Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

September 2004

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

PO Box 457

953 Jackson County Road #32

Walden, Colorado 80480-0457

and 

Division of Refuge Planning

Region 6

PO Box 25486 DFC

Lakewood, CO 80225

Approved by: 

Ralph O. Morgenweck

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Denver, Colorado

 

 Date

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval

Submitted by:

Ann Timberman

Project Leader

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Walden, Colorado

Concurred with: 

Dave Wiseman

Refuge Program Supervisor

Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska

Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Denver, Colorado

and

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D.

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Denver, Colorado

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Date

Date

Date

Contents

 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Area Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Purpose of and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Refuge Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Legal and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

2 Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Riparian Habitats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Wetland Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Meadow Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Upland Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5 Implementation and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Monitoring and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6 Socioeconomic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Socioeconomic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Expected Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
vi Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Appendix A. Key Legislation and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

 Appendix B. Compatibility Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Appendix C. Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Appendix D. Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Appendix E. Section 7 Biological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Appendix F. Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Appendix G. Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix H. Habitat Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Appendix I. Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Appendix J. Species List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Appendix K. Refuge Operating Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Appendix L. Maintenance Management Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
List of Figures and Tables

Figures

 1. Vicinity map for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 2. North Park area of Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 3. Physical features of North Park, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 4. Platte River watershed of Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 5. Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 6. Base map of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 7. Waterfowl fl yways within the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 8. Eco-regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 9. Habitat management units of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

10. Wetland complexes of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

11. Public use of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Tables

 1. Existing partnerships, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 2. Private lands within Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 3. Private lands outside Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 4. Special-status wildlife, fi sh, plant, and amphibian species potentially occurring on

 Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

 5. Estimated annual visitors to Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

 6. Current and target staff for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

 7. Overall funding needs for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

 8. Funding needs for facilities, equipment, and maintenance at Arapaho National Wildlife

 Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

 9. Summary of the economic analysis for the comprehensive conservation plan, Arapaho

 National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

10. Summary of the economic effects associated with the comprehensive conservation plan, 

 Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

11. Employment for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

12. Personal income for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

13. Annual expenditures for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

14. Combined refuge personnel and non-salary expenditures in Jackson County, Colorado . . . . . . . . . 76

15. Land area management in Jackson County and Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

16. Estimated annual visitors and daily expenditures, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, 

 Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Summary

Birth of a Plan

This is a summary of the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge in Jackson County, Colorado. This plan, 

approved in 2004, will guide management of the 

refuge for the next 15 years. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 

for each national wildlife refuge in the system.

The Need

The plan is needed to address problems that could 

negatively affect fi sh, wildlife, plants, and habitats. 

The plan determines opportunities for people to 

use the refuge in ways that are compatible with 

resource conservation and refuge purposes.

The Purpose

The purpose of the plan is to

■ provide a clear statement of desired conditions

■ provide guidance for management decisions

■ ensure management is consistent with laws, 

policies, and plans

■ provide an opportunity for the public to help 

shape the future of the refuge

■ provide a clear understanding of management 

actions and priorities

■ provide a sound basis for budget requests

Purposes of the Refuge

The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1967, primarily to provide suitable 

nesting and rearing habitat for migratory birds. 

It was created, in part, to offset losses of nesting 

habitats in the prairie wetland region of the 

Midwest.

A national wildlife refuge is different from multipleuse public land—it is closed to the public unless 

specifi c uses are determined compatible with the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

purposes of the refuge. 

Headwaters of the North Platte

The breathtaking, windswept basin known as 

North Park forms the headwaters of the North 

Platte River. At the heart of North Park in northcentral Colorado, lies the Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

The Illinois River crosses and irrigates the refuge, 

which is situated at an elevation of 8,200 feet. This 

water sustains the wetlands, meadows, and riparian 

areas and the migratory birds and native wildlife 

that depend on these habitats. 

A Wealth of Resources

As snow-capped mountains towering over North 

Park shed their wintry blankets and fl ow water 

to the lowlands, refuge habitats welcome wild 

travelers and sustain local plants and animals. 

The refuge hosts more than 300 different animals, 

and annually produces 6,000–8,000 ducks. 

Irrigated hay meadows furnish nesting habitat 

for waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds. Broodrearing habitat for waterfowl has been created or 

enhanced in 72 wetlands.

History of the “Bullpen”

Ute and Arapaho peoples shared North Park’s 

wealth of natural resources. The large numbers of 

bison that grazed the basin led Native Americans to 

refer to this area as the “bullpen.” 

Born of the need to protect habitat for migratory birds, 

the refuge has grown from a 4,400-acre ranch in the 

1960s to an area today of quality riparian and upland 

habitats. [Gadwall with brood pictured.]

Virginia Heitman
x Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Abundant furbearers and waterfowl seized the 

attention of European trappers and hunters. 

Prospectors were attracted by the likelihood of a 

wealth of minerals. These activities spearheaded 

exploration, leading to settlement. 

A ranching heritage was established, and it 

continues to dominate the area’s culture. Beef cattle 

and nationally renowned mountain hay are major 

sources of income for today’s ranchers in North 

Park. 

Government naturalists studied the area’s resources 

during the 1920s–60s and urged the establishment 

of a national wildlife refuge. This happened at a 

time when migratory birds, especially waterfowl 

and other water birds, were suffering enormous 

habitat and population declines nationwide.

Engaging the Community

With the refuge at the core, but the health of the 

entire North Park area as the thrust, refuge staff 

engaged the Colorado community, government 

agencies, Native American tribes, organizations, 

and congressional representatives. 

The vision and goals can only be met through close 

coordination with the local community, partners, 

and volunteers. 

The regional director for Region 6 of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service sent letters inviting 

participation in development of the plan to agencies 

and tribal governments. 

Representatives from the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. 

Geological Survey responded to the invitation and 

joined the planning team.

Vision for a Future Landscape

Wildlife and their habitats come fi rst in 

management of the refuge, before all other uses.

The plan places great importance on the role the 

refuge has in the North Park ecosystem—for the 

environment and the residents of North Park. 

Vision Statement

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed to 

benefi t the diversity of plants and wildlife found in 

this high mountain valley of the southern Rocky 

Mountains. 

The refuge and its resources are also managed for 

the benefi t of the citizens of the United States. 

The refuge includes wetland, meadow, sagebrush 

uplands, and riparian communities that provide 

habitat for large mammals, Neotropical migratory 

birds, nesting waterfowl, fi shes, and species of 

concern from national and regional conservation 

plans. 

In particular, efforts by refuge staff to restore 

the Illinois River channel hydrology and areas 

of sagebrush uplands, and to effectively manage 

wetlands and meadows, contribute to the ecological 

integrity of the refuge, North Park, and the overall 

North Platte River system. 

Through wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education, people have opportunities to learn of the 

wonder and signifi cance of North Park’s fauna and 

fl ora. 

Firsthand experiences with the refuge encourage 

people to participate as stewards, not only of the 

refuge, but also of the natural resources in their 

own communities. 

Working in collaboration with the local community 

and other agencies and organizations helps the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage the refuge 

as a contributing ecological, cultural, and economic 

component of the unique mountain valley within 

which it sits.

Refuge staff listens to the public.

USFWS
Summary xi

An Ideal and Steps to Get There

The refuge seeks to be a conservation force that 

promotes sound resource management and helps in 

the preservation of North Park’s historical heritage. 

The plan looks at the role of the refuge and its 

partners to provide the residents of North Park—

along with its wildlife and plants—with diverse and 

productive habitats. 

Goals

The plan sets the following goals for the Arapaho 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Riparian Habitats. Provide a riparian community 

representative of historic fl ora and fauna in a high 

valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to provide 

habitat for migratory birds, mammals, and riverdependent species.

Wetland Habitats. Provide and manage natural 

and constructed permanent and semipermanent 

wetlands (in three wetland complexes) to provide 

habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, 

wading birds, and associated wetland-dependent 

wildlife.

Meadow Habitats. Provide and manage irrigated 

grass-dominated meadows, historically developed 

for hay production, to support sage grouse broods, 

waterfowl nesting, and meadow-dependent 

migratory birds.

Upland Habitats. Provide an upland community 

representative of the historical fl ora and fauna in 

a high valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to 

provide habitat for sage grouse, large mammals, 

and other shrub-associated species.

Cultural Resources. The cultural resources of the 

refuge are preserved, protected, and interpreted for 

the benefi t of present and future generations.

Public Use. Through wildlife-dependent recreation 

and education, people of a range of abilities and 

interests are able to learn of, and appreciate, the 

natural resources of this unique high mountain 

park. Thereby, citizens become better stewards 

of nature in their own communities and stronger 

supporters of the refuge specifi cally and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System generally.

Research. The refuge is a learning platform for 

compatible research that assists management 

and science of high mountain park sage-steppe 

communities.

Partnerships. A wide range of partners joins with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in promoting and 

implementing the refuge vision.

Strategies

Habitat management tools are used to maintain 

and enhance habitat for waterfowl, as well as other 

wildlife. These include a variety of grazing and nongrazing strategies, prescribed fi re, invasive plant 

control, and the most important tool for refuge 

wetlands—water management.

Management techniques such as adjusting grazing 

and prescribed fi re levels, and water manipulation 

will benefi t wildlife by providing seasonal life-cycle 

requirements. 

Monitoring will show progress on meeting the 

plan’s goals. The plan can be revised after 5 years if 

unexpected effects or situations happen, or to take 

into consideration new information, guidance, and 

technology. 

Outcomes of the Plan

Meeting the plan’s goals will create an ecologically 

functional system of habitats. 

Wildlife and plants will prosper alongside 

ranching practices, preserving the natural and 

cultural heritage of this unique area of the Rocky 

Mountains.

The refuge will become

■ an area where people can enjoy and learn from 

wildlife-related recreation and where cultural 

resources are protected and cherished

■ a place where people, partners, and refuge staff 

work together for the welfare of human and 

wildlife communities

Red-winged Blackbirds

© Cindie Brunner
xii Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Habitats and Wildlife

The refuge will improve habitats that are in poor 

condition.

■ restoration of riparian habitats

■ study of uplands 

Restored riparian and meadow habitats will benefi t 

more wildlife species than at present—not only 

waterfowl, but also Neotropical migratory birds, 

shorebirds, and a large variety of insects and 

mammals.

North Park will benefi t from partnerships with 

the refuge that promote sound habitat and wildlife 

management. 

Cultural Resources

The refuge will identify, evaluate, and protect 

cultural resources. Interpretation of cultural 

resources and their importance to North Park’s 

wildlife will be encouraged.

Air and Water Quality

Increased visitation and road travel is not expected 

to have long-term impacts on the quality of the air 

in North Park.

There will be marked improvement in water quality. 

Habitat restoration efforts should create conditions 

to better trap sediments and create shade that will 

improve water quality. This will improve the overall 

habitat quality for a variety of wildlife.

Public Use

Hunting will be promoted as a sound wildlife 

management activity to achieve refuge goals. 

Related facilities will be improved. 

As stream habitat and fi sheries are restored, the 

refuge will promote fi shing activities. 

The refuge will provide, and encourage 

development of, resources to improve wildlife 

photography and observation. 

Environmental education will focus on how and why 

the refuge intensively manages habitats to achieve 

goals. The education program will address not only 

the ecology of the refuge, but of the entire North 

Park area.

Interpretive facilities will be used to promote sound 

wildlife management. Interpretation will explain 

the role that agriculture and ranching have had in 

the conservation of habitats and wildlife. 

Socioeconomics

Socioeconomic conditions of North Park, especially 

in Walden, are expected to improve as refuge 

activities lead to increased visitation throughout 

North Park. 

Public use activities will not only promote 

appreciation of wildlife, but will also encourage 

visitors to return to North Park. The sale of items 

and services such as equipment, lodging, and meals 

will contribute to the economy.

The plan will have some negative economic effects 

due to decreases in cattle grazing needed to meet 

habitat goals. The reductions from current grazing 

levels may be from 10–64 percent, depending on 

habitat conditions.

The historic Case Barn was modeled after a New 

Zealand sheep barn.

USFWS/Rhoda Lewis

Recreational activities such as fi shing, hunting, wildlife 

observation, and hiking can be enjoyed on the refuge.
1 Introduction

1 Introduction

The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is located in 

northwestern Colorado. The refuge is part of the 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge complex, which 

also includes four satellite refuges in Wyoming: 

Bamforth, Hutton Lake, Mortenson Lake, and 

Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuges (fi gure 1–

vicinity map). 

This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

addresses management of the Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge. A future planning effort will result 

in a CCP for the satellite refuges.

This chapter includes the following topics:

■ area description

■ purpose of and need for the CCP

■ refuge overview

■ refuge vision

■ legal and policy guidance

Area Description

The Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is located in 

an intermountain, glacial basin south of the town 

of Walden, the county seat of Jackson County. 

The 8,200-foot elevation basin is approximately 

30 miles wide and 45 miles long. The basin is 

commonly known as “North Park” since it is the 

most northerly of three such “parks” in Colorado. 

Jackson County is contained within the basin that 

lies in the northern tier of Colorado counties 

(fi gure 2–North Park).

Forming the headwaters of the North Platte 

River, the basin opens north into Wyoming and 

is rimmed on the west by the Park Range, on the 

south by the Rabbit Ears Range, and on the east 

by the Medicine Bow Range (fi gure 3–physical 

features of North Park). Elevation ranges from 

7,800 to 12,965 feet above sea level. The fl oor of the 

basin is interspersed with many slow, meandering 

streams that come together in the north-central 

part of the county to form the North Platte River. 

Main tributary rivers are the Michigan, Illinois, 

Canadian, and Grizzly (fi gure 4–Platte River 

watershed).

A major portion of the bottomland along the 

streams is irrigated hay meadow and pasture. 

The low rises between streams are dry grassland 

and sagebrush uplands. The picture changes 

rapidly on the edges of the basin, where the land 

pitches abruptly upward to the mountaintops. 

Aspen, spruce, pine, and fi r cover the slopes up to 

timberline at about 11,000 feet, then tundra and 

rock up to the mountain summits.

The ecosystems in North Park have developed 

through hundreds of years in a fi re-dependent 

system, with fi re as an important, dominating 

infl uence. High elevations and a short growing 

season, with a cool, often moist, climate infl uences 

the fi re regime. The area’s class 4 fi re regime 

consists of combined crown fi res and severe surface 

fi res (with a 25- to 100-year return interval). Most 

woody vegetation or stand elements were killed 

over large areas.

The fi re regime in North Park has been altered, 

which subsequently changed the cultural activities, 

e.g., grazing patterns over a 100-year period. 

Early explorers noted tall grasses found in North 

Park. Native Americans dubbed North Park the 

“bullpen,” referring to the bison inhabiting the 

area. This gives an indication that the area may 

have been more dominated by grasses and, thus, 

likely was more infl uenced by fi re than the present 

sagebrush-dominated condition. Records for North 

Park indicate little signifi cant wildfi re activity in 

the past 50 years.

Native Peoples and European 

Settlement

Prior to 1820, the Ute peoples spent their 

summers in North Park, living on mule deer, bison, 

pronghorn, and many other kinds of game. The 

severity of the winters forced both the Native 

Americans and the game down to lower altitudes in 

the fall.

Sunset View From the Refuge

Everett and Nancy Collin
4 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Jackson County, Colorado

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Jackson County, Colorado

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

 Figure 2. North Park area of Colorado
6 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 3. Physical features of North Park, Colorado

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Arapaho National Wildlife RefugeJackson County, Colorado
Chapter 1—Introduction 

7

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Platte River WatershedMountain-Prairie Region

Figure 4. Platte River watershed of Colorado
8 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The Arapaho peoples also made frequent hunting 

trips into North Park, coming in from the southwest 

over a pass described by Lt. John F. Fremont, 

as one of the most beautiful he had ever seen. 

The Utes and Arapahos were bitter enemies and 

many battles occurred when they chanced to 

meet. Besides their well-worn trails, other mute 

evidence of Native American life of pre-settlement 

time still exists in North Park. A band of Utes 

who participated in the 1879 massacre in Meeker, 

Colorado, fl ed to North Park after the incident. 

Several large, log tepees left by this band of Utes 

still stand in a sheltered, secluded spot.

The fi rst Europeans to visit and explore North Park 

were probably trappers, who were in northwestern 

Colorado as early as 1819. Beaver were particularly 

abundant along North Park’s streams. In 1820, 

Joseph Bijeau told of the good trapping he had 

experienced in North Park a few years prior, while 

with the Chateau and DeMunn expedition. Jacques 

Laramie trapped in North Park in 1820 for the 

Northwest Fur Company. He was followed by a 

party of trappers headed by Alexander Sinclair 

and Robert Bean, who trapped beaver in 1825. 

A number of trappers visited North Park into the 

1840s, including Peg Smith, John Gantt, Kit Carson, 

Henry Fraeb, Calvin Jones, Bill Williams, Jim 

Baker, Jim Bridger, Sublette, Gervais, and Vasquez. 

In 1855, the famous Irish hunter, Sir George Gore, 

made a spectacular hunting trip through North 

Park, killing thousands of mule deer, bison, and 

pronghorn.

Miners and prospectors followed the trappers and 

hunters to North Park. James O. Pinkham was one 

of the fi rst prospectors in North Park and began 

panning gold in the area in the early 1870s. Pinkham 

spent the long, cold winters in Laramie, Wyoming, 

and the summers in North Park. He believed that 

North Park was the richest and fi nest country 

in the world, and built a home there in 1874. 

Mr. Pinkham interested others in North Park 

through his tales of rich placer land. By 1875, 

nearly 100 men were prospecting for placer gold 

around the Rabbit Ears, Independence, and Owl 

Mountains.

During August and September 1879, George Bird 

Grinnell—naturalist, writer, and hunter—entered 

North Park to collect museum specimens. Traveling 

by horse from the train station in Laramie, 

Wyoming, this 29-year-old Yale graduate noted, 

“The country at this point had been burned 

over and was black and extremely desolate in 

appearance. I inquired the cause of the fi re and 

learned from the owner of the ranch (Pinkham) 

that the burn had been made to clear off the 

sagebrush which takes up so much room that might 

be occupied by grass.” Several days later, while 

camped on a meadow along the North Platte River, 

Grinnell writes, “. . . was perhaps a mile and a half 

wide, a superb level meadow, covered with fi ne 

grass, on which in the morning and evening from 

two to fi ve hundred pronghorn were in sight at one 

time. Sage and dusky grouse, ducks, and jackrabbits 

abounded here also . . . . It is only necessary to get 

back from the road to fi nd both mule deer and elk.”

The fi rst settlers lived on wild game, and hunting 

was as important for the men as attending to 

their ranch work. North Park, in the late 1880s, 

was a paradise of game. Thousands of pronghorn 

summered in there before migrating to the lower 

valleys in Wyoming during the winter. Hundreds 

of mule deer and elk were in North Park, but their 

numbers diminished after the arrival of settlers. 

Few bison remained in the area when the fi rst 

settlers came, and they soon disappeared. Many 

bears, mountain lions, mountain sheep, and beaver 

existed in North Park in the early days, along with 

thousands of sage grouse, blue grouse, and ducks. 

No trout existed in any North Park streams when 

the fi rst settlers came; however, in the 1880s, 

settlers stocked the streams with eastern brook 

trout and rainbow trout.

In 1880, large numbers of cattle were driven down 

from the railroad lines in Laramie, Wyoming. 

However, the winter of 1883–84 was severe, and 

half of the stock died. As a result, most of the 

ranchers purchased mowers and rakes prior to the 

following summer’s haying season in preparation 

for putting up wild hay for winter feed. Hay has 

historically been the main agricultural crop in 

Jackson County, with about 100,000 acres being in 

native mountain hay and only 370 acres in other 

crops. For years, all the hay was fed inside North 

Park; in 1914, ranchers began to bale and sell the 

hay outside North Park.

By the early 1890s, North Park was fairly well 

settled in every direction and was a central point 

when securing supplies became necessary. As a 

result, the town of Walden (elevation 8,100 feet) was 

established in the middle of North Park. Walden 

was located near two wagon roads from Laramie to 

Teller City and from Albany to Granby. The town 

was named after Marcus Walden, postmaster of the 

nearby settlement of Sage Hen Springs.
Chapter 1—Introduction 9

Today in North Park

Since the 1890s, North Park has been known for 

high waterfowl productivity. Historically, high, 

river fl ows in the spring fl ooded meadows, which 

provided suitable nesting habitat for a host of 

nesting bird species, especially waterfowl. Today, 

North Park serves as the second most productive 

waterfowl area in Colorado. 

Jackson County is rural and sparsely populated with 

a population of only 1,577 individuals (2000 census 

data). Approximately 900 individuals live within the 

Walden city limits. The economy of Jackson County 

is based primarily on agriculture and recreation. 

Additionally, mining and logging have provided 

economic stimulus to the county. The economic base 

has been fairly stable throughout the history of 

Jackson County, with some fl uctuations caused by 

the instability of the mining and logging industry.

Ranching, including both hay production and cattle, 

continues to be the dominant land use of North 

Park. Fortunately, the traditional ranching history 

of North Park has not only produced hay and cattle, 

it has preserved and protected thousands of acres of 

wildlife habitat.

Recreation is becoming more and more economically 

important to Jackson County. The county’s many 

streams, lakes, uplands, forests, and mountains 

are mostly open to public access. These areas offer 

unusual opportunities for outdoor recreational 

activities such as hunting, fi shing, bird watching, 

backpacking, camping, snowmobiling, cross-country 

skiing, bicycling, and horseback riding.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

To fulfi ll the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Congress has charged the agency with 

conserving and managing migratory birds, 

endangered species, anadromous and interjurisdictional fi sh, and certain marine mammals. 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats 

for the continuing benefi t of the American people.

The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, manages 

migratory bird populations, restores nationally 

signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores 

wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers 

the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign 

governments with their conservation efforts. It 

also oversees the Federal Aid Program, which 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars (from 

excise taxes on hunting and fi shing equipment) to 

state wildlife agencies. 

The Service operates more than 540 national 

wildlife refuges and waterfowl production areas, 

70 national fi sh hatcheries, 64 fi shery resource 

offi ces, and 78 ecological services fi eld stations. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System of the Service 

is the world’s largest collection of lands set aside 

specifi cally for the protection of wildlife. The fi rst 

unit of the refuge system was created in 1903, 

when President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery 

in Florida, as a bird sanctuary. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to administer a network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefi t of present 

and future generations of Americans.”

Today, the refuge system encompasses more than 

95-million acres, located in all 50 states and a 

number of U.S. Territories. 

The refuge system provides habitat for native 

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fi shes, 

invertebrates, and plants “trust resources” for 

which the Federal Government is ultimately 

responsible. It plays a vital role in preserving 

endangered and threatened species, preventing 

species from becoming endangered, and offers 

wildlife-dependent recreation for over 34 million 

visitors annually.

Purpose of and Need for the Plan

Initiated by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, comprehensive 

conservation plans (CCPs) will be developed for 

all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Plans must 

include public involvement in their development, 

and must set forth strategies to fulfi ll the refuge 

Northern Pintail

© Cindie Brunner
10 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

short-grass prairie regions of eastern Colorado, 

and mixed-grass prairie regions of Nebraska and 

Kansas. The primary ecological processes affecting 

this system are climate, cultivation, grazing, and 

fi re. The ecosystem is arid with an average annual 

precipitation between 8 to 16 inches per year. 

Approximately 85 percent of the Platte/Kansas 

Rivers ecosystem is privately owned. The 

remainder is primarily owned and managed by 

State and Federal agencies. 

The Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem planning 

team, with input from partners and fi eld stations, 

identifi ed and prioritized three primary geographic 

sub-units: mixed-grass prairie, mountain, and shortgrass prairie. Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge 

falls within the mountain sub-unit of the ecosystem 

plan and plays a vital role in uplands management 

and protection. Within each geographic sub-unit, 

priorities were established based on signifi cance 

in the ecosystem, species diversity, risk or threat 

to the entire ecosystem, public benefi ts, and trust 

resources. Also considered were legal mandates, 

opportunity for partnerships, likelihood of success, 

and cost effectiveness. 

Refuge Overview

On August 15, 1967, the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission approved the fi rst 

land acquisition project for the establishment of 

the refuge. The original land purchase was the 

Allard Ranch of 4,433.07 acres. Subsequently, nine 

additional land tracts were purchased, and land 

exchanges completed with the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management and the State of Colorado. 

On September 26, 1967, the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission, acting under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

approved the established area known as the 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is 

23,243 acres in size and is located in Jackson County 

(fi gure 6–base map). Purchased acres total 18,451, 

while 4,792 acres were withdrawn. 

Refuge complex staff administers an additional 

21,717 acres on the Wyoming satellite refuges, for a 

total of 44,960 acres under complex management.

Purposes

National wildlife refuges are established for a 

particular purpose. Formal establishment is 

generally based on a statute or executive order 

that specifi es a purpose for that refuge. However, 

refuges can also be established by the Service 

using the authorization found within laws such 

as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. 

system mission, as well as the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. 

This CCP provides a 15-year guidance for the 

management of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge. 

Management goals and objectives were developed 

for the refuge (chapter 4–management direction). 

Based on the life requirements of selected wildlife 

species, these goals and objectives provide specifi c 

targets toward which refuge staff will manage. 

Future management efforts will focus on achieving 

these goals and objectives for the benefi t of wildlife 

and the American people.

Wildlife has fi rst priority in the management of 

refuges. Recreation or other uses are allowed if 

they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Six 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities will be 

emphasized—wildlife observation and photography, 

hunting, fi shing, environmental education, and 

interpretation.

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has divided 

the country into 53 watershed-based ecosystem 

management units. The Platte/Kansas Rivers 

ecosystem unit encompasses approximately 182,000 

square miles of the central Great Plains of the 

United States (fi gure 5–Platte/Kansas Rivers 

ecosystem). The Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem 

covers portions of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and 

Wyoming.

Ecosystem Vision

The vision of the Platte/Kansas Rivers eco-team 

is to provide partnership-based, landscape-level 

conservation for the diversity and abundance of 

natural resources within the ecosystem. The team 

envisions

■ landscapes that exhibit natural, healthy, 

ecological processes

■ ongoing protection of threatened, endangered, 

and endemic species

■ protection and promotion of native prairie 

vegetation 

■ involvement of all stakeholders in decisionmaking processes

■ recognition that partnerships are the key to 

success

Ecosystem Description

This diverse area begins at the headwaters of the 

North and South Platte Rivers, high in the Rocky 

Mountains. It includes the sagebrush uplands of 

north-central Colorado and southeastern Wyoming, 
Chapter 1—Introduction 11

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem

Mountain-Prairie Region

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Region 6

Mountain-Prairie Region

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

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Jackson County, Colorado

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge was established 

for the following purposes:

■ “. . . for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d, Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

■ “. . . for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fi sh and wildlife resources . . . ” [16 U.S.C. § 742f 

(a)(4)] “. . . for the benefi t of the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its 

activities and services. Such acceptance may 

be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affi rmative covenant, or condition of servitude . . . ” 

(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

These two broad statements provide the sideboards 

to guide future management of the refuge.

Management and Use

Since 1967, the refuge has been managed primarily 

for waterfowl nesting and production. Using 

existing irrigation ditches for the water-delivery 

system, the refuge staff constructed or enhanced 

72 wetland impoundments in the Illinois River. 

These impoundments, and associated wet-meadow 

habitats, provide the habitat necessary to produce 

waterfowl. 

The refuge provides quality habitat for many 

mammals and other birds common to highmountain, sagebrush-steppe environments. The 

willow riparian area alone supports more than 40 

species of songbirds (Neotropical migrants) during 

part of their migration or nesting cycle. Sage 

grouse are common on the refuge, and wet-meadow 

habitats provide critical feeding areas for sage 

grouse young. 

Moose, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn are common 

wildlife species on the refuge. These big-game 

species migrate on and off the refuge; however, an 

average of 1,200 elk, 200 pronghorn, and 20 moose 

may inhabit the refuge at any one time. 

Managing invasive plants and limiting their 

impact on vegetative resources of the refuge is a 

priority. The refuge falls within the invasive plant 

management area of the North Platte headwaters. 

Refuge staff work closely with the Jackson County 

weed coordinator to ensure adequate control of 

invasive plants.

Grazing is the primary management tool used to 

manage meadow and upland habitats. Seven grazing 

cooperators help maintain and enhance grassland 

habitats. Water-level manipulation, irrigation, fi re, 

mowing, harrowing, and disking are additional tools 

used to improve grassland and wetland habitats. 

The refuge headquarters is located 8 miles south 

of Walden, on Highway 125. A full-time staff of six 

employees and four seasonal employees works to 

manage the refuge wetlands, irrigation system, 

wildlife habitats, and visitor facilities. 

The refuge accommodates approximately 7,200 

visitors annually (5-year average 1998–2002). The 

6-mile auto tour route, the walking trail, and 

Brocker Overlook account for the majority of 

visitor use. Approximately 500 recreation days 

are provided to hunters and anglers. The refuge 

is open to limited hunting opportunities for small 

game, waterfowl, sage grouse, and pronghorn. 

The lower one-third of the refuge provides fi shing 

opportunities for brown and rainbow trout. 

Partnerships

The refuge promotes partnership opportunities to 

accomplish natural resource-related goals both on 

and off the refuge. Existing partnerships include 

groups and agencies shown in table 1 (next page).

Refuge Vision Statement

As part of the planning process, the refuge staff 

and planning team reviewed past national, regional, 

and complex planning documents and current 

planning guidance. Using the legislation and plans, 

the planning team developed the following vision 

statement for the refuge.

■ Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge is managed 

to benefi t the diversity of plants and wildlife 

found in this high mountain valley of the 

southern Rocky Mountains. The refuge and its 

resources are also managed for the benefi t of 

the citizens of the United States. 

■ The refuge includes wetland, meadow, 

sagebrush uplands, and riparian communities 

that provide habitat for large animals, 

Neotropical migratory birds, nesting waterfowl, 

fi shes, and species of concern from national 

and regional conservation plans. In particular, 

efforts by refuge staff to restore the Illinois 

River channel hydrology, riparian areas, and 

sagebrush uplands, and to effectively manage 

wetlands and meadows, contribute to the 

ecological integrity of the refuge, North Park, 

and the overall North Platte River system.

■ Through wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education, people have opportunities to learn 

of the wonder and signifi cance of North Park’s 

fauna and fl ora. Firsthand experiences with 

the refuge encourage people to participate as 

stewards, not only of the refuge, but also of the 

natural resources in their own communities.
14 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

■ Working in collaboration with the local 

community and other agencies and 

organizations helps the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service manage the refuge as a contributing 

ecological, cultural, and economic component of 

the unique mountain valley within which it sits.

Legal and Policy Guidance

National wildlife refuges are guided by

■ the mission and goals of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge 

System

■ the legal purpose of the refuge unit as described 

in the enabling legislation or executive orders 

■ international treaties

■ federal laws and regulations

■ Service policies

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended, provides 

guidelines and directives for administration of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Use of any area 

within the refuge system was permitted, provided 

such uses were compatible with the major purposes 

for which such areas were established.

Appendix A contains descriptions of other laws and 

policies that are related to national wildlife refuges.

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 amends the Refuges System 

Administration Act by including a unifying 

mission for the refuge system, a formal process 

for determining compatible uses on refuges, and a 

requirement that each refuge be managed under a 

comprehensive conservation plan. Specifi c details 

regarding additional amendments are available 

through the refuge or regional Service offi ces.

This Act states that wildlife conservation is the 

priority of refuge system lands and that the 

Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the 

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

Name Partnership

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) wildlife and fi shery habitat improvement, resource sharing, law 

enforcement 

CDOW Habitat Partnership Program reduction of cattle and big-game confl icts throughout North Park 

 

Colorado Scenic Byways overlooks and roads development, interpretation 

 

Colorado State Forest Service natural resources improvement projects, forest management plans, fi re 

management

Colorado State University assistance with planning, wildlife research, and habitat management 

 

Jackson County invasive plant management, fi re support 

 

Natural Resource Conservation Service assistance with soils and vegetative management 

 

Owl Mountain Partnership land health improvement projects on public and private lands, grazing 

management plans, wildlife watering areas, and sagebrush management projects

Platte/Kansas Rivers Eco-team assistance with funding and planning natural resource projects 

 

National Center for Atmospheric 

Research

research snowpack characteristics to create reliable snowpack models

Sage Grouse Working Group sage grouse habitat protection and enhancement 

 

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

 

USDA Forest Service partner in several programs, equipment sharing, fi re management, resource 

sharing 

U.S. Geological Survey cooperative wildlife research, planning, and water monitoring projects 

 
Chapter 1—Introduction 15

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge 

must be managed to fulfi ll both the specifi c purposes 

for which it was established and the mission of the 

refuge system.

Lands within the refuge system are different from 

other public lands in that they are closed to all 

public uses unless specifi cally and legally opened. 

Unlike other federal lands that are managed under 

a multiple-use mandate (e.g., national forests 

administered by the USDA Forest Service and 

public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management), the refuge system is managed 

specifi cally for the benefi t of fi sh and wildlife 

resources.

The Act defi nes six priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses.

■ wildlife observation

■ wildlife photography 

■ hunting

■ fi shing

■ environmental education 

■ interpretation

Use Compatibility

Compatibility is a legal requirement of all refuge 

uses. By federal law, all uses of national wildlife 

refuges, including wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities, must be formally determined to be 

compatible. 

A compatible use is “a use that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the refuge manager, 

will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfi llment of the mission of the refuge 

system or the purposes of the refuge.” Sound 

professional judgment is further defi ned as “a 

fi nding, determination, or decision that is consistent 

with the principles of sound fi sh and wildlife 

management and administration, available science 

and resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and 

other infrastructure), and adherence with applicable 

laws.” No use of a national wildlife refuge may be 

allowed unless determined to be compatible.

Uses that have been determined to be compatible 

for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge include the 

following:

■ wildlife observation and photography

■ hunting

■ fi shing

■ environmental education

■ interpretation

Additionally, habitat management tools include, 

but are not limited to, fi re, mowing, grazing, 

invasive plant control (chemical, mechanical, and 

physical methods), Dixie harrowing, fencing, water 

management, routine refuge maintenance activities, 

and public use related structures (appendix B). 

Cow Moose With Twins

© William H. Miller

2 Planning Process

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

guides the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, along with the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 

established purposes of the refuge, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service compatibility standards, and other 

Service policies, plans, and laws related to refuge 

management. 

This plan establishes habitat-based goals, 

objectives, strategies, and monitoring priorities 

for refuge management. The plan will be used to 

prepare more specifi c step-down management plans 

that address programs such as hunting, fi shing, and 

environmental education, with annual priorities and 

budgets. 

Comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) are 

initiated, developed, and published in a 2-year time 

frame. The plan duration is 15 years; however, 

the plan may be revised if necessary. This CCP 

supersedes current management plans.

Key steps in the planning process include the 

following: 

■ preplanning

■ identifying issues and developing a vision

■ gathering information

■ developing alternatives

■ assessing environmental effects

■ identifying the proposed alternative

■ publishing a draft plan and soliciting public 

comments

■ reviewing the comments and making 

appropriate changes to the draft plan

■ preparing the fi nal plan for approval by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

regional director

The planning team for this CCP (appendix C) 

coordinated these steps, working with the public 

and partners.

The associated environmental analysis (see 

the draft CCP document) is the basis for the 

“Environmental Action Statement” and Finding of 

No Signifi cant Impact” found in appendix D.

A biological evaluation for the CCP was completed 

in compliance with section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (appendix E).

Projects completed by the refuge will be monitored 

and documented to ensure progress toward 

achieving overall refuge goals. Step-down plans also 

provide fl exibility to accommodate annual changes 

in refuge staff levels, funding, equipment, and other 

resources.

Public Involvement

Issues addressed in this plan were identifi ed by 

the public, refuge staff, and cooperating agencies. 

Details about the public involvement process are 

shown in appendix F. The mailing list for this 

document is in appendix G.

Planning Issues

Primary issues concerning future management of 

the refuge include the following:

■ changing from a species-based management 

approach to a habitat-based management 

approach

■ sage grouse preservation and management

■ use of grazing as a wildlife management tool

■ water management

Additionally, continued close coordination with the 

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) is critical to 

plan success. 

2 Planning Process

Interested participants learn more about comprehensive 

conservation planning.

USFWS
20 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following issues are described below:

■ prairie dogs

■ Pole Mountain

■ grazing

■ elk

■ sage grouse hunting

■ inholdings

■ invasive plants

Prairie Dogs

Much of the more open upland areas, as well as 

drier areas within meadow/riparian habitats, on 

the refuge support prairie dogs. In 2002, the whitetailed prairie dog was petitioned for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act; a fi nding is expected 

by October 2004. 

Issues

The white-tailed prairie dog is very popular with 

the visiting public and, to many, is a symbol of the 

west. However, most local ranchers see the prairie 

dog as a pest that competes with livestock for food, 

and creates burrows that are potentially dangerous 

to cattle and horses. 

Actions

It is appropriate 

for the refuge to 

consider prairie 

dog needs and 

potential impacts 

to them when 

management 

decisions are being 

made. 

The CCP process 

has addressed 

potential impacts 

to this species.

Pole Mountain

During 1993, the Service acquired lands owned by 

E.B. Shawver and formerly known as the Stelbar 

Ranch. As part of the “all-or-nothing” purchase 

of lands adjacent to the refuge, this acquisition 

included an isolated tract of land known as Pole 

Mountain (T7N, R81W, Sections 33 and 34, 

6th Principal Meridian), located approximately 

6 miles southwest of the refuge in Jackson County, 

Colorado.

History

With a peak elevation of 9,200 feet, this 800-acre 

tract contains signifi cantly different habitats than 

the rest of the refuge. Pole Mountain has private 

land on three sides and a piece of Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) land to the south that has no 

public access to it. Similarly, the Service does not 

own a permanent access easement to the property, 

and gains access across private land by virtue of a 

positive working relationship with a neighboring 

landowner.

Pole Mountain is dominated by sagebrush uplands 

(50 percent) and mixed, aspen/conifer forest 

(50 percent), which is common throughout the 

county where uplands meet the forest. This 

property is grazed annually, and invasive plants are 

monitored and controlled. 

Minimal wildlife monitoring has been conducted at 

Pole Mountain. Wildlife use includes mule deer, elk, 

blue grouse, porcupine, and a variety of passerine 

birds. Although the area has wildlife value, it 

does not match current or future objectives of the 

remainder of the refuge. 

Issues

The habitat at Pole Mountain does not meet 

purposes of refuge establishment and is not unique 

in the area in terms of habitat or wildlife use. Few 

management options are available for habitat 

improvement.

Several entities are interested in the land for 

various reasons.

■ members of the local sage grouse working 

group—to trade these lands for others in the 

county to protect sage grouse habitat

■ the CDOW—for big-game management; 

however, they currently have a moratorium on 

acquiring new lands

■ local ranchers—for use as grazing land

■ developers—for home sites

Actions

This CCP calls for the divestiture of the Pole 

Mountain property within 5 years (option 3 

below) using the priority criteria listed in option 

4. Until that time, refuge staff will ensure proper 

stewardship of the land, but minimal management 

will occur, as follows:

■ Place a conservation easement on the property 

prior to sale or trade to ensure wildlife benefi ts 

of the area remain intact. 

■ Continue grazing at recent levels, as deemed 

appropriate by management.

Prairie Dog

USFWS
Chapter 2—Planning Process 21

■ Continue invasive plant control efforts as part of 

the pest management agreement with the county.

■ Obtain a right-of-way access to the property for 

management and public use.

■ If the tract is not divested, create a forest and 

rangeland management plan for the area prior 

to update of this CCP.

Seven options were considered for the Pole 

Mountain tract.

Keep the Pole Mountain tract, survey, re-sign, 

and change/add refuge objectives to include this 

parcel. 

Work with Colorado State Forest Service 

(CSFS) to develop and implement a forest 

management plan for Pole Mountain. 

Divest the Pole Mountain tract through 

appropriate government regulations. 

Trade the Pole Mountain tract for (in priority 

order)

Refuge inholdings

Lands and waters adjacent to the refuge that 

are manageable to reach objectives listed in 

this CCP

Lands and waters adjacent to other refuges, 

where it would help achieve their goals and 

objectives, for refuges

In Colorado

In Region 6 of the Service

Anywhere in the Nation

Lands with a natural resource interest by 

other Federal land management agencies

Place a conservation easement on the Pole 

Mountain property prior to divestment to limit 

or preclude development on the tract.

Secure a legal right-of-way easement to assure 

access to Pole Mountain. 

Open Pole Mountain to hunting of all species, 

according to State of Colorado regulations.

Grazing

Cattle and sheep had grazed the lands that now 

comprise the refuge, for nearly a century prior to 

acquisition. Since establishment of the refuge in 

1967, grazing has continued to be the most common 

management tool to manipulate refuge habitats, 

especially meadows. Immediately after land 

purchases, some grazing was permitted as part of 

purchase agreements, and some areas were rested 

to establish waterfowl nesting cover. 

History

From 1969 to 1982, 47–95 percent of the refuge 

was grazed annually at a refuge-wide rate varying 

between 0.4 and 1.2 animal-unit months (AUMs) 

1.

2.

3.

4.

a.

b.

c.

i.

ii.

iii.

d.

5.

6.

7.

per acre. Grazing records from 1969 to 1991 were 

destroyed in an offi ce fi re. From 1991 to 2001 

(excepting 1993 for which data is unavailable), 

46–74 percent of the refuge was grazed annually at 

a refuge-wide average rate between 0.52 and 0.71 

AUMs per acre. Actual rates vary signifi cantly 

depending on the site, with some uplands being as 

low as 0.01 AUMs per acre and some meadows as 

high as 2.18 AUMs per acre. 

Grazing in meadow/riparian areas has generally 

not commenced until after August 1 to minimize 

disturbance to nesting waterfowl. Uplands are 

sometimes grazed earlier, but grazing does not 

generally commence until June 1. Grazing systems 

used have included high-intensity, short-duration 

(Holistic Resource Management-type), restrotation, light annual grazing, and complete rest.

Issues

There is little refuge-specifi c data available to 

assess how past grazing practices have or will effect 

proposed habitat objectives, due to the following:

■ All data from 1969–1991 was destroyed in an 

offi ce fi re.

■ Any available data from other studies did not 

necessarily address the objectives as defi ned 

in this CCP and, therefore, is of limited use for 

assessment purposes.

Although grazing practices to date have not harmed 

habitats, current levels of grazing probably will not 

meet CCP objectives, and some reduction in grazing 

will be required. With more intensive monitoring 

of habitats to assess how well objectives are being 

met, a better understanding of appropriate grazing 

levels should be developed. 

Actions

Livestock grazing has been the preferred 

management tool used on the refuge because 

the effect on vegetative communities is more 

controllable and predictable than other available 

management tools. All known and available 

management tools will be assessed for suitability of 

use in achieving defi ned habitat objectives. 

Other treatment options include the following:

■ Prescribed fi re—Some prescribed fi re has been 

used and more may be planned in the future. 

Prescribed fi re, when used according to policy, 

can accomplish removal of excess decadent 

growth and reset successional stages, creating 

a diversity of wildlife habitat. Prescribed fi re 

may be used in all habitat types to help meet 

management objectives.

■ Haying/mowing—Minimal haying occurred on 

some parcels as agreements of purchase, but 

was short-lived. Haying would be effective in 
22 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

removal of vegetative growth, but the primary 

objective of haying would likely be to remove 

decadent growth. In this case, hay quality 

would probably be poor, so fi nding someone 

interested in doing the work may be diffi cult. 

Mowing would successfully remove decadent 

growth, and the cut grass would ultimately 

break down to form litter and duff needed to 

meet objectives. This could be very costly in 

time and energy compared to other tools. 

■ Fertilizing—Applying fertilizers is an option 

to increase plant growth, and is used by many 

in the county to increase hay production. Cost, 

equipment, and time deter its use at present, 

but this tool should be considered if habitat 

objectives are not being met by other means. 

■ Mechanical treatments—These are treatments 

typically associated with efforts to manipulate 

sagebrush and could include using a disc, 

aerator, roller/chopper, Dixie harrow, or similar 

implements. Several hundred acres around the 

county have been treated in recent years in an 

effort to open up and vary the age diversity of 

sagebrush stands and increase plant diversity; 

success of these projects is still being assessed.

This CCP has estimated grazing numbers of 

3,050–7,650 AUMs annually, and represents 

approximately 36–90 percent of the 1996–2001 

average. This assumes an average use of between 

0.4 and 1.0 AUMs per acre of grazable acres for 

riparian areas and meadows, and 0.05 to 0.15 AUMs 

on uplands. 

Although not guaranteed, the plan assumes some 

grazing will likely occur every year to help achieve 

objectives on and off the refuge. Close coordination 

will occur with grazing permittees to combine and 

meet the refuge’s needs and permittees’ operational 

needs as much as possible for timing, areas, and to a 

certain extent, numbers. Permittees in good standing 

have a reasonable expectation of how many AUMs 

will be available to them for the upcoming year, 

barring extenuating circumstances such as drought.

If a permittee has intentions of not grazing any 

longer on the refuge, their previously permitted 

areas will be evenly distributed to the remaining 

permittees, to spread out use on the refuge and 

meet objectives. If all permittees are still interested 

in continued use in 2 years, all permits will be 

decreased annually approximately 5–10 percent 

from 1996 to 2001 averages until objective levels 

are met. Thereafter, grazing levels will be driven 

entirely by habitat needs based on identifi ed 

objectives. 

Elk

Until the mid- to late 1980s, seeing elk on or near 

the refuge, at any time of year, was a rarity. In the 

late 1980s, elk began to show up regularly in the 

winter, until about 500 were common on and around 

the refuge from December to March. Most of the 

animals would disperse for higher ground as the 

snow melted in the spring, but some began to stay 

along the Illinois River year-round. By the mid1990s, a resident herd of approximately 150 elk had 

become established. 

History

The number of elk using the refuge is continuing to 

grow and, with recent drought conditions, recent 

growth may be more than usual. It is unknown if 

this is a short-term gain in numbers with a likely 

decrease when conditions change, or if the elk have 

found a new place and are here to stay. It is also 

unknown whether the increase in elk on the refuge 

is proportional to the increase throughout the 

county, or if elk are occurring in a higher (or lower) 

proportion on the refuge. 

The wintering herd has continued to grow to the 

point that winter counts conducted by the CDOW 

in late December 2002 found about 2,400 elk on and 

near the refuge. Elk typically are scattered into 

several herds that vary in size, but often occur in a 

herd of about 1,000 animals. During winter months 

(November through March), elk numbers vary 

considerably but average 1,000–1,400 animals. 

North Park also has a resident herd. The CDOW 

initiated a distribution management hunt on private 

lands to thin this resident herd and disperse some of 

its numbers off private lands. This effort had shortterm success in reducing the resident herd size. 

Management hunts will probably continue to be 

used by CDOW to control the resident herd size. 

During the general, rifl e, big-game, hunting 

seasons, the resident elk herd on the refuge 

typically becomes more noticeable. As the later 

© Cindie Brunner

Elk
Chapter 2—Planning Process 23

hunting seasons progress, more elk move onto 

the refuge from the forested areas of the county. 

With the exception of some private lands scattered 

around the county, the refuge is the only place on 

the south end of North Park where the elk are not 

pursued during the general seasons. 

Issues

Although a large, wintering elk herd is a magnifi cent 

wildlife resource to behold, other things need to be 

considered. The fi rst is that the refuge, though fairly 

large, cannot be all things for all wildlife. A point 

comes where too many individuals of one species 

(elk) can negatively affect the habitat for another 

species or group of species (waterfowl). With one of 

the purposes for establishing the refuge being used 

as a sanctuary for migratory birds, too many elk 

could keep this purpose from being met. 

When on the refuge, elk are foraging, and trampling 

and eating grasses that are being managed as 

habitat for other wildlife. Elk can also have a severe 

impact on willow stands. Habitat objectives in this 

CCP identify maintenance of grasslands and willows 

to varying degrees for wildlife benefi ts. Although 

elk use the refuge extensively during the winter 

months, they do not use it exclusively, making it 

more diffi cult to determine what the cumulative 

impact of their use may be. A method needs to be 

developed to estimate elk use and impact to the 

refuge. 

Historically, ranching was the primary use of North 

Park, and that continues to be the case in much of 

the county. Elk, as grazers and potential competitors 

with cattle, can get into hay harvested for livestock 

and cause damage to fences and other ranch 

structures. 

Elk will continue to concentrate in areas of the 

county and, depending on the landowner and the 

number of elk in the particular herd, the perspective 

of whether an elk problem exists or not may change. 

A landowner that does not rely on livestock for their 

livelihood may view 100 elk as a valuable resource, 

but may view 300 as a problem. Similarly, a 

landowner relying on the land to make a living might 

view the 100 animals as too many. It is important to 

fi nd an elk population size that achieves refuge goals 

and meets North Park herd management objectives. 

A large, visible, herd of elk can be a reminder that 

herd objectives have been surpassed. When that 

herd is on the refuge, it may seem to some that they 

are in a likely spot to reduce numbers.

Elk, by law, are a state-owned resource, and high elk 

numbers may lead to resource or economic problems 

elsewhere in the county. The refuge will work with 

the CDOW to address elk issues on the refuge and 

throughout North Park.

If elk are on the refuge, they are not on private 

lands potentially damaging property or consuming 

forage meant for livestock. The problem is that 

they do not stay just on the refuge, so the potential 

exists for them to travel to adjoining private land 

and do damage. As numbers of elk using the refuge 

grows, so will the possibility of damage to private 

resources.

As more elk move onto the refuge during the 

general, rifl e-hunting season, an impression is 

created with some hunters that “all the elk are 

on the refuge,” especially if the animals are hard 

to fi nd in other locations. The refuge is composed 

mainly of sagebrush uplands, meadow, and open 

areas, without many places for elk to hide, and they 

typically are in large herds at this time. 

The lands surrounding the refuge are very open 

and the hunting that occurs on these areas often 

includes radio use, pushing animals with vehicles 

and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), party hunting, and 

over-limits of animals. In general, this does not 

fi t refuge system requirements, as outlined in the 

refuge manual, to offer a quality hunting experience 

that promotes “positive hunting values and hunter 

ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship.” 

Chronic-wasting disease (CWD) has been 

documented in white-tailed and mule deer and elk 

in Jackson County. Though these are typically state 

issues, the refuge staff is also concerned, since elk 

use is high on the refuge. The potential for other 

diseases and their risk of spread rises dramatically 

because of the large herd sizes.

Actions

Habitat objectives will be met with range 

management practices including prescribed 

livestock grazing since it is a controllable tool. Elk 

use and impact on habitats will be monitored.

A protocol will be developed for action when 

management objectives are not being met, using 

management tools such as elk hazing, hunting, 

and transplant. The protocol should defi ne what 

circumstances will trigger these actions and when. 

Coordination with CDOW will be critical to address 

potential impacts to other parts of the county.

Herbivory (elk, moose, and cattle) studies will be 

initiated to assess the independent and cumulative 

impacts to riparian, upland, and meadow habitats 

by these species. Studies will be conducted in 

conjunction with the state and other partners to 

evaluate impacts. Exclosures were installed in 2003 

to begin the evaluation process. 

■ The primary concerns are the lack of willow 

regeneration, the percent cover provided by 

willows, and willow density along the Illinois 

River channel. Willow regeneration along the 
24 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Illinois River is slow, and small willow shoots 

are frequently grazed to a 1-inch height. Elk 

damage to riparian areas is well documented in 

the scientifi c literature (see riparian habitats in 

appendix H). 

■ A hunting plan will be developed, working 

with the state, for land on and adjacent to 

the refuge. This strategy could include a lateseason, limited hunt for youth and disabled 

hunters. A protocol would outline the need for 

and administration of additional hunts based 

on such considerations as game damage, herd 

reduction, and habitat degradation. 

■ Elk numbers and elk damage are not 

necessarily a linear relationship. Snow depth, 

temperature, duration of feeding, and a host 

of other factors may determine wintering elk 

impacts. Elk wintering on the refuge may 

minimize game damage on adjacent private lands. 

Sage Grouse Management

Greater sage grouse are only found in sagebrushdominated rangelands in western North America. 

Sage grouse are dependent on sagebrush for winter 

cover, nesting, and feeding habitat. North Park 

supports habitat for the greater sage grouse and 

a viable grouse population. However, over the last 

40 years, the population has exhibited extreme 

fl uctuations.

Issues

In 1998, because of increased local concerns about 

the status of sage grouse in North Park, a group of 

concerned citizens and agencies formed the North 

Park sage grouse working group. The mission of 

the group is to develop, implement, and monitor 

a conservation plan to maintain a viable sage 

grouse population in Jackson County. Historically, 

the refuge has supported sage grouse hunting in 

accordance with State regulations and seasons. 

Action

The refuge proposes to continue to offer sporthunting opportunities for sage grouse, in 

accordance with State regulations and seasons. 

Upland habitats will be monitored and evaluated to 

improve conditions for nesting and brood-rearing 

sage grouse (see upland habitats in appendix H). 

