerobic conditions near vegetation in water depths less than 4 centimeters the soil surface (e.g., less than 2 centimeters, from April to August to provide foraging habitat Mortimer 1971 in Bonnewell et al. 1983). Cattail for shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as nesting and seed germination was reported highest on the soil brood-rearing habitat for shorebirds. surface, but occurred less than 1 centimeter below Shallowly fl ooded, short, sparse emergent the surface of sandy soil (Galinato and van der Valk vegetation are typical foraging sites for many water 1986). bird species (Fredrickson and Reid 1986; Helmers 1992; Laubhan and Gammonley 2000). This habitat Studies show reduced O2 concentrations promote cattail germination (Hutchinson 1975 condition is notably important for various shorebird in Bonnewell et al. 1983). Bonnewell et al. (1983) and waterfowl species that occur on the refuge found that germination of submerged cattail during spring and fall migration and throughout the breeding season (April to August). Further, seeds was maximized in O2 concentrations of 2.3–4.3 milligrams per liter. In the same study, while similar habitat exists off-refuge in North seeds fl ooded for less than 24 hours had higher Park, we feel the number of sites that satisfy all germination then those fl ooded for 7 days. the conditions (e.g., less than 4 centimeters water depth) described in this objective is limited. In part, Seed germination of cattail was signifi cantly this habitat condition may be limited because of reduced by 1,000 milligrams per liter of NaCl differences in land management objectives of on- (Galinato and van der Valk 1986). A salinity of and off-refuge sites. 10 ppt was responsible for the decreasing cattail cover that was flooded for most of a growing season Relatively open stands of vegetation allow (Sojda and Solberg 1993). Thus, especially in arid shorebirds to utilize visual and/or tactile strategies environments, it is important to pay close attention to acquire food resources that occur in sites to increasing soil and/or water salinities as water with dry/moist ground and/or in fl ooded sites levels decrease. with water depths of less than 10 centimeters (Helmers 1992). While morphological attributes Though results vary, optimum soil-surface (tarsus and culmen length; Baker 1979), foraging temperatures for cattail germination generally preferences, and nesting behavior (semi-colonial, range 25–35°C (Bonnewell et al. 1983; Sojda and solitary) differ among shorebird guilds (Helmers Solberg 1993). Bonnewell et al. (1983) found no 1992), habitat conditions (water depth less than 4 germination occurred at 10°C and was very low centimeters) described in this objective primarily at 15°C. Long light exposure is another cattail allow relatively small bodied shorebirds of the germination requirement and an environmental Interior Region (e.g., plover, curlew, turnstone, characteristic of open mudfl ats (Bonnewell et al. small and medium sandpipers, yellowlegs) to exploit 1983). the necessary invertebrate resources typically Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 145 found in newly flooded areas. The medium- to Strategies large-bodied shorebirds (godwit, avocet, stilts, phalarope) also may use these areas for foraging Strategies used to achieve habitat described in and nesting, but more characteristically forage for objective 2 involve both drawdowns and back invertebrates resources in water depths greater flooding of different areas to create the habitat than 4 centimeters and less than 20 centimeters described. For objective 3, drawdowns will provide (Helmers 1992). the desired conditions in subsequent years. Objective Objective Provide 20 percent of the wetland acres over a 5­ Provide 10–20 percent of the wetland acres, within year average of emergent vegetation greater than each wetland complex, over a 5-year average 25 centimeters tall with visual obstruction reading with 70-percent coverage of submergent species greater than 80-percent of vegetation height in water (Potamogeton, Ruppia) in wetlands of greater than depths 4–18 centimeters to provide escape cover 18 centimeters water depth provide invertebrates and foraging habitat for dabbling duck broods and and seed sources for foraging water birds, molting ducks, and foraging habitat for water birds. especially waterfowl broods, and escape cover for diving ducks. Unlike the habitat conditions described in the other wetland objectives, these conditions provide both Value shallow water and moderately dense cover that is Submergent vegetation provides complex structure especially important for water birds with relatively for macroinvertebrate production when it becomes low mobility (e.g., molting ducks, broods). The established in early summer (Krull 1970, Voigts relatively shallow water increases the availability 1976, Nelson and Kadlec 1984). Sago pondweed of food resources and the moderate cover permits and widgeongrass are two major submergent plant movement and concurrently decreases the risk of types that occur on the refuge. Both submergents predation. are reputable productive waterfowl food resources (drupelets, tubers, stems/leaves, and invertebrates; Brood-rearing habitat is a limited resource in North Kantrud 1990, 1991). Waterfowl broods rely heavily Park in dry years partly because of the arid climate on the availability of both invertebrate and plant and agricultural activities that demand water foods (Sudgen 1973). In addition, these submergents resources earlier in the growing season. While are used by many wetland-associated wildlife agricultural activities have created reservoirs for species (Kantrud 1990, 1991) for nesting, foraging, irrigation that provide some brood habitat, they do and escape habitat. not always satisfy all the conditions described in the objective and may differ from habitat provided on- Achievability refuge in terms of quality. Some submergent vegetation already exists on the Value refuge, but its occurrence has not been a result of actively managing for its production. These habitat The availability of different habitat conditions may conditions have regional importance due to the benefit a greater diversity of wildlife species and/or limited availability of quality open water habitat support species for longer periods in their annual (e.g., extent of submergent vegetation with water life cycle. depth greater than 18 centimeters proximate to Achievability nesting habitat) in North Park during the brood- rearing season. By managing for these habitat The above two habitat objectives are created conditions within each complex, we will maximize when water levels in wetland basins are artifi cially the availability and accessibility of resources that and/or naturally drawn down (e.g., to encourage these habitat conditions provide. germination and growth of emergent vegetation or to stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth). Strategies At present the refuge tries to provide some A monitoring plan will be developed to show shoreline habitat for spring migrating shorebirds when significant changes from Potamageton and resulting from drawdowns. In fall, water levels widgeongrass to other submergent types occur, naturally drop in many of the ponds and spring signifying the need for a drawdown. In order to flooding also creates much shallow water. favor widgeongrass production, Hietzman (1978 The refuge is unique in North Park in managing for in Kantrud 1991) recommended drawdowns shorebirds. Slow, staged drawdowns can work well, to consolidate and oxidize sediments when silt but cannot refill basins in most years. Nevertheless, deposition and decomposing vegetation on the those habitat conditions likely are similar to historic substrate was deeper than about 4 centimeters. dynamics of many of the natural basins. Drawdown Otherwise, widgeongrass might become poorly will also help submergent aquatic vegetation beds. rooted and susceptible to damage by wave action. 146 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Partial early spring and fall drawdowns and after peak plant biomass. Peak turion development complete summer drawdowns with reflooding in the occurs in late summer or early fall. Turions may fall have also been used to stimulate widgeongrass remain viable from one to several years, longer growth (Kantrud 1991). Widgeongrass shoot when conditions are fl ooded compared to exposed. survival may increase if produced earlier in the It has been reported that when sediment moisture growing season and if able to reproduce. Also, was less than 23 percent for 2 weeks, most floating fragments may eventually grow roots, sink, overwintering turions did not germinate due to and attach to the bottom substrate. Water level desiccation. Vegetation senecas sometime between manipulations have also been used to encourage late August and October. sago production, but success has varied. Where sediments are high in organic material, complete Several environmental factors regulate sago drawdowns may be used to release nutrients that growth. As with most macrophytes, production and may stimulate sago production when the wetland depth distribution of sago is largely determined by is reflooded. Partial drawdowns (e.g., to 0.3 meters water transparency or turbidity. Turbidity is an water depth by August in the aspen parkland region environmental condition resulting from complex of Canada) have increased sago and other pondweed interactions involving characteristics (e.g., texture, production as well (Kantrud 1991). slope, aspect) of the bottom substrate, wave action (prevailing wind speed and direction in relation Accomplishing this objective requires management to basin size) or water movement (e.g., bottom- that encourages the production of macrophytes, feeding fi sh activity), and water chemistry. A secchi specifi cally sago pondweed (Potamogeton transparency of greater than 60 centimeters seems pectinatus L.; sago) and widgeongrass (Ruppia to favor sago growth and low production has been maritima L.). Unless otherwise cited, all reported where secchi depths were less than 30 information on the germination and growth centimeters. Field studies indicate that sago growth requirements of sago and widgeongrass was does not occur in waters with pH less than 6.3 and derived from Kantrud (1990, 1991), respectively. greater than 10.7. A study that sampled 116 sites where sago occurred in central North America Sago has a circumpolar distribution and has found a mean pH of 8.5. Optimum biomass occurs at exhibited both annual and perennial life cycles 2–15 grams per liter TDS and lower values within due to its ability to adapt to a wide range of this range favor reproductive material (propagules). environmental conditions. Sago absorbs nutrients Sago often occurs in waters high in CO3 or HCO3 from the water column and, therefore, may be ion (greater than 18 milligrams per liter). Sago rooted (greater than 0.5 meters in sandy soils may be out-competed by Ruppia in SO4-dominated and less than 0.5 meter in finer textured soils) in waters with salinities greater than 26 grams per sediments with low oxygen levels. Sago vegetative liter and by other macrophytes in HCO3-dominated growth begins when water temperatures are 10°C waters with salinities less than 0.7 grams per liter (late March–late June), but may not reach the (Stewart and Kantrud 1972 in Kantrud 1990). water surface for weeks (May–mid-July). Low light Relative to sago, widgeongrass is a more salt conditions increase the rate of growth. tolerant macrophyte and Utricularia vulgaris is Sago may reproduce from fruit (drupelets), but less salt tolerant. As water levels fl uctuate and more often reproduces vegetatively via root or environmental conditions (e.g., water chemistry) stem structures termed winter buds, tubers, or are modified, changes in composition of submergent turions. The number of turions often far exceeds plant species will occur naturally. that of drupelets and some sago plants only use this Like sago, widgeongrass is adapted to a wide range form of reproduction, especially in permanently of environmental conditions. It also exhibits annual flooded wetlands. Germination and turion growth life cycle traits in extreme environmental conditions is maximized when temperatures are 15–26°C. (e.g., drought, high salinities) and perennial traits Minimum temperatures reported for turion in more stable environments where productivity germination in the field are 5.5°C and temperatures usually is highest. Almost all below ground biomass of greater than 30°C may inhibit germination. is within 10 centimeters below the surface of the Germination of drupelets and development of bottom substrate and close to 90 percent is within overwintering turions may occur as early as 5 centimeters. Rhizomes occur within a few mm late March. New drupelets form about 3 weeks and most drupelets within 5 centimeters of the after fl owering. Drupelets exposed for greater surface of the bottom substrate. The shallow root than 1 year on dry substrate and then moistened system makes turbulent waters a limiting factor. may germinate in greater than 4 days. Turions Widgeongrass is able to grow in well-oxygenated develop at the tips of branches that grow from and reduced sediments if able to obtain enough rhizomes (beneath the surface of the substrate) oxygen from photosynthesis. and at the tips of leafy shoots (above the surface of the substrate). It is unclear whether turions Numerous fl owers are produced about 5–6 weeks are produced throughout the growing season or after widgeongrass begins growth. Drupelets Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 147 and rhizomes on overwintering plants develop Other key factors to consider in macrophyte about 2 weeks after the start of fl owering. Annual production are the amount of algae and widgeongrass requires water temperatures of phytoplankton growth. Extensive algae cover 10–33°C to complete its life cycle. Temperatures may limit light, temperature, and oxygen (from for drupelet germination and seedling development photosynthesis) necessary for macrophyte growth. occur at 10–20°C and 15–25°C, respectively. Peak Phytoplankton achieves high growth rates when growth typically occurs sometime in July or August nutrient availability is high (e.g., from water in temperate regions. In north temperate wetlands, inflows) and, like epiphytic algae, may affect temperatures of greater than 30°C may adversely photosynthesis of widgeongrass. affect widgeongrass growth. Meadow Measurements of water transparency have indicated the importance of light as a growth The refuge will maintain and enhance existing requirement of widgeongrass. In Canada, meadow habitats to provide grass-forb widgeongrass dominated in waters with a Secchi communities, composed primarily of native plants, disk reading of 3.0 meters (Gallup 1978 in Kantrud to benefit migratory birds and other wildlife 1991) and, in another study, biomass decreased species. with Secchi disk reading less than 1 meter (Bailey and Titman 1984 in Kantrud 1991). However, other Rationale environmental factors may have contributed to the The meadow objectives are written similarly to reported increases and decreases in widgeongrass riparian objectives 2 and 3 and the rationale for growth. those riparian objectives applies to these meadow Below-ground biomass has been reported most objectives. Therefore, in this section, we will only productive in well-oxygenated, coarse-textured note how the meadow and riparian habitat areas sediments. Optimum growth of widgeongrass differ and how those differences may infl uence in the laboratory and the field occurred in 0.4­ wildlife use. Major differences include the proximity meter and 0.6-meter water depths, respectively. to different habitat types (e.g., the river in the The most productive growth of widgeongrass in lowland), the riparian habitat is subject to fl ooding finer substrates (clay and silt) occurred in water from the river channel, and plant composition (e.g., depths of greater than 0.61 meter compared to up willow in riparian zone and not in upland irrigated to 4.0 meters in sandy substrates. Germination of meadows). drupelets will occur in shallow water depths (5–10 Objective centimeters), but plants produced may have low drupelet production. Germination of drupelets is Provide 20–50 acres over a 5-year average of grass- reduced or may not occur if buried greater than 10 forb (75:25) plant community composed primarily centimeters, exposed on moist soil, in sediments of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, forbs) with greater than 1- to 2-percent soluble salts, or characterized by less than 20 centimeters height, in waters with NaCl concentrations of 15 grams less than 10 centimeters VOR, with dry to moist per liter. However, drupelets are highly drought- soils (no standing water), adjacent to (within 50 resistant, may recover from high salinities when meters) or intermingled with sagebrush (10- to 25­ inundated in freshwater for about 2 weeks, and percent sage canopy cover), from early June–July, may remain viable for less than 3 years. Water to benefit sage grouse and snipe broods. chemistry (e.g., salinity, alkalinity) parameters for widgeongrass occurrence seem to vary greatly Value among study locations (e.g., regions, lab vs. fi eld) North Park has developed a sage grouse working and among plant life stage (e.g., germination, plan for the declining sage grouse population in growth, reproduction). Generally, it tolerates higher the Jackson County. We suspect that the current salinities than other submersed macrophytes and amount of interspersed grasses and forbs in the does not do well in fresh, soft, or acidic water. In the sagebrush may not support a suffi cient abundance prairie pothole region, Stewart and Kantrud (1972 of arthropods and invertebrates for foraging in Kantrud 1991) reported the greatest abundance sage grouse broods. Meadows have the moisture of widgeongrass occurring in waters with salinities and nutrients that encourage plant growth. The 0.35 to greater than 100 grams per liter. While other decomposing plant matter promotes invertebrate studies in prairie wetlands found widgeongrass production. We believe that if we provide some commonly occurring in waters with salinities meadow habitat devoid of surface water during the ranging from 15 to greater than 45 grams per liter brood-rearing season, these food resources would (Millar 1976 in Kantrud 1991) and abundantly be accessible to sage grouse broods. Meadow areas fruiting where salinities were 36 grams per liter that are proximate to the sagebrush may increase (Metcalf 1931 in Kantrud 1991). Widgeongrass sage grouse survival because they would not have generally occurs in natural waters with alkalinities to travel as far for different resource requirements. of about pH 6.0–10.0. 148 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Achievability History Management of these habitat conditions in the Historically, the shrub-steppe community meadow is somewhat experimental to see if we are encompassed 9.4 million acres in the intermountain able to create sage grouse brood habitat (some in west. Early explorer accounts of sagebrush riparian zone too). densities are varied and conflicting. Vale (1975) Objective reviewed 29 historic explorer documents and concluded that presettlement (prior to 1843) Provide 630–790 acres, over a 5-year average, of conditions included a range type dominated by a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed sagebrush, and that grasses became scarcer as primarily of native plants (grasses, sedges, forbs, you traveled west. Alternately, Stewart (1941) and rushes) characterized by greater than 30 concluded that historical documents emphasized centimeters VOR, 10–20 centimeters duff layer and an abundance of grass under pristine conditions. minimal (less than 5 percent) bare ground to benefi t Historical records are too incomplete to tell us what nesting waterfowl (mallard, gadwall, pintails, comprised the pristine vegetation of the Artemisia scaup), songbirds (savannah sparrow, meadowlark), ecosystem (Young et al. 1984). and foraging shorebirds if flooded (snipe, phalarope, white-faced ibis, curlew, willet, and sora). Geologist F.V. Hayden entered North Park in 1868 and described the site as “an excellent grazing Achievability region” and reported seeing “myriads of antelope” We currently are able to keep maybe 40 percent of that were “quietly feeding.” Naturalist George Bird the meadows fl ooded through end of July in most Grinnell entered the Park in 1879 near the Pinkham years. Only about 20–30 percent of the meadows ranch and writes “the country at this point had been defined as dense in the riparian objectives can be burned over, and was black and extremely desolate kept fl ooded to 2–3 inches through July most years in appearance; I learned from the owner of the (largely due to channel alterations). Therefore, ranch that the burn had been made to clear off the we must try to enhance the irrigation systems to sagebrush which takes up so much room that might providing more of this type of habitat in upland be occupied by grass” (in) (Hampton 1971). meadow areas. The historical plant composition of the North Park Objective basin may never be determined; however, it is likely relatively similar to today’s conditions. The shrub- Provide 1,650–1,850 acres, over a 5-year average, steppe community is dominated by sagebrush, and of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed a small percentage of grasses and forbs. Relative primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, forbs, abundance of the plant components has been altered and rushes) characterized by 10–30 centimeters by range management practices (fi re, grazing, VOR, 0–10 duff layer and minimal (less than 5 mowing, and chemicals) over the last 125 years. percent) bare ground from mid-April to the end of July to benefit nesting waterfowl (gadwall, shoveler, pintail and green-winged teal) and sage grouse broods. Vegetation types No substantial differences exist in the meadow and Dominant Sage riparian habitats in regards to this objective. The intermountain west contains 11 sagebrush species and 13 sagebrush sub-species. Big Upland Habitat sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and its fi ve subspecies is the most common and widely The upland habitat consists of 14,285 acres of distributed (McArthur 1992). The three most a shrub-steppe plant community dominated by common big sagebrush species are basin big sagebrush, drought tolerant perennial bunchgrasses sagebrush (A. tridentata tridentata) also potentially and forbs. Uplands are the dominant refuge habitat the largest and most fl oriferous; mountain big type and includes all lands not accounted for in the sagebrush (A. tridentata vaseyana); and Wyoming wetland, meadow and riparian descriptions. big sagebrush (A. tridentata wyomingensis) the smallest and least fl oriferous (McArthur and Welch Many upland habitats exhibit a mosaic pattern 1982). around meadows sites on the refuge. These sites are generally managed in conjunction with associated Most sagebrush species distribution is controlled meadows, including using the same grazing regime. by moisture-elevation gradients, seasonal moisture The focus of past refuge management efforts have and soil properties (McArthur 1992). Generally, been to create quality wetland habitats, therefore A. tridentata tridentata occupies deep soils, with general upland plant community information is minimal profile development in low to moderate limited. precipitation and moderate-elevations. A. tridentata Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 149 wyomingensis prefers to occupy moderate depth, The forb community consists of lupine, pussytoes, low-to-moderate precipitation and lower elevations. aster, fl eabane, yarrow, bluebells, buckwheat, A. tridentata vaseyana dominates areas where phlox, fringed sage, snakeweed and other forbs. moisture improves and high elevations. Total annual production of all vegetation is 600 pounds per acre (USDA NRCS). Heavy grazing Big sagebrush traits include good digestibility, by herbivores causes more undesirable grasses high winter crude protein and provide high winter such as bluebunch wheatgrass, sheep fescue, pine phosphorus and carotene (Welch 1983; Welch needlegrass, and other plants such as big sagebrush and McArthur 1990). Herbaceous growth in and less palatable forbs to increase. sagebrush occurs only when the appropriate warm temperatures and available soil moisture occurs Valley Bench Site in the late spring and early summer (West 1996). Summer precipitation is usually not suffi cient to This site comprises 3,065.9 acres of the refuge. This allow plant growth; fall moisture patterns are too site is extensive, typically found on uplands and sparse to allow plant regrowth. benches, and can be deep to shallow, well drained sites. The potential plant community consists of 20­ The three primary sage species located on the percent streambank wheatgrass, 15-percent mutton refuge include basin big sagebrush, mountain big grass, 10-percent junegrass, 9-percent Indian sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush; however, ricegrass, 5-percent pine needlegrass, and 5-percent small stands of silver sagebrush (A. cana), alkali other grasses. Big sagebrush makes up 15 percent sagebrush (A. longiloba), fringed sage (A. frigida), of this community, Douglas rabbitbrush makes up 3 black sage (A. nova), and others may exist. The percent. Forbs consist of 5-percent phlox, 3-percent refuge lacks basic plant inventory and distribution pussytoes, and 5-percent lupine, gray horsebrush data to fully assess and manage upland habitats. and other forbs. Heavy grazing by herbivores Therefore, the refuge proposes to complete an causes pine needlegrass, junegrass and muttongrass uplands plant survey prior to the year 2008 that will to decrease and big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush facilitate future management. and forbs to increase. Total annual production ranges from 400–900 pounds per acre. Young (et al. 1976) describes the introduction and concentrations of large herbivores in the late Mountain Meadow Range Site 1800s on Artimisian grasslands as having dramatic This site comprises 1,416.5 acres of the refuge. It results. The result was that for most Artimisian is a highly productive site along natural streams grasslands, native perennial grasses were greatly consisting of deep, poorly drained soils. The site reduced (Young 1994). is characterized by 20-percent thurber fescue, In the intermountain west, the dominate understory 12-percent tufted hairgrass, 10-percent slender grasses and grasslike species of the sagebrush wheatgrass and 5-percent sedges. Baltic rush may communities is usually perennial bunchgrass. The also be found. major perennial grass and grasslike species include: Forbs are abundant and include 3-percent iris, 3­ bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), percent herbaceous cinquefoil, 2-percent yarrow, 15­ Thurber’s needlegrass (Stipa thurberiana), needle­ percent wild celery, cow parsnip, clovers, American and-thread (Stipa comata), California brome bistort, aster, arnica, groundsels, waterhemlock, (Bromus carinatus), Elymus cinereus, Sandberg false-hellebore, monkshood, marsh marigold, sedum, bluegrass (Poa secunda), and elk sedge (Carex fireweed, shooting star, primrose, green gentian, geyeri) (Young et al. 1984). Common forbs include elephant-head, and others. The community also silverleaf lupine, sulfer fl ower, hooded phlox and contains 5-percent silver sage, 10-percent willow, Douglas phlox. and 5-percent other shrubs. This site can produce 2,000–4,000 pounds of forage per acre. Soils and Range Sites Salt Flats Range Site Dry Mountain Loam Range Site This site comprises 3,290.7 acres of the refuge. This site comprises 25.7 acres of the refuge. The This site consists of deep, well drained soils that most extensive range type in North Park, it are affected by sodium salts. The potential plant consists of moderate-deep to deep well drained community is 25-percent western wheatgrass, 20­ soils. The potential plant community includes 15­ percent saltgrass, 5-percent Indian ricegrass, 5­ percent stream bank wheatgrass, 10-percent sheep percent alkali bluegrass, 5-percent alkali grass, and fescue, 10-percent muttongrass, 8-percent pine 5-percent other grasses. Forbs are not abundant needlegrass, 5-percent Letterman needlegrass, on this site and make up 10 percent of the plant 3-percent Sandberg bluegrass, and 5-percent composition. The site is also 10-percent greasewood, junegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass. Big sagebrush 5-percent winterfat, 5-percent mat saltbrush, and makes up 15 percent of the community. 5-percent other shrubs. Excessive grazing causes 150 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Indian rice grass, winterfat, and alkali bluegrass assemblages due to changes in habitat physiognomy. to decrease and western wheatgrass, alkali grass, Perhaps local changes in sage cover are not saltgrass and greasewood increase. The site significant enough to change avian use. (Rotenberry produces 500–900 pounds per acre depending on and Wiens 1980). Rotenberry and Wiens (1991) annual precipitation. also conclude that bird populations in shrub steppe vary largely independent of each other. Structural Alkaline Slopes Range Site components of the uplands can also be changed This site comprises 2,078.1 acres of the refuge. with treatment. Several studies have investigated This site contains well drained soils that are how treatment of sagebrush may affect structure 20–40 inches deep over shale. The potential plant (Cooper 1953; Savory and Butterfield 1999). Clearly community is 15-percent wheatgrass, 10-percent management can change plant community structure saltgrasss, 10-percent Indian rice grass, 10-percent toward desired conditions. squirreltail, 5-percent pine needlegrass, 5-percent bluegrasses, and 10-percent other grasses. Phlox, Primary Factors Influencing Distribution and buckwheat and other forbs make up 5 percent of the Structural Conditions community. The community is also 15-percent big sagebrush, 10-percent greasewood, and 5-percent Soils winterfat, masaltbrush, fringed sage and other We utilized Jackson County, Colorado soil shrubs. Excessive grazing causes Indian rice grass, type maps as depicted by U.S. Department of bluebunch wheatgrass and pine needlegrass to Agriculture, and generated number of acres of decrease, and rhizomatous wheatgrasses, Sandberg each soil type within the refuge. Five soils that list bluegrass, big sagebrush and greasewood to sagebrush being “common” included Boettcher- increase. Total annual production for these sites is Bundyman association, Bosler sandy loam, Dobrow 300–700 pounds per acre depending on moisture. loam, Morset loam, and Spicerton sandy loam for a total of 9,877.04 refuge acres. Generally, these soils Spatial Considerations are considered moderate to deep and typically are Dominance of grasses or sagebrush in upland used for grazing or pasture. These soils are found on systems may be attributed to differences in slopes less than 15 percent, and generally have slow management (Cooper 1953; Savory and Butterfi eld to moderate permeability. 1999). Overgrazing can cause a loss and vigor Physical Characteristics and density of native grasses which permit Artemisia tridentata to dominate a site (Wright Soil depth, soil texture, aspect, and soluble salts and Wright 1948). Evidence is also clear that and slope all determine vegetation densities in the proper management of grazing can permit grasses shrub-steppe. Following precipitation, water fl ows to reduce sagebrush to a subordinate role in the downslope and establishes a moisture gradient community (Cooper 1953). with respect to slope position. The slope crests are the most xeric and the slope base being the most Big sagebrush is the most widespread and common mesic. Slope effects vegetation density, generally at shrub of the Western United Sates (Rice 1974). the base of the knolls is denser, with the midslope Numerous studies have presented evidence vegetation being moderately dense and the that Artemisia sp. have allelopathic effects vegetation of the knoll crest being the least dense against neighboring species. The success and (Brotherson 1999). Sturges (1977) found mountain distribution of A. tridentata may partly depend big sagebrush, for example, growing at midslope on its production of allelopathic substances which and bottom slope sites and suggested that these inhibit the germination and growth of potential sites were more mesic and, therefore, were better competitors (Weaver and Klarich 1977). Groves and suited for mountain big sagebrush. In general, soil Anderson (1980) demonstrated inhibition of crested depth increases downslope, as does the number of wheatgrass and giant wildrye germination using plant species. Total cover of both annuals and forbs crushed A. tridentata leaves. decreased downslope, while shrubs cover was most important at the slope base (Brotherson 1999). Structural Considerations Salinities Annual precipitation levels clearly cause changes Artemisia species generally will not tolerate soil in habitat physiognomy in sagebrush steppe salinities higher than 18 mmhos/centimeters³ (Gates plant communities. Structural changes are not et al. 1956). Generally, as soil salinity increases, just associated with changes in shrub species, but sagebrush becomes less dominate, and greasewood instead are strongly correlated with forb and litter species become more abundant. coverage, coverage diversity and total vegetation cover. Bird species showed no abundance changes of either individual species or local or regional Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 151

