Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Wyoming 

March 2014
 

Approved by
 

Noreen Walsh, Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Prepared by 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

21616 U.S. Highway 30 

Cokeville, Wyoming 83114 

307 / 279 2800 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

303 / 236 8145 

CITATION 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Comprehensive conservation plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 162 p. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Wyoming 

Submitted by 

Tom Koerner, Project Leader Date 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Green River, Wyoming 

Concurred with by 

Will Meeks Date 

Assistant Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Carl Millegan Date 

Acting Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Summary ......................................................................................... IX
 

Abbreviations ..................................................................................... XIII
 

CHAPTER 1—Introduction.........................................................................1
 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System..........................3
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................3
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Activities in Wyoming.......................................................3
 

National Wildlife Refuge System .....................................................................4
 

1.3 National and Regional Mandates ................................................................6
 

1.4 Refuge Contributions to Regional and National Plans ..............................................6
 

Conserving the Future .............................................................................6
 

Bird Conservation ................................................................................6
 

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species ........................................10
 

State Wildlife Action Plan .........................................................................10
 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change............................................................10
 

1.5 Landscape-Scale Conservation .................................................................12
 

Strategic Habitat Conservation .....................................................................12
 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ................................................................12
 

1.6 The Planning Process .........................................................................14
 

Coordination with the Public .......................................................................15
 

State Coordination ..............................................................................16
 

Tribal Coordination ..............................................................................16
 

Results of Scoping ..............................................................................16
 

The Draft Plan..................................................................................16
 

The Final Plan ..................................................................................16
 

CHAPTER 2—The Refuge.........................................................................17
 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .............................................17
 

Establishment ..................................................................................17
 

Acquisition History ..............................................................................18
 

Management History.............................................................................18
 

2.2 Purposes .....................................................................................18
 

2.3 Vision........................................................................................21
 

2.4 Goals ........................................................................................21
 

Habitat and Wildlife Management Goals ..............................................................22
 

Wildland Fire Management Goal ....................................................................22
 

Visitor Services and Cultural Resources Goal ...........................................................22
 

Partnerships Goal ...............................................................................22
 

Refuge Development and Operations Goal .............................................................22
 

2.5 Special Values................................................................................22
 

2.6 Planning Issues ...............................................................................23
 

Habitat and Wildlife Management ...................................................................23
 

Contents
 
Wildland Fire Management ........................................................................25
 

Visitor Services and Cultural Resources ...............................................................25
 

Partnerships ...................................................................................26
 

Refuge Development and Operations .................................................................27
 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources and Description .................................................29
 

3.1 Physical Environment..........................................................................29
 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
 

Land Features ..................................................................................30
 

Soils.........................................................................................31
 

Water Resources ...............................................................................32
 

Air Quality ....................................................................................36
 

3.2 Biological Resources..........................................................................39
 

Wet Meadow Habitat ............................................................................40
 

Upland Habitat .................................................................................43
 

Riparian and River Habitats ........................................................................44
 

Wetland Conditions..............................................................................45
 

Haying, Grazing, and Prescribed Fire..................................................................45
 

Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................45
 

Species of Concern ..............................................................................48
 

Invasive Species ................................................................................49
 

Wildlife Disease, Crop Depredation, and Private Property Damage............................................49
 

3.3 Visitor Services, Human History, and Cultural Resources ..........................................49
 

Public Access ..................................................................................49
 

Visitor Safety ..................................................................................49
 

River Boating ..................................................................................49
 

Hunting ......................................................................................49
 

Shed Antler Collecting............................................................................49
 

Fishing .......................................................................................50
 

Trapping ......................................................................................50
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................................................50
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation ............................................................50
 

Public Information ...............................................................................50
 

Human History and Cultural Resources ................................................................50
 

Law Enforcement ...............................................................................53
 

3.4 Partnerships..................................................................................53
 

Landscape Conservation ..........................................................................53
 

3.5 Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................53
 

Current Land Types and Uses .......................................................................53
 

County Population ...............................................................................53
 

Ethnicity and Education ...........................................................................54
 

Economy, Employment, Income, Recreation, and Industries .................................................54
 

3.6 Operations ...................................................................................54
 

Funding and Staff ...............................................................................55
 

Equipment ....................................................................................55
 

Facilities......................................................................................55
 

Railroad Facilities ...............................................................................56
 

Junk and Debris ................................................................................56
 

Land Protection.................................................................................56
 

Refuge Mineral Rights and Energy Development .........................................................56
 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research .................................................................56
 

Nuisance Species and Predators ....................................................................56
 

Volunteers Programs .............................................................................56
 

VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction .............................................................57
 

4.1 Management Focus ...........................................................................58
 

4.2 Summary of the CCP ...........................................................................58
 

4.3 Overview of Goals and Objectives ..............................................................59
 

Habitat and Wildlife Management Goals ..............................................................59
 

Wildland Fire Management Goal ....................................................................68
 

Visitor Services and Cultural Resources Goal ...........................................................70
 

Partnerships Goal ...............................................................................78
 

Refuge Development and Operations Goal .............................................................79
 

4.4 Monitoring and Evaluation .....................................................................85
 

4.5 Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
 

GLOSSARY ......................................................................................87
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................159
 

APPENDIXES 

Appendix A 

Environmental Compliance.........................................................................95
 

Appendix B 

Compatibility Determinations.......................................................................99
 

Appendix C 

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ..........................................................113
 

Appendix D 

Public Involvement .............................................................................119
 

Appendix E 

Key Legislation and Policy ........................................................................135
 

Appendix F 

Preparers and Contributors .......................................................................141
 

Appendix G 

Species Lists..................................................................................143
 

Appendix H 

Collection of Shed Antlers, Finding of Appropriateness ...................................................155
 

Appendix I 

Predator Management Activities ...................................................................157
 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming, and its proximity to other national wildlife 


refuges (in green)....................................................................................2
 

Figure 2. Location of the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and other national wildlife refuges in Wyoming ......5
 

