Comprehensive Conservation Plan i 

Contents

Summary...................................................... S-1

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................. 1

Area Description ...................................... 1

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

and Refuge System .................................. 5

Purpose of and Need for the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan ....... 6

History of Refuge Establishment, 

Acquisition, and Management ................ 7

Refuge Purpose ........................................ 9

Refuge Vision Statement........................ 9

Refuge Goals ............................................. 9

Legal and Policy Guidance.................... 10

Chapter 2. Planning Process ....................... 11

Description of Planning Process .......... 11

Planning Issues....................................... 12

Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource 

Descriptions................................................... 14

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting............ 14

Topography ............................................. 15

Soils .......................................................... 15

Water ....................................................... 15

Water Rights .......................................... 16

Climate..................................................... 16

Habitat and Vegetation......................... 16

Wildlife..................................................... 19

Cultural Resources and History of 

Refuge Lands.......................................... 24

Fire Occurrence and History................ 25

Visitor Services ...................................... 25

Wilderness............................................... 26

Socioeconomics ....................................... 27

Chapter 4. Management Direction............. 28

Management for Wildlife Diversity..... 28

Habitat..................................................... 31

Ecological Integrity ............................... 34

Visitor Services ...................................... 42
ii Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Cultural Resources ................................ 46

Partnerships............................................ 48

Chapter 5. Implementation and 

Monitoring ..................................................... 50

Personnel................................................. 50

Funding.................................................... 50

Step-down Management Plans............. 51

Partnership Opportunities.................... 52

Monitoring and Evaluation ................... 52

Plan Amendment and Revision............ 53

Tables 

Table 1. Estimated waterfowl 

populations from 1997 to 2002. ........... 20

Table 2. Estimated waterfowl 

production from 1988 to 1995.............. 20

Table 3. Nest success of rookery sites 

for colonial wading birds by 

species for the years 1994-1996. ......... 21

Table 4. Nest success of colonial 

wading birds in Refuge units for 

the years 1994-1996.............................. 21

Table 5. Public use at Fish Springs 

NWR, 1995-2002................................... 26

Table 6. Unit drawdown and 

prescribed burning sequence.............. 28

Table 7. Target water elevations for 

marsh units under 1991 Marsh 

Management Plan................................. 32

Table 8. Suggested indicator species. ........ 33

Table 9. Step-down management plans 

for Fish Springs NWR. ....................... 51
Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii

Figures 

Figure 1. Interior Basin Ecosystem 

and National Wildlife Refuges in 

Utah. ........................................................ 2

Figure 2. Ancient Lake Bonneville. ............. 3

Figure 3. Fish Springs National 

Wildlife Refuge Units and Pools.......... 4

Figure 4. Fish Springs NWR about 

1958 at Time of Refuge 

Establishment......................................... 8

Figure 5. Habitat Types. ............................. 18

Figure 6. Harrison Unit Restoration......... 38

Figure 7. Hunting. ........................................ 44

Figure 8. Public Use..................................... 45

Figure 9. Proposed Organizational 

Chart for Fish Springs NWR............. 50

Glossary 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Key Legislation and Policies 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Appendix C. Planning Team 

Appendix D. Environmental Compliance 

Appendix E. Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

Appendix F. Mailing List 

Appendix G. Species List for Fish Springs 

NWR 

Appendix H. Refuge Operating Needs 

System 

Appendix I. Maintenance Management 

System 

Bibliography 
 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-1 

This document is a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Fish 

Springs National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). 

The CCP will guide management of Refuge 

operations, habitat restoration and visitor 

services for the next 15 years by providing 

clear goals and objectives, implementation 

strategies, and recommended staffing and 

funding for the Refuge. 

Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), comprising 17,992 acres, is located 

in western Utah in Juab County. Springs 

flowing from the eastern base of the Fish 

Springs Range feed a 10,000-acre saline 

marsh divided into nine impoundments. The 

remaining portion comprises 6,000 acres of 

mud and alkali flat and 2,000 acres of 

semidesert upland. The Refuge provides 

the only important wetland habitat for a 70-

mile radius, attracting hundreds of 

wetland-dependent species during 

migration. Since Refuge establishment, 

more than 278 species of birds have been 

seen at Fish Springs NWR, 61 of which 

nest on the Refuge. Fish Springs NWR was 

established by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission in 1959 “...for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 

The goals set forth in the CCP for Fish 

Springs NWR are: 

Habitat: Improve and maintain habitat 

for nesting and wintering migratory 

birds and other wildlife populations of 

the Bonneville Basin. 

Ecological Integrity: Perpetuate the 

native biodiversity of the Bonneville 

Basin as represented on Fish Springs 

NWR. 

Cultural Resources: Preserve, protect, 

and promote an understanding of cultural 

resources on Fish Springs NWR. 

Visitor Services: Promote an 

understanding and appreciation of the 

fish, wildlife, and natural and cultural 

history of Fish Springs NWR by 

providing high quality environmental 

education, interpretation, and wildlifedependent recreational opportunities for 

persons of all abilities. 

Partnerships: Promote partnerships to 

preserve and enhance the natural 

characteristics of the Bonneville Basin 

ecosystem in which Fish Springs NWR 

plays a key role. 

These goals will help fulfill the mission and 

goals of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 stipulates that a written 

assessment must be made of any action 

proposed by an agency of the Federal 

Government that significantly affects the 

quality of the human environment or has 

significant impacts on the affected State or 

Federal land. NEPA also requires Federal 

decision makers to study, develop, and 

describe appropriate alternatives to the 

recommended action. Views of other 

Federal and State agencies and the public 

are solicited during the decision making 

process. An environmental assessment 

(EA) was prepared to accompany the Draft 

CCP. The proposed action was to prepare 

and implement the CCP, or Management 

for Wildlife Diversity Alternative. 

Summary 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 

Area Description 

Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), located in western Utah in Juab 

County (Figure 1 and Figure 2), is one of 

the most isolated refuges in the lower 48 

states. The nearest neighbors reside in 

Callao, Utah, a ranching community of 

about 45 people, 24 miles west of the 

Refuge. The nearest communities with 

services are Dugway Proving Ground, 

Utah, 63 miles to the northeast and Delta, 

Utah, 78 miles to the southeast. The Refuge 

consists of 17,992 acres of fee-title land 

surrounded on the east, west, and south by 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

holdings and on the north by the U.S. 

Army’s Dugway Proving Ground. Springs 

flowing from the eastern base of the Fish 

Springs Range feed a 10,000-acre saline 

marsh divided into nine impoundments 

(Figure 3). The remaining portion 

comprises 6,000 acres of mud and alkali flat 

and 2,000 acres of semidesert upland. 

Fish Springs NWR sits in a valley at the 

eastern front of the Fish Springs Range. 

The Great Salt Lake Desert is to the north, 

with the small Thomas and Dugway Ranges 

to the east and the House Range to the 

south closing the basin. The valley is about 

10 miles wide and 20 miles long. The Fish 

Springs Range is characterized by rocky 

outcroppings and lava peaks with some 

areas devoid of vegetation. The Refuge is 

entirely within the Interior Basins 

ecoregion. Within the expanse of that 

ecoregion, the Refuge lies within the subunit known as the Bonneville Basin. 

The Refuge was established because of its 

historic attraction to waterfowl. During fall 

migrations, 30,000 ducks have been 

recorded. Since establishment, more than 

278 species of birds have been seen at Fish 

Springs NWR, 61 of which are known to 

nest on the Refuge. The Refuge provides 

the only important wetland habitat for a 70-

mile radius. Consequently, the Refuge 

attracts hundreds of wetland-dependent 

species during migration. More than 40 

species spend the winter at the Refuge. 

Fish Springs NWR has an extraordinarily 

rich and diverse human history. As a source 

of bountiful resources in a very arid and 

often hostile environment, it has likely been 

a focal point of human existence as long as 

11,000 years. Evidence of such pre-historic 

occupation can be found over nearly all of 

the Refuge. Two caves within the Refuge 

boundary, located on the east face of the 

northern tip of the Fish Springs Range, are 

part of a National Archaeological District. 

Chapter 1. Introduction

Fish Springs NWR 
Interior Basin Ecosystem and

National Wildlife Refuges in Utah

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Figure 1

15

15

50

174

36

84

80

70
84

80

80

15

70

Ancient Lake Bonneville 15

Figure 2

Eastern Great Basin

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

Units and Pools

Figure 3

T11S

T10S

R14WR13W

R14WR13W

T12S

T11S

Fish Springs, Utah

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 1. Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

Euro-American history of the Refuge 

begins in 1827 with the first documented 

visit to the marsh by famed mountain man 

and pioneering explorer Jedediah Smith. 

Smith stopped at Fish Springs on one of his 

trips to California. The first documented 

Euro-American occupation at the marsh 

was in 1859. In 1860, Fish Springs became a 

stop on the Pony Express Route and 

Overland Stage routes. In 1861, the 

Transcontinental Telegraph line passed 

through Fish Springs. In 1913, the Lincoln 

Highway, the nation’s first transcontinental 

automobile road, passed through Fish 

Springs to skirt the often impassable salt 

flats to the north. It is estimated that at the 

peak usage period for the Lincoln Highway, 

over 5,000 cars passed each year, compared 

to less than 2,500 cars currently. Several 

segments of the Lincoln Highway are still 

visible in Refuge uplands. 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and 

Refuge System 

The National Wildlife Refuge System was 

started 100 years ago with an Executive 

Order, signed by President Theodore 

Roosevelt, protecting pelicans, ibises, and 

spoonbills on a small and unpretentious 

island from market hunters. In 1997, the 

mission and administrative policy for all 

refuges in the Refuge System was 

established with the passage of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. It also outlined the 

importance of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation) and how they 

should be promoted, except where 

incompatible with the purpose of the 

individual refuge or the Refuge System as a 

whole. A formal process for determining 

compatibility was also established with this 

Act. From the first Executive Order to the 

most recent Act, the overriding principle 

that guides the Refuge System is that 

wildlife comes first.

The Service, which administers the Refuge 

System, is the only Federal agency whose 

primary responsibility is fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System is the world’s largest and 

most diverse collection of lands set aside 

specifically for wildlife. The Mission of the 

Refuge System is, “To administer a 

national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of 

Americans.” Goals of the Refuge System 

are aimed at fulfilling this mission. Some 

major goals are to provide for specific 

classes of wildlife species for which the 

Federal government is ultimately 

responsible. These “trust resources” are 

defined by the purpose of the refuge and 

include threatened and endangered species, 

migratory birds, and anadromous fish. Most 

refuges provide breeding, migration, or 

wintering habitat for these species. Nearly 

all refuges also supply habitat for big game 

species and resident or non-migratory 

wildlife as well. 

Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System are:

1. To fulfill our statutory duty to 

achieve refuge purpose(s) and 

further the Refuge System mission. 

2. Conserve, restore where 

appropriate, and enhance all species 

of fish, wildlife, and plants that are 

endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered. 

3. Perpetuate migratory bird, 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine 

mammal populations. 

4. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, 

and plants. 
Chapter 1. Introduction 

6 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

5. Conserve and restore, where 

appropriate, representative 

ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes 

characteristic of those ecosystems. 

6. To foster understanding and instill 

appreciation of fish, wildlife, and 

plants, and their conservation, by 

providing the public with safe, highquality, and compatible wildlifedependent public use. Such use 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and 

environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Individual refuges provide specific 

requirements for the preservation of trust 

resources. For example, migratory bird 

refuges in Utah provide important wetland 

habitats to support populations of birds as 

required by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (MBCA). Fish Springs 

NWR supports migrating and breeding 

populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

water birds. These birds migrate to and 

from at least 10 different states and several 

Canadian provinces. After visiting Fish 

Springs NWR, many move on to winter on 

refuges in the southwest or breed on 

refuges in Alaska. This network of lands is 

critical to these birds’ survival; any 

deficiency in one location will affect these 

species and the entire network’s ability to 

maintain adequate populations. 

Other refuges may provide habitat for 

endangered plants or animals that exist in 

unique habitats found only in very few 

locations. Refuges in these situations 

promote the protection of local populations 

and their habitat. By providing a broad 

network of lands throughout the United 

States with secure habitat and 

opportunities for recovery, refuges help 

prevent species from being listed as 

endangered. 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, six wildlifedependent recreational uses are recognized 

as priority public uses of refuge lands. 

These are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

These and other uses are allowed on 

refuges only after finding that they are 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge. 

Uses are allowed through a special regulation process, individual special use permits, 

and sometimes through State fishing and 

hunting regulations. 

Purpose of and Need for the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The purpose of the CCP is to describe the 

goals established for Fish Springs NWR, 

and the objectives and strategies needed to 

meet the goals. The goals for Fish Springs 

NWR are presented in Chapter 4. 

The CCP is needed for several reasons. 

Loss of habitat in the Pacific Flyway has 

been substantial and continuous, primarily 

through conversion of wetlands to 

agriculture. The scope of Federal trust 

resources has expanded to include 

threatened and endangered species. 

Knowledge among wildlife professionals has 

expanded. Legislative mandates to protect 

cultural resources must be met. A need 

exists to describe how Fish Springs NWR 

can best contribute to efforts to protect our 

wildlife resources for present and future 

generations. 

The CCP will provide the Refuge Manager 

with a 15-year management plan for the 

conservation of wildlife, fish, and plant 

resources and their related habitats, while 

providing opportunities for compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The 

CCP, when fully implemented, will achieve 

Refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge 

System mission; maintain and, where 
Chapter 1. Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

appropriate, restore the ecological integrity 

of the Refuge and the Refuge System; and 

meet other mandates. 

History of Refuge Establishment, 

Acquisition, and Management 

The lands comprising Fish Springs NWR 

have been part of the Service’s National 

Wildlife Refuge System since 1959. The 

authorization for the creation of the Fish 

Springs NWR dates from Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission approval on June 

18, 1958. The first property acquisition was 

recorded on March 10, 1959, when 2,160 

acres were purchased from the Fish 

Springs Livestock and Fur Company, and 

160 acres were purchased from Charles and 

Buelah Walker of Salt Lake City, Utah. On 

March 12, 1959, about 1,455 acres were 

purchased from the State of Utah. During 

that same time period, 14,097 acres were 

withdrawn from existing public domains 

under Public Land Order 1942 for inclusion 

in the Refuge. An additional 120 acres of 

lands were withdrawn from public domain 

holdings under Public Land Order 2563 in 

1961, bringing the acreage total to the 

present 17,992. 

Interest in the possibility of establishing a 

national wildlife refuge at the base of the 

Fish Springs Range was as early as 1934. 

During that year, J. Clark Salyer, Director 

of the Migratory Bird Program under the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of 

Biological Survey, became aware of land in 

the area with potential waterfowl values 

that might be for sale. He directed George 

Mushback, Game Management Agent-InCharge of the Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge, to visit the area and file a report. 