Soil Textures The May–September average evaporation potential estimated for North Park is about 35 inches (McKee Soil textures form the slope crest, show lower et al. 1981). clay content, and higher sands and exposed rock. As water moves downslope, it takes the smaller Disturbance: Fire/Grazing textured particles and dissolved nutrients along with it. Soil organic matter, pH, bare ground, litter Big sagebrush communities had fire cycles that cover, total dissolved salts and concentrations varied between 60–110 years before European of sodium and potassium all increase downslope settlement (Whisenant 1990). Grasses and forbs (Brotherson 1999). have an advantage over sagebrush when sites are burned. Most Artemisia species do not resprout Aspect after fi re, but have to reestablish from seed. The introduction of cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) The direction that a slope hillside faces infl uences led to more frequent fires, and combined with soil temperature, air temperature, soil moisture, unrestricted grazing, native vegetation becomes solar radiation and, therefore, plant community easily replaced with exotic annual plants (West characteristics. Overall, south and west facing 1996). Much of the sagebrush steppe has been slopes are warmer than north and east facing burned at least once in the last three decades slopes. Air temperature on south facing slopes and is now dominated by introduced annuals like averages 0.9°C warmer than north-facing slopes. cheat grass and medusahead. This replacement is The morning sun finds moist soils and plants, and undesirable in all aspects (West 1996). a large part of the solar radiation received is lost to evaporation. However, afternoon sun shines Grazing in sagebrush-steppe systems tends to on relatively dry soils and plants; therefore, increase sagebrush density, decrease sagebrush the received energy is applied to increasing soil cover, reduce litter accumulation, decrease soil temperature. Soil moisture is 1.7–2.2 percent higher moisture, reduce grass and forb abundance, and on north-facing slopes (Ayyad and Dix 1964) than increase the potential for non-native invasion. south facing. Soil temperature on the upper and Large grazers and grasses have co-evolved. middle positions of a hillside is warmer than lower Without moderate grazing and/or fi re, plant sites. South-facing hillsides have 5- to 6-degree litter builds thatch that withholds nutrients and difference in soil temperature between upper and physically limits vegetative regrowth and seedling lower sites. establishment (McNaughton et al. 1982). Climate Some grazing and burning are necessary to allow Climate conditions of North Park are characterized optimal light penetration and nutrient cycling. by low relative humidity, abundant sunshine, large Maximum grassland plant community diversity daily and seasonal temperature variations, and is usually attained under moderate grazing (West increasing precipitation with elevations (Fletcher 1993). The dense stands of excess sagebrush 1981). North Park’s remoteness from moisture prevent the herbaceous species from recovering. sources and high elevation results in low humidity Such brush-choked stands are usually chosen and a semi-arid climate (Kuhn et al. 1983). Mean by both livestock and wildlife managers for annual precipitation ranges from about 10–16 manipulation to diversify vegetation structure inches in the basins, and up to 40 inches in the (West 1996). A reduction in sagebrush also enhances surrounding mountains. The basin receives the water yields (Sturges 1977). majority of precipitation during the summer months Goodrich (et al. 1999) estimated ground cover at (May–September). Snowfall is the most signifi cant sagebrush steppe sites protected from livestock precipitation and accumulates in the mountains in averaged 55 percent. Sites grazed annually in depths of 5–10 feet. Melting snow pack provides the spring averaged 30-percent ground cover. 65–85 percent of annual stream fl ow. Summer The greatest difference in ground cover was the precipitation is generally produced by convective amount of litter or plant residue deposited on the thunderstorms, but because moisture is lacking, the ground. Litter cover was about two times greater rainfall from these storms is generally less than 1 in areas protected from livestock grazing. High inch (Kuhn et al. 1983). ground cover can be maintained under moderate Daily temperature variations at Walden (8,120 feet intensity, rest or deferred rotation grazing. elevation) are reported to be 25° Fahrenheit during Holechek and others (1998) concluded that various winter and 40° Fahrenheit during midsummer studies of gazing impacts on rangeland soils and and fall. Recorded temperature extremes are 96° watershed status are highly consistent in showing and minus 49° with a mean annual temperature of that vegetation residue is the primary factor 36.5°. Walden averages 43 frost-free days per year determining degree of soil erosion and water due primarily to high elevation. Winter winds are infiltration into the soil. As residue is depleted frequent and typically from the west or southwest. by heavy grazing, soil erosion increases, water 152 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan infi ltration decreases and water overland fl ow Species Selection increases. The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Where ground cover is less than 50 percent over Conservation Plan recognizes that throughout the more than 10 percent of a grazing unit, a need Great Basin, uplands associated with wetlands and for change in management is strongly indicated. riparian areas provide critical nesting areas for Exclusion of either or both wild ungulates and shorebirds, especially long-billed curlew (Numenius moderate intensity cattle grazing has not resulted americanus) and willet (Catoptrophorus in overall higher resource values than where both semipalmatus). The Partners in Flight (Colorado were present (Goodrich et al. 1999). Close grazing State Plan) identifies northern sage grouse reduces soil moisture, decreases infi ltration, the (Centrocercus urophasianus), Brewer’s sparrow energy of falling raindrops is not dispersed by (Spizella breweri), sage sparrow (Amphispiza vegetation, and the soil surface is compacted and belli), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and sealed by raindrop splash. In Ashley National sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) as species Forest, eastern Utah, a comparison of summer- of concern (priority greater than 20). The refuge long grazing and three rest-rotation systems that is uniquely situated to support several goals and revealed no difference in residual cover (Johnson objectives identified in these plans. Working with 1987). the Colorado Division of Wildlife and with existing data on uplands use by songbirds and shorebirds, Timing of grazing or fire treatments and rest the refuge developed the following objectives. significantly effects outcome. A study in Browns Northern sage grouse are a species of concern Park, Colorado and Daggett County, Utah found for the State of Colorado. Elk and pronghorn are crown cover for Wyoming big sagebrush after 30 common on upland habitats and were considered years of ungulate exclusion was 22 percent, 11 during objectives development. percent after 9 years of exclusion, and 17 percent after 13 years. Absence of cattle grazing, coupled with high levels of wild ungulate use reduced Uplands Objective Wyoming big sagebrush cover to less than 5 percent Provide 2,000 acres over a 5-year average of (Goodrich et al. 1999). Twenty-two percent crown uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70­ cover appears to be the maximum crown cover percent sage) greater than 25 centimeters height Wyoming big sagebrush will support. At this level, and 20- to 30-percent canopy cover, greater than the frequency of needle-and-thread grass was 20-percent grass cover, and greater than 10-percent significantly less, and production and vigor appears forbs (native species preferred) to benefi t sage to be reduced. grouse, vesper sparrow, elk, and pronghorn. Refuge Objectives Habitat Requirements of Species: Sage Grouse Development of refuge objectives involved selecting sage-obligate species, identifying species Sage grouse are closely associated with sagebrush habitat requirements, detailing period of refuge ecosystems of western North America. Sage use, and finally developing measurable habitat grouse are well adapted to a variety of sagebrush based objectives that specify desirable range heights including tall sage, low sagebrush, forb-rich conditions. Unfortunately, little is known about mosaics, riparian meadows, steppes with native refuge upland habitats. The refuge’s fi rst priority grasses and forbs, and scrub willow. (Schroeder et is to conduct vegetative assessments of upland al, 1999). Nests are placed in thick cover, generally habitats and incorporate the information into dominated by big sagebrush. Vegetative diverse map databases. Past management efforts have habitats (horizontally and vertically) provide the focused on developing suitable waterfowl nesting best habitats. Broods are found in rich mosaics of and brood-rearing sites in meadow habitats. Much habitat including sagebrush, riparian meadows, of the upland plant community information that greasewood bottoms. The common feature of brood had been acquired was lost to an offi ce fi re in areas is they are rich in forbs and insects. Females April of 1997. Therefore, uplands management with broods prefer 19- to 31-percent sagebrush is conservative, identifying only 4,000 acres with cover with 9- to 19-percent cover of forbs (Drut specific and measurable objectives. The remaining et al 1994). Broods respond to dry conditions by upland acreage will be utilized for sagebrush concentrating in areas with succulent vegetation. research. Specific and measurable objectives will Nesting predation is lowest in dense (41 percent) be determined on the remaining acreage after canopy cover with heavy grass (19-percent) canopy the vegetative assessments are completed, and cover (Gregg et al. 1994) and at least 17-percent research on desirable range conditions is conducted. sagebrush cover. Winter range includes sagebrush with 6- to 43­ percent canopy cover but prefer at least 15-percent Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 153 canopy cover (Johnson and Braun 1999). Diet known. Willow regeneration along the Illinois River consists of leaves, buds, stems, flowers, insect and is slow, and small willow shoots are frequently grit. Grouse tend to feed on the ground in open grazed to 2–5 centimeters in height. Elk damage to habitats during morning and mid-afternoon (Hupp riparian areas is well documented in the scientifi c and Braun 1989). Hupp and Braun (1989) noted that literature (Zeigenfuss et al. 2002). sage grouse feeding activity was infl uenced by snow depth and mountain big sagebrush exposure above Currently, approximately 150 elk utilize the the snow. refuge during the spring, summer and fall. During winter months (November–March), elk numbers Feeding activity of sage grouse occurred in vary considerably but average 1,000–1,400. Elk drainages and on slopes with south or west aspects. distribution is varied; however, most use occurs in Additionally, big sagebrush plants in drainages tend the willow riparian community along the Illinois to be taller, and northeast slopes and fl at sagebrush River and on the Case Flats. Elk numbers and elk sites were shorter in height. Sagebrush is essential damage are not necessarily a linear relationship. for sage grouse and dominates the diet during late Snow depth, temperature, duration of feeding, and autumn, winter and early spring (Girard 1937). a host of other factors may determine wintering elk impacts. Elk wintering on the refuge may minimize Habitat Requirements of Species: Vesper game damage on adjacent private lands. Sparrow Wintering elk (Cervis elaphus) diets include Vesper sparrows are distributed from the approximately 63- to 100-percent (average is Northwest Territories, across to Alberta, south 84 percent) grasses, 9-percent shrubs, and 8­ to central California, Nebraska, Illinois, Virginia, percent forbs (Kufeld 1973). Spring grass use in and Maine (breeding bird survey data). Vesper eight Montana elk food habitat studies averaged sparrows prefer dry, open areas with short, sparse 87-percent grass. During summer months, forbs and patchy vegetation including sagebrush plant became more important, averaging 64 percent, 30­ communities (Roberts 1932). Vesper sparrows percent grasses, and 6-percent shrubs. Forbs can prefer upland habitats and are most abundant in grow to 100 percent of the summer diet. Fall elk shrub steppe environments (Kantrud 1981). diets revert primarily back to grasses (73 percent) In Wyoming, the availability of sagebrush for (Geer 1959; Geer 1960; Kirsch 1963; Mackie 1970; nest cover and song perches was important. Morris and Schwartz 1957). Nutritionally, forbs Vesper sparrows occurred in areas dominated by were highly valuable for Montana elk, especially sagebrush, and were absent from areas with only Agoseris glauca and Geranium viscosimum. grass or cactus (Fautin 1975). Abundance of vesper Luipinus spp. and Aster spp. were also highly sparrows is also positively correlated with forb valuable forbs. Grasses and grass like plants cover. Perches may be any structure or vegetation included Agropyron spicatum, Carex spp, Carex higher than nest height, such as sagebrush (Berger geyeri, Festuca idahioenisis, Festuca scabrella, 1968). Average vesper sparrow territory size in and Poa sp. Highly valuable shrub species Montana was 1.65 hectares (Reed 1986). Vesper (based on a large number of references) were sparrows are a fairly common host to brown-headed Amelanchier alnifolia, Ceanothus sanguineus, cowbird nest predation, and will frequently raise Ceanothus velutinus, Populus tremuloides, Prunus cowbird young (Friedmann 1963). virginiana, Pushia tridentata, Quercus gambellii and Salix spp. (Kufeld 1972). Vesper sparrows arrive on the breeding grounds March to late May, and depart in mid-August to Habitat Requirements of Species: Pronghorn late November (Johnsgard 1980). In Wyoming, Sixty-eight percent of pronghorn (Antilocapra vesper sparrows were among the most common americana) in North America occur in grassland breeding species in the grass/sagebrush areas. habitats (Yoakum 1978) and 56 percent occur Generally, a lack of sagebrush (perch sites) accounts on wheatgrass (Agropyron) dominated prairies for low density of vesper sparrows. Nesting occurs (Sundstrom et al. 1973). Pronghorn use is widely on the ground beneath relatively short (14–34.3 distributed across the refuge. During all seasons, centimeters in height) big sagebrush using grass to 25–250 pronghorn utilize the refuge and are conceal the nests. Western wheatgrass, bluebunch generally concentrated in upland habitats. Winter wheatgrass, green needlegrass, and junegrass were habitat use in south-central Wyoming indicates commonly used food items (Best 1972). Vesper that high pronghorn densities occurred in habitat sparrows are also known to occur near white-tailed complexes containing an average of 0.5 big prairie dog colonies (Clark et al. 1982). sagebrush plants/square meter that were greater Habitat Requirements of Species: Elk than 29 centimeters tall (Ryder and Irwin 1987). Use of sagebrush-dominated habitats was 45 Herbivory (elk, moose, and cattle) impacts to percent. riparian, upland and meadow habitats are not 154 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Wintering pronghorn tended to use northwest for ground insects such as ants (Formiciae) and ridges and benches and those containing black ground beetles (Carabidae) (Stephens 1985). Sage greasewood mixed with big sagebrush in stands thrashers are opportunistic feeders and may take averaging 0.4 plants/square meter in draws and grasshoppers (acridomorpha), crickets, ants, various lowland fl ats. Pronghorn responded to deep true bugs and may take larger seeds (Knowlton and snow (greater than 25 centimeters) by moving Harmston 1943). to windswept terrain or draw bottoms where taller sagebrush is available. In Montana, silver Individual nesting sites indicate a preference for sagebrush is the dominate food item in pronghorn taller shrubs with wider crowns. When adequate diets. Presence of silver sage is a characteristic canopy coverage exists, sage thrasher abundance of optimum pronghorn habitats (Wood 1989). Fall is positively correlated with a perennial grass and winter diets consist primarily of sagebrush. understory. Canopy coverage in 175 nest sites in Pronghorn normally avoid areas with broken Idaho ranged from 11 to 44 percent (Rich 1980). topography and vegetation greater than 76 centimeters tall (Sundstrom et al. 1973). Uplands Objective Establish research plots to evaluate herbivory Uplands Objective impacts to sage height and grass/forb abundance Provide 2,000 acres over a 5-year average of to benefit nesting and wintering sage grouse, uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70­ songbirds (vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s percent sage) greater than 40 centimeters height sparrow), and pronghorn. and greater than 30-percent canopy cover, less than The lack of knowledge on upland habitats (plant 20-percent grass cover, and greater than 5-percent species, distribution, condition, height, density) forbs (native species preferred) to benefi t Brewer’s prevents the development of habitats specifi c sparrow, sage thrasher, and pronghorn. goals and objectives. The remaining 10,225 acres Habitat Requirements of Species: Brewer’s of upland habitats will be surveyed by 2008. The Sparrow staff will focus on evaluating impacts of current management and herbivory on upland habitats, and Brewer’s sparrow forage primarily on arthropods will develop habitat based goals and objectives by in sagebrush shrubs with an average canopy height 2017. less than 1.5 meters (Rotenberry et al. 1999); little foraging occurs in nearby rabbitbush (Rotenberry Strategies and Wiens 1998) or on open ground between shrubs Conduct plant composition surveys of refuge (Wiens et al 1987). Compared to surrounding uplands by 2008. The refuge staff will develop shrubs, these sparrows forage in larger and more research plots (exclosures) to evaluate herbivory vigorous shrubs (Rotenberry et al. 1999). In a study impacts to sage height and grass/forb abundance across the breeding range, vigor (percent live stems) to benefit nesting and wintering sage grouse, of a shrub patch was the best vegetative descriptor songbirds (vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s of Brewer’s sparrow habitat (Knopf et al. 1990). sparrow), and pronghorn. Working with partners, Compared to surrounding habitat, Brewer’s the refuge will develop management strategies for sparrow nests tend to be located in signifi cantly all 14,000 acres of sagebrush uplands. taller, denser shrubs (primarily big sagebrush) Investigate methods to increase sagebrush with reduced bare ground and herbaceous cover abundance or quality. Attempt to modify forb (Peterson and Best 1985). In Idaho, nest shrubs component using Dixie harrow, fi re, fertilizers, averaged 69 centimeters (range 42–104 centimeters) seeding and/or herbicides as tools. Native grasses versus an average of 43 centimeters for surrounding and forbs are preferred; however, limited nonnative shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer shrubs that are species would be considered to enhance the refuges entirely or mostly alive (Rotenberry and Wiens 1989). ability to achieve objectives. The Service policy is Habitat Requirements of Species: Sage to promote natives; additionally, natives tend to Thrasher sustain ecological integrity of the system (wildlife, plants, system function). The disadvantage is higher Sage thrasher is considered a sage-obligate species costs, lower success rates, and viability of the stand. but noted in black greasewood habitats (Braun et Non-natives are less expensive, generally show al. 1976). Sage thrasher numbers are positively higher success rates, are readily available, and correlated with the amount of sagebrush cover, many have high wildlife value. The downside to positively correlated with sagebrush height (30–60 non-natives includes risk of spread, poor ecological centimeters), and negatively correlated with grass integrity, competition with native species, and cover (Rotenberry and Wiens 1980). Foraging other unknown consequences. Revegetation and characteristics indicated a strong preference sagebrush enhancement preference will be given to Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 155 soil types that typically support quality sagebrush stands. Uplands Objective Monitor North Park phacelia populations currently known to exist on the refuge. Initiate research to understand the plants life history and develop a management plan to ensure its continued existence. North Park phacelia is an endangered plant that exists in at least three general areas of Jackson County. One area occurs on the Case tract of the refuge and includes two primary plant strongholds. Since 1997, refuge staff have monitored plant numbers on these two sites. Enumeration of rosettes have averaged 741 (range 221–1,692) and fl owering plants average 1,783 (range 104–5,391). The plants inhabit wind swept, gravel dominated hillsides with little or no competing vegetation. Currently, the plant is not excluded from grazing, and no specific plant management is occurring. The plant does not appear to be increasing or decreasing in abundance on the refuge. Therefore, the refuge proposes to investigate the life history, life requirements and management options of North Park phacelia. Additionally, the ongoing monitoring of rosettes and fl owering plants will continue annually. A step-down management plan will be created by 2010 that details future management actions. Strategies will include a research component that emphasizes full recovery of the plant species. Appendix I Water Rights