Figure 3. Map of the bird conservation regions of North America................................................8
 

Figure 4. Map of physiographic areas of the United States, including area 86, the Wyoming Basin, which contains Cokeville 


Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming .............................................................9
 

Figure 5. The strategic habitat conservation process ........................................................12
 

Figure 6. Location of the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge within geographic area six, the great northern, as administered by the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative ............................................13
 

Figure 7. Process steps for comprehensive planning and associated environmental analysis ..........................14
 

Figure 8. Base map of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming....................................19
 

Contents VII 
Figure 9. Ownership of lands near and within Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
 

Figure 10. Light detection and ranging-generated (LIDAR) topography—with hydrology and water control structures—of the 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming (North) ...............................................34
 

Figure 11. Light detection and ranging-generated (LIDAR) topography—with hydrology and water control structures—of the 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming (South) ..............................................35
 

Figure 12. Existing habitats within the approved acquisition boundary of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Wyoming .........................................................................................41
 

Figure 13. Potential historical habitats per the 2010 hydrogeomorphic method evaluation of the Cokeville Meadows National 

Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming ...........................................................................46
 

Figure 14. Proposed public uses at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. .........................73
 

Figure 15. The adaptive resource management process .....................................................85
 

TABLES 

Table 1. Priority bird populations by habitat at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming ..................7
 

Table 2. Planning process summary for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming.......................15
 

Table 3. Land acquisition history of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming .........................18
 

Table 4. Water rights summary for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming ..........................36
 

Table 5. Population, income, education, unemployment, and poverty rate statistics for Lincoln County, Wyoming ..........54
 

Table 6. Staff needs at Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Wyoming..................................55
 

Table 7. Indicator species in wet meadows habitat by needs at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming ....60
 

Table 8. Indicator species in riparian and river habitats by needs at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 


Wyoming .........................................................................................63
 

Table 9. Stepdown management plans for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming.....................86
 

VIII Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

FIGURES (CONTINUED) 
Summary
 

Mallards 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

This section summarizes the comprehensive con

servation plan that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, prepared for the Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge. The National Wildlife Ref

uge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires that 

we develop a comprehensive conservation plan for 

each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

This plan will guide management of the refuge over 

the next 15 years. 

­

­

The Refuge 

Located in southwestern Wyoming within Lincoln 

County and immediately south of the town of Cokev

ille, Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

now manages 9,259 acres of narrow, forested riparian 

corridors; robust, emergent wetland plants; wet 

meadow sedge and grass communities; and upland 

sagebrush or grassland communities. 

The refuge borders Idaho and Utah and is in the 

Bear River watershed with the Bear River bisecting 

it. The refuge elevation is around 6,300 feet above 

mean sea level, and it is home to a variety of wildlife. 

Game species include ducks, geese, sandhill crane, 

elk, deer, pronghorn, moose and rabbits. Furbearers 

and predators include beaver, muskrat, coyote, red 

fox, skunk, and raccoon. 

Vision Statement 

Early in the planning process, our planning team 

developed a vision statement for the refuge. This 

­
le Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

future-oriented statement will guide management of 

the refuge over the life of this comprehensive conser

vation plan. 

For thousands of years, the sandhill 

cranes have returned each spring to dance 

on the Cokeville Meadows. Their thunderous majestic calls remind us of our obligation to manage wildlife for generations 

unborn. 

Nestled on the upper reaches of the Bear 

River in southwest Wyoming, the wet 

meadows, sage steppe, and riparian habitats of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge provide outstanding habitat 

for a myriad of migratory birds and resident wildlife species. 

Spectacular views and clean air add to the 

visitor’s enjoyment of compatible wildlifeoriented recreation. Refuge management 

and habitat restoration activities are complementary with historical land uses, creating opportunities for conservation 

partnerships with neighbors and friends. 

X Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokevil

A greater sage-grouse hen leads her brood from wetlands to a night roost in sagebrush. 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

Goals 

The following goals reflect the vision for the ref

uge and will help us to support healthy ecosystems 

and to provide compatible recreational opportunities 

for the public. 

­

­

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Goals 

We developed three goals for habitat and wildlife 

management at Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

Wet Meadow Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

Using the best scientific practices to manage and 

preserve critical wet meadow habitat, the refuge will 

provide quality feeding, loafing, and breeding opportunities for a variety of migratory birds and resident 

wildlife. 

Upland Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

Manage and, where appropriate, enhance the 

diversity and composition of grassland and shrub– 

steppe habitats within the range of historical condi-
Summary XI 

tions for sagebrush-dependent species, upland 

nesting migratory birds, and other resident species. 

Riparian and River Habitats and Wildlife 

Goal 

Maintain and, where appropriate, restore the processes necessary to sustain the biological diversity 

and integrity of riparian vegetation and aquatic habitats for breeding birds, native fishes, reptiles and 

amphibians. 

Wildland Fire Management Goal 

 of strate

g a fire to 

nual, and 

reduce the 

rdous-fuel 

Manage wildland fires using a full array ­

gic options from suppression to manipulatin

achieve benefits. Prescribed fire, ma

mechanical treatments will be used to: (1) 

threat to land and property through haza

reduction treatments, and (2) meet the habitat goals 

and objectives identified in this CCP. 

Visitor Services and Cultural 

Resources Goal 

Provide appropriate public access to refuge lands 

where visitors can safely enjoy compatible, wildlifedependent recreation, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. The refuge will seek 

partnerships to help protect onsite cultural 

resources. 

Partnerships Goal 

Engage in mutually beneficial partnerships to 

promote wildlife and habitat conservation, and public 

enjoyment of wildlife resources in the upper Bear 

River watershed that are consistent with historic 

land uses, refuge purposes and goals. 

Refuge Development and 

Operations Goal 

Effectively utilize all available resources to 

develop, enhance, and support refuge facilities and 

operations for wildlife, habitat, and public use pro

grams. We will pursue easements, habitat improve

ments, and other land protection opportunities with 

willing sellers and interested land owners within the 

approved refuge acquisition boundary and within the 

Bear River watershed. 