The refuge will support the purpose and guiding 

principles of the North Park greater sage grouse 

conservation plan.

Inholdings

Non-federally owned lands within public land areas 

are known as inholdings. Table 2 displays nonfederally owned lands that lie within the approved 

acquisition boundary of Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Table 2. Private lands within Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Tract Approximate Acreage

Private landowner A 160

Private landowner B 480

Private landowner C 200

Private landowner D 2,960

Private landowner E 24

Total 3,824

Non-federally owned lands that lie outside the 

approved boundary of Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge are described in table 3. 

Table 3. Private lands outside Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Tract Approximate Acreage

Private landowner F 18

Total 18

Issues

These inholdings represent valuable wildlife habitat 

and are of interest to the refuge. 

Sage Grouse Hen With Young

Everett and Nancy Collin
Chapter 2—Planning Process 25

Action

Following the Service acquisition policy and 

guidelines, the refuge plans to acquire only these 

properties on a willing-seller/willing-buyer basis. 

Additionally, the refuge will attempt to acquire 

mineral resource interests on lands within the 

existing boundary. Minerals extraction may destroy 

wildlife habitats, and prevent goals and objectives 

from being met.

Invasive Plants

The refuge mirrors much of the rest of North Park 

in its species mix of invasive plants. Canada thistle 

has a strong foothold in Jackson County. This 

species has a noticeable presence along ditch banks, 

dikes, and in the edges of riparian and sub-irrigated 

areas. Four other species, declared by the county to 

be noxious, have been found on the refuge in small 

amounts, totaling less than 5 acres—musk thistle, 

yellow toadfl ax, whitetop, and houndstongue.

A handful of other invasive plants have been found 

in minute amounts on nearby lands—spotted, 

diffuse, and Russian knapweeds, as well as 

Dalmatian toadfl ax, and leafy spurge. These species 

have been especially troublesome along highway 

rights-of-way. 

Issues

Managing invasive plants and limiting their impact 

on the refuge is a great concern. 

Actions

As a landowner within the North Platte headwaters 

weed management area, the refuge works closely 

with Jackson County and the county weed 

coordinator. This partnership goes back to a 1986 

weed- management document and includes 13 

public, private, and local entities. Jackson County, 

although somewhat isolated from more serious 

invasive plant problems of nearby landscapes, is at 

the forefront in keeping out several invasive plant 

species.

Management approaches have been developed 

in conjunction with the county weed coordinator 

and are annually monitored for effectiveness. 

Mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical 

tools are employed in combination, in hopes of 

eliminating these unwanted, invasive plants. 

Treatment of Canada thistle is generally limited to 

areas around facilities and areas incurring heavy 

public use. 

All known occurrences of musk thistle, yellow 

toadfl ax, whitetop, and houndstongue are attacked 

every year with a strategy appropriate to each 

species. Progress to date for these four species has 

been quite good. Persistence and diligence will be 

necessary to keep them out over the long term.

Careful scouting and fast action will be required to 

prevent the following, off-refuge, invasive plants 

from occurring on the refuge—spotted, diffuse, and 

Russian knapweeds, as well as Dalmatian toadfl ax, 

leafy spurge, and Dyers woad. 

3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, situated at an 

elevation of 8,200 feet, is located in an intermountain glacial basin in north-central Colorado. 

The refuge is situated along the western edge of the 

central waterfowl fl yway (fi gure 7).

Figure 7. Waterfowl fl yways within the United States

Jackson County opens north into Wyoming and 

is rimmed on the west by the Park Range, on the 

south by the Rabbit Ears Range, and on the east by 

the Medicine Bow Range. The basin fl oor between 

these ranges is locally known as North Park and 

encompasses approximately 600 square miles. The 

basin is relatively fl at with an elevation range of 

7,900–8,300 feet. 

Slow, meandering streams, which crisscross the 

basin, fl ow toward the north-central part of the 

basin to form the North Platte River. Most of the 

fl oodplain is irrigated meadow (irrigated to produce 

a single hay crop per year), while sagebrush 

grasslands characterize the adjacent low rises. 

Sagebrush uplands are the dominant vegetative 

community and encompass 80 percent of North Park.

Bailey (1995) described the Jackson County area as 

part of the southern Rocky Mountain eco-region. 

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to 

natural resource management and has identifi ed 53 

watershed-based, eco-regions in the United States 

(fi gure 8). Within this approach, the refuge lies 

within the boundaries of the Platte/Kansas Rivers 

ecosystem.

The Service is developing a nationally coordinated 

approach involving ecosystem teams, partners, 

and stakeholders to preserve natural resources 

for the American people. Ecosystem teams are 

fundamental to the Service in sustaining good land 

health. Ecosystem teams should be the primary 

delivery mechanism for establishing priorities and 

identifying areas of greatest conservation concern 

in their ecosystems (Fulfi lling the Promise, 1999). 

Figure 8. Eco-regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

The following sections describe the resources and 

use of the refuge:

■ physical resources

■ biological resources

■ cultural resources

■ special management areas

■ public use

Physical Resources

The climate, geology, and soils of the refuge are 

described below. In addition, a brief description is 

given for the water, reserved, and mineral rights 

related to the refuge. 

Climate

The climate is semiarid—characterized as having 

short, cool summers followed by long, cold winters. 

Temperatures and precipitation vary greatly with 

elevation and location. Mean annual air temperature 

in Walden, near the center of North Park, is 36.4 

degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature extremes are 

minus 39 degrees to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, based on 

the National Weather Bureau’s 30-year average data. 

3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
30 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The average length of the growing season in Walden 

is 43 days. The average date for the last killing frost 

in Walden is July 1, and the average fi rst killing 

frost is August 14, based on North Park weather 

station’s 70-year average. The relatively short frostfree season inhibits any form of agriculture, except 

hay near fl oodplain areas. 

The mean rainfall in Walden is 10.83 inches of 

precipitation annually. Annual precipitation 

generally increases as elevation increases, from the 

fl oor to the outer edge of North Park. Elevation 

ranges from slightly below 8,000 feet on the valley 

fl oor to 12,965 feet on Clarks Peak. Seventy percent 

of the annual precipitation falls as snow. Walden 

averages 53 inches of snow per year, the lowest 

of any point in North Park. The highest average 

monthly precipitation occurs in March, April, May, 

and August (Lischka et al. 1983).

Geological Resources

North Park is a structural basin between the 

Precambrian granites, gneisses and schists of the 

Medicine Bow and Park Ranges and Independence 

Mountain. The sandstones, conglomerates, and 

shales of the Tertiary Coalmont Formation 

dominate the surface geology of the North Park 

fl oor. Coal is found in the lower members of the 

formation (Hail 1968). 

The North Park Formation overlies the Coalmont 

Formation and consists of white, calcareous 

conglomerates. The Coalmont Formation is exposed 

along a long, narrow, syncline ridge trending 

northwest from Owl Mountain to the confl uence 

of Roaring Fork and Grizzly Creeks. The syncline 

includes Owl Ridge and Peterson Ridges. 

Pierre Shale underlies the Coalmont Formation 

and is exposed primarily in the northwestern and 

northeastern quadrants of North Park. Evidence 

of Tertiary volcanics is obvious along the south 

boundary of North Park. Quantities of breccia and 

other volcanics are common in the Rabbit Ears 

Range in the form of dikes, plush, fl ows, and ash. 

Signifi cant glacial activity occurred in North Park 

during the Pleistocene. Fluviatile gravels and interfl uvial terraces are examples of the infl uence of 

glacial activity upon the current landscape of North 

Park’s fl oor. Several natural lakes in the area are 

likely the remnants of Pleistocene glaciation. 

Winds also infl uenced the geology of North Park. 

Prevailing southwesterly winds, possibly caused 

by the low ridge between Rabbit Ears Peak 

and Arapaho Pass, have deposited fi ne grains of 

alluvium, some of which reaches thicknesses of 30 

feet. Winds may have created several shallow lakes 

within the basin, including Hebron Sloughs, located 

southwest of the refuge (Lischka et al. 1983).

Soil Resources

Soils that have the capacity to reproduce the same 

kinds, amounts, and proportions of range plants are 

grouped into range sites. Fletcher (1981) defi ned 

15 different range sites and 2 forest types within 

Jackson County. Five range sites (fl oodplains) are 

found on the refuge.

■ Randman-Blackwell-Dobrow association (deep, 

poorly drained, dominantly sandy soils)

■ Spicerton-Stumpp association (deep, welldrained, sandy loams and clay loams on bench 

and upland sites); Fluetch-Bosler-Tealson 

association (deep and shallow, well-drained, 

sandy loams) 

■ Tiagos-Cabin association (deep, well-drained, 

fi ne, sandy loams); and Coalmont-BrinkertonAaberg association (moderately deep, of soft 

shale and well-drained sandy loams) 

The refuge contains 31 

individual soil types 

within the 5 range 

sites (Fletcher 1977). 

Dominant soil types 

include Spicerton sandy 

loam, Fluetsch-Tiagos 

association, Bosler 

sandy loam, and the 

Boettcher-Bundyman 

association. These soils 

are found on slopes less 

than 15 percent, and 

generally have slow to 

moderate permeability. 

Mean soil temperature 

at Walden is 58 degrees 

Fahrenheit.

Water Resources 

and Rights

The refuge is located on 

the Illinois River and its 

tributaries. The Illinois 

River is tributary to the 

Michigan River, which 

is tributary to the 

North Platte River. 

Prior to settlement, the bottoms and meadows 

of the Illinois River and its tributaries fl ooded 

annually from snow melt and spring runoff, 

creating signifi cant waterfowl nesting habitat. With 

settlement, much of the natural fl oods and pond 

creation were reduced, with irrigated meadows 

replacing ponds and marshes. 

Since the refuge’s fi rst land acquisition in 1967, 

the Service created new wetland habitat through 

Prairie Lupine

Everett and Nancy Collin
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 31

the management of acquired irrigation and 

stock reservoirs, diversion of water into natural 

depressions, and diversion of water into Serviceconstructed ponds.

The refuge has a decreed diversion rate of 515.05 

cubic feet per second, most of which is diverted 

from the Illinois River. Lesser amounts are diverted 

from tributaries of Willow, Spring, Potter, and 

Antelope Creeks. This water is either ditched for 

storage in 9 decreed reservoirs and 73 un-decreed 

ponds, or ditched to meadows for direct irrigation. 

The refuge has decreed rights to 7,626.4 acre-feet 

for reservoir and pond initial fi lls and refi lls, and 

is seeking an additional 2,582.5 acre-feet of junior 

storage rights. The total capacity of refuge storage 

units is 5,678.5 acre-feet. Approximately 814 surface 

acres in ponds and approximately 9,499 acres are 

irrigated meadow grass. 

Since 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has 

measured Illinois River fl ow at gauging stations at 

the upstream and downstream ends of the refuge to 

determine the effect of diversions, wildlife use, and 

return fl ow on river discharge.

Groundwater is present in an unconfi ned, sand, 

and gravel alluvial aquifer, which underlies the 

entire refuge. The water table is shallow, with the 

elevation of the groundwater table approximating 

the water-surface elevations in nearby rivers, 

creeks, reservoirs, and ponds. 

The Colorado Division of Water Resources, 

commonly referred to as the State Engineer’s 

Offi ce, administers the refuge’s water rights 

according to the prior appropriation doctrine. 

Whereas much of the refuge’s acquired land has 

senior appurtenant water rights, conversion of 

ranch land to wildlife habitat has required obtaining 

junior water rights that cannot be exercised in dry 

or semidry years. 

Suffi cient water rights are held by the refuge to 

implement goals and objectives (appendix I). 

Reserved Rights and Privately Owned 

Mineral Estate

Purchase of some land tracts on the refuge were 

subject to existing rights-of-way at the time of 

purchase. Some of these rights-of-way include 

Jackson County Roads 31, 32, and 34. The Colorado 

State Highway Department owns a 100-foot rightof-way on Highway 125 and a 50-foot right-of-way 

on Highway 14. 

Additional rights-of-way include buried telephone 

lines along Highway 125 and 14, and power lines 

along Highway 125, through the length of the east 

side of the refuge and across the Case tract on the 

south side.

With the purchases of land tracts, the refuge 

acquired surface mineral rights on all its land 

except the transfers from Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The refuge owns the majority 

of the subsurface mineral rights; the State of 

Colorado, BLM, and private landowners hold the 

remainder.

Biological Resources

Refuge habitats provide for a variety of animals and 

plants. Brief descriptions of these resources follow; 

more details can be found in appendix H.

Habitat Management Units

Habitat on the refuge can be divided into four broad 

types: riparian, wetland, meadow, and upland. 

Acreages for each habitat type were calculated 

using geographic information system (GIS) 

software (Environmental Systems Research 

Institute’s ArcView), with refuge boundary 

topographic base maps and map layers from the 

national wetland inventory (NWI). 

Estimating width of the historic fl oodplain—using 

topography and vegetative community changes as a 

guide—determined width of the riparian area. 

Meadow habitats were derived primarily using 

maps from the NWI, with corrections for recent 

wetland additions. 

Acreage of the other three habitat types was 

subtracted from the refuge’s base acreage to 

calculate upland acreage. 

Descriptions of the refuge’s habitat types follow.

Riparian Habitat

The riparian habitat covers 4,374 acres on the 

refuge. It is composed of the channel, fl oodplain, 

and transitional upland fringe along portions of the 

Illinois River and Spring Creek. 

Historically, the fl oodplain and transitional fringe 

have been considered irrigated meadow. However, 

this plan uses the terms channel, fl oodplain, and 

transitional fringe because these components more 

appropriately represent the collective functions and 

processes of riparian habitats. 

Such designation allows management potential of 

the entire area to be more thoroughly evaluated 

(fi gure 9–habitat management units).
32 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat Management Units

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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

These willow species are found along the Illinois 

River:

Drummonds’s 

willow

coyote willow

Geyer’s willow

whiplash willow

mountain willow

planeleaf willow

Grass species common to these moist soil areas 

include the following:

bluejoint reedgrass

timothy

mannagrass

smooth brome

meadow foxtail

meadow barley

Nevada bluegrass

sloughgrass

tufted hairgrass

saltgrass

Nebraska sedge

rush species

Nuttall’s 

alkaligrass

redtop

winter bentgrass

The runs and pools in the river channel typically 

contain aquatic vegetation including waterweed, 

pondweed, and fi lamentous algae. Canada thistle is 

the main invasive plant in this area. 

Wildlife species that use the riparian-habitat 

grasslands include waterfowl such as northern 

pintail, mallard, gadwall, and green-winged teal. 

Sage grouse broods use these areas to forage for 

high-protein invertebrates. 

The willow complex supports at least 40 species of 

migrating songbirds such as yellow warbler and 

willow fl ycatcher, along with moose, river otter, 

beaver, and wintering elk. Water birds—including 

common snipe, spotted sandpiper, sora, American 

white pelican, and black-crowned night-heron—

extensively use this habitat type. 

The cold-water system of the Illinois River supports 

7 species of native and non-native fi sh and at least 

17 taxa of aquatic invertebrates.

Wetland Habitat

Wetland habitat includes 824 acres of natural 

and created ponds and lakes up to the high water 

mark, excluding surrounding meadows and 

riparian corridors. Ponds and lakes, henceforth 

referred to as basins or wetlands, were delineated 

using both NWI maps and refuge coverage maps. 

Approximately 79 shallow wetlands exist on the 

refuge (fi gure 6–base map). 

For management purposes, three wetland 

complexes were developed: the Case, Illinois, 

and Soap Creek complexes (fi gure 10–wetland 

complexes). The majority (90 percent) of wetland 

basins are constructed. The purpose for these 

artifi cial wetlands is to offset wetland losses 

occurring elsewhere in the central fl yway. 

Maintenance of these facilities provides benefi ts 

to a host of wetland-dependent species, including 

waterfowl. 

Specifi c wetland objectives only account for 

approximately 50 percent of the total wetland 

surface area to be managed in a given year. 

Drought, evaporative losses, periodic drawdowns 

for aquatic vegetation enhancement, dike 

maintenance activities, and fall migration 

drawdowns account for the remainder of the 

wetland surface area. 

Aquatic vegetation of wetland habitats includes 

both emergent species (e.g., cattail, spike rush, 

and bulrush) and submerged species (e.g., sago 

pondweed, leafy pondweed, and widgeongrass). 

Invertebrate abundance is high in wetland basins. 

Common invertebrates include true bugs, as well 

as invertebrate families of the water boatman, 

backswimmer, predacious diving beetle, and 

crawling water beetles. 

Invertebrates are a critical food source to many 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Waterfowl species 

include both diving ducks (e.g., lesser scaup, 

canvasback, redhead, and ruddy duck) and puddle 

ducks (e.g., mallard, northern shoveler, gadwall, and 

American wigeon). Over-water nesting birds such 

as the black-crowned night-heron, white-faced ibis, 

marsh wren, coot, and blackbirds also extensively 

use wetland habitats.

Meadow Habitat

Meadow habitat includes 2,683 acres of grasslands 

and old hay meadows, except those along the 

riparian corridor, which are considered riparian 

habitat. These historically irrigated fi elds provide 

the majority of the nesting habitat for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and songbirds. Meadow habitats 

represent common feeding, resting, and loafi ng 

areas for most birds and mammals on the refuge 

(fi gure 9–habitat management units).

Yellow Warbler

Cornell Lab of Ornithology
34 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Wetland Complexes

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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

The following vegetation, primarily native plants, is 

common to meadow habitat:

slenderbeak sedge

capitate sedge

Hayden’s sedge

narrowleaf sedge

elk sedge

woolly sedge

Nebraska sedge

dunhead sedge

beaked sedge

shortbeak sedge

water sedge

golden sedge

softleaf sedge

new sedge

valley sedge

Colorado rush

Baltic rush

dagger-leaf rush

longstyle rush

tuberous rush

fi eld woodrush

smallfl owered 

woodrush

Grass species common to these moist soil areas 

include the following:

bluejoint reedgrass

timothy

mannagrass

smooth brome

meadow foxtail

meadow barley

Nevada bluegrass

sloughgrass

tufted hairgrass

saltgrass

Nuttall’s 

alkaligrass

redtop

winter bentgrass 

The following are common forbs:

sulphur buckwheat

Hood’s phlox

longleaf phlox

rosy pussytoes

silvery lupine

prairie lupine

groundsel species

narrow-leaved 

maertensia

small bluebells

cinquefoil

early cinquefoil

stonecrop

wormleaf stonecrop

daisy species

beardtongue 

Canada thistle is the main invasive plant in this area. 

Wildlife species that use the meadow habitat 

include waterfowl such as the northern pintail, 

northern shoveler, gadwall, and green-winged teal. 

Sage grouse broods use these areas to forage for 

high-protein invertebrates. Snipe broods and other 

grassland-nesting songbirds use this habitat type, 

along with elk, pronghorn, and coyote.

Upland Habitat

The upland habitat consists of 14,285 acres of 

a shrub-steppe plant community dominated 

by sagebrush, drought-tolerant perennial 

bunchgrasses, and forbs. 

Uplands are the dominant refuge habitat type 

and include all lands not accounted for in the 

wetland, meadow, and riparian descriptions. Many 

upland habitats exhibit a mosaic pattern around 

meadow sites; these sites are generally managed as 

meadows (fi gure 9–habitat management units). 

Historical reports of the sagebrush-steppe plant 

community are confl icting, and pre-settlement 

community conditions may never be fully known. 

The focus of past management efforts has been 

devoted to wetland-dependent birds, therefore 

information is limited about the upland plant 

community. 

Available information suggests that sagebrush 

historically was the dominant plant species, 

although perhaps taller (greater than 3 meters) 

plants may have existed. 

Floristic diversity in North Park has likely 

decreased, especially within the grasses and forbs. 

Management efforts for the past 50 years have 

attempted to increase grass and forb abundance 

through mechanical and chemical means. 

In general, the sagebrush plant community appears 

to be in fair condition, but given the lack of basic 

information, management alternatives are diffi cult 

to defi ne. Therefore, management objectives 

center on developing an upland habitat database 

that defi nes plant species, location, abundance, and 

characteristics. 

Secondly, the refuge proposes to “experiment” 

with 4,000 acres of uplands to create a preferred 

plant community structure. Lessons learned will be 

applied to larger pieces of upland habitats.

Upland vegetation consists primarily of the 

following shrubs:

mountain big 

sagebrush

Wyoming big 

sagebrush

alkali sagebrush

fringed sage

black sagebrush

rubber rabbitbrush

Douglas 

rabbitbrush

broom snakeweed

gray horsebrush

black greasewood

winterfat

The grasses below are dominant in the uplands:

muttongrass

Nevada bluegrass

Sandberg 

bluegrass

bottlebrush 

squirreltail

Idaho fescue

bluebunch 

wheatgrass

western 

wheatgrass

blue grama

elk sedge

needle and thread

green needlegrass
36 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Common forbs are listed below:

sulphur buckwheat

Hood’s phlox

longleaf phlox

rosy pussytoes

silvery lupine

prairie lupine

groundsel species

narrow-leaved 

maertensia

small bluebells

cinquefoil

early cinquefoil

stonecrop 

stonecrop 

wormleaf

daisy species

beardtongue 

Invasive plants include yellow toadfl ax and musk 

thistle and occur primarily in disturbed sites. 

Sage grouse are a sagebrush-obligate species, 

requiring sagebrush plants for cover and food. 

Vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage 

thrasher are songbirds common to the uplands. 

Elk, mule deer, and pronghorn are common biggame users of upland habitats. 

Wildlife Resources

A broad diversity of wildlife refl ects the refuge’s 

habitat diversity. 

Only those species that are residents or frequent 

visitors to the refuge are discussed below. Many 

species, especially birds, may infrequently inhabit 

or migrate through the refuge. 

All species of birds, mammals, fi sh, amphibians, and 

reptiles are listed in appendix J.

Birds

A large number of ducks and Canada geese depend 

on wetland, riparian, and meadow habitats for 

foraging, nesting, brood-rearing, and molting. The 

most common type of ducks breeding on the refuge 

include lesser scaup, gadwall, American wigeon, 

northern shoveler, and cinnamon teal.

Most of the ducks common to the refuge use the 

three habitats listed above and, occasionally, some 

species use the upland habitat. These ducks include 

the green-winged teal, mallard, northern pintail, 

cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, blue-winged teal, 

gadwall, and American wigeon. 

Redhead, ruddy duck, and lesser scaup depend on 

wetlands for most of their life needs, with the scaup 

and redhead nesting in meadows occasionally. 

The ring-necked duck, canvasback, and buffl ehead 

are generally spring and fall migratory visitors, 

but the canvasback does infrequently nest on the 

refuge. The common merganser primarily inhabits 

riparian areas to meet their life requirements. 

Canada goose is an abundant species that is the fi rst 

to arrive in the spring and the last to migrate in the 

fall. The geese use wetland, riparian, and meadow 

habitats for foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing.

Wading birds are water birds that usually do not 

swim or dive for food, but wade in shallow edges of 

water for prey. Black-crowned night-heron, great 

blue heron, and white-faced ibis are the common 

breeding species on the refuge. 

The ibis and black-crowned night-heron use 

wetlands with heavy cattail/hardstem bulrush 

vegetation for nesting and brood-rearing. They 

forage in riparian, meadow, and wetland areas. 

The great blue heron uses riparian habitat primarily 

for nesting and foraging, but can be observed in 

wetlands.

Shorebirds are most often found foraging for food 

along the water margins; they use the refuge as a 

migratory stopover and some nest there. American 

avocet, willet, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, and 

Wilson’s phalarope are the common nesters. 

Avocet and willet mainly use the wetland habitat 

for their needs. The killdeer is more of a generalist 

and can be found in all habitats. 

The spotted sandpiper and common snipe reside 

mostly in riparian habitat. Wilson’s phalarope use 

the meadow and riparian habitats for nesting and 

forage; they rear young in the wetlands. Blacknecked stilt is an occasional nester in the wetlands. 

Dowitchers, yellowlegs, and other sandpipers 

use the area for a stopover during spring and fall 

migration.

Other water birds are represented by a variety 

of species. Pied-billed grebe, eared grebe, and 

American coot use wetlands for nesting, foraging, 

and brood-rearing. Virginia rail, sora rail, and 

common snipe use the meadow/riparian habitats 

extensively. 

American white pelican, double-crested cormorant, 

and California gull do not nest on the refuge but 

use the area for foraging. Black and forester’s terns 
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 37

nest in areas of dense sedge, cattail, and bulrush, 

and forage in the wetlands.

Raptors consist of several families of hawks, 

falcons, and owls. The most common raptors of the 

refuge include the following:

northern harrier

Swainson’s hawk

rough-legged hawk

golden eagle

American kestrel

prairie falcon

short-eared owl

great horned owl

Only the golden eagle and great horned owl are 

year-round residents. The rough-legged hawk is a 

winter visitor while the rest of the birds are present 

in the spring, summer, and fall. 

The raptors use all habitats for nesting and 

foraging. Red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, 

sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper’s hawk use the 

area occasionally.

Upland bird species rely on the uplands primarily 

to subsist. Several of the common upland birds are 

sage grouse, horned lark, sage thrasher, vesper 

sparrow, and Brewer’s sparrow. 

The sage grouse and horned lark are year-round 

residents. The sage grouse resides primarily in the 

uplands, but uses the edges of riparian and meadow 

habitats. 

The sage thrasher, horned lark, and sparrows 

depend on the upland area for nesting, but may 

forage in the other habitats.

Neotropical migrants are birds that breed in North 

America—north of Mexico—but winter in Mexico, 

Central and South America, or the West Indies. 

The following species are commonly found on the 

refuge during either migration or the nesting 

season. These birds rely heavily on riparian habitat 

for foraging, cover, and nesting:

common nighthawk

belted kingfi sher

willow fl ycatcher

warbling vireo

house wren

marsh wren

yellow warbler

MacGillivray’s 

warbler

common 

yellowthroat

western kingbird

gray catbird

Wilson’s warbler

savannah sparrow

fox sparrow

song sparrow

Lincoln’s sparrow

white-crowned 

sparrow

A few of these species also use the meadow and 

wetland habitat for nesting or foraging, such as 

the savannah sparrow and the marsh wren. The 

cliff, barn, and tree swallows use a combination of 

habitats including wetland, riparian, and meadow.

Resident and migrant songbirds breed in North 

America and migrate throughout a limited North 

American range:

mountain bluebird

American robin

dark-eyed junco

rosy fi nch

pine siskin

American 

goldfi nch

lark bunting

These birds use riparian, meadow, and upland 

habitats. Red-winged, yellow-headed, and Brewer’s 

blackbirds use both wetlands and riparian for 

nesting and foraging. Species such as the blackcapped chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, and 

ruby-crowned kinglet use woody, riparian areas for 

foraging, but tend to nest off the refuge.

The northern fl icker is the most common 

woodpecker. This species inhabits riparian willow 

habitat, but also uses uplands and meadows. Other 

less common woodpeckers include downy and hairy 

woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsucker.

Mammals 

Big game animals common to the refuge include 

pronghorn, mule deer, moose, and elk. As many 

as 20 moose can be found on the refuge at any one 

time, spending most of their time in the riparian 

habitat. 

The mule deer population is approximately 40 

animals that roam on and off the refuge, spending 

time in the riparian, meadow, and upland habitats. 

White-tailed deer, with a population of about 20 

animals, use the same areas as mule deer. 

Pronghorn use the upland habitat primarily, but can 

be found in the riparian and meadow habitats. 

House wren

Everett and Nancy Collin
38 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Pronghorn use the refuge in the spring, summer, 

and fall, with a population of about 50 animals 

present at any one time. In the winter, the 

pronghorn generally move north off the refuge, 

making them a rare sight in the area. 

A resident herd of approximately 150 elk resides 

primarily in the riparian area in the southern half of 

the refuge and on neighboring land. 

During the winter (November through March) the 

refuge and surrounding area hosts about 1,200 elk. 

These animals are usually in several herds and use 

riparian, meadow, and upland habitats.

The refuge has many small mammals, which use all 

habitat types depending on their life requirements. 

Common species of small mammals are listed below:

Nuttall’s cottontail

white-tailed 

jackrabbit

least chipmunk 

Wyoming ground 

squirrel

white-tailed prairie 

dog

beaver

deer mouse

montane vole

muskrat

porcupine

coyote

long-tailed weasel

mink

badger

striped skunk

Fish 

The Illinois River and wetlands are two main types 

of aquatic communities present on the refuge. The 

Illinois River is a transition stream. 

The river begins as a trout stream at the 

headwaters and down to the southern end of the 

refuge, to a native species stream by the time 

it reaches the northern half of the refuge. The 

splitting of the stream channel into two channels 

appears to be the basis of this fi shery transition. 

The low fl ows of the split are ultimately responsible 

for trout giving way to the more tolerant native 

species. 

These species are common in the Illinois River on 

the refuge:

brown trout

rainbow trout

northern redbelly 

dace

fathead minnow

creek chub

long-nosed sucker

white sucker

Johnny darter

Potter and Spring Creeks are tributaries of the 

Illinois River. These creeks provide little fi shery 

habitat, with only a few native fi sh such as longnosed sucker, white sucker, fathead minnow, and 

creek chub found in them.

Many of the wetlands will not support a fi shery, 

with water depth and winter survival being the 

limiting factors. The most common fi sh found in the 

wetlands is the fathead minnow, a native fi sh that 

has evolved in this type of habitat.

Reptiles and Amphibians

The wandering garter snake is the only reptile 

known to inhabit the refuge. Sightings of this snake 

are rare, with only one or two seen in a year. 

Amphibians are slightly more numerous with the 

following species: barred tiger salamander, western 

toad, wood frog, northern leopard frog, and striped 

chorus frog. 

Chorus frogs 

are found in 

the wetland, 

meadow, and 

riparian areas; 

they are the most abundant amphibian on the 

refuge. The salamanders are primarily associated 

with the wetlands but are seen in all habitats. 

The wood frog has been documented once on the 

refuge, in riparian habitat. The western toad is 

extremely rare, as the habitat types on the refuge 

are not ideal for this species. Leopard frogs have 

been observed in the riparian habitat and in 

irrigation ditches in the meadow habitat. 

Invertebrates

Some sampling of invertebrates has been done on 

wetland and riparian areas. Wetland invertebrates 

were the most diverse, with 20 different families 

represented in the sampling. Stream sampling 

identifi ed 17 different taxa in the Illinois River. 

Further sampling of invertebrates to establish a 

quantitative baseline would assist in identifying 

problems in wetland and riparian areas in the future.

Pronghorn

© Cindie Brunner

Tiger Salamander

© Cindie Brunner
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 39

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate 

Species and Other Species of Special Concern

Table 4 lists special-status wildlife, fi sh, and 

amphibians that are known to use habitat types on 

the refuge.

The bald eagle, a federally-listed species, is an 

intermittent visitor on the refuge and a year-round 

resident of the county. Nesting habitat does not 

exist on the refuge but the eagle does use all habitat 

types for foraging. 

The peregrine falcon, which is proposed for federal 

de-listing, is also an intermittent visitor, using all 

the habitat types for foraging.

Burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, northern sage 

grouse, long-billed curlew, and white pelican are 

State of Colorado special-concern species. 

Burrowing owls nest on the refuge, with an 

occurrence of one nest found every 5 years. They 

are a migrant in the fall of the year. Ferruginous 

hawk occurs in the spring, summer, and fall, 

foraging on refuge habitats. 

Northern sage grouse are an abundant year-round 

resident. The grouse use the upland, riparian, and 

meadow habitats for breeding (one lek found on the 

refuge), nesting, foraging, and brood-rearing. 

Long-billed curlews are observed every few years. 

White pelicans nest off the refuge on MacFarlane 

Reservoir, frequenting the refuge to forage in 

wetland and riparian habitats.

 The river otter is a State of 

 Colorado endangered species. 

 The otter was

 reintroduced 

 into a watershed 

 south of the refuge. 

 Several otters (an

 average of one per year)

 have been observed in the

 southern half of the refuge’s 

 riparian habitat. 

Little is known about the northern redbelly dace 

on the refuge. This State of Colorado endangered 

species is found in the Illinois River.

Northern leopard and wood frogs are specialconcern species for the State of Colorado. The 

leopard frog is common and found in riparian and 

meadow habitats. Wood frogs occur along the 

Illinois River, south of refuge headquarters.

Table 4. Special-status wildlife, fi sh, plant, and amphibian species potentially occurring on Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Common Name

Seasonal 

Occurrence1 Federal and State Status2

Date Last 

Observed3

Birds

American peregrine falcon

bald eagle

western burrowing owl

ferruginous hawk

northern sage grouse

long-billed curlew

American white pelican

SR

YR

B, M 

SR 

B, YR 

M, SR

SR

CDOW species of concern

USFWS threatened species (proposed delisting)

CDOW threatened species

CDOW species of concern

CDOW species of concern

CDOW species of concern

CDOW species of concern

2004

2004

2004

2004

2004

2004

2004

Mammals

river otter YR, B CDOW endangered species 2004

Plants

North Park phacelia YR USFWS endangered species 2004

Amphibians

northern leopard frog

wood frog

YR

YR

CDOW species of concern

CDOW species of concern

2004

2004

Source: Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1Seasonal occurrence: B=breeding (assumes summer resident), SR=summer resident (no evidence of breeding), 

 YR=year-round resident, M=migrant.

2See glossary for special-status defi nitions. CDOW=Colorado Division of Wildlife; USFWS=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3Data is from the refuge’s wildlife observation log.

© Cindie Brunner

River Otter
40 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Cultural Resources

Humans have used the mountains of Colorado for 

thousands of years. Spear points dating to the 

Paleoindian Period have been recovered in North 

Park. The Paleoindian Period extends from 12000 

B.C. to around 5740 B.C. 

Although numerous other Paleoindian sites have 

been located in Middle Park, including evidence of 

bison hunting 10,000 years ago, known occurrences 

of Paleoindian occupation in North Park have been 

limited to small campsites. Some archaeologists 

think Paleoindian groups lived in the Parks yearround; others propose winter camps in the foothills 

with exploitation of various mountain resources 

during summer months. 

The Archaic Period followed the Paleoindian 

Period and lasted until A.D. 150. Hunters used 

darts and throwing sticks called atlatls. There 

was also a higher reliance on small game and 

plant resources. A major drought on the Plains 

(ca. 5000–2500 B.C.) caused change to settlement 

and subsistence patterns. People moved into the 

mountains for longer periods and exploited a wider 

variety of plant and animal resources. Increased 

moisture during the latter part of the Archaic 

Period brought people back onto the Plains, but 

the mountains continued to be an important part of 

their subsistence. Activity increased in North Park 

during this period. 

The Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 150–1540) 

saw the introduction of the bow and arrow and 

ceramics. Bison hunting again became an important 

part of the economy, but the people of this period 

continued to rely on a variety of available plant 

and animal resources. Researchers have proposed 

a seasonal round of activities. People would leave 

their foothills winter camps and head north into 

the Laramie Basin, then south through North and 

Middle Parks, collecting and hunting until fall. 

From there, they would turn east to hunt bighorn 

sheep along the Continental Divide on their way 

back to the foothills. 

The Protohistoric Period starts with European 

contact, around A.D. 1540. Of the modern tribes, the 

Utes are most often associated with the mountains 

and long-term utilization of the resources of North 

Park. There are also historic accounts of visits 

to North Park by the Shoshone, Arapaho, and 

Cheyenne peoples. 

Archaeological sites in North Park are generally 

small and associated with seasonal use of the area. 

They include open campsites and lithic scatters with 

stone circles (tepee rings) located along the ridges. 

Culturally scarred trees and wickiups in forested 

areas represent Protohistoric Ute use. Rock art 

and bison kill sites, although uncommon, have been 

reported in North Park.

The fi rst European visitors to New Park (now 

known as North Park) were probably trappers. 

Alexander Sinclair and Robert Bean headed the 

fi rst known party of trappers in 1825. Several 

famous trappers, miners, and hunters made their 

way through North Park. Kit Carson, Jim Baker, 

Sublette, Gervais and Vasquesz, Calvin Jones, 

Henry Fraeb, John Gantt, and Pegleg Smith visited 

North Park in the 1840s. 

The second western expedition of John C. Fremont 

took him through North Park in 1844. Sir George 

Gore passed through the area on a hunting 

expedition in 1855, and found mule deer, elk, beaver, 

bear, and mountain sheep. By 1917, most of the 

game species were gone. 

Cyrus Mendenhall 

began grazing cattle 

in North Park in 1879. 

By 1885, the beef 

industry was booming, 

and North Park had its 

share of large ranches. 

Overgrazing and severe 

winters decimated herd 

sizes in the area and by 

1889 ranching was no 

longer as profi table as it 

had been. 

In the late 1800s, the economy of North Park 

shifted to mining. Mining of coal, gravel, fl uorspar, 

copper, silver, and gold—along with logging and 

ranching—became the main economic developments 

of the area. 

Cultural resource studies have been completed on 

approximately 50 percent of the refuge. Signifi cant 

cultural resources have been located, including 

prehistoric stone circles and open campsites, 

and historic ranches, graves, and other features 

associated with Euro-American settlement of 

North Park. Future efforts will continue to identify 

existing cultural resources and protect them from 

degradation. A detailed cultural resource overview 

of North Park (Larson and Letts 2003) is available 

from the Service’s regional archaeologist.

Special Management Areas

Limited special management areas currently 

exist on the refuge. The refuge has no wilderness 

designation or other similar land-use restriction 

beyond refuge policy. 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge does not contain 

any area that qualifi es for wilderness designation. 

Blue Grama
Chapter 3—Refuge and Resource Descriptions 41

All the lands within the refuge have been highly 

manipulated and contain roads, since it was a 

working ranch prior to its becoming a refuge. 

The only specifi c historical or cultural areas include 

grave sites, which will continue to be protected. 

The refuge is operating under a 1982 habitat 

management plan that provides guidance for land 

management. This CCP replaces the 1982 plan. 

Additionally, the refuge uses a hunting plan and 

zone system (management units A, B, and C) 

to distribute hunters, anglers, and other public 

uses. This hunting plan will remain in effect until 

completion of step-down management plans for 

public use and hunting.

This CCP identifi ed other issues that may require 

special management, as follows: 

■ North Park phacelia—Preservation of this 

endangered plant may require fencing and 

plans to minimize disturbance and ensure the 

survival and recovery of the species.

■ Elk road closures—During winter months, the 

refuge will continue to close roads to minimize 

disturbance to wintering elk. Coordination with 

the CDOW and implementation of the revised, 

step-down management plan for hunting may 

alter this strategy.

■ Multi-use trail—Although this trail will be 

located on the refuge boundary to minimize 

wildlife and habitat disturbance, the potential 

for litter and trespass will be higher. Signage 

and additional law enforcement patrols will be 

used to minimize these confl icts.

■ Owl Ridge Overlook—Located 0.25 mile south 

of the headquarters, this site will facilitate 

viewing of moose, elk, and mule deer. This site 

is located on an existing road, therefore, the 

potential for litter and trespass will be higher. 

Signage and additional law enforcement patrols 

will be used to minimize these confl icts.

■ Case Barn interpretive site—Located along 

the auto tour route, this site may facilitate 

historical interpretation of North Park and the 

role ranching has played to preserve wildlife 

habitats. The refuge will pursue partners to 

rehabilitate and interpret these important 

structures. This site is located on an existing 

road; therefore, the potential for litter, 

vandalism, and trespass will be higher. Signage 

and additional law enforcement patrols will be 

used to minimize these confl icts.

■ Hampton Barn—Depending on the outcome of 

the review by the State Historical Preservation 

Offi ce, the site may be used to facilitate 

historical interpretation of North Park and the 

role ranching has played to preserve wildlife 

habitats. The refuge anticipates only developing 

one barn interpretive site. The Case Barn 

will be fi rst priority, based on its proximity to 

the auto tour route. This site is located on an 

existing road, therefore, the potential for litter, 

vandalism, and trespass will be higher. Signage 

and additional law enforcement patrols will be 

used to minimize these confl icts.

Public Use

The annual number of visits to the refuge is 

estimated at 7,200, which is an average for the past 

6 years. This estimate is based broadly on a traffi c 

counter on the auto tour route, visitors entering 

the visitor center, and general observation. Table 5 

summarizes estimated visits in four categories from 

1997–2002. 

Figure 11 displays location information for the 

plan’s approved public use. 

The visitor center is open Monday through Friday 

(7:00 am–4:30 pm). Information, regulations, and 

universally accessible restrooms are available 

during the same hours. 

A general leafl et contains a refuge map, describes 

the refuge and its management, addresses habitats, 

lists wildlife interpretational and recreational 

activities, and cites regulations. 

Three other leafl ets provide information for 

refuge visitors: wildlife list, hunting guide, and 

self-guided auto tour. The leafl ets are available in 

three dispensers (auto tour entrance, headquarters 

entrance, and Brocker Overlook) and at the visitor 

center.

Compatible Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreation

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge offers visitors a 

variety of self-guided recreation opportunities. The 

Improvement Act states that public use of a refuge 

may be allowed only 

where the use is 

compatible with 

the refuge system 

mission and the 

purpose of the 

individual refuge. 

The Improvement 

Act sets forth a 

current standard by 

which the Secretary 

of the Interior 

shall determine 

whether such 

uses are compatible. The term “compatible use” 

means a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 
42 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

Public Use

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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

recreational use or any other use that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Service, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfi llment of the system’s mission or refuge’s 

purpose. 

Wildlife observation and photography, hunting, 

fi shing, environmental education, and interpretation 

are the six priority public uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation with interpretation is the most 

popular public use on the refuge (table 5). Most 

observation activity occurs on the auto tour route 

and interpretive nature trail. 

■ The auto tour route is on the west side of the 

refuge and passes through meadow, wetland, 

and upland areas, offering a diversity of wildlife 

viewing (fi gure 11–public use). The wetlands on 

this route offer optimum waterfowl and water 

bird viewing. 

■ The interpretive nature trail is just south of 

the visitor center and meanders through a 

riparian area (fi gure 11–public use). This area 

is great for birding and the chance to encounter 

mammals large and small.

Hunting

Hunting seasons begin in late August with archery 

season for pronghorn, and continue through midJanuary. The most common species hunted are 

pronghorn, sage grouse, Canada goose, and ducks. 

Other species that are open to hunting include 

Nuttall’s cottontail, white-tailed jackrabbit, 

American coot, common snipe, Virginia rail, sora, 

and mourning dove.

Certain areas are closed to hunting to protect 

refuge facilities, limit public use confl icts, and 

provide resting and feeding habitat for migratory 

birds (fi gure 11–public use). Closed areas such as 

the Case tract (unit A) are posted with signs and 

mapped in the hunting leafl et.

Fishing

Fishing is limited to designated areas of the Illinois 

River. The Illinois River runs north, through the 

east side of the refuge. Three parking areas provide 

fi shing access. 

Fishing is in accordance with State of Colorado 

fi shing regulations for the Illinois River. The refuge 

is closed to fi shing from June 1 to July 31 each year 

to minimize disturbance to nesting waterfowl. 

Environmental Education

Environmental education activities are limited 

at the refuge, with an on-demand approach. The 

refuge staff has worked with various groups such as 

Boy and Girl Scouts, colleges, the county extension 

offi ce, and local elementary and junior and senior 

high schools.

Programs and talks have included the following:

■ “Day in the Woods,”

■ “Water Carnival,”

■ junior and senior high school science class 

requirements, 

■ Scout badge work, 

■ summer hands-on environmental work for 

college students, and 

■ special programs for International Migratory 

Bird Day.

Interpretation

There are three interpretive kiosk sites: auto tour 

entrance, headquarters entrance, and Brocker 

Overlook. These sites have panels with information 

ranging from refuge management activities to 

specifi c wildlife species. 

 *Severe drought conditions limited hunting and fi shing opportunities. 

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

Visitor Activity 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Observation and interpretation 6,762 6,361 6,263 6,360 7,220 7,496

Hunting 357 228 302 522 152* 61*

Fishing 64 84 70 45 34* 18*

Environmental education 65 132 162 180 167 135

Total 7,248 6,805 6,797 7,107 7,575 7,710

The refuge hosts the outdoor science class for North 

Park Middle School.

USFWS
44 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The self-guided tour route has numbered signs 

along the route corresponding to the tour route 

brochure. The interpretive nature trail is signed 

with information about management tools and 

wildlife species found in riparian and wetland habitats. 

The refuge staff is in the midst of a contract to 

update the interpretive information for the visitor 

center. The new displays should be in place by 

September 2004. 

The Brocker Overlook is currently under 

modifi cation and construction. The updated, 

improved overlook will be completed by September 

2004.

Several brochures are available:

The wildlife brochure is a list of all wildlife 

species documented on the refuge, along 

with the best time of year for viewing each 

species. 

The hunting brochure contains regulations 

and a map of the hunting units. 

The self-guided auto tour brochure contains 

basic refuge information, map, viewing tips, 

and interpretation for the auto tour route 

signs.

Non-wildlife-dependent Recreation

Currently, some non-wildlife-dependent uses 

occur on the refuge. These uses include biking, 

cross-county skiing, picnicking, and horseback 

riding. 

These uses are infrequent and not a major 

management concern. However, they are not 

authorized uses of the refuge; law enforcement 

personnel handle these inappropriate uses. 

The refuge will strive to eliminate these nonwildlife-dependent uses by maintaining quality 

signage and brochures for all users.
4 Management Direction

Development of refuge goals and objectives 

involved the melding of multiple sources of 

information: (1) the review and interpretation of 

national plans and existing scientifi c literature; 

(2) an evaluation of habitat conditions; and (3) the 

personal knowledge of planning team participants. 

Objectives were derived using species’ habitat 

requirements (appendix H). Many species 

deemed important in national plans were used as 

“indicators,” to prepare objectives that satisfy the 

needs of multiple species. 

Other consulted sources of information included 

Partners in Flight lists, Audubon Watch lists, Bird 

Conservation Region lists, and the refuge’s wildlife 

observation logs. 

Constraints considered during plan formulation 

include number of employees, fi nancial resources, 

equipment availability, harsh winter conditions, arid 

climate, lessons learned from previous management 

efforts, and the likelihood of success. 

This chapter presents management direction for 

the following habitats and resources, public use, and 

other management aspects:

■ riparian habitats

■ wetland habitats

■ meadow habitats

■ upland habitats

■ hunting

■ fi shing

■ wildlife observation and photography

■ environmental education and interpretation

■ cultural resources

■ research

■ partnerships

 4 Management Direction

Moose

Virginia Heitman
48 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Riparian Habitats

The riparian habitat goal will be met through the 

objectives and strategies that follow. 

Goal

Provide a riparian community representative of 

historical fl ora and fauna in a high valley of the 

southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat for 

migratory birds, mammals, and river-dependent 

species.

Detailed habitat rationale is described in appendix H.

Objective

Restore 50–100 acres of dense (40–100 percent) 

willow in patches greater than 0.5 acre and 20 

meters wide in the central third of the Illinois River 

(from the north end of the island to the confl uence 

with Spring Creek), to connect existing willow 

patches by 2014. Maintain 535 acres of dense willow 

in patches in the upper third of the Illinois River 

to benefi t nesting Neotropical migratory songbirds 

(yellow warbler and willow fl ycatcher) and resident 

moose, river otter, and beaver.

Strategies

■ Plant willow along the stream corridor, 

combined with 8-foot fences, to exclude large 

herbivores.

■ Manipulate water refuge-wide, which may 

involve decreased diversions, to maintain instream fl ows for willow establishment.

■ Construct small, artifi cial dams in the river 

to raise water tables locally and aid in willow 

establishment. 

■ Establish a vegetation-monitoring plan to 

assess health of established willow stands, and 

measure and document success or changes 

needed in reestablishment efforts. Plan should 

include herbivory and hydrology factors.

■ Monitor wildlife to document changes in wildlife 

use and possible correlations to changes in 

habitat. 

■ Experiment with alternative willow restoration 

strategies.

■ In partnership with the Jackson County 

weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest 

management plan for the refuge.

Rationale

Sections of the Illinois River on the refuge had 

willows removed prior to acquisition by the Service, 

probably in an effort to increase hay yields. These 

open stretches of river have the following:

■ less bank stability, resulting in potential for 

increased sedimentation

■ decreased shade over the stream, resulting in 

increased water temperatures for trout

■ sparse woody vegetation for use by songbirds 

or other wildlife

A section of river further downstream from the 

proposed reestablishment site has had livestock 

grazing removed for 8 years, but has shown little 

willow regeneration. 

Given the growth characteristics of willows, 

these results lead to the conclusions that there is 

either signifi cant herbivory other than livestock 

restraining willow expansion, and/or hydrology has 

been altered enough with upstream diversions and 

recent drought conditions that lack of groundwater 

is keeping willow establishment from occurring. 

With this in mind, willow plantings will only be done 

in association with fencing, and consideration of 

hydrological needs will be used as well. 

Possible methods of increasing groundwater needs 

will include the following: 

■ diversion of less water upstream for other 

refuge purposes

■ location of willow plantings adjacent to existing 

beaver dams to take advantage of higher water 

tables near these ponds

■ placement of logs and other natural materials 

in the stream to create simulated beaver dams 

and raise water tables adjacent to areas to be 

planted

Monitoring will be essential to document 

reestablishment efforts and to note any signifi cant 

changes to existing willow communities.

Objective 

Provide 3,630–3,845 acres, over a 5-year average, 

of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, 

and forbs) characterized by 10–30 centimeters 

visual obstruction reading, 0–10 centimeters duff 

layer, minimal (less than 5-percent) bare ground, 

and less than 40-percent (canopy closure) willow by 

2019, to benefi t nesting waterfowl (northern pintail, 

northern shoveler, gadwall, and green-winged teal) 

and sage grouse broods. 

Strategies

■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to 

stimulate or maintain meadow conditions.

■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help 

stimulate vegetative growth.

■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 49

■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that 

correlates wildlife use and habitat condition.

■ Consider elk hunting as a management tool.

Rationale

This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation 

to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The 

combination of resting, grazing, and burning, 

combined with irrigation, where available and 

practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. 

It is anticipated that, on average, one-third to twothirds of this area will require grazing at an average 

rate of 0.4–1.0 animal unit months (AUMs) per acre, 

resulting in the removal of approximately 1,950–

4,200 AUMs of forage. 

Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use 

data, will be needed to document that objective 

levels are correct.

Objective

Provide 210–425 acres, over a 5-year average, of 

a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, 

forbs, and rushes) characterized by greater than 

30 centimeters visual obstruction reading, 10–20 

centimeters duff layer, minimal (less than 5-percent) 

bare ground, and less than 40-percent (canopy 

closure) willow, from mid-April through August, 

by 2009, to benefi t nesting waterfowl (mallard, 

gadwall, northern pintail, and scaup), songbirds 

(savannah sparrow and meadowlark).

Strategies

■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to 

stimulate or maintain meadow conditions. 

■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help 

stimulate vegetative growth.

■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol.

■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that 

correlates wildlife use and habitat condition.

■ In partnership with the Jackson County 

weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest 

management plan for the refuge.

Rationale

This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation 

to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The 

combination of resting, grazing, and burning, 

combined with irrigation, where available and 

practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. 

To meet and maintain the taller vegetation and duff 

layers identifi ed, it is anticipated that rest will be 

used more for this objective. It is anticipated that, 

on average, one-third to one-half of this area will 

require grazing at an average rate of 0.4 –1.0 AUMs 

per acre, resulting in the removal of approximately 

100–350 AUMs of forage. 

Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use 

data, will be needed to document that objective 

levels are correct.

Objective

Provide a properly functioning river channel 

characterized by a well-defi ned thalweg, outside 

river edges deeper than inside edges, a river 

sinuosity of 2.0–2.5, pool spacing every 7–9 channel 

widths active point-bar formation, and gradients 

in riffl es that are higher than in pools by 2019. 

A properly functioning river channel is needed 

to benefi t willow establishment for Neotropical 

migrants and indirectly provide suitable habitat for 

native and non-native fi shes.

Strategies

■ Map river channel and identify problem areas. 

Prioritize stretches for rehabilitation.

■ Alter irrigation diversions as needed to assist 

in-stream restoration.

■ Install in-stream structures as necessary to 

adjust thalweg, create point bars, adjust depth 

ratios, increase sinuosity, and adjust pool 

spacing.

■ Monitor wildlife and vegetative response to 

these strategies.

Rationale

Mapping the river to identify current 

characteristics is needed to defi ne where 

restoration is needed. 

Increasing fl ows in the river by diverting less water 

on upstream refuge water rights may assist in 

maintaining higher water tables, especially when 

used in conjunction with in-stream restoration 

projects. 

Documenting vegetative, fi shery, and wildlife 

response is necessary to ensure that the projects 

are working.

Brook Trout

© Cindie Brunner
50 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Objective

Establish a private lands program to encourage 

restoration of degraded riparian zones through 

funding and technical assistance by 2009, to 

accomplish similar objectives as those defi ned 

for the refuge. High priority areas are those that 

have immediate infl uence on the refuge because of 

drainage or proximity.

Strategies

■ Add a full-time private lands position to the 

staff.