Summary of water rights held by Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Rate or Administra- Court Appropria- Source Name Storage1 tive Number Number tion Date Antelope Ditch No. 1 5.47 cfs 30280.21305 WO487 05/01/1908 Antelope Well 0.029 cfs 30280.21305 WO487 05/01/1908 Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Domestic 0.10 cfs 47481.33602 80CW220 12/31/1941 Well Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Stock Well 0.10 cfs 47481.33602 80CW219 12/31/1941 Boyce Brothers Ditch No. 1 9.25 cfs 16360 275 (263) 10/16/1894 Boyce Brothers Ditch No. 1 20.5 cfs 30280.18748 700 05/01/1901 Case Reservoir No. 1 124.3 ac-ft 30280.21391 11 07/26/1908 Case Reservoir No. 2 105.8 ac-ft 30280.21392 12 07/27/1908 Case Reservoir No. 3 9.1 ac-ft 30280.22852 14 07/26/1912 Case Reservoir No. 3 57.4 ac-ft 48577.23852 83CW228 07/26/1912 Dryer Ditch 5.2 cfs 13635 81 05/01/1887 Dryer Ditch 3.6 cfs 16215 270 (258) 05/24/1894 Dryer Ditch 2.4 cfs 17806 296 (281) 10/01/1898 Everhard Baldwin Ditch 10 cfs (5 cfs) 13642 86 (80) 05/08/1887 Everhard Baldwin Ditch 8 cfs 14762 229 06/01/1890 Everhard Baldwin Ditch 5 cfs 21366.20240 349 06/01/1905 Fox Pond 108 ac-ft 51499.47999 91CW113 06/01/1981 Hill-Crouter Ditch 6 cfs 14148 161 09/25/1888 Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 4 cfs (2.0 cfs) 12179 11 (10) 05/06/1883 Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 2 cfs 14370 180 (161) 05/05/1889 Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 2 cfs 14805 232 (207) 07/14/1890 Howard Ditch 75 cfs (37.5) 22188 364 10/01/1910 Howard Ditch 70cfs (35 cfs)2 49102 84CW156 06/08/1984 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 1 cfs 13686 100 (93) 06/21/1887 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 13849 110 (101) 12/01/1887 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 2 cfs 14417 196 (176) 06/21/1889 Hubbard Ditch No. 1 6 cfs 23016.18840 375 08/01/1901 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 3 cfs 14337 167 (151) 04/02/1889 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 3 cfs 14731 217 (196) 05/01/1890 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 8 cfs 15891 264 (253) 07/04/1893 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 15 cfs 17420 286 (273) 09/10/1897 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 16 cfs 21366.19909 346.5 07/05/1904 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 27 cfs 21391 357 07/26/1908 Hubbard Ditch No. 2 31 cfs` 23016.22035 378.2 05/01/1910 Hubbard Ditch No. 4 2 cfs 23016.21383 None 07/18/1908 Ish and Baldwin Ditch 1.6 cfs (0.8 cfs) 16942 382 (270) 05/20/1896 MacFarlane Ext. Ditch 40 cfs (20 cfs) 22455 368 06/25/1911 6507 ac-ft MacFarlane Reservoir 22207 2 10/20/1910 (3253.5 ac-ft) MacFarlane Reservoir 6833 ac-ft* 49102 84CW156 06/08/1984 Appendix I—Water Rights 157