While Mushback reported that he felt that 

it would “offer very good possibilities for 

nesting, feeding, and concentration” of 

waterfowl, no further action was taken on 

acquisition at that time. 

Renewed interest by Director Ira 

Gabrielson in 1938 led to additional on-site 

surveys. Charles C. Sperry, tasked with 

assessing waterfowl food supplies, reported 

that they were quite limited and that Fish 

Springs should not be considered for 

addition to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. A visit by C. S. Williams, a wildlife 

biologist assigned to the Wildlife Research 

Lab at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

in September of 1938 resulted in a report 

that indicated that Fish Springs “in the 

past has been a good waterfowl area. By 

proper management it can be made even 

better.” However, Vanez T. Wilson, the 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 

Manager, visited the area in December of 

1938 and reported that “the Fish Springs 

area, in my opinion, does not lend itself to 

extensive development.” No further 

reconnaissance of the Fish Springs area 

was noted until a summer visit in 1941 by 

Reuel Janson who reported that “the Fish 

Springs marsh possesses considerable 

qualification for a waterfowl refuge.” No 

further written record has been found until 

1958 when acquisition of the Refuge was 

approved (Figure 4). 

A Master Plan for the “Physical and 

Biological Development” of the Refuge was 

written in 1960. Construction of the 

physical infrastructure for impounding the 

springs was implemented in three phases 

between 1961 and 1965. Phase One included 

the excavation of the Main Distribution 

Canal, which runs through the center of the 

Refuge and the north dike on Harrison 

Unit. Phase Two, begun in 1962, included 

the construction of the north dike of Avocet 

Unit and the north dike of Curlew Unit. 

Phase Three, completed from 1963 to 1965, 

involved the construction of all remaining 

major dikes and structures for Mallard, 

Shoveler, Egret, Pintail, Ibis, and Gadwall 

Units. 
Chapter 1. Introduction 

8 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 4. Fish Springs NWR about 1958 at Time of Refuge Establishment.
Chapter 1. Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Biological “objectives” identified in the 

original Master Plan included: providing 

resting and feeding areas for tundra swans, 

Canada geese, redheads, mallards, and 

greater sandhill cranes; inducing Canada 

goose nesting; and re-establishing nesting 

use of the area by greater sandhill cranes. 

Public use plans in the original Master Plan 

included parking areas and designated 

access routes to the public hunting area, 

preservation of items of historical interest, 

establishment of a picnic area near the 

Thomas Ranch house, and designation of a 

tour route through the marsh. 

Refuge Purpose 

Fish Springs NWR was established under 

the MBCA by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. The stated 

purpose is “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management 

purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 

715d). Past management at the Refuge was 

focused on waterfowl production. However, 

after many years of trying, waterfowl 

production never reached a substantial 

level. From 1991 to 1995, the Refuge 

Manager and the Regional Office of the 

Service reviewed and discussed the best 

use for the Refuge. It was decided that 

marsh management should be altered to 

accommodate the habitat needs of other 

migratory birds as well, namely shorebirds 

and water birds. The MBCA supports this 

because the Refuge supports many birds 

other than waterfowl. 

Refuge Vision Statement 

Fish Springs NWR will continue to 

conserve native fish, wildlife, plants and 

their habitats. Water and a diversity of 

habitats will be available to migratory birds 

and other indigenous wildlife within the 

physiographic region known as the 

Bonneville Basin of the Interior Basin 

ecoregion. The Refuge is vital to the 

conservation of migratory birds, 

interjurisdictional fish, threatened and 

endangered species, and the habitats on 

which these species depend. The Refuge 

will continue to be managed in accordance 

with sound management principals to 

provide a wide range of wildlife-related 

recreation and learning opportunities, 

including hunting, wildlife observation, and 

connecting with nature. The preservation 

and sharing of the cultural past of the area, 

both on a local and national scale, is an 

added benefit of Fish Springs NWR. 

Refuge Goals 

Q Overall Goal: Provide habitat for 

maximum wildlife diversity. 

Q Habitat: Improve and maintain 

habitat for nesting and wintering 

migratory birds and other wildlife 

populations of the Bonneville Basin. 

Q Ecological Integrity: Perpetuate 

the native biodiversity and physical 

characteristics of the Bonneville 

Basin as represented on Fish Springs 

NWR. 

Q March Restoration of Harrison 

Unit: Restore a portion of Fish 

Springs NWR to the native 

biodiversity and physical 

characteristics of the Bonneville 

Basin as represented on Fish 

Springs, including unimpeded 

hydrological, physical, and biological 

components. 

Q Cultural Resources: Preserve, 

protect, and promote an 

understanding of cultural resources 

on Fish Springs NWR. 

Q Visitor Services: Promote an 

understanding and appreciation of 

the fish, wildlife, and natural and 

cultural history of Fish Springs 

NWR by providing high quality 

environmental education, 

interpretation, and wildlife-
Chapter 1. Introduction 

10 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

dependent recreational opportunities 

for persons of all abilities. 

Q Partnerships: Promote partnerships 

to preserve and enhance the natural 

characteristics of the Bonneville 

Basin ecosystem in which Fish 

Springs NWR plays a key role. 

Legal and Policy Guidance 

Administration of the Department of the 

Interior, the Service, and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System is guided by 

international treaties, Federal laws, and 

Presidential Executive Orders. Refuge 

management options are further refined by 

administrative guidelines established by 

the Secretary of the Interior and policy 

guidelines established by the Director of 

the Service. 

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, 

and policy guidelines assist the Refuge 

Manager in making decisions pertaining to 

soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other 

natural resources, historic and cultural 

resources, research, and recreation on 

refuge lands. 

Other key legislative policies that direct 

management of refuges include the 

Endangered Species Act (1973), Clean 

Water Act (1977), Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act (1965), Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (1918), and Executive 

Order 12996 Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996). These and other Acts and 

Executive Orders that guide Refuge 

System activities are listed in Appendix A. 

The Service also provides its own policy 

guidelines, which can be found in refuge 

manuals. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 

Description of Planning Process 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

(CCPs) provide a clear and comprehensive 

statement of desired future conditions for 

each refuge or planning unit. CCPs provide 

long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve refuge purposes, help 

fulfill the Refuge System mission, and 

maintain or restore the ecological integrity 

of each refuge and the Refuge System. 

Additional goals of the CCP process 

include using science and sound 

professional judgment to support 

management decisions, ensuring the six 

priority public uses receive consideration 

during the preparation of the CCP, 

providing a public forum for stakeholders 

and interested parties to have input into 

refuge management decisions, and 

providing a uniform basis for funding. 

The CCP planning process consists of the 

following eight steps. Although the steps 

are listed sequentially, CCP planning and 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documentation can be iterative. 

Some of the steps may be repeated, or 

more than one step can occur at the same 

time. 

1. Preplanning - form core team, 

identify needs 

2. Identify Issues and Develop 

Vision - gather public input on 

issues 

3. Develop Goals and Objectives - 

from issues, resource relationships, 

legal responsibilities 

4. Develop and Analyze Alternatives

- including the Proposed Action 

5. Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA 

Document - assess environmental 

effects, gather public comments on 

draft plan 

6. Prepare and Adopt Final Plan

7. Implement Plan, Monitor and 

Evaluate

8. Review and Revise Plan

Comprehensive conservation planning 

efforts for Fish Springs began in March 

1999 with a meeting of regional 

management and planning staff and field 

station employees from Fish Springs NWR 

at Refuge headquarters in Utah. At that 

meeting, a Core Planning Team, consisting 

of the Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, U.S. Army Dugway Proving 

Ground, and the Utah State Historical 

Society was designated. A Notice of Intent 

to prepare a CCP was published in the 

Federal Register in September of that 

same year (64 Fed. Reg. 49228 (September 

10, 1999)). Public Issues Workbooks were 

distributed during the Refuge’s annual 

Open House, also in September. From 

there, work progressed on developing draft 

Refuge vision, goals, and objectives. 

However, work was discontinued in 

September 2000 due to changes in Refuge 

management and priorities for the regional 

planning division. 

Planning efforts were re-initiated in 

November of 2001. Issues Workbooks were 

Chapter 2. Planning Process
Chapter 2. Planning Process 

12 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

sent to 40 individuals and organizations in 

February 2002, followed by two public 

meetings in March⎯one in Salt Lake City, 

the other in Partoun, Utah. Neither public 

meeting was attended by the public. Eight 

completed Issues Workbooks were 

returned to the Core Planning Team. 

Further scoping was conducted during a 

Core Planning Team meeting in April 2002 

where each Team member was given the 

opportunity to discuss concerns, 

recommendations, and ideas. The Core 

Planning Team then revised the draft 

Refuge vision, goals, and management 

alternatives and evaluated the 

environmental consequences of each 

alternative. 

The CCP, signed by the Regional Director, 

provides direction to the Refuge Manger 

and staff. Copies of the CCP will be 

provided upon request to all interested 

parties. 

Planning Issues 

Issues identified during the scoping 

process are presented here. This is a 

synopsis of all comments received, 

including those from individuals, 

organizations, State agencies, and other 

Federal agencies. 

Wildlife and Habitat 

There was support for managing the 

Refuge for a diversity of wildlife, with the 

current emphasis in marsh areas on 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other water 

birds. The quality of the high desert 

shrubland habitat should be improved. 

Some concern exists for the well-being of 

endangered and threatened species and 

State species of concern. Additionally, 

some respondents called for protecting 

invertebrates in the springs, with 

particular emphasis given to controlling 

the spread of the nonnative snail, 

Melanoides tuberculata. A number of 

respondents saw the need for a greatly 

enhanced biological inventory and 

assessment program. Some support 

occurred for expanding the Refuge into 

nearby salt-flats and springs. 

Exotic Species

Concern about the spread of exotic species, 

both plant and animal, was expressed. 

Increased control efforts are needed. 

However, concern with the use of 

chemicals to control weeds was also 

expressed. 

Cultural Resources

There was support for the University of 

Utah to continue its archaeological summer 

field school on the Refuge. The two caves 

on the Refuge should be excavated. 

Interpretation of cultural and historic 

resources should be improved and 

expanded. 

Public Use

Respondents were happy with the level of 

public access on the Refuge. Development 

of a nearby off-site campground to 

accommodate visitors was recommended. 

Conflicting opinions on hunting and 

trapping were voiced. Some felt a goose 

hunt should be implemented in addition to 

current hunting opportunities. Others 

supported no hunting or trapping on the 

Refuge, believing these activities are 

incompatible with the purpose of the 

Refuge. It was also requested that the 

Service work on eliminating the 

inconsistencies in hunting regulations on 

different refuges within Utah. 

Administration/Operations

The need for additional staff for the Refuge 

was a concern for some respondents. The 

Refuge is especially in need of a biologist. 

A request was made to break down the 

Refuge budget into administration, 

conservation, and public use/hunting for 
Chapter 2. Planning Process 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

comparison purposes. Partnerships with 

Dugway Proving Ground should be 

expanded in light of the commonality 

between the two regarding habitat types 

and species present, especially threatened 

and endangered species. 
14 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 

Fish Springs NWR, located in western 

Utah in Juab County (Figure 1 and Figure 

2), is one of the most isolated refuges in the 

lower 48 states. The nearest neighbors 

reside in Callao, Utah, a ranching 

community of about 45 people 24 miles 

west of the Refuge. The nearest 

communities with services are Dugway 

Proving Ground, Utah, 63 miles to the 

northeast and Delta, Utah, 78 miles to the 

southeast. The Refuge consists of 17,992 

acres of fee-title land surrounded on the 

east, west, and south by Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) holdings and on the 

north by the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving 

Ground. Springs flowing from the eastern 

base of the Fish Springs Range feed a 

10,000-acre saline marsh divided into nine 

impoundments (Figure 3). The remaining 

of the Refuge comprises 6,000 acres of mud 

and alkali flat and 2,000 acres of semidesert 

upland. 

The Refuge lies entirely within the 

Interior Basins ecoregion. Within the 

expanse of that ecoregion, the Refuge is 

within the subunit known as the Bonneville 

Basin. The Bonneville Basin comprises the 

area once covered by the prehistoric Lake 

Bonneville (Figure 2). Lake Bonneville, a 

landlocked basin about the size of the State 

of Montana, was filled about 35,000 years 

ago and fluctuated with wet and dry cycles 

until about 15,000 years ago, inundating 

much of the eastern portions of the Great 

Basin. At that time, the lake rose to a level 

that breached a pass in southern Idaho, 

eroded a large cut, and began draining into 

the Snake and Columbia Rivers. After a 

period of about 6 months, Lake Bonneville 

dropped an estimated 400 feet. 

Over the next 4,500 years, Lake Bonneville 

continued to drop from evaporative losses 

exceeding inflows. Based on consistent 

carbon dating for the first organic layer in 

soil coring samples, the University of Utah 

has determined that the lake receded to 

the point where Fish Springs became a 

marsh type wetland about 11,400 years 

ago. 

Wetlands found at the Refuge are 

associated with of a series of thermal 

springs that emerge from a fault line at the 

base of the east slope of the Fish Springs 

Range. Five major and several minor 

springs and seeps provide an average flow 

of about 29 cubic feet per second resulting 

in an average annual inflow of about 22,000 

acre-feet of water. All Refuge springs 

exhibit thermal influence with the average 

spring water temperature being 74 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The springs are high in 

dissolved minerals, which results in a 

water pH of about 7.8. Groundwater 

recharge for the Refuge springs is believed 

to be regional rather than local due to the 

large volume in such an arid climate. 

Carbon-14 analysis aging indicates that 

water emanating from the Refuge springs 

probably fell as precipitation from 9,000 to 

14,000 years ago. 

The wetlands of Fish Springs NWR are 

about 75 miles south of the Great Salt Lake 

and are a major migration point for 

wetland birds migrating to and from the 

Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

lake. The wetlands of Fish Springs NWR 

comprise a greater acreage than all of the 

wetlands combined in all directions for a 

distance of more than 70 miles. As such, 

the Refuge provides critical migration 

habitat for a diverse array of wetland 

birds. Located on the eastern edge of the 

Pacific Flyway, the Refuge receives 

waterfowl from the Canadian Arctic and 

several Prairie Provinces, as well as birds 

originating in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, 

and Utah.

Topography 

Fish Springs NWR is located in a valley at 

the eastern front of the Fish Springs 

Range. The Great Salt Lake Desert to the 

north, the small Thomas and Dugway 

Ranges to the east, and the House Range 

to the south close the basin. The valley is 

about 10 miles wide and 20 miles long. The 

Fish Springs Range is characterized by 

rocky outcroppings and lava peaks with 

some areas devoid of vegetation. The peaks 

are full of caves and crevices. 