■ Work with local partners and willing 

landowners to identify, prioritize, and restore 

degraded areas in North Park.

Objective

Work with partners to address land health issues 

throughout Jackson County. Existing partnerships 

will be maintained and new ones fostered to address 

landscape issues in Jackson County by 2014.

Strategies

■ Continue active refuge participation in the sage 

grouse working group, North Park wetlands 

focus group, Owl Mountain partnership, North 

Park habitat partnership program, and any 

other group formed with the goals of improving 

land health and stewardship in Jackson County.

■ Partner with the Jackson County weed 

coordinator to manage and minimize invasive 

plants on the refuge and throughout Jackson 

County.

■ Effect variations in water diversion fl ows 

and/or grazing regimes to enhance habitat 

conditions.

■ Use adaptive management techniques to 

implement new management ideas.

Rationale

The refuge has the ability and resources available to 

restore and maintain a productive riparian area for 

the benefi t of wildlife, fi sheries, water quality, and a 

healthy landscape, while also using local agriculture. 

The streams within the refuge boundaries are a 

small fragment of those located within Jackson 

County, Colorado. By working with interested 

landowners and partners, the possibility exists of 

expanding the benefi ts of a healthy riparian zone 

throughout North Park.

From time-to-time, projects may be proposed 

within the county by other agencies, nongovernment organizations, or private landowners, 

which have a benefi t to ecosystem health and 

wildlife outside the refuge boundary. 

To make an off-refuge project succeed, resources 

normally reserved for refuge purposes such as 

water or vegetative cover could be used. These 

would not be long-term commitments of refuge 

resources, but rather a management decision that 

a short-term diversion of these resources would 

better be served to benefi t the ecosystem as a 

whole. 

Wetland Habitats

The wetland goal will be met through the objectives 

and strategies that follow. 

Goal

Provide and manage natural and constructed 

permanent and semipermanent wetlands (in 

three wetland complexes) to provide habitat for 

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

associated wetland-dependent wildlife.

Objective

Maintain 10 acres of, and attempt to establish 

in one other wetland basin, tall (greater than 60 

centimeters visual obstruction reading) emergent 

vegetation in water depths greater than 

4 centimeters over a 5-year period, to provide 

nesting habitat for over-water nesting birds (blackcrowned night-heron, white-faced ibis, coot, rail, 

waterfowl, marsh wrens, and blackbirds).

Strategies

■ Manipulate water levels, including drawdowns, 

and maintain water levels in specifi c wetlands 

from spring to fall when possible.

■ Develop and apply a plan for transplanting 

cattail and hardstem bulrush into specifi c 

wetlands.

■ Develop and use an over-water, nesting-bird 

monitoring plan. 

■ Develop and implement an annual water 

management plan as a component of an overall 

habitat management plan.

Rationale

Wetlands with tall, dense vegetation provide a 

litter layer for use by nesting water birds, as well 

as fl ooded emergent litter for macroinvertebrate 

production. 

Manipulation of water levels will contribute 

to maintaining the existing wetlands with tall 

emergent vegetation. Transplanting cattail and 

hardstem bulrush in wetlands with the highest 

potential for success will help increase the 

availability of this type of habitat. The criteria 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 51

for such wetlands would be based on such things 

as water control abilities, evaporation rates, and 

distribution. 

Timing of needed drawdowns for expansion of the 

tall, dense vegetation will be planned in such a way 

as to get maximum benefi t for all wetland objectives 

such as during shorebird migration or to stimulate 

submergent, aquatic vegetation beds. 

Monitoring water bird species will help assess the 

level of success for habitat management. 

Objective

Provide 10 percent of the wetland acres, over a 5-

year average, in short (less than 10 centimeters), 

sparse (less than 10 centimeters visual obstruction 

reading) emergent vegetation in water depths 

less than 4 centimeters, from April to August, 

to provide foraging habitat for shorebirds and 

waterfowl, as well as nesting and brood-rearing 

habitat for shorebirds.

Strategies

■ Manipulate water levels, including full and 

partial drawdowns, and maintain water levels 

in specifi c wetlands from spring to fall when 

possible.

■ Use tillage of dry wetlands as a management 

tool.

■ Rehabilitate and maintain dikes and 

infrastructures.

■ Conduct shorebird surveys.

■ Monitor monthly wetland bird use.

■ Develop and apply a wetland emergent and 

submergent vegetation-monitoring plan. 

■ Develop and implement an annual water 

management plan as a component of an overall 

habitat management plan.

Objective

Provide 20 percent of the wetland acres, over a 

5-year average, of emergent vegetation greater 

than 25 centimeters tall with visual obstruction 

reading greater than 80 percent of vegetation 

height in water depths 4–18 centimeters, to provide 

escape cover and foraging habitat for dabbling duck 

broods and molting ducks, and foraging habitat for 

water birds.

Strategies

■ Manipulate water levels, including full and 

partial drawdowns, and maintain water levels 

in wetlands from spring to fall when water is 

available and conditions are appropriate.

■ Use tillage of dry wetlands as a management 

tool.

■ Rehabilitate and maintain dikes and 

infrastructures.

■ Conduct waterfowl surveys.

■ Monitor monthly wetland bird use.

■ Develop and apply a wetland, emergent and 

submergent vegetation-monitoring plan.

■ Develop and implement an annual water 

management plan as a component of an overall 

habitat management plan.

Rationale

The availability of a variety of wetland habitat 

conditions may benefi t a greater diversity of 

wildlife species and support species for longer 

periods in their annual life cycle. 

The above two objectives contribute to habitats— 

varying from shallowly fl ooded, short, sparse 

emergents to both shallow water and moderately 

dense cover. Water manipulation techniques 

including drawdowns and back fl ooding can be used 

to create these conditions. 

Monitoring to evaluate the response of the fl ora 

and fauna will indicate success of management 

techniques. 

Short-term variations of habitat objectives may 

be considered, on a case-by-case basis, to promote 

other important ecosystem projects within North 

Park.

Marsh Wren

© Cindie Brunner
52 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Objective

Provide 10–20 percent of wetland acres within each 

wetland complex, over a 5-year average, with 

70-percent coverage of submergent, aquatic 

vegetation species (pondweed and widgeongrass) 

in wetlands of greater than 18 centimeters water 

depth, to provide invertebrates and seed sources for 

foraging water birds, especially waterfowl broods, 

and escape cover for diving ducks.

Strategies

■ Manipulate water levels, including full and 

partial drawdowns, and maintain water levels 

in wetlands from spring to fall when water is 

available and conditions are appropriate.

■ Use tillage of dry wetlands as a management 

tool.

■ Rehabilitate and maintain dikes and 

infrastructures.

■ Conduct waterfowl surveys and brood counts.

■ Monitor monthly wetland bird use.

■ Develop and apply a wetland, submergent 

vegetation-monitoring plan. 

■ Develop and implement an annual water 

management plan as a component of an overall 

habitat management plan.

Rationale

Submergent vegetation provides complex structure 

for macroinvertebrate production and a seed source 

for foraging water birds. 

Pondweed and widgeongrass both produce a 

food resource (plant foods and invertebrates) for 

waterfowl and broods. These submergents are used 

by other wetland birds for nesting, foraging, and 

escape habitat. 

A variety of drawdown schedules and tillage 

are used to enhance the growth of these plants. 

Monitoring the responses of plant and wildlife will 

gauge the level of success in providing this habitat.

Objective

Enhance the existing private lands program to 

encourage creation and restoration of wetlands in 

North Park and surrounding areas through funding 

and technical assistance by 2009, to accomplish the 

same objectives as on the refuge.

Strategies

■ Obtain funding and full-time equivalency for a 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife position.

■ Work with willing stakeholders to create and 

restore wetlands in North Park.

■ Develop a plan to identify wetland habitats 

throughout North Park.

■ Consider wetland development opportunities as 

they become available. 

■ Continue participation in the North Park 

wetland focus group.

■ Establish a monitoring plan for created habitats 

to ensure benefi ts are realized.

Rationale

Since the refuge is only part of the total North Park 

landscape efforts, to look beyond the boundaries is 

important in an ecosystem approach. Many wetland 

potentials exist in North Park, and working to 

restore or create these wetlands will benefi t not 

only wildlife, but society as well. 

To achieve the most positive results, priority 

projects will be close to existing wetland complexes, 

reasonably well-functioning river segments, or 

larger reservoirs. 

Wetland management would mimic above refuge 

objectives when possible. Work would be completed 

with the help of others to identify wetland habitats 

throughout North Park, in partnership with willing 

stakeholders to restore, protect, and improve 

wetland habitats for wildlife use. 

Demonstration areas would be set up for the 

practice of sound, wetland habitat management and 

water levels in wetlands would be improved from 

spring to fall when possible.

Meadow Habitats

The meadow goal will be met through the objectives 

and strategies that follow. 

Goal

Provide and manage irrigated, grassland-dominated 

meadows historically developed for hay production, 

to support sage grouse broods, waterfowl nesting, 

and meadow-dependent migratory birds.

Detailed habitat rationale is described in appendix H.

Objective

Provide 20–50 acres, over a 5-year average, of 

a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, 

and forbs) characterized by less than 20 centimeters 

height, less than 10 centimeters visual obstruction 

reading, with dry to moist soils (no standing water), 

adjacent to (within 50 meters) or intermingled with 

sagebrush (10- to 25-percent sage canopy cover), 

from early-June to late-July, to benefi t sage grouse 

broods.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 53

Strategies

■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to 

stimulate or maintain meadow conditions.

■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help 

stimulate vegetative growth.

■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol. 

■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that 

correlates wildlife use and habitat condition.

■ In partnership with the Jackson County 

weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest 

management plan for the refuge.

Objective

Provide 1,650–1,850 acres, over a 5-year average, 

of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, forbs, 

and rushes) characterized by 10–30 centimeters 

visual obstruction reading, 0–10 centimeters duff 

layer, and minimal (less than 5-percent) bare ground 

from mid-April to the end of July, to benefi t nesting 

waterfowl (gadwall, northern shoveler, northern 

pintail, and green-winged teal) and sage grouse 

broods.

Strategies

■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to 

stimulate or maintain meadow conditions.

■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help 

stimulate vegetative growth.

■ Develop a vegetation-monitoring protocol. 

■ Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that 

correlates wildlife use and habitat condition.

■ In partnership with the Jackson County 

weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest 

management plan for the refuge.

Rationale

This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation 

to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The 

combination of resting, grazing, and burning, 

combined with irrigation, where available and 

practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. 

It is anticipated that, on average, one-third to 

two-thirds of this area will require grazing at an 

average rate of 0.4–1.0 AUMs per acre, resulting in 

the removal of approximately 950–2,100 AUMs of 

forage. 

Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use 

data, will be needed to document that objective 

levels are achieved, and whether or not objectives 

are correct.

Objective

Provide 630–790 acres, over a 5-year average, of 

a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native plants (grasses, sedges, forbs, 

and rushes) characterized by greater than 

30 centimeters visual obstruction reading, 

10–20 centimeters duff layer, and minimal (less 

than 5-percent) bare ground, to benefi t nesting 

waterfowl (mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, 

and scaup) and songbirds (savannah sparrow and 

meadowlark).

Strategies

■ Use grazing, resting, and burning practices to 

stimulate or maintain meadow conditions. 

■ Irrigate areas, as water is available, to help 

stimulate vegetative growth.

■ Working with partners, develop a vegetationmonitoring protocol.

■ Working with partners, develop a wildlifemonitoring plan that correlates wildlife use and 

habitat condition.

■ In partnership with the Jackson County 

weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest 

management plan for the refuge.

Rationale

This grass-forb mix requires periodic manipulation 

to achieve the stated ranges of the objective. The 

combination of resting, grazing, and burning, 

combined with irrigation, where available and 

practical, are the best tools to accomplish this. To 

meet and maintain the taller vegetation and duff 

layers specifi ed, it is anticipated that rest will be 

used more for this objective.

It is anticipated that, on average, one-third to onehalf of this area will require grazing at an average 

rate of 0.4–1.0 AUMs per acre, resulting in the 

removal of approximately 350–700 AUMs of forage. 

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

© Cindie Brunner
54 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Vegetative monitoring, combined with wildlife use 

data, will be needed to document that objective 

levels are achieved and whether results support 

species requirements.

Objective

Short-term variations of habitat objectives 

may be considered on a case-by-case basis for 

important ecosystem projects within North Park. 

Identifi cation of these variations will be assessed 

every 5 years.

Strategies

■ Work with partners to identify potential 

projects in the county. 

■ Implement variations in water diversion, 

grazing regimes, and other refuge management 

strategies as deemed appropriate. 

Rationale

From time-to-time, projects may be proposed 

within the county by other agencies, nongovernment organizations, or private landowners, 

which have a benefi t to ecosystem health and 

wildlife outside of the refuge boundary. 

Resources normally reserved for refuge purposes 

such as water or vegetative cover could be used 

occasionally to help make a project successful. 

These would not be long-term commitments of 

resources, but rather a cooperative management 

decision that a short-term diversion of these 

resources would better be served to benefi t the 

ecosystem as a whole. 

Objective

Establish a private lands program to provide 

funding and technical assistance to encourage 

wildlife-compatible land management practices in 

meadow habitats by 2009, to accomplish objectives 

similar to those of the refuge.

Strategies

■ Add a full-time private lands position to the staff.

■ Work with local partners and willing 

landowners to identify, prioritize, and restore 

degraded areas and create new wildlife habitat 

in North Park.

Objective

Work with partners to address land health issues 

throughout Jackson County. Existing partnerships 

will be maintained and new ones fostered to address 

landscape issues in the county by 2014. 

Strategies

■ Continue active refuge participation in the sage 

grouse working group, North Park wetlands 

focus group, Owl Mountain partnership, North 

Park habitat partnership program, and any 

other group formed with the goals of improving 

land health and stewardship in Jackson County.

■ Partner with the Jackson County weed 

coordinator to manage and minimize invasive 

plants on the refuge.

Rationale

The refuge has the ability and resources available 

to maintain productive meadows for the benefi t 

of wildlife, water quality, and a healthy landscape, 

while also using local agriculture. 

There are thousands of acres of private hay 

meadows in the country managed very much like 

the refuge’s meadows, with the exception that the 

refuge does not cut hay. 

This results in a signifi cant amount of meadow 

habitat being created annually on private land 

that may, or may not, meet its wildlife-production 

potential depending on site-specifi c management. 

By working with interested landowners and 

partners, the possibility exists of expanding the 

wildlife benefi t of meadows on the refuge and 

maintaining the benefi ts that are occurring offrefuge.

Columbine

© Cindie Brunner
Chapter 4—Management Direction 55

Upland Habitats

The uplands goal will be met through the objectives 

and strategies that follow. 

Goal

Provide a sagebrush/grassland upland community 

representative of the historical fl ora and fauna in 

a high valley of the southern Rocky Mountains to 

provide habitat for sage grouse, large mammals, 

and other shrub-associated species.

Detailed habitat rationale is described in appendix H.

Objective

Provide 2,000 acres, over a 5-year average, of 

uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70-percent 

sage) greater than 25 centimeters height and 

20- to 30-percent canopy cover, greater than 20-

percent grass cover, and greater than 10-percent 

forbs (native species preferred), to benefi t sage 

grouse, vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, elk, and 

pronghorn.

Strategies

■ Complete a sagebrush/grassland upland habitat 

inventory.

■ Use cattle grazing at varying stock rates, 

seasons, and intensities as a management tool.

■ Use rest of varying lengths of time as a 

management tool.

■ Develop and implement an integrated pest 

management plan.

■ Use a variety of mechanical treatments of the 

habitat as a management tool. 

■ Develop and implement a vegetationmonitoring plan.

■ Develop and implement a wildlife-monitoring 

program.

Objective

Provide 2,000 acres, over a 5-year average, of 

uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70-percent 

sage) greater than 40 centimeters height and 

greater than 30-percent canopy cover, less than 

20-percent grass cover, and greater than 5-percent 

forbs (native species preferred), to benefi t Brewer’s 

sparrow, sage thrasher, and pronghorn.

Strategies

■ Complete a sagebrush/grassland upland habitat 

inventory.

■ Use cattle grazing at varying stock rates, 

seasons, and intensities as a management tool.

■ Use rest of varying lengths of time as a 

management tool.

■ Develop and implement an integrated pest 

management plan.

■ Use a variety of mechanical treatments of the 

habitat as a management tool. 

■ Develop and implement a vegetationmonitoring plan.

■ Develop and implement a wildlife-monitoring 

program.

■ In partnership with the Jackson County 

weed coordinator, develop an integrated pest 

management plan for the refuge.

Rationale

The refuge has fi ve primary range sites that 

support sagebrush/grassland uplands. The 

2,000 acres of each of the above objectives are 

scattered within several of these range types and 

intermingled with meadow areas. A completed 

inventory of uplands will assist in specifi cally 

defi ning these areas. 

Sagebrush/grassland uplands in a mosaic of 

patchy sagebrush, with openings of grasses and 

forbs across the landscape, refl ect the needs of 

most wildlife species. Moderate livestock grazing 

ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 AUM per acre in intensity, 

combined with rest, will help maintain these acres. 

This rest-rotational coverage will promote plant 

diversity, nutrient cycling, and cover. 

Controlling or eliminating invasive plants that 

reduce the abundance and diversity of native forbs 

in the sagebrush/grassland habitats is important. 

Mechanical treatments will be considered for small 

areas to increase grass and forb components of the 

site. 

Monitoring the response of the fl ora and fauna will 

aid in assessing the success of the tools applied and 

help improve these methods.

Objective

Manage the remaining 10,225 acres of sagebrush/

grassland uplands based on a better understanding 

of refuge habitats, wildlife usage, and affected 

variables using best management practices by 2014.

Strategies

■ Complete an upland habitat inventory, if 

fi nancial resources are available.

■ Conduct research and monitor outcomes of 

upland habitats over the next 15 years. 

■ Develop habitat-based goals and objectives for 

the remaining uplands (10,000 acres).
56 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

■ Use cattle grazing at varying stock rates, 

seasons, and intensities as a management tool.

■ Use rest of varying lengths of time as a 

management tool.

■ Develop and implement an integrated pest 

management plan.

■ Use a variety of mechanical treatments of the 

habitat as a management tool. 

■ Develop and implement a program for 

prescribed fi re.

■ Coordinate with existing projects, research, and 

monitoring efforts in the area. 

■ Short-term variations of habitat objectives 

may be considered on a case-by-case basis for 

important ecosystem projects within North 

Park.

Rationale

In an effort to manage the sagebrush/grassland 

uplands, an inventory of what the refuge has is 

essential. A variety of tools is available to provide a 

structurally diverse shrub community, with a grassforb component, to support migratory birds and 

other wildlife species. 

Livestock grazing used in moderation at rates 

ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 AUM per acre will be 

used. It is anticipated that approximately one-third 

to one-half of the uplands will be grazed annually, 

resulting in 450–1,200 AUMs of forage being 

removed. 

Rest also needs to be used in moderation; too much 

rest can result in dominate brush communities 

that prevent herbaceous species from recovering. 

Grazing, used in conjunction with rest, can enhance 

the nutrient cycles, plant regrowth, and plant 

community diversity. 

Efforts to control or eradicate invasive plants will 

help maintain the diversity of plant life required 

to provide wildlife habitat needs. Mechanical 

treatments break up the soil and remove a variable 

percent of the brush species, depending on the 

coverage, to promote grasses and forbs growth. 

Historically, frequencies of fi re in the upland were 

low and occurred as small, patchy fi res. Prescribed 

fi re may be benefi cial in some upland sites to control 

dense stands of sagebrush so that herbaceous 

species can increase. 

The use of other upland habitat projects in the area 

with range types similar to the refuge will help 

to identify successful methods for manipulating 

habitat to reach objectives. 

A portion of these sagebrush/grassland upland 

acres will be used to establish research plots to 

get a better understanding of how to increase sage 

height and grass/forb abundance to benefi t nesting 

and wintering sage grouse, songbirds (vesper 

sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and 

Swainson’s hawk) and pronghorn. This information 

will focus on the tools that might get more upland 

acreage into the fi rst two objectives. 

In working with the entire North Park 

landscape, some habitat objectives may change to 

accommodate actions deemed essential elsewhere 

in the upland habitats of North Park to improve the 

overall quality of wildlife habitat. 

Objective

Manage known populations of North Park phacelia 

to ensure its continued existence.

Strategies

■ Initiate research to understand the plant’s life 

history and develop a management plan.

■ Develop a monitoring plan for the existing and 

new phacelia populations. 

■ Work with other entities to preserve North 

Park phacelia populations throughout North 

Park. 

Rationale

The North Park phacelia is the only known 

federally listed endangered plant species on the 

refuge. The plant is only found in North Park, with 

several scattered populations. Only two known 

populations of the plant exist on refuge lands. Little 

is known about its life history, so management is 

limited. 

Research on the life history of the plant is essential. 

As part of a partnership approach, information 

and management techniques will be shared to help 

ensure the continued existence of the phacelia and 

eventually the down-listing of the species. 

Cultural Resources

The cultural resources goal will be met through the 

objectives and strategies that follow. 

Goal

The cultural resources of the refuge are preserved, 

protected, and interpreted for the benefi t of present 

and future generations.

Objective

Identify cultural resources and protect them from 

degradation by 2014.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 57

Strategies

■ Complete a cultural resources survey, as 

needed, for management purposes.

■ Determine National Register of Historic Places 

status for the Hampton, Allard, and Case 

Barns.

■ Protect cultural resources by minimizing 

disturbance in sensitive areas.

■ When possible, preserve historical records by 

conducting oral interviews with local residents.

■ Apply for monies such as grants and 

maintenance management funds to restore and 

preserve the Case Barn.

■ Support provisions within the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act by developing a plan 

for managing refuge archaeological resources.

Objective

Encourage protection of cultural resources and 

interpretation of their importance to North Park 

wildlife resources by 2014.

Strategies

■ Determine the historical status of Hampton 

Barn; make a decision to keep or eliminate the 

barn.

■ Interpret the history of North Park at the 

Brocker Overlook.

■ Develop an interpretive area within the 

headquarters building that demonstrates the 

connectivity of the refuge with the remainder of 

North Park. 

■ When requested and dependent on available 

funding, collaborate with other individuals 

and agencies to protect and preserve cultural 

resources that relate to wildlife throughout 

North Park.

Rationale

A broader cultural resource role needs to be 

described for the refuge. The philosophy is to 

comply with existing cultural resource-related laws 

and policies and to protect cultural resources from 

degradation. 

Protection and interpretation of cultural resources 

that relate to North Park wildlife is encouraged. 

Interpreting the role of ranches in the preservation 

of habitat can serve as an example for visitors to 

learn and gain a greater appreciation for wildlife 

and their habitats. 

Public Use

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act (P.L. 105-57) requires that each refuge be managed 

to fulfi ll the refuge system mission as well as the specifi c 

purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. 

The Act also declares that compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses are legitimate and 

appropriate priority general public uses of the 

refuge system. 

These six uses (hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation) are to receive 

enhanced consideration in planning and 

management over all other general public uses of 

the refuge system. 

These activities receive a special focus because they 

help foster an appreciation and understanding of 

wildlife and the outdoors. 

Wildlife conservation 

is always the top 

obligation of national 

wildlife refuges. 

However, when 

compatible, these 

wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are 

to be strongly 

encouraged on 

refuges. 

Consequently, these six activities are fi rst in line for 

the refuge’s available staff and fi nancial resources. 

Although other public uses may be allowed on 

refuges, the process for considering proposed uses 

other than priority uses is more stringent and these 

uses must be reevaluated more frequently.

A compatibility determination is required for a 

wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

public use of a refuge. A compatible use is one 

that, in the sound professional judgment of the 

refuge manager, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from fulfi llment of the refuge 

system mission or refuge purposes. Compatibility 

determinations for public uses are found in 

appendix B.

Arapaho public use opportunities are combined into 

fi ve categories and include the following: 

■ hunting

■ fi shing

■ wildlife observation and photography

■ environmental education and interpretation 

■ other uses

Eared Grebe with Young

© William H. Miller
58 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Each public use evaluation contains a specifi c list 

of objectives, a list of strategies, and a supporting 

rationale statement.

Goal

Through wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education, people of a range of abilities and 

interests are able to learn of and appreciate the 

natural resources of this unique high-mountain 

park. Thereby, citizens become better stewards 

of nature in their own communities and stronger 

supporters of the refuge specifi cally and National 

Wildlife Refuge System generally.

Hunting

The following objectives and strategies will lead to 

meeting the overall public use goal. 

Objective

Provide recreational hunting opportunities 

consistent with refuge goals and objectives and 

that facilitate North Park wildlife management 

objectives by 2014.

Strategies

■ Working with the State, develop a hunting stepdown management plan that provides hunting 

opportunities to meet North Park and refuge 

objectives. 

■ Provide a quality hunting experience for a 

variety of users by separating types of hunting 

opportunities.

■ When compatible, on request, provide specialuse permits for hunters with disabilities.

Objective

Work with the State of Colorado in promoting 

sound hunting practices as a wildlife management 

tool by 2014.

Strategies

■ In partnership with the State of Colorado 

and North Park Chamber of Commerce, 

disseminate information about hunting 

opportunities on the refuge and throughout 

North Park.

■ Provide hunting brochures and information to 

hunters at the headquarters building.

■ Assist Colorado Division of Wildlife off-refuge 

with law enforcement, hunter recruitment, and 

hunter education when requested.

Objective

Maintain facilities and improve as necessary by 

2014, to provide a quality recreational hunting 

experience while minimizing resource damage.

Strategies

■ Develop parking areas (fi gure 11–public use) 

using post and cable methods and minimize 

resource damage caused by vehicles. Parking 

areas also provide opportunities to inform the 

hunting public about rules and regulations.

■ Where needed for resource protection, develop 

permanent gates that can be locked to prevent 

resource damage. 

■ Develop a travel management plan that will revegetate two-track roads (fi gure 11–public use) 

not needed for maintenance, law enforcement, 

hunting access, or other management purposes. 

■ Develop a signage plan that enhances public 

appreciation for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, understanding of refuge management 

activities, public use, and safety.

Rationale

The refuge is part of a larger system of lands 

known as North Park. Given that many wildlife 

species in North Park migrate on and off the refuge 

(waterfowl, elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and sage 

grouse), the refuge hunting program affects more 

than just refuge lands. 

The key to success is a strong working relationship 

with sportsmen and sportswomen and with the 

State of Colorado, along with incorporation of 

refuge hunting goals and objectives into a stepdown management plan for hunting. 

Additional hunting opportunities will be determined 

in conjunction with the refuge objectives, the 

community, and the state. The refuge will continue 

to work with the state in promoting sound hunting 

practices as a wildlife management tool. 

Public use facilities may be modifi ed or expanded to 

include emphasis on hunting, both on the refuge and 

in North Park. The refuge will engage in

Wild Rose

Everett and Nancy Collin
Chapter 4—Management Direction 59

partnerships to disseminate information on hunting 

opportunities throughout North Park. 

The refuge may continue to use habitat 

management units A, B, and C to provide resting 

areas for migratory birds, minimize confl icts 

between hunters and visitors, and distribute 

hunting pressure. However, the ABC system may 

be modifi ed during development of a step-down 

management plan for hunting.

Fishing

The following objectives and strategies will lead to 

meeting the overall public use goal. 

Objective

Where compatible, opportunities for fi shing will 

be provided by 2019, based on refuge goals and 

objectives. 

Strategies 

■ Encourage fi shing opportunities on the 

refuge in accordance with state seasons and 

regulations and refuge management objectives. 

Close fi shing during June and July to protect 

nesting waterfowl and other riparian nesting 

species.

■ Evaluate angler impacts to goals and 

objectives. 

■ Work with the state to develop a step-down 

management plan for sport fi shing.

Objective

Where possible, expand fi shing opportunities 

throughout North Park and help promote fi shing as 

a recreational activity by 2014.

Strategies

■ Provide fi shing information and regulations to 

visitors when requested.

■ When requested, assist the state with fi sheries 

planning issues in North Park. 

■ Assist the state with law enforcement, fi shery 

management, fi sheries sampling, fi sheries 

habitat projects, and spawning throughout 

North Park when requested.

■ In partnership with others, enhance fi shery 

habitats in North Park.

■ Monitor Illinois River gauges on the upstream 

and downstream end of the refuge to evaluate 

river fl ows.

Rationale

The above objectives encourage the refuge staff to 

not only provide sport-fi shing opportunities on the 

Illinois River, but also to develop partnerships with 

the state and others to improve fi shery habitats 

and promote sport-fi shing opportunities throughout 

North Park. 

The Illinois River fi shery is infl uenced by 

management actions that occur upstream of the 

refuge. Logically, it is important that the refuge 

assist when requested with habitat projects that 

impact the Illinois River upstream of the refuge and 

when deemed valuable to refuge wildlife resources. 

Similarly, habitats throughout North Park are 

connected through a system of waterways. 

Refuge efforts to improve aquatic habitats, when 

requested, benefi t all in North Park. The downside 

to this strategy involves using very limited 

personnel and resources on areas other than strictly 

refuge grounds, which may result in refuge goals 

and objectives being delayed or not being met. 

Partnerships are the key to success when funds 

and personnel are limited. The refuge strives to 

be included as a partner on fi shery-related habitat 

improvement projects in North Park.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

The following objectives and strategies will lead to 

meeting the overall public use goal. 

Objective

Enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography by 2017, based on refuge habitat goals 

and objectives. 

Strategies

■ Rebuild Brocker Overlook.

■ Construct a multi-use trail from Walden to 

Brocker Overlook.

■ Enhance the auto tour road.

■ Maintain the visitor center for distribution of 

information. 

■ Keep brochures current with updated 

information. 

■ Complete and maintain the boardwalk section 

of the interpretive nature trail.

■ Build a moose observation platform.

■ Construct wildlife photography blinds on the 

auto tour route.

■ Establish use limitations for wildlife 

observation and photography based on habitat 

goals and objectives.

■ Maintain and potentially modify existing 

facilities to refl ect new management strategies. 

Rationale

Current visitation to the refuge ranges from 7,000–

9,000 visits, with a visit defi ned as a person crossing 

the refuge boundary. 
60 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Many opportunities to enhance viewing and 

photography of wildlife while maintaining habitat 

goals are available. Each strategy should be 

designed to facilitate a quality experience for the 

visitor while fulfi lling refuge goals and objectives. 

Objective

Assist with funding, construction, and program 

development to enhance wildlife photography and 

observation in North Park by 2019.

Strategies

■ In partnership with the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife (CDOW) and others, construct and 

provide observation facilities for moose and 

other desirable species.

■ Pursue funding and partners to assist with the 

construction of viewing/photography blinds at 

various other locations in North Park.

■ Assist partners with revision of the “Watching 

Wildlife in North Park” guide.

■ Create partnerships with other wildlifeoriented organizations and individuals.

Rationale

Recreation plays a major role in the economy of 

North Park. Wildlife viewing and photography 

are key factors in the recreational opportunities 

available. Enhancing these uses will be benefi cial 

to the economy as well as creating a better 

understanding of wildlife and its habitats. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

The following objectives and strategies will lead to 

meeting the overall public use goal. 

Objective

Work with partners, including the North Park 

School District, to provide opportunities and 

facilities to conduct fi ve environmental education 

programs per year based on habitat goals and 

objectives, by 2014.

Strategies

■ Work with partners to develop specifi c 

environmental education programs covering: 

 —habitat management practices and principles

 —the natural history of North Park

 —agriculture and wildlife

 —the life history of various local species including 

 waterfowl, sage grouse, elk, and moose

 —North Park and its importance to Colorado 

 waterfowl

 —how a refuge comes into existence and what 

 its role is

 —water issues and needs

■ Use existing environmental education 

opportunities as they occur, such as the water 

carnival, bird banding, refuge fi eld trips, and 

“Day in the Woods.”

■ Develop programs for students and volunteers 

to assist with management tasks.

Objective

Incorporate the refuge and its niche in the North 

Park landscape in other environmental education 

and interpretive messages developed in the county 

by 2014.

Strategies

■ In partnership with other land management 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, local 

schools, and private individuals, expand the 

network of environmental education programs 

and facilities in North Park.

■ Hire an outdoor recreation planner to conduct 

outreach and education activities on the refuge 

and North Park.

■ In partnership with other entities, develop 

interpretive material involving the land 

management of North Park to identify the role 

of the refuge.

Objective

Update interpretive messages to refl ect recent 

wildlife issues and concerns (elk and sage 

grouse), habitat-based decision-making, and local 

agricultural uses (how they are not mutually 

exclusive on or off the refuge), by 2009.

Strategies

■ Replace signs on kiosks, overlooks, trails, and 

visitor center; replace pamphlets; and update 

the refuge’s website to refl ect a message of the 

refuge working for wildlife and county-wide 

environmental interests.

■ Rehabilitate the Case Barn and develop an 

interpretive site presenting the relationship 

between the county’s ranching history and 

wildlife.

■ Interpret prehistoric cultural resources of the 

refuge in relation to natural resources found in 

North Park.

Rationale

The refuge is located almost in the geographic 

center of North Park. It is known to most residents 

as a major part of the county landscape, but exactly 

what the refuge does and how it contributes to 

that landscape is not fully understood. Similarly, 

most out-of-county visitors do not understand how 

the lands surrounding the refuge complement its 

wildlife-oriented goals. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 61

An outdoor recreation planner position will 

facilitate integration of environmental education 

at the refuge and in 

Jackson County schools. 

Articulating the history of 

North Park and how the 

refuge and the surrounding 

lands benefi t each other 

will be benefi cial to all 

interests. 

Other Uses 

The following objectives 

and strategies will lead to 

meeting the overall public 

use goal. 

Objective

Encourage compatible, non-wildlife-dependent uses, 

but limit to less sensitive areas based on habitat 

goals and objectives by 2009.

Strategies

■ Allow walking leashed dogs, horseback riding, 

and bicycling along designated roads.

■ Use law enforcement, signs, information, and 

brochures to minimize impacts of other nonwildlife-dependent public uses.

■ Prepare and implement a travel management 

plan to minimize vehicle impacts to refuge 

habitats. 

Objective

Consider non-wildlife-dependent public uses and 

their benefi ts to North Park and its residents by 

2009.

Strategies 

■ With partners, design and construct the Case 

Barn interpretive site. Incorporate North 

Park and refuge history and the preservation 

of wildlife habitats as a theme in the 

interpretation.

■ Encourage partners to be sensitive to 

wildlife needs when developing recreational 

opportunities in North Park.

■ Continue to allow the Colorado Department of 

Transportation to plow snow windbreaks along 

Highway 125 (appendix B).

Objective

Allow compatible, non-wildlife-dependent uses that 

support the refuge mission by 2014.

Strategies

■ Continue operation of the rifl e range to 

facilitate law enforcement fi rearms requalifi cation for refuge and CDOW offi cers, 

and other local law enforcement agencies on 

request.

■ Identify and prioritize non-refuge mineral 

rights within refuge boundaries.

■ Acquire, on a willing-seller basis, priority 

mineral rights.

■ Continue operation of the Allard gravel pit 

to support both refuge and roads (on-refuge) 

requirements.

Rationale

Compatible, non-wildlife-dependent uses should be 

limited to less sensitive areas based on habitat goals 

and objectives. 

The refuge views mineral resource development 

as having negative impacts on wildlife habitat. 

Non-federally owned minerals within the refuge 

boundary must be identifi ed and purchased, on a 

willing-seller basis, to minimize future resource 

damage. 

The rifl e range will continue to operate as it 

facilitates refuge and North Park law enforcement 

needs. The travel management plan must meet 

compatibility determination standards, and 

facilitate management and public use requirements. 

The Allard gravel pit supports the refuge and roads 

(on refuge) and will remain active to support goals 

and objectives. 

Research

The research goal will be met through the 

objectives and strategies that follow. 

Goal

The refuge is a learning platform for compatible 

research that assists management and augments 

the science of high-mountain park, sage-steppe 

communities.

Objective

Identify and promote the biological research needed 

to help achieve the refuge’s habitat goals and 

objectives by 2009. 

Strategies

■ Identify and prioritize habitat management 

research needs.

■ Conduct in-house research on priority needs.

Wild Iris

USFWS
62 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

■ Promote the refuge research needs within the 

scientifi c community. 

■ Encourage research that focuses on the refuge’s 

habitat management goals.

Objective

Identify and promote non-biological research as it 

relates and contributes to achieving habitat goals 

and objectives on the refuge and within North Park 

by 2009.

Strategies

■ Identify and prioritize research related to 

refuge and North Park wildlife in other 

disciplines’ needs.

■ Encourage research in non-biological disciplines 

that facilitates the refuge in achieving goals and 

objectives.

■ Allow and encourage research that focuses on 

natural resource management goals throughout 

North Park.

Rationale

These objectives and strategies focus on identifying 

and implementing the biological research needs of 

the refuge and North Park. 

Research will focus on achieving the habitat goals 

and objectives outlined in this plan. Identifi ed 

research needs can then be promoted within the 

scientifi c community and actively encouraged by 

refuge staff. 

Proposed research not falling within the categories 

identifi ed would generally not be allowed. 

Conversely, research meeting identifi ed refuge 

needs could be supported 

with funding, lodging, 

equipment sharing, etc. 

Disturbance to resident 

wildlife and habitat is the 

primary concern. 

Limiting non-refuge 

identifi ed projects will 

minimize unnecessary 

disturbance and habitat 

damage.

Partnerships

The partnerships goal will be met through the 

objectives and strategies that follow. 

Goal

A wide range of partners joins with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service in promoting and implementing 

the refuge vision.

Objective

The refuge will participate in partnerships that 

promote sound wildlife management by 2009.

Strategies

■ Engage in partnerships that result in wildlife 

and land-health improvements.

■ Participate in the habitat partnership program, 

Owl Mountain partnership, sage grouse 

working group, Colorado Wetlands Initiative, 

Platte/Kansas Rivers ecosystem team, and 

others to protect, enhance, and restore wildlife 

habitats. 

■ Work with partners to achieve goals and 

objectives.

■ Work with the Colorado Historical Society and 

other partners to restore and rehabilitate the 

Case Barn interpretive site.

■ Develop a conservation easement on Pole 

Mountain property.

■ Work with Colorado Land Trust and others to 

help acquire lands and mineral rights within 

the refuge’s approved boundaries. Minerals 

extraction may cause habitat disturbance 

within the refuge.

Objective

Maintain existing, and form new, partnerships to 

achieve wildlife-related goals and objectives on the 

refuge and within North Park by 2009.

Strategies 

■ Promote new partnerships (consider Ducks 

Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Safari Club 

International, Audubon, Sierra Club, and 

others) to assist with achieving the refuge and 

North Park natural resource goals.

■ Strive to develop a refuge “friends” group 

within 15 years to provide support through 

outreach and volunteer efforts on a variety of 

projects. 

■ Establish a full-time private lands coordinator 

position stationed at the refuge, to assist in 

wildlife habitat enhancement throughout North 

© Cindie Brunner Park.

Cooper’s hawk
Chapter 4—Management Direction 63

Rationale

These objectives and strategies describe the 

potential level of partnership activity that will 

improve wildlife habitats throughout North Park.

The refuge staff will form partnerships to promote 

sound wildlife management within and outside 

the refuge. The refuge will actively participate in 

partnerships that result in improvements to land 

health and provide appropriate wildlife habitat in 

North Park. 

The refuge will collaborate with partners on 

management of critical wildlife habitats in North 

Park. The private lands position will enable the 

Service to contribute its biological expertise and 

resources to private and public landowners when 

requested. 

5 Implementation and Monitoring

5 Implementation and Monitoring

Current staffi ng at the Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge consists of six permanent and four seasonal 

employees. Additional permanent and seasonal 

staff will be required to implement the strategies 

in the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and 

effectively monitor the fl ora and fauna to determine 

if the goals and objectives in the plan are being met.

The refuge has an annual base budget of $381,700 

based on fi scal year 2002 fi gures. These monies 

support salaries for six permanent personnel and 

annual operating expenses for the refuge complex.

The current budget represents the minimum 

needed to maintain current annual activities. It 

does not adequately support the complex’s habitat 

management, biological monitoring, maintenance, 

public use, and education programs, or the 

complex’s facilities and structures.

Projects that have adequate funding and staffi ng 

will receive priority for accomplishment. Staffi ng 

and funding are requested for the 15-year period of 

the CCP. 

This chapter describes resources and actions 

needed to carry out this CCP.

■ personnel

■ funding 

■ step-down management plans

■ partnerships 

■ monitoring and evaluation

■ plan amendment and revision

Personnel

Table 6 shows the current staff and additional, 

target staff required to fully implement the CCP. 

If all positions are funded, the refuge complex’s 

staff will be able to carry out all aspects of this plan. 

This would provide maximum benefi ts to wildlife, 

maximum effi ciency, and improved facilities. Full 

staffi ng would also provide for increased public use. 

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

Current Staff Target Staff

Management Project leader, GS-12

Refuge operations specialist, GS-11

Complex project leader, GS-13

Supervisory refuge operations specialist, GS-12

Refuge operations specialist, GS-9/11*

Private lands biologist, GS-9/11

Biology Wildlife biologist, GS-9/11

Career, seasonal, wildlife biological technician, 

GS-6

Seasonal biological technicians, GS-4 to GS-5 

(3–4 positions) 

Complex wildlife biologist, GS-11

Wildlife biologist, GS-9*

Career-seasonal, wildlife biological technician, 

GS-6

Seasonal biological technicians, GS-3 to GS-5 

(4–5 positions)*

GIS coordinator/data manager, GS-9/11*

Public use Outdoor recreation planner (dual-function law 

enforcement), GS-9/11*

Administration Administrative assistant, GS-8 Administrative offi cer, GS-9*

Administrative assistant, GS-5/6*

Maintenance Maintenance worker, WG-8 Equipment operator, WG-10

Career-seasonal, maintenance worker (irrigator), 

WG-8

Career-seasonal, maintenance worker, WG-8*

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

Funding

Projects required to carry out the CCP are listed in 

appendices K and L, which display funding needs 

through two different systems. 

■ The refuge operations needs system (RONS) 

documents requests to Congress for funding 

and staffi ng needed to carry out projects above 

the existing base budget. Amounts shown 

include a start-up cost for each program, along 

with yearly costs that are signifi cantly less. 

■ The maintenance management system (MMS) 

documents the equipment, buildings, and other 

property that require repair or replacement. 

All of the RONS projects in appendix K directly 

support the implementation of the CCP. Table 7 is a 

summary of funding for these projects.

Table 7. Overall funding needs for Arapaho 

National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Expense Start-up Needs Annual Needs

Personnel $792,000 $430,000

Facilities $541,000 $ 0

Habitat projects $192,000 $ 36,000

Research/studies $383,000 $ 10,000

Other funding needs include the maintenance or 

replacement of existing equipment and facilities. 

In the past, the complex has had a large backlog 

of these funding needs. However, in recent years, 

much of the funding has been provided to eliminate 

a large number of the backlog projects. 

Table 8 lists the remaining needs required to 

carry out the CCP and maintain structures and 

equipment to a safe, productive standard for the 15 

years of the plan.

Table 8. Funding needs for facilities, equipment, 

and maintenance at Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge, Colorado

Expense Cost

Water-control structures and dikes

Road, gates, and fences

Buildings and facilities

Public use facilities

Equipment

Vehicles

$ 146,000

$2,341,000

$ 516,000

$ 276,000

$ 531,000

$ 60,000

A list of the top 18 maintenance priorities is located 

in the MMS table in appendix L. 

The remaining MMS projects do not directly 

affect CCP implementation and were not included 

in this plan. These were mostly projects that 

were required to be included in the MMS, such 

as equipment and vehicle replacement, for an 

additional $1,964,000 in funding.

Step-down Management Plans

Managers in the Service have traditionally used the 

refuge manual to guide fi eld-station management. 

Policy in the manual provides direction for 

developing a wide variety of plans that are used to 

prepare annual work schedules, budgets, and public 

use and land management actions. 

The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides the 

following:

■ general concepts and specifi c wildlife, habitat, 

endangered species, public use and partnership 

objectives

■ examples of strategies that might be used to 

complete the objectives

The purpose of step-down management plans is to 

provide detail to the managers and employees who 

will implement the strategies described in the CCP.

Through the guidance provided in the CCP, refuge 

staff will revise or develop several step-down 

management plans to be carried out over the next 

15 years. 

Step-down management plans to be revised or 

developed include the following:

■ habitat management plan

■ public use plan

■ fi sheries management plan

■ Illinois River rehabilitation plan

■ integrated pest management plan

■ archaeological resources protection plan

■ hunting management plan

■ water management plan 

■ fi re management plan

■ habitat monitoring plan

■ wildlife monitoring plan

■ station safety plan

Partnerships

Partnerships are an integral part of existing 

refuge management and are the key to successful 

management in the future. 

The refuge is not an ecosystem, rather it represents 

merely an island of wildlife habitat. The refuge is 

dependent on wildlife and habitats provided by 
Chapter 5—Implementation and Monitoring 69

other land managers throughout North Park and 

the central fl yway. 

The refuge is not sustainable alone; in fact, it is 

dependent on other habitats and lands that 

surround it to be functional, and by itself may 

serve little wildlife value. —Dr. Richard Knight

The CCP strives to recognize this connection to, 

and dependence on, other lands. Past and current 

agricultural practices have provided benefi ts for 

wildlife in North Park. 

The livelihood of ranchers largely has been 

dependent on maintaining a healthy plant 

community. As a result, many plant and wildlife 

species have benefi ted from these practices. 

Ranching has impeded urban development that 

adversely affects natural communities. Ranchers 

are one of the land stewards that have protected 

and preserved wildlife habitats for the past 125 

years. Sustainable ranching is one key to continued 

protection of North Park natural resources. 

The refuge will cooperate and develop partnerships 

with other land managers in North Park to improve 

wildlife habitats. The refuge has identifi ed a new, 

private-lands coordinator position within the CCP 

to facilitate partnerships. 

The CCP recommends that short-term variations 

in management be considered to accommodate 

other wildlife-related projects within North Park. 

For example, the refuge would consider allowing 

additional grazing AUMs to accommodate a 

2-year rest following Dixie harrow treatment on 

adjacent Bureau of Land Management lands. The 

downside to this approach is that the refuge will 

achieve its habitat objectives at a slower pace 

because resources are diverted away from refuge 

lands. However, the benefi ts of combining refuge 

resources with other land managers will result in 

improved land health for North Park and the refuge. 

Additionally, the CCP encourages other 

partners to join habitat improvement efforts. 

Through partnerships, the refuge will serve as a 

demonstration site for sound, land management 

practices.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is essential to successful implementation 

of the CCP. 

■ The new habitat-based goals and objectives will 

change the past monitoring practices. 

■ Vegetative community function and structure 

will drive management actions.

■ Adaptive management will be used to 

incorporate new information into existing 

monitoring techniques. 

■ Periodic evaluations of vegetation community 

progress will be used to direct future 

management strategies.

Monitoring strategies were evaluated and are 

included in this plan. 

■ All habitat management activities will be 

monitored to assess whether the desired effect 

on wildlife and habitat components has been 

achieved. 

■ Baseline surveys will continue for waterfowl, 

big game, and small-game species. 

■ Baseline surveys will be conducted for wildlife 

species for which existing or historical numbers 

and occurrence is not well known. 

■ It is also important to conduct studies that 

monitor wildlife response to increased public 

use (multi-use trail and moose overlook) to 

assess impacts of these activities on wildlife.

Required step-down management plans that have 

been identifi ed will further refi ne monitoring, 

methods, techniques, and locations. Additionally, 

the step-down plan will identify how, when, and who 

will conduct the monitoring. 

Habitat monitoring methods and frequency are 

being developed cooperatively with wildlife 

researchers within the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Evaluation of those methods will occur periodically, 

and the refuge will consult with U.S. Geological 

Survey, universities, and other professionals to 

ensure proper data collection and analysis.

Wildlife research will be encouraged at the 

refuge. The staff will actively pursue research 

opportunities, especially those that advance 

understanding or answer questions related to 
70 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

refuge management. Research that enhances 

monitoring (techniques or data analysis) will be 

encouraged. 

The staff will work with researchers to ensure 

that the studies are applicable and compatible with 

refuge objectives. Research that does not relate to 

refuge goals and objectives will be discouraged.

Goals, objectives, and strategies are identifi ed in 

the CCP. Periodic reviews (a minimum of every 5 

years) will ensure goals and objectives are being 

met. Monitoring and evaluation will be an important 

part of this process.

Plan Amendment and Revision

The CCP will guide management on the refuge for 

the next 15 years. 

This CCP is signed by the Service’s Region 6 

director, and provides regional direction to the 

station project leader. 

The project leader at the station will review the 

CCP every 5 years to determine if it needs revision. 

In the case of severe circumstances, the project 

leader has the authority to modify management 

actions to respond appropriately. The plan will be 

revised no later than 2018.
6 Socioeconomic Analysis

6 Socioeconomic Analysis

The U.S. Geological Survey’s biological resources 

division (BRD) prepared a socioeconomic study 

during the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

process. The entire study “Regional Economic 

Effects of Current and Proposed Management 

Alternatives for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge” 

is included in the draft CCP and environmental 

assessment.

The following summary of the study focuses on 

the economic effects estimated to result during 

implementation of this CCP.

Table 9 summarizes the economic analysis for the 

CCP. 

■ Under current management, economic activity 

directly related to all refuge operations would 

generate an estimated 14.7 jobs and $458,634 in 

Jackson County. 

■ Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, 

refuge activities would account for 20.7 jobs and 

$570,106 in personal income in Jackson County. 

■ Current refuge management activities account 

for 1.8 percent of county employment.

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

Refuge, Colorado

Effects

Total Staffi ng and 

Budgeting Impacts Grazing Activities

Recreational 

Activities Aggregate Impacts

Direct Effects

Annual income $736,625 $24,407 to $67,780 $29,918 $790,950 to $834,323

Jobs 18.2 1.2 to 3.4 2.1 21.5 to 23.7

Total Effects

Annual income $811,883 $47,518 to $131,959 $39,308 $898,709 to $983,150

Jobs 22.4 2.5 to 6.9 2.5 27.4 to 31.8

% of County Employment 2.4 to 2.8

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

Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Effects

Total Staffi ng and 

Budgeting Impacts Grazing Activities Aggregate Impacts

Direct Effects

Income ($/year) +$375,689 $0 to -$43,373 +$332,316 to +$375,689

Jobs +9.0 0 to -2.2 +6.8 to +9.0

Total Effects

Income ($/year) +$413,044 $0 to -$84,441 +$328,603 to +$413,044

Jobs +11.1 0 to -4.4 +6.7 to +11.1

Table 10 summarizes the estimated economic effects 

for carrying out this plan. 

Under current management, economic activity 

directly related to all refuge operations would 

generate an estimated 14.7 jobs and $458,634 in 

Jackson County. 

Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, 

refuge activities would account for 20.7 jobs and 

$570,106 in personal income in Jackson County.

Current refuge management activities account for 

1.8 percent of county employment.

Further background information used for this 

analysis is summarized in the following descriptions 

of the socioeconomic setting and expected economic 

impacts.
74 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Socioeconomic Setting

Walden, neighboring Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge to the north, is an historic mountain town 

established in the 1800s with a strong ranching 

heritage. Its business community provides most 

of the essential goods and services, however 

county residents must travel to bigger cities to 

purchase larger durable goods (e.g., cars and major 

appliances) and specialty items. 

For this analysis, a region (and its economy) was 

defi ned as all counties within a 30- to 60-mile radius 

of the impact area. Only spending that took place 

within this local area was included as stimulating 

the changes in economic activity. The size of the 

region infl uenced both the amount of spending 

captured and the multiplier effects. Based on the 

relative self-containment in terms of retail trade and 

distance of Walden, Jackson County was assumed to 

comprise the economic region for this analysis. 

Population

The 2000 census estimated Jackson County’s 

population at 1,577 persons (U.S. Census Bureau). 

More than 900 of the county’s residents reside in 

Walden, leaving more than a million acres inhabited 

by less than 700 people (Town of Walden 2001). 

While Colorado experienced a 30.6-percent 

population increase from 1990–2000, Jackson 

County’s population decreased 1.7 percent over the 

same period. In 2000, the population per square mile 

in Jackson County averaged one person, while the 

state’s average was 41.5 persons. 

The 2000 census reported the make-up of the county 

population as follows:

■ 6.5 percent are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin

■ 92.1 percent are persons of white (not Hispanic 

or Latino) origin

■ 0.3 percent are black or African American persons

■ 0.8 percent are American Indian and Alaska 

Native persons

■ 0.1 percent are Asian persons

Fifty-seven percent of the county population 25 

years and older were high school graduates, and 

11 percent were college graduates (U.S. Census 

Bureau).

Employment

According to the Town of Walden (2001), 

employment in Jackson County is starting to 

rebound since the closure of the lumber mill in 1994. 

Ranching, retail trade, government, timbering, 

mining, support services, and recreation are major 

employers. Major exports include livestock, native 

mountain hay, timber, oil, and carbon dioxide (Town 

of Walden 2001). 