Summary of water rights held by Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Rate or Administra- Court Appropria- Source Name Storage1 tive Number Number tion Date Midland Ditch 15 cfs (5 cfs) 18506 306 (286) 09/01/1900 Midland Ditch 6 cfs 21366.21305 355 05/01/1908 Midland Ditch 20.5 cfs (5 cfs) 24007 398 09/24/1915 Muskrat Pond 390 ac-ft 48577.47798 83CW4 11/12/1980 North Park Ditch No. 6 9 cfs 13635 80 (78) 05/01/1887 North Park Ditch No. 6 6 cfs 21366.19478 344 05/01/1903 Okalahoma Ditch No. 1 41 cfs 14350 170 04/15/1889 Oklahoma Ditch No. 1 10 cfs 15151 243 (215) 06/25/1891 Oklahoma Ditch No. 1 10 cfs 21366.19478 344 05/1/1903 Oklahoma Ditch No. 2 9 cfs 16362 276 (264) 10/18/1894 Oklahoma Ditch No. 2 4 cfs 21366.19478 344 05/01/1903 Potter Ditch No. 2 5 cfs 20270 329 07/01/1905 Riddle Ditch 11 cfs (3 cfs) 21366.21280 353 04/06/1908 Spring Creek Pond 92.4 ac-ft 51499.47542 91CW114 03/01/1980 State Walden Pipeline 0.75 cfs 30280.27559 726 06/15/1925 State Walden Reservoir 37.9 ac-ft 30280.27559 18 06/15/1925 Ward Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 14015 122 (113) 05/15/1888 Ward Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 14417 195 (175) 06/21/1889 Ward Ditch No. 1 13 cfs 17496 287 (274) 11/25/1897 Ward Ditch No. 2 0.5 cfs 14403 190 (170) 06/07/1889 Ward Ditch No. 3 2.25 cfs 18394 302 05/12/1900 1cfs=cubic feet per second; ac-ft=acre feet; rate or storage in ( ) is for the refuge only. 2This right is mostly unperfected of “conditional.” Appendix J Species List

Animal and plant species of the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge are listed below.

canvasback Aythya valisineria Birds redhead Aythya americana This taxonomic list of birds at the Arapaho National ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Wildlife Refuge follows the order of American lesser scaup Aythya affi nis Ornithological Union’s Checklist of North American buffl ehead Bucephala albeola Birds, 7th ed. (1998). common goldeneye Bucephala clangula hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus At least 203 bird species occur on the refuge (January common merganser Mergus merganser 2002): ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis —82 species breed Osprey, Hawks, and Eagles —13 species are accidental or vagrant —2 species are on the federally threatened list osprey Pandion haliaetus bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus northern harrier Circus cyaneus Grebes sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Podiceps nigricollis eared grebe Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Aechmophorus occidentalis western grebe red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Pelicans ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Cormorants Falcons double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus American kestrel Falco sparverius cormorant merlin Falco columbarius Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus prairie falcon Falco mexicanus American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus great blue heron Ardea herodias Gallinaceous Birds snowy egret Egretta thula sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus cattle egret Bubulcus ibis green heron Butorides virescens Rails black-crowned night­ Nycticorax nycticorax Virginia rail Rallus limicola heron sora Porzana carolina yellow-crowned night­ Nyctanassa violaceus American coot Fulica americana heron Cranes Ibises and Spoonbills sandhill crane Grus canadensis white-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Plovers New World Vultures black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola Cathartes aura turkey vulture killdeer Charadrius vociferus Swans, Geese, and Ducks Stilts and Avocets Chen caerulescens snow goose black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Branta canadensis Canada goose American avocet Recurvirostra americana trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator tundra swan Cygnus columbianus Sandpipers and Phalaropes wood duck Aix sponsa gadwall Anas strepera greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca American wigeon Anas americana lesser yellowlegs Tringa fl avipes mallard Anas platyrhynchos solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria blue-winged teal Anas discors willet Catoptrophorus cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera semipalmatus northern shoveler Anas clypeata spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia northern pintail Anas acuta upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda green-winged teal Anas crecca long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Appendix J—Species List 159 marbled godwit Limosa fedoa Shrikes western sandpiper Calidris mauri least sandpiper Calidris minutilla loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii northern shrike Lanius excubitor long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Vireos common snipe Gallinago gallinago Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor warbling vireo Vireo gilvus red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Crows, Jays, and Magpies Gulls and Terns Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan pinyon jay Gymnorhinus Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia cyanocephalus ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Clark’s nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana California gull Larus californicus black-billed magpie Pica pica Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos black tern Chlidonias niger common raven Corvus corax Doves Larks mourning dove Zenaida macroura horned lark Eremophila alpestris Cuckoos Swallows yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Barn Owls northern rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis barn owl Tyto alba swallow bank swallow Riparia riparia Typical Owls cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota barn swallow Hirundo rustica great horned owl Bubo virginianus burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Chickadees long-eared owl Asio otus short-eared owl Asio fl ammeus black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli Nightjars Nuthatches common nighthawk Chordeiles minor red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Hummingbirds Wrens calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus broad-tailed Selasphorus platycercus house wren Troglodytes aedon hummingbird sedge wren Cistothorus platensis rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Kingfi shers Dippers belted kingfi sher Ceryle alcyon American dipper Cinclus mexicanus Woodpeckers Kinglets Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius Thrushes sapsucker red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis eastern bluebird Sialia sialis downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens western bluebird Sialia mexicana hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides northern fl icker Colaptes auratus veery Catharus fuscescens Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus Tyrant Flycatchers hermit thrush Catharus guttatus olive-sided fl ycatcher Contopus cooperi American robin Turdus migratorius western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Mimic Thrushes willow fl ycatcher Empidonax traillii Hammond’s fl ycatcher Empidonax hammondii gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis dusky fl ycatcher Empidonax oberholseri northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Cordilleran fl ycatcher Empidonax occidentalis sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 160 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Starlings yellow-headed Xanthocephalus blackbird xanthocephalus European starling Sturnus vulgaris Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Pipits common grackle Quiscalus quiscula brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater American (water) pipit Anthus rubescens Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii Waxwings Finches Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus gray-crowned rosy­ Leucosticte tephrocotis cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum fi nch Wood Warblers black rosy-fi nch Leucosticte atrata brown-capped rosy­ Leucosticte australis orange-crowned Vermivora celata fi nch warbler house fi nch Carpodacus mexicanus Nashville warbler Vermivora rufi capilla pine siskin Carduelis pinus Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginiae lesser goldfi nch Carduelis psaltria yellow warbler Dendroica petechia American goldfi nch Carduelis tristis chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Old World Sparrows MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei house sparrow Passer domesticus common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas (introduced) Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla Tanagers Mammals

western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Thirty-three mammal species occur on the refuge Sparrows and Towhees (January 2002). green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Shrews spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus masked shrew Sorex cinereus eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus American tree sparrow Spizella arborea Hares and Rabbits chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Nuttall’s cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri white-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Squirrels sage sparrow Amphispiza belli lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys least chipmunk Eutamias minimus savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis yellow-bellied marmot Marmota fl aviventris fox sparrow Passerelia iliaca Wyoming ground Spermophilus elegans song sparrow Melospiza melodia squirrel Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii thirteen-lined ground Spermophilus Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula squirrel tridecemlineatus white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys golden-mantled ground Spermophilus lateralis dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis squirrel McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii white-tailed prairie dog Cynomys leucurus Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus Beaver chestnut-collared Calcarius ornatus longspur beaver Castor canadensis snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Mice and Voles Grosbeaks and Allies deer mouse Permoyscus maniculatus rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus northern grasshopper Onychomys leucogaster black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus mouse melanocephalus montane vole Microtus montanus blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena Old World Mice indigo bunting Passerina cyanea dickcissel Spiza americana house mouse Mus musculus Blackbirds and Orioles Jumping Mice bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus western jumping mouse Zapus princeps red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Porcupine western meadowlark Surnella neglecta porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Appendix J—Species List 161

Dogs and Foxes Reptiles coyote Canis latrans wandering garter snake Thamnophis elegans red fox Vulpes vulpes vagrans Bears Plants black bear Ursus americanus Raccoons At least 390 plant species occur on the refuge; 1 is on the federally endangered species list (January 2002). raccoon Procyon lotor Parsley Family (Apiaceae=Umbelliferae) Weasels and Skunks sweet cicely Osmorhiza longistylis ermine Mustela erminea Douglas water hemlock Cicuta douglasii long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata poison-hemlock Conium maculatum mink Mustela vison western hemlock Cicuta maculata river otter Lutra Canadensis angustifolia badger Taxidea taxus lovage, licorice-root Ligusticum porteri striped skunk Mephitis mephitis hemlock parsley Conioselinum scopulorum cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum Cats Fern Family (Aspleniaceae) mountain lion Puma concolor bobcat Felis rufus alpine ladyfern Athyrium distentifolium Deer Aster Family (Asteraceae) Rocky Mountain elk Cervus elaphus aster Aster campestris mule deer Odocoileus hemionus golden aster Chrysopsis horrida white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus hairy golden aster Chrysopsis villosa moose Alces alces leafy aster Aster foliaceus marsh aster Aster hesperius Pronghorn arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata pronghorn Antilocapra americana heart-leaf arnica Arnica cordifolia leafy or meadow arnica Arnica chamissonis Coulter’s daisy Erigeron coulteri Fish daisy Erigeron elatior daisy fl eabane Erigeron ochroleucus Nine fi sh species occur on the refuge (January 2002). scribneri Trout spear-leaf fl eabane Erigeron lonchophyllus subalpine daisy Erigeron peregrinus rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri common dandelion Taraxacum offi cinale brown trout Salmo trutta mountain dandelion Agoseris glauca glauca brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis common pearly­ Anaphalis margaritacea Dace, Minnows, Chub, and Darters everlasting dune goldenrod Solidago simplex northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus goldenweed Haplopappus clematis Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum goldenweed Haplopappus lanceolatus Suckers arrowleaf groundsel Senecio triangularis groundsel Senecio mutabilis long-nosed sucker Catostomus catostomus groundsel Senecio soldanella white sucker Catostomus commeisoni groundsel Senecio sphaerocephalus few-leaved groundsel, Senecio cymbalarioides Amphibians and Reptiles alpine meadow butterweed Six amphibian and reptile species occur on the refuge thickleaf groundsel, Senecio crassultus (January 2002). butterweed, ragwort water groundsel, alkali Senecio hydrophilus Amphibians marsh butterweed barred tiger Ambystoma tigrinum long-leaved Crepis acuminata salamander mavortium hawksbeard western toad Bufo boreas dandelion hawksbeard Crepis runcinata wood frog Rana sylvatica gray horsebrush Tetradymia canescens northern leopard frog Rana pipiens mule’s ears Wyethia amplexicaulis striped chorus frog Pseudacris nigrita nothocalais Nothocalais nigrescens maculatat pineapple-weed Matricaria matricaroides 162 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