­

­

Management Direction 

We prepared this comprehensive conservation 

plan with cooperation from the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, the Lincoln County Planning 

Department, the Bureau of Land Management, and 

the town of Cokeville. The public and local agencies 

were also significantly involved. After reviewing a 

wide range of comments from these parties and our 

management needs, we developed and analyzed alter

natives for managing Cokeville Meadows National 

Wildlife Refuge. From these we selected alternative 

D (landscape-level management) as our proposed 

action. It addresses many of the external and inter

nal comments we received during scoping. 

With our proposed action, we will manage lands 

within the greater landscape by using partnerships 

to enhance habitats both on and off the refuge. We 

will continue to acquire land and easements to round 

out and complete the acquisition boundary. We will 

manage and restore wet meadow and upland habitats 

to increase wildlife productivity and diversity. We 

will specifically apply agricultural practices to 

enhance refuge habitats for wildlife both on and off 

the refuge. We will increase visitor resources, access, 

and wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation) to encourage greater understand

ing and appreciation of the Bear River watershed; 

wet meadow, riparian, and stream habitats; and 

wildlife. 

­

­

­

Abbreviations
 

Administration 

Act 

BLM 

BQ Dam 

CCP 

CFR 

cfs 

Cokeville 

Meadows 

Refuge 

EA 

ESA 

EVS 

°F 

FMP 

FWS 

GIS 

HGM 

Improvement 

Act 

IPM 

NEPA 

NWR 

the refuge 

Refuge System 

Region 6 

Service 

U.S. 

U.S.C. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Admin

istration Act of 1966 

Bureau of Land Management 

Beckwith and Quin Dam 

comprehensive conservation plan 

Code of Federal Regulations 

cubic feet per second 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge 

environmental assessment 

Endangered Species Act 

education and visitor services 

degrees Fahrenheit 

fire management plan 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

geographic information system 

hydrogeomorphic method 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 

integrated pest management 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

national wildlife refuge 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Ref

uge 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Mountain-Prairie Region 6 of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

United States 

United States Code 

­

­
XIV Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

A glossary of these and other terms follows chapter 4. 
Chapter 1—Introduction
 

Marsh Wren 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

have developed this comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management 

and use of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (Cokeville Meadows Refuge or refuge) in Wyoming for at least the next 15 years. 

This chapter introduces the CCP with descriptions of the steps in the CCP planning process; our 

involvement and that of the State of Wyoming, the 

tribes, the public, and others; and other plans that 

may be affected or supported by the future management of the refuge. 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge is located in southwestern Wyoming within Lincoln County near where 

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming meet (figure 1). It lies 

directly south of the town of Cokeville, and both were 

named for coal located in the vicinity. The refuge now 

consists of 9,259 acres within a 26,657-acre acquisition boundary and lies in the Bear River Basin, which 

has a drainage area of about 4.8 million acres and 

includes parts of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. 

This CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described 

herein meet the needs of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It was prepared by a 

planning team made up of representatives from the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge staff, various Service 

programs, the town of Cokeville, the Lincoln County 

Planning Department, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other cooperating agencies. The 

planning team also incorporated public input in compliance with NEPA (see section 1.6). 

After reviewing a wide range of public comments, 

issues, and management needs, our planning team 

developed a range of alternatives to manage the refuge. After assessing the environmental consequences 

of implementing each of these, we chose alternative D 

(landscape-level management) as our proposed 

action, which addresses all substantive issues raised 
while also showing how best to achieve the purposes 

of the refuge. The details of the proposed action can 

be found in “Chapter 4—Management Direction.” 

This CCP will serve as a working guide for pro

grams and actions on the refuge over the next 15 

years. 

­

relevant legislation

The CCP is nee

■■	 communicate 

ners the refu

mission of the

■■	 provide a clea

managing the

■■	 provide neigh

officials an un

ment actions 

■■	 assure that th

actions are co

the Improve

2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming, and its proximity to other 

national wildlife refuges (in green). 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan 

This CCP provides long-term guidance for man

aging refuge programs and activities. It will help 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge fulfill its purposes and 

define how the refuge will support the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

­

See section 2.2 for more about the refuge’s purposes 

and its enabling legislation. For information on other 

 and policies, see appendix E. 

ded to: 

to the public and other partge’s efforts to carry out the 

 Refuge System; 

r statement of direction for 


 refuge;
 

bors, visitors, and government 

derstanding of our manageon and around the refuge; 

e refuge’s management 

nsistent with the mandates of 

ment Act; 
■■	 assure that management of the refuge is 

consistent with Federal, State, and county 

plans; 

■■	 provide a basis for developing budget 

requests for the refuge’s operation, mainte

nance, and capital improvement needs. 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge 

System 

We are the principal Federal agency responsible 

for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge 

System is one of our major programs. 

Our activities in Wyomin

State’s economy, ecosystems,

Chapter 1—Introduction 3 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. 

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s fish and wildlife resources were declining at an 

alarming rate, largely because of unrestricted market hunting. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined together and 

generated the political will for the Federal Government to enact its first significant conservation measures. These actions included the establishment of 

the Bureau of Fisheries in the 1870s and, in 1900, the 

passage of the first Federal wildlife law—the Lacey 

Act—which prohibited interstate transportation of 

wildlife taken in violation of State laws. Beginning in 

1903, President Theodore Roosevelt established more 

than 50 wildlife refuges across the Nation. 

Over the next three decades, the United States 

ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, and Congress passed laws to protect migratory 

birds, establish new refuges, and create a money 

source for refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service was created within the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, and existing Fed

eral wildlife functions, including law enforcement, 

fish management, animal damage control, and wild

life refuge management, were combined into a single 

organization for the first time. 