Local and state employment is shown in table 11. 

In 2000, 60.6 percent of county jobs were in private 

wage and salary employment (i.e., people who work 

for someone else) as compared to 85.6 percent for 

the State of Colorado. Self-employment in Jackson 

County accounted for the remaining 39 percent of 

county jobs and grew by 92 percent from 1970 to 

1997 (Morton 2000).

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

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confi dential information, but the estimates for this are included in the total.

Table 11. Employment for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000

Jackson County State of Colorado

Industry

Number 

of Jobs

Percent of 

County Total

Number 

of Jobs

Percent of 

State Total

Total farm 245 21.6 44,406 1.5

Total non-farm 889 78.4 2,916,514 98.5

Private

Agricultural services, forestry, and fi shing

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation and utilities

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Insurance and real estate

Services

Government

687

(D)

(D)

108

56

57

(D)

148

(D)

192

202

60.6

—

—

9.5

4.9

5.0

—

13.1

—

16.9

17.8

2,534,168

39,364

22,634

226,475

217,473

162,241

121,306

493,168

304,660

946,847

382,346

85.6

1.3

0.8

7.6

7.3

5.5

4.1

16.7

10.3

32.0

12.9
Chapter 6—Socioeconomic Analysis 75

According to the Town of Walden (2001), while more 

than two-thirds of employment is in agriculture, 

only one-fi fth of the county’s income is generated by 

agriculture. Agricultural-related income (includes 

farming and agricultural services) fell from 35 

percent of total, county personal income in 1973 

to just 8 percent of total personal income in 1997 

(Morton 2000). Table 12 displays personal income 

for Jackson County and Colorado.

Tourism and construction have started to play 

larger roles in the county’s economy (Town of 

Walden 2001). Most of these jobs are found in the 

retail trade (supplies, souvenirs, restaurants, and 

grocery stores) and service (hotels, gas stations, 

amusement, and recreation activities) sectors in an 

economy. 

In 1999, tourism-related jobs (mostly hunting) 

provided almost 17 percent of county employment 

and 12 percent of total income (Seidl and Garner 

2001). 

According to Colorado Department of Local Affairs 

(2001), traditional tourism is transitioning to 

second-home tourism where more affl uent visitors 

and retirees are purchasing seasonal homes in 

Colorado mountain communities. 

In 1999, retirees and tourism combined provided 

almost 30 percent of county employment and more 

than 50 percent of total base income (Seidl and 

Garner 2001).

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

Table 12. Personal income for Jackson County and Colorado, 2000

Area Personal Income

Non-farm Personal 

Income

Farm Personal 

Income

Per Capita 

Personal Income

Jackson County $32,567,000 $32,713,000 -$146,000 $20,612

State of Colorado $140,224,394,000 $139,579,510,000 $664,884,000 $32,434

Expected Economic Impacts

Economic impacts are typically measured in terms 

of number of jobs lost or gained, and the associated 

result on income. Economic input-output models are 

commonly used to determine how economic sectors 

will and will not be affected by demographic, 

economic, and policy changes. 

The economic impacts of the implementing the CCP 

were estimated using IMPLAN, a regional inputoutput modeling system developed by the USDA 

Forest Service (Olson and Lindall 1996). 

Refuge Jobs and Income

Refuge administration and activities generate 

11.3 jobs and $398,839 in personal income in 

Jackson County and account for 1 percent of total 

employment in the county.

Current staffi ng at the refuge consists of six 

permanent and four seasonal employees, accounting 

for an annual payroll (including salaries and 

benefi ts) of $392,543 in 2002. 

In addition to providing salaries and benefi ts, 

the refuge purchased goods and services totaling 

$105,207 in 2002, approximately 60 percent of which 

was spent locally in the Jackson County economy. 

Additional annual funding needed for the target 

staff organization (see table 6 in chapter 5) is 

anticipated to cost $430,000. Additional, nonsalary expenditures are estimated to cost 

$46,000 annually($36,000 for habitat projects and 

$10,000 for research and studies). It is assumed 

that approximately 60 percent of non-salary 

expenditures will still be spent locally in the 

Jackson County economy (table 13). 

Table 13. Annual expenditures for Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Salary Non-salary Total

$822,543 $151,207 $973,750

Because of the way industries interact in an 

economy, a change in the activity of one industry 

affects activity levels in several other industries. 

For example, an increase in funding could have the 

following effects.

■ The refuge could start new projects or hire 

additional staff members. 

—This added revenue would directly fl ow 

to the businesses from which the refuge 

purchases goods and services and to the new 

refuge employees. 

—As additional supplies are purchased or 

as new staff members spend their salaries 

within the community, local businesses would 

purchase extra labor and supplies to meet the 

increase in demand for additional services. 
76 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 —The income and employment resulting 

from refuge purchases and refuge employees’ 

spending of salaries locally represents the 

direct effects of refuge management activities 

within Jackson County. 

■ To increase supplies to local businesses, input 

suppliers must also increase their purchases of 

inputs from other industries. 

—The income and employment resulting from 

these secondary purchases by input suppliers 

are the indirect effects of refuge management 

activities within the county. 

—The input supplier’s new employees use their 

incomes to purchase goods and services. 

—The resulting increased economic activity 

from new employee income is the induced 

effect of visitor spending. 

The sums of the direct, indirect, and induced 

effects describe the total economic effect of refuge 

management activities in Jackson County (table 14).

Table 14. Combined refuge personnel and non-salary 

expenditures in Jackson County, Colorado

Effects

Current 

Management

Target 

Management

Direct Effects

Annual income $360,936 $736,625

Jobs 9.2 18.2

Indirect and Induced Effects

Annual income $37,903 $75,258

Jobs 2.1 4.2

Total Effects

Annual income $398,839 $811,883

Jobs 11.3 22.4

% of County Employment 1.0 2.0

Grazing Activities

According to the 1997 census of agriculture (U.S. 

Census Bureau), there were 126 ranches in Jackson 

County, totaling 477,063 acres (46 percent of the 

county area). Seventy percent of the operators 

listed ranching as their principal occupation, 

while 30 percent listed ranching as a secondary 

occupation. 

Jackson County’s cattle and calf inventory 

numbered 47,683, with 26,549 cattle and calves sold 

in 1997 (U.S. Census Bureau). Livestock production 

accounted for $12.3 million in sales (88 percent of all 

ranch product sales) in Jackson County in 1997. 

Jackson County had 364,255 acres of total pasture 

land in 1997. Of the 126 ranches in the county in 

1997, 69 ranches (55 percent) held public grazing 

permits with at least one federal agency. The 

Bureau of Land Management accounted for most 

of these permits followed by the USDA Forest 

Service (U.S. Census Bureau). 

Pastures on Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge 

currently lease for cattle grazing to six local 

permittees, accounting for 2.9–4.7 percent of the 

total grazing capacity in the county.

The current average grazing level of 8,470 animal 

unit months (AUMs) converts to an average of 1,738 

head per month on the refuge during the typical 

grazing season (averaging 4.5 months). 

The sales associated with the current level of head 

grazed on the refuge account for an estimated 

3.4 jobs and $67,780 in labor income in the rangefed cattle industry and 6.9 jobs (0.61 percent of 

county employment) and $131,959 in labor income 

throughout the county.

This CCP estimates the same range in grazing 

number reductions from the 1996–2001 average 

base levels. It anticipates a range of grazing 

numbers from 3,050 to 7,650 AUMs annually, 

representing approximately a 10- to 64-percent 

reduction from the 1996–2001 average. 

■ For a 10-percent reduction in grazing, 7,650 

AUMs would be allowed on the refuge, 

supporting 1,570 head for 4.5 months. This 

reduction of 168 head would result in a revenue 

loss of $46,933. There would be a decrease of 

less than 1 job (0.3) and $6,562 in labor income 

in the range-fed cattle industry. It would have 

an impact of less than 1 job (0.6) and a decrease 

of $12,775 in labor income throughout Jackson 

County. 

■ For a 64-percent reduction in grazing, 3,050 

AUMs would be allowed on the refuge, 

supporting 626 head for 4.5 months. This 

reduction of 1,112 head would result in a 

revenue loss of $310,213. There would be a 

decrease of 2.2 jobs and $43,373 in labor income 

in the range-fed cattle industry. It would 

decrease countywide employment by 4.4 jobs 

(-0.39-percent of county employment) and labor 

income by $84,441. 

Under this CCP, it is anticipated the permittees 

will be able to depend on the refuge for a portion 

of their operations. While most of the permittees 

transfer to private land, it may be that permittees 

with high dependence on the refuge as part of their 

operation would have to cut production.

Recreational Activities

The abundance of recreational opportunities on 

federal and state lands makes Jackson County a 

popular recreation and tourism destination. Besides 
Chapter 6—Socioeconomic Analysis 77

the refuge, this county is home to the following 

areas:

■ Mount Zirkel, Never Summer, Rawah, and 

North Platte River Wilderness Areas

■ Sand Hills Recreation Area

■ Routt National Forest

■ Colorado State Forest

■ More than 180,000 acres managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management

■ Numerous state wildlife areas, including one of 

two gold medal trout lakes

These lands have many diverse uses including, 

recreation, wildlife management, livestock grazing, 

woodland products, and mineral resources. The 

Federal and State Governments manage 64 percent 

of Jackson County’s land area (table 15). The refuge 

accounts for 2.4 percent of the county’s land area 

and 4.6 percent of county land managed by the 

Federal Government.

The refuge offers visitors a variety of recreation 

opportunities including wildlife observation and 

photography, hunting, fi shing, environmental 

education, and interpretation. Table 16 displays the 

activities, estimated number of refuge visitors, and 

estimated daily expenditures related to use of the 

refuge.

Tourists usually buy a wide range of goods and 

services while visiting an area. Major expenditure 

categories include lodging, food, and supplies. 

Refuge personnel estimate that non-local visitors 

participating in hunting, fi shing, and environmental 

education activities are state residents that live 

along the front range of Colorado (Fort Collins, 

Denver, and Colorado Springs). Therefore, state 

resident spending profi les for big-game hunting, 

small-game hunting, waterfowl hunting, and 

freshwater fi shing were used. 

Estimates for non-local interpretation and 

observation visitors are that approximately 40 

percent are state residents from the front range 

area and 60 percent are non-resident visitors. 

Although the economic impacts associated with 

current refuge visitation are somewhat limited 

in terms of overall tourism activities in the area, 

the refuge plays an important part in the overall 

recreational opportunities and scenic open 

space that makes North Park a popular tourist 

destination.

Source: Seidl and Garner 2001.

Table 15. Land area management in Jackson County and Colorado

Area

Total 

Land Area 

(acres)

State Land 

(acres)

Federal 

Land 

(acres)

Private 

Land 

(acres)

State and 

Federal Land

(%)

Private 

Land 

(%)

Jackson County 1,036,497 124,765 541,073 370,659 64 36

Colorado 66,614,080 3,318,346 24,615,790 38,679,945 42 58

Table 16. Estimated annual visitors and daily expenditures, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

 Daily Expenditures (per person per day)

Activity Number of Visitors State Residents (355) Non-residents (6,751)

Interpretation and observation 6,593 $15 $100

Environmental education 141 $15 no data

Waterfowl hunting 280 $21 no data

Big-game hunting 15 $39 no data

Small-game hunting 18 $42 no data

Fishing 59 $28 no data

Total 7,106

Glossary

Glossary

adaptive management—a process in which policy 

decisions are implemented within a framework of 

scientifi cally driven experiments to test predictions 

and assumptions inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results help managers determine 

whether current management should continue as is 

or whether it should be modifi ed to achieve desired 

conditions. 

allelopathic—a plant that is able to suppress 

the growth of other plants by releasing toxic 

substances.

alternative—(1) a reasonable way to fi x the 

identifi ed problem or satisfy the stated need (40 

CFR 1500.2); (2) alternatives are different means 

of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and 

contributing to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

animal-unit month—a measure of the quantity of 

livestock forage. Equivalent to the amount of forage 

needed to support a 1,000-pound animal (or one cow/

calf pair) for 1 month. 

biological control—the use of organisms or viruses to 

control invasive plants or other pests. 

biological diversity—the variety of life and its 

processes, including the variety of living organisms, 

the genetic differences among them, and the 

communities and ecosystems in which they occur 

(USFWS Manual 052 FW 1.2B). The National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous 

species, biotic communities, and ecological 

processes. Also referred to as biodiversity. 

canopy—a layer of foliage, generally the upper-most 

layer, in a forest stand. Can be used to refer to midlevel or understory vegetation in multi-layered 

stands. Canopy closure is an estimate of the amount 

of overhead tree cover (also canopy cover). 

categorical exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX)—a 

category of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a signifi cant effect on the human 

environment and have been found to have no such 

effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1508.4). 

CDOW SC—Colorado Division of Wildlife species of 

special concern.

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations. 

compatible use—a wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the director, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfi llment of the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge 

(Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identifi ed stipulations or limits necessary 

to ensure compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—a document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge, and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—see defi nition of issue. 

cover type—present vegetation of an area. 

cultural resource—the remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past. 

cultural resource inventory—a professionally 

conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a 

defi ned geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels, including background literature 

search, comprehensive fi eld examination to 

identify all exposed physical manifestations of 

cultural resources, or sample inventory to project 

site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identifi ed cultural resources to 

determine eligibility for the National Register 

follows the criteria found in .36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

cultural resource overview—a comprehensive 

document prepared for a fi eld offi ce that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural 

history, the nature and extent of known cultural 

resources, previous research, management 

objectives, resource management confl icts or issues, 

and a general statement on how program objectives 

should be met and confl icts resolved. An overview 

should reference or incorporate information from 

a fi eld offi ces background or literature search 

described in section VIII of the Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 

1.7). 
82 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

demography—the quantitative analysis of population 

structure and trend. 

depredation—damage infl icted on agricultural crops 

or ornamental plants by wildlife. 

designate—an invasive plant whose populations in a 

region or area are such that all seed production can 

be prevented within a calendar year. 

designated wilderness area—an area designated by 

the United States Congress to be managed as part 

of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

(Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

disturbance—signifi cant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., 

wildland fi re) or human-caused (e.g., timber 

harvest) events. 

Dixie harrow—a farming implement pulled behind 

a tractor, which reduces sagebrush density by 

breaking off sagebrush plants. Typically, one pass 

over sagebrush removes 60–70 percent of the live 

sagebrush plants.

early seral stage—an area that is in the primary 

stages of ecological succession. 

ecological succession—the orderly progression of an 

area through time from one vegetative community 

to another in the absence of disturbance. For 

example, an area may proceed from grass-forb 

through aspen forest to mixed-conifer forest. 

ecosystem—a dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

non-living environment. 

ecosystem management—management of natural 

resources using system wide concepts to ensure 

that all plants and animals in ecosystems are 

maintained at viable levels in native habitats 

and basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated 

indefi nitely. 

endangered species (Federal)—a plant or animal 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

signifi cant portion of its range. 

endangered species (State)—a plant or animal 

species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated 

in Colorado within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations 

of these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a 

signifi cant degree. 

endemic species—plants or animals that occur 

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution 

is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

environmental assessment (EA)—a concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefl y discusses the 

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such 

action, and provides suffi cient evidence and analysis 

of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or fi nding of no 

signifi cant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

environmental impact statement (EIS)—a detailed 

written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing 

the environmental impacts of a proposed action, 

adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term 

uses of the environment versus the maintenance 

and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 

any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.1 I). 

fauna—all the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

Federal trust resources—a resource managed by one 

entity for another who holds the ownership. The 

Service holds in trust many natural resources for 

the people of the United States of America as a 

result of Federal acts and treaties. Examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 

migratory birds protected by international treaties, 

anadromous fi sh once they enter inland U.S. 

waterways, and native plant and wildlife species 

found on a National Wildlife Refuge. 

Federal trust species—all species where the Federal 

government has primary jurisdiction, including 

federally endangered or threatened species, 

migratory birds, anadromous fi sh, and certain 

marine mammals. 

fi nding of no signifi cant impact (FONSI)—a document 

prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an 

environmental assessment, that briefl y presents 

why a Federal action will have no signifi cant 

effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not 

be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

fi re regime—a description of the frequency, severity, 

and extent of fi re that typically occurs in an area or 

vegetative type. 

fl ora—all the plant species of an area. 

fl oriferous—fl ower-bearing plant.

forb—broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; for example, 

a columbine. 

fragmentation—the process of reducing the size and 

connectivity of habitat patches. 
Glossary 83

geographic information system (GIS)—a computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data.

goal—descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not defi ne measurable units 

(Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

habitat—suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives. 

habitat type—see vegetation type. 

habitat restoration—Management emphasis 

designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions 

and processes, and/or to healthy forestlands, 

rangelands, and aquatic systems. 

historic range of variability (HRV)—The natural 

fl uctuation of components of healthy ecosystems 

over time. In this EIS, HRV refers to the range 

of conditions and processes that are Rely to have 

occurred prior to settlement of the project area by 

people of European descent (approximately the 

mid-1800s), which would have varied within certain 

limits over time. Historic range of variability is 

discussed in this document as a reference point 

to establish a baseline set of conditions for which 

suffi cient scientifi c or historical information is 

available to enable comparison to current condition. 

indicator species—A species of plant or animals that 

is assumed to be sensitive to habitat changes and 

represents the needs of a larger group of species. 

Also referred to as a key species. 

inholding—Privately owned land inside the 

boundary of a national wildlife refuge. 

integrated pest management—Methods of managing 

undesirable species, such as weeds, including: 

education; prevention; physical or mechanical 

methods of control; biological control; responsible 

chemical use; and cultural methods. 

invasive plant—a plant species designated by 

Federal or state law as generally possessing one or 

more of the following characteristics: aggressive 

or diffi cult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host 

of serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or 

not common to the United States. According to the 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed (i.e., invasive plant) is one that causes disease 

or had adverse effects on humans or the human 

environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the 

agriculture and commerce of the Untied States and 

to public health. 

inviolate—not violated or profaned; pure.

issue—any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision, e.g., a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, confl ict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5). 

management alternative—see alternative. 

management concern—see issue. 

management opportunity—see issue.

microhabitat—habitat features at a fi ne scale; often 

identifi es a unique set of local habitat features. 

migration—seasonal movement from one area to 

another and back. 

mission statement—succinct statement of a unit’s 

purpose and reason for being. 

mitigation—measures designed to counteract 

environmental impacts or to make impacts less 

severe. 

monitoring—the process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)—

requires all agencies, including the Service, to 

examine the environmental impacts of their 

actions, incorporate environmental information, 

and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate NEPA with other planning 

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental 

decision making (from 40 CFR 1500). 

national wildlife refuge (NWR)—a designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System—various categories 

of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fi sh and wildlife, 

including species threatened with extinction; all 

lands, waters, and interests therein administered 

by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protections and conservation of fi sh and wildlife 

that are threatened with extinction; wildlife ranges; 

game ranges; wildlife management areas; or 

waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission—the mission 

is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefi t of present and future 

generations of Americans. 
84 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

native species—species that normally live and thrive 

in a particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical migratory bird—a bird species that 

breeds north of the U.S.–Mexico border and winters 

primarily south of this border. 

Notice of Intent (NOI)—in the case of a Federal 

action, such as analyzed in this document, an NOI 

is a notice that an environmental impact statement 

will be prepared and considered (40 CFR 1508.22). 

Published in the Federal Register. 

objective—a concise target statement of what will 

be achieved, how much will be achieved, when and 

where it will be achieved, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives are derived from goals 

and provide the basis for determining management 

strategies. Objectives should be attainable and 

time-specifi c and should be stated quantitatively to 

the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated 

quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

physiognomy—external aspect.

planning area—may include lands outside existing 

planning unit boundaries that are being studied for 

inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and partnership planning efforts. It may also 

include watersheds or ecosystems that affect the 

planning area. 

planning team—a team generally consists of a 

planning team leader; refuge manager, staff, and 

biologists; staff specialists or other representatives 

of Service programs, ecosystems, or regional offi ces; 

and other governmental agencies as appropriate. 

Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership 

and function. A planning team prepared the 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

planning unit—a single refuge; an ecologically or 

administratively related complex of refuges; or 

distinct unit of a refuge. 

plant association—a classifi cation of plant 

communities based on the similarity in dominants of 

all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

plant community—an assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular infl uences. A refl ection 

or integration of the environmental infl uences 

on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, 

solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall. Denotes 

a general kind of climax plant community, e.g., 

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

prescribed fi re—the skillful application of fi re to 

natural fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel 

moisture, and soil moisture that allow confi nement 

of fi re to a predetermined area and produces the 

intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish 

planned benefi ts to one or more objectives of forest 

management, wildlife management, or hazard 

reduction. 

preferred alternative—the alternative determined 

by the decision maker to best achieve the 

refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes 

to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System; addresses the signifi cant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fi sh and wildlife 

management. 

public—individuals, organizations, and groups; 

offi cials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated 

an interest in Service issues and those who do or do 

not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public domain—lands to which the United States 

obtained title through such actions as treaty, 

purchase, and annexation, and for which title 

has never been conveyed out of United States 

ownership.

public involvement—a process that offers affected 

and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on, Service actions and 

policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

public involvement plan—broad long-term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

purpose of the refuge—specifi ed purpose for a 

national wildlife refuge; found in or derived 

from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, 

or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorization, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit. 

recreation day—calculated as one visitor entering 

refuge lands for any purpose and for any length of 

time.

Record of Decision (ROD)—a concise public record of 

decision prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant 

to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identifi cation of all alternatives considered, 

identifi cation of the environmentally preferable 

alternative, a statement as to whether all practical 

means to avoid or minimize environmental harm 

from the alternative selected have been adopted 

(and if not, why they were not), and a summary of 

monitoring and enforcement where applicable for 

any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 
Glossary 85

refuge goal—see goal. 

refuge operating needs system (RONS)—a national 

database that contains the unfunded operational 

needs of each refuge. Projects included are those 

required to implement approved plans, and meet 

goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

refuge use—any activity on a refuge, except 

administrative or law enforcement activity carried 

out by or under the direction of an authorized 

Service employee. 

refuge purpose—see purpose of the refuge.

refuge revenue sharing—a 1978 Act (Public Law 

95-469) authorizes payments to counties in which 

Service-owned land is located. The amount of the 

payment is computed based on things such as the 

appraised value of Service fee land, number of acres 

of fee land, and net receipts collected by the Service 

for certain activities permitted on reserve lands 

(lands withdrawn from the public domain). 

rest—free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation; referring to refuge lands.

riparian area—an area or habitat that is transitional 

from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; including 

streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant 

communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface. An area whose 

components is directly or indirectly attributed 

to the infl uence of water; of or relating to a river; 

specifi cally applied to ecology, “riparian” describes 

the land immediately adjoining and directly 

infl uenced by streams. For example, riparian 

vegetation includes any and all plant-life growing on 

the land adjoining a stream and directly infl uenced 

by the stream. 

seral stage—any plant community whose plant 

composition is changing in a predictable way; 

characterized by a group of species or plant 

community that will eventually be replaced by 

a different group of species or plant community, 

for example, an aspen community changing to a 

coniferous forest community. 

sinuosity—wavy serpentine form of a river channel. 

Sinuosity of 2.0–2.5 indicates that the river channel 

direction changes every 2.0–2.5 river widths.

sound professional judgment—a fi nding, 

determination, or decision that is consistent with 

principles of sound fi sh and wildlife management 

and administration, available science and resources, 

and adherence to the requirements of the Refuge 

Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

species of concern—those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the defi nition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species including 

white-tailed deer, furbearers such as American 

marten, important prey species including redbacked vole, or signifi cant keystone species such as 

beaver. 

special status species—plants or animals that have 

been identifi ed through either Federal law, state 

law, or agency policy, as requiring special protection 

of monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; state-listed endangered, threatened, 

candidate, or monitor species; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service species of management concern; 

and species identifi ed by the Partners in Flight 

program as being of extreme or moderately high 

conservation concern. 

step-down management plans—plans that provide 

the details necessary to implement management 

strategies identifi ed in the comprehensive 

conservation plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5). 

strategy—a specifi c action, tool, technique, or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5). 

thalweg—a line following the lowest part of a valley 

whether under water or not; the line of continuous 

maximum descent from any point on a land surface 

or one crossing all contour lines at right angles; 

subsurface water percolating beneath and in the 

same direction as a surface stream course.

threatened species (federal)—a plant or animal 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that are likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a signifi cant 

portion of their range. 

threatened species (state)—a plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in Colorado within 

the near future if factors contributing to population 

decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. 

tiering—the coverage of general matters in broader 

environmental impact statements with subsequent 

narrower statements of environmental analysis, 

incorporating by reference, the general discussions 

and concentrating on specifi c issues (40 CFR 

1508.28). 

trust species—see federal trust species.

understory—any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) 

is below or closer to the ground than canopies of 

other plants. 

unit objective—see objective. 
86 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—the mission of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance fi sh and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefi t 

of the American people. 

vegetation type (habitat type, forest cover type)—a 

land classifi cation system based on the concept of 

distinct plant associations. 

vision statement—a concise statement of the 

desired future condition of the planning unit, based 

primarily upon the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, specifi c refuge purposes, and other 

relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5).

watershed—the region draining into a river, river 

system, or body of water. 

wilderness—see designated wilderness area. 

wilderness study area—land and water identifi ed 

through inventory as meeting the defi nition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for 

recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness 

System. A study area must meet the following 

criteria: (1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of human work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfi ned type of recreation; and (3) has at 

least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is suffi cient 

in size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

wildfi re—a free-burning fi re requiring a suppression 

response; all fi re other than prescribed fi re that 

occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

wildland fi re—every wildland fi re is either a wildfi re 

or a prescribed fi re (Service Manual 621 FW 1.3). 

wildlife corridor—a landscape feature that facilitates 

the biologically effective transport of animals 

between larger patches of habitat dedicated 

to conservation functions. Such corridors may 

facilitate several kinds of traffi c, including frequent 

foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the 

once-in-a-lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. 

These are transition habitats and need not contain 

all the habitat elements required for long-term 

survival or reproduction of its migrants. 

wildlife-dependent recreation—use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 specifi es that 

these are the six, priority, general public uses of the 

System.

withdrawn—land and interest in land owned by the 

United States, administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management, are withdrawn from public domain to 

be administratively controlled by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for management as a unit or part of 

a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Appendices

Appendix A Key Legislation and Policies

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—directs 

agencies to consult with native traditional religious 

leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and 

services.

Antiquities Act (1906)—authorizes the scientifi c 

investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of 

objects taken or collected without a permit.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

(1974)—directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended—protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction 

and requires federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to 

be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clean Water Act (1977)—requires consultation with 

the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major 

wetland modifi cations.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—promotes 

the conservation of migratory waterfowl and directs 

the offset or prevention of serious loss of wetlands 

by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential 

habitat, and for other purposes.

Endangered Species Act (1973)—requires all federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species.

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—directs each federal 

agency to provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of fl ood loss and minimize the impact 

of fl oods on human safety, and preserve the natural 

and benefi cial values served by the fl oodplains.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public 

Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)—

defi nes the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also 

presents four principles to guide management of the 

System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996)—

directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the 

confi dentiality of sacred sites.

Executive Order 13287 Preserve America (2003)—

establishes policy for the Federal Government 

to provide leadership in preserving America’s 

heritage by actively advancing the protection, 

enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic 

properties owned by the Federal Government, and 

by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and 

partnerships for the preservation and use of historic 

properties.

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—requires the use 

of integrated management systems to control 

or contain undesirable plant species, and an 

interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of 

other federal and state agencies.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—establishes a 

comprehensive national fi sh and wildlife policy 

and broadens the authority for acquisition and 

development of refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—allows 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, 

or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)—authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—designates 

the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of 

seasons, and other regulations including the closing 

of areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of 

migratory birds.

Many procedural and substantive requirement of federal and applicable state and local laws and regulations 

affect refuge establishment, management, and development. The following list identifi es the key federal laws 

and policies that were considered during the planning process or that could affect future refuge management.
90 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—requires 

the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major federal action signifi cantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended—

establishes as policy that the Federal Government 

is to provide leadership in the preservation of the 

nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act)—defi nes the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes 

the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge 

provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 

The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defi nes a 

unifying mission for the System; establishes the 

legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority 

public uses (hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process 

for determining compatibility; established the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for 

managing and protecting the System; and requires 

a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge 

by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of 

the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife 

System Administration Act of 1966.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(1990)—requires federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—allows the use 

of refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and 

when suffi cient funds are available to manage the 

uses.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the Federal 

government to ensure that anybody can participate 

in any program.

Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act of 

1998—amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

to promote volunteer programs and community 

partnerships for the benefi t of national wildlife 

refuges, and for other purposes. 
Appendix B Compatibility Determination
92 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 93
94 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 95
96 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 97
98 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determination 99
Appendix C Planning Team

Team Member Position Work Unit

Randy Bilbeisi maintenance worker Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

Lynne Caughlan economist U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division 

(USGS–BRD), Fort Collins, CO

Chuck Cesar wildlife biologist Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Walden, CO

Sean Fields biologist, geographic information 

system (GIS) specialist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Division of 

Planning, Lakewood, CO

Patricia Fiedler hydrologist USFWS, Water Resources Division, Lakewood, CO

Terri Follet administrative support assistant Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

Bernardo Garza fi sh and wildlife biologist,

planning team leader USFWS, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, CO

David Hamilton biologist USGS–BRD, Fort Collins, CO

Paul Hellmund professor of landscape 

architecture Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Pam Johnson wildlife biologist Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

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

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

Murray Laubhan biologist USGS–BRD, Jamestown, ND

Rachel Laubhan biologist USFWS, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, ND

Rhoda Lewis regional archaeologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO

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

Barbara Shupe former writer-editor, 1997–2003 USFWS, Division of Planning, Lakewood, CO

Todd Stefanic former biological science 

technician Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

Ann Timberman project leader Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, CO

Melvie Uhland outdoor recreation planner USFWS, Division of Educational and Visitor Services, 

Lakewood, CO

J. Wenum district wildlife manager Colorado Division of Wildlife, Gunnison, CO

This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic 

efforts by members of the planning team for the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge’s CCP. Many others 

contributed insight and support (see appendix F).The draft CCP and environmental assessment were written 

by refuge staff and the refuge planner, with input from other team members.
Appendix D Environmental Compliance
102 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation
104 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 105
106 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 107
108 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 109
110 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 111
112 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 113
114 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Appendix E—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 115
Appendix F 

Consultation and Coordination

The refuge manager of Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge was assigned primary responsibility for 

planning in the summer of 2000. 

The refuge, with the help of a consultant, prepared 

a stakeholder involvement plan to ensure all 

interested parties and stakeholders could have 

opportunities to express their concerns and 

raise issues that would be addressed in the 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP).

The refuge invited the public, tribes, other agencies, 

government offi cials, organizations, and universities

Date Action Outcome

June 2000 Publication of Notice of Intent (to prepare 

the CCP) in the Federal Register

Public notifi cation of the upcoming 

preparation of the CCP

September 2000–May 2001 Biological workshops with agencies Development of draft focus areas, 

habitat goals, and habitat objectives

January 2001 Congressional tour of the refuge Discussions about the CCP

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

February 2001

News releases about public meetings 

sent to the Jackson County Star and 

Coloradoan (Fort Collins) newspapers

Public notifi cation of opportunities for 

involvement in the CCP process

February 2001 Public scoping meetings in Walden and 

Fort Collins, CO Issues summary

April 2001 Public scoping Issues summary

April 2001 CCP presentation to the Fort Collins 

Chapter of the Audubon Society

Increased chapter member 

understanding of the CCP planning 

process

June 2001 Landscape issues meeting with agencies 

and Colorado State University Issue identifi cation

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

September 2003 Release of draft CCP and environmental 

assessment (EA) for public review

Receipt of public comments about the 

draft CCP and EA

September 2003 Public meeting in Walden, CO Increased public understanding of the 

draft CCP and EA

to become involved in the planning process. The 

following table and narratives further describe the 

consultation and coordination conducted during the 

CCP development. 

The refuge staff and planning team wish to thank 

all who provided comments, issues, and concerns—

the commenters’ efforts and information greatly 

enhanced this CCP. 
Appendix F—Consultation and Coordination 117

Agency and Local Government Coordination

Several meetings and workshops were conducted 

with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) 

and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), whose 

lands adjoin the refuge. This coordination was to 

ensure that proposed management activities not 

only benefi t the refuge’s habitats and wildlife, but 

complement efforts by these agencies. In addition, 

agency input has been sought in crucial habitat and 

wildlife management decisions. 

The talents and knowledge provided by the diverse 

group of contributors below dramatically improved 

the vision and completeness of this plan. 

Contributor Position Agency

David Anderson former cooperative fi sh and wildlife unit leader USGS–BRD

John Arkins biologist BLM

Greg Auble biologist USGS–BRD

Crystal Bechaver biological technician USFWS, Region 6

Steve Berendzen refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6

John Blankenship former assistant regional director USFWS, Region 6

Ayeisha Brinson economist (intern) USGS–BRD

Christina Clements graduate student Colorado State University

Ron Cole former refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6

Rick Coleman assistant regional director, NWRS USFWS, Region 6

Jim Coyle biologist USGS–BRD

Beth Dickerson biologist USFWS, Rocky Mountain Arsenal

Josh Dilley district wildlife manager CDOW

John Esperance branch chief, land protection planning USFWS, Region 6

Sheri Fetherman chief, educational and visitor services USFWS, Region 6

Jaymee Fojtik former GIS specialist USFWS, Region 6

Jim Gammonley biologist CDOW

Liza Graham biologist CDOW

Galen Green fi re ecologist USFWS, Region 6

David Hamilton biologist USGS–BRD

Dave Harr range manager BLM

Dale Henry former refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6

Jerry Jack range scientist BLM

Rick Kahn wildlife manager CDOW

Ken Kehmeier fi shery biologist CDOW

Linda Kelly branch chief, refuge planning USFWS, Region 6

Ken Kerr fi re management offi cer USFWS, Region 6

Wayne King biologist, NWRS USFWS, Region 6

Richard Knight professor of wildlife biology Colorado State University

Carl Korschgen GIS specialist USGS–BRD

Lee Lamb researcher USGS–BRD

Lisa Langer volunteer USFWS, Region 6

Rachel Laubhan biologist USGS–BRD

These individuals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS) and other agencies and 

organizations were of enormous help through their 

review and input on the drafts of this CCP. 

The refuge manager invited the Jackson County 

Commissioners to a tour of the refuge on January 22, 

2001.

The manager provided the commissioners with 

briefi ng packets and gave them an overview of 

the CCP process and purpose. This meeting also 

served to obtain comments from the attending 

commissioners and answer their questions on the 

refuge and the CCP process.
118 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Contributor Position Agency

Miriam Mazel realty operations manager USFWS, Region 6

Bridget McCann former refuge planner USFWS, Region 6

Ken McDermond former assistant regional director, NWRS USFWS, Region 6

Adam Misztal former refuge planner USFWS, Region 6

Ralph D. Morgenweck regional director USFWS, Region 6

Eugene Patten retired refuge manager USFWS

Brad Petch wildlife biologist CDOW

Phadrea Ponds economist USGS–BRD

Steve Porter wildlife biologist CDOW

Ray Rauch retired refuge manager USFWS

Jason Rohwender wildlife biologist USFWS, Ecological Services

Rick Schroeder biologist USGS–BRD

Mike Scott wildlife biologist USGS–BRD

Larry Shanks former refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6

Ron Shupe deputy assistant regional director, NWRS USFWS, Region 6

Kirk Snyder district wildlife manager CDOW

Michael Spratt division chief, refuge planning USFWS, Region 6

Pete Torma wildlife biologist BLM

Rod VanVelson fi shery biologist CDOW

Carl Waller wildlife biologist BLM

Ken Waller wildlife biologist BLM

Al White soil conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service

Harvey Wittmier division chief, realty USFWS, Region 6

Public Involvement

Public meetings were held in the City of Walden 

(adjacent to the refuge) and Fort Collins (in the 

front range of Colorado) in February 2001 to try 

to reach out to as many stakeholders as possible. 

Public meetings were held on February 15, 2001, in 

Walden and February 16, 2001, in Fort Collins. 

During these meetings, refuge personnel gave a 

succinct audio-visual presentation of the history 

and resources of the refuge. They described the 

need for the CCP and the process for environmental 

analysis. A question and answer session was held, 

and the public was asked for comments and issues. 

The issues raised during the public meetings were 

inscribed on easel paper. Attendees were invited 

to submit further issues or questions to the refuge 

in writing. Questionnaires and CCP summary 

handouts were distributed during these events.

Public comments were received and used 

throughout the planning process. Issues and 

concerns in the draft CCP and EA were identifi ed 

through discussions with planning team members 

and key contacts, and through the public scoping 

process. Comments were received orally at 

meetings, via e-mail, and in writing. Comments 

were received before, during, and after scoping 

and during the comment period phases of the CCP 

process.

Public Comments

The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all 

input received from the public. Comments received 

during the public review period for the draft CCP 

and EA have been compiled and summarized, 

followed by responses from the Service. These 

issues, concerns, and comments were provided 

by individuals, agencies, local governments, and 

organizations concerned about the natural resources 

of the refuge. 

Comment 1—The draft CCP and EA need to 

adequately describe baseline conditions.

Response: The offi ce fi re of 1997, as noted in the 

comment, was indeed tragic in that past data that 

may have been invaluable for determining baseline 

data for this plan was lost. While it is true that “the 

refuge has had six years to gather this data” since 

the fi re, the refuge has not obtained the needed 

data due to a variety of circumstances. Given this 

lack of information, there will be an emphasis on 

gathering baseline data early in the operation of the 
Appendix F—Consultation and Coordination 119

plan, which will be used to assess and re-assess plan 

objectives.

Comment 2—More information is needed about the 

issue related to white-tailed prairie dogs.

Several comments were made regarding whitetailed prairie dogs. 

Response: While the refuge can and will work with 

oil companies to minimize impacts from exploration 

on refuge lands, this activity cannot be prohibited 

on lands where mineral rights are held by others. 

Response: Hunting of prairie dogs is not currently 

permitted, and there have been no discussions to 

allow this use. This will be clarifi ed in the fi nal CCP. 

Response: Although impacts to prairie dogs of 

management actions were not directly addressed 

in the draft CCP, a short narrative will be added 

to the fi nal CCP. Issuance of the fi nal CCP will not 

be postponed until a fi nding is made on the listing 

petition. If that fi nding is positive for listing, the 

refuge will address white-tailed prairie dogs with 

all management decisions, as required under the 

Endangered Species Act. The management needs 

statement supplied is a valuable tool in the CCP 

process and was appreciated. 

Response: The intent of the research goal is that 

research should benefi t the biological knowledge of 

the refuge and North Park. Thus, most research 

proposed for biological learning of prairie dogs 

would probably be allowed. The refuge has the 

option to not allow research that is deemed 

incompatible with refuge purposes of establishment 

or inappropriate for refuge needs.

Comment 3—Sage grouse hunting should not be 

allowed on the refuge.

Response: The National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act lists hunting as a priority 

public use on refuges when deemed compatible. 

Refuge staff were active participants in the 

formulation of the North Park Greater Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan, accepted December 

2001. The plan recommends conservation actions 

dependent on the 3-year average of males on leks. 

For populations greater than 850 males, the hunting 

recommendation is a 7-day season with a bag limit 

of two birds and possession limit of four birds. 

Populations have exceeded this number since 1998, 

while allowing the aforementioned season structure 

(a longer season was allowed in 1998 and 1999). The 

refuge will continue to be a contributing member 

of the local sage grouse working group and will 

address grouse hunting issues as outlined by the 

CDOW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies. 

Comment 4—Carnivore restoration could benefi t elk 

management.

Response: If the refuge were a closed ecosystem, 

assessment of returning carnivores would be 

appropriate. Since the impact of returning large 

carnivores would have signifi cant implications to 

private lands, as well as to several state and federal 

agencies, this discussion would be beyond the scope 

and intent of a refuge CCP.

Comment 5—The Service must not support nonnative fi sheries that contribute to the imperilment 

of native species. 

A comment suggested native trout are negatively 

impacted by the non-native brown and rainbow 

trout in the North Platte drainage. The statement 

is made that refuge efforts should be spent on 

recovery of “imperiled native fi sh.”

Response: There are no trout native to the North 

Platte River. Similarly, there is no available 

evidence that any of the fi sh native to the Illinois 

River is imperiled. Fish stocking on the refuge 

by the State of Colorado has occurred in the past, 

but on a very intermittent basis. Consequently, 

the statement on page 46 of the CCP regarding 

periodic stocking on the refuge will be removed. 

The Improvement Act lists fi shing as a priority 

public use of refuges that will be encouraged if 

compatible with purposes of refuge establishment. 

By managing to maintain healthy streams, fi shing 

opportunities and proper habitat for native fi sh 

should be maintained.

Comment 6—More information is needed about 

refuge work relating to the North Park phacelia.

Response: Assertions were made that the refuge 

has had decades to work on the phacelia. Although 

the phacelia was listed as endangered in 1982 and 

had a recovery plan completed in 1986, it was not 

discovered on the refuge until 1995. The 308-acre 

fi eld where the two known phacelia populations are 

located have been grazed three times since 1995 

at a rate no higher than 0.19 animal unit months 

(AUMs) per acre. 

Response: Concern was noted that the CCP states 

that a phacelia management plan will be completed 

by 2010. This does not preclude completion before 

that date. If a life history study can be funded, 

management plans would likely soon follow. A 

thorough study of the life history and needs of the 

plant (RONS project #98002, appendix K) needs to 

be conducted prior to making decisions on how to 

manage it. Livestock grazing may be an impact 

to phacelia. However, this phacelia is found in 

disturbed sites, populations have maintained 

viability with the current grazing regime since 

discovery, and the plant has survived 100 plus years 

of livestock grazing in the area. It is prudent to fi nd 

out if the effects of grazing are positive or negative 

on the plant before making management decisions 

on grazing. 
120 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Comment 7—Livestock grazing impacts should be 

evaluated more carefully.

Response: This is a true statement and, as described 

on page 21 of the draft CCP, the refuge intends to 

evaluate and adapt the grazing program to ensure 

this tool is being used properly to achieve the 

habitat objectives defi ned in the CCP.

Comment 8—Either bring back bison or allow 

natural processes to be the only management on 

upland habitats for migratory birds.

Several comments suggested a hands-off 

management style, or one that incorporated bison, 

might be a more environmentally sound approach. 

Response: Early in the planning process, a handsoff management style was presented as a possible 

management strategy. However, refuge staff 

determined this approach would not allow goals 

and objectives to be met, nor would it fulfi ll the 

purposes for which Congress established the 

refuge. Grazing is a tool used by wildlife managers 

to invigorate and maintain healthy grass stands 

necessary for migratory bird nesting. In North 

Park, cattle are applied as a tool generally in mid- to 

late summer for grassland management. No cattle 

are wintered on the refuge. Bison could fi ll a role 

similar to cattle; however, bison are not currently 

available in North Park. In addition, fences would 

require modifi cation to accommodate the use of 

bison. Returning the refuge to a natural or an 

earlier successional stage was also determined to 

not be feasible. Humans have altered the fl ood plain 

through irrigation and haying practices. The cost of 

restoration is prohibitive and moves away from the 

purposes for which the refuge was established.

Comment 9—Dog walking and riding bicycles on 

roads open to vehicle travel needs to be considered.

Response: The decision was made to change the 

language of the strategy addressing these other 

uses of the refuge to refl ect that walking leased 

dogs and riding bicycles may be allowed on 

designated roads and trails as deemed appropriate 

by management. 

Comment 10—Some roads may be open to hunting 

but possibly not to other uses. 

Response: These issues will be addressed in the 

hunting, travel management, and public use stepdown management plans.

Comment 11—Use of all-terrain vehicles and 

snowmobiles should not be allowed on the refuge. 

Response: Operations of these vehicles by the public 

are not permitted as they are incompatible with 

purposes of establishment for the refuge. 

Comment 12—High elk numbers could severely 

impact other wildlife populations on the refuge. 

Response: Refuge staff are working with CDOW to 

address the issue.

Comment 13—Some changes are needed for public 

access on the refuge. 

Response: These issues will be addressed by 

completion of step-down management plans for 

public use and travel management.

Comment 14—Alternatives B and D appear to be the 

same.

Response: Most of the proposed action (alternative 

D) did come from Alternative B.

Comment 15—How will staff time be shared among 

the other refuges in the complex if proposed staff 

increases occur? 

Response: The amount of time employees would 

spend at a particular station will depend on 

work priorities for a given year, and will be a 

management decision when and if these positions 

are fi lled.
Federal Offi cials

U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 

 Washington, D.C.

 Fort Collins, CO, offi ce—Keith Johnson

U.S. Senator Wayne Allard, Washington, D.C.

 Englewood, CO, offi ce—Kristine A. Pollard

U.S. Representative Scott McInnis, Washington, D.C.

Glenwood Springs, CO, offi ce—William Endriss

Federal Agencies

Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling, CO— 

 Chuck Cesar

Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Jackson 

 County, Walden, CO

USDA Forest Service, Walden, CO—Chuck Oliver

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Air Quality Branch, CO

 Alamosa-Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge 

 complex, CO

 Albuquerque, NM

 Anchorage, AK

 Arlington, VA

 Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge, ND

 Atlanta, GA

 Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge, CO

 Denver, CO

 Ecological Services Field Offi ce, CO

 Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge, UT

 Fort Snelling, MN

 Hadley, MA

 Juneau, AK

 Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, MT

 Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, MT

 Portland, OR

 Sacramento, CA

 Shepherdstown, WV

 Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD

 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, WY 

 Sherwood, OR

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

 Division, Fort Collins, CO—David Hamilton, 

 Murray Lauhban, Rick Schroeder

Tribal Offi cials

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Arapaho Tribe Business Committee

Pawnee Tribe

State Offi cials

Colorado Governor Bill Owens

Colorado State Representative Al White

Colorado State Senator Jack Taylor

State Agencies

Colorado Department of Natural Resources

Colorado Division of Wildlife

 Meeker, CO—Brad Petch

 Walden, CO—Josh Dilley, Kirk Snyder, 

 J. Wenum

 Fort Collins, CO—Jim Gammonley, Rick Kahn, 

 Steve Porter

 Steamboat Springs, CO—Liza Graham, Jim 

 Hicks, Sue Werner

Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO

Colorado State Forest, Jackson County, Walden, CO

Colorado State Historic Preservation Offi ce, 

 Denver, CO

Colorado State Parks and Recreation, Walden, CO

Colorado Water Commissioner, Walden, CO

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 

 Springfi eld, IL

Local Governments

Jackson County

 Administrator

 Commissioners

 Extension Offi ce

 Sheriff’s Offi ce

 Soil Conservation District

 Weed Coordinator

Mayor Kyle Fliniau

Newspapers

Jackson County Star, Walden, CO

Steamboat Pilot, Steamboat Springs, CO

The Coloradoan, Fort Collins, CO

Schools, Universities, and Libraries

Colorado State University, Fort Collins and 

 Walden, CO

Jackson County Library, Walden, CO

Mesa State College

North Park School District, Walden, CO

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL—

 Professor Friesema

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

Appendix G 

Mailing List
122 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Individuals

53 persons

Organizations

Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA

Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife, Fort 

 Collins, CO

Colorado Ducks Unlimited

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

Fund for Animals, Silver Spring, MD

KRA Corporation, Fish and Wildlife Reference 

 Section, Bethesda, MD

National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C.

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, WV

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Colorado 

 Springs, CO—Brent Giezentanner

North Park Cattlewomen’s Association, Walden, CO

North Park Chamber of Commerce, Walden, CO

North Park Fair Board Association, Walden, CO

North Park Habitat Partnership Program, Walden, CO

North Park Stockgrowers Association, Cowdrey, CO

North Park Water Conservancy District, Walden, CO

Owl Mountain Partnership, Walden, CO

Sage Grouse Working Group, Walden, CO

The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO

The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

The Wildlife Society, Central Mountain and Plains 

 Section, Fort Collins, CO

Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.
Appendix H 

Habitat Rationale

Riparian Habitat

The riparian habitat (4,374 acres) on Arapaho 

National Wildlife Refuge is composed of the 

channel, fl oodplain, and transitional upland fringe 

along portions of the Illinois River and Spring 

Creek. Historically, the refuge staff has considered 

the fl oodplain and transitional fringe collectively 

as irrigated meadow. However, we have chosen 

to use channel, fl oodplain, and transitional fringe 

in this document because these components more 

appropriately represent the collective functions 

and processes of riparian habitats, and such a 

designation allows management potential of the 

entire area to be more thoroughly evaluated.

Although the channel is well-defi ned as the portion 

of the riparian zone with fl owing surface water 

(The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

Working Group 1998), delineation of the fl oodplain 

and the transitional upland fringe is more diffi cult 

because characteristics used to separate these two 

components are temporally dynamic. The fl oodplain 

is a highly variable area on one or both sides of the 

stream channel that is inundated by fl oodwaters at 

some interval. Two methods describe the fl oodplain: 

hydrological and topographical. The hydrological 

fl oodplain is the land adjacent to the base fl ow 

channel residing below bankfull elevation that 

is inundated about 2 years out of 3 (The Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 

1998). In contrast, the topographical fl oodplain 

is the land adjacent to the channel (including the 

hydrologic fl oodplain) up to an elevation reached 

by a fl ood peak of a given frequency (e.g., 100-

year fl oodplain) (The Federal Interagency Stream 

Restoration Working Group 1998). In some cases, 

these two metrics can result in the same delineation 

of the fl oodplain. 

The transitional upland fringe is the zone between 

the fl oodplain and the surrounding upland 

landscape. This zone can incorporate numerous 

landscape features and vegetation communities 

(e.g., forests and prairies). However, all transitional 

upland fringes have one common attribute: they 

are distinguishable from uplands by their greater 

connection to the fl oodplain and stream (The 

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working 

Group 1998). Objective 4 contains further discussion 

of Illinois River form and function.

Assumptions that were used during the decisionmaking process included (1) channel incision has 

occurred (See objective 4); (2) the width of the 

fl oodplain has been reduced [conservative estimate 

of 137 meters on each side of channel]; and (3) 

width of transitional upland fringe has increased 

[137 meters from channel to base of hillslope]. 

Obviously, these assumptions form the basis 

for fundamental decisions that have been made; 

thus, they pervade the entire decision-making 

framework. Although acceptable at the current 

time, such assumptions should be validated in 

the near future. This is particularly critical when 

considering management options within riparian 

systems because hydroperiod is a primary function 

that determines vegetation composition and 

productivity (Cooper 1986). In some cases, such as 

restoration of the willow community, validation of 

these assumptions must occur prior to initiating 

management activities. Otherwise, the probability 

of success will be reduced greatly, staff time will 

be wasted, and funding will not be used effi ciently. 

Information necessary to make decisions regarding 

future management of the riparian system will 

likely include magnitude and duration of peak and 

low fl ows, bankfull discharge, stage vs. discharge 

relationships, and seasonal groundwater changes. 

More detail on the information and equipment 

necessary to validate assumptions occurs later in 

this section.

Goal

Provide a riparian community representative of 

the historic fl ora and fauna in a high valley of the 

southern Rocky Mountains to provide habitat 

for migratory birds, large mammals, and riverdependent species. 

Explanation

Wetlands are among the most productive 

ecosystems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). In the 

western United States, this is particularly true 

with respect to riparian systems (Johnson et al. 

1977). In general, riparian habitats often support 

a higher diversity of plant species, higher density, 

and more variable structure than associated 

uplands (American Fisheries Society 1980). Current 

information indicates that riparian habitat along 

the Illinois River supports a diverse assemblage 

of rushes, sedges, grasses, and numerous species 

of willows (refuge fi les). Although birch (Betula 

spp.) and alder (Alnus spp.) are common along the 

Michigan River, another tributary of the North 

Platte River in North Park, these species currently 

are not present along the Illinois River, and they 
124 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

were not mentioned in the historical documents 

located. Historically, the distribution of vegetation 

communities was highly variable because dynamic 

river fl uctuations, herbivory, and local climatic 

changes resulted in a constantly changing plant 

mosaic. 

The ability of riparian systems to support a diverse 

assemblage of vertebrates is also well-documented 

(Pashley et al. 2000). In fact, riparian habitats are 

disproportionately more important for support of 

wildlife than any other type of ecological habitat 

(Cooper 1986). For example, fl oodplain vegetation 

provides habitats for more species of birds than 

other vegetation associations in western North 

America (Stanley and Knopf 2000), and in northern 

Colorado, 82 percent of breeding bird species use 

riparian vegetation (Knopf 1985). Collectively, the 

components (channel, fl oodplain, transitional upland 

fringe) comprising this system provide habitat 

for fi shes, large and small mammals, amphibians, 

reptiles, wetland-dependent birds (waterfowl, 

shorebirds, wading birds), and a large diversity 

of passerines including Neotropical migrants and 

grassland birds. Species of primary management 

interest on the refuge include migratory birds 

(Neotropical migrants, grassland birds, waterfowl, 

shorebirds), whereas large mammals and channel 

dependent vertebrates (river otter, fi shes) are a 

secondary focus.