The Great Basin is composed 

topographically of long, narrow, and steep 

mountain ranges running north-south with 

fairly flat basins between these mountain 

ranges. The basin, where the Fish Springs 

marsh is found, is bordered on the west by 

the Fish Springs Range and on the east by 

the Dugway and Thomas Ranges. The 

Refuge Headquarters sits at an elevation 

of 4,330 feet and the highest point in the 

surrounding mountains is 8,523 feet. The 

portion of the Refuge supporting wetlands 

is very flat with a minimum elevation of 

4,287 feet and a maximum elevation of 

4,305 feet. 

Between the marsh and the Fish Springs 

Mountains to the west is a belt (about 6,000 

acres) of semidesert uplands composed 

primarily of greasewood and shadscale. 

These uplands are flat to gently rolling and 

soon give way to the shallow marsh. 

Ancient Lake Bonneville once covered the 

area except for the peaks of the ranges. 

The elevation of the Refuge varies from 

4,285 to 4,700 feet with a small portion of 

the Fish Springs Range accounting for 

elevations above 4,350 feet. 

The Refuge’s topography was significantly 

altered in the 1960s with the construction 

of nine dikes at varying distances from the 

springs. The dikes created nine 

impoundments on the Refuge (clockwise 

from Refuge headquarters: Mallard, 

Shoveler, Pintail, Harrison, Gadwall, Ibis, 

Egret, Curlew and Avocet (Figure 3). 

Soils 

The semidesert uplands leading from the 

Fish Springs Range to the marsh contain 

alluvial soils with a high gravel content. 

Mud and alkali flats surround the eastern, 

northern, and southern limits of the marsh 

areas. The marsh soils are generally sandyclay, about 6 feet deep. These soils occur on 

top of an impervious hardpan layer. Peat 

deposits, 4 feet deep or less, occur in the 

drainage areas downstream from the major 

springs. These soils are mildly alkaline, 

having a pH of about 8.0. 

In the southern part of the Refuge and 

along the northern boundary are extensive 

areas of extremely alkaline soil⎯the salt 

flats. On the western edge of the Refuge, 

rocky outcrops produce an accompanying 

ground cover of coarse fractured rock. 

Alluvial deposits of coarse gravel are 

located in two areas west of the marsh. 

These deposits were left when ancient 

Lake Bonneville receded. 

Water 

After establishment of Fish Springs NWR 

in 1959, the approximately 10,000-acre 

marsh was divided into nine units that 

receive their water supply from warm 

saline springs rising under artesian 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

16 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

pressure and emanating at the base of the 

Fish Springs Range. These springs receive 

recharge from precipitation falling on the 

Fish Springs Range and Deep Creek 

Range 25 miles to the west. In addition, 

some spring recharge may occur from deep 

ground-water movement from Deep Creek, 

Snake and Tule Valleys. Movement of 

groundwater over these large distances is 

through unconsolidated basin fill as well as 

solution openings and fractures in the 

deep, consolidated carbonate rock. The age 

of the spring water is estimated to be 

about 10,000 years. 

All excess water flows into the Great Salt 

Lake Desert, which adjoins the Refuge to 

the north. The Refuge is in an arid 

environment and is the only source of 

water for many miles. This oasis attracts a 

variety of species not common to the rest 

of the Service’s Mountain-Prairie Region. 

Water Rights 

The Service holds water rights to 43.88 cfs 

of spring flow originating on the Refuge. 

The United States acquired the following 

three Certificates of Appropriation of 

Water (state perfected water rights) when 

land was purchased for the Refuge: 

Water Right Number 18-51 

Certificate No: 1996 

Application No: 9922 

Flow Rate: 5.0 cfs North Spring 

Priority Date: 04/16/1926 

Water Right Number 18-59 

Certificate No: 2077-a 

Application No: 10661 

Flow Rate: 10 cfs South Spring 

Priority Date: 04/30/1929 

Water Right Number 18-66 

Certificate No: 2112 

Application No: 11020 

Flow Rate: 10 cfs Middle Spring 

Priority Date: 11/13/1931 

After Refuge establishment, the Service 

filed Application No. A33136 (later 

assigned as Certificate 13087, Water Right 

Number 18-215) for an additional 18.88 cfs 

from the springs. This right, included with 

the certificated 25 cfs, appropriates a total 

of 43.88 cfs from the springs. Application 

No. A-40386, Water Right Number 18-331, 

0.1 cfs, is for a domestic well with a priority 

date of 10/08/1970. 

The Service controls 100 percent of the 

water rights on the Refuge with no other 

users. While the Services’ water right is 

roughly 44 cfs, the current annual flow 

from the springs is about 28.69 cfs. The 

spring water is warm (around 74 degrees 

Fahrenheit) and saline, with conductivity 

readings of 3,000 to 5,000 umhos at the 

source. 

Climate 

The climate at Fish Springs NWR is arid. 

The average annual precipitation is 8 

inches, with most precipitation falling in 

the spring and fall. Wide temperature 

fluctuations typical of desert environments 

occur daily and seasonally. Temperatures 

can range from 109 degrees Fahrenheit in 

summer to minus 19 degrees Fahrenheit in 

winter. High moisture losses during the 

summer occur through evapotranspiration 

as a result of low humidity and high 

ambient temperatures. Dry thunderstorms 

are common during the summer. Winter 

temperatures can remain well below 

freezing for several days at a time with 

snowfall averaging 15 inches per year. The 

frost-free season generally runs from lateApril through mid-October. Wind speeds 

are generally light to moderate. 

Habitat and Vegetation 

Six habitat types exist on the Refuge⎯five 

vegetation communities and open water 

(Figure 5). These habitat types are: 

Q Great Basin Arid Shrubland 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Q Great Basin Cold Desert Shrubland 

Q Great Basin Cold Desert Grassland 

Q Shallow Water Marsh and Wetland 

Q Alkali Mud Flat 

Q Open Water 

The Great Basin Arid Shrubland habitat 

type (516 acres) is found on the west side of 

the Refuge in the uppermost reaches. 

Dominant species include Mormon tea 

(Ephedra nevadensis) and rabbit brush 

(Chrysothamnus nauseous and C. 

albidus). Forbs include globe mallow 

(Sphaeralcea coccinea) and evening 

primrose (Oenothera caespitosa). 

The Great Basin Cold Desert Shrubland 

habitat type (1,577 acres) is found at 

slightly lower elevations than the Great 

Basin Arid Shrubland. This habitat type 

also occupies areas on the west side of the 

Refuge as well as much smaller patches 

along the north, east, and south sides of the 

marshlands. This community is dominated 

by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), 

shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), and 

fourwing saltbrush (Atriplex canascens). 

The Great Basin Cold Desert Grassland 

habitat type (4,328 acres) is found in mostly 

large patches interspersed with open 

water, wetlands, and mud flats throughout 

the marsh area in all nine impoundments. 

The soil in these areas is sub-irrigated or 

flooded only seasonally. Primary plant 

species include saltgrass (Distichlis 

stricta), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus 

airoides), and Baltic rush (Juncus 

arcticus). 

The Shallow Water Marsh and Wetland 

habitat type (3,225 acres) is found in much 

of the Refuge marsh where water depth is 

less than 18 inches. Included in this type 

are Olney’s three-square bulrush (Scirpus 

americanus), alkali bulrush (Scirpus 

paludosus), hardstem bulrush (Scirpus 

acutus), common reed (Phragmites 

australis), cattail species (Typha 

domingensis and T. latifolia), and spike 

rush (Eleocharis rostellata). 

Alkali Mud Flat (6,437 acres), where 

subsaturated soils and very high salt levels 

are predominant, are found primarily on 

the east and south side of the Refuge. 

Vegetative diversity is severely limited 

under these conditions with pickle weed 

(Allenrolfea occidentalis) and samphire 

(Salicornia utahensis) being common in 

the lower portions and alkali sacaton, 

saltgrass and greasewood found in areas 

where dunes have formed. 

Many Open Water (1,784 acres) areas 

contain submerged plant species. These 

communities are the most robust and 

diverse on the southern end of the Refuge 

where salt levels are lowest, and the least 

diverse in the northern reaches where salt 

levels in the late summer can be quite high. 

Plant species include wigeongrass (Ruppia 

maritima), coontail (Ceratophyllum 

demersum), spiny najad (Najas marina), 

sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus), 

muskgrass (Chara spp.), and filamentous 

algae. 

The only trees native to the Fish Springs 

area are a few scattered junipers in the 

higher portions of the uplands. A turn of 

the century planting consisting of Fremont 

cottonwoods (Populus fremonti) and 

silverleaf poplars (Populus alba) exists at 

the Thomas Ranch Watchable Wildlife 

Area. This planting is of cultural 

significance because although Fremont 

cottonwoods are not native to Fish 

Springs, these were planted by early 

settlers to the area and provide a historical 

context for the Refuge consistent with the 

Refuge mission. A thin shelterbelt of 

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and 
Habitat Types

Figure 5

Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Siberian elm (Ulmus primula) surrounds 

the Headquarters and residential area. 

Unlike other areas of the Great Basin, 

Russian olive does not readily spread into 

the marsh at Fish Springs (likely due to 

unfavorable soils). Several isolated patches 

of willow exist near the springs. 

The primary noxious weeds in the area are 

saltcedar (Tamarix ramossisima), 

whitetop (Cardaria draba), and squarrose 

knapweed (Centaurea virgata). Mature 

stands of saltcedar exist along the north 

boundary with the majority of the Refuge 

containing only scattered young plants. 

Whitetop is a recent invader that is 

confined to multiple small and discrete 

stands. This plant is a concern in other 

parts of the State because it is a noxious 

weed. It is hoped that annual chemical 

treatments by the Refuge staff will 

eradicate the plant. The isolation of the 

Refuge from other seed sources makes 

reinfestation in the near future unlikely. 

Squarrose knapweed is also a recent 

invader. This plant first became 

established along the county road skirting 

the south and west boundaries of the 

Refuge. It can now be found in the western 

uplands of the Refuge, as well as 

throughout the Fish Springs Range. Sheep, 

along the mandated livestock driveway, 

are believed to be the most important 

factor in its continued spread. 

A list of plants on the Refuge can be found 

in Appendix G. 

Wildlife 

Birds 

The Refuge was established because of the 

historical attraction of waterfowl to its 

wetland habitat. During fall migrations, up 

to 30,000 ducks⎯ predominantly mallard, 

pintail, wigeon, and green-winged 

teal⎯have been recorded (Table 1). During 

the fall and winter, Great Basin Canada 

geese average around 1,000 birds, and 40 to 

100 tundra swans are also present. Recent 

production records are indicated in Table 2. 

Since establishment, more than 278 species 

of birds have been observed at Fish 

Springs (Appendix G); 61 are known to 

nest on the Refuge. The Refuge provides 

the only important wetland habitat for a 

70-mile radius. Consequently, the Refuge 

attracts hundreds of wetland-dependent 

species during migration. More than 40 

species spend the winter at the Refuge. 

Great blue herons and black-crowned night 

herons are year-round marsh residents. A 

large variety of shorebirds are present 

during the summer months. 

The Refuge hosts a surprisingly wide 

variety of songbirds. Breeding species 

include common yellowthroat, yellow 

warbler, marsh wren, house finch, yellowheaded and red-winged blackbirds, 

savannah sparrow, and Say’s phoebe. 

Migrant and wintering species include 

loggerhead shrike, Wilson’s warbler, 

yellow-rumped warbler, western tanager, 

pine siskin, and American goldfinch. 

Commonly observed year-round Refuge 

residents include northern harrier, golden 

eagles, bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, 

rough-legged hawks, and prairie falcons. 

Winter residents include rough-legged 

hawk, American kestrel, and prairie 

falcons. Great horned and short-eared owls 

are found on the Refuge but are seldom 

seen. 

Colonial nesting wading birds were 

monitored at Fish Springs NWR from 1994 

through 1996 (Ward and Ward 1996). The 

Service currently manages the marsh 

system to provide high quality habitat for 

colonial nesting birds, including whitefaced ibis, snowy egret, black-crowned 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

20 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 1. Estimated waterfowl populations from 1997 to 2002. 

Waterfowl 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Coot 12,361 3,695 11,235 2,891 7,280 9,800 

Tundra Swan 103 120 101 79 87 102 

Canada Goose 847 598 858 445 760 1,060 

Mallard 1,705 1,669 1,088 435 1,272 1,398 

Gadwall 2,052 974 1,102 572 1,862 2,000 

Pintail 4,275 1,927 4,609 1,333 7,895 3,267 

Green-winged Teal 3,661 1,458 3,120 1,539 1,778 2,032 

Cinnamon Teal 1,234 524 1,256 142 376 272 

American Wigeon 4,805 281 2,367 495 2,754 5,443 

Shoveler 804 883 847 389 374 180 

Redhead 1,102 1,206 780 600 455 480 

Canvasback 141 91 109 126 128 141 

Ring-necked Duck 243 800 280 550 201 316 

Lesser Scaup 11 58 140 89 222 72 

Bufflehead 137 168 206 239 87 97 

Ruddy Duck 287 96 440 119 128 79 

Table 2. Estimated waterfowl production from 1988 to 1995. 

Waterfowl 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

Mallard 70 59 160 96 44 39 119 233 

Pintail 370 43 125 59 94 29 62 54 

Redhead 350 153 375 173 474 49 128 175 

Canvasback 50 5 53 16 157 7 5 23 

Shoveler 20 35 64 51 115 15 43 56 

Gadwall 110 146 226 129 435 50 236 254 

Cinnamon Teal 120 123 328 161 209 35 144 156 

Ruddy Duck 50 24 47 52 168 6 17 35 

Subtotal 1,140 588 1,378 737 1,696 230 754 986 

Canada Goose 75 22 33 18 31 34 24 19 

American Coot 300 678 943 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 1,515 1,288 2,354 755 1,727 264 778 1,005 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

night heron, and great blue heron. The 

marsh system is spring-fed, providing 

consistent, year-to-year nesting habitat 

that is independent of annual and seasonal 

fluctuations in precipitation (Ward and 

Ward 1996). The number and locations of 

rookery sites varied over the 3 years of 

monitoring (Table 3). In 1994 the main 

rookery was in Pintail Slough, shifting to 

the Mallard Unit with some birds nesting 

in the south Curlew Unit in 1995, and by 

1996 the Mallard Unit was virtually the 

only active rookery (Ward and Ward 1996). 

The total number of nests and nest success 

also varied between years with nest 

success relatively high for all species 

(Table 4). 