Today, we administer the Refuge System, enforce 

Federal wildlife laws, manage migratory bird popu

lations, restore nationally significant fisheries, con

serve and restore vital wildlife habitat, protect and 

recover endangered species, and help other govern

ments with conservation efforts. We also administer 

a Federal aid program that distributes hundreds of 

millions of dollars to the States for fish and wildlife 

restoration, boating access, hunter education, and 

related programs. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Activities in Wyoming 

g contribute to the 

 and education programs. The following describe our presence and 

recent activities in the State: 

■■ As of May 2013, we have 55 employees. 

■■	 More than 12,586 hours were donated by 

675 volunteers to help complete projects on 

refuge lands. 

■■	 We manage 2 fish hatcheries totaling 121 

acres and 6 coordination areas totaling 

16,291 acres (FWS 2013b), 1 ecological services field office, and 1 management assistance office. 

■■	 We manage 7 national wildlife refuges totaling 86,427 acres (figure 2) (FWS 2013b). 

■■	 On average, more than 857,000 people visit 

our lands every year: 

❏■ More than 2,000 of these engage in 

hunting. 

❏■ More than 5,300 of these take part in 

fishing. 

❏■ More than 583,700 of these take part in 

wildlife observation. 

­

­

­

­

­

­
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

❏■ Nearly 1,000 (576 in onsite programs) students take part in environmental education programs. 

■■	 We provided $4.5 million to WGFD for sport 

fish restoration and $4.2 million for wildlife 

restoration and hunter education. 

■■	 We paid Wyoming counties $744,583 under 

the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, and 

$362,318 of that went to schools and roads 

(FWS 2012). 

■■	 Between 1987 and 2011, our Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program helped private 

landowners to enhance or restore 5,427 

acres of wetlands, 294 miles of riparian and 

instream habitats, and 282,568 acres of 

upland habitats (FWS 2013c). 

National Wildlife Refuge System
 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of 

Americans. 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the 

Nation’s first wildlife refuge for the protection of 

native nesting birds. This was the first time the Federal Government set aside land for wildlife. This 

small but significant designation was the beginning 

of the Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System) has become the 

largest collection of lands in the world specifically 

managed for wildlife, encompassing more than 150 

million acres within 553 refuges and more than 3,000 

waterfowl production areas providing breeding and 

nesting habitat for migratory birds. Today, there is at 

least one refuge in every State as well as in Puerto 

Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the other Pacific 

Territories. 

Individual units of the Refuge System were established under a wide variety of statutes and executive 

orders. Before 1966, each refuge was managed to 

meet its individual establishment purpose, but there 

was no law requiring the refuges to be managed as a 

cohesive system of lands. Passage of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

(Administration Act) changed that and created the 

Refuge System. In 1997, Congress significantly 

amended the Administration Act with the Improvement Act, which is the organic legislation of, and has 

a clear mission statement for, the Refuge System. 

The Improvement Act states that each unit of the 

Refuge System, including wetland management districts, must: 

■■ fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

■■	 fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge 

and district; 

■■ consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

■■	 develop a CCP and fully involve the public in 

its preparation; 

■■	 support the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge 

System; 

■■	 allow refuge managers to decide on compatible public uses; 

■■	 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses. 

The following principles guide the vision for wildlife and habitat of each unit of the Refuge System: 

■■ Wildlife comes first. 

■■	 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness 

are vital concepts in refuge and district 

management. 

■■ Habitats must be healthy. 

■■	 Growth of refuges and wetland management 

districts must be strategic. 

■■	 The Refuge System serves as a model for 

habitat management with broad participation from others. 
Figure 2. Location of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and other national wildlife refuges in 

Wyoming. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 5 

The following goals of the Refuge System (601 

FW 1) help guide the development of CCPs and the 

administration, management, and growth of the Refuge System: 

■■ Conserve a variety of fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats, including species 

that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered. 

■■ Develop and support a network of habitats 

for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal pop

ulations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges. 

■■ Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes 

that are unique, rare, declining, or under

represented in existing protection efforts. 

■■ Provide and enhance opportunities to take 

part in compatible wildlife-dependent recre

ation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental educa

tion and interpretation). 

■■ Foster understanding and instill apprecia

tion of the diversity and interconnectedness 

of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats. 

­

­

­

­ ­
Under the Improvement Act, we began to prepare 

CCPs for all national wildlife refuges and wetland 

management districts using public involvement. 

1.3 National and Regional 

Mandates 

Refuge System units are managed to achieve 

their designated purposes, as described in establish

ing legislation, Executive orders, or other establish

ing documents, and the mission and goals of the 

Refuge System. Key guidance for the Refuge System 

is found in the Administration Act, as amended, Title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “The 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” 

Descriptions of the laws and Executive Orders 

that may affect this CCP and the management of 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge can be found in appendix 

E. Policies on planning and the management of ref

uges are found in the “Refuge System Manual” and 

“The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” as well as in 

various Director’s orders, Regional Director’s 

orders, and Service handbooks. 

1.4 Refuge Contributions to 

Regional and National Plans 

The Cokeville Meadows Refuge also contributes 

to the conservation efforts described below. 

Conserving the Future 

Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the 

Next Generation lays out 24 recommendations that 9 

implementation teams are charged with fulfilling. 

The implementation of these recommendations are 

currently underway and can be followed online (FWS 

2011). 

Conserving the Future will deliver on three out

comes: articulate the important work and future of 

the Refuge System in a vision document, raise the 

awareness of conservation on refuges, and foster new 

leaders for us and the Refuge System as well as for 

the conservation community. 

Bird Conservation 

As interest in bird and habitat conservation has 

grown over the past few decades, partnership-based 

bird conservation initiatives have produced interna

tional, national, and regional conservation plans. “Allbird” conservation planning in North America has 

come from the North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative. Formed in 1999, it is a coalition of govern

ment agencies, private organizations, and bird initia

tives in the United States that works to advance 

integrated bird conservation based on sound science 

and cost-effective management to help all birds in all 

habitats. 