The potential for the refuge to manage for historic 

fl ora remains high because seedbanks and budbanks 

are resilient (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982; Leck 

1989). Rather, the greatest challenge will be the 

ability to manage hydroperiods and herbivory in a 

manner necessary to: (1) stimulate establishment 

and ensure survival of some plant species (e.g., 

willows); (2) mimic the structural variability 

required by different vertebrates; and (3) provide 

vegetation communities in a spatial confi guration 

required by certain area-sensitive vertebrates. The 

ability to successfully manage for this diverse array 

of plant communities will ultimately determine 

the populations of vertebrates that will inhabit 

the riparian corridor. Although the refuge staff 

believes that the majority of fauna that historically 

occurred within the corridor will be supported 

by the following objectives, populations of some 

species will likely be lower than historic levels due 

to constraints on area available and management 

potential.

Objective

Restore (50–100 acres) of dense (40- to 100-percent) 

willow in patches greater than 0.2 hectares and 20 

meters wide in the central third of the Illinois River 

(from the north end of the island to the confl uence 

with Spring Creek) to connect existing willow 

patches and maintain 535 acres of dense willow 

in patches in the lower third of the Illinois River 

to benefi t nesting Neotropical migrant songbirds 

(yellow warbler, willow fl ycatcher) and resident 

moose and beaver.

Rationale

Woody vegetation is a common component on the 

Illinois River fl oodplain. Although cottonwood 

(Populus spp.) is native to this region and some 

individual trees currently exist on the refuge, this 

species occurs primarily at historic home sites 

and the staff does not consider reestablishment a 

priority. Rather, willow (Salix spp.) is the primary 

genera composing the woody component along 

the river. Based on available information, as many 

as eight willow species are known to occur on 

the refuge, including sandbar willow (S. exigua), 

Geyer’s willow (S. geyeriana), Wolf’s willow 

(S. wolfi i), diamondleaf willow (S. planifolia), 

Bebb willow (S. bebbiana), mountain willow (S. 

monticola), whiplash willow (S. caudata), and 

blueberry willow (S. pseudocordata) (refuge 

records; Canon and Knopf 1984). Additional shrub 

species that represent minor components include 

interior rose (Rosa woodsii) and golden currant 

(Ribes aureum) (Stanley and Knopf 2000).

Several reasons exist for restoring and maintaining 

the willow community. First, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) of 

1997 requires the refuge system to preserve unique 

or historic habitats if it is compatible with the 

purpose of the refuge (16 U.S.C. 668d). Estimates 

of riparian habitat loss in the United States range 

from 70–90 percent (Council on Environmental 

Quality 1978, Swift 1984); thus, protection of 

this habitat type is critical (Cooper 1986). At the 

current time, the extent and width of the woody 

component of the riparian community on the refuge 

is completely absent along several reaches in the 

northern 33 percent of the refuge. Second, riparian 

plant communities (including willow) play an 

important role in the maintenance of water quality 

and aquatic habitat, support distinct vegetation 

communities, and afford high-quality terrestrial 

wildlife habitat (Thomas et al. 1979; Windell et al. 

1986; Naiman et al. 1993; Stocek 1994). Finally, the 

purpose for refuge establishment was to provide 

habitat for migratory species (16 U.S.C. 715d). 

Among this large assemblage are species (referred 

to as Neotropical migrants) that migrate between 

South and North America. 

Neotropical migratory species account for 45 

percent of 58 area-sensitive bird species in 

riparian habitats (Freemark et al. 1995). Further, 

many members of this species group currently 

are declining throughout much of their range 

(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995) and some species 

(e.g., southwestern willow fl ycatcher) are listed 

as threatened or endangered (U.S. Fish and 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 125

Wildlife Service 1995). Approximately 50 percent 

of the Neotropical migrants reported as declining 

are dependent on woody vegetation for foraging 

and nesting (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). In 

arid climates such as Colorado, riparian habitats 

represent obligate or preferred nesting sites 

and support higher densities and diversities of 

migrating and nesting birds (Carothers and Johnson 

1975; Stevens et al. 1977; Knopf 1985).

The refuge currently supports some Neotropical 

migrants that nest in woody vegetation. Research 

conducted on the refuge indicate that yellow 

warblers, American robins, song sparrows, 

savannah sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, 

brown-headed cowbirds, willow fl ycatchers, 

Lincoln’s sparrows, and white-crowned sparrows 

represent greater than 90 percent of the breeding 

individuals within the local avifauna (Knopf et al. 

1988). However, abundance of some species is low 

and certain species known to occur in North Park 

have not been observed on the refuge (Knopf, 

unpublished data, refuge fi les). Although the causes 

for the lack of occurrence are unknown, a potential 

reason may be area size and isolation of willows. 

Past research on the requirements of breeding bird 

communities suggests that area, in combination 

with isolation of woodland, is one of the most 

important considerations in maintaining natural 

diversity of breeding bird populations (Robbins 1979; 

Whitcomb et al. 1981; Askins et al. 1987; Blake and 

Karr 1987; Lynch 1987).

In general, species richness increases with the 

area or width of riparian forests (Stauffer and Best 

1980; Dobkin and Wilcox 1986; Keller et al. 1993; 

Freemark et al. 1995). Further, the abundance 

of migrants typically is higher in the interior of 

riparian habitats (Szaro and Jakle 1985). However, 

the types of species and amount of use are often 

infl uenced by geographic orientation and the type of 

adjacent habitats. For example, species abundance 

can differ depending on slope (Dobkin and Wilcox 

1986) and surrounding habitat types (Carothers 

et al. 1974), and nest density can differ depending on 

orientation of habitat relative to migration pathways 

(Gutzwiller and Anderson 1992).

Thus, the refuge staff has decided to restore 

additional areas of willow along the central portion 

of the Illinois River and maintain or improve the 

willow community along the southern extent of 

the refuge. A primary reason for restoring willows 

along the central portion of the refuge is that 

research conducted in many areas of North America 

has suggested that habitat confi guration (size, 

shape, and geographical orientation) infl uences the 

relative importance of riparian habitats (Freemark 

et al. 1995); either by affecting presence or 

abundance (Askins and Philbrick 1987; Villard et al. 

1995) and movements (Sutcliffe and Thomas 1996) 

of species. In this context, increasing the extent 

of willow to the north would reduce the distance 

between willow communities on the Illinois and 

Michigan River and potentially provide benefi ts to 

a wider range of passerines by providing breeding 

habitat, travel corridors to larger patches of woody 

habitat, and migratory stopover habitat (Winker et 

al. 1992; Haas 1995; Thurmond et al. 1995; Machtans 

et al. 1996; Kilgo et al. 1998; Hagar 1999). 

The parameters used to determine the amount and 

structural characteristics of willow were based 

on available information. However, much of this 

research was conducted in riparian areas outside 

of Colorado; thus, applicability to riparian habitats 

on the refuge may not be direct because a given 

species, patterns in habitat use can vary from one 

geographic area to another (Hutto 1992), within 

and among years (Karr and Freemark 1985), 

and diurnally (Stacier 1992). However, a lack of 

perfect or even moderate knowledge cannot be an 

impediment to conservation action (Pashley et al. 

2000). 

The exact dimensions (width, length) of the woody 

riparian community necessary to benefi t the most 

birds have received much discussion (Darveau 

et al. 1993; Spackman and Hughes 1995). Several 

studies have indicated that widths greater than 

100 meters are required to support an unaltered 

bird assemblage (Keller et al. 1993; Hodges and 

Krementz 1996; Kilgo et al. 1998; but see Gates 

and Gysel 1978 for potential of areas to function 

as ecological traps). For example, riparian widths 

of 40–50 meters supported densities less than 50 

percent of that observed in interior balsam fi r 

forests (Whitaker and Montevecchi 1999). However, 

they did indicate that widths greater than 20 

meters would provide benefi ts to a relatively 

diverse bird assemblage. Similar results have been 

reported in other regions of the United States. 

Higher bird densities but fewer species were 

documented in narrow (16–20 meter) versus wide 

(40–60 meter) riparian zones in Georgia (Thurmond 

et al. 1995), Quebec (Darveau et al. 1995), Rocky 

Mountains (Kinley and Newhouse 1997), and 

Oregon (Hagar 1999). Based on this information, the 

refuge staff will attempt to establish willows in a 

minimum of 20-meter-wide zones along the Illinois 

River. However, the extent to which this objective 

can be accomplished is currently unknown because 

the width of the current fl oodplain must fi rst be 

defi ned.

Length, in addition to width, must also be 

considered in determining the optimum shape of 

riparian zones because proximity to edge infl uences 

use by many Neotropical migratory species 

(Whitcomb et al. 1981). We searched published 

information on breeding habitat requirements of 

Neotropical migratory birds occurring in Jackson 

County, Colorado to estimate the minimum area 

required. Of the species for which information was 
126 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

located, veery was the species with the largest area 

requirement (20 hectares in Maryland; Robbins et 

al. 1989). Based on an average width of 20 meters, 

the riparian zone would have to exceed 500 meters 

in length to support breeding veery. Riparian 

areas with these dimensions would provide 

potential breeding habitat for other Neotropical 

species, including but not limited to house wren, 

warbling vireo, orange-crowned warblers, 

northern waterthrush, yellow-billed cuckoo, yellow 

warbler, willow fl ycatcher, hairy woodpecker, 

downy woodpecker, white-breasted nuthatch, and 

western wood pewee (Galli et al. 1976, Robbins et 

al. 1989, Hagar 1999; table A). However, based on 

the estimated area requirement (225 hectares) of 

red-shouldered hawk, these areas will not support 

breeding raptors (Robbins et al. 1989). Although 

willow restoration at this scale may be ideal, the 

ability to accomplish an objective of this magnitude 

is unknown because critical information on the 

functions of the river. Therefore, the refuge will 

restore 50–100 acres of dense willows, in smaller 

patch sizes of 0.5 acres for the 15-year plan, which 

will provide habitat for many edge and interior edge 

Neotropical species (table A).

In addition to area, structure is also an important 

component determining the types and abundance 

of species using wooded riparian habitats (Fleming 

and Giuliano 1998, Dieni and Anderson 1999). Bird 

species numbers typically increase with the density 

and distribution of foliage among vertical strata 

(Martin 1988). This is not surprising since birds are 

known to actively select habitat on the basis of such 

proximate factors as landscape features, terrain, 

substrate, vegetative structure, or arrangement 

of vegetation (Wiens 1969). In general, a more 

heterogeneous habitat allows co-occurrence of more 

species (May 1986) because species-specifi c habitat 

requirements are met (Karr 1982) and because 

species may be spatially segregated (Martin 1986). 

In addition, some studies using artifi cial nests 

have found an inverse relation between predation 

rates and vegetation complexity in nesting habitat 

(Bowman and Harris 1980, Ratti and Reese 1988). 

Therefore, the refuge has established guidelines 

to promote multiple shrub layers by managing for 

variable heights ranging from 1–10 meters within 

the woody riparian zone.

Of all structural components that potentially 

infl uence habitat use by woodland passerines, 

most studies have identifi ed nesting and foraging 

substrate as the two most important. If these 

components are classifi ed according to general 

groups (i.e., foraging=ground, low foliage, high 

foliage; nesting=cavity, ground, low foliage, 

high foliage), comparisons indicate that a high 

percentage of variation in species numbers and 

species richness among areas are explained by 

viewing structure at this level of complexity 

(Martin 1988). For example, the number of species 

observed often is correlated with increasing 

foliage diversity (height, density). Although this 

relationship is often explained as a function of 

increasing foraging niche space or food abundance 

(MacArthur and MacArthur 1961; Willson 1974; 

Martin 1984), information also exists that observed 

relationships result from correlation with suitable 

nest sites (Oniki 1985; Martin 1988). Regardless, 

such a relationship indicates that greater structural 

diversity will support a greater number of species. 

Although the upper limits of vertical diversity 

along the Illinois River is somewhat constrained 

because the woody component is almost exclusively 

shrubs (willow), management can be directed 

toward increasing horizontal diversity and vertical 

diversity less than 10 meters. However, objectives 

for habitat management must be relatively broad 

because riparian systems are dynamic and many 

habitat management practices (e.g., fi re, hydrology) 

cannot be controlled at the fi nite levels necessary to 

affect a minute change in conditions (e.g., 40- to 45-

percent canopy closure). 

The refuge established structural requirements 

of the woody riparian community based on the 

breeding requirements of birds because: (1) 

breeding requirements are more narrow than 

migratory requirements; and (2) birds distribute 

among different layers of vegetation (Anderson 

and Shugart 1974; Willson 1974; Martin 1984). Some 

information on the specifi c habitat requirements 

of species occurring in North Park was available, 

but most information was of a general nature that 

provided undefi ned descriptions (e.g., dense/sparse, 

tall/short). We constructed a table A using this type 

of information for individual bird species for the 

purpose of identifying broad structural components 

that would be managed within the woody riparian 

component. We then used available quantifi able 

information available for several species to defi ne 

these broad terms.

Research conducted on the refuge indicates that 

yellow warblers select nest sites characterized by 

the horizontal arrangement of willow, including 

average distance to nearest willow (0.16 meter), 

average distance to farthest willow (0.4 meter), 

and the average distance to the nearest willow 

in each of 4 quadrants (0.16 meter) (Knopf and 

Sedgwick 1992). This information suggests yellow 

warblers require clumps of uniform-sized bushes 

characterized by moderate canopy closure. In a 

similar study conducted on willow fl ycatchers, 

nest sites were characterized by smaller distances 

between willow (0.8 + 0.2 meter [mean + standard 

error]) and greater willow the nest tree and 4 

nearest trees in each quadrant; larger willow 

patches and smaller gaps (0.4 + 0.5 meter) in 0.07-

hectare circular plots around nest sites, and greater 

willow coverage (49.3 + 2.3 percent) and less non-
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 127

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

 Breeda Neste Foragef

Species Type Minimum 

patch (ha) Type Height

(m) Type Height

(m) General Habitat Characteristicsk

American Redstart I 118.0 F 4-12 A,F 3-6 open, moist, deciduous woods with good 

undergrowth of shrubs/young trees

Blackbird, Red-winged E 24.0 F <3 F <3

Bluebird, Mountain E C prefer forest edges and open habitats

Chickadee C F >3 - >15 aspen/cottonwood preferred

 Black-capped IE 4.7

 Mountain C F >3 - >15

Common Yellowthroat IE 2.3 F <3;<0.5 F,G <3;<5.5 prefer cattail or low streamside thickets; 

require open water

Cowbird, Brown-headed E 2.3

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

Dove, Mourning E 2.3

Flicker, Northern IE 1.8 C G

Flycatcher

 Dusky F <3 dense shrubby understory

 Hammond’s 3-31 F 6-12 mature conifer with little ground cover; 

limited understory; some occur in shrubs

 Olive-sided Eb F 4.5-21 A conifers with snags and clearings; early postfi re communities; nearby water

 Willow E 1.2 F 0.6-18h

2–3 layers of shrubs preferred; presence of 

water; dense shrub patches with openings 

for nesting; nest in areas with trees 3–15 m 

with or without distinct overstory and very 

dense <2 m; forage in areas <10 m wide; 

shrub patches with canopy cover 40–100% 

and foliage density 50–70% in nesting shrub 

layerh

Grosbeak, Rosebreasted IE 24.0

Horned lark G G

shortgrass with considerable bare ground 

and grasses <3 cm; widely spaced shrubs <25 

cm tall

Jay, Stellar’s F >3 F >3

Kingfi sher, Belted G W

requires clear, slow-moving water; nest 

within 800 m of water; perching/nest sites 

limiting

Nuthatch

 White-breasted I 4.7 C B prefer conifers/aspen over riparian

 Red-breasted Ib C B

Robin, American E 1.8 F >3 G

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

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

 Breeda Neste Foragef

Species Type Minimum 

patch (ha) Type Height

(m) Type Height

(m) General Habitat Characteristicsk

Sparrow

 Field E 28.0

 Fox G G dense/shrubby understory associated with 

water

 Lincoln’sb E G G

boggy areas w/willows/sedges/aspen; wet 

ground for foraging; nest in dense sedges; 

associated with warblers (yellow, Wilson’s), 

sparrows (song, fox, white-crowned), and 

dusky fl ycatcher

 Savannah >10g

avoid areas with extensive tree cover; prefer 

intermediate vegetation height and density, 

sparse or low (<3 m) shrubs; forb:grass 

(25:75)

 White-crowned Eb G G

requires grasslands, bare ground for 

foraging, and dense shrubs for nesting; 

associated with Wilson’s warbler and 

sparrows (fox, Lincoln’s)

Swallow, violet-green C A

Thrush

 Hermit F 1-3 F,G <2 prefer conifer/hardwood; leaf litter for 

foraging; drier than Swainson’s thrush

 Swainson’s F 1-1.5 A

similar to veery but less dense 

understory and larger willows growing 

in larger patches; associated with 

sparrows(fox, song, Lincoln’s, whitecrowned), warblers (yellow, Wilson’s), 

and fl ycatchers (dusky, willow)

Towhee, Green-tailed F,G <3 G dry brushy areas with open spaces 

between shrubs

Veeryb I 28.0 G G; <1.5 thick/dense understory

Vireo, Warbling 7.0d F >3 F >3-16 widely spaced trees with little 

undergrowth and open canopy

Warbler

 MacGillivray’s F <3 F <3 large shrubs; similar to orange-crowned 

warblers

 Orange-crowned F,G F >3; ALL dense willows; associated with Virginia’s 

and MacGillivray’s warblers

 Virginia’s G dense understory

 Wilson’s dense willows

 Yellow E 0.05-0.45j F 0-15h A,F 0-16i

require tall singing posts and open space; 

breeding primarily in willows 1–2 m; 

shrub densities 60–80% optimal; avoid 

widely spaced shrubs and forests with 

closed canopiesi

 Yellow-rumped F 1.2-15 F,G prefer conifer/aspen
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 129

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

 Breeda Neste Foragef

Species Type Minimum 

patch (ha) Type Height(m) Type Height(m) General Habitat Characteristicsk

Waterthrush, Northern thick/dense willows

Woodpecker

 Downy IE 16.2 C 1.2-12 small, young trees with low canopy

 Hairy I 1.8 C 1.5-18 B mature forests with dense canopy; snags

Wood Pewee, Western F 2-24 6-23 nests in shrubs (low density); requires trees with 

exposed branches

Wren, House E 2.3 C F <3 prefer aspen/cottonwood

willow coverage (50.7 + 12.4 percent) in 0.32-

hectare circular plots surrounding the nest site 

(Sedgwick and Knopf 1992). 

In the Wind River Range of Wyoming, the 

abundance of western wood-pewees and warbling 

vireos was greater in unburned aspen forests 

because of greater canopy cover (46.9 percent) 

and canopy depth (4.6 meter) compared to burned 

aspen forests (18.3 percent canopy cover; 4.1-

meter canopy depth) (Dieni and Anderson 1999). 

In addition, orange-crowned warblers and dusky 

fl ycatchers were observed more in areas of 

unburned sites; presumably because of greater 

shrub cover (19.6 percent in unburned sites and 8.6 

percent in burned sites). However, overall species 

richness did not differ between unburned and 

burned sites suggesting these species are tolerant 

of relatively wide ranges of habitat structure. 

A comparison of forest/fi eld edges and forest/shrub 

edges in Pennsylvania suggest that the abundance 

of song sparrows, chipping sparrows, common 

yellowthroats, and brown-headed cowbirds were 

greater, and rose-breasted grosbeaks were lower, 

in forest/shrub edges (Fleming and Giuliano 1998). 

Comparison of structural features densities (not 

interpretable) within an area defi ned by indicated 

that shrub canopy cover (76.3 percent between 

0-2 meters) and vertical cover (68.8 percent) were 

greater and sapling height (5.0 meters maximum) 

aFrom Blake and Karr (1987). Patches sampled ranged from 1.8–600 ha. Habitat classifi cation (I=interior; IE=interior and edge) based 

on literature (Kendeigh 1982, Bohlen 1978, Whitcomb et al. 1981) and authors’ experience in Illinois.

bFrom Whitaker and Montevecchi (1999).

cRobbins et al. (1989) report 20 ha as minimum.

dMaximum territory size according to Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1998).

eFrom Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1998) and Martin (1988); C=cavity, F=foliage, G=ground.fFrom Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas 

(1998) and Martin (1988); A=air, B=bark, F=foliage, G=ground, W=water.

gFrom Illinois (Herkert et al. 1993).

hFrom Sogge et al. (1997).

iFrom Morse (1966), Hutto (1981), Schroeder (1982), Knopf and Sedgwick (1992), Stevenson and Anderson (1994), Briskie (1995), Dunn 

and Garrett (1997), Lowther et al. (1999).

jTerritory size, which is not equivalent to minimum patch size; from Fryendall (1967) and Lowther et al. (1999).

kFrom Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1998) unless otherwise noted.

was lower in forest/shrub edges compared to forest/

fi eld edges (57.4-percent shrub cover; 17.4-percent 

vertical cover, 14.7-meter shrub height). In western 

Oregon, the abundance of orange-crowned warblers, 

MacGillivray’s warblers, white-crowned sparrows, 

house wrens, northern fl ickers, and Stellar’s jays 

were greatest in logged sites, whereas Hammond’s 

fl ycatcher abundance was greatest in unlogged sites 

(Hagar 1999). Of the habitat variables quantifi ed 

in this study, the number of live stems, stems 

greater than or equal to 50 centimeters dbh, and 

snags greater than 30 centimeters dbh were lower 

(P less than 0.05) in logged (90.1 + 18.6 live stems, 

14.6 + 3.4 stems greater than 50 centimeters, 

and 11.2 + 1.8 snags) compared to unlogged sites 

(139.3 + 15.5 live stems, 51.2 + 10.7 stems greater 

than 50 centimeters, 18.3 + 3.2 snags), suggesting 

that species abundances are related to structural 

characteristics effected by tree density (e.g., canopy 

closure, canopy depth) and cavity availability.

Achieving the conditions stated in this objective 

should ensure some suitable habitat for the range 

of Neotropical bird species that occur in North 

Park, including species that require dense, shrubby 

habitats and those species that require more open, 

widely-spaced woody cover. Regardless of area 

requirements, however, the ability of the refuge 

to provide breeding habitat for the complete 

assemblage of birds potentially occurring on the 

refuge will not be possible. For example, many 
130 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

species considered (table A) require cavities for 

nesting, but potential cavity sites are limited on 

the refuge because willow is the dominant woody 

vegetation. Therefore, accomplishing this objective 

will not provide habitat for the entire assemblage of 

birds known to occur in this habitat type. However, 

it may provide potential breeding habitat for 

several Neotropical species that currently do not 

breed on the refuge. 

Although based on breeding requirements of 

Neotropical birds, numerous other species will also 

benefi t from increasing the willow community on 

the refuge. For example, the target dimensions of 

woody riparian habitat will also provide migratory 

habitat for numerous passerines, forage and cover 

for large mammals (e.g., moose, elk, mule deer) 

(Allen et al. 1987; Snyder 1991), and migratory and 

breeding habitat for several species of waterfowl 

(e.g., mallard, gadwall, and teal) (Colorado Breeding 

Bird Atlas 1998). Further, riparian buffers along 

small headwater streams (e.g., Illinois River) 

may be instrumental in maintaining populations 

of amphibians associated with riparian habitat in 

closed-canopy forests (Vesely 1997). 

Strategies

Numerous strategies have been used to successfully 

reintroduce willows, including establishment 

from seed, planting slims or bare-root stock, and 

excavation and movement of existing willows 

(Svejcar et al. 1991; Friedman et al. 1995; Houle and 

Babeux 1998; Pezeshki et al. 1998). The viability 

and costs of each method varies depending on local 

environmental conditions and availability of a plant 

source. Information necessary to decide on the best 

strategy of restoration includes data on dates of 

seed fall, area that can be expected to receive seed, 

area that experiences surface fl ooding, groundwater 

fl uctuations (including peaks, seasonal fl uctuations, 

etc.) at different elevations within the fl oodplain and 

transitional fringe, current vegetation conditions, 

and water management capabilities (surface and 

groundwater). 

In general, germination of willow seed requires 

bare, moist substrates that are free of shade 

(Johnson et al. 1976; Bradley and Smith 1986; 

Rood and Mahoney 1990; Scott et al. 1993). 

Appropriate conditions can be created using 

several combinations of strategies, including fi re, 

herbicides, scraping sod, and water management 

(Friedman et al. 1995). During the initial 

establishment phase, however, soil moisture 

conditions are critical to ensure survival (Pezeshki 

et al. 1998). Seedlings of most cottonwood and 

willow species are intolerant of low moisture 

(McLeod and McPherson 1973; Krasny et al. 1988). 

Numerous studies have indicated that rainfall 

alone is insuffi cient to support seed germination 

and seedling establishment on alluvial sands on 

sites that are not susceptible to mechanical damage 

by fl ooding and rain (Moss 1938; Engstrom 1948; 

Segelquist et al. 1993). Therefore, even if slims and 

bare-root stock are used, success will be dependent 

largely on the ability to control groundwater 

fl uctuations, particularly rate, duration, and depth 

of groundwater decline (Segelquist et al. 1993). 

Results of some studies indicate that a gradually 

declining water table promotes root growth to a 

greater depth than a static water table (Fenner 

et al. 1984; Segelquist et al. 1993). Thus, minor 

groundwater fl uctuations can be advantageous, 

but extreme fl uctuations will tend to result in 

mortality. For cottonwood (P. deltoides), available 

information suggests that rates of decline exceeding 

2 centimeters per day (Segelquist et al. 1993) and 

4 centimeters per day (Mahoney and Rood 1991) 

result in signifi cant mortality. Results of these 

studies provide useful information for estimating 

the level of groundwater control necessary. 

However, if established from seed, willow may be 

more sensitive to groundwater fl uctuations the 

fi rst month following germination; willow seeds 

obtain moisture from a smaller volume of sediment 

(Friedman et al. 1995). 

Another consideration that must be accounted for is 

the possibility of mortality following establishment. 

Although willow seedlings are capable of 

withstanding fl oods for two growing season 

(Walters et al. 1980), they also are susceptible to 

mortality through scouring during subsequent 

high fl ows (Everitt 1968; Segelquist et al. 1993; 

Friedman 1993). Such events are common within 

the channel and on the fl oodplain during certain 

portions of the year. Once established, various 

other factors (e.g., herbivory, fi re) can potentially 

cause signifi cant mortality. Although strategies 

(e.g., sleeves, exclosures, and fi re breaks) exist for 

reducing the impact of these mortality factors, the 

best solution(s) will likely vary depending on site 

conditions and location. Therefore, the refuge staff 

will evaluate options and make decisions on a siteby-site basis.

Objective

Provide 3,630–3,845 acres, over a 5-year average, 

of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, 

forbs) characterized by 10-30 centimeters VOR, 

0-10 centimeters duff layer and minimal (less than 

5 percent) bare ground and less than 40-percent 

(canopy closure) willow to benefi t nesting waterfowl 

(pintail, shoveler, gadwall, green-winged teal) and 

sage grouse broods.
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 131

Objective

Provide 210–700 acres, over a 5-year average, of 

a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, forbs, 

and rushes) characterized by greater than 30 

centimeters VOR, 10-20 centimeters duff layer and 

minimal (less than 5 percent) bare ground, and less 

than 40-percent (canopy closure) willow from midApril through August to benefi t nesting waterfowl 

(mallard, gadwall, pintail, scaup), songbirds 

(savannah sparrow, meadowlark), and foraging 

shorebirds if fl ooded (snipe, phalarope, white-faced 

ibis, sora, curlew, willet).

Rationale

Herbaceous vegetation is a component of riparian 

systems nationwide. The dominant herbaceous 

species within the Illinois River corridor are 

primarily perennial species classifi ed as obligate 

or facultative wetland plants that are tolerant of 

temporary surface fl ooding and seasonally high 

groundwater tables. These species, including 

rushes, sedges, grasses, and forbs are adapted to 

the short growing season (less than 40 days), low 

annual precipitation (less than 10 inches), and high 

annual evapo-transpiration rates characteristic 

of North Park. The species composition has been 

modifi ed by the introduction of additional grasses, 

but invasive, nonnative species currently occupy 

less than 5 percent of the land base and current 

fl oristics do not appear to be reducing the value of 

the area to wildlife (refuge fi les). 

The primary species of management concern in the 

grassland-dominated portion of the riparian zone 

are nesting waterfowl and grassland-dependent 

passerines. Both groups represent trust resources 

for the refuge. The enabling legislation for the 

refuge specifi cally identifi es waterfowl production 

as a purpose of the refuge. Grassland birds, 

although not specifi cally mentioned, are migratory 

and currently declining in many areas of North 

America (Herkert 1995). The most abundant duck 

species nesting on the refuge are blue-winged teal, 

gadwall, scaup, wigeon, mallard, and pintail (refuge 

fi les). Based on refuge banding records, monitoring 

avian productivity and survivorship (MAPS) 

station data (refuge fi les), Partners in Flight 

(PIF) scores (Pashley et al. 2000), and regional 

species of concern (refuge fi les), grassland birds 

of management interest are savannah sparrow, 

western meadowlark, vesper sparrow, bobolink, 

upland sandpiper, and Wilson’s phalarope.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that 

grassland size is an important factor determining 

avian use of grasslands for both foraging and 

nesting (Wiens 1969; Herkert 1991; Madden 1996; 

Greenwood et al. 1995; Clark 1977; Herkert et 

al. 1993; Vickery et al. 1994). Therefore, as with 

the willow community, size and dimension of the 

area must be considered. Some species typically 

do not nest in small grassland fragments (Samson 

1980; Herkert 1994; Vickery et al. 1994) or near 

grassland edges (Johnson and Temple 1986; Delisle 

1995; Helzer 1996) because nest depredation and 

parasitism are often higher (Johnson and Temple 

1986; Johnson and Temple 1990; Burger et al. 1994). 

A literature review of species known to nest in this 

region suggests that most are found on grasslands 

greater than 5 hectares, but nest densities of these 

species are much higher if the grassland is greater 

than 30-50 hectares (Helzer 1996; Herkert 1994; 

Johnson and Temple 1990; Martin and Gavin 1995). 

Currently, the size of grass-dominated habitats is 

not limiting, but the size of areas conforming to each 

of the objectives is currently unknown. The refuge 

staff will evaluate current conditions based on the 

parameters in each objective and ensure that blocks 

of suffi cient size are provided in each category. 

In addition, species that use fl oodplain grasslands 

have varying requirements with regards to foods 

and structural requirements for nesting and broodrearing. The refuge established requirements 

for vegetation structure based primarily on the 

breeding requirements of grassland nesting ducks 

and ground-nesting grassland birds. Most of the 

information used to establish requirements for 

these species was from studies in other geographic 

areas and some of the studies used undefi ned terms 

(e.g., dense, tall, thick) rather than numeric values. 

However, it was the best information available 

and future monitoring will help determine the 

extent to which the information is applicable to the 

refuge. Table B summarizes the information used to 

identify grassland requirements.

The most important structural characteristics 

are vegetation height and density, residual cover 

(duff), and shrub density. Differences in grass cover 

required by breeding birds can be separated into 

two broad groups based on nesting requirements. 

Species, including mallard, scaup, and gadwall 

require taller, denser cover to conceal nests (Holm 

1984; Livezey 1981; Lokemoen et al. 1984; Austin 

et al. 1998; LeSchack et al. 1997), whereas other 

species, such as pintail, teal, western meadowlark, 

Savannah and vesper sparrows, bobolink, and 

upland sandpiper prefer shorter, less dense cover 

(Madden 1996; Skinner et al. 1984; Lanyon 1994; 

Wheelwright and Rising 1993; Livezey 1981; Austin 

and Miller 1995; Kantrud and Higgins 1992). The 

cover requirements for both groups are provided 

by a combination of new growth and residual 

vegetation often referred to as duff or litter. 

Most waterfowl and gallinaceous birds depend on 

residual vegetation for initial nesting attempts and 

duff is an extremely important factor in nest site 

selection by dabbling ducks and ground-nesting 
132 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

 Species Nest

Type

Territory

(ha)

Patch

(ha)

Grass

(%)

Forbs

(%)

Shrubs

(%)

Duff

(cm)

VOR 

(cm)

General 

Habitat 

Characteristics

western 

meadowlark

 G 2-13b

>5c; mod. 

sensitivec,

depredation 

less on 

>130aa

32-52m

highb

35a

highb

24-41m

10-22m

little or 

nob

0-3a

low-mod.b

2.9-5.3m

1.2-

2.0m

nest in dense 

vegetation with 

thick litter 

covers,t

Savannah 

sparrow

 G .05-1.25d

sensitived,

may occur 

<5g,

>10 in Ill.c,

>40 for 50% 

occurrencel

0-20n

21-42m

2-7n,

27a,

littled,

25:75 

forbs: 

grassi,

16-30m

very 

sparsee

shrublessf

15-40m

0-4 

territorya,

1-6 nesta,

welldevelopedd

2.5-5.7m

1.4-

2.4m

open country 

with short 

vegetation, 

moist grassy 

meadows,u

vesper 

sparrow

0-7n

30a

0-10n

0-3a

sparsely 

or patchily 

distributed 

shrubs with good 

grass coveru

bobolink G .45-2.0r

>50 for 50% 

occurrencel,

much higher 

densities >30 

than <10r

32-48m

28a

18-31m

12-30m

0-4 

territorya

1-6 nesta

1.1-5.3m

grassy meadows 

with nearby 

forbs and high 

litter covers

mallard G

48-50 

and 43-

49 cm 

tallp

14.7o

>20q

scaup G 16o

tall vegetation 

cover in native 

prairie, meadow, 

or sparse shrubw

bluewinged 

teal

 G

22-24 

and 37-

39 cm 

tallp

15.1o dense, tall covers

northern

pintail G sparse 11.7o

open sites with 

low vegetation, 

residual cover of 

short grassesx

gadwall G

48-60 cm 

tallp,

25 and 

>30 cm 

tally

17.3o

 >20q

dense grasses, 

forbs, or shrubsy

common 

snipe G 2-12z low, sparsek

low grass/sedge 

or fairly dense 

low woody 

growth with 

open terrain 

nearbys
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 133

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

 Species Nest

Type

Territory

(ha)

Patch

(ha)

Grass

(%)

Forbs

(%)

Shrubs

(%)

Duff

(cm)

VOR 

(cm)

General 

Habitat 

Characteristics

upland 

sandpiper G

0-15 and 

<30 cm 

talln

0-8n thick, mid-height 

grasslandss

Wilson’s 

phalarope G

sparse 

to mod. 

densej

<20j

moist sedge/rush 

meadows with 

low vegetation 

and adjacent 

open waters

 aWiens (1969) hHerkert (1991) oHolm (1984) uSchaid et al. (1983)

 bDechant et al. (1999) iHerkert et al. (1993) pLivezey (1981) vMueller (1999) 

 cHelzer (1996) jKantrud and Higgins (1992) qLokemoen et al. (1984) wAustin et al. (1998)

 dSwanson (1998) kArnold (1994) rMartin and Gavin (1995) xAustin and Miller (1995) eWheelwright and Rising (1993) lHerkert (1994) sColorado Breeding Bird Atlas yLeSchack et al. (1997) 

 fArnold and Higgins (1986) mMadden (1996) (1998) zWilliamson (1960) 

gPotter (1972) nSkinner et al. (1984) tLanyon (1994) aaJohnson and Temple (1990)

grassland birds (Wiens 1969; Clark 1977; Kirsch et 

al. 1978; Leopold 1933). Ground-nesting grassland 

birds and dabbling ducks preferring shorter, 

less dense cover (e.g., northern pintail and teal) 

are typically found where duff layers are less 

than 10 centimeters (Swanson 1998; Wiens 1969; 

Madden 1996). In contrast, dabbling ducks nesting 

in the San Luis Valley of Colorado use denser 

cover characterized by duff layers that exceed 10 

centimeters (Laubhan and Gammonley, unpublished 

data). 

The effects of these characteristics on avian 

grassland use are most obvious in grasslands 

subject to different management practices. For 

example, a study at Malheur National Wildlife 

Refuge (Clark 1977) showed that duck nest 

densities were highest where grazing and mowing 

were prohibited the previous season, intermediate 

where partial mowing but no grazing were allowed, 

and lowest where grazing and mowing were 

unrestricted the previous season. Higher residual 

cover on the ungrazed and unmowed units was 

the single best parameter explaining the higher 

nest densities (Clark 1977). Other duck nesting 

studies have shown similar results (Reeves 1954; 

Salyer 1962; Martz 1967; Oetting and Cassell 1971). 

Structural changes have more varied consequences 

for non-game birds. For example, studies in 

Alberta and Saskatchewan found that some species 

preferred the structural conditions in ungrazed 

and unmowed grasslands (Savannah sparrow, 

Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit), other species 

preferred grazed or mowed grasslands (horned lark, 

McCown’s longspur, chestnut collared longspur), 

while some species were unaffected by grazing 

or mowing (western meadowlark, clay-colored 

sparrow) (Owens and Myres 1973; Maher 1973; 

Karuziak et al. 1977). 

In addition, some species of management interest 

are dependent on the presence of forbs in 

grasslands either as a nesting site for females or as 

song perches for males. Based on the requirements 

of western meadowlark, Savannah sparrow, vesper 

sparrow, and bobolink, the literature indicates 

that a minimum composition of 10-percent forbs 

is required (Wiens 1969; Skinner et al. 1984; 

Madden 1996; Dechant et al. 1999). Although 

currently unknown, the refuge will determine the 

forb composition of grassland-dominated habitats 

through monitoring and use various strategies to 

either maintain or improve the forb community. 

Based on a review of the literature, the species 

of management interest are tolerant of scattered 

woody vegetation. In fact, some nesting dabbling 

ducks (e.g., mallard, green-winged teal, and 

gadwall) will build nests at the base of shrubs 

(Austin et al. 1998; Kingery 1998; LeSchack et 

al. 1997). Ground-nesting grassland birds are 

somewhat less tolerant of woody vegetation but 

many are found in grasslands with 10- to 40-percent 

shrub cover (Madden 1996, Schaid et al. 1983). 

Although scattered willows are likely to become 

established within the grasslands, no attempt will 

be made to reduce willows until canopy closure 

exceeds 40 percent because many species are 

tolerant of such conditions.

The refuge used the above information to establish 

the two grassland objectives. Management to 

achieve these objectives will occur in the portion 

of the fl oodplain that will not be restored to 

willows. The relative proportion of habitat in each 

objective is not equal; however, objective 3 (10-30 

centimeters VOR) is being weighted more heavily. 

This decision was based largely on the capability 

to manage the riparian corridor for both habitat 
134 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

types. Past modifi cations limit the ability of the 

refuge to manage some areas for dense cover. For 

example, the highest elevations that is thought to 

be only minimally impacted by groundwater, and is 

known to be diffi cult to irrigate, are best suited for 

objective 3, and whereas the areas nearest the river 

are likely to be easier to obtain conditions stated in 

objective 2. 

Strategies

Because extensive areas of grasslands currently 

exist within the riparian habitat, management will 

be directed primarily toward maintaining existing 

areas. This will be accomplished by numerous 

methods, including but not limited to water 

management, prescribed fi re, grazing management, 

and haying. These management practices affect 

vegetation height, density, grass:forb ratio, and 

duff layer and thus avian use of grasslands (Clark 

1977; Mundinger 1976; Oetting and Cassel 1971; 

Salyer 1962; Enright 1971; Kaiser 1976; Kirsch 

and Higgins 1976; Owens 1971; Owens and Myres 

1973; Maher 1973; Dambach 1944; Madden 1996). 

Initially grasslands will be monitored to assess 

current structural conditions, forb distribution, and 

nonnative distribution. In areas of low (less than 10 

percent) forb composition, attempts will be made to 

increase this component by seeding in combination 

with the above listed activities. Areas that contain 

greater than 10 percent nonnative species (i.e., 

less than 90 percent natives) will be identifi ed and 

attempts made to reduce the composition of these 

plants using herbicides, biological control, water 

level management, or other management practices 

that have proven useful in other areas. 

Objective

Given the altered river fl ow regime, provide a 

properly functioning river channel characterized by 

a well defi ned thalweg, outside river edges that are 

deeper than inside edges, a river sinuosity of 2.0–

2.5, pool spacing every 7–9 channel widths, active 

point bar formation, and gradients in riffl es that are 

higher than in pools to benefi t willow establishment 

for Neotropical migrants, and indirectly provide 

suitable habitat for native and non-native fi shes.

Rosgen (1996) developed a stream classifi cation 

system that provided guidelines for identifi cation 

of stream channel types. This stream classifi cation 

system utilizes the following criteria: channel 

gradient, sinuosity, width/ratio, dominate 

particle size of bed and bank material, channel 

entrenchment, channel confi nement, landform 

features and stream bank stability. Utilizing this 

stream classifi cation system, the Illinois River 

on the refuge is classifi ed as a C-channel. The 

preferred, and most stable channel, is an E-channel 

(narrower and deeper). Rosgen (1996) describes an 

E-channel as low gradient, meandering riffl e/pool 

morphology stream with low width to depth ratio 

and little deposition occurring. E-channels are 

considered to be the most stable channel types and 

will encourage willow development; they provide 

the best habitat for trout. These are very effi cient 

and stable streams found in broad valley/meadows 

over alluvial materials and characterized by well 

vegetated banks. Minimizing disturbance to 

streambanks will facilitate E-channel development.

A thalweg is the deepest point on a stream channel 

cross section, and typically the deepest point on 

the valley fl oor. Functioning streams exhibit well 

defi ned thalwegs that move side to side as a stream 

meanders. Sinuosity is the ratio of the valley slope 

to the stream slope. E-channels exhibit sinuosity 

of greater than 1.2, but 2.0–2.5 is preferred. Pool 

spacing for E-channels is generally every four 

to seven channel widths. Point bar formation is 

another characteristic of streams that transport 

water and sediment effi ciently. Stream gradients 

are defi ned as the rise/run along the longitudinal 

profi le of the stream. Functioning streams exhibit 

higher gradients over riffl e areas (Rosgen 1996).

Rationale

This objective recognizes the altered Illinois 

River condition. The refuge will strive to produce 

a naturally functioning channel, given fl ow and 

irrigation shortcomings. Understanding the 

location and functional processes of the fl oodplain 

and transitional fringe are crucial to improving 

management on the refuge because these processes 

determine the potential composition and structure 

of vegetation and, therefore, the associated wildlife 

benefi ts (Pashley et al. 2000). 

In addition, a greater understanding of these 

processes will allow the refuge staff to identify 

potential management strategies that have a high 

probability of success. However, delineation of the 

fl oodplain and transitional upland fringe along the 

Illinois River that traverses the refuge is diffi cult. 

First, the hydrology of the river in North Park 

has been altered greatly; thus, it is not possible 

to assume that historic indicators (e.g., location of 

landforms) can be used to defi ne these components. 

This statement is based on the fact that an 

extensive irrigation and water storage system 

has been developed within the riparian system. 

However, the impacts of these developments are 

diffi cult to quantify because the historic gauge 

station on the refuge has been removed. 

Second, even if existing gauges were still in place, 

many of the original alterations leading to water 

diversions occurred prior to the establishment 

of USGS gauge stations. This is supported by 

conversations with the state water engineer 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 135

and local ranchers who have stated that water 

management has not changed appreciably in the 

last 100 years and 50 years, respectively. The 

refuge attempted to confi rm these statements 

by comparing USGS data from 1935–1939 and 

1995–1999 that was collected at Rand, Colorado 

(http://nwis-colo.cr.usgs.gov and http://co.water.

usgs.gov/nwis/). Several diversions (e.g., McFarland 

Reservoir, landowner ditches) occur between 

the gauge and the refuge boundary; thus, the 

usefulness of this information for purposes of 

refuge management is poor. Regardless, the data 

confi rms that the hydrology of the river, at least at 

this location, has not changed appreciably during 

the past 40 years based on comparisons of peak 

discharge, fl ow duration curves and seven day 

minimum fl ows. 

In general, the Illinois River at Rand is 

characterized by: (1) peak fl ows (500–600 cfs) in 

spring that are of short duration; (2) 90 percent of 

fl ows do not exceed 5 cfs; and (3) minimum daily 

fl ows are about 2 cfs. Further, a spatial comparison 

of the river channel on the refuge indicates the river 

has not undergone appreciable lateral migration 

during this period. 

Although it is not possible to mathematically 

derive the location and extent of the fl oodplain 

and transitional fringe because both current and 

pre-development information is unavailable, the 

refuge staff has evaluated the riparian system 

within the limits of their ability and have concluded 

the channel is in a state of change even though 

management has remained relatively static during 

the past few decades. This conclusion is supported 

by several subjective assessments. First, an 

October 2000 evaluation of several river reaches 

using the Rosgen method (Rosgen 1996) suggests 

the river is functional-at-risk. Specifi c factors 

identifi ed during the evaluation included evidence 

of channel incision, reduction in fi ne sediment load, 

and occasional mass failure of banks (i.e., sloughing). 

Further, indications of the direction of change can 

be assessed by placing these observations in the 

context of the channel equilibrium equation (Lane 

1955).

 Qs

 • D50 % Qw • S, where... 

 Qs = sediment discharge, D50 is sediment particle size,

 Qw is streamfl ow, and S = stream slope 

Channel equilibrium occurs when all four of the 

above variables are in balance. If one variable 

changes, one or more of the other variables must 

increase or decrease proportionally (The Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 

1998). In the case of the Illinois River on the 

refuge, channel incision suggests stream slope 

may be increasing, whereas the small amount of 

fi ne sediment suggests that sedimentation size or 

discharge may have been reduced compared to 

historical. This latter observation is supported by: 

(1) dominance of large substrates (e.g., cobble) in 

the river channel; (2) increased sedimentation in 

palustrine basins that have been developed within 

the riparian corridor; and (3) lack of signifi cant 

point-bar formation within the channel. 

Irrigation practices may remove the peak water 

fl ows, alter sediment loads, and change the 

duration of water events critical to stream function. 

Collectively, this information suggests that the 

equilibrium equation is currently unbalanced. 

During a December 2000 workshop, these 

factors were considered in relation to a channel 

evolution diagram that depicts the current stage of 

disequilibrium and theoretically may help predict 

future changes in habitat or stream morphology 

(The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

Working Group 1998). Based on the diagram 

produced by Simon (1989), the staff classifi ed 

the channel as either degrading or degradingand-widening. Characteristics associated with 

this classifi cation include large scallops and bank 

retreat, reduction or fl attening in bank angles, 

a fl ow line that is low relative to the top of the 

bank, and a prediction that a new fl oodplain will be 

developed (Simon 1989). 

Despite the fact that the refuge currently lacks 

detailed information necessary to quantify current 

and predict future channel changes, available 

information suggests that the elevation of the 

channel is lower than historic conditions. Because 

the intensity and frequency of fl ooding is important 

in determining community structure and system 

functions (Odum 1978), this directional change 

affects not only the channel, but also the fl oodplain 

and associated fringe (Baxter 1977; Lillehammer 

and Saltveit 1984). For example, lower channel 

elevation, coupled with lower peak fl ows, reduces 

the frequency, duration, and extent of overbank 

fl ooding. Consequently, the current width of the 

fl oodplain, as defi ned by hydrologic parameters, 

is narrower than the historic fl oodplain. Although 

the current extent of the fl oodplain has not been 

quantifi ed, staff observations during the past 15 

years indicate that the maximum extent surface 

water extends onto the fl oodplain is about 137 

meters(150 yards). Consequently, the transitional 

upland fringe has encroached toward the channel 

during the past four decades.

More information must be obtained on the current 

hydrology of the riparian zone prior to initiating 

restoration efforts. Data on bankfull discharge, 

seasonal and peak fl ows, and stage vs. discharge 

relationships must be developed. This will require 

establishing gauge stations to monitor river fl ows, 

placement of peizometers (or other equipment) 

perpendicular to the channel at various locations to 

monitor groundwater fl uctuations, and obtaining 
136 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

General Consideration of Areas 

Specifi ed

The area of each habitat component (defi ned by 

objectives) will vary over time depending on 

annual and seasonal conditions (e.g., river fl ow, 

precipitation). 

In addition, it is likely that some areas originally 

meeting the conditions of one objective will develop 

conditions that meet another objective. For 

example, grasslands with less cover (objective 3) 

may develop more cover (objective 2). Such changes 

(succession) are natural and have many benefi ts 

(e.g., nutrient cycling, soil stabilization) other than 

providing wildlife habitat. Therefore, the refuge has 

established broad tolerances in the area (hectare) 

of each habitat that will be provided. This is based 

on the concept that disturbance-driven spatial and 

temporal variability is a vital attribute of nearly all 

ecological systems (Landres et al. 1999). 

Further, managing within the constraints of site 

variability and history is easier, requires fewer 

external subsidies, and is more cost effective than 

attempting to achieve management goals that 

are outside the bounds of the system (Allen and 

Hoekstra 1992). Conditions that collectively fall 

within the established ranges will be suffi cient to 

provide some habitat for species of interest in most, 

if not all, years.

Wetland

To facilitate discussion and future management 

planning, the refuge staff defi ned wetland habitat 

as all natural and created ponds and lakes up to 

the high water mark, excluding the surrounding 

meadows and riparian corridor. This habitat, 

henceforth referred to as basins or wetlands, 

composes 824 acres based on National Wetland 

Inventory (NWI) land coverage for the refuge. 

Three wetland complexes were identifi ed for 

management purposes, mainly based on location: 

Case, Illinois River, and Soap Creek. Meadow 

habitat is defi ned as the grasslands/old hay 

meadows on all areas of the refuge except those 

along the riparian corridor (which are considered 

part of the riparian habitat) and consist of 2,683 

acres.

Of the wetlands on the refuge, about 10 percent 

are natural freshwater basins and about 90 

percent are created freshwater basins. Meadows 

characteristically occur adjacent to wetland basins 

in lowland sites and in the more upland areas that 

are irrigated. The Illinois River, Spring Creek, Soap 

Creek, and Potter Creek fl ow through the refuge 

and are the major source of water to basins and 

meadows through natural subsurface and surface 

fl ows and via a complex ditch irrigation system. 

elevation data at several points along the channel. 

In combination, this information will allow areas 

with highest potential for restoration to be 

selected, identify the best method of restoration 

(e.g., seeds, slims), and allow development of the 

most appropriate water management strategies at 

different sites within the riparian zone. 

Efforts to restore the Illinois River channel will 

most likely improve the refuge fi shery resource. 

Fish are primarily found only in the Illinois River 

and other aquatic sites, including Potter Creek, 

Spring Creek and refuge ponds, represent poor 

fi shery habitat. Water depth and winter survival is 

the limiting factor in most of these systems. Winterkill is a common problem with many of the lakes on 

the refuge and throughout North Park. Fish species 

found in the other aquatic sites include longness 

dace, creek chub, white sucker, long-nosed sucker, 

fathead minnow, and johnny darter (Kehmeier 

2001). 

The Illinois River is a transition stream, 

beginning as a trout stream in the headwaters and 

transitioning to a native species stream by the 

time it meets the Michigan River. This transition 

appears to occur as the river crosses the refuge. 

The lower fl ows experienced at the north end of 

the refuge may be responsible for the trout giving 

way to the more tolerate native species. Trout are 

not native to North Park streams. Sampling in 1998 

found that upstream from the refuge, the fi shery 

is dominated by brook and brown trout at or near 

carrying capacity of 114 kilograms per hectare of 

biomass. Sampling near the Allard bridge found a 

high diversity of habitats, and the highest species 

count (six native species and one nonnative). Brown 

trout are reproducing and demonstrate recruitment 

in the Illinois River. Rainbow trout were not 

sampled in 1998; however, they may exist because 

of previous Colorado Division of Wildlife stocking 

efforts. Sampling downstream of the Ward Ditch 

No. 1 found mostly native species mentioned above. 

Instream structure is limited to willow root 

balls, aquatic vegetation (Elodia, Potamogeton, 

and fi lamentous algae) and small woody debris. 

Beaver dams, common on the upstream end of the 

system, help the system become more dynamic and 

provide excellent angling opportunities. Continued 

stream bank protection is critical to sustaining 

the fi shery resource. Degraded stream banks 

exhibit shallow water spread over a wide stream 

channel. Deep water pools are critical to sustain 

healthy fi sh populations. Fishery habitat efforts 

must focus restoring natural structure and function 

to the Illinois River and will result in better 

fi shery habitat. A fi shery management step-down 

management plan will be prepared by 2005.
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 137

private landowners mostly for domestic and stock 

use (Voegeli 1965). Three major reservoirs (Case 

1, 2, and 3), germ and the fi sh hatchery ponds were 

created prior to refuge establishment. However, the 

majority of semipermanent/permanent basins were 

created by the refuge. 