Mammals 

Forty-eight species of mammals have been 

recorded on the Refuge. The majority of 

these species are small rodents (19) and 

bats (11). Coyotes, jackrabbits, and 

introduced muskrats are commonly seen 

residents. A small mule deer population 

uses the Refuge, primarily in late summer 

and fall. Pronghorn antelope are seen 

occasionally along the Refuge’s western 

boundary. 

Coyotes and badgers are regularly 

observed. Pocket gophers, wood rats, 

kangaroo rats, and antelope squirrels are 

among the more numerous smaller 

mammals. The Refuge supports a healthy 

muskrat population, which inadvertently 

assists in maintaining open water areas 

within the various units. 

Reptiles, Fish, and Amphibians 

Twelve reptiles, four fish, and two 

amphibian species are found at Fish 

Table 3. Nest success of rookery sites for colonial wading birds by species for the years 1994-1996. 

Number of Nests Successful Nests Nest Success (%) Unit 

1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 

Pintail 295 0 0 181 N/A N/A 70 N/A N/A 

Mallard 74 491 421 40 427 368 54 87 87 

Egret 9 0 0 6 N/A N/A 67 N/A N/A 

Curlew 0 21 2 N/A 5 0 N/A 24 0 

Total 342 512 423 227 432 368 66 84 87 

Table 4. Nest success of colonial wading birds in Refuge units for the years 1994-1996. 

Number of Nests Successful Nests† Nest Success (%) Species 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 

W.F. Ibis 164 200 147 108 169 121 66 85 82 

S. Egret 135 204 191 85 159 174 63 78 91 

B.C.N. 

Heron 

37 99 76 28 95 64 76 96 84 

B.G. Heron 1 7 7 1 7 7 100 100 100 

C. Egret 5 2 2 5 2 2 100 100 100 

Total 342 512 423 227 432 368 66 84 87 

†

A nest in which one or more eggs hatch. 

Source: Ward and Ward 1996. 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

22 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Springs NWR (Appendix G). The small 

mosquito fish and both amphibian species 

(bullfrog and leopard frog) were likely 

introduced in a bullfrog farm that operated 

in a major portion of the Middle Springs 

area from the early 1950s until about 1970 

(Hovingh 1993; Service 1987). The 

mosquito fish is found throughout the 

canals and water units. Bullfrogs occur in 

House Spring and Walter Spring and areas 

connected to the main channel by 

permanent water flow (McKell et al. 

undated). Bullfrogs are found in springs 

and the main channel where water 

temperatures were greater than 66 

degrees Fahrenheit; bullfrogs are not 

found in Avocet, Curlew, Shoveler, Egret, 

Ibis, Gadwall, Pintail or Harrison Units or 

road side pools with water temperature 

less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit (McKell et 

al. undated). Leopard frogs occur along the 

main channel and in dense vegetation at 

the edge of canals and pools with water 

temperatures greater than 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit (McKell et al. undated). 

Leopard frogs are native to Utah; 

however, according to Hovingh (1993), 

leopard frogs are believed to be introduced 

into Fish Springs NWR from nearby 

populations. Bullfrogs are introduced 

predators that prey on other frogs, fish and 

waterbirds, sometimes leading to the 

extirpation of native fauna (McKell et al. 

undated; Lawler et al. 1999). Bullfrogs and 

leopard frogs have restricted patterns of 

distribution and abundance, possibly due to 

bullfrog predation on leopard frogs (McKell 

et al. undated). There is no evidence that 

bullfrogs impact least chub (Banta, pers. 

comm. 2004). 

The least chub, a candidate species, has 

been successfully reintroduced into 

Walter’s Spring with additional releases 

planned in the coming years. The Utah 

chub is the most numerous fish on the 

Refuge. 

Invertebrates 

Aquatic invertebrates (aquatic insects) are 

an important part of the diet of breeding 

migratory birds. Drawdowns and burns of 

marsh ponds simulate the wet/dry cycles of 

a natural wetland and release stored 

nutrients (Faulkner and Cruz 1992; Kadlec 

1962). Aquatic invertebrate populations 

were monitored in 1983, 1984, and 1990-

1997. Sampling of invertebrates at Fish 

Springs NWR in 1997 and a summary of 

data from 1990 to 1997 indicated that 

invertebrate abundance increases following 

drawdown and burning (Halley 1997). 

Nonaquatic insects have not been 

inventoried or monitored. Thirty-eight 

families of aquatic invertebrates have been 

identified from Refuge waters. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate 

Species 

Three federally listed threatened and 

endangered species are found in Juab 

County: bald eagle, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

and Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. The bald 

eagle is listed as a threatened species and is 

known to winter at Fish Springs NWR. The 

bald eagle was downlisted from 

endangered to threatened in 1995 and the 

Service has proposed to delist the species 

due to population recovery. The bald eagle 

is an opportunistic forager during winter, 

often relying on rabbits, injured waterfowl, 

and carrion and typically roosts communally 

during winter (Stalmaster 1987). Between 

two to five bald eagles are typically observed 

on the Refuge during winter. Currently, the 

trees at the Thomas Ranch Watchable 

Wildlife Area provide the only suitable 

roosting site for the eagles, although a recent 

pole planting near South Spring may provide 

an additional site in the future. 

The yellow-billed cuckoo (cuckoo) is a 

neotropical migratory bird. The decline of 

the western population of the yellow-billed 

cuckoo due to loss of riparian habitat has 

been reported consistently (Tate and Tate 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

1982; Finch 1992). The Service identified a 

distinct western population segment of the 

cuckoo and determined that there was 

substantial information to indicate that the 

listing was warranted, but precluded by 

higher priority listing actions (66 Fed. Reg. 

38611 (July 25, 2001)). This species has 

been added to the Service candidate list. 

Fish Springs NWR contains no potential 

habitat for the cuckoo. 

The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (orchid) is 

federally listed as threatened. The orchid 

occurs at elevations below 6,500 feet in 

moist to wet alluvial meadows, flood plains 

of perennial streams, and around springs 

and lakes (Service 1992). Once thought to 

be fairly common in low elevation riparian 

areas in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, the 

orchid is currently rare in all three states. 

Generally, the vegetative cover 

surrounding the orchid is relatively open. 

Dense, overgrown sites are not conducive 

to orchid establishment. Where the orchid 

is found, soils are typically alluvial deposits 

of sandy, gravelly material that are 

saturated to within 18 inches of the surface 

for at least part of the growing season. No 

surveys have been conducted on the Fish 

Springs NWR to determine the potential 

occurrence of the orchid on the Refuge. 

It is believed that Fish Springs NWR once 

harbored the least chub, currently a 

proposed endangered fish found only in 

springs of the Bonneville Basin. The fish 

has been reintroduced into Deadman and 

Walter’s Springs. Only the reintroduction 

into Walter’s Spring has been successful. 

These populations are considered by Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (Utah 

DWR) as experimental. 

The Fish Springs pond snail was described 

in 1890. Some empty shells were found by 

Russell (1971). Dr. D.W. Taylor declared 

the pond snail extinct after a 1986 survey. 

No known resident endangered, 

threatened, or candidate plant species exist 

on the Refuge. 

The Pacific Coast population of the 

western snowy plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus) is considered a distinct 

population segment and was listed as a 

federally threatened species in 1993 (58 

Fed. Reg. 12864 (March 5, 1993)); however, 

the interior population of snowy plover was 

determined not to warrant listing (59 Fed. 

Reg. 58982 (November 15, 1994)). On 

March 22, 2004, the Service issued a 90-

Day Finding on a Petition to Delist the 

Pacific Coast Population of the western 

snowy plover and initiated a 5-year review 

(69 Fed. Reg. 13326 (March 22, 2004)). The 

western snowy plover is a small shorebird 

that typically breeds on alkali flats and 

alongside reservoirs, sewage and 

evaporation ponds (Andrews and Righter 

1992; Kingery 1998) in the interior U.S. 

This species nests on the ground on 

beaches, dry mud or salt flats and sandy 

shores of rivers lakes and ponds. 

In northern Utah, snowy plovers usually 

nest in areas devoid of vegetation, 

generally in recently exposed alkaline flats 

(Paton and Edwards 1992). Nesting in 

northern Utah occurs from mid-April to 

mid July (Paton and Edwards 1991, 1992). 

Complete clutches may be lost due to high 

water, adverse weather, trampling by 

cattle and large mammals or disturbance 

by humans. Predation by gulls, common 

raven, red fox, skunk, raccoon and coyote 

can result in high rates of clutch failure in 

some years (Page et al. 1985; Paton and 

Edwards 1991, 1992). Predation by 

mammalian and avian predators, including 

coyote, ravens and possibly Great Basin 

gopher snakes, appears to contribute to 

low production of plovers at Fish Springs 

NWR (Banta, pers. comm. 2004). The 

current annual success rate for snowy 

plovers nesting on Fish Springs NWR is 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

24 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

unknown. Predator exclusion fences have 

proven effective for reducing mammalian 

predation on piping plovers (Mayer and 

Ryan 1991; Andrews et al. 1999) and have 

been proposed as a management tool to 

reduce nest losses for snowy plover (TNC 

1998). 

Cultural Resources and History of 

Refuge Lands 

Fish Springs NWR has a very rich and 

diverse human history. Archaeological 

investigations on the Refuge have 

documented use of the area to the Early 

Archaic Period (ca. 7,000-8,000 B.P.). 

Recent studies have indicated that Lake 

Bonneville receded to expose the Fish 

Springs marsh about 11,400 years ago, 

which have led archaeologists to conclude 

that Paleoindian occupation within a few 

hundred years of that date was likely. 

Evidence of human use of the area through 

the Late Archaic has been found on the 

Refuge. Evidence of more recent 

occupation by the Fremont culture has 

been documented at Fish Springs NWR as 

well. There are few Fremont culture sites 

from western Utah but they likely 

occupied the area from 700 to 1,500 years 

ago. The Goshiute tribe, an ethnographic 

branch of the Western Shoshonean culture, 

occupied the Refuge from the 1400s to the 

1900s. 

Two caves within the Refuge boundary, 

located on the east face of the northern tip 

of the Fish Springs Range, are part of a 

National Archeological District. Numerous 

other sites, evidenced by large expanses of 

lithic scatter, support occupation over 

thousands of years. Inventory efforts by 

the University of Utah Archaeology Field 

School over the last several years have 

documented 11 major sites. Most of the 

activity around the marsh is attributed to 

chipping artifacts and hunting, which 

assumes that the marsh supported a 

substantial wildlife population during the 

prehistoric period. 

The first documented Euro-American 

occupation of the marsh was in 1859. 

George Chorpenning established a station 

on his mail route to Nevada. This outpost 

was little more than a thatched shed. 

In 1860, the Pony Express and Overland 

Stage purchased Chorpenning’s mail 

obligations, and Fish Springs became a 

stop of note on a very inhospitable section 

of that arduous route. In 1861, the 

Transcontinental Telegraph line passed 

through Fish Springs and that entity 

proved to be the death knell for the Pony 

Express. The Pony Express assets were 

sold and the mail delivery route shifted 

north of the Great Salt Lake to parallel the 

transcontinental railroad. The route 

through Fish Springs, however, proved to 

Pony Express Marker 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

be a superior stage route for transporting 

passengers, and some form of stage service 

was maintained through the area until the 

1920s. 

There is little record of activities in the 

marshes of Fish Springs from 1870 through 

1890. By the early 1890s, John Thomas 

established a ranch on the edge of the 

marsh and was raising cattle and horses, 

which he provided to the adjacent Utah 

and Galena mining operations. He also 

provided lodging, meals, and hay to the 

stage service, and sold supplies to the 

shepherds who wintered enormous flocks 

of sheep in the region during the winter. 

Thomas occupied the ranch until his death 

in 1917. 

In 1913, the Lincoln Highway, the nation’s 

first transcontinental automobile road, was 

built across the Thomas Ranch. This route 

became a very lucrative source of income 

for Thomas for several years. In 1919, the 

completion of the Goodyear Cutoff, about 

20 miles north of the marsh, eliminated 

much of the Lincoln Highway traffic. 

However, due to the precariousness of that 

section during winter, a substantial amount 

of Lincoln Highway traffic continued to 

pass through the Fish Springs route until 

1927. It is estimated that at the peak usage 

period for the Lincoln Highway more than 

5,000 cars passed each year, compared to 

less than 2,500 cars currently. Several 

segments of the Lincoln Highway are still 

visible in Refuge uplands. 

Between 1917, when John Thomas died, 

and 1925, the patented land around the 

marsh passed through several owners. By 

1925 most of that land was owned by Tass 

Claridge and Jim Harrison, doing business 

as the Fish Springs Livestock and Fur 

Company. This property remained in their 

possession until 1959 when it was 

purchased fee-title by the Service for 

inclusion in the Refuge. 

Fire Occurrence and History 

Fire records prior to Refuge establishment 

are not readily available. Due to 

topography and the sparse vegetation 

surrounding the Refuge, fire in the area 

was probably a localized phenomenon. 

With the abundant fuel in the form of dead 

dry marsh vegetation, frequent lightning 

storms, and the use of the area by nomadic 

tribes, all of the ingredients necessary for 

fires were present. It is assumed that fire 

historically was a relatively common 

occurrence in the marsh area and was a 

determinant in the existing vegetation. It 

is known that post-settlement landowners 

periodically burned the marsh to improve 

its grazing potential. Wildfires were 

“apparently not a problem” for these prior 

landowners (Service 1960). 

Since Refuge establishment in 1959, 54 

fires have been reported on the Refuge (50 

prescribed burns within marsh units and 

four wildfires - all human caused). 

Prescribed burns have varied from 1 acre 

to 1,630 acres. Based on a review of the fire 

history, a wildfire frequency of one fire 

every 10 years has been established. 

Visitor Services 

In spite of its isolation, Fish Springs NWR 

has historically hosted 2,000 to 3,000 

visitors each year (Table 5). Most come to 

enjoy wildlife-oriented recreational 

opportunities in the Refuge’s uncrowded 

environment. Fish Springs public uses 

include waterfowl hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education and 

interpretation. 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

26 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish Springs NWR provides one of the 

highest quality public waterfowl hunting 

opportunities to be found in the western 

United States. Waterfowl hunting 

opportunities include ducks, geese, and 

coots, in accordance with State regulations. 

Hunter densities rarely exceed one hunter 

per 200 acres. Opportunities exist for 

waterfowl hunting by hunters with 

mobility impairment. The hunting seasons 

do not conflict with the waterfowl nesting 

season. 

Recreational use other than hunting in the 

spring and summer months have 

contributed to an overall increase in visitor 

numbers. Many come to the Refuge in the 

process of exploring the rich human history 

of the area, reaching back into time to 

more than 11,000 years before present. The 

Refuge hosts two events annually to 

provide the public with special 

opportunities to learn first-hand about the 

Refuge’s resource-rich environment. 