The conservation of all birds is being accom

plished under four planning initiatives: the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan by Partners in Flight, 

the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

and the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

Partners from Federal and State agencies and 

nongovernment organizations from across the coun

try pooled their resources and expertise to develop a 

conservation strategy for migratory shorebirds and 

the habitats on which they depend. The resulting 

document, completed in 2000, provides a scientific 

framework to find species, sites, and habitats that 

most urgently need conservation action. 

The main goals of the plan are to make sure that 

adequate quantities and qualities of shorebird habitat 

are supported locally and to support or restore shore

bird populations at the continental and hemispheric 

levels. Separate technical reports were developed for 

conservation assessment, comprehensive monitoring 

strategy, research needs, and education and out

reach. These national assessments were used to step 

down goals and objectives into 11 regional conserva

tion plans. 

Although some outreach, education, research, 

monitoring, and habitat conservation programs are 

being carried out, the accomplishment of conserva

tion objectives for all shorebird species will require a 

continued, coordinated effort among existing and 

new partners. 

North American Landbird Conservation 

Plan by Partners in Flight 

This plan, developed by Partners in Flight begin

ning in 1990, recognizes that the population levels of 

many migratory bird species are declining. The chal

6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Chapter 1—Introduction 7

Rough-legged Hawk 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

lenge, according to the program, is to manage human 

population growth while supporting functional natural ecosystems. 

Partners in Flight is a cooperative that includes 

partnerships among Federal, State, and local government agencies, philanthropic foundations, professional organizations, conservation groups, industries, 

the academic community, and private individuals. 

The goals for Partners In Flight (Rich et al, 2004) 

are: 

■■	 Define an active, scientifically based conservation design process that identifies and 

develops solutions to threats and risks to 

landbird populations. 

■■	 Create a coordinated network of conservation partners to carry out the objectives of 

landbird conservation plans at multiple 

scales. 

■■	 Secure the commitment and resources to 

support the vigorous implementation of 

landbird conservation objectives. 

The main goal of Partners in Flight is to provide 

for the long-term health of landbirds on this continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest species from going extinct. The second priority is to 

prevent uncommon species from descending into 

threatened status. The third priority is to “keep common birds common.” 

Partners in Flight named priority landbird species and habitat types and developed 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States. 

For planning purposes, they split North America into 

seven groups of birds by ecological area—avifaunal 

biomes—and 37 bird conservation regions (figure 3). 

The Cokeville Meadows Refuge lies within Bird Conservation Region 10, the Northern Rockies Region. 

This region includes the Northern Rocky Mountains 

and outlying ranges in both the United States and 

Canada and the intermontane Wyoming Basin and 

Fraser Basin. 

More specifically, the refuge sits within the physiographic area known as the Wyoming Basin (figure 

4). This area is primarily in Wyoming but also 

extends into northern Colorado, southern Montana, 

and small parts of northeast Utah and southeast 

Idaho. The area consists of broad intermountain 

basins interrupted by isolated hills and low mountains that merge to the south into a dissected plateau. The Wyoming Basin is primarily shrub–steppe 

habitat, dominated by sagebrush and shadscale and 

interspersed with areas of shortgrass prairie. Higher 

elevations have mountain shrub vegetation, and the 

highest areas have coniferous forest. Partners in 

Flight priority bird populations and habitats of the 

Wyoming Basin are listed in table 1. 

Table 1. Priority bird populations by habitat at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Shrub–steppe Sagebrush grasslands	 Wetlands 

greater sage-grouse short-eared owl	 American bittern 

ferruginous hawk	 Swainson’s hawk Wilson’s phalarope 

sage thrasher	 mountain plover white-faced ibis 

sage sparrow	 American avocet 

Brewer’s sparrow	 American white pelican 

Source: FWS 2013a. 
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 3. Map of the bird conservation regions of North America 

North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan 

This plan is carried out by a partnership consisting of Federal, State, and Provincial wildlife agencies; individuals; and nonprofit conservation

organizations covering 28 countries from Canada to 

Panama as well as islands and near-shore areas of 

the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, 

and the Caribbean Sea. It provides a contiguous 

framework for conserving and managing colonialnesting waterbirds, including 209 species of seabirds, 

coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, and pelicans), wad

ingbirds (herons and ibises), and marshbirds (certain 

grebes and bitterns). 

Its overall goal is to make sure that the following 

are sustained or restored throughout the waterbirds’ 

ranges in North America: (1) the distribution, diver

­

­
Chapter 1—Introduction 9 

sity, and abundance of waterbird populations; (2) 

habitats for breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding 

waterbirds; and (3) important sites for waterbirds. 

Political considerations and ecological factors 

influenced the drafting of waterbird planning region 

boundaries. Sixteen planning regions are identified 

in the Western Hemisphere, and Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge is located within the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Region. This Region’s dispersed high-mountain lakes; large, terminal, hypersaline lakes; marshes; playas; rivers; streams; 

riparian zones; and fresh and brackish wetlands host 

about 40 waterbird species, including many, or most, 

of the world’s California gulls, eared grebes, whitefaced ibises, and American white pelicans. 

Eleven waterbirds are identified as species of high 

concern in this waterbird conservation region: yellow 

rail, Franklin’s gull, black tern, eared grebe, western 

grebe, Clark’s grebe, snowy egret, American white 

pelican, common loon, American bittern, and certain 

managed populations of the greater and lesser sandhill crane. Cokeville Meadows Refuge provides habitat for several of these species, including American 

bittern, black tern, western grebe, bittern, and sandhill crane. 

The waterbirds that use this region are highly 

adaptable to constantly changing wetland conditions 

and depend on a region of wetlands to meet habitat 

and forage needs during the stages of their annual 

life cycle. The competing demands for water from 

agriculture, development, and recreation pose the 

greatest threats to regional waterbird populations. 

Contaminants such as mercury and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its breakdown products 

also threaten the region’s waterbirds. Because of the 

West’s feast-or-famine water regime, this plan 

stresses conserving a network of quality wetland 

habitats with secure water sources to provide choices 

for waterbirds during drought and flood cycles 

(Kushlan et al. 2002). 