Largely due to past ranching practices and the 

construction of various water control structures 

(including ditches), the extent of sagebrush habitat 

has declined and the structure and composition 

of many of the sagebrush and wetland systems 

have changed. Because the historic conditions of 

these sites are largely unknown, a complete and 

accurate description of the structural and functional 

modifi cations that have occurred is not possible. 

Nonetheless, the complex of roads and ditches on 

the refuge has invariably altered historic hydrologic 

regimes by impounding more water for longer 

periods in some areas and less water for shorter 

periods in other areas.

Differences among wetlands and meadows vary 

largely due to: (1) refuge infrastructure (e.g., 

roads and ditches that affect water fl ow, control 

structures); (2) management (e.g., fl ooding, burning, 

grazing, no action); (3) position in the landscape 

(e.g., degree of slope in and around basin or 

meadow, size of depression, aspect/solar exposure, 

horizontal and vertical proximity to the river and 

water table, juxtaposition of habitat types); and (4) 

soil characteristics (water-holding capacity, organic/

mineral content). Collectively, these characteristics 

of basins and meadows affect water quality and the 

availability of moisture and nutrients that infl uence 

plant composition and productivity (Mitsch and 

Gosselink 1993). Different types, abundances, 

and distributions of plants create varied habitat 

conditions that, in turn, support a diversity of 

wildlife.

Plants in and around wetlands characteristically are 

distributed in zones largely based on differences 

in soil and moisture (Castelli et al. 2000). Plants in 

wetland habitat on include species that are adapted 

to semipermanent/permanent fl ooding regimes 

(standing water), a short growing season (33 days), 

high daily and annual temperature fl uctuations (25–

40°F, -49–96°F, respectively), and cold mean annual 

temperatures (36.5°:F) (climate data from various 

sources in Kuhn et al. 1983). Species in wetland 

habitat are dominated by perennials, including 

submergents (e.g., sago pondweed, widgeongrass), 

tall emergents (e.g., cattail and bulrush), and 

short emergents (a mix of grasses, rushes, sedges, 

and forbs). The short emergent sites occurring 

within the high water mark likely are a result of 

fl uctuating water levels among dry and wet years 

and, therefore, are limited in size and relatively 

short-lived when high water levels persist. These 

short emergent areas within wetland habitat are 

a continuum into meadow habitat (e.g., Windell et 

Origination of the ditches occurs both on- and offrefuge with the Illinois River as the major water 

source. Other surface and groundwater resources 

also affect the timing, duration, frequency, and 

depth of fl ooding among sites.

Goals

Wetland Goal

Provide and manage natural and constructed 

permanent and semipermanent wetlands (in three 

wetland complexes) to provide habitat for migratory 

waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and associated 

wetland-dependent wildlife.

Meadow Goal

Provide and manage irrigated, grass-dominated 

meadows historically developed for hay production, 

to support sage grouse broods, waterfowl nesting, 

and meadow-dependent migratory birds.

Justifi cation

Water resources are limited in the west and a 

variety of wetland types (e.g., permanently fl ooded 

wetlands, seasonally fl ooded meadow) are needed 

to provide the required life resources of migratory 

birds and other wildlife. Wetland systems are 

characterized by their fl ooding patterns (e.g., 

timing, frequency, duration, depth) (Mitsch and 

Gosselink 1993) that directly and indirectly 

determine plant productivity and wildlife use. 

Wetland complexes (proximate wetlands with 

different hydrologic regimes) often favor the 

availability of resources for wetland-dependent 

wildlife in dry and wet years.

Wetland and meadow on the refuge have been 

altered by various artifi cial disturbances. Because 

North Park is a cold mountain desert, we assume 

that historically, aside from the river, most of the 

water sources likely were temporal and/or seasonal. 

Early (circa 1900) settlers of Colorado created 

grassland meadows and dry-land crops in river 

bottomlands and adjacent sagebrush habitat where 

soils were suitable and irrigation was possible 

(Rogers 1964). 

With the intent of maximizing cattle production, 

previous landowners presumably used seeps, 

springs, natural contours, and areas with high 

water tables to create much of the meadows and 

perhaps a few of the artifi cial basins. These areas 

were used as watering holes, productive range sites, 

and irrigated hay meadows. Reports indicate that 

irrigated hay meadows were common in Jackson 

County before refuge establishment (Rogers 1964). 

Historical records show that at least fi ve selected 

wells on the refuge were drilled around 1956 by 
138 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

al. 1986). Thus, while the boundary defi ning the 

margins of wetland and meadow sites remains the 

same (i.e., defi ned by the high water mark), the 

habitat conditions within each habitat type may 

vary within seasons and among years. Nonetheless, 

periodic disturbances (e.g., fl ooding/drying) are 

necessary to continually provide diverse habitat 

conditions and to maintain system productivity.

The ability for the refuge to provide (1) wetland 

habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, 

wading birds, and associated wildlife; and (2) 

meadow habitat for sage grouse broods, waterfowl 

nesting, and meadow-dependent migratory birds 

has been achieved in past and recent years (refuge 

fi les). Regardless, adaptive management practices 

will be implemented to improve the quality 

and quantity of those resources and to increase 

management effi ciency (cost vs. benefi t). In this 

process, changes on- and off-refuge that potentially 

infl uence management are considered. 

The relative importance of a particular habitat or 

wildlife species often changes or new information 

(e.g., species-habitat relationships or management 

strategies) infl uences management approach. For 

example, sage grouse has become a species of 

concern in North Park, and we are evaluating how 

we can best support the species throughout the 

annual cycle (nesting, brooding, and wintering).

Wetland and Meadow Objectives

Rationale

Because the habitat characteristics (e.g., vegetation 

composition and structure) on the refuge are not 

currently quantifi ed, we used the known habitat 

requirements of a select group of wildlife species 

to facilitate the process of writing habitat-based 

objectives. Required resources of the selected 

species effectively represent the range of potential 

habitat conditions that naturally may have occurred 

in wetland and meadow. As stated in the goal, 

wetland habitat on the refuge will be managed 

for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading 

birds, and associated wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Thus, particular attention was paid to wetlanddependent species and species of refuge concern 

and consideration was given to multiple bird 

conservation plans/lists (e.g., State and Federal 

threatened and endangered species, Partners 

in Flight, Bird Conservation Regions). Further, 

species habitat requirements typically vary among 

life cycle events (e.g., migrating, nesting, and 

brood-rearing) and, therefore, the chronologies of 

these species events were identifi ed with respect 

to refuge use periods to maximize resource 

availability (see chronology charts, fi gures A–G). 

Because the life requisites of plants and wildlife 

vary temporally and among species, different types 

of conditions (e.g., height, density, composition, 

water depth) must be provided within each of 

the habitat types (i.e., upland, riparian, wetland, 

meadow) at particular times in the year (e.g., 

nesting, migration). Each objective describes 

a range of habitat conditions that is within the 

management capabilities of the refuge. Collectively, 

these objectives support a high diversity of wildlife 

species.

Wetlands

The refuge will try to manipulate wetlands to 

fulfi ll the habitat needs of the diverse wetlanddependent wildlife. Much of the information on 

wetland species-habitat relationships results from 

studies conducted outside the intermountain region. 

While the existing information describes potentially 

important relationships, we must consider the 

source of information (e.g., what, where, when, why, 

and how data collected) when actual and theoretical 

outcomes do not coincide.

Wetland habitat selection by water birds is 

largely dependent on species and scale (Brown 

and Dinsmore 1986; Gibbs et al. 1991; Orians and 

Wittenberger 1991). Studies have demonstrated 

that wetland use by breeding birds that are 

wide-ranging (e.g., black tern, northern pintail) is 

greatly infl uenced by landscape level features (e.g., 

landscape heterogeneity, wetland isolation/density, 

surrounding habitat types and conditions), while use 

by other birds (e.g., Virginia rail, pied-billed grebe) 

largely is affected by habitat characteristics within 

the area of the nest wetland (e.g., local vegetation 

conditions; Brown and Dinsmore 1986; Naugle et al. 

1999; Naugle et al. 2001). Farmer and Parent (1997) 

indicated that the foraging effi ciency of migrating 

shorebirds increases when the distance between 

small wetlands decreases, forming a complex. 

At the wetland scale, habitat characteristics that 

variably affect wetland use by water birds largely 

include wetland size and type, distance to shore, 

amount and distribution of shoreline vegetation, 

distance to nearest open water, distance to nearest 

vegetated edge, surface water area, and the 

interspersion of cover and open water areas. Weller 

and Spatcher (1965) recorded differences in the 

abundance and distribution of many bird species in 

relation to changes in habitat condition of the marsh 

and at nest sites. 

While bird species numbers and diversity were 

highest when the cover:water ratio reached 50:50 

(hemi-marsh), the interspersion of cover and open 

water areas seemed even more important. For 

example, grebes and waterfowl preferred areas 

with waterways through the emergent vegetation 

that connected various pools. Studies also show 

that hemi-marsh conditions do not satisfy the 

requirements of all species and preferences of 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 139 Figure A. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure B. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
140 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure C. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure D. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 141 Figure E. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Figure F. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado 
142 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure G. Habitat use chronology, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 143

cover:water interspersion for a given species may 

vary temporally (Weller and Spatcher 1965; Murkin 

et al. 1997). 

In another study, habitat preferences of the 

horned, eared, and pied-billed grebes largely 

differed according to basin size and the amount and 

distribution of shoreline vegetation. Horned grebes 

selected smaller ponds than eared and pied-billed 

grebes, whereas pied-billed grebes used ponds with 

relatively more shoreline vegetation relative to 

the other grebe species. In part, these differences 

were attributed to behavioral characteristics. 

Typically, horned and pied-billed grebes nested in 

isolation and needed visual separation, while eared 

grebes nested colonially and needed more space for 

nesting. 

The importance of distance parameters in 

habitat selection is less clear likely due to how it 

differentially relates to bird behavior (e.g., solitary 

vs. colonial nesters, secretive vs. social species, 

territoriality) and other habitat variables (e.g., 

wetland size (Boe 1993), proximity to other habitat 

types).

The signifi cance of microhabitat characteristics 

in determining bird use within a wetland, such 

as structure (plant height and density), plant 

composition, litter, and area, was discussed in the 

riparian habitat section. Those same concepts 

similarly apply to other habitat types, including 

wetland habitat. In addition, water depth at 

nesting and foraging sites are distinctive features 

of wetland habitat that greatly affect bird use. 

Relationships between water depth and water bird 

use are discussed under the objectives below.

Objective

Maintain 10 acres of, and attempt to establish 

in one other wetland basin, tall (greater than 60 

centimeters VOR) emergent vegetation in water 

depths greater than 4 centimeters over a 5-year 

period to provide nesting habitat for over-water 

nesting birds (black-crowned night-heron, whitefaced ibis, waterfowl, marsh wrens, coots, and 

blackbirds).

Value 

The most conspicuous attribute of this habitat 

condition is the tall, dense vegetation that provides 

the necessary nesting cover for large-bodied wading 

birds (e.g., black-crowned night-heron, white-faced 

ibis) and more secretive water birds (e.g., rails). 

No other habitat objective shares this feature. The 

vegetation density largely is a function of the litter 

or duff layer (the amount of new and residual plant 

growth), commonly used by water birds as nesting 

substrate. As well, fl ooded emergent litter is 

important for macroinvertebrate production in the 

spring (Nelson et al. 1990), prior to the emergence 

of submergent vegetation (Nelson and Kadlec 1984). 

Invertebrate matter is a primary source of protein 

for many wetland and terrestrial birds (Fredrickson 

and Reid 1986). Waterfowl especially rely on 

invertebrate matter as a component of their diet 

during the breeding (Bartonek and Hickey 1969; 

Krapu and Reinecke 1992; Baldassarre and Bolen 

1994) and brood-rearing seasons (Sudgen 1973; Cox 

et al. 1998). 

Achievability 

The current coverage of tall emergent vegetation 

(primarily cattail [Typha spp.]) is extremely limited. 

Our attempt to maintain the estimated 10 acres that 

currently exists is largely experimental as we learn 

more about our ability to manage for the desired 

habitat condition described in the objective. We 

believe it is possible because it exists in similar high 

elevation parks in Colorado, specifi cally South Park 

and the San Luis Valley. Our present concern is that 

some of our wetland basins have margin slopes that 

do not favor plant germination. In addition, some 

of our basins possibly have enough sedimentation 

accumulation and turbidity to adversely effect 

germination of some plant species. Most of the 

sedimentation comes through the ditches that enter 

the ponds. Wang et al. (1994) found that sediment 

loads of 0.2–0.4 centimeters decreased cattail seed 

germination by 60–90 percent. Further, coarsetextured sediments had more adverse effects 

on seedling density compared to fi ne-textured 

sediments (Dittmar and Neely 1999). 

If sedimentation has occurred, the source (e.g., 

bank erosion, infl ow from adjacent uplands or 

ditches), extent (e.g., current sediment load, seed 

burial, turbidity), and rate of sedimentation (e.g., 

retention/re-suspension of potential of bottom 

materials, past and current rates of infl ow, wind 

action, shoreline slope) should be examined. This 

information in addition to our ability to manage 

water levels may indicate which sites have 

the highest management potential for cattail 

establishment.

Strategies 

To encourage germination and establishment of 

cattail, experimental wetland basins that show the 

highest potential for cattail establishment would 

need to be selected. Selection criteria may include 

water control capabilities, rates of evaporation (e.g., 

how fast less than 1 inch of water becomes a mudfl at 

and how soon mudfl at dries out completely), amount 

and distribution of existing cattail in each basin, and 

shoreline conditions (slope). Our ability to expose 

mudfl ats when temperatures are optimal for cattail 

germination (25–35°C) would have to be evaluated 

for relatively dry, average, and wet years. 

For established cattail stands, effective 

management requires periodic disturbance. 
144 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Following germination, cattail establishment may 

occur fastest in 1-inch water depth, though it is 

able to grow well in saturated soils and in water 6 

inches deep (Bedish 1967). Once mature plants are 

established, cattail may tolerate a range of water 

depths (generally less than 20 inches). However, 

extended periods of deep (greater than 26 inches) 

fl ooding have stressed cattail plants and may 

terminate growth (Apfelbaum 1985; Sojda and 

Solberg 1993). In Wisconsin, cattail endured water 

depths of 3 feet (91 centimeters) for less than two 

full growing seasons before a die-back was observed 

(Beule 1979).

In the process of managing to favor cattail 

germination, other benefi ts are gained depending 

on the timing of a drawdown or fl ooding event. 

For example, food resources may be made 

available as a result of a drawdown during spring 

or fall migration. A drawdown may also stimulate 

submerged aquatic vegetation beds.

Objective

Provide 10 percent of the wetland acres over a 5-

year average in short (less than 10 centimeters), 

sparse (less than 10 centimeters VOR) emergent 

vegetation in water depths less than 4 centimeters 

from April to August to provide foraging habitat 

for shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as nesting and 

brood-rearing habitat for shorebirds.

Shallowly fl ooded, short, sparse emergent 

vegetation are typical foraging sites for many water 

bird species (Fredrickson and Reid 1986; Helmers 

1992; Laubhan and Gammonley 2000). This habitat 

condition is notably important for various shorebird 

and waterfowl species that occur on the refuge 

during spring and fall migration and throughout 

the breeding season (April to August). Further, 

while similar habitat exists off-refuge in North 

Park, we feel the number of sites that satisfy all 

the conditions (e.g., less than 4 centimeters water 

depth) described in this objective is limited. In part, 

this habitat condition may be limited because of 

differences in land management objectives of onand off-refuge sites. 

Relatively open stands of vegetation allow 

shorebirds to utilize visual and/or tactile strategies 

to acquire food resources that occur in sites 

with dry/moist ground and/or in fl ooded sites 

with water depths of less than 10 centimeters 

(Helmers 1992). While morphological attributes 

(tarsus and culmen length; Baker 1979), foraging 

preferences, and nesting behavior (semi-colonial, 

solitary) differ among shorebird guilds (Helmers 

1992), habitat conditions (water depth less than 4 

centimeters) described in this objective primarily 

allow relatively small bodied shorebirds of the 

Interior Region (e.g., plover, curlew, turnstone, 

small and medium sandpipers, yellowlegs) to exploit 

the necessary invertebrate resources typically 

Disturbance characteristics (e.g., fl ooding depth, 

frequency, duration) and timing in relation to the 

annual cycle of cattail growth will largely determine 

cattail response (Beule 1979; Apfelbaum 1985; Sojda 

and Solberg 1993).

An understanding of the environmental conditions 

that favor and discourage cattail germination and 

growth likely will improve our ability to manage 

for the desired habitat condition described in 

the objective. Cattail reproduces by seed and 

vegetatively via rhizomes. 

Germination of cattail occurs in shallow water 

depths (e.g., less than 0.5 inch of water, Sojda and 

Solberg 1993) and on mudfl ats (van der Valk and 

Davis 1978; Sojda and Solberg 1993) under a wide 

range of temperatures (Sojda and Solberg 1993). 

Results of greenhouse experiments indicated that 

cattail germination required fl ooding (Bedish 1967). 

Cattail germination seemed best in water 1 inch 

deep when light and temperatures were optimal 

(Bedish 1967; Weller 1975). Under fi eld conditions, 

most studies show germination of cattail occurs 

after mudfl ats have been exposed (Beule 1979). 

Subsequent shallow fl ooding may promote seedling 

establishment (discussed below). Fully saturated 

or fl ooded soils produce anaerobic conditions near 

the soil surface (e.g., less than 2 centimeters, 

Mortimer 1971 in Bonnewell et al. 1983). Cattail 

seed germination was reported highest on the soil 

surface, but occurred less than 1 centimeter below 

the surface of sandy soil (Galinato and van der Valk 

1986). 

Studies show reduced O2 concentrations 

promote cattail germination (Hutchinson 1975 

in Bonnewell et al. 1983). Bonnewell et al. (1983) 

found that germination of submerged cattail 

seeds was maximized in O2 concentrations of 

2.3–4.3 milligrams per liter. In the same study, 

seeds fl ooded for less than 24 hours had higher 

germination then those fl ooded for 7 days. 

Seed germination of cattail was signifi cantly 

reduced by 1,000 milligrams per liter of NaCl 

(Galinato and van der Valk 1986). A salinity of 

10 ppt was responsible for the decreasing cattail 

cover that was fl ooded for most of a growing season 

(Sojda and Solberg 1993). Thus, especially in arid 

environments, it is important to pay close attention 

to increasing soil and/or water salinities as water 

levels decrease. 

Though results vary, optimum soil-surface 

temperatures for cattail germination generally 

range 25–35°C (Bonnewell et al. 1983; Sojda and 

Solberg 1993). Bonnewell et al. (1983) found no 

germination occurred at 10°C and was very low 

at 15°C. Long light exposure is another cattail 

germination requirement and an environmental 

characteristic of open mudfl ats (Bonnewell et al. 

1983). 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 145

found in newly fl ooded areas. The medium- to 

large-bodied shorebirds (godwit, avocet, stilts, 

phalarope) also may use these areas for foraging 

and nesting, but more characteristically forage for 

invertebrates resources in water depths greater 

than 4 centimeters and less than 20 centimeters 

(Helmers 1992).

Objective

Provide 20 percent of the wetland acres over a 5-

year average of emergent vegetation greater than 

25 centimeters tall with visual obstruction reading 

greater than 80-percent of vegetation height in water 

depths 4–18 centimeters to provide escape cover 

and foraging habitat for dabbling duck broods and 

molting ducks, and foraging habitat for water birds.

Unlike the habitat conditions described in the other 

wetland objectives, these conditions provide both 

shallow water and moderately dense cover that is 

especially important for water birds with relatively 

low mobility (e.g., molting ducks, broods). The 

relatively shallow water increases the availability 

of food resources and the moderate cover permits 

movement and concurrently decreases the risk of 

predation.

Brood-rearing habitat is a limited resource in North 

Park in dry years partly because of the arid climate 

and agricultural activities that demand water 

resources earlier in the growing season. While 

agricultural activities have created reservoirs for 

irrigation that provide some brood habitat, they do 

not always satisfy all the conditions described in the 

objective and may differ from habitat provided onrefuge in terms of quality.

Value 

The availability of different habitat conditions may 

benefi t a greater diversity of wildlife species and/or 

support species for longer periods in their annual 

life cycle.

Achievability 

The above two habitat objectives are created 

when water levels in wetland basins are artifi cially 

and/or naturally drawn down (e.g., to encourage 

germination and growth of emergent vegetation or 

to stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth). 

At present the refuge tries to provide some 

shoreline habitat for spring migrating shorebirds 

resulting from drawdowns. In fall, water levels 

naturally drop in many of the ponds and spring 

fl ooding also creates much shallow water. 

The refuge is unique in North Park in managing for 

shorebirds. Slow, staged drawdowns can work well, 

but cannot refi ll basins in most years. Nevertheless, 

those habitat conditions likely are similar to historic 

dynamics of many of the natural basins. Drawdown 

will also help submergent aquatic vegetation beds. 

Strategies 

Strategies used to achieve habitat described in 

objective 2 involve both drawdowns and back 

fl ooding of different areas to create the habitat 

described. For objective 3, drawdowns will provide 

the desired conditions in subsequent years.

Objective

Provide 10–20 percent of the wetland acres, within 

each wetland complex, over a 5-year average 

with 70-percent coverage of submergent species 

(Potamogeton, Ruppia) in wetlands of greater than 

18 centimeters water depth provide invertebrates 

and seed sources for foraging water birds, 

especially waterfowl broods, and escape cover for 

diving ducks.

Value

Submergent vegetation provides complex structure 

for macroinvertebrate production when it becomes 

established in early summer (Krull 1970, Voigts 

1976, Nelson and Kadlec 1984). Sago pondweed 

and widgeongrass are two major submergent plant 

types that occur on the refuge. Both submergents 

are reputable productive waterfowl food resources 

(drupelets, tubers, stems/leaves, and invertebrates; 

Kantrud 1990, 1991). Waterfowl broods rely heavily 

on the availability of both invertebrate and plant 

foods (Sudgen 1973). In addition, these submergents 

are used by many wetland-associated wildlife 

species (Kantrud 1990, 1991) for nesting, foraging, 

and escape habitat.

Achievability 

Some submergent vegetation already exists on the 

refuge, but its occurrence has not been a result of 

actively managing for its production. These habitat 

conditions have regional importance due to the 

limited availability of quality open water habitat 

(e.g., extent of submergent vegetation with water 

depth greater than 18 centimeters proximate to 

nesting habitat) in North Park during the broodrearing season. By managing for these habitat 

conditions within each complex, we will maximize 

the availability and accessibility of resources that 

these habitat conditions provide.

Strategies 

A monitoring plan will be developed to show 

when signifi cant changes from Potamageton and 

widgeongrass to other submergent types occur, 

signifying the need for a drawdown. In order to 

favor widgeongrass production, Hietzman (1978 

in Kantrud 1991) recommended drawdowns 

to consolidate and oxidize sediments when silt 

deposition and decomposing vegetation on the 

substrate was deeper than about 4 centimeters. 

Otherwise, widgeongrass might become poorly 

rooted and susceptible to damage by wave action. 
146 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Partial early spring and fall drawdowns and 

complete summer drawdowns with refl ooding in the 

fall have also been used to stimulate widgeongrass 

growth (Kantrud 1991). Widgeongrass shoot 

survival may increase if produced earlier in the 

growing season and if able to reproduce. Also, 

fl oating fragments may eventually grow roots, sink, 

and attach to the bottom substrate. Water level 

manipulations have also been used to encourage 

sago production, but success has varied. Where 

sediments are high in organic material, complete 

drawdowns may be used to release nutrients that 

may stimulate sago production when the wetland 

is refl ooded. Partial drawdowns (e.g., to 0.3 meters 

water depth by August in the aspen parkland region 

of Canada) have increased sago and other pondweed 

production as well (Kantrud 1991).

Accomplishing this objective requires management 

that encourages the production of macrophytes, 

specifi cally sago pondweed (Potamogeton 

pectinatus L.; sago) and widgeongrass (Ruppia 

maritima L.). Unless otherwise cited, all 

information on the germination and growth 

requirements of sago and widgeongrass was 

derived from Kantrud (1990, 1991), respectively.

Sago has a circumpolar distribution and has 

exhibited both annual and perennial life cycles 

due to its ability to adapt to a wide range of 

environmental conditions. Sago absorbs nutrients 

from the water column and, therefore, may be 

rooted (greater than 0.5 meters in sandy soils 

and less than 0.5 meter in fi ner textured soils) in 

sediments with low oxygen levels. Sago vegetative 

growth begins when water temperatures are 10°C 

(late March–late June), but may not reach the 

water surface for weeks (May–mid-July). Low light 

conditions increase the rate of growth. 

Sago may reproduce from fruit (drupelets), but 

more often reproduces vegetatively via root or 

stem structures termed winter buds, tubers, or 

turions. The number of turions often far exceeds 

that of drupelets and some sago plants only use this 

form of reproduction, especially in permanently 

fl ooded wetlands. Germination and turion growth 

is maximized when temperatures are 15–26°C. 

Minimum temperatures reported for turion 

germination in the fi eld are 5.5°C and temperatures 

of greater than 30°C may inhibit germination. 

Germination of drupelets and development of 

overwintering turions may occur as early as 

late March. New drupelets form about 3 weeks 

after fl owering. Drupelets exposed for greater 

than 1 year on dry substrate and then moistened 

may germinate in greater than 4 days. Turions 

develop at the tips of branches that grow from 

rhizomes (beneath the surface of the substrate) 

and at the tips of leafy shoots (above the surface 

of the substrate). It is unclear whether turions 

are produced throughout the growing season or 

after peak plant biomass. Peak turion development 

occurs in late summer or early fall. Turions may 

remain viable from one to several years, longer 

when conditions are fl ooded compared to exposed. 

It has been reported that when sediment moisture 

was less than 23 percent for 2 weeks, most 

overwintering turions did not germinate due to 

desiccation. Vegetation senecas sometime between 

late August and October.

Several environmental factors regulate sago 

growth. As with most macrophytes, production and 

depth distribution of sago is largely determined by 

water transparency or turbidity. Turbidity is an 

environmental condition resulting from complex 

interactions involving characteristics (e.g., texture, 

slope, aspect) of the bottom substrate, wave action 

(prevailing wind speed and direction in relation 

to basin size) or water movement (e.g., bottomfeeding fi sh activity), and water chemistry. A secchi 

transparency of greater than 60 centimeters seems 

to favor sago growth and low production has been 

reported where secchi depths were less than 30 

centimeters. Field studies indicate that sago growth 

does not occur in waters with pH less than 6.3 and 

greater than 10.7. A study that sampled 116 sites 

where sago occurred in central North America 

found a mean pH of 8.5. Optimum biomass occurs at 

2–15 grams per liter TDS and lower values within 

this range favor reproductive material (propagules). 

Sago often occurs in waters high in CO3

 or HCO3

ion (greater than 18 milligrams per liter). Sago 

may be out-competed by Ruppia in SO4-dominated 

waters with salinities greater than 26 grams per 

liter and by other macrophytes in HCO3-dominated 

waters with salinities less than 0.7 grams per liter 

(Stewart and Kantrud 1972 in Kantrud 1990). 

Relative to sago, widgeongrass is a more salt 

tolerant macrophyte and Utricularia vulgaris is 

less salt tolerant. As water levels fl uctuate and 

environmental conditions (e.g., water chemistry) 

are modifi ed, changes in composition of submergent 

plant species will occur naturally.

Like sago, widgeongrass is adapted to a wide range 

of environmental conditions. It also exhibits annual 

life cycle traits in extreme environmental conditions 

(e.g., drought, high salinities) and perennial traits 

in more stable environments where productivity 

usually is highest. Almost all below ground biomass 

is within 10 centimeters below the surface of the 

bottom substrate and close to 90 percent is within 

5 centimeters. Rhizomes occur within a few mm 

and most drupelets within 5 centimeters of the 

surface of the bottom substrate. The shallow root 

system makes turbulent waters a limiting factor. 

Widgeongrass is able to grow in well-oxygenated 

and reduced sediments if able to obtain enough 

oxygen from photosynthesis. 

Numerous fl owers are produced about 5–6 weeks 

after widgeongrass begins growth. Drupelets 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 147

and rhizomes on overwintering plants develop 

about 2 weeks after the start of fl owering. Annual 

widgeongrass requires water temperatures of 

10–33°C to complete its life cycle. Temperatures 

for drupelet germination and seedling development 

occur at 10–20°C and 15–25°C, respectively. Peak 

growth typically occurs sometime in July or August 

in temperate regions. In north temperate wetlands, 

temperatures of greater than 30°C may adversely 

affect widgeongrass growth. 

Measurements of water transparency have 

indicated the importance of light as a growth 

requirement of widgeongrass. In Canada, 

widgeongrass dominated in waters with a Secchi 

disk reading of 3.0 meters (Gallup 1978 in Kantrud 

1991) and, in another study, biomass decreased 

with Secchi disk reading less than 1 meter (Bailey 

and Titman 1984 in Kantrud 1991). However, other 

environmental factors may have contributed to the 

reported increases and decreases in widgeongrass 

growth. 

Below-ground biomass has been reported most 

productive in well-oxygenated, coarse-textured 

sediments. Optimum growth of widgeongrass 

in the laboratory and the fi eld occurred in 0.4-

meter and 0.6-meter water depths, respectively. 

The most productive growth of widgeongrass in 

fi ner substrates (clay and silt) occurred in water 

depths of greater than 0.61 meter compared to up 

to 4.0 meters in sandy substrates. Germination of 

drupelets will occur in shallow water depths (5–10 

centimeters), but plants produced may have low 

drupelet production. Germination of drupelets is 

reduced or may not occur if buried greater than 10 

centimeters, exposed on moist soil, in sediments 

with greater than 1- to 2-percent soluble salts, or 

in waters with NaCl concentrations of 15 grams 

per liter. However, drupelets are highly droughtresistant, may recover from high salinities when 

inundated in freshwater for about 2 weeks, and 

may remain viable for less than 3 years. Water 

chemistry (e.g., salinity, alkalinity) parameters for 

widgeongrass occurrence seem to vary greatly 

among study locations (e.g., regions, lab vs. fi eld) 

and among plant life stage (e.g., germination, 

growth, reproduction). Generally, it tolerates higher 

salinities than other submersed macrophytes and 

does not do well in fresh, soft, or acidic water. In the 

prairie pothole region, Stewart and Kantrud (1972 

in Kantrud 1991) reported the greatest abundance 

of widgeongrass occurring in waters with salinities 

0.35 to greater than 100 grams per liter. While other 

studies in prairie wetlands found widgeongrass 

commonly occurring in waters with salinities 

ranging from 15 to greater than 45 grams per liter 

(Millar 1976 in Kantrud 1991) and abundantly 

fruiting where salinities were 36 grams per liter 

(Metcalf 1931 in Kantrud 1991). Widgeongrass 

generally occurs in natural waters with alkalinities 

of about pH 6.0–10.0. 

Other key factors to consider in macrophyte 

production are the amount of algae and 

phytoplankton growth. Extensive algae cover 

may limit light, temperature, and oxygen (from 

photosynthesis) necessary for macrophyte growth. 

Phytoplankton achieves high growth rates when 

nutrient availability is high (e.g., from water 

infl ows) and, like epiphytic algae, may affect 

photosynthesis of widgeongrass.

Meadow 

The refuge will maintain and enhance existing 

meadow habitats to provide grass-forb 

communities, composed primarily of native plants, 

to benefi t migratory birds and other wildlife 

species.

Rationale

The meadow objectives are written similarly to 

riparian objectives 2 and 3 and the rationale for 

those riparian objectives applies to these meadow 

objectives. Therefore, in this section, we will only 

note how the meadow and riparian habitat areas 

differ and how those differences may infl uence 

wildlife use. Major differences include the proximity 

to different habitat types (e.g., the river in the 

lowland), the riparian habitat is subject to fl ooding 

from the river channel, and plant composition (e.g., 

willow in riparian zone and not in upland irrigated 

meadows).

Objective

Provide 20–50 acres over a 5-year average of grassforb (75:25) plant community composed primarily 

of native plants (rushes, sedges, grasses, forbs) 

characterized by less than 20 centimeters height, 

less than 10 centimeters VOR, with dry to moist 

soils (no standing water), adjacent to (within 50 

meters) or intermingled with sagebrush (10- to 25-

percent sage canopy cover), from early June–July, 

to benefi t sage grouse and snipe broods.

Value 

North Park has developed a sage grouse working 

plan for the declining sage grouse population in 

the Jackson County. We suspect that the current 

amount of interspersed grasses and forbs in the 

sagebrush may not support a suffi cient abundance 

of arthropods and invertebrates for foraging 

sage grouse broods. Meadows have the moisture 

and nutrients that encourage plant growth. The 

decomposing plant matter promotes invertebrate 

production. We believe that if we provide some 

meadow habitat devoid of surface water during the 

brood-rearing season, these food resources would 

be accessible to sage grouse broods. Meadow areas 

that are proximate to the sagebrush may increase 

sage grouse survival because they would not have 

to travel as far for different resource requirements.
148 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Achievability 

Management of these habitat conditions in the 

meadow is somewhat experimental to see if we are 

able to create sage grouse brood habitat (some in 

riparian zone too). 

Objective

Provide 630–790 acres, over a 5-year average, of 

a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native plants (grasses, sedges, forbs, 

and rushes) characterized by greater than 30 

centimeters VOR, 10–20 centimeters duff layer and 

minimal (less than 5 percent) bare ground to benefi t 

nesting waterfowl (mallard, gadwall, pintails, 

scaup), songbirds (savannah sparrow, meadowlark), 

and foraging shorebirds if fl ooded (snipe, phalarope, 

white-faced ibis, curlew, willet, and sora).

Achievability 

We currently are able to keep maybe 40 percent of 

the meadows fl ooded through end of July in most 

years. Only about 20–30 percent of the meadows 

defi ned as dense in the riparian objectives can be 

kept fl ooded to 2–3 inches through July most years 

(largely due to channel alterations). Therefore, 

we must try to enhance the irrigation systems to 

providing more of this type of habitat in upland 

meadow areas.

Objective

Provide 1,650–1,850 acres, over a 5-year average, 

of a grass:forb (75:25) plant community composed 

primarily of native species (grasses, sedges, forbs, 

and rushes) characterized by 10–30 centimeters 

VOR, 0–10 duff layer and minimal (less than 5 

percent) bare ground from mid-April to the end of 

July to benefi t nesting waterfowl (gadwall, shoveler, 

pintail and green-winged teal) and sage grouse broods.

No substantial differences exist in the meadow and 

riparian habitats in regards to this objective.

Upland Habitat

The upland habitat consists of 14,285 acres of 

a shrub-steppe plant community dominated by 

sagebrush, drought tolerant perennial bunchgrasses 

and forbs. Uplands are the dominant refuge habitat 

type and includes all lands not accounted for in the 

wetland, meadow and riparian descriptions. 

Many upland habitats exhibit a mosaic pattern 

around meadows sites on the refuge. These sites are 

generally managed in conjunction with associated 

meadows, including using the same grazing regime. 

The focus of past refuge management efforts have 

been to create quality wetland habitats, therefore 

general upland plant community information is 

limited.

History

Historically, the shrub-steppe community 

encompassed 9.4 million acres in the intermountain 

west. Early explorer accounts of sagebrush 

densities are varied and confl icting. Vale (1975) 

reviewed 29 historic explorer documents and 

concluded that presettlement (prior to 1843) 

conditions included a range type dominated by 

sagebrush, and that grasses became scarcer as 

you traveled west. Alternately, Stewart (1941) 

concluded that historical documents emphasized 

an abundance of grass under pristine conditions. 

Historical records are too incomplete to tell us what 

comprised the pristine vegetation of the Artemisia 

ecosystem (Young et al. 1984). 

Geologist F.V. Hayden entered North Park in 1868 

and described the site as “an excellent grazing 

region” and reported seeing “myriads of antelope” 

that were “quietly feeding.” Naturalist George Bird 

Grinnell entered the Park in 1879 near the Pinkham 

ranch and writes “the country at this point had been 

burned over, and was black and extremely desolate 

in appearance; I learned from the owner of the 

ranch that the burn had been made to clear off the 

sagebrush which takes up so much room that might 

be occupied by grass” (in) (Hampton 1971). 

The historical plant composition of the North Park 

basin may never be determined; however, it is likely 

relatively similar to today’s conditions. The shrubsteppe community is dominated by sagebrush, and 

a small percentage of grasses and forbs. Relative 

abundance of the plant components has been altered 

by range management practices (fi re, grazing, 

mowing, and chemicals) over the last 125 years.

Vegetation types

Dominant Sage

The intermountain west contains 11 sagebrush 

species and 13 sagebrush sub-species. Big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and its fi ve 

subspecies is the most common and widely 

distributed (McArthur 1992). The three most 

common big sagebrush species are basin big 

sagebrush (A. tridentata tridentata) also potentially 

the largest and most fl oriferous; mountain big 

sagebrush (A. tridentata vaseyana); and Wyoming 

big sagebrush (A. tridentata wyomingensis) the 

smallest and least fl oriferous (McArthur and Welch 

1982). 

Most sagebrush species distribution is controlled 

by moisture-elevation gradients, seasonal moisture 

and soil properties (McArthur 1992). Generally, 

A. tridentata tridentata occupies deep soils, with 

minimal profi le development in low to moderate 

precipitation and moderate-elevations. A. tridentata 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 149

wyomingensis prefers to occupy moderate depth, 

low-to-moderate precipitation and lower elevations. 

A. tridentata vaseyana dominates areas where 

moisture improves and high elevations. 

Big sagebrush traits include good digestibility, 

high winter crude protein and provide high winter 

phosphorus and carotene (Welch 1983; Welch 

and McArthur 1990). Herbaceous growth in 

sagebrush occurs only when the appropriate warm 

temperatures and available soil moisture occurs 

in the late spring and early summer (West 1996). 

Summer precipitation is usually not suffi cient to 

allow plant growth; fall moisture patterns are too 

sparse to allow plant regrowth. 

The three primary sage species located on the 

refuge include basin big sagebrush, mountain big 

sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush; however, 

small stands of silver sagebrush (A. cana), alkali 

sagebrush (A. longiloba), fringed sage (A. frigida), 

black sage (A. nova), and others may exist. The 

refuge lacks basic plant inventory and distribution 

data to fully assess and manage upland habitats. 

Therefore, the refuge proposes to complete an 

uplands plant survey prior to the year 2008 that will 

facilitate future management.

Young (et al. 1976) describes the introduction 

and concentrations of large herbivores in the late 

1800s on Artimisian grasslands as having dramatic 

results. The result was that for most Artimisian 

grasslands, native perennial grasses were greatly 

reduced (Young 1994). 

In the intermountain west, the dominate understory 

grasses and grasslike species of the sagebrush 

communities is usually perennial bunchgrass. The 

major perennial grass and grasslike species include: 

bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), 

Thurber’s needlegrass (Stipa thurberiana), needleand-thread (Stipa comata), California brome 

(Bromus carinatus), Elymus cinereus, Sandberg 

bluegrass (Poa secunda), and elk sedge (Carex 

geyeri) (Young et al. 1984). Common forbs include 

silverleaf lupine, sulfer fl ower, hooded phlox and 

Douglas phlox. 

Soils and Range Sites

Dry Mountain Loam Range Site 

This site comprises 25.7 acres of the refuge. The 

most extensive range type in North Park, it 

consists of moderate-deep to deep well drained 

soils. The potential plant community includes 15-

percent stream bank wheatgrass, 10-percent sheep 

fescue, 10-percent muttongrass, 8-percent pine 

needlegrass, 5-percent Letterman needlegrass, 

3-percent Sandberg bluegrass, and 5-percent 

junegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass. Big sagebrush 

makes up 15 percent of the community. 

The forb community consists of lupine, pussytoes, 

aster, fl eabane, yarrow, bluebells, buckwheat, 

phlox, fringed sage, snakeweed and other forbs. 

Total annual production of all vegetation is 600 

pounds per acre (USDA NRCS). Heavy grazing 

by herbivores causes more undesirable grasses 

such as bluebunch wheatgrass, sheep fescue, pine 

needlegrass, and other plants such as big sagebrush 

and less palatable forbs to increase.

Valley Bench Site

This site comprises 3,065.9 acres of the refuge. This 

site is extensive, typically found on uplands and 

benches, and can be deep to shallow, well drained 

sites. The potential plant community consists of 20-

percent streambank wheatgrass, 15-percent mutton 

grass, 10-percent junegrass, 9-percent Indian 

ricegrass, 5-percent pine needlegrass, and 5-percent 

other grasses. Big sagebrush makes up 15 percent 

of this community, Douglas rabbitbrush makes up 3 

percent. Forbs consist of 5-percent phlox, 3-percent 

pussytoes, and 5-percent lupine, gray horsebrush 

and other forbs. Heavy grazing by herbivores 

causes pine needlegrass, junegrass and muttongrass 

to decrease and big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush 

and forbs to increase. Total annual production 

ranges from 400–900 pounds per acre.

Mountain Meadow Range Site

This site comprises 1,416.5 acres of the refuge. It 

is a highly productive site along natural streams 

consisting of deep, poorly drained soils. The site 

is characterized by 20-percent thurber fescue, 

12-percent tufted hairgrass, 10-percent slender 

wheatgrass and 5-percent sedges. Baltic rush may 

also be found. 

Forbs are abundant and include 3-percent iris, 3-

percent herbaceous cinquefoil, 2-percent yarrow, 15-

percent wild celery, cow parsnip, clovers, American 

bistort, aster, arnica, groundsels, waterhemlock, 

false-hellebore, monkshood, marsh marigold, sedum, 

fi reweed, shooting star, primrose, green gentian, 

elephant-head, and others. The community also 

contains 5-percent silver sage, 10-percent willow, 

and 5-percent other shrubs. This site can produce 

2,000–4,000 pounds of forage per acre.

Salt Flats Range Site

This site comprises 3,290.7 acres of the refuge. 

This site consists of deep, well drained soils that 

are affected by sodium salts. The potential plant 

community is 25-percent western wheatgrass, 20-

percent saltgrass, 5-percent Indian ricegrass, 5-

percent alkali bluegrass, 5-percent alkali grass, and 

5-percent other grasses. Forbs are not abundant 

on this site and make up 10 percent of the plant 

composition. The site is also 10-percent greasewood, 

5-percent winterfat, 5-percent mat saltbrush, and 

5-percent other shrubs. Excessive grazing causes 
150 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Indian rice grass, winterfat, and alkali bluegrass 

to decrease and western wheatgrass, alkali grass, 

saltgrass and greasewood increase. The site 

produces 500–900 pounds per acre depending on 

annual precipitation.

Alkaline Slopes Range Site

This site comprises 2,078.1 acres of the refuge. 

This site contains well drained soils that are 

20–40 inches deep over shale. The potential plant 

community is 15-percent wheatgrass, 10-percent 

saltgrasss, 10-percent Indian rice grass, 10-percent 

squirreltail, 5-percent pine needlegrass, 5-percent 

bluegrasses, and 10-percent other grasses. Phlox, 

buckwheat and other forbs make up 5 percent of the 

community. The community is also 15-percent big 

sagebrush, 10-percent greasewood, and 5-percent 

winterfat, masaltbrush, fringed sage and other 

shrubs. Excessive grazing causes Indian rice grass, 

bluebunch wheatgrass and pine needlegrass to 

decrease, and rhizomatous wheatgrasses, Sandberg 

bluegrass, big sagebrush and greasewood to 

increase. Total annual production for these sites is 

300–700 pounds per acre depending on moisture.

Spatial Considerations

Dominance of grasses or sagebrush in upland 

systems may be attributed to differences in 

management (Cooper 1953; Savory and Butterfi eld 

1999). Overgrazing can cause a loss and vigor 

and density of native grasses which permit 

Artemisia tridentata to dominate a site (Wright 

and Wright 1948). Evidence is also clear that 

proper management of grazing can permit grasses 

to reduce sagebrush to a subordinate role in the 

community (Cooper 1953). 

Big sagebrush is the most widespread and common 

shrub of the Western United Sates (Rice 1974). 

Numerous studies have presented evidence 

that Artemisia sp. have allelopathic effects 

against neighboring species. The success and 

distribution of A. tridentata may partly depend 

on its production of allelopathic substances which 

inhibit the germination and growth of potential 

competitors (Weaver and Klarich 1977). Groves and 

Anderson (1980) demonstrated inhibition of crested 

wheatgrass and giant wildrye germination using 

crushed A. tridentata leaves. 

Structural Considerations

Annual precipitation levels clearly cause changes 

in habitat physiognomy in sagebrush steppe 

plant communities. Structural changes are not 

just associated with changes in shrub species, but 

instead are strongly correlated with forb and litter 

coverage, coverage diversity and total vegetation 

cover. Bird species showed no abundance changes 

of either individual species or local or regional 

assemblages due to changes in habitat physiognomy. 

Perhaps local changes in sage cover are not 

signifi cant enough to change avian use. (Rotenberry 

and Wiens 1980). Rotenberry and Wiens (1991) 

also conclude that bird populations in shrub steppe 

vary largely independent of each other. Structural 

components of the uplands can also be changed 

with treatment. Several studies have investigated 

how treatment of sagebrush may affect structure 

(Cooper 1953; Savory and Butterfi eld 1999). Clearly 

management can change plant community structure 

toward desired conditions.

Primary Factors Infl uencing Distribution and 

Structural Conditions

Soils 

We utilized Jackson County, Colorado soil 

type maps as depicted by U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, and generated number of acres of 

each soil type within the refuge. Five soils that list 

sagebrush being “common” included BoettcherBundyman association, Bosler sandy loam, Dobrow 

loam, Morset loam, and Spicerton sandy loam for a 

total of 9,877.04 refuge acres. Generally, these soils 

are considered moderate to deep and typically are 

used for grazing or pasture. These soils are found on 

slopes less than 15 percent, and generally have slow 

to moderate permeability. 

Physical Characteristics

Soil depth, soil texture, aspect, and soluble salts 

and slope all determine vegetation densities in the 

shrub-steppe. Following precipitation, water fl ows 

downslope and establishes a moisture gradient 

with respect to slope position. The slope crests are 

the most xeric and the slope base being the most 

mesic. Slope effects vegetation density, generally at 

the base of the knolls is denser, with the midslope 

vegetation being moderately dense and the 

vegetation of the knoll crest being the least dense 

(Brotherson 1999). Sturges (1977) found mountain 

big sagebrush, for example, growing at midslope 

and bottom slope sites and suggested that these 

sites were more mesic and, therefore, were better 

suited for mountain big sagebrush. In general, soil 

depth increases downslope, as does the number of 

plant species. Total cover of both annuals and forbs 

decreased downslope, while shrubs cover was most 

important at the slope base (Brotherson 1999). 

Salinities

Artemisia species generally will not tolerate soil 

salinities higher than 18 mmhos/centimeters3 (Gates 

et al. 1956). Generally, as soil salinity increases, 

sagebrush becomes less dominate, and greasewood 

species become more abundant.
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 151

Soil Textures 

Soil textures form the slope crest, show lower 

clay content, and higher sands and exposed rock. 

As water moves downslope, it takes the smaller 

textured particles and dissolved nutrients along 

with it. Soil organic matter, pH, bare ground, litter 

cover, total dissolved salts and concentrations 

of sodium and potassium all increase downslope 

(Brotherson 1999).

Aspect

The direction that a slope hillside faces infl uences 

soil temperature, air temperature, soil moisture, 

solar radiation and, therefore, plant community 

characteristics. Overall, south and west facing 

slopes are warmer than north and east facing 

slopes. Air temperature on south facing slopes 

averages 0.9°C warmer than north-facing slopes. 

The morning sun fi nds moist soils and plants, and 

a large part of the solar radiation received is lost 

to evaporation. However, afternoon sun shines 

on relatively dry soils and plants; therefore, 

the received energy is applied to increasing soil 

temperature. Soil moisture is 1.7–2.2 percent higher 

on north-facing slopes (Ayyad and Dix 1964) than 

south facing. Soil temperature on the upper and 

middle positions of a hillside is warmer than lower 

sites. South-facing hillsides have 5- to 6-degree 

difference in soil temperature between upper and 

lower sites. 

Climate

Climate conditions of North Park are characterized 

by low relative humidity, abundant sunshine, large 

daily and seasonal temperature variations, and 

increasing precipitation with elevations (Fletcher 

1981). North Park’s remoteness from moisture 

sources and high elevation results in low humidity 

and a semi-arid climate (Kuhn et al. 1983). Mean 

annual precipitation ranges from about 10–16 

inches in the basins, and up to 40 inches in the 

surrounding mountains. The basin receives the 

majority of precipitation during the summer months 

(May–September). Snowfall is the most signifi cant 

precipitation and accumulates in the mountains in 

depths of 5–10 feet. Melting snow pack provides 

65–85 percent of annual stream fl ow. Summer 

precipitation is generally produced by convective 

thunderstorms, but because moisture is lacking, the 

rainfall from these storms is generally less than 1 

inch (Kuhn et al. 1983).

Daily temperature variations at Walden (8,120 feet 

elevation) are reported to be 25° Fahrenheit during 

winter and 40° Fahrenheit during midsummer 

and fall. Recorded temperature extremes are 96° 

and minus 49° with a mean annual temperature of 

36.5°. Walden averages 43 frost-free days per year 

due primarily to high elevation. Winter winds are 

frequent and typically from the west or southwest. 

The May–September average evaporation potential 

estimated for North Park is about 35 inches (McKee 

et al. 1981).

Disturbance: Fire/Grazing

Big sagebrush communities had fi re cycles that 

varied between 60–110 years before European 

settlement (Whisenant 1990). Grasses and forbs 

have an advantage over sagebrush when sites are 

burned. Most Artemisia species do not resprout 

after fi re, but have to reestablish from seed. The 

introduction of cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) 

led to more frequent fi res, and combined with 

unrestricted grazing, native vegetation becomes 

easily replaced with exotic annual plants (West 

1996). Much of the sagebrush steppe has been 

burned at least once in the last three decades 

and is now dominated by introduced annuals like 

cheat grass and medusahead. This replacement is 

undesirable in all aspects (West 1996).

Grazing in sagebrush-steppe systems tends to 

increase sagebrush density, decrease sagebrush 

cover, reduce litter accumulation, decrease soil 

moisture, reduce grass and forb abundance, and 

increase the potential for non-native invasion. 

Large grazers and grasses have co-evolved. 

Without moderate grazing and/or fi re, plant 

litter builds thatch that withholds nutrients and 

physically limits vegetative regrowth and seedling 

establishment (McNaughton et al. 1982). 

Some grazing and burning are necessary to allow 

optimal light penetration and nutrient cycling. 

Maximum grassland plant community diversity 

is usually attained under moderate grazing (West 

1993). The dense stands of excess sagebrush 

prevent the herbaceous species from recovering. 

Such brush-choked stands are usually chosen 

by both livestock and wildlife managers for 

manipulation to diversify vegetation structure 

(West 1996). A reduction in sagebrush also enhances 

water yields (Sturges 1977). 

Goodrich (et al. 1999) estimated ground cover at 

sagebrush steppe sites protected from livestock 

averaged 55 percent. Sites grazed annually in 

the spring averaged 30-percent ground cover. 

The greatest difference in ground cover was the 

amount of litter or plant residue deposited on the 

ground. Litter cover was about two times greater 

in areas protected from livestock grazing. High 

ground cover can be maintained under moderate 

intensity, rest or deferred rotation grazing. 

Holechek and others (1998) concluded that various 

studies of gazing impacts on rangeland soils and 

watershed status are highly consistent in showing 

that vegetation residue is the primary factor 

determining degree of soil erosion and water 

infi ltration into the soil. As residue is depleted 

by heavy grazing, soil erosion increases, water 
152 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

infi ltration decreases and water overland fl ow 

increases.

Where ground cover is less than 50 percent over 

more than 10 percent of a grazing unit, a need 

for change in management is strongly indicated. 

Exclusion of either or both wild ungulates and 

moderate intensity cattle grazing has not resulted 

in overall higher resource values than where both 

were present (Goodrich et al. 1999). Close grazing 

reduces soil moisture, decreases infi ltration, the 

energy of falling raindrops is not dispersed by 

vegetation, and the soil surface is compacted and 

sealed by raindrop splash. In Ashley National 

Forest, eastern Utah, a comparison of summerlong grazing and three rest-rotation systems that 

revealed no difference in residual cover (Johnson 

1987).

Timing of grazing or fi re treatments and rest 

signifi cantly effects outcome. A study in Browns 

Park, Colorado and Daggett County, Utah found 

crown cover for Wyoming big sagebrush after 30 

years of ungulate exclusion was 22 percent, 11 

percent after 9 years of exclusion, and 17 percent 

after 13 years. Absence of cattle grazing, coupled 

with high levels of wild ungulate use reduced 

Wyoming big sagebrush cover to less than 5 percent 

(Goodrich et al. 1999). Twenty-two percent crown 

cover appears to be the maximum crown cover 

Wyoming big sagebrush will support. At this level, 

the frequency of needle-and-thread grass was 

signifi cantly less, and production and vigor appears 

to be reduced.