The Refuge maintains an auto-tour route 

that traverses a good cross section of the 

diverse habitats and provides exceptional 

opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

photography. The Thomas Ranch 

Watchable Wildlife Area provides a 

welcomed shady respite for visitors who 

have traveled through the dusty, hot, and 

dry conditions that must be traversed from 

any cardinal direction to reach the Refuge. 

While visits by scout groups and schools 

are not as frequent as is the case on many 

refuges, those that do visit find the Refuge 

to be a wonderful outdoor classroom. 

Providing service projects, merit badge 

counseling, and environmental education 

enhances the visitor experience and 

understanding of the Refuge for most of 

these young visitors. 

Wilderness 

A wilderness review is the process used by 

the Service to determine whether to 

recommend lands or waters in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System to Congress for 

designation as wilderness. The Service is 

required to conduct a wilderness review 

for each refuge as part of the CCP process. 

Land or waters that meet the minimum 

criteria for wilderness are identified in a 

CCP and further evaluated to determine 

whether they merit recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. 

According to Section 13 of the Service’s 

Director’s Order No. 125 (July 2000), in 

order for a refuge to be considered for 

wilderness designation, all or part of the 

Refuge must: 

Q Be affected primarily by the forces 

of nature, with the human imprint 

substantially unnoticeable 

Q Have outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation 

Q Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres 

or be sufficient in size to make 

practical its preservation and use in 

an unimpaired condition, or be 

capable of restoration to wilderness 

character through appropriate 

management, at the time of review 

Q Be a roadless island 

Table 5. Public use at Fish Springs NWR, 1995-

2002. 

Year Visits 

1995 2,642 

1996 2,982 

1997 2,890 

1998 2,957 

1999 3,092 

2000 2,881 

2001 2,049 

2002 2,376 

 
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Fish Springs NWR is not recommended for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System because 

it does not meet the above criteria. The 

Refuge has considerable evidence of past 

human use, and is not roadless. 

Socioeconomics 

Population and Demographics 

Utah’s 2003 population was estimated to be 

2.39 million, increasing 2.0% from 2002. 

Although the state continues to experience 

net in-migration, natural increase accounts 

for the majority of Utah’s population 

growth (State of Utah 2004). According to 

the U.S. Census Bureau, Utah ranked 

eighth among states with a population 

growth rate of 1.4% from 2002 to 2003. 

During the same period, the U.S. rate of 

growth was 1.0%. 

The Western region grew the fastest in the 

1990s, with the population in the State of 

Utah growing from 1,722,850 in 1990 to 

2,233,169 in 2000, an increase of 29.6%, 

while the national population growth rate 

was slightly less at 13.2%. The population 

in Juab County grew from 5,817 in 1990 to 

8,238 in 2000, an increase of 42% for the 

1990s (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Utah’s 

population is expected to increase about 

2.6% annually through 2010. 

About 96.6% of the Juab County population 

consider themselves to be white (compared 

to 75% nation wide). About 2.6% consider 

themselves to be Hispanic or Latino in 

origin (compared to 12.5% nation wide), 

and 1.0% consider themselves to be 

American Indian (compared to 0.9% 

nationwide) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

Employment 

With about 22,000 employees, the State of 

Utah is the largest employer in Utah. 

Health care services and education are the 

next three top employers while the federal 

government (mainly defense) occupies the 

number five rank. 

Since 1994, the rate of job growth has 

fallen from 6.2% to 0.9% in 2001. This is 

Utah’s slowest job growth since 1983 and 

well below the long-term average of 3.5%. 

Education and health services led the state 

in job growth from 2000 to 2003. Financial 

activity, professional and business services, 

and government (except state government) 

experienced positive job growth, while 

many industries experienced a decline in 

job growth. Utah’s 2003 unemployment 

rate was 5.8%. On average, there were 

68,900 Utahans unemployed in 2003. 

Income 

Utah’s average annual nonagricultural pay 

was $30,500 during 2003, up 1.4% from 

2002. After seven years of solid gains in 

which wages grew faster than inflation, 

wages matched inflation during 2002, but 

grew less than inflation during 2003. 
28 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

Management for Wildlife Diversity 

Refuge management will focus on 

providing habitat for maximum wildlife 

diversity including migratory birds, and 

native mammal, mollusk, invertebrate, and 

amphibian communities. Habitat needs for 

species other than migratory birds that 

have not been addressed adequately in 

past management efforts will be fully 

integrated into management efforts. 

Ensuring that the full complements of 

fauna and flora historically represented on 

the Refuge are recognized and that full 

efforts to understand and meet the habitat 

requirements for these species will be a 

priority. 

Minor changes in water regimes and 

management activities at eight of the nine 

ponds will be directed toward creating 

diverse habitats in terms of water depth, 

vegetation composition, and habitat 

structure. Other new strategies include 

enhancing areas to provide potential 

rookeries for nesting colonial wading birds, 

expanding efforts in threatened and 

endangered species recovery, and 

conducting a bathymetric survey. 

Restoration of the Harrison Unit will be 

pursued on an experimental basis. Efforts 

will focus on restoring to the extent 

possible historical hydrological, physical 

and biological conditions to the marsh. 

Refuge management also will focus on 

enhancing the native high desert shrubland 

community. Natural and prescribed fires 

will be managed in accordance with the 

Wildland Fire Management Plan (2002). 

Weed management described in the 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (2003) 

will continue. 

Water management of eight of nine ponds 

(Figure 3) will include a 5-year drawdown 

rotation and associated burning (Table 6). 

Water levels in the ponds will be 

maintained to create optimum conditions 

for waterfowl production. The goal is to 

maintain waterfowl migration, wintering, 

and production habitat. Water 

management will also maintain water 

salinity at minimum levels through winter 

flushing and maintaining water flows 

throughout the Refuge. 

Chapter 4. Management Direction

Table 6. Unit drawdown and prescribed burning 

sequence. 

Unit(s) Year1 Drain Burn Fill 

Mallard - 

Gadwall 

2003 Feb Sept Oct 

Avocet - 

Spring2

2004 Feb Sept Oct 

CurlewIbis 2005 Feb Sept Oct 

Pintail - 

Shoveler 

2006 Feb Sept Oct 

Egret - 

Harrison 

2007 Feb Sept Oct 

1

This sequence is repeated every 5 years. Dry 

units are burned according to an approved 

Prescribed Burning Plan. Currently, however, 

units with large dense stands of Phragmites 

australis (Avocet, Mallard, Curlew, Shoveler, 

and Harrison) are not burned due to concerns 

that fire aids the spread of this invasive species. 

2

Spring unit is not drawn down, but 1/3 is 

burned during the same year that Avocet is 

drawn down. 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 

Studies indicate that full pool management 

is not as productive as management 

involving drawdowns, whereby 

management intentionally simulates wet 

and dry cycles of a natural wetland. 

McKnight and Low (1969) conducted a 

study within the Fish Springs NWR marsh 

from 1966 to 1968. Their study revealed 

that marsh units that had been drained, 

allowed to dry, and then flooded showed a 

tremendous increase in waterfowl use and 

production. Brood census data showed that 

the newly flooded areas were much more 

attractive to duck broods than the 

undisturbed marsh areas, and were more 

heavily used by waterfowl in general. 

Drawdowns play an important role in the 

rate at which nutrients are released into 

the food chain. The rate of plant material 

decay is increased. This in turn provides 

more food to invertebrates in the form of 

decaying organic matter or detritus. 

According to Refuge surveys, 

invertebrates experience a subsequent 

population explosion upon reflooding, with 

both species richness and abundance 

increasing (Ward and Ward 1996). This 

provides improved foraging for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and water birds. Drawdown in 

many units results in an invasion of the 

original pool bottom by opportunistic 

vegetation, primarily fivehook bassia 

(Bassia hyssopifolia) and summer cypress 

(Kochia scoparia). These plants produce a 

seed crop that is used by migrating 

waterfowl when these units are reflooded. 

The weed crop also provides critical 

structural habitat used by the burgeoning 

populations of aquatic invertebrates after 

reflooding. Salt cedar (Tamarisk 

ramosissima) also appears within most 

units when the ponds are drawn down; 

however, this species is killed at nearly 

100% after refilling before the plants have 

developed enough to provide structural 

habitat for invertebrates or a food source 

(seed) for waterfowl. 

Fire, another important marsh 

management tool, increases the rate at 

which nutrients are returned back to the 

soil, setting back succession and 

invigorating new plant growth. As wetland 

vegetation becomes rank, it is of little 

value to many marsh birds and prescribed 

burning can improve marsh habitat for 

migratory waterbirds. 

Since 1988, the marsh units at Fish Springs 

NWR have been dewatered and burned on 

a set 5-year rotation (Table 6). Draining 

the units begins in February and 

reflooding begins between late September 

and December. Target levels are reached 

between March and mid-April. These 

target levels are flexible based on specific 

seasonal conditions and the professional 

judgment of the Refuge Manager. Not 

enough water is available to have all units 

completely filled during summer and early 

fall, so some units are left at less than 

target levels during those times. This 

actually creates better shorebird nesting 

and foraging habitat in the spring. 

Prior to the summer of 2003, efforts to 

control Phragmites were spring chemical 

applications of a glyphosate herbicide after 

the unit had been dewatered and subject to 

a spring prescribed burn. This method 

proved to be ineffective in controlling the 

spread of Phragmites on the Refuge. In 

July 2003, the Refuge experimented with a 

new approach to the control of Phragmites. 

Stands of Phragmites were mowed in July 

and August, and glyphosate herbicide was 

applied in September after the re-growth 

had reached 2 to 3 feet tall. Five areas 

were treated with this method in FY 2003 

and will be monitored for 2 years to 

determine the effectiveness. Initial results 

appear encouraging. 

This new method of a late summer/early 

fall manipulation (mowing or burning) to 

the Phragmites, combined with a fall or 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

30 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

spring application of a glyphosate 

herbicide, will be used in FY 2004 on 

several sites. The Refuge also will 

incorporate new techniques in the Avocet 

Unit, which is scheduled to be burned in 

September 2004. Several dense 

Phragmites stands on higher sites in the 

unit will be disked after the burn in late 

September. Some sites will be disked once, 

and other sites will be disked twice to 

expose the roots to hot desiccating 

temperatures. Disking will be followed by 

an application of a glyphosate herbicide in 

October on some sites, and in the spring on 

other sites after re-growth starts. All sites 

will be monitored for 2 years to determine 

the effectiveness of the control methods 

used. 

The high desert shrubland is defined for 

management purposes as the combined 

Great Basin Arid Shrubland and Great 

Basin Cold Desert Shrubland presented on 

Figure 5. These two shrublands are found 

on the west side of the Refuge and in 

smaller patches along the north, east and 

south sides of the marshlands. Dominant 

shrubs include Mormon tea, rabbitbrush 

species, greasewood, shadscale and 

fourwing saltbrush. 

Currently, the high desert shrubland 

community on Fish Springs NWR is not 

actively managed. This community 

historically has been a low management 

priority and management has been passive. 

Historical grazing was removed when the 

Service acquired the Refuge (Banta, pers. 

comm. 2004). A fence was constructed in 

the mid-1990s to remedy illegal trespass 

from livestock on surrounding BLM and 

U.S. Army properties. Overgrazing of 

desert shrublands can significantly reduce 

vegetation diversity and species 

composition (Bock and Bock 1993; 

Fleischner 1994). Past cattle grazing and 

current sheep drives along the county road 

(Pony Express Trail) on the west side of 

the Refuge have promoted the spread of 

invasive weeds and the understory of large 

patches of the high desert shrubland 

community is dominated by cheatgrass. 

Fires in western high desert shrubland 

communities have had a profound impact 

on vegetation composition and structure. 

Young and Evans (1978) found that 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) increases on 

post burned areas, frequently outcompeting native flora. An increase in fire 

frequency in shrublands can cause a 

gradual loss or in some cases dramatic 

change from a shrub community to an 

annual dominated community. This shift in 

plant species composition alters 

competitive and fire dynamics to maintain 

annual dominance on the affected sites 

(Taush et al. 1995). Fire management is 

conducted on Fish Springs NWR in 

accordance with the Wildlife Fire 

Management Plan (2001). Fire is 

suppressed in shrubland habitats and used 

as a tool to achieve identified management 

goals. Prescribed burning of dewatered 

units is conducted in the fall. 

Overall Goal: Provide habitat for 

maximum wildlife diversity. 

Rationale: Shifting the focus of Refuge 

management from enhancing and 

protecting breeding, wintering and 

migration habitat primarily for migratory 

birds to providing habitat to maximize 

wildlife diversity will require a substantive 

shift in management practices. Restoration 

of a portion of the Refuge to mimic 

historical conditions will be a departure 

from management objectives and 

prescriptions of the last 40 years. To 

successfully implement marsh restoration, 

it is critical to prepare a detailed Habitat 

Management Plan that will carefully 

develop and implement habitat 

management goals, objectives, and 

strategies. 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 

Objective: Within 5 years develop a 

Habitat Management Plan that provides 

the following: 

Q Specific characterization of the 

existing biological conditions, 

including: vegetation composition, 

distribution, and abundance of 

exotics (plant and animal); 

vegetation structure (e.g., height, 

density); and wildlife occurrence, 

distribution, abundance, 

productivity and seasonal habitat 

use patterns. 

Q Description of existing ecological 

structure and functions, including 

food web interactions, predator/prey 

relationships, foraging patterns and 

relationships, competition. 

Q Detailed objectives and strategies 

and the rationale to support the 

strategies. 

Q Detailed description of the expected 

outcome of habitat management 

strategies. 

Q Detailed methods and management 

tools to be used to meet objectives. 

Q Detailed inventory and monitoring 

surveys to evaluate the success of 

selected strategies, a discussion on 

how surveys will be used and data 

assumptions associated with 

surveys. 

Habitat 

Goal: Improve and maintain habitats for 

nesting and wintering migratory birds and 

other wildlife populations of the Bonneville 

Basin. 

Rationale: Fish Springs NWR, by virtue 

of its substantial wetlands, is one of the 

most important habitats in the eastern 

Bonneville Basin. Use of these wetlands by 

migrating, wintering, and nesting birds is 

critical to many species that are found in 

western Utah. The Refuge is the largest 

wetland for a radius of over 70 miles and 

provides such habitat to literally tens of 

thousands of migratory birds as well as 

being a true oasis in a very arid region 

which supports a very diverse population 

of native wildlife. Efforts to maintain and 

improve a diverse mosaic of habitats are 

critical to providing high quality habitat in 

an area where wetlands and relatively 

pristine desert shrub communities are 

exceptionally limited. 

Objectives: 

1. Throughout the life of this Plan, 

provide nesting and brood-rearing 

habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

water birds by maintaining diverse 

aquatic habitat, adequate food sources, 

stable water levels during nesting, and 

enhancing colonial wading bird nesting 

habitat. 