fi eld pussytoes Antennaria neglecta shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris Nuttail’s pussytoes Antennaria parvifolia slender thelypody Thelypodium sagittatum rosy pussytoes Antennaria microphylla spreading wallfl ower Erysimum repandum tall pussytoes Antennaria anaphaloides gray rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus Cactus Family (Cactaceae) albicaulis pincushion cactus Coryphantha vivipara rubber rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus prickly pear cactus, Opuntia fragilis nauseosus brittle cactus alkali sage Artemisia arbuscula prickly pear cactus Opuntia polyacantha longiloba polyacantha big sage Artemisia tridentata tridentata Bluebell Family (Campanulaceae) black sage Artemisia nova Arctic harebell, Campanula unifl ora fringed sage Artemisia frigida bellfl ower low sage Artemisia arbuscula bellfl ower, lady’s Campanula rotundifolia arbuscula thimble mountain big sage Artemisia tridentata vaseyana Caper Family (Capparaceae) Artemisia cana viscidula mountain silver sage Rocky Mountain Cleome serrulata Artemisia longifolia plains sage beeplant prairie sage Artemisia ludoviciana sage Artemisia tridentata Honeysuckle Family (Caprifoliaceae) rothrockii silver sage Artemisia cana cana buckbrush Symphoricarpos albus western salsify Tragopogon dubius elderberry Sambucus racemosa broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae bearberry honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata orange sneezeweed Helenium hoopesii snowberry Symphoricarpos false sunfl ower Helianthus rigidus orbiculatus thistle Cirsium canescens twinfl ower Linnaea borealis longifl ora thistle Cirsium drummondii Pink Family (Caryophyllaceae) thistle Cirsium scopulorum thistle Cirsium tioganum catchfl y Lychnis drummondii Canada thistle Cirsium arvense ballheaded sandwort Arenaria congesta Flodman’s thistle Cirsium fl odmanii slender sandwort Arenaria stricta star-thistle Centaureae cyanus longleaved starwort Stellaria longifolia wavy-leaved thistle Cirsium undulatum longstalked starwort Stellaria longipes western yarrow Achillea millefolium Whitlow wort Paronychia sessilifl ora Barberry Family (Berberidaceae) Staff-tree Family (Celastraceae) Oregon grape Mahonia repens mountain lover Pachistima myrsinites Birch Family (Betulaceae) Goosefoot Family (Chenopodiaceae) mountain alder Alnus incana summer cyperus Kochia americana bog birch Betula glandulosa slimleaf goosefoot Chenopodium lepdtophyllum Borage Family (Boraginaceae) white goosefoot, Chenopodium album houndstongue Cynoglossum offi cinale pigweed bluebells Mertensia humilis greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus bluebells Mertensia lanceolata mat saltbush Atriplex gardneri cilate bluebells Mertensia ciliata winterfat Ceratoides lanata small bluebells Mertensia longifl ora Orpine Family (Crassulaceae) forget-me-not, Hackelia leptophylla stickseed rose crown Sedum rhodanthum minors candle Cryptantha caespitosa stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum stoneseed Lithospermum incisum stonecrop Sedum stenopetalum rose crown, stonecrop Sedum rhodanthum Mustard Family (Brassicaceae=Cruciferae) Cedar Family (Cupressaceae) American wintercress Barbarea orthoceras bitter cress Cardamine breweri common juniper Juniperus communis large mountain Cardamine cordifolia depressa bittercress cordifolia Sedge Family (Cyperaceae) rock cress Arabis drummondi yellowcress Rorripa obtusa many spiked Eriophorum polystachion smallseed false fl ax Camelina microcarpa cottongrass tansy mustard Descurainia pinnata bulrush Scirpus pallidus common peppergrass Lepidium densifl orum Appendix J—Species List 163 bulrush, clubrush Scirpus microcarpus Geranium Family (Geraniaceae) common spike rush Eleocharis palustris small spike rush Eleocharis parvula Richardson’s geranium Geranium richardsonii beaked sedge Carex rostrata Gooseberry Family (Grossulariaceae) capitate sedge Carex capitata Dunhead sedge Carex phaeocephala swamp gooseberry Ribes lacustre elk sedge Carex geyeri whitestem gooseberry Ribes inerme Hayden’s sedge Carex ebenea Waterleaf Family (Hydrophyllaceae) narrow-leaved sedge Carex eleocharis Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula needleleaf sedge Carex fi lifolia Parry sedge Carex parryana St. Johnswort Family (Hypericaceae) sedge Carex kellogi St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum shortbeaked sedge Carex simulata slenderbeaked sedge Carex athrostackya Iris Family (Iridaceae) wooly sedge Carex lanuginosa blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium idahoense Oleaster Family (Elaegnaceae) occidentale blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium montanum russet buffaloberry Shepherdia canadensis Rocky Mountain iris Iris missouriensis Horsetail Family (Equisetaceae) Rush Family (Juncaceae) common horsetail Equisetum arvense baltic rush Juncus balticus horsetail Equisetum laevigatum dagger-leaf rush Juncus ensifolius northern scouring rush Equisetum variegatum fi eld woodrush Luzula campestris nelsoni long-styled rush Juncus lonistylis smallfl owered Luzula parvifl ora Heath Family (Ericaceae) woodrush bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi tuberous rush Juncus nodosus dwarf bilberry Vaccinium caespitosum low bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus Arrowgrass Family (Juncaginaceae) grouse whortleberry Vaccinium scoparium seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritimum Pea Family (Fabaceae =Leguminosae) marsh arrowgrass Triglochin palustre Alsike clover Trifolium hybridium Mint Family (Lamiaceae) long-stalked clover Trifolium longipes fi eld mint Mentha arvensis sweet clover Melilotus offi cinalis common hemp nettle Galeopsis tetrahit white, dutch clover Trifolium repens marsh or willoweed Scutellaria galericulata silky crazyweed Oxytropis sericea sericea skullcap plains loco Oxytropis campestris tall locoweed Oxytropis lamberii Lily Family (Liliaceae) big leaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus chives Allium schoenoprasum humicola cucumber root, Streptopus amplexifolius prairie lupine Lupinus lepidus utahensis clasping-leaved silvery lupine Lupinus argenteus twisted stalk argenteus panicled deathcams Zigadenus paniculatus milkvetch, locoweed Astragalus parryi fritillary Fritillaria atropurpurea park milkvetch Astragalus leptaleus California false­ Veratrum californicum thistle milkvetch Astragalus kentrophyta hellebore silver-leaved milkvetch Astragalus argophyllus sego lily Calochortus nuttallii wooly-pod milkvetch Astragalus purshii red lily Lilium umbellatum plains orophaca Astragalus gilyifl orus onion Allium geyeri yellow pea Thermopsis rhombifolia starry solomon plume Smilacena stellata American vetch Vicia americana americana Mallow Family (Malvaceae) Gentian Family (Gentianaceae) mallow Malva crispa checkermallow, false Sidalcea candida gentian Gentiana forwoodii mallow gentian Gentiana parryi scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea pleated or prairie Gentiana affi nis gentian Evening Primrose Family (Onagraceae) moss gentian Gentiana fremontii fi reweed, blooming Epilobium angustifolium northern gentian Gentianella amarella sally smaller fringed gentian Gentiana thermalis common willow herb Epitobium glandulosum swertia Swertia perennis tenue 164 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

willow herb Epilobium glaberrimum Parry oatgrass Danthonia patryi fastigiatum oniongrass Melica bulbosa racemed ground smoke Gayophytum racemosum purple oniongrass Melica spectabilis orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata Orchid Family (Orchidaceae) redtop Agrostis alba leafy white orchid Habenaria dilatata common reed Phragmites australis giant, western Goodyera oblongifolia reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea rattlesnake plantain bluejoint reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis narrow spiked Calamagrostis inexpansa Pine Family (Pinaceae) reedgrass inexpansa Douglas-fi r Pseudotsuga menziesii plains reedgrass Calamagrostis subalpine fi r Abies lasiocarpa montanensis white fi r Abies concolor Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides limber pine Pinus fl exilis blue wild rye Elymus glaucus lodgepole pine Pinus contorta latifolia saltgrass Distichlis stricta blue spruce Picea pungens prairie sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii scratchgrass Muhlenbergia asperifolia sleepy grass Stipa robusta Plantain Family (Plantaginaceae) sloughgrass Beckmannia syzgachne bottlebrush squirrel tail Sitanion hystrix nippleseed plantain Plantago major timothy Phleum pretense Grass Family (Poaceae=Gramineae) spike trisetum downy Trisetum spicatum oatgrass Nuttall alkaligrass Puccinellia airoides sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum Baker’s wheatgrass Agropyron bakeri meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum bearded wheatgrass Agropyron subsecundum Thurber bentgrass Agrostis thurburiana bluebunch wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum winter bentgrass Agrostis scabra crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum alkali bluegrass Poa juncifolia cristatume big bluegrass Poa ampla elongate wheatgrass Agropyron elongatum bog bluegrass Poa leptocoma intermediate Agropyron intermedium Canada bluegrass Poa compressa wheatgrass Canby bluegrass Poa canbyi slender wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum Cusick bluegrass Poa cusickii streambank wheatgrass Agropyron riparium Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis thickspiked wheatgrass Agropyron dasystachyum Nevada bluegrass Poa nevadensis western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda brookgrass, water Catabrosa aquatica Wheeler bluegrass Poa nervosa whorlwort cheatgrass, downy Bromus tectorum brome Phlox Family (Polemoniaceae) fringed brome Bromus ciliatus mountain brome Bromus marginatus narrow-leaf collomia Collomia linearis nodding brome Bromus anomalus scarlet gilia Gilia agregata smooth brome Bromus inermis Hood’s phlox Phlox hoodii Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica long leaf phlox Phlox longifolia Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis phlox Phlox multifl ora sheep fescue Festuca ovina prickly-leaved phlox Phlox aculeata Thurber fescue Festuca thurberi skunk or sticky Polemonium viscosum fowl grass Poa palustris polemonium meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis Buckwheat Family (Polygonaceae) blue grama Bouteloua gracilis hairy grama Bouteloua hirsuta American bistort Polygonum bistortoides tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa sulphur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum cespitosa dichrocephalum junegrass Koeleria pyramidata wild buckwheat Eriogonum jamesii mannagrass Glyceria borealis fl avescens mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis curly dock Rumex crispus minute muhly Muhlenbergia minutissima heartweed, spotted Polygonum persicaria mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana ladysthumb mutton grass Poa fendleriana Douglas’ knotweed Polygonum douglasii needle and thread Stipa comata Purslane Family (Portulacaceae) Columbia needlegrass Stipa columbiana green needlegrass Stipa viridula least, dwarf, alpine Lewisia pygmeae Letterman’s Stipa lettermanii lewisia needlegrass spring beauty Claytonia lanceolata pine needlegrass Stripa pinetorum lanceolata Appendix J—Species List 165

Primrose Family (Primulaceae) planeleaf willow Salix planifolia monica Scouler’s willow Salix scouleriana fairy candleabra, rock Androsace septentrionalis whiplash willow Salix lasiandra caudata jasmine Wolf’s willow Salix wolfi i few fl owered or dark Dodecatheon pulchellum throat shooting star Sandalwood Family (Santalaceae) Wintergreen Family (Pyrolaceae) bastard toadfl ax Comandra umbellata pallida alpine pyrola Pyrola asarifolia Saxifrage Family (Saxifragaceae) Buttercup Family (Ranunculaceae) alumroot Heuchera bracteata cliff anemone Anemone globosa alumroot Heuchera hallii baneberry Actaea rubra alumroot Heuchera parvifolia buttercup Ranunculus alismifolius slender fringecup, Lithophragma tenellum Macoun’s buttercup Ranunculus macounii woodlandstar sagebrush buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus brook saxifrage Saxifraga arguta ellipticus sharp buttercup Ranunculus acriformis Figwort Family (Scrophulariaceae) acriformis beardtongue Penstemon alpinus columbine Aquilegia coerulea beardtongue Penstemon cyathophorus globefl ower Trollius laxus beardtongue Penstemon glaber larkspur Delphinium barbeyi beardtongue Penstemon saxosorum little larkspur Delphinium bicolor American brooklime Veronica americana slim or dwarf larkspur Delphinium depauperatum yellow owl clover Orthocarpus luteus tall larkspur Delphinium occidentale elephant’s head Pedicularis groenlandica marsh marigold Caltha leptosepala bracted lousewort Pedicularis bracteosa veiny meadowrue Thalictrum venulsoum leafy lousewort Pedicularis racemosa albe monkshood Aconitum columbianum lousewort Pedicularis crenulata pasquefl ower Anemone patens multifi da lousewort Pedicularis scopulorum Buckthorn Family (Rhamnaceae) yellow monkey-fl ower Mimulus guttatus desert paintbrush Castilleja chromosa buckbrush Ceanothus velutinus Indian paintbrush Castilleja angustifolium Rose Family (Rosaceae) chromosa Indian paintbrush Castilleja angustifolium largeleaved avens Geum macrophyllum puberula bitterbrush Purshia tridentata yellow paintbrush Castilleja fl ava blackberry Rubus idaeus peramoenus yellow paintbrush Castilleja puberula chokecherry Prunus virginiana slender penstemom Penstemon gracilis biennial cinquefoil Potentilla biennis small-fl owered Penstemon procerus cinquefoil Potentilla diversifolia penstemon cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis elmeri Whipple’s penstemon Penstemon whippleanus cinquefoil Potentilla pucherrima speedwell Veronica arvensis early cinquefoil Potentilla concinna yellow toadfl ax Linaria vulgaris prairie cinquefoil Potentilla pensylvanica shrubby cinquefoil, Potentilla fruticosa Spike Moss Family (Selaginellaceae) yellow rose spike moss Selaginella densa prairie smoke Geum trifl orum woods rose Rosa woodsii Cattail Family (Typhaceae) common silverweed Potentilla anserina common cattail Typha latifolia serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia strawberry Fragaria virginiana Nettle Family (Urticaceae) Madder Family (Rubiaceae) stinging nettle Urtica dioiea northern bedstraw Galium boreale Valerian Family (Valerianaceae) small bedstraw Galium trifi dum valerian Valeriana occidentalis Willow Family (Salicaceae) Violet Family (Violaceae) quaking aspen Populus tremuloides narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia violet Viola canadensis Booth’s willow Salix boothii violet Viola nuttallii coyote willow Salix exigua melanopsis Drummond’s willow Salix drummondiana Geyer’s willow Salix geyeriana mountain willow Salix monticola planeleaf willow Salix planifolia planifolia Appendix K Refuge Operating Needs

Refuge operating needs system (RONS) projects for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Recurring First- Annual RONS Year Need Need Number Project Description ($1,000s) ($1,000s) FTE*

03001 Conduct a riparian study 195 10 —

97011 Implement the CCP and associated step-down plans 128 70 1.0

00002 Improve irrigation and fence maintenance 100 50 0.5

Conduct a life history study of the endangered North Park 98002 38 — — phacelia Platte River Water Conservation, and improve refuge water 97017 98 — — use effi ciency

98001 Improve refuge and ecosystem management capabilities 128 70 1.0

03002 Improve refuge GIS use and capabilities 128 70 1.0

97002 Interagency coordination 22 22

Improve administrative functions with increased staff and 03003 70 40 1.0 responsibilities as identified in the CCP Construct a multi-use trail from Walden to the Brocker 03004 150 — — overlook Survey the Illinois River and develop a channel restoration 03006 150 — — plan

03007 Create fi ve parking areas for hunters 60 — —

03008 Construct a moose- or elk-viewing platform 30 — —

Maintain refuge riparian areas, wetlands, and associated 97006 110 60 1.0 habitat

03009 Install a six-stall garage at the office 125 — —

03010 Construct a pole barn for refuge equipment storage 100 — —

Improve refuge environmental education and interpretation 98003 128 70 1.0 programs

01003 Provide annual funding for Platte River Depletion payments 14 14 —

97005 Develop wells on Hampton property 81 — —

97009 Prescribed fire for wildlife habitat management 28 — —

Total $1,908 $476 6.5

*FTE=full-time equivalent employee. Appendix L Maintenance Management Projects

Maintenance management system (MMS) projects for the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Cost MMS Number Project Description ($1,000s) 95011 Re-gravel auto tour route 798 99002 Replace deteriorated boundary fence (8 miles along Highway 125) 79 95007 Replace deteriorated river head gates 84 95010 Replace public use and education signs 40 02006 Rehabilitate Allard back road and Fisherman’s parking lot road 1,419 96002 Replace interior fence on Case tract 45 01016 Replace 1993 Chevrolet 4x4 pickup 35 90010 Replace 1980 Case tracked crawler/bulldozer 241 01006 Replace 1984 International dump truck 101 03001 Rehabilitate Allard kiosk and overlook 50 00007 Replace quarters #4 and two outbuildings with a bunkhouse 250 00004 Rehabilitate the historic barn on the Case tract 266 Total $3,870