Refuge Objectives

Development of refuge objectives involved 

selecting sage-obligate species, identifying species 

habitat requirements, detailing period of refuge 

use, and fi nally developing measurable habitat 

based objectives that specify desirable range 

conditions. Unfortunately, little is known about 

refuge upland habitats. The refuge’s fi rst priority 

is to conduct vegetative assessments of upland 

habitats and incorporate the information into 

map databases. Past management efforts have 

focused on developing suitable waterfowl nesting 

and brood-rearing sites in meadow habitats. Much 

of the upland plant community information that 

had been acquired was lost to an offi ce fi re in 

April of 1997. Therefore, uplands management 

is conservative, identifying only 4,000 acres with 

specifi c and measurable objectives. The remaining 

upland acreage will be utilized for sagebrush 

research. Specifi c and measurable objectives will 

be determined on the remaining acreage after 

the vegetative assessments are completed, and 

research on desirable range conditions is conducted.

Species Selection

The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird 

Conservation Plan recognizes that throughout the 

Great Basin, uplands associated with wetlands and 

riparian areas provide critical nesting areas for 

shorebirds, especially long-billed curlew (Numenius 

americanus) and willet (Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus). The Partners in Flight (Colorado 

State Plan) identifi es northern sage grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus), Brewer’s sparrow 

(Spizella breweri), sage sparrow (Amphispiza 

belli), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and 

sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) as species 

of concern (priority greater than 20). The refuge 

is uniquely situated to support several goals and 

objectives identifi ed in these plans. Working with 

the Colorado Division of Wildlife and with existing 

data on uplands use by songbirds and shorebirds, 

the refuge developed the following objectives. 

Northern sage grouse are a species of concern 

for the State of Colorado. Elk and pronghorn are 

common on upland habitats and were considered 

during objectives development.

Uplands Objective

Provide 2,000 acres over a 5-year average of 

uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70-

percent sage) greater than 25 centimeters height 

and 20- to 30-percent canopy cover, greater than 

20-percent grass cover, and greater than 10-percent 

forbs (native species preferred) to benefi t sage 

grouse, vesper sparrow, elk, and pronghorn.

Habitat Requirements of Species: Sage 

Grouse

Sage grouse are closely associated with sagebrush 

ecosystems of western North America. Sage 

grouse are well adapted to a variety of sagebrush 

heights including tall sage, low sagebrush, forb-rich 

mosaics, riparian meadows, steppes with native 

grasses and forbs, and scrub willow. (Schroeder et 

al, 1999). Nests are placed in thick cover, generally 

dominated by big sagebrush. Vegetative diverse 

habitats (horizontally and vertically) provide the 

best habitats. Broods are found in rich mosaics of 

habitat including sagebrush, riparian meadows, 

greasewood bottoms. The common feature of brood 

areas is they are rich in forbs and insects. Females 

with broods prefer 19- to 31-percent sagebrush 

cover with 9- to 19-percent cover of forbs (Drut 

et al 1994). Broods respond to dry conditions by 

concentrating in areas with succulent vegetation. 

Nesting predation is lowest in dense (41 percent) 

canopy cover with heavy grass (19-percent) canopy 

cover (Gregg et al. 1994) and at least 17-percent 

sagebrush cover. 

Winter range includes sagebrush with 6- to 43-

percent canopy cover but prefer at least 15-percent 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 153

canopy cover (Johnson and Braun 1999). Diet 

consists of leaves, buds, stems, fl owers, insect and 

grit. Grouse tend to feed on the ground in open 

habitats during morning and mid-afternoon (Hupp 

and Braun 1989). Hupp and Braun (1989) noted that 

sage grouse feeding activity was infl uenced by snow 

depth and mountain big sagebrush exposure above 

the snow. 

Feeding activity of sage grouse occurred in 

drainages and on slopes with south or west aspects. 

Additionally, big sagebrush plants in drainages tend 

to be taller, and northeast slopes and fl at sagebrush 

sites were shorter in height. Sagebrush is essential 

for sage grouse and dominates the diet during late 

autumn, winter and early spring (Girard 1937).

Habitat Requirements of Species: Vesper 

Sparrow

Vesper sparrows are distributed from the 

Northwest Territories, across to Alberta, south 

to central California, Nebraska, Illinois, Virginia, 

and Maine (breeding bird survey data). Vesper 

sparrows prefer dry, open areas with short, sparse 

and patchy vegetation including sagebrush plant 

communities (Roberts 1932). Vesper sparrows 

prefer upland habitats and are most abundant in 

shrub steppe environments (Kantrud 1981). 

In Wyoming, the availability of sagebrush for 

nest cover and song perches was important. 

Vesper sparrows occurred in areas dominated by 

sagebrush, and were absent from areas with only 

grass or cactus (Fautin 1975). Abundance of vesper 

sparrows is also positively correlated with forb 

cover. Perches may be any structure or vegetation 

higher than nest height, such as sagebrush (Berger 

1968). Average vesper sparrow territory size in 

Montana was 1.65 hectares (Reed 1986). Vesper 

sparrows are a fairly common host to brown-headed 

cowbird nest predation, and will frequently raise 

cowbird young (Friedmann 1963). 

Vesper sparrows arrive on the breeding grounds 

March to late May, and depart in mid-August to 

late November (Johnsgard 1980). In Wyoming, 

vesper sparrows were among the most common 

breeding species in the grass/sagebrush areas. 

Generally, a lack of sagebrush (perch sites) accounts 

for low density of vesper sparrows. Nesting occurs 

on the ground beneath relatively short (14–34.3 

centimeters in height) big sagebrush using grass to 

conceal the nests. Western wheatgrass, bluebunch 

wheatgrass, green needlegrass, and junegrass were 

commonly used food items (Best 1972). Vesper 

sparrows are also known to occur near white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies (Clark et al. 1982).

Habitat Requirements of Species: Elk

Herbivory (elk, moose, and cattle) impacts to 

riparian, upland and meadow habitats are not 

known. Willow regeneration along the Illinois River 

is slow, and small willow shoots are frequently 

grazed to 2–5 centimeters in height. Elk damage to 

riparian areas is well documented in the scientifi c 

literature (Zeigenfuss et al. 2002). 

Currently, approximately 150 elk utilize the 

refuge during the spring, summer and fall. During 

winter months (November–March), elk numbers 

vary considerably but average 1,000–1,400. Elk 

distribution is varied; however, most use occurs in 

the willow riparian community along the Illinois 

River and on the Case Flats. Elk numbers and elk 

damage are not necessarily a linear relationship. 

Snow depth, temperature, duration of feeding, and 

a host of other factors may determine wintering elk 

impacts. Elk wintering on the refuge may minimize 

game damage on adjacent private lands. 

Wintering elk (Cervis elaphus) diets include 

approximately 63- to 100-percent (average is 

84 percent) grasses, 9-percent shrubs, and 8-

percent forbs (Kufeld 1973). Spring grass use in 

eight Montana elk food habitat studies averaged 

87-percent grass. During summer months, forbs 

became more important, averaging 64 percent, 30-

percent grasses, and 6-percent shrubs. Forbs can 

grow to 100 percent of the summer diet. Fall elk 

diets revert primarily back to grasses (73 percent) 

(Geer 1959; Geer 1960; Kirsch 1963; Mackie 1970; 

Morris and Schwartz 1957). Nutritionally, forbs 

were highly valuable for Montana elk, especially 

Agoseris glauca and Geranium viscosimum. 

Luipinus spp. and Aster spp. were also highly 

valuable forbs. Grasses and grass like plants 

included Agropyron spicatum, Carex spp, Carex 

geyeri, Festuca idahioenisis, Festuca scabrella, 

and Poa sp. Highly valuable shrub species 

(based on a large number of references) were 

Amelanchier alnifolia, Ceanothus sanguineus, 

Ceanothus velutinus, Populus tremuloides, Prunus 

virginiana, Pushia tridentata, Quercus gambellii

and Salix spp. (Kufeld 1972).

Habitat Requirements of Species: Pronghorn

Sixty-eight percent of pronghorn (Antilocapra 

americana) in North America occur in grassland 

habitats (Yoakum 1978) and 56 percent occur 

on wheatgrass (Agropyron) dominated prairies 

(Sundstrom et al. 1973). Pronghorn use is widely 

distributed across the refuge. During all seasons, 

25–250 pronghorn utilize the refuge and are 

generally concentrated in upland habitats. Winter 

habitat use in south-central Wyoming indicates 

that high pronghorn densities occurred in habitat 

complexes containing an average of 0.5 big 

sagebrush plants/square meter that were greater 

than 29 centimeters tall (Ryder and Irwin 1987). 

Use of sagebrush-dominated habitats was 45 

percent. 
154 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Wintering pronghorn tended to use northwest 

ridges and benches and those containing black 

greasewood mixed with big sagebrush in stands 

averaging 0.4 plants/square meter in draws and 

lowland fl ats. Pronghorn responded to deep 

snow (greater than 25 centimeters) by moving 

to windswept terrain or draw bottoms where 

taller sagebrush is available. In Montana, silver 

sagebrush is the dominate food item in pronghorn 

diets. Presence of silver sage is a characteristic 

of optimum pronghorn habitats (Wood 1989). Fall 

and winter diets consist primarily of sagebrush. 

Pronghorn normally avoid areas with broken 

topography and vegetation greater than 76 

centimeters tall (Sundstrom et al. 1973).

Uplands Objective

Provide 2,000 acres over a 5-year average of 

uplands composed of shrubs (greater than 70-

percent sage) greater than 40 centimeters height 

and greater than 30-percent canopy cover, less than 

20-percent grass cover, and greater than 5-percent 

forbs (native species preferred) to benefi t Brewer’s 

sparrow, sage thrasher, and pronghorn.

Habitat Requirements of Species: Brewer’s 

Sparrow

Brewer’s sparrow forage primarily on arthropods 

in sagebrush shrubs with an average canopy height 

less than 1.5 meters (Rotenberry et al. 1999); little 

foraging occurs in nearby rabbitbush (Rotenberry 

and Wiens 1998) or on open ground between shrubs 

(Wiens et al 1987). Compared to surrounding 

shrubs, these sparrows forage in larger and more 

vigorous shrubs (Rotenberry et al. 1999). In a study 

across the breeding range, vigor (percent live stems) 

of a shrub patch was the best vegetative descriptor 

of Brewer’s sparrow habitat (Knopf et al. 1990).

Compared to surrounding habitat, Brewer’s 

sparrow nests tend to be located in signifi cantly 

taller, denser shrubs (primarily big sagebrush) 

with reduced bare ground and herbaceous cover 

(Peterson and Best 1985). In Idaho, nest shrubs 

averaged 69 centimeters (range 42–104 centimeters) 

versus an average of 43 centimeters for surrounding 

shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer shrubs that are 

entirely or mostly alive (Rotenberry and Wiens 1989).

Habitat Requirements of Species: Sage 

Thrasher

Sage thrasher is considered a sage-obligate species 

but noted in black greasewood habitats (Braun et 

al. 1976). Sage thrasher numbers are positively 

correlated with the amount of sagebrush cover, 

positively correlated with sagebrush height (30–60 

centimeters), and negatively correlated with grass 

cover (Rotenberry and Wiens 1980). Foraging 

characteristics indicated a strong preference 

for ground insects such as ants (Formiciae) and 

ground beetles (Carabidae) (Stephens 1985). Sage 

thrashers are opportunistic feeders and may take 

grasshoppers (acridomorpha), crickets, ants, various 

true bugs and may take larger seeds (Knowlton and 

Harmston 1943).

Individual nesting sites indicate a preference for 

taller shrubs with wider crowns. When adequate 

canopy coverage exists, sage thrasher abundance 

is positively correlated with a perennial grass 

understory. Canopy coverage in 175 nest sites in 

Idaho ranged from 11 to 44 percent (Rich 1980).

Uplands Objective

Establish research plots to evaluate herbivory 

impacts to sage height and grass/forb abundance 

to benefi t nesting and wintering sage grouse, 

songbirds (vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s 

sparrow), and pronghorn.

The lack of knowledge on upland habitats (plant 

species, distribution, condition, height, density) 

prevents the development of habitats specifi c 

goals and objectives. The remaining 10,225 acres 

of upland habitats will be surveyed by 2008. The 

staff will focus on evaluating impacts of current 

management and herbivory on upland habitats, and 

will develop habitat based goals and objectives by 

2017.

Strategies

Conduct plant composition surveys of refuge 

uplands by 2008. The refuge staff will develop 

research plots (exclosures) to evaluate herbivory 

impacts to sage height and grass/forb abundance 

to benefi t nesting and wintering sage grouse, 

songbirds (vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s 

sparrow), and pronghorn. Working with partners, 

the refuge will develop management strategies for 

all 14,000 acres of sagebrush uplands.

Investigate methods to increase sagebrush 

abundance or quality. Attempt to modify forb 

component using Dixie harrow, fi re, fertilizers, 

seeding and/or herbicides as tools. Native grasses 

and forbs are preferred; however, limited nonnative 

species would be considered to enhance the refuges 

ability to achieve objectives. The Service policy is 

to promote natives; additionally, natives tend to 

sustain ecological integrity of the system (wildlife, 

plants, system function). The disadvantage is higher 

costs, lower success rates, and viability of the stand. 

Non-natives are less expensive, generally show 

higher success rates, are readily available, and 

many have high wildlife value. The downside to 

non-natives includes risk of spread, poor ecological 

integrity, competition with native species, and 

other unknown consequences. Revegetation and 

sagebrush enhancement preference will be given to 
Appendix H—Habitat Rationale 155

soil types that typically support quality sagebrush 

stands.

Uplands Objective

Monitor North Park phacelia populations currently 

known to exist on the refuge. Initiate research to 

understand the plants life history and develop a 

management plan to ensure its continued existence.

North Park phacelia is an endangered plant that 

exists in at least three general areas of Jackson 

County. One area occurs on the Case tract of the 

refuge and includes two primary plant strongholds. 

Since 1997, refuge staff have monitored plant 

numbers on these two sites. Enumeration of 

rosettes have averaged 741 (range 221–1,692) and 

fl owering plants average 1,783 (range 104–5,391). 

The plants inhabit wind swept, gravel dominated 

hillsides with little or no competing vegetation. 

Currently, the plant is not excluded from grazing, 

and no specifi c plant management is occurring. 

The plant does not appear to be increasing or 

decreasing in abundance on the refuge. Therefore, 

the refuge proposes to investigate the life history, 

life requirements and management options of 

North Park phacelia. Additionally, the ongoing 

monitoring of rosettes and fl owering plants will 

continue annually. A step-down management 

plan will be created by 2010 that details future 

management actions. Strategies will include a 

research component that emphasizes full recovery 

of the plant species.
Appendix I

Water Rights

Summary of water rights held by Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Source Name Rate or 

Storage1

Administrative NumberCourt

Number

Appropriation Date

Antelope Ditch No. 1 5.47 cfs 30280.21305 WO487 05/01/1908

Antelope Well 0.029 cfs 30280.21305 WO487 05/01/1908

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Domestic 

Well 0.10 cfs 47481.33602 80CW220 12/31/1941

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Stock Well 0.10 cfs 47481.33602 80CW219 12/31/1941

Boyce Brothers Ditch No. 1 9.25 cfs 16360 275 (263) 10/16/1894

Boyce Brothers Ditch No. 1 20.5 cfs 30280.18748 700 05/01/1901

Case Reservoir No. 1 124.3 ac-ft 30280.21391 11 07/26/1908

Case Reservoir No. 2 105.8 ac-ft 30280.21392 12 07/27/1908

Case Reservoir No. 3 9.1 ac-ft 30280.22852 14 07/26/1912

Case Reservoir No. 3 57.4 ac-ft 48577.23852 83CW228 07/26/1912

Dryer Ditch 5.2 cfs 13635 81 05/01/1887

Dryer Ditch 3.6 cfs 16215 270 (258) 05/24/1894

Dryer Ditch 2.4 cfs 17806 296 (281) 10/01/1898

Everhard Baldwin Ditch 10 cfs (5 cfs) 13642 86 (80) 05/08/1887

Everhard Baldwin Ditch 8 cfs 14762 229 06/01/1890

Everhard Baldwin Ditch 5 cfs 21366.20240 349 06/01/1905

Fox Pond 108 ac-ft 51499.47999 91CW113 06/01/1981

Hill-Crouter Ditch 6 cfs 14148 161 09/25/1888

Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 4 cfs (2.0 cfs) 12179 11 (10) 05/06/1883

Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 2 cfs 14370 180 (161) 05/05/1889

Home No. 1 and Upland Ditch 2 cfs 14805 232 (207) 07/14/1890

Howard Ditch 75 cfs (37.5) 22188 364 10/01/1910

Howard Ditch 70cfs (35 cfs)2 49102 84CW156 06/08/1984

Hubbard Ditch No. 1 1 cfs 13686 100 (93) 06/21/1887

Hubbard Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 13849 110 (101) 12/01/1887

Hubbard Ditch No. 1 2 cfs 14417 196 (176) 06/21/1889

Hubbard Ditch No. 1 6 cfs 23016.18840 375 08/01/1901

Hubbard Ditch No. 2 3 cfs 14337 167 (151) 04/02/1889

Hubbard Ditch No. 2 3 cfs 14731 217 (196) 05/01/1890

Hubbard Ditch No. 2 8 cfs 15891 264 (253) 07/04/1893

Hubbard Ditch No. 2 15 cfs 17420 286 (273) 09/10/1897

Hubbard Ditch No. 2 16 cfs 21366.19909 346.5 07/05/1904

Hubbard Ditch No. 2 27 cfs 21391 357 07/26/1908

Hubbard Ditch No. 2 31 cfs` 23016.22035 378.2 05/01/1910

Hubbard Ditch No. 4 2 cfs 23016.21383 None 07/18/1908

Ish and Baldwin Ditch 1.6 cfs (0.8 cfs) 16942 382 (270) 05/20/1896

MacFarlane Ext. Ditch 40 cfs (20 cfs) 22455 368 06/25/1911

MacFarlane Reservoir 6507 ac-ft 

(3253.5 ac-ft) 22207 2 10/20/1910

MacFarlane Reservoir 6833 ac-ft* 49102 84CW156 06/08/1984
Appendix I—Water Rights 157

 1cfs=cubic feet per second; ac-ft=acre feet; rate or storage in ( ) is for the refuge only. 2This right is mostly unperfected of “conditional.”

Summary of water rights held by Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

Source Name Rate or 

Storage1

Administrative NumberCourt

Number

Appropriation Date

Midland Ditch 15 cfs (5 cfs) 18506 306 (286) 09/01/1900

Midland Ditch 6 cfs 21366.21305 355 05/01/1908

Midland Ditch 20.5 cfs (5 cfs) 24007 398 09/24/1915

Muskrat Pond 390 ac-ft 48577.47798 83CW4 11/12/1980

North Park Ditch No. 6 9 cfs 13635 80 (78) 05/01/1887

North Park Ditch No. 6 6 cfs 21366.19478 344 05/01/1903

Okalahoma Ditch No. 1 41 cfs 14350 170 04/15/1889

Oklahoma Ditch No. 1 10 cfs 15151 243 (215) 06/25/1891

Oklahoma Ditch No. 1 10 cfs 21366.19478 344 05/1/1903

Oklahoma Ditch No. 2 9 cfs 16362 276 (264) 10/18/1894

Oklahoma Ditch No. 2 4 cfs 21366.19478 344 05/01/1903

Potter Ditch No. 2 5 cfs 20270 329 07/01/1905

Riddle Ditch 11 cfs (3 cfs) 21366.21280 353 04/06/1908

Spring Creek Pond 92.4 ac-ft 51499.47542 91CW114 03/01/1980

State Walden Pipeline 0.75 cfs 30280.27559 726 06/15/1925

State Walden Reservoir 37.9 ac-ft 30280.27559 18 06/15/1925

Ward Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 14015 122 (113) 05/15/1888

Ward Ditch No. 1 3 cfs 14417 195 (175) 06/21/1889

Ward Ditch No. 1 13 cfs 17496 287 (274) 11/25/1897

Ward Ditch No. 2 0.5 cfs 14403 190 (170) 06/07/1889

Ward Ditch No. 3 2.25 cfs 18394 302 05/12/1900
Appendix J 

Species List

Birds

This taxonomic list of birds at the Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge follows the order of American 

Ornithological Union’s Checklist of North American 

Birds, 7th ed. (1998).

At least 203 bird species occur on the refuge (January 

2002):

—82 species breed

—13 species are accidental or vagrant

—2 species are on the federally threatened list

Grebes

pied-billed grebe 

eared grebe 

western grebe 

Podilymbus podiceps

Podiceps nigricollis

Aechmophorus occidentalis

Pelicans

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Cormorants

double-crested 

cormorant 

Phalacrocorax auritus

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets 

American bittern 

great blue heron

snowy egret

cattle egret

green heron

black-crowned night-

 heron

yellow-crowned night-

 heron

Botaurus lentiginosus

Ardea herodias

Egretta thula

Bubulcus ibis

Butorides virescens

Nycticorax nycticorax

Nyctanassa violaceus

Ibises and Spoonbills

white-faced ibis Plegadis chihi

New World Vultures

turkey vulture Cathartes aura

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

snow goose

Canada goose

trumpeter swan

tundra swan

wood duck

gadwall

American wigeon

mallard

blue-winged teal

cinnamon teal

northern shoveler

northern pintail

green-winged teal

Chen caerulescens

Branta canadensis

Cygnus buccinator

Cygnus columbianus

Aix sponsa

Anas strepera

Anas americana

Anas platyrhynchos

Anas discors

Anas cyanoptera

Anas clypeata

Anas acuta

Anas crecca

canvasback

redhead

ring-necked duck

lesser scaup

buffl ehead

common goldeneye

hooded merganser

common merganser

ruddy duck

Aythya valisineria

Aythya americana

Aythya collaris

Aythya affi nis

Bucephala albeola

Bucephala clangula

Lophodytes cucullatus

Mergus merganser

Oxyura jamaicensis

Osprey, Hawks, and Eagles

osprey

bald eagle

northern harrier

sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper’s hawk

northern goshawk

Swainson’s hawk

red-tailed hawk

ferruginous hawk

rough-legged hawk

golden eagle

Pandion haliaetus

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Circus cyaneus

Accipiter striatus

Accipiter cooperii

Accipiter gentilis

Buteo swainsoni

Buteo jamaicensis

Buteo regalis

Buteo lagopus

Aquila chrysaetos

Falcons

American kestrel

merlin

peregrine falcon

prairie falcon

Falco sparverius

Falco columbarius

Falco peregrinus

Falco mexicanus

Gallinaceous Birds

sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Rails

Virginia rail

sora

American coot

Rallus limicola

Porzana carolina

Fulica americana

Cranes

sandhill crane Grus canadensis

Plovers

black-bellied plover

killdeer

Pluvialis squatarola

Charadrius vociferus

Stilts and Avocets

black-necked stilt

American avocet

Himantopus mexicanus

Recurvirostra americana

Sandpipers and Phalaropes

greater yellowlegs

lesser yellowlegs

solitary sandpiper

willet

spotted sandpiper

upland sandpiper

long-billed curlew

Tringa melanoleuca

Tringa fl avipes

Tringa solitaria

Catoptrophorus 

 semipalmatus

Actitis macularia

Bartramia longicauda

Numenius americanus

Animal and plant species of the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge are listed below.
Appendix J—Species List 159

marbled godwit

western sandpiper

least sandpiper

Baird’s sandpiper

long-billed dowitcher

common snipe

Wilson’s phalarope

red-necked phalarope

Limosa fedoa

Calidris mauri

Calidris minutilla

Calidris bairdii

Limnodromus scolopaceus

Gallinago gallinago

Phalaropus tricolor

Phalaropus lobatus

Gulls and Terns

Franklin’s gull

Bonaparte’s gull

ring-billed gull

California gull

Forster’s tern

black tern

Larus pipixcan

Larus philadelphia

Larus delawarensis

Larus californicus

Sterna forsteri

Chlidonias niger

Doves

mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Cuckoos

yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Barn Owls

barn owl Tyto alba

Typical Owls

great horned owl

burrowing owl

long-eared owl

short-eared owl

northern saw-whet owl

Bubo virginianus

Athene cunicularia

Asio otus

Asio fl ammeus

Aegolius acadicus

Nightjars

common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Hummingbirds

calliope hummingbird

broad-tailed 

 hummingbird

rufous hummingbird

Stellula calliope

Selasphorus platycercus

Selasphorus rufus

Kingfi shers

belted kingfi sher Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

Lewis’ woodpecker

yellow-bellied 

 sapsucker

red-naped sapsucker

downy woodpecker

hairy woodpecker

northern fl icker

Melanerpes lewis

Sphyrapicus varius

Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Picoides pubescens

Picoides villosus

Colaptes auratus

Tyrant Flycatchers

olive-sided fl ycatcher

western wood-pewee

willow fl ycatcher

Hammond’s fl ycatcher

dusky fl ycatcher

Cordilleran fl ycatcher

Say’s phoebe

western kingbird

eastern kingbird

Contopus cooperi

Contopus sordidulus

Empidonax traillii

Empidonax hammondii

Empidonax oberholseri

Empidonax occidentalis

Sayornis saya

Tyrannus verticalis

Tyrannus tyrannus

Shrikes

loggerhead shrike

northern shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Lanius excubitor

Vireos

warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Crows, Jays, and Magpies 

Steller’s jay

pinyon jay

Clark’s nutcracker

black-billed magpie

American crow

common raven

Cyanocitta stelleri

Gymnorhinus 

 cyanocephalus

Nucifraga columbiana

Pica pica

Corvus brachyrhynchos

Corvus corax

Larks

horned lark Eremophila alpestris

Swallows

tree swallow

violet-green swallow

northern rough-winged 

 swallow

bank swallow

cliff swallow

barn swallow

Tachycineta bicolor

Tachycineta thalassina

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Riparia riparia

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Hirundo rustica

Chickadees

black-capped chickadee

mountain chickadee

Poecile atricapillus

Poecile gambeli

Nuthatches

red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Wrens

rock wren

house wren

sedge wren

marsh wren

Salpinctes obsoletus

Troglodytes aedon

Cistothorus platensis

Cistothorus palustris

Dippers

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus

Kinglets

ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula

Thrushes

eastern bluebird

western bluebird

mountain bluebird

veery

Swainson’s thrush

hermit thrush

American robin

Sialia sialis

Sialia mexicana

Sialia currucoides

Catharus fuscescens

Catharus ustulatus

Catharus guttatus

Turdus migratorius

Mimic Thrushes

gray catbird

northern mockingbird

sage thrasher

brown thrasher

Dumetella carolinensis

Mimus polyglottos

Oreoscoptes montanus

Toxostoma rufum
160 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Starlings

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

Pipits

American (water) pipit Anthus rubescens

Waxwings

Bohemian waxwing

cedar waxwing

Bombycilla garrulus

Bombycilla cedrorum

Wood Warblers

orange-crowned 

 warbler

Nashville warbler

Virginia’s warbler

yellow warbler

chestnut-sided warbler

magnolia warbler

yellow-rumped warbler

MacGillivray’s warbler

common yellowthroat

Wilson’s warbler

Vermivora celata

Vermivora rufi capilla

Vermivora virginiae

Dendroica petechia

Dendroica pensylvanica

Dendroica magnolia

Dendroica coronata

Oporornis tolmiei

Geothlypis trichas

Wilsonia pusilla

Tanagers

western tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Sparrows and Towhees

green-tailed towhee

spotted towhee

eastern towhee

American tree sparrow

chipping sparrow

Brewer’s sparrow

vesper sparrow

lark sparrow

sage sparrow

lark bunting

savannah sparrow

fox sparrow

song sparrow

Lincoln’s sparrow 

Harris’ sparrow

white-crowned sparrow

dark-eyed junco

McCown’s longspur

Lapland longspur

chestnut-collared 

 longspur

snow bunting

Pipilo chlorurus

Pipilo maculatus

Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Spizella arborea

Spizella passerina

Spizella breweri

Pooecetes gramineus

Chondestes grammacus

Amphispiza belli

Calamospiza melanocorys

Passerculus sandwichensis

Passerelia iliaca

Melospiza melodia

Melospiza lincolnii

Zonotrichia querula

Zonotrichia leucophrys

Junco hyemalis

Calcarius mccownii

Calcarius lapponicus

Calcarius ornatus

Plectrophenax nivalis

Grosbeaks and Allies

rose-breasted grosbeak

black-headed grosbeak

blue grosbeak

Lazuli bunting

indigo bunting

dickcissel

Pheucticus ludovicianus

Pheucticus 

 melanocephalus

Guiraca caerulea

Passerina amoena

Passerina cyanea

Spiza americana

Blackbirds and Orioles

bobolink

red-winged blackbird

western meadowlark

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Agelaius phoeniceus

Surnella neglecta

yellow-headed 

 blackbird

Brewer’s blackbird

common grackle

brown-headed cowbird

Bullock’s oriole

Xanthocephalus 

 xanthocephalus

Euphagus cyanocephalus

Quiscalus quiscula

Molothrus ater

Icterus bullockii

Finches

gray-crowned rosy-

 fi nch

black rosy-fi nch

brown-capped rosy-

 fi nch

house fi nch

pine siskin

lesser goldfi nch

American goldfi nch

evening grosbeak

Leucosticte tephrocotis

Leucosticte atrata

Leucosticte australis

Carpodacus mexicanus

Carduelis pinus

Carduelis psaltria

Carduelis tristis

Coccothraustes vespertinus

Old World Sparrows

house sparrow Passer domesticus 

(introduced)

Mammals

Thirty-three mammal species occur on the refuge 

(January 2002).

Shrews

masked shrew Sorex cinereus

Hares and Rabbits

Nuttall’s cottontail

white-tailed jackrabbit

Sylvilagus nuttallii

Lepus townsendii

Squirrels

least chipmunk

yellow-bellied marmot

Wyoming ground 

 squirrel

thirteen-lined ground 

 squirrel

golden-mantled ground 

 squirrel

white-tailed prairie dog

Eutamias minimus

Marmota fl aviventris

Spermophilus elegans

Spermophilus 

 tridecemlineatus

Spermophilus lateralis

Cynomys leucurus

Beaver

beaver Castor canadensis

Mice and Voles

deer mouse 

northern grasshopper 

 mouse 

montane vole 

muskrat

Permoyscus maniculatus

Onychomys leucogaster

Microtus montanus

Ondatra zibethicus

Old World Mice

house mouse Mus musculus

Jumping Mice

western jumping mouse Zapus princeps

Porcupine

porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
Appendix J—Species List 161

Dogs and Foxes

coyote 

red fox 

Canis latrans

Vulpes vulpes

Bears

black bear Ursus americanus

Raccoons

raccoon Procyon lotor

Weasels and Skunks

ermine 

long-tailed weasel 

mink 

river otter 

badger 

striped skunk 

Mustela erminea

Mustela frenata

Mustela vison

Lutra Canadensis

Taxidea taxus

Mephitis mephitis

Cats

mountain lion 

bobcat 

Puma concolor

Felis rufus

Deer

Rocky Mountain elk 

mule deer 

white-tailed deer 

moose 

Cervus elaphus

Odocoileus hemionus

Odocoileus virginianus

Alces alces

Pronghorn

pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Fish 

Nine fi sh species occur on the refuge (January 2002).

Trout

rainbow trout 

brown trout 

brook trout 

Salmo gairdneri

Salmo trutta

Salvelinus fontinalis

Dace, Minnows, Chub, and Darters

northern redbelly dace 

fathead minnow 

creek chub

Johnny darter 

Phoxinus eos

Pimephales promelas

Semotilus atromaculatus

Etheostoma nigrum

Suckers

long-nosed sucker 

white sucker 

Catostomus catostomus

Catostomus commeisoni

Amphibians and Reptiles

Six amphibian and reptile species occur on the refuge 

(January 2002).

Amphibians

barred tiger 

 salamander 

western toad 

wood frog 

northern leopard frog 

striped chorus frog 

Ambystoma tigrinum 

 mavortium

Bufo boreas

Rana sylvatica

Rana pipiens

Pseudacris nigrita 

 maculatat

Reptiles

wandering garter snake Thamnophis elegans 

vagrans

Plants

At least 390 plant species occur on the refuge; 1 is on 

the federally endangered species list (January 2002).

Parsley Family (Apiaceae=Umbelliferae)

sweet cicely 

Douglas water hemlock 

poison-hemlock 

western hemlock 

lovage, licorice-root 

hemlock parsley 

cow parsnip 

Osmorhiza longistylis

Cicuta douglasii 

Conium maculatum

Cicuta maculata 

 angustifolia

Ligusticum porteri

Conioselinum scopulorum

Heracleum lanatum 

Fern Family (Aspleniaceae)

alpine ladyfern Athyrium distentifolium

Aster Family (Asteraceae)

aster 

golden aster 

hairy golden aster 

leafy aster 

marsh aster 

arrowleaf balsamroot 

heart-leaf arnica 

leafy or meadow arnica 

Coulter’s daisy 

daisy 

daisy fl eabane

spear-leaf fl eabane 

subalpine daisy 

common dandelion 

mountain dandelion 

common pearly-

 everlasting

dune goldenrod 

Canada goldenrod 

Missouri goldenrod 

goldenweed 

goldenweed 

arrowleaf groundsel 

groundsel 

groundsel 

groundsel 

few-leaved groundsel, 

 alpine meadow 

 butterweed 

thickleaf groundsel, 

 butterweed, ragwort 

water groundsel, alkali 

 marsh butterweed 

long-leaved 

 hawksbeard 

dandelion hawksbeard 

gray horsebrush

mule’s ears 

nothocalais 

pineapple-weed 

Aster campestris

Chrysopsis horrida

Chrysopsis villosa

Aster foliaceus

Aster hesperius

Balsamorhiza sagittata

Arnica cordifolia

Arnica chamissonis

Erigeron coulteri

Erigeron elatior

Erigeron ochroleucus 

 scribneri

Erigeron lonchophyllus

Erigeron peregrinus

Taraxacum offi cinale

Agoseris glauca glauca

Anaphalis margaritacea

Solidago simplex 

Solidago canadensis

Solidago missouriensis

Haplopappus clematis

Haplopappus lanceolatus

Senecio triangularis

Senecio mutabilis 

Senecio soldanella

Senecio sphaerocephalus

Senecio cymbalarioides

Senecio crassultus

Senecio hydrophilus 

Crepis acuminata

Crepis runcinata

Tetradymia canescens

Wyethia amplexicaulis

Nothocalais nigrescens

Matricaria matricaroides
162 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

fi eld pussytoes 

Nuttail’s pussytoes

rosy pussytoes 

tall pussytoes

gray rabbitbrush 

rubber rabbitbrush 

alkali sage 

big sage

black sage 

fringed sage 

low sage 

mountain big sage 

mountain silver sage 

plains sage 

prairie sage 

sage 

silver sage 

western salsify 

broom snakeweed 

orange sneezeweed 

false sunfl ower 

thistle 

thistle

thistle 

thistle 

Canada thistle 

Flodman’s thistle 

star-thistle 

wavy-leaved thistle 

western yarrow 

Antennaria neglecta

Antennaria parvifolia

Antennaria microphylla

Antennaria anaphaloides

Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

 albicaulis

Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

 nauseosus

Artemisia arbuscula 

 longiloba

Artemisia tridentata 

 tridentata

Artemisia nova

Artemisia frigida

Artemisia arbuscula 

 arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata 

 vaseyana

Artemisia cana viscidula

Artemisia longifolia

Artemisia ludoviciana

Artemisia tridentata 

 rothrockii 

Artemisia cana cana 

Tragopogon dubius

Gutierrezia sarothrae

Helenium hoopesii 

Helianthus rigidus

Cirsium canescens

Cirsium drummondii

Cirsium scopulorum

Cirsium tioganum

Cirsium arvense

Cirsium fl odmanii 

Centaureae cyanus

Cirsium undulatum

Achillea millefolium

Barberry Family (Berberidaceae)

Oregon grape Mahonia repens

Birch Family (Betulaceae)

mountain alder 

bog birch 

Alnus incana

Betula glandulosa

Borage Family (Boraginaceae)

houndstongue 

bluebells 

bluebells 

cilate bluebells 

small bluebells 

forget-me-not, 

 stickseed 

minors candle 

stoneseed 

Cynoglossum offi cinale

Mertensia humilis

Mertensia lanceolata

Mertensia ciliata

Mertensia longifl ora

Hackelia leptophylla 

Cryptantha caespitosa 

Lithospermum incisum

Mustard Family (Brassicaceae=Cruciferae)

American wintercress 

bitter cress 

large mountain 

 bittercress 

rock cress 

yellowcress 

smallseed false fl ax 

tansy mustard 

common peppergrass 

Barbarea orthoceras

Cardamine breweri

Cardamine cordifolia 

 cordifolia

Arabis drummondi

Rorripa obtusa

Camelina microcarpa

Descurainia pinnata 

Lepidium densifl orum

shepherd’s purse 

slender thelypody 

spreading wallfl ower 

Capsella bursa-pastoris

Thelypodium sagittatum

Erysimum repandum

Cactus Family (Cactaceae)

pincushion cactus 

prickly pear cactus, 

 brittle cactus 

prickly pear cactus 

Coryphantha vivipara

Opuntia fragilis

Opuntia polyacantha 

 polyacantha 

Bluebell Family (Campanulaceae)

Arctic harebell, 

 bellfl ower 

bellfl ower, lady’s 

 thimble 

Campanula unifl ora

Campanula rotundifolia

Caper Family (Capparaceae)

Rocky Mountain 

 beeplant 

Cleome serrulata

Honeysuckle Family (Caprifoliaceae)

buckbrush 

elderberry 

bearberry honeysuckle 

snowberry 

twinfl ower 

Symphoricarpos albus

Sambucus racemosa

Lonicera involucrata 

Symphoricarpos 

 orbiculatus

Linnaea borealis longifl ora

Pink Family (Caryophyllaceae)

catchfl y 

ballheaded sandwort 

slender sandwort 

longleaved starwort 

longstalked starwort 

Whitlow wort 

Lychnis drummondii

Arenaria congesta 

Arenaria stricta

Stellaria longifolia

Stellaria longipes

Paronychia sessilifl ora

Staff-tree Family (Celastraceae)

mountain lover Pachistima myrsinites

Goosefoot Family (Chenopodiaceae)

summer cyperus 

slimleaf goosefoot 

white goosefoot, 

 pigweed 

greasewood 

mat saltbush 

winterfat 

Kochia americana

Chenopodium 

 lepdtophyllum

Chenopodium album

Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Atriplex gardneri 

Ceratoides lanata

Orpine Family (Crassulaceae)

rose crown 

stonecrop 

stonecrop 

rose crown, stonecrop 

Sedum rhodanthum

Sedum lanceolatum

Sedum stenopetalum 

Sedum rhodanthum

Cedar Family (Cupressaceae)

common juniper Juniperus communis 

 depressa

Sedge Family (Cyperaceae)

many spiked 

 cottongrass 

bulrush 

Eriophorum polystachion

Scirpus pallidus
Appendix J—Species List 163

bulrush, clubrush 

common spike rush 

small spike rush 

beaked sedge 

capitate sedge 

Dunhead sedge 

elk sedge 

Hayden’s sedge 

narrow-leaved sedge 

Nebraska sedge 

needleleaf sedge 

Parry sedge 

sedge 

shortbeaked sedge 

slenderbeaked sedge 

wooly sedge 

Scirpus microcarpus

Eleocharis palustris

Eleocharis parvula

Carex rostrata

Carex capitata

Carex phaeocephala

Carex geyeri

Carex ebenea

Carex eleocharis

Carex nebrascensis

Carex fi lifolia

Carex parryana

Carex kellogi

Carex simulata

Carex athrostackya

Carex lanuginosa

Oleaster Family (Elaegnaceae)

russet buffaloberry Shepherdia canadensis

Horsetail Family (Equisetaceae)

common horsetail 

horsetail 

northern scouring rush 

Equisetum arvense

Equisetum laevigatum

Equisetum variegatum 

 nelsoni

Heath Family (Ericaceae)

bearberry 

dwarf bilberry 

low bilberry 

grouse whortleberry 

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Vaccinium caespitosum

Vaccinium myrtillus

Vaccinium scoparium

Pea Family (Fabaceae=Leguminosae)

Alsike clover 

long-stalked clover 

sweet clover 

white, dutch clover 

silky crazyweed 

plains loco 

tall locoweed 

big leaf lupine 

prairie lupine 

silvery lupine 

milkvetch, locoweed 

park milkvetch 

thistle milkvetch 

silver-leaved milkvetch 

wooly-pod milkvetch 

plains orophaca 

yellow pea 

American vetch 

Trifolium hybridium

Trifolium longipes

Melilotus offi cinalis

Trifolium repens

Oxytropis sericea sericea

Oxytropis campestris

Oxytropis lamberii

Lupinus polyphyllus 

 humicola

Lupinus lepidus utahensis

Lupinus argenteus 

 argenteus 

Astragalus parryi

Astragalus leptaleus 

Astragalus kentrophyta

Astragalus argophyllus

Astragalus purshii

Astragalus gilyifl orus

Thermopsis rhombifolia

Vicia americana 

 americana

Gentian Family (Gentianaceae)

gentian 

gentian 

pleated or prairie 

 gentian 

moss gentian 

northern gentian 

smaller fringed gentian 

swertia 

Gentiana forwoodii

Gentiana parryi 

Gentiana affi nis

Gentiana fremontii

Gentianella amarella

Gentiana thermalis

Swertia perennis

Geranium Family (Geraniaceae)

Richardson’s geranium Geranium richardsonii

Gooseberry Family (Grossulariaceae)

swamp gooseberry 

whitestem gooseberry 

Ribes lacustre 

Ribes inerme 

Waterleaf Family (Hydrophyllaceae)

North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula 

St. Johnswort Family (Hypericaceae)

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum

Iris Family (Iridaceae)

blue-eyed grass 

blue-eyed grass 

Rocky Mountain iris 

Sisyrinchium idahoense 

 occidentale

Sisyrinchium montanum

Iris missouriensis

Rush Family (Juncaceae)

baltic rush 

dagger-leaf rush 

fi eld woodrush 

long-styled rush 

smallfl owered 

 woodrush 

tuberous rush 

Juncus balticus

Juncus ensifolius

Luzula campestris

Juncus lonistylis

Luzula parvifl ora

Juncus nodosus

Arrowgrass Family (Juncaginaceae)

seaside arrowgrass 

marsh arrowgrass 

Triglochin maritimum

Triglochin palustre

Mint Family (Lamiaceae)

fi eld mint 

common hemp nettle 

marsh or willoweed 

 skullcap 

Mentha arvensis

Galeopsis tetrahit 

Scutellaria galericulata 

Lily Family (Liliaceae)

chives 

cucumber root, 

 clasping-leaved 

 twisted stalk 

panicled deathcams 

fritillary 

California false-

 hellebore 

sego lily 

red lily 

onion 

starry solomon plume 

Allium schoenoprasum

Streptopus amplexifolius

Zigadenus paniculatus

Fritillaria atropurpurea

Veratrum californicum

Calochortus nuttallii

Lilium umbellatum

Allium geyeri 

Smilacena stellata

Mallow Family (Malvaceae)

mallow 

checkermallow, false 

 mallow 

scarlet globemallow 

Malva crispa

Sidalcea candida 

Sphaeralcea coccinea 

Evening Primrose Family (Onagraceae) 

fi reweed, blooming 

 sally 

common willow herb 

Epilobium angustifolium

Epitobium glandulosum 

 tenue
164 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

willow herb 

racemed ground smoke 

Epilobium glaberrimum 

 fastigiatum 

Gayophytum racemosum

Orchid Family (Orchidaceae)

leafy white orchid 

giant, western 

 rattlesnake plantain 

Habenaria dilatata

Goodyera oblongifolia

Pine Family (Pinaceae)

Douglas-fi r 

subalpine fi r 

white fi r 

limber pine 

lodgepole pine 

blue spruce 

Engelmann spruce 

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Abies lasiocarpa

Abies concolor

Pinus fl exilis

Pinus contorta latifolia

Picea pungens

Picea engelmannii

Plantain Family (Plantaginaceae)

nippleseed plantain Plantago major

Grass Family (Poaceae=Gramineae)

Nuttall alkaligrass 

foxtail barley 

meadow barley 

Thurber bentgrass 

winter bentgrass 

alkali bluegrass 

big bluegrass 

bog bluegrass 

Canada bluegrass 

Canby bluegrass 

Cusick bluegrass 

Kentucky bluegrass 

Nevada bluegrass 

Sandberg bluegrass 

Wheeler bluegrass 

cheatgrass, downy 

 brome 

fringed brome 

mountain brome 

nodding brome 

smooth brome 

Arizona fescue 

Idaho fescue 

sheep fescue 

Thurber fescue 

fowl grass 

meadow foxtail 

blue grama 

hairy grama 

tufted hairgrass 

junegrass 

mannagrass 

mat muhly 

minute muhly 

mountain muhly 

mutton grass 

needle and thread 

Columbia needlegrass 

green needlegrass 

Letterman’s 

 needlegrass 

pine needlegrass 

Puccinellia airoides 

Hordeum jubatum

Hordeum brachyantherum

Agrostis thurburiana

Agrostis scabra

Poa juncifolia

Poa ampla 

Poa leptocoma

Poa compressa 

Poa canbyi

Poa cusickii

Poa pratensis 

Poa nevadensis 

Poa secunda

Poa nervosa

Bromus tectorum

Bromus ciliatus

Bromus marginatus

Bromus anomalus

Bromus inermis

Festuca arizonica

Festuca idahoensis

Festuca ovina

Festuca thurberi

Poa palustris

Alopecurus pratensis 

Bouteloua gracilis

Bouteloua hirsuta

Deschampsia cespitosa 

 cespitosa

Koeleria pyramidata

Glyceria borealis

Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Muhlenbergia minutissima

Muhlenbergia montana

Poa fendleriana

Stipa comata

Stipa columbiana

Stipa viridula

Stipa lettermanii

Stripa pinetorum

Parry oatgrass

oniongrass 

purple oniongrass 

orchardgrass 

redtop 

common reed 

reed canarygrass 

bluejoint reedgrass 

narrow spiked 

 reedgrass 

plains reedgrass 

Indian ricegrass 

blue wild rye 

saltgrass 

prairie sandreed 

scratchgrass 

sleepy grass 

sloughgrass 

bottlebrush squirrel tail 

timothy 

spike trisetum downy 

 oatgrass 

sweetgrass 

Baker’s wheatgrass 

bearded wheatgrass 

bluebunch wheatgrass 

crested wheatgrass 

elongate wheatgrass 

intermediate 

 wheatgrass 

slender wheatgrass 

streambank wheatgrass 

thickspiked wheatgrass 

western wheatgrass

brookgrass, water 

 whorlwort

Danthonia patryi

Melica bulbosa

Melica spectabilis

Dactylis glomerata

Agrostis alba

Phragmites australis

Phalaris arundinacea 

Calamagrostis canadensis

Calamagrostis inexpansa 

 inexpansa

Calamagrostis 

 montanensis

Oryzopsis hymenoides 

Elymus glaucus

Distichlis stricta

Calamovilfa longifolia

Muhlenbergia asperifolia

Stipa robusta

Beckmannia syzgachne 

Sitanion hystrix 

Phleum pretense

Trisetum spicatum

Hierochloe odorata

Agropyron bakeri

Agropyron subsecundum

Agropyron spicatum

Agropyron cristatum 

 cristatume

Agropyron elongatum

Agropyron intermedium

Agropyron trachycaulum

Agropyron riparium

Agropyron dasystachyum

Agropyron smithii

Catabrosa aquatica 

Phlox Family (Polemoniaceae)

narrow-leaf collomia 

scarlet gilia 

Hood’s phlox 

long leaf phlox 

phlox 

prickly-leaved phlox 

skunk or sticky 

 polemonium 

Collomia linearis

Gilia agregata

Phlox hoodii

Phlox longifolia 

Phlox multifl ora

Phlox aculeata

Polemonium viscosum 

Buckwheat Family (Polygonaceae)

American bistort 

sulphur buckwheat 

wild buckwheat 

curly dock 

heartweed, spotted 

 ladysthumb 

Douglas’ knotweed 

Polygonum bistortoides

Eriogonum umbellatum 

 dichrocephalum

Eriogonum jamesii 

 fl avescens 

Rumex crispus

Polygonum persicaria

Polygonum douglasii

Purslane Family (Portulacaceae)

least, dwarf, alpine 

 lewisia 

spring beauty 

Lewisia pygmeae

Claytonia lanceolata 

 lanceolata
Appendix J—Species List 165

Primrose Family (Primulaceae)

fairy candleabra, rock 

 jasmine 

few fl owered or dark 

 throat shooting star 

Androsace septentrionalis

Dodecatheon pulchellum

Wintergreen Family (Pyrolaceae)

alpine pyrola Pyrola asarifolia

Buttercup Family (Ranunculaceae)

cliff anemone 

baneberry 

buttercup 

Macoun’s buttercup 

sagebrush buttercup

sharp buttercup 

columbine 

globefl ower 

larkspur 

little larkspur 

slim or dwarf larkspur 

tall larkspur 

marsh marigold 

veiny meadowrue 

monkshood 

pasquefl ower 

Anemone globosa

Actaea rubra

Ranunculus alismifolius

Ranunculus macounii

Ranunculus glaberrimus 

 ellipticus 

Ranunculus acriformis 

 acriformis

Aquilegia coerulea

Trollius laxus

Delphinium barbeyi

Delphinium bicolor

Delphinium depauperatum

Delphinium occidentale

Caltha leptosepala

Thalictrum venulsoum

Aconitum columbianum

Anemone patens multifi da

Buckthorn Family (Rhamnaceae)

buckbrush Ceanothus velutinus

Rose Family (Rosaceae)

largeleaved avens 

bitterbrush 

blackberry 

chokecherry 

biennial cinquefoil 

cinquefoil 

cinquefoil 

cinquefoil 

early cinquefoil 

prairie cinquefoil 

shrubby cinquefoil, 

 yellow rose 

prairie smoke 

woods rose 

common silverweed 

serviceberry 

strawberry 

Geum macrophyllum

Purshia tridentata

Rubus idaeus peramoenus

Prunus virginiana

Potentilla biennis

Potentilla diversifolia

Potentilla gracilis elmeri

Potentilla pucherrima

Potentilla concinna

Potentilla pensylvanica

Potentilla fruticosa

Geum trifl orum

Rosa woodsii

Potentilla anserina

Amelanchier alnifolia 

Fragaria virginiana

Madder Family (Rubiaceae)

northern bedstraw 

small bedstraw 

Galium boreale

Galium trifi dum

Willow Family (Salicaceae)

quaking aspen 

narrowleaf cottonwood 

Booth’s willow 

coyote willow 

Drummond’s willow 

Geyer’s willow 

mountain willow 

planeleaf willow 

Populus tremuloides

Populus angustifolia

Salix boothii

Salix exigua melanopsis

Salix drummondiana 

Salix geyeriana

Salix monticola

Salix planifolia planifolia

planeleaf willow 

Scouler’s willow 

whiplash willow 

Wolf’s willow

Salix planifolia monica

Salix scouleriana

Salix lasiandra caudata 

Salix wolfi i 

Sandalwood Family (Santalaceae)

bastard toadfl ax Comandra umbellata 

pallida

Saxifrage Family (Saxifragaceae)

alumroot 

alumroot 

alumroot 

slender fringecup, 

 woodlandstar 

brook saxifrage 

Heuchera bracteata

Heuchera hallii

Heuchera parvifolia

Lithophragma tenellum

Saxifraga arguta

Figwort Family (Scrophulariaceae)

beardtongue 

beardtongue 

beardtongue 

beardtongue 

American brooklime 

yellow owl clover 

elephant’s head 

bracted lousewort 

leafy lousewort 

lousewort 

lousewort 

yellow monkey-fl ower 

desert paintbrush 

Indian paintbrush 

Indian paintbrush 

yellow paintbrush 

yellow paintbrush 

slender penstemom 

small-fl owered 

 penstemon 

Whipple’s penstemon 

speedwell 

yellow toadfl ax 

Penstemon alpinus 

Penstemon cyathophorus

Penstemon glaber

Penstemon saxosorum

Veronica americana

Orthocarpus luteus

Pedicularis groenlandica

Pedicularis bracteosa

Pedicularis racemosa albe 

Pedicularis crenulata

Pedicularis scopulorum

Mimulus guttatus 

Castilleja chromosa 

Castilleja angustifolium 

 chromosa

Castilleja angustifolium 

 puberula

Castilleja fl ava

Castilleja puberula

Penstemon gracilis

Penstemon procerus

Penstemon whippleanus

Veronica arvensis

Linaria vulgaris 

Spike Moss Family (Selaginellaceae)

spike moss Selaginella densa

Cattail Family (Typhaceae)

common cattail Typha latifolia

Nettle Family (Urticaceae)

stinging nettle Urtica dioiea

Valerian Family (Valerianaceae)

valerian Valeriana occidentalis

Violet Family (Violaceae)

violet

violet

Viola canadensis

Viola nuttallii
Refuge operating needs system (RONS) projects for Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

RONS 

Number Project Description

FirstYear Need 

($1,000s)

Recurring

Annual 

Need 

($1,000s) FTE*

03001 Conduct a riparian study 195 10 —

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

00002 Improve irrigation and fence maintenance 100 50 0.5

98002 Conduct a life history study of the endangered North Park 

phacelia 38 — —

97017 Platte River Water Conservation, and improve refuge water 

use effi ciency 98 — —

98001 Improve refuge and ecosystem management capabilities 128 70 1.0

03002 Improve refuge GIS use and capabilities 128 70 1.0

97002 Interagency coordination 22 22

03003 Improve administrative functions with increased staff and 

responsibilities as identifi ed in the CCP 70 40 1.0

03004 Construct a multi-use trail from Walden to the Brocker 

overlook 150 — —

03006 Survey the Illinois River and develop a channel restoration 

plan 150 — —

03007 Create fi ve parking areas for hunters 60 — —

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

97006 Maintain refuge riparian areas, wetlands, and associated 

habitat 110 60 1.0

03009 Install a six-stall garage at the offi ce 125 — —

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

98003 Improve refuge environmental education and interpretation 

programs 

 128 70 1.0

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

97005 Develop wells on Hampton property 81 — —

97009 Prescribed fi re for wildlife habitat management 28 — —

 Total $1,908 $476 6.5

 *FTE=full-time equivalent employee.