Strategies: 

Q Drawdown two units each year 

(Table 6) to maintain an adequate 

invertebrate supply as a food source 

and to recycle nutrients through 

decomposition and prescribed 

burning. 

Q Bring five to six units to optimal 

stable water levels (Table 7) by midApril when waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and water birds are selecting nest 

sites. 

Q Maintain stable water levels through 

mid-June for shorebirds and water 

birds in five to six units to prevent 

flooding or drying of nests. 

Q Maintain stable water levels through 

mid-July for waterfowl in three to 

four designated units to prevent 

flooding or drying of nests. 

Q Seek expert consultation on 

subdividing northern impoundments 

(Pintail, Ibis, and Gadwall Units) to 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

32 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

improve production habitat (i.e., 

stabilized water through hatching) 

for waterfowl. 

Q Within 12 years, provide suitable 

habitat components (dense hardstem 

bulrush stands, appropriate water 

depths, lack of disturbance, 

protection from prescribed burns) to 

support expansion of existing 

rookeries for colonial nesting wading 

birds (great blue heron, snowy 

egret, cattle egret, white-faced ibis). 

2. Over the next 15 years, maintain 

existing seasonal closures to minimize 

disturbance to nesting, wintering, and 

migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

waterbirds. 

Strategies: 

Q Close entire Refuge to all forms of 

boating April 15 to August 15 to 

protect breeding waterbirds (Table 

8). 

Q Keep 10,746 acres (60 percent of the 

Refuge) as year-round sanctuary 

areas. 

Q Close all roads except the Pony 

Express Road and the core autotour route from April 15 - August 15. 

3. Within 5 years of CCP approval, 

consult with experts and conduct a 

bathymetric survey to better characterize 

the Refuge and its resources. 

Strategies: 

Q Identify and monitor indicator 

species that best represent the 

various refuge habitats. Indicator 

species, such as suggested in Table 

8, will be developed in consultation 

with appropriate experts and a 

better understanding of the specific 

habitat dynamics of the Refuge and 

Table 7. Target water elevations for marsh units under 1991 Marsh Management Plan. 

Unit Target Water 

Elevation

Water Surface 

Acres

Average Depth 

(feet) Acre-feet

Avocet 4298.50 575 1.6 920 

Mallard 4298.74 192 1.5 288 

Curlew 4294.50 480 1.5 720 

Shoveler 4295.601

 245 1.5 368 

Pintail 4286.00 395 1.7 672 

Egret 4291.39 380 1.5 570 

Ibis 4288.80 235 2.2 517 

Harrison 4282.00 620 1.7 1,054 

Gadwall 4282.002

 430 1.8 774 

Total 3,552 5,883 

1

 Target water elevation shown here for Shoveler Unit is 0.26 feet lower than originally designated in the 

Marsh Management Plan. With this slight modification, more islands pop-up or are just below the water, 

creating better foraging for shorebirds. 

2

 Gadwall Unit is actually managed at a much lower water elevation in order to create 25 to-35 more acres 

of shallowly flooded mudflats for western snowy plover foraging. The Refuge Manager determines at 

which level to stop filling this unit on a yearly basis according to water availability. 

Source: Service 1991. 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 

species that best represent selected 

habitat. 

Q Conduct a complete bathymetric 

survey of all marsh impoundments in 

order to determine how much 

habitat or surface water is created 

at varying water elevations for each 

unit. 

4. Provide spring and fall migration 

foraging habitat for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and water birds. This 

involves providing a variety of habitat in 

each marsh unit, including shallowly 

flooded (# 4 inches) and sub-irrigated 

saltgrass for shorebirds, and emergent 

vegetation in water 4 to 12 inches deep for 

water birds. 

Strategies: 

Q Drawdown two units each year 

(Table 6) to maintain an adequate 

invertebrate supply as a food source 

and to recycle nutrients through 

decomposition and prescribed 

burning. 

Q Partially draw down water in some 

units and increase water in other 

units during the early spring 

(March) to exploit resources not 

normally available, providing new 

foraging areas. Where and to what 

extent water is drawn down will be 

based on the condition and 

topography of each unit. 

Q Delay impoundment drawdowns 

until March 15 or later in those units 

scheduled for full drawdown but not 

scheduled for prescribed burning. 

Q Cut off water to three to four units 

in mid- to late June to allow 

shrinkage through 

evapotranspiration and evaporation 

to create mudflats in late summer 

and into fall. 

Q Allow water to drop in three to four 

other units after mid-July when 

waterfowl nesting is completed until 

mid-September. During this time, 

water is still allowed to flow in, but 

at a rate less than 

evapotranspiration and evaporation. 

Begin refilling units after midSeptember. 

Table 8. Suggested indicator species. 

Species Arrival Nest Eggs Hatch Fledge 

American 

Bittern 

April April-June May-Mid July June-August July-August 

Virginia 

Rail/Sora 

April April-Early 

May 

June-Early 

July 

July-August August 

Common 

Yellowthroat 

April May-July June-July June-July July-August 

Marsh Wren April Mid AprilEarly May  

Mallard March April April-July May-July July-August 

Least Chub Resident 

Utah Chub Resident 

Possible Negative Indicators 

Gambusia 

Muskrat 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

34 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

5. Within 3 years of CCP approval, 

identify any threatened, endangered or 

sensitive plant species or rare plant 

communities identified by the Service or 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

that exist on the refuge, particularly 

within the high desert shrubland 

community. 

Strategies: 

Q Determine historical native floral 

composition of the high desert 

shrubland community, within 3 

years. 

Q Conduct a complete vegetation 

survey to determine current 

composition of the high desert 

shrubland community and create a 

layer for the GIS database. 

6. Within 7 years of CCP approval, 

develop a plan to restore the high desert 

shrubland community to the historical 

native composition. 

Strategies: 

Q Compare current and desired 

conditions to determine how much 

restoration is necessary. 

Q Research appropriate restoration 

methods such as herbicides, 

prescribed fire, biological controls or 

mechanical controls. Refuge 

managers can use some of these 

control methods to stimulate new 

growth, remove unhealthy 

vegetation, recycle soil nutrients, or 

create fuel breaks to isolate or 

protect critical shrub communities 

from cheatgrass invasion. 

Q Determine necessary resources, 

budget, specific actions, and timeframe for project. 

Q Determine indicator species (e.g., 

plants, birds, invertebrates) for 

monitoring health of restored 

communities. 

Q Begin implementation of selected 

appropriate restoration actions. 

Ecological Integrity 

Two goals have been developed under the 

Ecological Integrity Management 

Direction. A Refuge-wide goal and a 

specific goal for restoring the Harrison 

Unit to a more historical function as a 

braided marsh. Restoration of the Harrison 

Unit complies with the intent of the 

Refuge Administration Act, and strategies 

were developed following Service guidance 

(601 FWS). 

Refuge-wide Goal: Perpetuate the native 

biodiversity and physical characteristics of 

the Bonneville Basin as represented on 

Fish Springs NWR. 

Rationale: Efforts to gather inventory 

data on current use by avian species and 

attempting to reduce the impacts of 

various influences such as military 

overflights and invasive vegetation will be 

vital to maintain the ecological systems at 

Fish Springs NWR. The physical 

environment of the Refuge also contains 

several sites of importance to the 

understanding of the history of Lake 

Bonneville. Ensuring that these sites are 

protected from unreasonable degradation 

will ensure that the scientific values are 

maintained for future research needs and 

interpretation. 

Specific actions will be taken on behalf of 

species of concern, including federally 

listed species or species proposed for 

listing. Listed species are Federal trust 

resources, with the Service having a 

responsibility to aid their recovery 

whenever possible. Species proposed for 

listing are not officially Federal trust 

resources but are species of concern. Any 

efforts the Service can make on their 

behalf is appropriate, and may even help 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 

prevent the species from being listed. 

Certainly, these efforts are compatible 

with the Refuge Purpose. 

Objectives: 

1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, and 

every 5 years thereafter, assess the status 

of native biodiversity on the Refuge. 

Strategies: 

Q Conduct community level biological 

surveys. Include surveying for small 

mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

marsh birds, water birds, raptors, 

passerines, reptiles and amphibians, 

carnivores, and invertebrates. 

Create appropriate layers for the 

GIS database. 

Q Repeat a complete set of community 

level surveys every 5 years. Update 

GIS database accordingly. 

Q Continue bimonthly bird 

counts/index, spring and fall mistnetting, and spring and fall 

shorebird surveys. 

2. Within 5 years of CCP approval, 

develop a plan to maintain the diversity 

and distribution of native spring snails. 

Strategies: 

Q Establish current distribution and 

densities of all spring snails and 

create a layer for the GIS database. 

Q Identify very limited native species, 

monitor them for population declines 

and threats, and determine 

appropriate protection and 

restoration actions. 

Q Refer to historical snail surveys on 

snail distribution in springs, 

including work done by the 

Smithsonian. 

Q Determine the impact of nonnative 

snails (Melanoides tuberculata) on 

native snails and other species. 

Q Investigate ways to eliminate 

nonnative snails. 

3. Within 5 years of CCP approval, 

rewrite the Marsh Management Plan to 

maintain native species richness of the 

marsh plant communities. 

Strategies: 

Q Develop GIS-based vegetation 

database showing current diversity 

and distribution of marsh plant 

Communities. Determine if any 

relict populations of endemic species 

exist. Update database as necessary. 

Q Consult with experts on how to 

restore and maintain native marsh 

plant communities and relict 

populations. 

Q Evaluate the use of prescribed fire 

in maintaining native plant 

communities through a review of the 

existing literature, experimentation 

and monitoring, and 

opportunistically through research. 

4. Reduce whitetop by 60 percent and 

squarrose knapweed by 60 percent within 

3 years, tamarisk by 90 percent within 15 

years, and cattail stand density by 50 

percent within 15 years. 

Strategies: 

Q Develop GIS-based vegetation 

database showing current 

distribution as a baseline. Update 

database as necessary. 

Q Cooperate with the Bureau of Land 

Management to treat area above the 

Refuge for squarrose knapweed. 

Q Treat invasive species with 

appropriate chemical control agents 

and mechanical methods. 

Q Based on results of experimental 

control conducted in the Avocet 

Unit, investigate feasibility of using 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

36 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

biological controls for squarrose 

knapweed and tamarisk. 

Q Once target levels are reached, 

continue to treat invasive species as 

needed to prevent re-spreading. 

5. Within 6 years of CCP approval, 

determine the effects of management 

practices on the spread of Phragmites 

australis. 

Strategies: 

Q Develop GIS-based vegetation 

database showing current 

distribution as a baseline. Update 

database as necessary. 

Q Monitor spread of Phragmites 

australis after prescribed fire and 

pool drawdowns. 

Q Experiment with chemical and 

mechanical control on Phragmites 

australis to determine if there is any 

effective level of control. 

Q Set target for Phragmites australis

reduction upon completion of above 

efforts. 

6. Continually preserve sites of 

geological significance for 

geomorphological research; both known 

sites and those identified by experts in 

the future. 

Strategies: 

Q Do not disturb sites through any 

earthmoving operations. 

Q Do not fill, level, or flood sites. 

7. Continue to work to minimize impacts 

of military overflights on wildlife. 

Strategies: 

Q Monitor violations of established 

rules stipulating flying at least 3,000 

feet above the Refuge. 

Q Continue dialog with the U.S. Air 

Force when violations occur and how 

to avoid future violations. 

Q Request involvement of the 

Service’s Utah Resident Agent in 

Charge when needed. 

8. Within 10 years of CCP approval, 

achieve a nesting success rate of 40 

percent for snowy plovers nesting on the 

Refuge. 

Strategies: 

Q Measure current nesting success 

rates of snowy plovers. 

Q Construct elevated nest sites in 

suitable nesting units. 

Q Install electric fencing around 

nesting areas and experiment with 

the use of scents to condition 

predators to the presence of the 

fence. 

Q Conduct an annual census in 

cooperation with staff of Dugway 

Proving Ground. 

9. Within 15 years of CCP approval, 

establish future roosting sites for bald 

eagles, a threatened species, on the 

Refuge. 

Strategies: 

Q Plant three to four Fremont 

cottonwood trees in two sites in 

areas with minimum potential for 

disturbance (e.g., Spring Unit). 

10. Re-establish the least chub, a 

candidate species, in North, Deadman, 

Walter, House, and Percy Springs over 

the next 10 years. 

Strategies: 

Q Continue to make structural 

adaptations of water management 

facilities to create structural 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 

barriers to mosquito fish (Gambusia 

affinis) infestation. 

Q Conduct multiple removal 

treatments of nonnative fishes to try 

and eradicate invasive species in the 

target springs. 

Q Move fish from existing Refuge 

stocks, or from other stocks through 

Utah DWR, to enhance genetic 

diversity in nonsystemic sites. 

11. Continually inventory, monitor and 

protect habitat for threatened, 

endangered and sensitive wildlife 

species. 

Strategies: 

Q Continue to monitor habitat and 

populations of wintering bald eagles 

and least chub. 

Q Look for new opportunities to 

cooperate with Utah DWR on the 

introduction/re-introduction of 

spotted frog and other sensitive 

wildlife native to the Bonneville 

Basin. 

Q Continually monitor spring 

discharges. 

Q Continue to look for additional 

cooperative opportunities with Utah 

DWR, universities and other 

agencies to inventory, monitor and 

enhance sensitive species habitat. 

Marsh Restoration of Harrison Unit 

Goal: Restore a portion of Fish Springs 

NWR to the native biodiversity and 

physical characteristics of the Bonneville 

Basin as represented on Fish Springs, 

including unimpeded hydrological, physical 

and biological components (Figure 6). 

Rationale: The Harrison Unit is supplied 

by a single, isolated spring (North Spring) 

and retains much of the drainage 

topography evident in pre-Refuge aerial 

photography making this unit suitable for 

restoration. Consistent with and 

complementary to the Ecological Integrity 

goal and current Service guidance, marsh 

restoration of the Harrison Unit will 

perpetuate the native biodiversity and 

physical characteristics endemic to the 

area. Little information is available on the 

specific ecological conditions of the Refuge 

prior to Refuge development and the 

restoration goal has little to no baseline 

available to establish objectives or 

measure success. The Refuge is also unique 

within the Bonneville Basin limiting the 

Refuge’s ability to use a similar site for 

comparison. 

Restoration ecology can be defined as “The 

return of an ecosystem to a close 

approximation of its conditions prior to 

disturbance” (National Resource Council 

1992). Ecological systems are dynamic and 

the restoration objectives will focus on 

restoring the ecological functions and 

processes that permit natural succession. 