Bibliography

Bibliography

Allen, A.W., P.A. Jordan, J.W. Terrell. 1987. Habitat Austin, J.E., C.M. Custer, and A.D. Lofton. 1998. suitability index models: moose, Lake Superior Lesser scaup (Aythya affi nis). In: A. Poole, and region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Report 82 (10.155). Number 338. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Allen, T.F.H., and T.W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. unifi ed ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, New York. Ayyad, M.A.G. and R.L. Dix. 1964. An analysis of a vegetation-micro-environmental complex on prairie Alyea. [no date] National Oceanic and Atmospheric slopes in Saskatchewan. Ecological Monographs, Administration. In: Kuhn, G., P.B. Daddow, and G.S. Volume 34, No. 4:421–442. Craig, Jr. 1983. Hydrology of area 54. USGS Water Resources Investigation/open-fi le report 83–146. Bailey, R. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of 95 pp. the United States. USDA Forest Service. Misc. Publication #1391. American Fisheries Society, Western Division. 1980. Position paper on management and protection Baker, M.C. 1979. Morphological correlates of of western riparian stream ecosystems. American habitat selection in a community of shorebirds Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. (Charadriiformes). Oikos 33:121–126. Anderson, S.H., and H.H. Shugart, Jr. 1974. Habitat Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 1994. Feeding selection of breeding birds in an east Tennessee ecology. In: Waterfowl Ecology and Management, deciduous forest. Ecology 55:828–837. pp. 165–197. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Apfelbaum, S.I. 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) Bartonek, J.C. and J. J. Hickey. 1969. Food habits management. Natural Areas Journal 5(3):9–17. of canvasbacks, redheads, and lesser scaup in Manitoba. Condor 71(3):280–290. Arnold, K.A. 1994. Common snipe. Pages 117–125 in T.C. Tacha and C.E. Braun, editors. Migratory Baxter, R.M. 1977 Environmental effects of dams shore and upland game bird management in North and impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology and America. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Systematics 8:255–283. Arnold, T.W., and K.F. Higgins. 1986. Effects of Bedish, J.W. 1967. Cattail moisture requirements shrub coverages on birds of North Dakota mixed- and their significance to marsh management. grass prairies. Canadian Field Naturalist 100:10–14. American Midland Naturalist 78(2):288–300. Askins, R.A., and M.J. Philbrick. 1987. Effects of Berger, A.J. 1968. Eastern vesper sparrow. Pages changes in regional forest abundance on the decline 868–882 in O.L. Austin, Jr., editor. Life histories of and recovery of a forest bird community. Wilson North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, Bulletin 99:7–21. towhees, fi nches, sparrows, and allies. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, New York. Askins, R.A., M.J. Philbrick, and D.S. Sugeno. 1987. Relationship between the regional abundance Best, L.B. 1972. First-year effects of sagebrush of forest and the composition of forest bird control on two sparrows. Journal of Wildlife communities. Biological Conservation 39:129–152. Management 36:534–544. Austin, J.E., and M.R. Miller. 1995. Northern Beule, J.D. 1979. Control and management of pintail (Anas acuta). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, cattails in southeastern Wisconsin wetlands. editors. The Birds of North America, Number 163. Department of Natural Resources Technical The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Bulletin No. 112, Madison, Wisconsin. Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Blake, J.G., and J.R. Karr. 1984. Bird communities and forest size. Biological Conservation 30:173–187. Blake, J.G. and Karr, J.R. 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68:1724–1734. 172 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Boe, J.S. 1992. Wetland selection by eared grebes, Carothers, S.W., and R.R. Johnson. 1975. Water Podiceps nigricollis, in Minnesota. Canadian Field- management practices and their effects on non­ Naturalist 106:480–488. game birds in range habitats. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Forest and Range Boe, J.S. 1993. Colony sites selection by eared Habitats for Non-Game Birds. U.S. Department grebes in Minnesota. Colonial Waterbirds 16(1):28– of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical 38. Report WO-1. Bohlen, H.D. 1978. An annotated check-list of the Carothers, W.W., R.R. Johnson, and S.W. Aitchison. birds of Illinois. Illinois State Museum Popular 1974. Population structure and social organization Science Series 9:1–155. of southwestern riparian birds. American Zoologist Bonnewell, V., W.L. Koukkari, and D.C. Pratt. 1983. 14:97–108. Light, oxygen, and temperature requirements for Cassells, E.S. 1997. The Archaeology of Colorado, Typha latifolia seed germination. Canadian Journal Revised Edition. Johnson Books, Boulder. of Botany 61:1330–1336. Castelli, R.M., J.C. Chambers, and R.J. Tausch. Bowman, G.B., and L.D. Harris. 1980. Effect of 2000. Soil-plant relations along a soil-water gradient spatial heterogeneity on ground-nest depredation. in Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands Journal of Wildlife Management 44:806–813. 20(2):251–266. Bradley, C.E, and D.G. Smith. 1986. Plains Clark, J.P. 1977. Effects of experimental cottonwood recruitment and survival on a prairie management schemes on production and nesting meandering river fl oodplain, Milk River, southern ecology of ducks at Malheur National Wildlife Alberta and northern Montana. Canadian Journal of Refuge. Master’s thesis, Oregon State University. Botany 64:1433–1442. Clark, T.W., T.W. Campbell III, D.G. Socha, and Braun, C.E., M.F. Baker, R.L. Eng, J.S. Gashwiler, D.E. Cassey. 1982. Prairie dog colony attributes and M.H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation Committee and associated vertebrate species. Great Basin report on effects of alteration of sagebrush Naturalist 42:572–582. communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165–171. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. 1998. H.E. Kingery, editor. Published by Colorado Bird Atlas Briskie, J.V. 1995. Nesting biology of the yellow Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. warbler at the northern limit of its range. Journal of Field Ornithology 66:531–543. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2001. 1999 Estimates of State & County Tourism Jobs. www. Brotherson, J.D. 1999. Measured and inferred dola.state.co.us./demog/cbef/tourism99.pdf moisture gradient relationships across ecotone boundaries in shrub-dominated foothill Colorado State University Extension. 2000. The communities. In: McArthur, E. Durant; 1998 August 1998–99 Colorado Livestock Enterprise Budget. 12–14: Ephraim, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooper, D.J. 1986. Community structure and Rocky Mountain Research Station. classification of Rocky Mountain wetland ecosystems. Pages 66–147 in J.T. Windell, B.E. Brown, M. and J.J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, C.F. Knud- of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird Hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. Kiladis, eds. An management. Journal of Wildlife Management ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain 50(3):392–397. montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 86. Burger, J. 1985. Habitat selection in temperate marsh-nesting birds. Pages 253–281 in Cody, editor. Cooper, H.W. 1953. Amounts of big sagebrush in Habitat Selection in Birds, Physiol. Ecol. Ser. plant communities near Tensleep, Wyoming, as affected by grazing treatment. Soil Conservation Burger, L.D., L.W. Burger, Jr., and J. Faaborg. Service, Lincoln Nebraska. Pp. 186–189. 1994. Effects of prairie fragmentation on predation on artificial nests. Journal of Wildlife Management Costello, D.F. 1944. Important species of the major 58:249–254. forage types in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Monographs, Volume 14, Issue 1:107–134. Cannon, R.W., and F.L. Knopf. 1984. Species composition of a willow community relative to seasonal grazing histories in Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 29:234–237. Bibliography 173

Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. Drut, M.S., J.A. Crawford, and M.A. Gregg. 1994. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Brood habitat use by sage grouse in Oregon. Great Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Basin Naturalist 54:170–176. Act, 40 CFR 1500-1508, Council on Environmental Quality, November 28, 1978. Duley, F.L. and C.E. Domingo. 1949. Effect of grass on intake of water. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. Cox, R.R., Jr., M.A. Hanson, C.C. Roy, N.H. Euliss, 159:1–15. Jr., D.H. Johnson, and M.G. Butler. 1998. Mallard duckling growth and survival in relation to aquatic Dunn, J.L., and K.L. Garrett. 1997. A fi eld guide invertebrates. Journal of Wildlife Management to warblers of North America. Houghton Miffl in 62(1):124–133. Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Crowder, K. 2001. North Park Greater Sage- Engstrom, A. 1948. Growing cottonwood from seed. Grouse Conservation Plan. Jackson County Journal of Forestry 46:130–132. Administrator, Jackson County, Colorado. 51 pp. Enright, C.A. 1971. An analysis of mallard nesting Dambach, C.A. 1944. A ten-year ecological study habitat on the Monte Vista National Wildlife of adjoining grazed and ungrazed woodlands in Refuge. Master’s thesis, Colorado State University, northwestern Ohio. Ecological Monograph 14: Fort Collins, Colorado. 256–270. Everitt, B.L. 1968. Use of the cottonwood in an Darveau, M., L. Belanger, J. Huot, and J.C. investigation of the recent history of a fl ood plain. Ruel. 1993. Mid-term effects of windfall on bird American Journal of Science 266:417–439. use of riparian forest strips. Proceedings of the Faaborg, J. 1976. Habitat selection and territorial International Union of Game Biologists 21:104–109. behavior of the small grebes of North Dakota. Darveau, M., P. Beauchessne, L. Belanger, J. Huot, Wilson Bulletin 88(3):390–399. and P. Larue. 1995. Riparian forest strips as habitat Farmer, A.H. and A.H. Parent. 1997. Effects of for breeding birds in boreal forest. Journal of the landscape on shorebirds movements at spring Wildlife Management 59:67–78. immigration stopovers. Condor 99:698–707. Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Fautin, R.W. 1975. The terrestrial vertebrate Igl, C.M. Goldade, A.L. Zimmerman, and B.R. fauna of the Atlantic Richfield Company’s Black Euliss. 1999. Effects of management practices on Thunder Coal lease property in Campbell County, grassland birds: western meadowlark. Northern Wyoming. Pages 635–650 in Fort Union Coal Field Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, Symposium. North Dakota. Fenner, P., W.W. Brady, and D.R. Patton. 1984. DeGraaf, R.M., and J.H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical Observations on seeds and seedlings of Fremont migratory birds. Comstock Publishing Assoc., cottonwood. Journal of Desert Plants 6:55–58. Ithaca, NY. Fleming, K.K., and W.M. Giuliano. 1998. Effect Delisle, J. 1995. Avian use of fields enrolled in of border-edge cuts on birds at woodlot edges the conservation reserve program in southeast in southwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Nebraska. Master’s thesis, University of Nebraska, Management 62:1430–1437. Lincoln, Nebraska. Fletcher, Louis A. 1981. Soil survey of the Jackson Dieni, J.S., and S.H. Anderson. 1999. Effects County area, Colorado. USDA, Soil Conservation of recent burning on breeding bird community Service, 159 pp. structure in aspen forests. Journal of Field Ornithology 70:491–503. Fredrickson, L.H. and F.A. Reid. 1986. Wetland and riparian habitats: a nongame management Dittmar, L.A. and R.K. Neely. 1999. Wetland seed overview. Pages 58–96 in J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, bank response to sedimentation varying in loading and R.L. Clawson, editors, Management of rate and texture. Wetlands 19(2):341-351. nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a developing art. th Dobkin, D. S., and B. A. Wilcox. 1986. Analysis Proceedings of the 47 Midwest Fish and Wildlife of natural forest fragments: riparian birds in the Conference. Toiyabe Mountains, Nevada. Pages 293–299 in J. Fredrickson, L.H., and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Verner, M.L. Morison, and C.J. Ralph, editors. Management of seasonally fl ooded impoundments Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of for wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Resource Publication 148, Washington, D.C. Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 174 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Freemark, K.E., J.B. Dunning, S.J. Hejl, and J.R. Gilmore, K.P., M. Tate, M.L. Chenault, B. Clark, T. Probst. 1995. A landscape ecology perspective for McBride, and M. Wood. 1999. Colorado prehistory: research, conservation, and management. Pages a context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado 381–427 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors. Council of Professional Archeologists, Denver. Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford Girard, G.L. 1937. Life history, habitats and food University Press, New York, New York. of the sage grouse, Centrocerus urophasianus. Bonaparte. Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, Publ. 3. Friedmann, H. 1963 Host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 233:1–176. Goodrich, S., D. Nelson and N. Gale, 1999. In: McArthur, E. Durant; 1998 August 12–14: Friedman, J.M. 1993. Vegetation establishment and Ephraim, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. channel narrowing along a Great-Plains stream Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky following a catastrophic fl ood. Ph.D. dissertation, Mountain Research Station. University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Greenwood, R.J., and A.B. Sargeant., D.H. Johnson, Friedman, J.M., M.L. Scott, and W.M. Lewis, Jr. L.M. Cowardin, and T.L. Shaffer. 1995. Factors 1995. Restoration of riparian forest using irrigation, associated with duck nest success in the prairie artificial disturbance, and natural seedfall. pothole region of Canada. Wildlife Monograph 128. Environmental Management 19:547–557. 57 pp. Fryendall, M.J. 1967. Feeding ecology and Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. territorial behavior of the yellow warbler. Ph.D. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162–166. Fullfilling the Promise. 1999. Groves, C.R. and J.E. Anderson. 1980. Allelopathic Galinato, M.I. and A.G. van der Valk. 1986. Seed effects of Artemisia tridentata leaves on germination traits of annuals and emergents germination and growth of two grass species. recruited during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, American Midland naturalist, Volume 106, Issue 1 Manitoba, Canada. Aquatic Botany 26:89–102. (Jul. 1981), 73–79. Galli, A.E., C.F. Leck, and R.T.T. Forman. 1976. Guthrie, Mark R., Powys Gass, Renee Johnson, Avian distribution patterns in forest islands of and Joseph J. Lischka. 1984. Colorado Mountains different sizes in central New Jersey. Auk 93:356– prehistoric context. Colorado Historical Society, 364. Denver. Gates, D.H., L.A. Stoddart, and C.W. Cook. 1956. Gutzwiller, K.J., and S.H. Anderson. 1992. Soil as a factor influencing plant distribution on salt Interception of moving organisms: infl uences of deserts of Utah. Ecology Monograph 26:155–175. patch shape, size, and orientation on community Gates, J.E., and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest structure. Landscape Ecology 6:293–303. dispersion and fledging success in fi eld-forest Haas, C.A. 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors ecotones. Ecology 59:871–883. by birds in wooded patches on an agricultural Geer, Kenneth R. 1959. Analysis of 68 samples landscape. Conservation Biology 9:845–854. form the 1956 Gallatin Canyon elk “Hunter Hagar, J.C. 1999. Influence of riparian buffer width Kill.” In Wildlife investigations; State: Wildlife on bird assemblages in western Oregon. Journal of investigations laboratory. Montana Dept. of Fish Wildlife Management 63:484–496. and Game. Fed. Aid Compl. Rep. Project W-83-R-2. All jobs. P. 8. Hail, William J., Jr. 1968. Geology of southwestern North Park and vicinity, Colorado. United States Geer, Kenneth R. 1960. Analysis of twenty-one elk Geological Survey bulletin 1188, Washington. rumens collected from the 1956 hunter kill and Boyd Rance, Missoula County. In: Wildlife investigations; Hampton, H.D. 1971. With Grinnell in North Park in State: Wildlife investigations laboratory. Montana The Colorado Magazine, volume XLVIII number 4, Dept. of Fish and Game. Fed. Aid Compl. Rep. pp. 274–298. Project W-83-R-3. All jobs. P. 14. Harris, J.H., S.D. Sanders, and M.A. Flett. 1988. Gibbs, J.P., J.R. Longcore, D.G. McAuley, and The status and distribution of the willow fl ycatcher J.K. Ringelman. 1991. Use of wetland habitats by in the Sierra Nevada: results of the survey. selected nongame water birds in Maine. U.S. Fish California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 9. Management Division, Administrative Report 88-1. 57 pp. Bibliography 175