Figure 4. Map of physiographic areas of the United States, including area 86, the Wyoming Basin, which 

contains Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan 

Written in 1986, this plan envisioned a 15-year 

effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific objectives are to 

increase and restore duck populations to the average 

levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a 

fall flight of 100 million birds. 

In the mid-1980s, waterfowl populations had 

plummeted to record lows. Duck nesting habitat was 

disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recogniz­
 

10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

ing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to 

North Americans and the need for international 

cooperation to help in the recovery of a shared 

resource, the United States and Canadian Governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl 

populations through habitat protection, restoration, 

and enhancement. Mexico joined the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope and its implementation at the regional level. Its 

success depends on the strength of partnerships, 

called “joint ventures,” involving Federal, State, Provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional in scope and selfdirected. They drive science-based conservation 

through diverse community participation and develop 

implementation measures for areas of concern contained in the plan. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture 

Established in June 1994, this joint venture and 

implements the plan in the Intermountain West 

(Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005). It conserves wetlands and associated habitats and is comprised of many partnerships among public and 

private organizations that share common interests in 

supporting and managing key ecosystems in the 

region. Lands under its jurisdiction stretch from the 

Sierra Nevada and Cascades in the west to just east 

of the Rocky Mountains and from the Mexican border 

in the south to the Canadian border in the north. This 

extensive geographic region encompasses portions of 

eleven western States and includes an enormous 

variety of avian habitat. 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan 

This plan covers six bird conservation regions in 

the Intermountain West and includes an array of 

habitats from saline sinks to alpine streams (Oring et 

al. 2010). The Cokeville Meadows Refuge offers 

important breeding habitat for several shorebird species and is of modest importance to many species of 

migratory birds. 

Recovery Plans for Federally 

Listed, Threatened, or Endangered 

Species 

No federally listed species have been documented 

at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. One candidate species, 

greater sage-grouse, does occur on the refuge. If, 

during the life of this CCP, listed species are discovered on the refuge or new species are listed, we will 

make sure that the refuge takes part in any approved 

recovery plans. We will also conduct an Intra-Service 

Section 7 Consultation on refuge management activities that might affect the listed or candidate species. 

To make sure that the conservation of candidate 

species is adequately considered in this document, we 

conducted a biological evaluation of its actions per 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (see 

appendix C). 

State Wildlife Action Plan 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grants Program and the Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in 

2001. These provide States, territories, and tribes 

with Federal dollars to support conservation aimed 

at preventing wildlife from needing protection under 

the ESA. To take part in the State Wildlife Grants 

program, each State completed a State Wildlife 

Action Plan by October 1, 2005. 

These plans define integrated approaches to the 

stewardship of all wildlife species, with added 

emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. 

The goal is to shift focus from single-species management and highly specialized individual efforts to a 

geographically based, landscape-oriented, fish and 

wildlife conservation effort. We approve State Wildlife Action Plans and Tribal Wildlife Grants Programs and administer these programs’ monies. 

We reviewed the WGFD State Wildlife Action 

Plan and used information in it during the development of this CCP. The State Wildlife Action Plan 

contains information from the Tribal Wildlife Grants 

Programs developed by the Wyoming Wind River 

Indian Reservation and the Confederated Tribes of 

the Goshute Reservation. Carrying out the habitat 

goals and objectives of this CCP will support those of 

the WGFD State Wildlife Action Plan. 

Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change 

We believe that a rapid acceleration in climate 

change could affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources in profound and unforeseen ways. 

While many species would continue to thrive, some 

may decline or go extinct. Others may survive in the 

wild only through direct and continued intervention. 

In 2010, we drafted a strategic plan to address 

climate change for the next 50 years entitled “Rising 

to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to 

Accelerating Climate Change” (FWS 2010). The plan 

employs three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, 
Chapter 1—Introduction 11 

and engagement. In addition, the plan acknowledges 

that no single organization or agency can address 

climate change without allying itself with others 

across the Nation and around the world (FWS 2010). 

This plan is an integral part of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior’s strategy for addressing climate 

change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 (September 14, 2009). 

We will use the following guiding principles from 

the plan (FWS 2010) in responding to climate change: 

■■	 Priorities setting—Continually evaluate 

priorities and approaches, make difficult 

choices, take calculated risks, and adapt to 

climate change. 

■■	 Partnership—Commit to a new spirit of 

coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with others. 

■■	 Best science—Reflect scientific excellence, 

professionalism, and integrity in all of our 

work. 

■■	 Landscape conservation—Emphasize the 

conservation of habitats within sustainable 

landscapes, applying our strategic habitat 

conservation framework. 

■■	 Technical capacity—Assemble and use 

state-of-the-art technical capacity to meet 

the climate change challenge. 

■■	 Global approach—Be a leader in national 

and international efforts to meet the climate 

change challenge. 

Scientific observations and data suggest that the 

great northern geographic area in which Cokeville 

Meadows is located—as defined by Service and U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) experts, see section 1.5 

below—may already be undergoing environmental 

and ecological changes because of climate change 

trends. Clear patterns in climate change could affect 

high-mountain ecotypes and lower-elevation, snow 

melt-dependent watersheds more acutely than they 

some other geographic areas. 

To address the effects of possible climactic 

change, any proposed management strategies must 

continue to adapt to a dynamic environment. When 

considering possible climatic changes and resulting 

potential ecological changes, we look for effects on 

the following 12 focal species of the great northern 

Coyote 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

geographic area: bull trout, pacific lamprey, salmon, 

steelhead, greater sage-grouse, Lewis’s woodpecker, 

trumpeter swans, willow flycatcher, Columbia spotted frog, cutthroat trout subspecies, Arctic grayling, 

and wolverine. 

1.5 Landscape-Scale

Conservation

 In the face of escalating challenges such as land 

use conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and 

complex issues that could be amplified by possible 

climatic changes, we have broadened our vision from 

an ecosystem approach to conservation across a 

broader, landscape scale. 