The restoration of the Harrison Unit will 

involve four primary steps: 

1) Establishing a baseline inventory to 

include 3 years of data collection of the 

flora and fauna prior to any direct 

management implementation of the 

restoration process. 

2) Conducting management activities, such 

as dike removal, to restore unimpeded 

hydrological, physical, chemical, and 

biological processes. 

3) Designing monitoring strategies to 

evaluate both short term and long-term 

trends in ecosystem (community) structure 

and functions (water table dynamics, 

biodiversity, complete food web, resilience 

to invasive species). Short-term (1 to 3 

years) monitoring to determine 

establishment and recovery of hydrological 

and biological components, and long-term 
Harrison Unit Restoration

Figure 6

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 

(10 years and more) monitoring to 

determine management effects on 

community structure and functions. 

4) Refining and establishing new objectives 

and success criteria based on monitoring 

that leads to new management activities. 

These primary steps will be implemented 

in a phased approach with monitoring and 

evaluation of the success of each phase 

being conducted before proceeding to the 

next phase. Phase I will remove check 

dikes and water control structures from 

water channels to restore unimpeded flow 

to braided channels. Phase II will breach 

dikes in the Harrison Unit at natural 

drainage channels. Phase III, if data 

indicate restoration is warranted, will 

remove the entire dike system of the 

Harrison Unit. 

Objectives: 

1. Establish a 3-year baseline inventory 

of existing soil, water, vegetation and 

fauna conditions of the North Springs 

stream channels and Harrison Unit pool 

within 4 years of CCP approval. 

Strategies: 

Q Obtain various expert opinions on 

the likelihood of a successful 

restoration effort and relative 

benefits to the wildlife using that 

area being considered for 

restoration. 

Q Establish Refuge-wide baselines 

to be used for comparison and 

monitoring purposes. 

Q Partner with the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

to characterize current soil 

conditions. 

Q Gather baseline data by 2009 on 

current flows using portable 

flumes from a minimum of four 

locations within the unit (spring, 

midway on feeder canal, inlet to 

Harrison Pool, below Harrison 

Pool). 

Q Continually monitor spring 

discharges. 

Q Establish a minimum of ten 

shallow ground water 

monitoring locations by 2006 

using simple, inexpensive 

measuring techniques such as 

drive point piezometers. This 

monitoring will provide a simple 

assessment of changes in water 

tables and ground water flow 

that could be correlated with 

changes in vegetation and 

community structure 

Q Coordinate with U.S. Army 

Dugway Proving Ground during 

3-year baseline inventory period 

to address issues related to 

water flow onto Army property. 

Q Establish a baseline inventory 

for vegetation within the 

Harrison Unit. Establish longterm (permanent) transects that 

traverse all macro vegetation 

communities for monitoring. Map 

all plant communities within the 

Harrison Unit, both native and 

non-native species. 

Q Conduct weed and invasive plant 

mapping by 2008 when the 

Integrated Pest Management 

Plan is developed, including 

areas of tamarisk, Phragmites, 

knapweed, fivehook bassia and 

summer cypress. 

Q Monitor response of invasive 

plant species to large-scale soil 

disturbance. 

Q Conduct annual bi-monthly bird 

surveys of Harrison Unit during 

refuge-wide survey periods 

conducted between March 15 and 

May 1, and between July 15 and 

September 1. 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

40 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Q Conduct annual shorebird 

surveys specific to Harrison Unit 

on weeks opposite the bimonthly bird survey. 

Q Establish a baseline inventory of 

small mammals found within the 

plant communities in the 

Harrison Unit. Establish longterm (permanent) transects or 

grids, and predator scent 

stations within the Harrison 

Unit when the Wildlife 

Inventory Plan is developed by 

2007. Transects will be colocated with vegetation 

transects. 

2. Within 3 years of approval of the CCP, 

develop a set of indicator species that best 

represent habitat within the Harrison 

Unit and Refuge-wide as described 

earlier, and that also provide response 

data for habitat change. 

Strategies: 

Q Consult with experts to develop 

a list of indicator species (Table 

8) that best indicate changes in 

hydrologic factors, vegetation 

cover, and composition, wetland 

salinity, and biodiversity. 

Q Develop indicator metrics and 

methods for monitoring indicator 

species that best meet objectives 

such as number of individuals 

per unit, by season, reproductive 

success, species distribution, and 

seasonal habitat. 

Q Conduct pre- and postmonitoring of target indicator 

species. 

3. During the course of one complete 

drawdown of Harrison Pool in 2007 

(Table 6), conduct a complete on-theground assessment of the unit to evaluate 

current conditions and how the major 

original watercourses can be restored 

and how to restore them. 

Strategies: 

Q Compare aerial photos from predevelopment with current aerial 

photos. Overlay original predevelopment marsh photos on 

structural/dike map to identify 

natural watercourses and any 

remnants that may remain. 

Q Survey remnant channels. 

Q Conduct fly-over to see how 

much integrity exists in main 

drainages. 

Q Create GIS overlays for current 

and historical channels. 

Q Contract with a hydrologic 

engineering firm to conduct 

complete hydrologic assessment. 

Q Assess complications associated 

with invasive species 

introduction resulting from soil 

and vegetation disturbance from 

restoration of the landscape. 

4. Restore unimpeded hydrological 

processes to the North Spring (Harrison 

Unit) in three phases to be completed in 

5-year increments. 

Strategies: 

Q Remove check dikes and water 

control structures by 2010 to 

restore unimpeded flow to 

braided channels (Phase I). 

Q Breach dikes at natural drainage 

channels by 2015 (Phase II). 

Q Remove dike system and any 

berm that diverts, channelizes, 

or prevents natural flows by 

2020 (Phase III). 

Q Allow unimpeded hydrological 

processes to restore natural 

channels. 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41 

Q Monitor and evaluate success of 

each phase before proceeding to 

next phase. 

5. Annually monitor natural vegetation 

succession within the Harrison Unit. 

Strategies: 

Q Continue to monitor vegetation 

composition, and community 

structure on a yearly basis using 

the line transects established in 

the baseline inventory. 

Additional vegetation transects 

will have to be established once 

the pool is removed. Plant 

community (vegetation) 

characteristics that may be 

monitored can include: species 

richness, ocular estimates of 

ground cover (bare ground, 

grass/forbs, exotic, and litter), 

shrub cover, shrub height. 

Q Establish research partnerships 

with local colleges and 

universities to monitor and 

research vegetation communities 

and ecological functions. 

Q Evaluate the need to plant 

native vegetation by 2009 when 

the Habitat Management Plan is 

developed. 

6. Upon implementation of the 

restoration of the Harrison Unit, 

annually monitor wildlife presence, 

abundance, and areas of use based on the 

evaluation of the original watercourses 

within 5 years of CCP approval. 

Strategies: 

Q Continue to monitor small 

mammal transects or grids and 

predator scent stations on a 

yearly basis. Additional small 

mammals transects will have to 

be established once the pool is 

removed. Data collected on small 

mammals may include species 

richness, abundance, and guilds. 

Q Continue annual refuge-wide 

bird surveys and shorebird 

surveys specific to Harrison Unit 

on weeks opposite the bimonthly bird survey between 

March 15 and May 1 and 

between July 15 and September 

1. 

Q Map and monitor wading bird 

nesting colonies (if any) that 

become established. 

Q Establish research partnerships 

with local colleges and 

universities to monitor and 

research animal communities 

and ecological functions, such as 

predator/prey relationships, 

competition, resource 

partitioning. 

7. Within 5 years of Plan approval, 

develop and implement an invasive 

species plan for the Harrison Unit to 

annually monitor the effects of 

restoration on the resource. 

Strategies: 

Q Map and control the spread of 

non-native and invasive plant 

species, including tamarisk, 

knapweed, bassia and summer 

cypress with appropriate 

chemical control agents and 

mechanical methods, according 

to the Integrated Pest 

Management Plan. 

Q Establish study plots to evaluate 

the efficacy of noxious weed 

treatments and weed responses 

to altered hydrology and 

disturbed soils. 

Q Identify and contain any nonnative animal species with the 

Harrison Unit, including house 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

42 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

mice, mosquito fish, bull frog, 

leopard frog and non-native 

snails, according to the Habitat 

Management Plan 

8. Consult with Utah DWR to explore the 

potential for restoration of least chub in 

the Harrison Unit over the next 10 years. 

Q Annually monitor the least chub 

in the Harrison Unit over the 

next 10 years and benchmark 

data against recovery rates in 

other units. 

9. Develop adaptive management 

simultaneously with the three phases of 

marsh restoration described in Objective 

4, which allows the Refuge Manager to 

adapt strategies to better meet objectives 

or determine whether to proceed with 

restoration. 

Strategies: 

Q Evaluate quality of monitoring data. 

Q Re-evaluate restoration approach. 

Q Evaluate if further restoration is 

warranted. 

Visitor Services 

Goal: Promote an understanding and 

appreciation of the fish, wildlife, and 

natural and cultural history of Fish Springs 

NWR by providing high quality 

environmental education, interpretation, 

and wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities for persons of all abilities. 

Rationale: Increased efforts in visitor 

services and the reinitiation of a goose 

hunt will provide additional recreational 

opportunities at the Refuge. The Refuge 

will maintain an auto-tour route that 

traverses a cross section of the habitats 

and provides opportunity for wildlife 

viewing and photography. The construction 

of an interpretive boardwalk and an 

observation platform will further enhance 

wildlife viewing and photography. Scout 

groups visiting Fish Springs will find the 

Refuge to be a wonderful outdoor 

classroom. Providing service projects, 

merit badge counseling, and environmental 

education will enhance the visitor 

experience and understanding of the 

Refuge for most of these young visitors. 

Additional staff, as requested (see Funding 

and Personnel sections), will make 

increased efforts in outreach and 

environmental education possible, thereby 

enhancing public understanding and 

appreciation for Fish Springs NWR and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Objectives: 

1. Provide waterfowl hunting 

opportunities for up to 2,000 visits 

annually (Figure 7). 

Duck Blind on Fish Springs NWR 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43 

Strategies: 

Q Continue to open up to 40 percent of 

the Refuge to duck and coot hunting 

(no swans or snipe). 

Q Reinitiate a goose hunt on the 

Refuge. 

Q Continue an annual youth hunt. 

Q Increase law enforcement presence 

during hunting season. 

Q Maintain and advertise availability 

of three universally accessible 

hunting blinds. 

Q Maintain parking areas and roads for 

hunter vehicle access. 

Q Maintain all hunting related signs on 

the Refuge. 

Q Identify areas open to hunting and 

inform the public about Refuge 

hunting regulations through signs, 

news releases, pamphlets, and 

printed State hunting regulations. 

Q Produce a new Refuge Hunt Plan 

within 2 years. 

Q Produce a hunting tear sheet 

meeting Service graphic standards. 

Q Post hunting information, such as 

harvest data and availability of 

universally accessible hunting 

blinds, on Refuge web site. 

2. Within 5 years of CCP approval, 

provide opportunities for up to 5,000 

visitors annually to participate in 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and interpretation (Figure 

8). 

Strategies: 

Q Open Refuge roads to public access 

as described on Figure 8. Only core 

auto-tour route open from April 15 

to August 15; close all other roads 

during that period. 

Q Maintain all directional signs on the 

Refuge. 

Q Maintain 9-mile self-guided autotour route with interpretive signs. 

Q Maintain universally accessible 

Thomas Ranch Watchable Wildlife 

Area. 

Q Allow boating (no gas motors) for 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and interpretation on 

areas open to the public except for 

the period from April 15 to August 

15. 

Q Exclude year-round sanctuary 

areas. 

Q Maintain three universally 

accessible wildlife observation and 

photography blinds. 

Q Maintain a native plant exhibit near 

the Headquarters building. 

Q Maintain the Visitor Contact Kiosk 

and Headquarters exhibits. 

Q Construct a universally accessible 

interpretive boardwalk trail that 

extends into the marsh area and two 

viewing platforms. Include 

interpretive panels along the 

boardwalk and at the viewing 

platforms that discuss natural and 

human history of the Fish Springs 

area. 

Q Produce a Refuge general brochure 

in the Service graphic standard. 

Q Update and reprint the Refuge 

Wildlife List as needed. 

Q Conduct a special event each year 

for International Migratory Bird 

Day. 

Q Host an annual Refuge Open House 

or similar public event. 

Q Provide interpretive or 

environmental education discussions 

and/or tours for groups as 

requested. Include discussions about 

contribution of the Refuge to 

wildlife resources and ecosystem 

functioning. 
Hunting

Figure 7

Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

T11S

T10S

R14WR13W

R14WR13W

T12S

T11S

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Public Use

Figure 8

Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

T11S

T10S

R14WR13W

R14WR13W

T12S

T11S

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

46 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Q Co-sponsor other special events as 

opportunities arise. 

3. Upon approval of the CCP, implement 

at least five different outreach efforts to 

foster appreciation for the resources of 

Fish Springs NWR and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Strategies: 

Q Accommodate and host Boy Scouts 

and Girl Scouts as requested. Trips 

usually include a Refuge tour, 

service project, merit badge 

counseling, and environmental 

education activities. Allow troops to 

camp at Thomas Ranch Watchable 

Wildlife Area with special permit 

when deemed compatible. 

Q Host one to two school visits to the 

Refuge and make two to four visits 

to area schools annually, with the 

target being to increase the number 

of students reached each year from 

50/year currently to 200/year. 

Q Make three presentations to 

professional and/or civic 

organizations annually. 

Q Write press releases announcing 

public events. 

Q Visit County Commissioners at least 

once a year. 

Q Visit regional offices of State and 

Federal Congressional 

representatives once a year. 

Q Maintain a Refuge web site with 

current information. 

4. Within 3 years of CCP approval, 

increase the Refuge volunteer program to 

reach 1,000 donated hours/year. 

Strategies: 

Q Organize three volunteer days each 

year with the goal of accomplishing a 

major task during each event. 

Provide all necessary training, 

materials, and lodging as needed. 

Schedule the event in conjunction 

with national volunteer efforts, such 

as Volunteer Week, National Public 

Lands Day or Earth Day, or in 

conjunction with special events on 

the Refuge, such as Migratory Bird 

Day or the Open House. Write a 

press release announcing each 

Volunteer Day and project to be 

accomplished. Write a press release 

after each Volunteer Day that 

recognizes volunteer efforts and 

what was accomplished during the 

event. 

Q Notify area schools, civic groups, 

and hunting, birding, and 

environmental organizations of 

volunteer opportunities on the 

Refuge. 

Q Work with the Service’s regional 

volunteer coordinator to develop a 

volunteer program that meets 

Refuge needs. 

Q Provide room and board for 

volunteers working on the Refuge 

for extended periods. 

Q Provide two or more trailer pads for 

volunteer use. 