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management James, R.D. 1976. Foraging behavior and habitat manual.Western Hemisphere Shorebirds Reserve selection of three species of vireos in southern Network, Manomet, MA. 58 pp. Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 88:62–75. Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow Johns, B.W. 1993. The influence of grove size on bird fragmentation on grassland birds. Master’s thesis. species richness in aspen parklands. Wilson Bulletin University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 105(2): 256–264. Herkert, J.R. 1991. An ecological study of the Johnson, K.L. 1987. Sagebrush types as ecological breeding birds of grassland habitats within Illinois. indicator to integrated pest management (IPM) Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- in the sagebrush ecosystem of western North Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. America. In: Integrated Pest Management on Rangeland, State of the Art in the Sagebrush Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat Ecosystem. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird Research Service, ARS-50, pp. 1–10. communities. Ecological Applications 4:46–471. Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1986. Assessing Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen, and habitat quality for birds nesting in fragmented J.E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat establishment, tallgrass prairies. Pages 245-249 in J. Verner, M.L. enhancement and management for forest and Morrison, and C.J. Ralph, editors. Modeling habitat grassland birds in Illinois. Natural Heritage relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University Technical Publication Number 1. Illinois of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Department of Conservation, Springfi eld, Illinois. Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1990. Nest Herkert, J.R. 1995. An analysis of midwestern predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie breeding bird population trends: 1966-1993. birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:106–111. American Midland Naturalist 134:41–50. Johnson, R.R., L.T. Haight, and J.M. Simpson. Hodges, M.F., and D.G. Krementz. 1996. Neotropical 1977. Endangered species vs. endangered habitats: migratory breeding bird communities in riparian a concept. Pages 68–79 in R.R. Johnson and D.A. forests of different widths along the Altamaha Jones, editors. Importance, Preservation and River, Georgia. Wilson Bulletin 108:496–506. Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. Holechek, J.L.; Gomes, H.G.; Molinar, F.; Galt, D. 1998. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Grazing intensity: critique and approach. Rangelands General Technical Report RM-43. 20:15–18. Johnson, W.C., R.L. Burgess, and W.R. Keammerer. Holm, J.W. 1984. Nest success and cover 1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment relationships of upland-nesting ducks in on the Missouri River floodplain in North Dakota. northcentral Montana. Master’s thesis, University Ecological Monographs 46:59–84. of Montana, Helena, Montana. Johnson, K.H., and C.E. Braun. 1999. Viability and

Houle, G., and P. Babeux. 1998. The effects of conservation of an exploited sage grouse population. collection date, IBA, plant gender, nutrient Conservation Biology 13:77–84. availability, and rooting volume on adventitious Kaiser, P.H. 1976. Habitat preferences of upland root and lateral shoot formation by Salix planifolia nesting waterfowl in southeastern South Dakota. stem cutting from the Ungava Bay area (Quebec, Master’s thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, Canada). Canadian Journal of Botany 76:1687–1692. Missouri. Hupp, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1989. Topographic Kantrud, H.A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter. J. the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native Wildl. Manage. 53(3):823–829. grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404–417. Hutto, R.L. 1981. Seasonal variation in the foraging Kantrud, H.A. 1990. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton behavior of some migratory western wood warblers. pectinatus L.): A literature review. U.S. Fish and Auk 98: 765–777. Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 176. 89 pp. Hutto, R.L. 1992. Habitat distributions of migratory Kantrud, H.A. 1991. Wigeongrass (Ruppia maritima landbird species in western Mexico. Pages L.): a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 211-239 in J.M. Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston, Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 10. 58 pp. editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 176 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Kantrud, H.A., and K.F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and Kinley, T.A., and N.J. Newhouse. 1997. Relationship nest site characteristics of some ground-nesting of riparian reserve zone width to bird density non-passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie and diversity in southeastern British Columbia. Naturalist 24:67–84. Northwest Science 71:75–86. Kanud, H.A. 1981, Grazing intensity effects on Kirsch, John B. 1963. Range use, relationships to the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native logging, and food habits of the elk in the Little Belt grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404–417. Mountains, Montana. Master’s thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 44 pp. Karr, J.R., and K.E. Freemark. 1985. Disturbance and vertebrates: an integrative perspective. Pages Kirsch, L.M., and K.F. Higgins. 1976. Upland 153–168 in S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, editors. sandpiper nesting and management in North The ecology of natural disturbance and patch Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 4:16–20. dynamics. Academic Press, New York, New York. Kirsch, L.M., H.F. Duebbert, and A.D. Kruse. 1978. Kushlan, J.A. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading Grazing and haying effects on habitats of upland birds. In: Wading Birds, A. Sprunt, IV, J.C. Ogden, nesting birds. Transactions of the North American and S. Winckler, editors, pp. 249–297. Research Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:486– Report No. 7, National Audubon Society, New York. 497. Johnsgard, P.A. 1980. A preliminary list of the birds Knopf, F.L. 1985. Significance of riparian vegetation of Nebraska and adjacent Plains states. University to breeding birds across an altitudinal cline. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 156 pp. Pages 105–111 in R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Folliott, and R.H. Hamre, technical Karr, J.R. 1982. Avian extinction on Barro Colorado coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and their Island, Panama: a reassessment. American management: reconciling conflicting uses. U.S. Naturalist 119:220–239. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Karr, J.R., and K.E. Freemark. 1985. Disturbance Technical Report RM-120, Rocky Mountain Forest and vertebrates: an integrative perspective. Pages and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 153–167 in S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, editors. Knopf, F.L., and J.A. Sedgwick. 1992. An The ecology of natural disturbance and patch experimental study of nest-site selection by yellow dynamics. Academic Press Inc., San Diego. warblers. Condor 94:734–742. Karuziak, D., H. Vriend, J.G. Stelfox, and J.R. Knoff, F.L., J.A. Sedgwick, and D.B. Inkley. 1990. McGillis. 1977. Effects of livestock grazing on mixed Regional correspondence among shrubsteppe bird prairie range and wildlife within PRFA, Suffi eld habitats. Condor 92:45–53. Military Reserve. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Knopf, F.L., J.A. Sedgwick, and R.W. Cannon. 1988. Guild structure of a riparian avifauna relative Kehmeier, K. 2001. Fishery and Habitat Analysis to seasonal cattle grazing. Journal of Wildlife of the Illinois River and Its Tributaries for the Management 52:280–290. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Division of Wildlife publication. 15 pp. Knowlton, G.F., and F.C. Harmston. 1943. Grasshoppers and crickets eaten by Utah birds. Keller, C.M.E., C.S. Robbins, and J.S. Hatfi eld. Auk 60:589–591. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Koontz, S. 2003. Agricultural Economist. Colorado Wetlands 13:137–144. State University. Personal Communication. April 2003. Kendeigh, S.C. 1982. Bird populations in east- central Illinois: fluctuations, variations, and Krapu, G.L. and K.J. Reinecke. 1992. Foraging development over a half-century. Illinois Biological ecology and nutrition. In: Ecology and Management Monographs Number 52. of Breeding Waterfowl, B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, Kilgo, J.C., R.A. Sargent, B.R. Chapman, and K.V. J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, editors, pp. 1–29. Miller. 1998. Effect of stand width and adjacent University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. habitat on breeding bird communities in bottomland hardwoods. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:72–83. Krasny, M.E., K.A. Vogt, and J.C. Zasada. 1988. Establishment of four Salicaceae species on river Kingery, H., editor. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird bars in interior Alaska. Holarctic Ecology 11:210– Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership. 219. Bibliography 177

Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate Livezey, B.C. 1981. Duck nesting in retired associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife croplands at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, Management 34(4):707–71. Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 27–37. Kufeld, R.C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Range Management Lokemoen, J.T., H.F. Duebbert, and D.E. Sharp. 26(2):106–113. 1984. Nest spacing, habitat selection, and behavior of waterfowl on Miller Lake Island, North Dakota. Kuhn, G., P.B. Daddow, and G.S. Craig, Jr. 1983. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:309–321. Hydrology of area 54. USGS Water Resources Investigation/open-file report 83–146. 95 pp. Lowther, P.E., C. Celada, N.K. Klein, C.C. Rimmer, and D.A. Spector. 1999. Yellow warbler Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. (Dendroica petechia). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability editors. The Birds of North America, Number 454. concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Applications 9:1179–1188. Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Lane, E.W. 1955. The importance of fl uvial Union, Washington, D.C. morphology in hydraulic engineering. Proceedings Lynch, J.F. 1987. Responses of breeding bird of the American Society of Civil Engineers 81:1–17. communities to forest fragmentation. Pages 123–140 Lanyon, W.E. 1994. Western meadowlark in D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge, (Sturnella neglecta). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, and A.J.M. Hopkins, editors. Nature conservation: editors. The Birds of North America, Number 104. the role of remnants of native vegetation. Surrey The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Beatty and Sons, Sydney, Australia. Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ MacArthur, R.H., and J.W. MacArthur. 1961. On Union, Washington, D.C. bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594–598. Larson, Mary Lou and Rhonda Letts. 2003. Machtans, C.S., M.A. Villard, and S.J. Hannon. 1996. Cultural resource overview of the Laramie basin Use of riparian buffer strips as movement corridors and Pathfinder Reservoir, Wyoming and North by forest birds. Conservation Biology 10:1366–1379. Park, Colorado. George C. Frinson Institute of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecology and Wyoming. relations of mule deer, elk and cattle on the Missouri River Breaks, Montana.Wild. Mongr. No. 20. 79 pp. Laubhan, M.K. and J.H. Gammonley. 2000. Density and foraging habitat selection of waterbirds Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and breeding in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Journal bird-habitat relationships on prescribe-burned, of Wildlife Management 64(3):808–819. mixes-grass prairie in North Dakota. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, Leck, M.A. 1989. Wetland seed banks. Pages 283– Montana. 305 in M.A. Leck, V.T. Parker, and R.L. Simpson, editors. Ecology of soil seed banks. Academic Press, Maher, W.J. 1973. Birds: 1. Population dynamics. San Diego, CA. Canadian Comm. for the IBP. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 56 pp. Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Mahoney, J.M., and S.B. Rood. 1991. A device for studying the influence of declining water table LeSchack, C.R., S.K. McKnight, and G.R. Hepp. on poplar growth and survival. Tree Physiology 1997. Gadwall (Anas strepera). In: A. Poole, and 8:305–314. F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Number 283. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Martin, S.G., and T.A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American (Dolichonyx oryzivorous). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. editors. The Birds of North America, Number 176. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Lillehammer, A., and S.J. Saltveit, editors. 1984. Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Regulated rivers. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway. Union, Washington, D.C. Lischka, Joseph J., Mark E. Miller, R. Branson Martin, T.E. 1984. Impact of livestock grazing on Reynolds, Dennis Dahms, Kathy Joyner Mcguire, birds of a Colombian cloud forest. Tropical Ecology and David Mcguire. 1983. An Archaeological 25:158–171. inventory in North Park, Jackson County, Colorado, Bureau of Land Management report, Denver Colorado, 359 pp. 178 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Martin, T.E. 1986. Competition in breeding birds: on Morton. 2000. Economic Profiles for Colorado the importance of considering processes at the level Counties: Jackson County. The Wilderness Society. of the individual. Current Ornithology 4:181–210. www.wilderness.org. Martin, T.E. 1988. Habitat and area effects on forest Mueller, H. 1999. Common snipe (Gallinago bird assemblages: is nest predation an infl uence? gallinago). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. Ecology 69:74–84. The Birds of North America, Number 417. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Martz, G.F. 1967. Effects of nesting cover removal Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ on breeding puddle ducks. Journal of Wildlife Union, Washington, D.C. Management 31:236–247. Mundinger, J.G. 1976. Waterfowl response to rest- May, R.M. 1986. The search for patterns in the rotation grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management balance of nature: advances and retreats. Ecology 40:60–68. 67:1115–1126. Murkin, H.R., E.J. Murkin, and J.P. Ball. 1997. McArthur, E.D.; Welch, B.L. 1982. Growth rate Avian habitat selection and prairie wetland differences among big sagebrush (Artemisia dynamics: a 10 year experiment. Ecological tridentate) accessions and subspecies. Journal of Applications 7:1144–1159. Range Management. 35:396–401. Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. McArthur, E.D. 1992. Ecology, distribution, and The role of riparian corridors in maintaining values of sagebrush within the intermountain regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:20–­ region. In: Paper presented at symposium 212. on ecology, management and restoration of intermountain annual rangelands, Boise, ID, May Naugle, D.E., K.F. Higgins, S.M. Nusser, and W. 18–21, 1992. Carter Johnson. 1999. Scale-dependent habitat use in three species of prairie wetland birds. Landscape McKee et al. 1981 in Kuhn, G., P.B. Daddow, and Ecology 14:267–276. G.S. Craig, Jr. 1983. Hydrology of area 54. USGS Water Resources Investigation/open-fi le report Naugle, D.E., R.R. Johnson, M.E. Estey, and K.F. 83–146. 95 pp. Higgins. 2001. A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of McLeod, K.W., and J.K. McPherson. 1973. Factors eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21(1):1–17. limiting the distribution of Salix nigra. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 100:102–110. Nelson, J.W. and J.A. Kadlec. 1984. A conceptual approach to relation habitat structure and McNaughton S.J., M.B. Coughenour, and L.L. macroinvertebrate production in freshwater Wallace. 1982. Integrative processes in grassland wetlands. Transactions of the North American and ecosystems. In: Grasses and Grasslands: Natural Resources Conference 49: 262–270. Systematics and Ecology, eds. J.R. Estes, R.J. Tyrl, and J.N. Brunken, pp. 167–194. University of Nelson, J.W., J.A. Kadlec, and H.R. Murkin. 1990. Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla. Responses by macroinvertebrates to cattail litter quality and timing of litter submergence in a Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2002. Year 2000 northern prairie marsh. Wetlands 10(1):47–60. IMPLAN Data File for Jackson County, Colorado. www.implan.co. Niccolucci, M. and S. Winter. 2002. Trip-related expenditures for hunting, fi shing, and non­ Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. consumptive wildlife recreation activities. USDA Second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. New York. Odum, E.P. 1978. Ecological importance of the Morris, M.S., and J.E. Schwartz. 1957. Mule deer riparian zone. Pages 2–4 in R.R. Johnson and J.F. and elk food habitats on the National bison Range. McCormick, technical coordinators. Strategies for J. Wildl. Manage. 21:189–193. protection and management of fl oodplain wetlands Morse, D.H. 1966. The context of songs in the and other riparian ecosystems. United States yellow warbler. Wilson Bull. 78: 444–455. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report WO-12, Washington, D.C. Moss, E.H. 1938. Longevity of seed and establishment of seedlings in species of Populus. Oetting, R.B., and J.F. Cassel. 1971. Waterfowl Botanical Gazette 99:529–542. nesting on interstate highway right-of-way in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 35: 774–781. Bibliography 179