Appendix K Refuge Operating Needs
Appendix L 

Maintenance Management Projects

Maintenance management system (MMS) projects for the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado

MMS Number Project Description

Cost 

($1,000s)

95011 Re-gravel auto tour route 798

99002 Replace deteriorated boundary fence (8 miles along Highway 125) 79

95007 Replace deteriorated river head gates 84

95010 Replace public use and education signs 40

02006 Rehabilitate Allard back road and Fisherman’s parking lot road 1,419

96002 Replace interior fence on Case tract 45

01016 Replace 1993 Chevrolet 4x4 pickup 35

90010 Replace 1980 Case tracked crawler/bulldozer 241

01006 Replace 1984 International dump truck 101

03001 Rehabilitate Allard kiosk and overlook 50

00007 Replace quarters #4 and two outbuildings with a bunkhouse 250

00004 Rehabilitate the historic barn on the Case tract 266

Total $3,870

Bibliography

Bibliography

Allen, A.W., P.A. Jordan, J.W. Terrell. 1987. Habitat 

suitability index models: moose, Lake Superior 

region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Report 82 (10.155). 

Allen, T.F.H., and T.W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a 

unifi ed ecology. Columbia University Press, New 

York, New York.

Alyea. [no date] National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. In: Kuhn, G., P.B. Daddow, and G.S. 

Craig, Jr. 1983. Hydrology of area 54. USGS Water 

Resources Investigation/open-fi le report 83–146. 

95 pp.

American Fisheries Society, Western Division. 

1980. Position paper on management and protection 

of western riparian stream ecosystems. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Anderson, S.H., and H.H. Shugart, Jr. 1974. Habitat 

selection of breeding birds in an east Tennessee 

deciduous forest. Ecology 55:828–837.

Apfelbaum, S.I. 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) 

management. Natural Areas Journal 5(3):9–17.

Arnold, K.A. 1994. Common snipe. Pages 117–125 

in T.C. Tacha and C.E. Braun, editors. Migratory 

shore and upland game bird management in North 

America. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.

Arnold, T.W., and K.F. Higgins. 1986. Effects of 

shrub coverages on birds of North Dakota mixedgrass prairies. Canadian Field Naturalist 100:10–14.

Askins, R.A., and M.J. Philbrick. 1987. Effects of 

changes in regional forest abundance on the decline 

and recovery of a forest bird community. Wilson 

Bulletin 99:7–21.

Askins, R.A., M.J. Philbrick, and D.S. Sugeno. 

1987. Relationship between the regional abundance 

of forest and the composition of forest bird 

communities. Biological Conservation 39:129–152.

Austin, J.E., and M.R. Miller. 1995. Northern 

pintail (Anas acuta). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, 

editors. The Birds of North America, Number 163. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C. 

Austin, J.E., C.M. Custer, and A.D. Lofton. 1998. 

Lesser scaup (Aythya affi nis). In: A. Poole, and 

F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, 

Number 338. The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Ayyad, M.A.G. and R.L. Dix. 1964. An analysis of a 

vegetation-micro-environmental complex on prairie 

slopes in Saskatchewan. Ecological Monographs, 

Volume 34, No. 4:421–442.

Bailey, R. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of 

the United States. USDA Forest Service. Misc. 

Publication #1391.

Baker, M.C. 1979. Morphological correlates of 

habitat selection in a community of shorebirds 

(Charadriiformes). Oikos 33:121–126.

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 1994. Feeding 

ecology. In: Waterfowl Ecology and Management, 

pp. 165–197. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Bartonek, J.C. and J. J. Hickey. 1969. Food habits 

of canvasbacks, redheads, and lesser scaup in 

Manitoba. Condor 71(3):280–290.

Baxter, R.M. 1977 Environmental effects of dams 

and impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 8:255–283.

Bedish, J.W. 1967. Cattail moisture requirements 

and their signifi cance to marsh management. 

American Midland Naturalist 78(2):288–300.

Berger, A.J. 1968. Eastern vesper sparrow. Pages 

868–882 in O.L. Austin, Jr., editor. Life histories of 

North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, 

towhees, fi nches, sparrows, and allies. Dover 

Publications, Inc., New York, New York.

Best, L.B. 1972. First-year effects of sagebrush 

control on two sparrows. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 36:534–544.

Beule, J.D. 1979. Control and management of 

cattails in southeastern Wisconsin wetlands. 

Department of Natural Resources Technical 

Bulletin No. 112, Madison, Wisconsin.

Blake, J.G., and J.R. Karr. 1984. Bird communities 

and forest size. Biological Conservation 30:173–187.

Blake, J.G. and Karr, J.R. 1987. Breeding birds of 

isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships. 

Ecology 68:1724–1734.
172 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Boe, J.S. 1992. Wetland selection by eared grebes, 

Podiceps nigricollis, in Minnesota. Canadian FieldNaturalist 106:480–488.

Boe, J.S. 1993. Colony sites selection by eared 

grebes in Minnesota. Colonial Waterbirds 16(1):28–

38. 

Bohlen, H.D. 1978. An annotated check-list of the 

birds of Illinois. Illinois State Museum Popular 

Science Series 9:1–155.

Bonnewell, V., W.L. Koukkari, and D.C. Pratt. 1983. 

Light, oxygen, and temperature requirements for 

Typha latifolia seed germination. Canadian Journal 

of Botany 61:1330–1336.

Bowman, G.B., and L.D. Harris. 1980. Effect of 

spatial heterogeneity on ground-nest depredation. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 44:806–813.

Bradley, C.E, and D.G. Smith. 1986. Plains 

cottonwood recruitment and survival on a prairie 

meandering river fl oodplain, Milk River, southern 

Alberta and northern Montana. Canadian Journal of 

Botany 64:1433–1442.

Braun, C.E., M.F. Baker, R.L. Eng, J.S. Gashwiler, 

and M.H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation Committee 

report on effects of alteration of sagebrush 

communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson 

Bulletin 88:165–171.

Briskie, J.V. 1995. Nesting biology of the yellow 

warbler at the northern limit of its range. Journal of 

Field Ornithology 66:531–543.

Brotherson, J.D. 1999. Measured and inferred 

moisture gradient relationships across ecotone 

boundaries in shrub-dominated foothill 

communities. In: McArthur, E. Durant; 1998 August 

12–14: Ephraim, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Brown, M. and J.J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications 

of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird 

management. Journal of Wildlife Management 

50(3):392–397.

Burger, J. 1985. Habitat selection in temperate 

marsh-nesting birds. Pages 253–281 in Cody, editor. 

Habitat Selection in Birds, Physiol. Ecol. Ser.

Burger, L.D., L.W. Burger, Jr., and J. Faaborg. 

1994. Effects of prairie fragmentation on predation 

on artifi cial nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 

58:249–254.

Cannon, R.W., and F.L. Knopf. 1984. Species 

composition of a willow community relative to 

seasonal grazing histories in Colorado. Southwestern 

Naturalist 29:234–237.

Carothers, S.W., and R.R. Johnson. 1975. Water 

management practices and their effects on nongame birds in range habitats. Proceedings of the 

Symposium on Management of Forest and Range 

Habitats for Non-Game Birds. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical 

Report WO-1.

Carothers, W.W., R.R. Johnson, and S.W. Aitchison. 

1974. Population structure and social organization 

of southwestern riparian birds. American Zoologist 

14:97–108.

Cassells, E.S. 1997. The Archaeology of Colorado, 

Revised Edition. Johnson Books, Boulder.

Castelli, R.M., J.C. Chambers, and R.J. Tausch. 

2000. Soil-plant relations along a soil-water gradient 

in Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 

20(2):251–266.

Clark, J.P. 1977. Effects of experimental 

management schemes on production and nesting 

ecology of ducks at Malheur National Wildlife 

Refuge. Master’s thesis, Oregon State University.

Clark, T.W., T.W. Campbell III, D.G. Socha, and 

D.E. Cassey. 1982. Prairie dog colony attributes 

and associated vertebrate species. Great Basin 

Naturalist 42:572–582.

Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. 1998. H.E. 

Kingery, editor. Published by Colorado Bird Atlas 

Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2001. 1999 

Estimates of State & County Tourism Jobs. www.

dola.state.co.us./demog/cbef/tourism99.pdf

Colorado State University Extension. 2000. The 

1998–99 Colorado Livestock Enterprise Budget. 

Cooper, D.J. 1986. Community structure and 

classifi cation of Rocky Mountain wetland 

ecosystems. Pages 66–147 in J.T. Windell, B.E. 

Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, C.F. KnudHansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. Kiladis, eds. An 

ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain 

montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Biological Report 86.

Cooper, H.W. 1953. Amounts of big sagebrush in 

plant communities near Tensleep, Wyoming, as 

affected by grazing treatment. Soil Conservation 

Service, Lincoln Nebraska. Pp. 186–189.

Costello, D.F. 1944. Important species of the major 

forage types in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological 

Monographs, Volume 14, Issue 1:107–134.
Bibliography 173

Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. 

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, 40 CFR 1500-1508, Council on Environmental 

Quality, November 28, 1978.

Cox, R.R., Jr., M.A. Hanson, C.C. Roy, N.H. Euliss, 

Jr., D.H. Johnson, and M.G. Butler. 1998. Mallard 

duckling growth and survival in relation to aquatic 

invertebrates. Journal of Wildlife Management 

62(1):124–133.

Crowder, K. 2001. North Park Greater SageGrouse Conservation Plan. Jackson County 

Administrator, Jackson County, Colorado. 51 pp.

Dambach, C.A. 1944. A ten-year ecological study 

of adjoining grazed and ungrazed woodlands in 

northwestern Ohio. Ecological Monograph 14: 

256–270.

Darveau, M., L. Belanger, J. Huot, and J.C. 

Ruel. 1993. Mid-term effects of windfall on bird 

use of riparian forest strips. Proceedings of the 

International Union of Game Biologists 21:104–109.

Darveau, M., P. Beauchessne, L. Belanger, J. Huot, 

and P. Larue. 1995. Riparian forest strips as habitat 

for breeding birds in boreal forest. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 59:67–78.

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. 

Igl, C.M. Goldade, A.L. Zimmerman, and B.R. 

Euliss. 1999. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: western meadowlark. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

North Dakota.

DeGraaf, R.M., and J.H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical 

migratory birds. Comstock Publishing Assoc., 

Ithaca, NY.

Delisle, J. 1995. Avian use of fi elds enrolled in 

the conservation reserve program in southeast 

Nebraska. Master’s thesis, University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Dieni, J.S., and S.H. Anderson. 1999. Effects 

of recent burning on breeding bird community 

structure in aspen forests. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 70:491–503.

Dittmar, L.A. and R.K. Neely. 1999. Wetland seed 

bank response to sedimentation varying in loading 

rate and texture. Wetlands 19(2):341-351.

Dobkin, D. S., and B. A. Wilcox. 1986. Analysis 

of natural forest fragments: riparian birds in the 

Toiyabe Mountains, Nevada. Pages 293–299 in J. 

Verner, M.L. Morison, and C.J. Ralph, editors. 

Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of 

terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin 

Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Drut, M.S., J.A. Crawford, and M.A. Gregg. 1994. 

Brood habitat use by sage grouse in Oregon. Great 

Basin Naturalist 54:170–176.

Duley, F.L. and C.E. Domingo. 1949. Effect of grass 

on intake of water. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 

159:1–15.

Dunn, J.L., and K.L. Garrett. 1997. A fi eld guide 

to warblers of North America. Houghton Miffl in 

Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Engstrom, A. 1948. Growing cottonwood from seed. 

Journal of Forestry 46:130–132.

Enright, C.A. 1971. An analysis of mallard nesting 

habitat on the Monte Vista National Wildlife 

Refuge. Master’s thesis, Colorado State University, 

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Everitt, B.L. 1968. Use of the cottonwood in an 

investigation of the recent history of a fl ood plain. 

American Journal of Science 266:417–439. 

Faaborg, J. 1976. Habitat selection and territorial 

behavior of the small grebes of North Dakota. 

Wilson Bulletin 88(3):390–399.

Farmer, A.H. and A.H. Parent. 1997. Effects of 

the landscape on shorebirds movements at spring 

immigration stopovers. Condor 99:698–707.

Fautin, R.W. 1975. The terrestrial vertebrate 

fauna of the Atlantic Richfi eld Company’s Black 

Thunder Coal lease property in Campbell County, 

Wyoming. Pages 635–650 in Fort Union Coal Field 

Symposium.

Fenner, P., W.W. Brady, and D.R. Patton. 1984. 

Observations on seeds and seedlings of Fremont 

cottonwood. Journal of Desert Plants 6:55–58.

Fleming, K.K., and W.M. Giuliano. 1998. Effect 

of border-edge cuts on birds at woodlot edges 

in southwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 62:1430–1437.

Fletcher, Louis A. 1981. Soil survey of the Jackson 

County area, Colorado. USDA, Soil Conservation 

Service, 159 pp.

Fredrickson, L.H. and F.A. Reid. 1986. Wetland 

and riparian habitats: a nongame management 

overview. Pages 58–96 in J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, 

and R.L. Clawson, editors, Management of 

nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a developing art. 

Proceedings of the 47th Midwest Fish and Wildlife 

Conference.

Fredrickson, L.H., and T.S. Taylor. 1982. 

Management of seasonally fl ooded impoundments 

for wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Resource Publication 148, Washington, D.C.
174 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Freemark, K.E., J.B. Dunning, S.J. Hejl, and J.R. 

Probst. 1995. A landscape ecology perspective for 

research, conservation, and management. Pages 

381–427 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors. 

Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory 

birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford 

University Press, New York, New York.

Friedmann, H. 1963 Host relations of the parasitic 

cowbirds. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 233:1–176.

Friedman, J.M. 1993. Vegetation establishment and 

channel narrowing along a Great-Plains stream 

following a catastrophic fl ood. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Friedman, J.M., M.L. Scott, and W.M. Lewis, Jr. 

1995. Restoration of riparian forest using irrigation, 

artifi cial disturbance, and natural seedfall. 

Environmental Management 19:547–557.

Fryendall, M.J. 1967. Feeding ecology and 

territorial behavior of the yellow warbler. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Fullfi lling the Promise. 1999.

Galinato, M.I. and A.G. van der Valk. 1986. Seed 

germination traits of annuals and emergents 

recruited during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, 

Manitoba, Canada. Aquatic Botany 26:89–102.

Galli, A.E., C.F. Leck, and R.T.T. Forman. 1976. 

Avian distribution patterns in forest islands of 

different sizes in central New Jersey. Auk 93:356–

364.

Gates, D.H., L.A. Stoddart, and C.W. Cook. 1956. 

Soil as a factor infl uencing plant distribution on salt 

deserts of Utah. Ecology Monograph 26:155–175.

Gates, J.E., and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest 

dispersion and fl edging success in fi eld-forest 

ecotones. Ecology 59:871–883.

Geer, Kenneth R. 1959. Analysis of 68 samples 

form the 1956 Gallatin Canyon elk “Hunter 

Kill.” In Wildlife investigations; State: Wildlife 

investigations laboratory. Montana Dept. of Fish 

and Game. Fed. Aid Compl. Rep. Project W-83-R-2. 

All jobs. P. 8.

Geer, Kenneth R. 1960. Analysis of twenty-one elk 

rumens collected from the 1956 hunter kill and Boyd 

Rance, Missoula County. In: Wildlife investigations; 

State: Wildlife investigations laboratory. Montana 

Dept. of Fish and Game. Fed. Aid Compl. Rep. 

Project W-83-R-3. All jobs. P. 14.

Gibbs, J.P., J.R. Longcore, D.G. McAuley, and 

J.K. Ringelman. 1991. Use of wetland habitats by 

selected nongame water birds in Maine. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 9. 

57 pp.

Gilmore, K.P., M. Tate, M.L. Chenault, B. Clark, T. 

McBride, and M. Wood. 1999. Colorado prehistory: 

a context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado 

Council of Professional Archeologists, Denver.

Girard, G.L. 1937. Life history, habitats and food 

of the sage grouse, Centrocerus urophasianus. 

Bonaparte. Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, Publ. 3. 

Goodrich, S., D. Nelson and N. Gale, 1999. 

In: McArthur, E. Durant; 1998 August 12–14: 

Ephraim, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Greenwood, R.J., and A.B. Sargeant., D.H. Johnson, 

L.M. Cowardin, and T.L. Shaffer. 1995. Factors 

associated with duck nest success in the prairie 

pothole region of Canada. Wildlife Monograph 128. 

57 pp.

Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. 

DeLong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation 

of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 58:162–166.

Groves, C.R. and J.E. Anderson. 1980. Allelopathic 

effects of Artemisia tridentata leaves on 

germination and growth of two grass species. 

American Midland naturalist, Volume 106, Issue 1 

(Jul. 1981), 73–79.

Guthrie, Mark R., Powys Gass, Renee Johnson, 

and Joseph J. Lischka. 1984. Colorado Mountains 

prehistoric context. Colorado Historical Society, 

Denver.

Gutzwiller, K.J., and S.H. Anderson. 1992. 

Interception of moving organisms: infl uences of 

patch shape, size, and orientation on community 

structure. Landscape Ecology 6:293–303.

Haas, C.A. 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors 

by birds in wooded patches on an agricultural 

landscape. Conservation Biology 9:845–854.

Hagar, J.C. 1999. Infl uence of riparian buffer width 

on bird assemblages in western Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 63:484–496.

Hail, William J., Jr. 1968. Geology of southwestern 

North Park and vicinity, Colorado. United States 

Geological Survey bulletin 1188, Washington.

Hampton, H.D. 1971. With Grinnell in North Park in 

The Colorado Magazine, volume XLVIII number 4, 

pp. 274–298.

Harris, J.H., S.D. Sanders, and M.A. Flett. 1988. 

The status and distribution of the willow fl ycatcher 

in the Sierra Nevada: results of the survey. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife 

Management Division, Administrative Report 88-1.
Bibliography 175

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management 

manual.Western Hemisphere Shorebirds Reserve 

Network, Manomet, MA. 58 pp.

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow 

fragmentation on grassland birds. Master’s thesis. 

University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Herkert, J.R. 1991. An ecological study of the 

breeding birds of grassland habitats within Illinois. 

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Urbana, Illinois.

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat 

fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 4:46–471.

Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen, and 

J.E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat establishment, 

enhancement and management for forest and 

grassland birds in Illinois. Natural Heritage 

Technical Publication Number 1. Illinois 

Department of Conservation, Springfi eld, Illinois.

Herkert, J.R. 1995. An analysis of midwestern 

breeding bird population trends: 1966-1993. 

American Midland Naturalist 134:41–50.

Hodges, M.F., and D.G. Krementz. 1996. Neotropical 

migratory breeding bird communities in riparian 

forests of different widths along the Altamaha 

River, Georgia. Wilson Bulletin 108:496–506.

Holechek, J.L.; Gomes, H.G.; Molinar, F.; Galt, D. 1998. 

Grazing intensity: critique and approach. Rangelands 

20:15–18.

Holm, J.W. 1984. Nest success and cover 

relationships of upland-nesting ducks in 

northcentral Montana. Master’s thesis, University 

of Montana, Helena, Montana.

Houle, G., and P. Babeux. 1998. The effects of 

collection date, IBA, plant gender, nutrient 

availability, and rooting volume on adventitious 

root and lateral shoot formation by Salix planifolia 

stem cutting from the Ungava Bay area (Quebec, 

Canada). Canadian Journal of Botany 76:1687–1692.

Hupp, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1989. Topographic 

distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 53(3):823–829.

Hutto, R.L. 1981. Seasonal variation in the foraging 

behavior of some migratory western wood warblers. 

Auk 98: 765–777.

Hutto, R.L. 1992. Habitat distributions of migratory 

landbird species in western Mexico. Pages 

211-239 in J.M. Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston, 

editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical 

migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C.

James, R.D. 1976. Foraging behavior and habitat 

selection of three species of vireos in southern 

Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 88:62–75.

Johns, B.W. 1993. The infl uence of grove size on bird 

species richness in aspen parklands. Wilson Bulletin 

105(2): 256–264.

Johnson, K.L. 1987. Sagebrush types as ecological 

indicator to integrated pest management (IPM) 

in the sagebrush ecosystem of western North 

America. In: Integrated Pest Management on 

Rangeland, State of the Art in the Sagebrush 

Ecosystem. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service, ARS-50, pp. 1–10.

Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1986. Assessing 

habitat quality for birds nesting in fragmented 

tallgrass prairies. Pages 245-249 in J. Verner, M.L. 

Morrison, and C.J. Ralph, editors. Modeling habitat 

relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University 

of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1990. Nest 

predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie 

birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:106–111.

Johnson, R.R., L.T. Haight, and J.M. Simpson. 

1977. Endangered species vs. endangered habitats: 

a concept. Pages 68–79 in R.R. Johnson and D.A. 

Jones, editors. Importance, Preservation and 

Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-43.

Johnson, W.C., R.L. Burgess, and W.R. Keammerer. 

1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment 

on the Missouri River fl oodplain in North Dakota. 

Ecological Monographs 46:59–84.

Johnson, K.H., and C.E. Braun. 1999. Viability and 

conservation of an exploited sage grouse population. 

Conservation Biology 13:77–84.

Kaiser, P.H. 1976. Habitat preferences of upland 

nesting waterfowl in southeastern South Dakota. 

Master’s thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, 

Missouri.

Kantrud, H.A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on 

the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native 

grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404–417.

Kantrud, H.A. 1990. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton 

pectinatus L.): A literature review. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 176. 89 pp.

Kantrud, H.A. 1991. Wigeongrass (Ruppia maritima 

L.): a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 10. 58 pp.
176 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Kantrud, H.A., and K.F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and 

nest site characteristics of some ground-nesting 

non-passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Naturalist 24:67–84.

Kanud, H.A. 1981, Grazing intensity effects on 

the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native 

grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404–417.

Karr, J.R., and K.E. Freemark. 1985. Disturbance 

and vertebrates: an integrative perspective. Pages 

153–168 in S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, editors. 

The ecology of natural disturbance and patch 

dynamics. Academic Press, New York, New York.

Kushlan, J.A. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading 

birds. In: Wading Birds, A. Sprunt, IV, J.C. Ogden, 

and S. Winckler, editors, pp. 249–297. Research 

Report No. 7, National Audubon Society, New York.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1980. A preliminary list of the birds 

of Nebraska and adjacent Plains states. University 

of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 156 pp.

Karr, J.R. 1982. Avian extinction on Barro Colorado 

Island, Panama: a reassessment. American 

Naturalist 119:220–239.

Karr, J.R., and K.E. Freemark. 1985. Disturbance 

and vertebrates: an integrative perspective. Pages 

153–167 in S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, editors. 

The ecology of natural disturbance and patch 

dynamics. Academic Press Inc., San Diego.

Karuziak, D., H. Vriend, J.G. Stelfox, and J.R. 

McGillis. 1977. Effects of livestock grazing on mixed 

prairie range and wildlife within PRFA, Suffi eld 

Military Reserve. Canadian Wildlife Service, 

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Kehmeier, K. 2001. Fishery and Habitat Analysis 

of the Illinois River and Its Tributaries for the 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife publication. 15 pp.

Keller, C.M.E., C.S. Robbins, and J.S. Hatfi eld. 

1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of 

different widths in Maryland and Delaware. 

Wetlands 13:137–144.

Kendeigh, S.C. 1982. Bird populations in eastcentral Illinois: fl uctuations, variations, and 

development over a half-century. Illinois Biological 

Monographs Number 52.

Kilgo, J.C., R.A. Sargent, B.R. Chapman, and K.V. 

Miller. 1998. Effect of stand width and adjacent 

habitat on breeding bird communities in bottomland 

hardwoods. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:72–83.

Kingery, H., editor. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird 

Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership.

Kinley, T.A., and N.J. Newhouse. 1997. Relationship 

of riparian reserve zone width to bird density 

and diversity in southeastern British Columbia. 

Northwest Science 71:75–86.

Kirsch, John B. 1963. Range use, relationships to 

logging, and food habits of the elk in the Little Belt 

Mountains, Montana. Master’s thesis. Montana State 

Univ., Bozeman. 44 pp.

Kirsch, L.M., and K.F. Higgins. 1976. Upland 

sandpiper nesting and management in North 

Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 4:16–20.

Kirsch, L.M., H.F. Duebbert, and A.D. Kruse. 1978. 

Grazing and haying effects on habitats of upland 

nesting birds. Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:486–

497. 

Knopf, F.L. 1985. Signifi cance of riparian vegetation 

to breeding birds across an altitudinal cline. 

Pages 105–111 in R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. 

Patton, P.F. Folliott, and R.H. Hamre, technical 

coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and their 

management: reconciling confl icting uses. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-120, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Knopf, F.L., and J.A. Sedgwick. 1992. An 

experimental study of nest-site selection by yellow 

warblers. Condor 94:734–742.

Knoff, F.L., J.A. Sedgwick, and D.B. Inkley. 1990. 

Regional correspondence among shrubsteppe bird 

habitats. Condor 92:45–53.

Knopf, F.L., J.A. Sedgwick, and R.W. Cannon. 

1988. Guild structure of a riparian avifauna relative 

to seasonal cattle grazing. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 52:280–290.

Knowlton, G.F., and F.C. Harmston. 1943. 

Grasshoppers and crickets eaten by Utah birds. 

Auk 60:589–591.

Koontz, S. 2003. Agricultural Economist. Colorado 

State University. Personal Communication. April 

2003. 

Krapu, G.L. and K.J. Reinecke. 1992. Foraging 

ecology and nutrition. In: Ecology and Management 

of Breeding Waterfowl, B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, 

M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, 

J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, editors, pp. 1–29. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Krasny, M.E., K.A. Vogt, and J.C. Zasada. 1988. 

Establishment of four Salicaceae species on river 

bars in interior Alaska. Holarctic Ecology 11:210–

219.
Bibliography 177

Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate 

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34(4):707–71.

Kufeld, R.C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky 

Mountain elk. Journal of Range Management 

26(2):106–113.

Kuhn, G., P.B. Daddow, and G.S. Craig, Jr. 1983. 

Hydrology of area 54. USGS Water Resources 

Investigation/open-fi le report 83–146. 95 pp.

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 

1999. Overview of the use of natural variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological 

Applications 9:1179–1188.

Lane, E.W. 1955. The importance of fl uvial 

morphology in hydraulic engineering. Proceedings 

of the American Society of Civil Engineers 81:1–17.

Lanyon, W.E. 1994. Western meadowlark 

(Sturnella neglecta). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, 

editors. The Birds of North America, Number 104. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C. 

Larson, Mary Lou and Rhonda Letts. 2003. 

Cultural resource overview of the Laramie basin 

and Pathfi nder Reservoir, Wyoming and North 

Park, Colorado. George C. Frinson Institute of 

Anthropology and Archaeology, University of 

Wyoming. 

Laubhan, M.K. and J.H. Gammonley. 2000. Density 

and foraging habitat selection of waterbirds 

breeding in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 64(3):808–819.

Leck, M.A. 1989. Wetland seed banks. Pages 283–

305 in M.A. Leck, V.T. Parker, and R.L. Simpson, 

editors. Ecology of soil seed banks. Academic Press, 

San Diego, CA.

Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Charles 

Scribner’s Sons, New York.

LeSchack, C.R., S.K. McKnight, and G.R. Hepp. 

1997. Gadwall (Anas strepera). In: A. Poole, and 

F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, 

Number 283. The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Lillehammer, A., and S.J. Saltveit, editors. 1984. 

Regulated rivers. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway.

Lischka, Joseph J., Mark E. Miller, R. Branson 

Reynolds, Dennis Dahms, Kathy Joyner Mcguire, 

and David Mcguire. 1983. An Archaeological 

inventory in North Park, Jackson County, Colorado, 

Bureau of Land Management report, Denver 

Colorado, 359 pp.

Livezey, B.C. 1981. Duck nesting in retired 

croplands at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, 

Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 

27–37.

Lokemoen, J.T., H.F. Duebbert, and D.E. Sharp. 

1984. Nest spacing, habitat selection, and behavior 

of waterfowl on Miller Lake Island, North Dakota. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:309–321.

Lowther, P.E., C. Celada, N.K. Klein, C.C. 

Rimmer, and D.A. Spector. 1999. Yellow warbler 

(Dendroica petechia). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, 

editors. The Birds of North America, Number 454. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C. 

Lynch, J.F. 1987. Responses of breeding bird 

communities to forest fragmentation. Pages 123–140 

in D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge, 

and A.J.M. Hopkins, editors. Nature conservation: 

the role of remnants of native vegetation. Surrey 

Beatty and Sons, Sydney, Australia.

MacArthur, R.H., and J.W. MacArthur. 1961. On 

bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594–598.

Machtans, C.S., M.A. Villard, and S.J. Hannon. 1996. 

Use of riparian buffer strips as movement corridors 

by forest birds. Conservation Biology 10:1366–1379.

Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecology and 

relations of mule deer, elk and cattle on the Missouri 

River Breaks, Montana.Wild. Mongr. No. 20. 79 pp.

Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and 

bird-habitat relationships on prescribe-burned, 

mixes-grass prairie in North Dakota. Master’s 

thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, 

Montana.

Maher, W.J. 1973. Birds: 1. Population dynamics. 

Canadian Comm. for the IBP. Saskatoon, 

Saskatchewan. 56 pp.

Mahoney, J.M., and S.B. Rood. 1991. A device for 

studying the infl uence of declining water table 

on poplar growth and survival. Tree Physiology 

8:305–314.

Martin, S.G., and T.A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink 

(Dolichonyx oryzivorous). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, 

editors. The Birds of North America, Number 176. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C.

Martin, T.E. 1984. Impact of livestock grazing on 

birds of a Colombian cloud forest. Tropical Ecology 

25:158–171.
178 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Martin, T.E. 1986. Competition in breeding birds: on 

the importance of considering processes at the level 

of the individual. Current Ornithology 4:181–210.

Martin, T.E. 1988. Habitat and area effects on forest 

bird assemblages: is nest predation an infl uence? 

Ecology 69:74–84.

Martz, G.F. 1967. Effects of nesting cover removal 

on breeding puddle ducks. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 31:236–247.

May, R.M. 1986. The search for patterns in the 

balance of nature: advances and retreats. Ecology 

67:1115–1126.

McArthur, E.D.; Welch, B.L. 1982. Growth rate 

differences among big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentate) accessions and subspecies. Journal of 

Range Management. 35:396–401.

McArthur, E.D. 1992. Ecology, distribution, and 

values of sagebrush within the intermountain 

region. In: Paper presented at symposium 

on ecology, management and restoration of 

intermountain annual rangelands, Boise, ID, May 

18–21, 1992.

McKee et al. 1981 in Kuhn, G., P.B. Daddow, and 

G.S. Craig, Jr. 1983. Hydrology of area 54. USGS 

Water Resources Investigation/open-fi le report 

83–146. 95 pp.

McLeod, K.W., and J.K. McPherson. 1973. Factors 

limiting the distribution of Salix nigra. Bulletin of 

the Torrey Botanical Club 100:102–110.

McNaughton S.J., M.B. Coughenour, and L.L. 

Wallace. 1982. Integrative processes in grassland 

ecosystems. In: Grasses and Grasslands: 

Systematics and Ecology, eds. J.R. Estes, R.J. 

Tyrl, and J.N. Brunken, pp. 167–194. University of 

Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2002. Year 2000 

IMPLAN Data File for Jackson County, Colorado. 

www.implan.co.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 

Second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 

New York.

Morris, M.S., and J.E. Schwartz. 1957. Mule deer 

and elk food habitats on the National bison Range. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 21:189–193.

Morse, D.H. 1966. The context of songs in the 

yellow warbler. Wilson Bull. 78: 444–455.

Moss, E.H. 1938. Longevity of seed and 

establishment of seedlings in species of Populus. 

Botanical Gazette 99:529–542.

Morton. 2000. Economic Profi les for Colorado 

Counties: Jackson County. The Wilderness Society. 

www.wilderness.org.

Mueller, H. 1999. Common snipe (Gallinago 

gallinago). In: A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. 

The Birds of North America, Number 417. The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C.

Mundinger, J.G. 1976. Waterfowl response to restrotation grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 

40:60–68.

Murkin, H.R., E.J. Murkin, and J.P. Ball. 1997. 

Avian habitat selection and prairie wetland 

dynamics: a 10 year experiment. Ecological 

Applications 7:1144–1159.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. 

The role of riparian corridors in maintaining 

regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:20–-

212.

Naugle, D.E., K.F. Higgins, S.M. Nusser, and W. 

Carter Johnson. 1999. Scale-dependent habitat use 

in three species of prairie wetland birds. Landscape 

Ecology 14:267–276.

Naugle, D.E., R.R. Johnson, M.E. Estey, and K.F. 

Higgins. 2001. A landscape approach to conserving 

wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of 

eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21(1):1–17.

Nelson, J.W. and J.A. Kadlec. 1984. A conceptual 

approach to relation habitat structure and 

macroinvertebrate production in freshwater 

wetlands. Transactions of the North American and 

Natural Resources Conference 49: 262–270.

Nelson, J.W., J.A. Kadlec, and H.R. Murkin. 1990. 

Responses by macroinvertebrates to cattail litter 

quality and timing of litter submergence in a 

northern prairie marsh. Wetlands 10(1):47–60.

Niccolucci, M. and S. Winter. 2002. Trip-related 

expenditures for hunting, fi shing, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation activities. USDA 

Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Odum, E.P. 1978. Ecological importance of the 

riparian zone. Pages 2–4 in R.R. Johnson and J.F. 

McCormick, technical coordinators. Strategies for 

protection and management of fl oodplain wetlands 

and other riparian ecosystems. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report WO-12, Washington, D.C.

Oetting, R.B., and J.F. Cassel. 1971. Waterfowl 

nesting on interstate highway right-of-way in 

North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 35: 

774–781.
Bibliography 179

Olson, D. and S. Lindall. 1996. IMPLAN 

Professional Software, Analysis, and Data Guide. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

Oniki, Y. 1985. Why robin eggs are blue and birds 

build nests: statistical tests for Amazonian birds. 

Pages 536–545 in P.A. Buckley, M.S. Foster, E.S. 

Morton, R.S. Ridgely, and F.G. Buckley, editors. 

Neotropical ornithology. Ornithological Monographs 

Number 36. Washington, D.C.

Orians, G.H., and J.F. Wittenburger. 1991. Spatial 

and temporal scales in habitat selection. American 

Naturalist 137:S27–S49.

Owens, R.A. 1971. The effects of several 

agricultural regimes upon populations of native 

passerine birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. 

Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, 

Alberta, Canada.

Owens, R.A., and M.T. Myres. 1973. Effects of 

agriculture upon populations of native passerine 

birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 51:697–713.

Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, 

R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison, and K.V. 

Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight: conservation 

of the land birds of the United States. American 

Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Comm., and Sage books, 

Inc., Denver, Colorado. 341 pp.

Petersen, K.L., and L.B. Best. 1985. Brewer’s 

sparrow nest-site characteristics in a sagebrush 

community. J. Field Ornithol. 565:23–27.

Pezeshki, S.R., P.H. Anderson, and F.D. Shields, Jr. 

1998. Effects of soil moisture regimes on growth 

and survival of black willow (Salix nigra) posts 

(cuttings). Wetlands 18:460–470.

Potter, P.E. 1972. Territorial behavior in savannah 

sparrows in southeastern Michigan. Wilson Bulletin 

84:48–59.

Ratti, J.T., and K.P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test 

of the ecological trap hypothesis. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 52:484–491.

Reeves, H.M. 1954. Muskrat and waterfowl production 

and harvest in Dingle Swamp, Bear Lake County, 

Idaho. Master’s thesis. Utah State Agricultural College, 

Logan, Utah.

Rice, E.L. 1974. Allelopathy. Academic Press, New York. 

353 pp.

Rich, T.D. 1980. Nest placement in sage thrashers, 

sage sparrows and Brewer’s sparrows. Wilson Bull. 

92:362–368.

Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effect of forest fragmentation 

on bird population. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service General Technical Report NC51:198–212. North Central Forest Experiment 

Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, and B.A. Dowell. 1989. 

Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds 

of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs 

103.

Roberts, T.S. 1932. The birds of Minnesota, 

Volume 2. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, 821 pp.

Rogers, G.E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations 

in Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks 

Department, Technical Publication Number 16. 132 pp.

Rood, S.B., and J.M. Mahoney. 1990. Collapse of 

riparian poplar forests downstream from dams in 

western prairies: probable causes and prospects for 

mitigation. Environmental Management 14:451–464.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied river morphology. 

Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Rotella, J.J. and J.T. Ratti. 1992. Mallard brood 

survival and wetland habitat conditions in 

southwestern Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 56(3):499–507.

Rotella, J.J. and J.T. Ratti. 1992. Mallard brood 

movements and wetland selection in southwestern 

Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 

56(3):508–515.

Rotenberry, J.T. and J.A. Wiens. 1980. Temporal 

variation in habitat structure and shrub steppe bird 

dynamics. Oecologia (berl.) 47, pp. 1–9.

Rotenberry, J.T. and J.A. Wiens. 1980. Habitat 

structure, patchiness, and avian communities in 

North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate 

analysis. Ecology 61:1228–1250.

Rotenberry, J.T., M.A. Patten, and K.L. Preston. 

1999. Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). In: The 

Birds of North America, No. 390 (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, eds). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Rotenberry, J.T., and J.A. Wiens. 1989. 

Reproductive biology of shrubsteppe passerine 

birds: geographical and temporal variation in clutch 

size, brood size, and fl edging success. Condor 91:1–14.

Rotenberry, J.T., and J.A. Wiens. 1998. Foraging 

patch selection by shrubsteppe sparrows. Ecology 

79:1160–1173.

Rotenberry, J.T. and J.A. Wiens. 1991. Weather and 

reproductive variation in shrubsteppe sparrows: a 

hierarchial analysis. Ecology 72:1325–1335.
180 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Ryder, R.T.J. and L.L. Irwin. 1987. Winter habitat 

relationships of pronghorns in south central 

Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 51(1):79–85.

Salyer, J.W. 1962. Effects of drought and land 

use on prairie nesting ducks. Transactions of the 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 27:69–79.

Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the 

conservation of prairie birds. Pages 293–299 in 

C. L. Kucera, editor. Proceedings of the 7th North 

American Prairie Conference, Southwest Missouri 

State University, Springfi eld, Missouri.

Savory, A., and J. Butterfi eld. 1999 Holistic 

Management, Island Press: Washington D.C. 616 pp.

Schaid, T.A., D.W. Uresk, W.L. Tucker, and R.L. 

Linder. 1983. Effects of surface mining on the 

vesper sparrow in the northern Great Plains. 

Journal of Range Management 36:500–503.

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 

1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). 

In: The Birds of North America, No 425 (A. Poole 

and F. Gill, eds.) The Birds of North America Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Schroeder, R.L. 1982. Habitat suitability index 

models: yellow warbler. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS82/10.27.

Scott, M.L., M.A. Wondzell, and G.T. Auble. 

1993. Hydrograph characteristics relevant to the 

establishment and growth of western riparian 

vegetation. Pages 237–246 in H.J. Morel-Seytoux, 

editor. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual 

American Geophysical Union Hydrology Days. 

Hydrology Days Publications, Atherton, California.

Sedgwick, J.A., and F.L. Knopf. 1992. Describing 

willow fl ycatcher habitats: scale perspectives and 

gender differences. Condor 94:720–733.

Segelquist, C.A., M.L. Scott, and G.T. Auble. 1993. 

Establishment of Populus deltoides under simulated 

alluvial groundwater declines. American Midland 

Naturalist 130:274–285.

Reed, J.M. 1986. Vegetation structure and vesper 

sparrow territory location. Wilson Bulletin 98: 144–147.

Seidl, A., and E. Garner. 2001. Agricultural Land 

Use and Economic Trends in Four North Central 

Colorado Mountain Counties: Routt, Jackson, 

Grand, and Summit. Department of Agricultural 

and Resource Economics Extension Publication. 

Colorado State University. 

Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response 

in distributed alluvial channels. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 14:11–26.

Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blenden. 

1984. Bird habitat on Missouri prairies. Terrestrial 

Series #14, Missouri Department of Conservation, 

Jefferson City, Missouri.

Snyder, S.A. 1991. Alces alces. In: W.C. Fischer, 

compiler. The Fire Effects Information System 

(data base). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, 

Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, 

Montana.

Sogge, M.K., R.M Marshall, S.J. Sferra, and T.J 

Tibbets. 1997. A southwestern willow fl ycatcher 

natural history summary and survey protocol. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Colorado Plateau Research Station, Technical 

Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12, Flagstaff, 

Arizona.

Sojda, R.S. and K.L. Solberg. 1993. Management 

and control of cattails. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Waterfowl Management Handbook, Leafl et 13. 8 pp. 

Spackman, S.C., and J.W. Hughes. 1995. 

Assessment of minimum stream corridor width 

for biological conservation: species richness and 

distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, 

USA. Biological Conservation 71:325–332.

Stacier, C.A. 1992. Social behavior of the northern 

parula, Cape May warbler, and prairie warbler 

wintering in second-growth forest in southwestern 

Puerto Rico. Pages 308–320 in J. M. Hagan III and 

D. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation 

of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Stanley, T.R., and F.L. Knopf. 2000. Avian responses 

to late-season grazing in a shrub-willow fl oodplain. 

Submitted to Conservation Biology.

Stauffer, D.F., and L.B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection 

by birds of riparian communities: evaluating 

effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 44:1–15.

Stephens, D.A. 1985. Foraging ecology of 

shrubsteppe birds in central Washington. Master’s 

thesis, Central Washington Univ., Ellensburg. 

Stevens, L., B.T. Brown, J.M. Simpson, and R.R. 

Johnson. 1977. The importance of riparian habitat 

to migrating birds. Pages 156–164 in R.R. Johnson 

and D.A. Jones, editors. Importance, preservation and 

management of riparian habitat: a symposium. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-43.

Stevenson, H.M., and B.H. Anderson. 1994. The 

birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, 

Gainesville, Florida.
Bibliography 181

Stewart, G. 1941. Historic records bearing on 

agriculture and grazing ecology of Utah. J. For. 

39:313–375.

Stocek, R. 1994. The importance of riparian zones 

as wildlife habitat. Pages 33–35 in J. Singleton, B. 

Higgs, J. Campbell, A. Eddy, and T. Murray, editors. 

Proceedings of the symposium on riparian zone 

management. Canadian Forest Service Research 

and Development Report 9.

Sturges, D.L. 1977. Snow accumulation and melt in 

sprayed and undisturbed big sagebrush vegetation. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Forest and 

Range Expt. Sta. Research Note RM-348.

Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for Measuring Visitor 

Spending. Department of Park Recreation and 

Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.

Sudgen, L.G. 1973. Feeding ecology of pintail, 

gadwall, American widgeon and lesser scaup 

ducklings in southern Alberta. Can. Wildl. Serv. 

Rep. Ser. No. 24. Ottawa, 43 pp.

Sundstrom, C., W.G. Hepworth, and K.L. Diem. 

1973. Abundance, distribution and food habits of the 

pronghorn. Wyoming Game and Fish Depart. Bull., 

12:1–61.

Sutcliffe, O., and C.D. Thomas. 1996. Open corridors 

appear to facilitate dispersal by ringlet butterfl ies 

(Aphantopus hyperantus) between woodland 

clearings. Conservation Biology 10:1359–1365.

Svejcar, T.J., G.M. Riegel, S.D. Conroy, and J.D. 

Trent. 1991. Establishment and growth potential 

of riparian shrubs in the northern Sierra Nevada. 

Symposium on Ecology and Management of 

Riparian Shrub Communities, Sun Valley, Idaho.

Swanson, D.A. 1998. Effects of management 

practices on grassland birds: savannah sparrow. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, ND.

Swift, B.L. 1984. Status of riparian ecosystems 

in the United States. Water Resources Bulletin 

20:233–238.

Szaro, R.C., and M.D. Jakle. 1985. Avian use of a 

desert riparian island and its adjacent scrub habitat. 

Condor 87:511–519.

The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

Working Group. 1998. Overview of stream 

corridors. Pages 1–32 in L. Hill and J. Simpson, 

editors. Stream corridor restoration: principles, 

processes, and practices. Publisher unknown.

Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. 

Riparian zones. Pages 40–47 in J.W. Thomas, 

editor. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the 

Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA 

Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 553.

Thurmond, D.P., K.V. Miller, and T.G. Harris. 1995. 

Effect of streamside management zone width on 

avifauna communities. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry 19:166–169.

Town of Walden. 2001. Economic Development 

Summary. www.northpark.org/town/

econdemographicmain.ht.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. www.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information 

System. 2002. www.bea.gov.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1996. National Survey 

of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation, National Report. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Final 

rule determining endangered status for the 

southwestern willow fl ycatcher. Federal Register 

60:10694–10715 (February 27, 1995).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfi lling the 

promise. The National Wildlife Refuge System. 94 pp.

Vale, T.R. 1975. Pre-settlement vegetation in 

sagebrush-grass area of the intermountain west. 

Journal of Range Management 28(1), January 1975 

pp. 32–36.

van der Valk, A.G., and C.B. Davis. 1978. The role 

of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie 

glacial marshes. Ecology 59(2):322–335.

Vesely, D.G. 1997. Terrestrial amphibian abundance 

and species richness in headwater riparian buffer 

strips. Oregon Coast Range. Master’s thesis, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter, Jr., and S.M Melvin. 

1994. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of 

grassland birds in Maine. Conservation Biology 

8:1087–1097.

Villard, M.A., G. Merriam, and B.A. Maurer. 1995. 

Dynamics in subdivided populations of Neotropical 

migrant landbirds in a temperate fragmented 

forest. Ecology 76:27–40.

Voegeli, P.T., Sr. 1965. Groundwater resources 

of North Park and Middle Park, Colorado: a 

reconnaissance. U. S. Geological Survey Water, 

Supply Paper 1809-G. 54 pp.
182 Arapaho NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance 

in relation to changing marsh vegetation. American 

Midland Naturalist 95(2):313–322.

Walters, M.A., R.O. Teskey, and T.M. Hinckley. 

1980. Impact of water level changes on woody 

riparian and wetland communities. Volume 8. Pacifi c 

Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-78/94.

Wang, S., T.W. Jurik, and A.G. van der Valk. 1994. 

Effects of sediment load on various stages in the 

life and death of cattail (Typha x Glauca). Wetlands 

14(3):166–173.

Weaver, T. and D. Klarich. 1977. Allelopathic effects 

of volatile substances from Artemisia tridentata 

Nutt. Am. Midl. Nat., 97:508–512.

Welch, B.L. 1983. Big sagebrush: nutrition, 

selection, and controversy. In: Johnson, K.L., 

ed. Proceedings of the fi rst Utah shrub ecology 

workshop: 1981 September 9-10; Ephraim, UT. 

Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of 

Natural Resources: 21–33.

Welch, B.L. and McArthur, E.D. 1990. Big 

sagebrush: its taxonomy, origin, distribution and 

utility. In: Fisser ,H.G., ed. Proceedings of the 

fourteenth Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 

1985 May 29-30; Rock Springs, WY. Laramie, WY: 

University of Wyoming, Department of Range 

Management: 3–19.

Weller, M.W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to 

management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State Journal 

of Research 49(4):383–412. 

Weller, M.W. and C.E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of 

habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh 

birds. Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics 

Experiment Station. Iowa State University of 

Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. Special 

Report 43.

West, N.E. 1993. Western Intermountain sagebrush 

steppe. In: Temperate Deserts and Semi-deserts. 

Vol. 5, Ecosystems of the World, ed. N.E. West, pp. 

351–374. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

West, N.E. 1996. Strategies for maintenance and 

repair of biotic community diversity on rangelands. 

In: Biodiversity in managed landscapes—theory 

and practice. (Ed.) Szaro, R.C., and D.W. Johnston, 

Oxford University Press, New York. Pp. 326–346.

Wheelwright, N.T., and J.D. Rising. 1993. Savannah 

sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). In: A. Poole, 

and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, 

Number 45. The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fi re frequencies 

on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and 

management implications. In: McArthur, E.D.; 

Romney, E.M.; Smith, S.D.; Tueller, P.T., comps. 

Proceedings—symposium on cheat grass invasion, 

shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and 

management: 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT; U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, pp. 4–10.

Whitaker, D.M., W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Breeding 

bird assemblages inhabiting riparian buffer strips 

in Newfoundland, Canada. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:167–179.

Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. 

Whitcomb, M.K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. 

Pages 125–205 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, 

editors. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated 

landscapes: effects of forest fragmentation on 

avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. SpringerVerlag, New York.

Whitmore, R.C. 1975. Habitat ordination of 

passerine birds of the Virgin River Valley, 

southwestern Utah. Wilson Bulletin 87:65–74.

Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of 

ecological relationships among grassland birds. 

Ornithological Monographs No. 8. American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Ithaca, New York.

Wiens, J.A., and J.T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat 

associations and community structure of birds 

in shrub steppe environments. Ecological 

Monographs, Volume 51, Issue 1 (Mar. 1981).

Wiens, J.A., and J.T. Rotenberry. 1985. Response of 

breeding passerine bids to rangeland alteration in a 

North American shrub steppe locality.

Wiens, J.A., and J.T. Rotenberry, and B. Van Horne. 

1987. Habitat occupancy patterns of shrubsteppe 

birds: the effects of spatial scale. Oikos 48:132–147.

Williamson, K. 1960. Snipe at St. Kilda. Bird Notes 

29:5–8.

Willson, M.F. 1974. Avian community organization 

and habitat structure. Ecology 55:1017–1029.

Windell, J.T., B.E. Willard, and S.Q. Foster. 1986. 

Introduction to Rocky Mountain wetlands. Pages 

1–41 in J.T. Windell, B.E. Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. 

Foster, C.F. Knud-Hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. 

Kiladis, eds. An ecological characterization of Rocky 

Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 86.
Bibliography 183

Windell, J.T., B.E. Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, 

C.F. Knud-Hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. Kiladis. 

1986. An ecological characterization of Rocky 

Mountain and subalpine wetlands. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Biological Report 86(11). 298 pp.

Winker, K., D.W. Warner, and A.R. Weisbrod. 1992. 

Migration of woodland birds at a fragmented inland 

stopover site. Wilson Bulletin 104:580–598.

Wood, A.K. 1989. Comparative distribution and 

habitat use by antelope and mule deer. J. Mamm., 

70(2):335–340.

Wright J.C., and E.A. Wright. 1948. Grassland types 

of south central Montana. Ecology 29:449-–460.

Yoakum, J.D. 1978. Pronghorn. Pp. 102–121, in 

Big game of North America (J.L. Schmidt and 

D.L. Gilbert, eds). The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, 494 pp.

Young, J.R. 1994. The infl uence of sexual selection 

on phenotypic and genetic divergence among sage 

grouse populations. Ph.D. diss., Purdue Univ., West 

Lafayatte, IN.

Young, J.A., R.A. Evans, and P.T. Tueller. 1976. 

Great Basin plant communities—pristine and 

grazed. Pp. 187–217. (IN) Holocene environmental 

Change in Great Basin. Robert Elston (Ed.) Nevada 

Arch. Survey. Res. Pap. No. 6. Reno, NV.

Young, J.A., R.A. Evans., and R.E. Eckert, Jr. 1984. 

Successional patterns and productivity potentials of 

the sagebrush and salt desert ecosystems.

Zeigenfuss, L.C., Singer, F.J., Williams, S.A. and 

T.L. Johnson. 2002 Infl uences of herbivory and 

water on willow in elk winter range. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 66(3):788–795.