Cultural Resources 

Goal: Preserve, protect, and promote an 

understanding of cultural resources on 

Fish Springs NWR. 

Rationale: Access for archaeologists will 

be limited but the majority of the cultural 

resources would still be reasonably 

accessible due to their proximity to roads 

that would remain on the Refuge’s west 

side. Enhanced and expanded efforts to 

inventory and analyze yet unmapped 

cultural resources sites, fully 

understanding known sites, and vigilant 

protection of these critical and 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47 

irreplaceable trust resources will allow a 

better understanding of the human history 

of the eastern Bonneville Basin. This 

additional information, coupled with that 

which is already known about the area, can 

provide for a richer and more complete 

interpretation of the Fish Springs area. 

Efforts to provide increased interpretation 

of important sites and a cultural resources 

brochure that provides an overview of the 

Refuge’s substantial cultural resource 

values will increase the public’s 

understanding of the important role Fish 

Springs has played for humans through the 

ages and appreciation for the Service’s 

responsibility to protect some of this 

nation’s important cultural resources. 

Previous work done on the Refuge has 

suggested such a rich assemblage of 

prehistoric and historic cultural resource 

sites and resources that the entire Refuge 

should be nominated as a National 

Archeological District. Such a designation 

will bring increased visibility to the 

tremendous cultural resources protected 

within the Refuge’s boundary and will 

likely be valuable in ensuring that full 

consideration of management project 

impacts is given in relation to these 

resources in the future. 

Objectives: 

1. Increase preservation and protection of 

known archaeological resources on the 

Refuge, within 10 years. 

Strategies: 

Q Increase law enforcement presence 

during peak times of public use. 

Q Use standard law enforcement 

practices to protect known resources 

on the Refuge. 

Q Upgrade existing barricades on two 

caves known to have been used by 

prehistoric cultures; replace vertical 

barricades with horizontal 

barricades to allow access by bats. 

Q Install remote sensing devices on 

the two caves. 

Q Catalog, map, and remove surface 

artifacts in limited cases where 

public use poses a severe threat. 

Q Enforce closures of year-round 

sanctuary areas; most known 

archaeological sites are within these 

areas. 

Q Consult with the Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer prior to all 

proposed ground-disturbing actions. 

Q Avoid areas of known cultural 

resources and potential sensitive 

areas when practical during 

management actions. 

Q Investigate the suitability of 

nominating the entire Refuge as a 

National Archeological District. 

2. Within 15 years of CCP approval, 

perform a complete cultural resources 

survey to identify important cultural 

resources on the Refuge. 

Strategies: 

Q Continue to host the University of 

Utah archaeological summer field 

school whenever possible. 

Q Contract with a qualified 

organization to complete a cultural 

resources inventory. 

Q Produce a cultural resources overlay 

for the GIS database. 

3. Within 15 years of CCP approval, have 

two known archaeologically important 

caves excavated. 

Strategies: 

Q Work with existing partners, such as 

University of Utah, Brigham Young 

University, Institute of Archaeology 

at University of Nevada - Las 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

48 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Vegas, and University of Nevada - 

Reno, to develop a grant proposal to 

fund the project. 

Q Provide nonmonetary support to 

partners, such as vehicles, lodging, 

and computer support. 

4. Within 7 years of CCP approval, 

develop and implement an expanded 

cultural and historic interpretation 

program to include four new initiatives. 

Strategies: 

Q Design and install an interpretive 

display at the Thomas Ranch 

Watchable Wildlife Area. Display 

will discuss the uses of the Fish 

Springs area from prehistoric 

occupation up to the early days of 

the Refuge. 

Q Construct a turnout along the Pony 

Express Route where the Lincoln 

Highway runs close by. Include an 

interpretive display that discusses 

the Fish Springs area as a major 

transportation corridor through time 

and a foot trail to the remnant 

portion of the Lincoln Highway. 

Q Design and install an interpretive 

sign for the Fish Springs Pony 

Express site. 

Q Produce a leaflet that provides 

information on the rich prehistoric 

and historic cultural resources of the 

Refuge. 

Q Maintain cultural resources display 

and Lincoln Highway marker and 

sign in Headquarters building. 

Partnerships 

Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve 

and enhance the natural characteristics of 

the Bonneville Basin ecosystem in which 

Fish Springs NWR plays a key role. 

Rationale: It is not enough that staff from 

Fish Springs NWR simply strive to 

provide critical habitat in a very arid and 

harsh environment. Coordination with a 

diverse array of partners is necessary to 

ensure that the Refuge can maximize its 

contribution to natural resource 

conservation at the landscape level. 

Fostering and increasing opportunities for 

participation in and contribution to larger 

landscape and regional level conservation 

initiatives will help ensure that the Refuge 

meets this obligation. Opportunities for 

academic institutions, other Federal, State, 

and county agencies, non-government 

organizations, and private citizens to 

partner with the Refuge to further this 

goal are nearly unlimited and can provide a 

important leveraging of resources toward 

this end. 

The capability of the Refuge staff to 

participate in and contribute to these 

potential partnerships, which are geared 

toward protecting wildlife, cultural, and 

physical resources at the landscape level, 

will be maximized. The capability of the 

Refuge to provide critical habitats for the 

full complement of native flora and fauna 

will be enhanced and a broader array of 

species of concern will be a focus of 

management. Increased participation in 

partnerships will enable the Refuge to 

realize more fully the context of its 

habitats and populations relative to 

landscape level efforts and should allow it 

to focus resources to best complement 

those efforts and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Service missions. 

Objectives: 

1. Participate in local partnering 

opportunities over the next 15 years that 

will benefit the Refuge by increasing 

knowledge of Refuge resources or 

accomplishing specific tasks. 
Chapter 4. Management Direction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49 

Strategies: 

Q Continue partnership with 

University of Utah’s Museum of 

Natural History. Currently, this 

partnership has resulted in 

archaeological, geomorphological, 

and small mammal research being 

conducted on the Refuge, but the 

Cooperative Agreement covers 

many other disciplines. 

Q Continue partnerships with 

Brigham Young University and 

Southern Utah University, which 

focus on biological research projects. 

Q Continue cooperative efforts with 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(e.g., least chub re-introduction, 

fencing, Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife). 

Q Assist in the formation of the 

Eastern Bonneville Basin 

partnership with Dugway Proving 

Ground, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, and The Nature 

Conservancy. The focus of this 

partnership is common natural 

resources management issues. 

2. Within 3 years of CCP approval, renew 

participation in existing national and 

international partnerships at the 

regional level. 

Strategies: 

Q Renew participation in Partners in 

Flight, an international bird 

conservation program. 

Q Renew participation in the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture 

All Birds Conservation planning 

efforts. 

Q Initiate participation in the 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan team. 
50 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge

Personnel 

Fish Springs NWR currently has a staff of 

four full-time employees and one career 

seasonal (8 to 9 months/year). This Plan calls 

for the addition of three new full-time 

employees and converting the career 

seasonal to full-time, an overall increase of 

3.5 FTE (Figure 9). These increases will 

greatly enhance the biological programs on 

the Refuge, which currently lacks a full-time 

biological staff. 

Funding 

In fiscal year 2003, Fish Springs NWR had a 

baseline budget of $330,000 to fund annual 

operating expenses, including staff salaries. 

Station backlogs are identified in two 

databases. The Maintenance Management 

System (MMS) identifies maintenance 

project needs for the Refuge. Currently, this 

database documents $9.5 million in 

maintenance backlogs for Fish Springs 

NWR. The Refuge Operations Needs 

Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring 

 

Figure 9. Proposed Organizational Chart for Fish Springs NWR. 

 
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51 

System (RONS) identifies all other Refuge 

project needs, such as increased staffing and 

specific on-the-ground projects. This 

database currently documents $1.3 million in 

first year costs and $250,000 in recurring 

annual costs for project needs for Fish 

Springs NWR. The top 15 Refuge Operating 

Needs System (RONS) and top 10 

Management Maintenance System (MMS) 

priority projects are presented in 

Appendices H and I, respectively. 

The cost of implementing the CCP will mean 

supplementing the current baseline budget 

with those funds needed to accomplish all 

projects identified in the RONS and MMS 

databases. As stated above, the RONS 

identifies $1.3 million in first year costs and 

$250,000 in recurring annual costs for project 

needs for Fish Springs NWR. These costs 

include the expansion of habitat management 

activities, increased research and monitoring 

efforts, and the increased staffing level 

identified. 

The cost of implementing marsh restoration 

in the Harrison Unit is $390,000 to $500,000. 

This involves the removal of about 3 miles of 

8-foot dikes, and about 20 check dams and 

water control structures (metal culverts, 

concrete culverts, etc.). This cost estimate 

does not include vegetation restoration in 

restored areas such as where the dikes are 

removed. 

Step-down Management Plans 

The Fish Springs NWR CCP is intended to 

be a broad umbrella plan that outlines 

general concepts and objectives for habitat, 

wildlife, public use, cultural resources, and 

partnerships that will guide Refuge 

management over the next 15 years. Stepdown management plans provide greater 

detail for implementing specific actions 

authorized by the CCP. Table 9 presents 

those plans needed for Fish Springs NWR, 

their current status, and next revision date. 

Table 9. Step-down management plans for Fish Springs NWR. 

Step-Down Management Plan Status of Plan 

Year Completed Proposed Revision Date 

Safety Program/Operations 1990 Not Necessary 

Hazardous Materials Operations 1998 HAZCOM MSDS updated yearly as 

needed 

Law Enforcement No Plan 2006 

Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plan 

2003 2008 

Integrated Pest Management 2003 2008 

Refuge Uses (Compatibility) 2003 (with CCP) 2013 

Visitor Services Plan No Plan 2007 

Hunting 1981 2005 

Habitat Management Plan 1990 

(Marsh Management Plan) 

2009 

Fire Management 2002 2007 

(update annually) 

Wildlife Inventory Plan 1990 2007 

Exotic Species No Comprehensive Plan, 

IPM for exotic vegetation 

2009 

Cultural Resource Management 

Plan 

No Plan 2010 
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring 

52 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge 

Partnership Opportunities 

Partnerships are a key component of 

accomplishing the Refuge’s mission. Existing 

partnerships will continue and, hopefully, 

new ones will be developed. 

Partnership opportunities for the Refuge 

have been limited, primarily due to its 

remoteness and small staff. However, there 

have been partnering successes with 

organizations and individuals with whom a 

common interest is shared. The Utah 

Division of Wildlife has worked with the 

Refuge on the reintroduction of the 

threatened least chub, fencing projects, 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife efforts, 

coordinating waterfowl hunting, and 

distributing information about the Refuge. 

The University of Utah Museum of Natural 

History has conducted several archaeological 

surveys, small mammal trapping, and 

geomorphological research. Brigham Young 

University and Southern Utah University 

have conducted various biological research 

projects. Volunteers have contributed 

thousands of hours in the past in support of 

Refuge biological inventories, habitat 

management, visitor services, and facility 

maintenance. These partnerships have 

proven fruitful for all parties. Every 

indication is that they will continue. 

Undeveloped partnership opportunities exist 

throughout the region. Dugway Proving 

Ground has expressed an interest in forming 

an Eastern Bonneville Basin Partnership 

with Fish Springs NWR, Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, and The Nature 

Conservancy. The focus of this partnership 

will be common natural resources 

management issues, such as landscape-level 

aspects of providing habitat for species of 

concern, control of invasive species, and joint 

law enforcement. 

Additionally, the Refuge staff would like to 

renew participation in regional working 

groups of national and international 

partnerships. Partners in Flight, the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture, Lincoln 

Highway Association and the Intermountain 

West Regional Shorebird Plan team are all 

potential partners. These groups offer 

shared expertise, ideas, management 

strategies, problem-solving, experience, and 

resources. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Appropriate monitoring and evaluation are 

key to meeting the mission of Fish Springs 

NWR because they provide the information 

necessary for adaptive management, a 

flexible approach to long-term management. 

Results from the monitoring program and 

other information will be used to evaluate 

the effectiveness of strategies laid out in this 

CCP and whether management goals and 

objectives are being met. Changes will be 

made to strategies and/or objectives as 

necessary based on this evaluation. 

In this CCP, habitat management and 

monitoring receive the primary emphasis. 

Many of the wildlife species on the Refuge 

are migratory birds. Migratory birds are 

impacted by a variety of factors (drought, 

disease, pollution, habitat destruction, etc.) 

on their wintering and nesting grounds and 

all along their migration routes. Determining 

if a specific habitat manipulation in a Refuge 

unit is wholly responsible for a change in a 

Refuge migratory bird population is difficult. 

Managers strive to gather current 

information about the critical habitat needs 

for targeted species and possible strategies 

for meeting those needs, and then design and 

implement a Habitat Management Plan. The 

development of a Habitat Management Plan 

is a critical step toward accomplishing the 

goals and objectives described in this CCP. 

The habitat can then be monitored to 

determine if the management strategies are 

providing the critical habitat needs 

identified. Whether migratory bird or other 

wildlife use of the manipulated unit increases 
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53 

may or may not be directly related to the 

manipulation. Monitoring populations in the 

manipulated unit over a long period of time 

can provide only some general local 

population trend information and document 

wildlife use. Managers must then carefully 

evaluate the data to try to determine if a 

direct correlation exists with the habitat 

manipulation. 

Biological surveys will be conducted for 

small mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

water birds, raptors, passerines, reptiles and 

amphibians, carnivores, and invertebrates. 

Additionally, a series of vegetative 

transects/plots in all habitat types will be 

established as a long-term monitoring tool. 

This information will be used to assess the 

effects of abiotic factors (e.g., weather) and 

habitat manipulation (e.g., water 

management, burning, invasive species 

control) on long-term habitat trends on the 

Refuge. 

Much of the monitoring work will be 

conducted by Refuge staff. The addition of a 

full-time biologist and a biological technician 

will dramatically increase monitoring 

capabilities on the Refuge. Some monitoring 

projects will be conducted through 

partnerships with universities or with grant 

assistance. Other monitoring work will be 

completed by trained volunteers. Additional 

communication and cooperation with Service 

partners in the Bonneville Basin will assist 

in accomplishing landscape-level monitoring, 

resolving large scale questions, and testing 

assumptions. 

Plan Amendment and Revision 

The Fish Springs NWR Manager will use the 

CCP to ensure Refuge priorities and work is 

consistent with the CCP goals, objectives 

and strategies. Appropriate staff will be 

assigned tasks and projects, identified in the 

CCP, to accomplish the objectives stated in 

the CCP. Refuge staff will review the CCP 

at least annually to decide if it requires any 

revisions as new information becomes 

available, ecological conditions change, or 

Refuge expansion occurs. At a minimum, the 

CCP will be revised every 15 years.