Olson, D. and S. Lindall. 1996. IMPLAN Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effect of forest fragmentation Professional Software, Analysis, and Data Guide. on bird population. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. Forest Service General Technical Report NC­ 51:198–212. North Central Forest Experiment Oniki, Y. 1985. Why robin eggs are blue and birds Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. build nests: statistical tests for Amazonian birds. Pages 536–545 in P.A. Buckley, M.S. Foster, E.S. Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, and B.A. Dowell. 1989. Morton, R.S. Ridgely, and F.G. Buckley, editors. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds Neotropical ornithology. Ornithological Monographs of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs Number 36. Washington, D.C. 103. Orians, G.H., and J.F. Wittenburger. 1991. Spatial Roberts, T.S. 1932. The birds of Minnesota, and temporal scales in habitat selection. American Volume 2. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Naturalist 137:S27–S49. Minnesota, 821 pp. Owens, R.A. 1971. The effects of several Rogers, G.E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations agricultural regimes upon populations of native in Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks passerine birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. Department, Technical Publication Number 16. 132 pp. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Rood, S.B., and J.M. Mahoney. 1990. Collapse of riparian poplar forests downstream from dams in Owens, R.A., and M.T. Myres. 1973. Effects of western prairies: probable causes and prospects for agriculture upon populations of native passerine mitigation. Environmental Management 14:451–464. birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51:697–713. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison, and K.V. Rotella, J.J. and J.T. Ratti. 1992. Mallard brood Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight: conservation survival and wetland habitat conditions in of the land birds of the United States. American southwestern Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Management 56(3):499–507. Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Rotella, J.J. and J.T. Ratti. 1992. Mallard brood Wyoming Game and Fish Comm., and Sage books, movements and wetland selection in southwestern Inc., Denver, Colorado. 341 pp. Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 56(3):508–515. Petersen, K.L., and L.B. Best. 1985. Brewer’s sparrow nest-site characteristics in a sagebrush Rotenberry, J.T. and J.A. Wiens. 1980. Temporal community. J. Field Ornithol. 565:23–27. variation in habitat structure and shrub steppe bird dynamics. Oecologia (berl.) 47, pp. 1–9. Pezeshki, S.R., P.H. Anderson, and F.D. Shields, Jr. 1998. Effects of soil moisture regimes on growth Rotenberry, J.T. and J.A. Wiens. 1980. Habitat and survival of black willow (Salix nigra) posts structure, patchiness, and avian communities in (cuttings). Wetlands 18:460–470. North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228–1250. Potter, P.E. 1972. Territorial behavior in savannah sparrows in southeastern Michigan. Wilson Bulletin Rotenberry, J.T., M.A. Patten, and K.L. Preston. 84:48–59. 1999. Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). In: The Birds of North America, No. 390 (A. Poole and Ratti, J.T., and K.P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test F. Gill, eds). The Birds of North America, Inc., of the ecological trap hypothesis. Journal of Wildlife Philadelphia, PA. Management 52:484–491. Rotenberry, J.T., and J.A. Wiens. 1989. Reeves, H.M. 1954. Muskrat and waterfowl production Reproductive biology of shrubsteppe passerine and harvest in Dingle Swamp, Bear Lake County, birds: geographical and temporal variation in clutch Idaho. Master’s thesis. Utah State Agricultural College, size, brood size, and fledging success. Condor 91:1–14. Logan, Utah. Rotenberry, J.T., and J.A. Wiens. 1998. Foraging Rice, E.L. 1974. Allelopathy. Academic Press, New York. patch selection by shrubsteppe sparrows. Ecology 353 pp. 79:1160–1173. Rich, T.D. 1980. Nest placement in sage thrashers, Rotenberry, J.T. and J.A. Wiens. 1991. Weather and sage sparrows and Brewer’s sparrows. Wilson Bull. reproductive variation in shrubsteppe sparrows: a 92:362–368. hierarchial analysis. Ecology 72:1325–1335. 180 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Ryder, R.T.J. and L.L. Irwin. 1987. Winter habitat Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blenden. relationships of pronghorns in south central 1984. Bird habitat on Missouri prairies. Terrestrial Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 51(1):79–85. Series #14, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. Salyer, J.W. 1962. Effects of drought and land use on prairie nesting ducks. Transactions of the Snyder, S.A. 1991. Alces alces. In: W.C. Fischer, North American Wildlife and Natural Resources compiler. The Fire Effects Information System Conference 27:69–79. (data base). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, conservation of prairie birds. Pages 293–299 in Montana. C. L. Kucera, editor. Proceedings of the 7th North American Prairie Conference, Southwest Missouri Sogge, M.K., R.M Marshall, S.J. Sferra, and T.J State University, Springfi eld, Missouri. Tibbets. 1997. A southwestern willow fl ycatcher natural history summary and survey protocol. U.S. Savory, A., and J. Butterfield. 1999 Holistic Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Management, Island Press: Washington D.C. 616 pp. Colorado Plateau Research Station, Technical Schaid, T.A., D.W. Uresk, W.L. Tucker, and R.L. Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12, Flagstaff, Linder. 1983. Effects of surface mining on the Arizona. vesper sparrow in the northern Great Plains. Sojda, R.S. and K.L. Solberg. 1993. Management Journal of Range Management 36:500–503. and control of cattails. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. Waterfowl Management Handbook, Leaflet 13. 8 pp. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Spackman, S.C., and J.W. Hughes. 1995. In: The Birds of North America, No 425 (A. Poole Assessment of minimum stream corridor width and F. Gill, eds.) The Birds of North America Inc., for biological conservation: species richness and Philadelphia, PA. distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, Schroeder, R.L. 1982. Habitat suitability index USA. Biological Conservation 71:325–332. models: yellow warbler. U.S. Department of Stacier, C.A. 1992. Social behavior of the northern Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS­ parula, Cape May warbler, and prairie warbler 82/10.27. wintering in second-growth forest in southwestern Scott, M.L., M.A. Wondzell, and G.T. Auble. Puerto Rico. Pages 308–320 in J. M. Hagan III and 1993. Hydrograph characteristics relevant to the D. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation establishment and growth of western riparian of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian vegetation. Pages 237–246 in H.J. Morel-Seytoux, Institution Press, Washington, D.C. editor. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual Stanley, T.R., and F.L. Knopf. 2000. Avian responses American Geophysical Union Hydrology Days. to late-season grazing in a shrub-willow fl oodplain. Hydrology Days Publications, Atherton, California. Submitted to Conservation Biology. Sedgwick, J.A., and F.L. Knopf. 1992. Describing Stauffer, D.F., and L.B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection willow fl ycatcher habitats: scale perspectives and by birds of riparian communities: evaluating gender differences. Condor 94:720–733. effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Segelquist, C.A., M.L. Scott, and G.T. Auble. 1993. Management 44:1–15. Establishment of Populus deltoides under simulated Stephens, D.A. 1985. Foraging ecology of alluvial groundwater declines. American Midland shrubsteppe birds in central Washington. Master’s Naturalist 130:274–285. thesis, Central Washington Univ., Ellensburg. Reed, J.M. 1986. Vegetation structure and vesper Stevens, L., B.T. Brown, J.M. Simpson, and R.R. sparrow territory location. Wilson Bulletin 98: 144–147. Johnson. 1977. The importance of riparian habitat Seidl, A., and E. Garner. 2001. Agricultural Land to migrating birds. Pages 156–164 in R.R. Johnson Use and Economic Trends in Four North Central and D.A. Jones, editors. Importance, preservation and Colorado Mountain Counties: Routt, Jackson, management of riparian habitat: a symposium. U.S. Grand, and Summit. Department of Agricultural Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General and Resource Economics Extension Publication. Technical Report RM-43. Colorado State University. Stevenson, H.M., and B.H. Anderson. 1994. The Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, in distributed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Gainesville, Florida. Processes and Landforms 14:11–26. Bibliography 181

Stewart, G. 1941. Historic records bearing on Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. agriculture and grazing ecology of Utah. J. For. Riparian zones. Pages 40–47 in J.W. Thomas, 39:313–375. editor. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Stocek, R. 1994. The importance of riparian zones Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 553. as wildlife habitat. Pages 33–35 in J. Singleton, B. Higgs, J. Campbell, A. Eddy, and T. Murray, editors. Thurmond, D.P., K.V. Miller, and T.G. Harris. 1995. Proceedings of the symposium on riparian zone Effect of streamside management zone width on management. Canadian Forest Service Research avifauna communities. Southern Journal of Applied and Development Report 9. Forestry 19:166–169. Sturges, D.L. 1977. Snow accumulation and melt in Town of Walden. 2001. Economic Development sprayed and undisturbed big sagebrush vegetation. Summary. www.northpark.org/town/ USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Forest and econdemographicmain.ht. Range Expt. Sta. Research Note RM-348. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. www.census.gov. Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for Measuring Visitor Spending. Department of Park Recreation and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Tourism Resources, Michigan State University. Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. 2002. www.bea.gov. Sudgen, L.G. 1973. Feeding ecology of pintail, gadwall, American widgeon and lesser scaup U.S. Department of Interior. 1996. National Survey ducklings in southern Alberta. Can. Wildl. Serv. of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Rep. Ser. No. 24. Ottawa, 43 pp. Recreation, National Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, Sundstrom, C., W.G. Hepworth, and K.L. Diem. D.C. 1973. Abundance, distribution and food habits of the pronghorn. Wyoming Game and Fish Depart. Bull., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Final 12:1–61. rule determining endangered status for the southwestern willow fl ycatcher. Federal Register Sutcliffe, O., and C.D. Thomas. 1996. Open corridors 60:10694–10715 (February 27, 1995). appear to facilitate dispersal by ringlet butterfl ies (Aphantopus hyperantus) between woodland U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfi lling the clearings. Conservation Biology 10:1359–1365. promise. The National Wildlife Refuge System. 94 pp. Svejcar, T.J., G.M. Riegel, S.D. Conroy, and J.D. Vale, T.R. 1975. Pre-settlement vegetation in Trent. 1991. Establishment and growth potential sagebrush-grass area of the intermountain west. of riparian shrubs in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Range Management 28(1), January 1975 Symposium on Ecology and Management of pp. 32–36. Riparian Shrub Communities, Sun Valley, Idaho. van der Valk, A.G., and C.B. Davis. 1978. The role Swanson, D.A. 1998. Effects of management of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie practices on grassland birds: savannah sparrow. glacial marshes. Ecology 59(2):322–335. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Vesely, D.G. 1997. Terrestrial amphibian abundance Jamestown, ND. and species richness in headwater riparian buffer Swift, B.L. 1984. Status of riparian ecosystems strips. Oregon Coast Range. Master’s thesis, in the United States. Water Resources Bulletin Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 20:233–238. Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter, Jr., and S.M Melvin. Szaro, R.C., and M.D. Jakle. 1985. Avian use of a 1994. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of desert riparian island and its adjacent scrub habitat. grassland birds in Maine. Conservation Biology Condor 87:511–519. 8:1087–1097. The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Villard, M.A., G. Merriam, and B.A. Maurer. 1995. Working Group. 1998. Overview of stream Dynamics in subdivided populations of Neotropical corridors. Pages 1–32 in L. Hill and J. Simpson, migrant landbirds in a temperate fragmented editors. Stream corridor restoration: principles, forest. Ecology 76:27–40. processes, and practices. Publisher unknown. Voegeli, P.T., Sr. 1965. Groundwater resources of North Park and Middle Park, Colorado: a reconnaissance. U. S. Geological Survey Water, Supply Paper 1809-G. 54 pp. 182 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fi re frequencies in relation to changing marsh vegetation. American on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and Midland Naturalist 95(2):313–322. management implications. In: McArthur, E.D.; Romney, E.M.; Smith, S.D.; Tueller, P.T., comps. Walters, M.A., R.O. Teskey, and T.M. Hinckley. Proceedings—symposium on cheat grass invasion, 1980. Impact of water level changes on woody shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and riparian and wetland communities. Volume 8. Pacifi c management: 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. U. S. Fish Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT; U.S. Department and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-78/94. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Wang, S., T.W. Jurik, and A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Research Station, pp. 4–10. Effects of sediment load on various stages in the Whitaker, D.M., W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Breeding life and death of cattail (Typha x Glauca). Wetlands bird assemblages inhabiting riparian buffer strips 14(3):166–173. in Newfoundland, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Weaver, T. and D. Klarich. 1977. Allelopathic effects Management 63:167–179. of volatile substances from Artemisia tridentata Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Nutt. Am. Midl. Nat., 97:508–512. Whitcomb, M.K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Welch, B.L. 1983. Big sagebrush: nutrition, Pages 125–205 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, selection, and controversy. In: Johnson, K.L., editors. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated ed. Proceedings of the first Utah shrub ecology landscapes: effects of forest fragmentation on workshop: 1981 September 9-10; Ephraim, UT. avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Springer- Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Verlag, New York. Natural Resources: 21–33. Whitmore, R.C. 1975. Habitat ordination of Welch, B.L. and McArthur, E.D. 1990. Big passerine birds of the Virgin River Valley, sagebrush: its taxonomy, origin, distribution and southwestern Utah. Wilson Bulletin 87:65–74. utility. In: Fisser ,H.G., ed. Proceedings of the Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of fourteenth Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; ecological relationships among grassland birds. 1985 May 29-30; Rock Springs, WY. Laramie, WY: Ornithological Monographs No. 8. American University of Wyoming, Department of Range Ornithologists’ Union, Ithaca, New York. Management: 3–19. Wiens, J.A., and J.T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat Weller, M.W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to associations and community structure of birds management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State Journal in shrub steppe environments. Ecological of Research 49(4):383–412. Monographs, Volume 51, Issue 1 (Mar. 1981). Weller, M.W. and C.E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of Wiens, J.A., and J.T. Rotenberry. 1985. Response of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh breeding passerine bids to rangeland alteration in a birds. Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics North American shrub steppe locality. Experiment Station. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. Special Wiens, J.A., and J.T. Rotenberry, and B. Van Horne. Report 43. 1987. Habitat occupancy patterns of shrubsteppe birds: the effects of spatial scale. Oikos 48:132–147. West, N.E. 1993. Western Intermountain sagebrush steppe. In: Temperate Deserts and Semi-deserts. Williamson, K. 1960. Snipe at St. Kilda. Bird Notes Vol. 5, Ecosystems of the World, ed. N.E. West, pp. 29:5–8. 351–374. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Willson, M.F. 1974. Avian community organization West, N.E. 1996. Strategies for maintenance and and habitat structure. Ecology 55:1017–1029. repair of biotic community diversity on rangelands. In: Biodiversity in managed landscapes—theory Windell, J.T., B.E. Willard, and S.Q. Foster. 1986. and practice. (Ed.) Szaro, R.C., and D.W. Johnston, Introduction to Rocky Mountain wetlands. Pages Oxford University Press, New York. Pp. 326–346. 1–41 in J.T. Windell, B.E. Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, C.F. Knud-Hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. Wheelwright, N.T., and J.D. Rising. 1993. Savannah Kiladis, eds. An ecological characterization of Rocky sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). In: A. Poole, Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 86. Number 45. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Bibliography 183

Windell, J.T., B.E. Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, C.F. Knud-Hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. Kiladis. 1986. An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain and subalpine wetlands. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 86(11). 298 pp. Winker, K., D.W. Warner, and A.R. Weisbrod. 1992. Migration of woodland birds at a fragmented inland stopover site. Wilson Bulletin 104:580–598. Wood, A.K. 1989. Comparative distribution and habitat use by antelope and mule deer. J. Mamm., 70(2):335–340. Wright J.C., and E.A. Wright. 1948. Grassland types of south central Montana. Ecology 29:449-–460. Yoakum, J.D. 1978. Pronghorn. Pp. 102–121, in Big game of North America (J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, eds). The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 494 pp. Young, J.R. 1994. The influence of sexual selection on phenotypic and genetic divergence among sage grouse populations. Ph.D. diss., Purdue Univ., West Lafayatte, IN. Young, J.A., R.A. Evans, and P.T. Tueller. 1976. Great Basin plant communities—pristine and grazed. Pp. 187–217. (IN) Holocene environmental Change in Great Basin. Robert Elston (Ed.) Nevada Arch. Survey. Res. Pap. No. 6. Reno, NV. Young, J.A., R.A. Evans., and R.E. Eckert, Jr. 1984. Successional patterns and productivity potentials of the sagebrush and salt desert ecosystems. Zeigenfuss, L.C., Singer, F.J., Williams, S.A. and T.L. Johnson. 2002 Influences of herbivory and water on willow in elk winter range. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(3):788–795.