Strategic Habitat Conservation 

In the early 21st century, we undertook a cooperative effort with the USGS that culminated in a report 

by the National Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 

2006). The report outlines a unifying adaptive 

resource management approach—integrating planning, design, delivery and evaluation— for conservation on a landscape scale. This is strategic habitat 

conservation—a structured, science-driven approach 

for making efficient, transparent decisions about 

where and how to expend our resources to conserve 

species, or groups of species, that are limited by the 

amount or quality of habitat (figure 5). 

Since 2006, we have taken significant steps to 

turn this vision into reality. Our and USGS experts 

have defined a framework of 21 geographic areas 

using an aggregation of bird conservation regions. 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge lies in geographic area 

six—the great northern. This geographic area is 

unique in social values, natural resources, and managerial challenges. 

The great northern geographic area six includes 

one of the largest surface areas of all the geographic 

areas in North America, spanning more than 447,000 

square miles in the United States (57 percent) and 

Canada (43 percent). Ecologically, this area represents one of the most relatively intact and functional 

ecosystems in the United States with diverse groups 

of species and important conservation and restoration opportunities. Habitats support plant and animal 

species with cultural significance to multiple Native 

American tribes and of important societal and conservation value to the United States, Canada, and the 

world. Cultural traditions are tied closely to the 

Figure 5. Basic strategic habitat conservation 

process. 

land’s natural resources, as are contemporary ways 

of life, such as ranching, logging, and recreational and 

subsistence hunting and fishing. The Nation’s largest 

communities of free-roaming bison, elk, deer, and 

other ungulates; wolves; and bears as well as diverse 

salmon and trout populations are hallmarks of this 

geographic area 

Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives 

Protecting natural and cultural resources is 

essential to sustaining our health and quality of life. 

Humans, along with fish and wildlife, rely on clean 

water and the benefits of healthy rivers, streams, 

wetlands, forests, grasslands, and coastal areas in 

order to thrive. Managing the landscapes that provide our natural and cultural resources has become 

more challenging. With the signing of Secretarial 

Order No. 3289, the Department of the Interior 

launched landscape conservation cooperatives to better integrate science and management to address 

climate change and other landscape-scale issues. By 

forming a network that is holistic, collaborative, 

adaptive, and grounded in science, landscape conservation cooperatives work to sustain our economy and 

our land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources 

(Department of the Interior 2010). 

The continent’s 22 landscape conservation cooperatives include resource managers and scientists 

who share a common need for scientific information 

and an interest in conservation. Each landscape con­
Chapter 1—Introduction 13 

servation cooperative brings together Federal, State, 

and local governments along with tribes and first 

nations, nongovernmental organizations, universities, 

and interested public and private organizations. Our 

partners work collaboratively to identify best practices, connect efforts, identify science gaps, and avoid 

duplicating work through conservation planning and 

design. 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge is in the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative, which covers the great northern geographic area six (figure 6). 

The Vision of Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives 

Support landscapes that are capable of sustaining 

natural and cultural resources for current and future 

generations. 

The Mission of Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives 

Figure 6. Location of the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge within geographic area six, the great 

northern, as administered by the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative. 

Landscape conservation cooperatives: 

■■	 develop and provide integrated sciencebased information about the implications of 

climate change and other stressors to sustain natural and cultural resources; 

■■	 develop shared, landscape-level, conservation objectives and strategies based on scientific understanding and the implications of 

current and future environmental stressors; 

■■	 facilitate the exchange of applied science 

when implementing conservation strategies 

and products that they and their partners 

develop; 
14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 monitor and evaluate strategy effectiveness 

in meeting shared objectives; 

■■ develop effective linkages among each other. 

1.6 Planning Process 

We prepared this CCP in compliance with the 

Improvement Act and Part 602 (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual.” The actions described herein meet 

the needs of the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations that carry out NEPA. The Refuge Sys

tem’s planning policy, issued in 2000, also offers guid

ance for refuge and wetland management district 

plans, including CCPs and stepdown management 

plans, to help them follow the Improvement Act. We 

adhered to the steps of the CCP and EA process that 

are outlined in this planning policy (figure 7). 

We began the preplanning process in August 2009 

by establishing a planning team made up primarily of 

staff from the refuge and the Mountain-Prairie 

Region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Region 6) division of refuge planning. Other team-

(GIS), wate

and BLM st

Lincoln Co

Planning D

planning te

randum of u

government

During p

list, identi

unique qual

During

members included staff from other Service divisions, 

including education and visitor services (EVS), law 

enforcement, realty, geographic information system 

r rights, fire, fisheries, and from WGFD 

aff. Later on, the town of Cokeville and 

unty, represented by the Lincoln County 

epartment, formally requested to join the 

am and were included through a memonderstanding between us and these local 

s. 

replanning, the team developed a mailing 

fied internal issues, and identified the 

ities of the refuge (see section 2.5). 

 planning, the team identified and 

reviewed current programs, compiled and analyzed 

relevant data, and reviewed establishing authorities 

to define the purposes of the refuge. We also prepared a hydrogeomorphic method (HGM) analysis 

report. The HGM report took almost 2 years to 

research and complete and resulted in many sound 

recommendations for the restoration and management of the refuge. 

Afterwards, a notice of intent to prepare the draft 

CCP and environmental assessment (EA) was published in the “Federal Register” on October 30, 2009. 

Public scoping—the process of obtaining public input 

to inform the planning process—began soon after in 

Figure 7. Process steps for comprehensive planning and associated environmental analysis. 

­

­
Chapter 1—Introduction 15 

November 2009 and included the mailing of invitation 

letters, the posting of flyers and press releases and 

the holding of public scoping meetings. The draft plan 

was printed and released for 45 days of public review 

in September 2013. We analyzed all of the comments 

we received during the public review and made 

appropriate changes to this CCP. 

Table 2 lists the specific steps we took to prepare 

the Cokeville Meadows Refuge CCP. 

Coordination with the Public 

We compiled a mailing list of more than 83 names 

during the planning process. It includes private citi

zens; local, regional, and State government represen

tatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; and 

interested organizations, as described in appendix D. 

In November 2009, we held two public scoping 

meetings near Cokeville Meadows Refuge. The first 

was in Cokeville, Wyoming, and the second was in 

­

­

Table 2. Planning process summary for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Date Event Outcome or purpose 

August 13, 2009 Cokeville Meadows Refuge CCP meeting for public officials 

Overview of the planning and public participation processes, 

identification of issues, answer questions from officials, and 

discussion of economic development 

September 25, 2009 Initial meeting with the proposed planning team 

CCP overview developed; planning team completed; purposes 

identified; initial issues and qualities list developed; develop

ment of mailing list started 

November 16–18, 2009 Kickoff meeting, vision, and goals 

development. 

Issues and qualities list updated; biological and mapping needs 

identified; public scoping planned 

October 30, 2009 Public scoping planning Scoping meeting schedules and formats completed 

November 17, 2009 Public scoping meeting, Cokeville, WY Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and provide comments) 

November 18, 2009 Public scoping meeting, Kemmerer, 

WY 

Public opportunity offered (to learn about the CCP and provide comments) 

April 20–21, 2010 Alternatives workshop Vision statement and goals reviewed; alternatives developed. 

February 23–25, 2011 Assessment of environmental impacts Reviewed range of alternatives and decided on environmental 

consequences. 

April 26–28, 2011 Non-biological objectives and strategies workshop Objectives and strategies for the proposed action drafted 

June 21–23, 2011 Biological objectives and strategies 

workshop Objectives and strategies for the proposed action drafted 

July–December, 2011 First draft CCP and EA preparation First draft of the CCP and EA prepared 

March–April 2012 Planning team review of the first draft 

CCP and EA 

First draft of the CCP and EA reviewed and commented on by 

planning team 

May 2012–May 2013 Internal Service review of and editing 

of the first draft CCP and EA 

Draft CCP and EA reviewed and commented on by our 

regional office staff, planning team, and others 

May 2013 Planning team review of the second 

draft CCP and EA 

Second draft of the CCP and EA reviewed and commented on 

by planning team 

June–August 2013 Preparation of public review draft 

CCP and EA 

September 2013 Draft CCP and EA distributed Draft CCP and EA mailed out to the public and posted on the 

Division of Planning Web site 

September 2013 Public comment meeting in Cokeville, 

Wyoming 

Draft CCP and EA presented to the public; public comments 

collected 

November 2013 Public comments collected and analyzed 

Modification of Draft CCP to incorporate relevant and substantive public comments 

December 2013 Briefed Assistant Regional Director of 

Refuge System 

Summary of public comments reviewed and addressed by our 

Region 6 Assistant Regional Director of the Refuge System 

Summary of public comments reviewed and addressed by our 

February 2014 Briefed Regional Director Regional Director and Deputy Regional Director and CCP 

signed 

March 2014 Production and distribution of final 

CCP. Begin implementation. 

Final CCP sent to the printer and then distributed to the public. Staff begins implementing the CCP 

­
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Kemmerer, Wyoming. Fifty-two people attended the 

two meetings. They were primarily local citizens, 

including ranchers, sportsmen and women, other recreational users, and wildlife management professionals. Following a presentation about the refuge and an 

overview of the CCP and NEPA processes, we 

encouraged attendees to ask questions and offer comments. We recorded verbal comments and gave 

attendees a comment form by which to submit more 

thoughts or questions in writing. 

In addition to verbal comments received during 

scoping meetings and others that we held with Congressional representatives and stakeholders, we 

received a total of 12 written letters during the initial 

scoping period ending December 31, 2009. We 

reviewed and considered all substantive comments 

and public input throughout the planning process. 

State Coordination 

In November 2009, our Region 6 Director mailed 

a letter to the director of WGFD inviting the agency 

to take part in our CCP planning process. As a 

result, six representatives from WGFD are part of 

the CCP planning team, which complements the 

excellent, ongoing working relationships we had 

already established with local WGFD biologists. 

WGFD is charged with providing “an adequate 

and flexible system for the control, management, protection, and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife.” 

WGFD supports 36 wildlife habitat management 

areas and 96 public access areas, encompassing 

410,000 acres of managed lands for wildlife habitat 

and public recreation. These lands contain 121 miles 

of stream easements and about 21,014 surface acres 

of lakes and reservoirs for public access. 

Tribal Coordination 

In November 2009, our Region 6 Director mailed 

letters to 12 Native American tribal governments 

informing them about the CCP development process 

and inviting them to take part. Letters went to the 

Northern Arapaho, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Lower 

Brule Sioux, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux 

Tribes, Cheyenne River Sioux, Oglala Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Santee Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, Eastern Shoshone, and Northwest 

Band of Shoshone Nation of Utah Tribe. 

Although none of the tribal governments chose to 

take part in our planning process, they remain on the 

CCP mailing list and continue to receive CCP-related 

correspondence. 

Results of Scoping 

We used all the comments we collected during 

scoping and public comment meetings and from correspondence, including refuge management recommendations, to develop the list of issues that are 

addressed in this CCP in this chapter and in chapter 

2. Our planning team also developed alternatives to 

address these issues and chose one alternative to be 

our proposed action. 

The Draft Plan 

We considered all input in developing the draft 

CCP and EA, including suggestions from the public, 

partners, and other groups, about changes to the refuge’s current management. The planning process 

makes sure that issues with the greatest effects on 

the refuge are given priority or are resolved. After 

scoping and a detailed analysis of the results, we created four management alternatives that best 

addressed the issues that had been identified. We 

chose alternative D (landscape-level management) to 

be our proposed action. In September 2013, we published a notice of availability announcing that the 

draft CCP and EA was available for a 30-day public 

review period. In appendix D of this CCP we provide 

a summary of written comments that we gathered 

during the review period along with our responses. 

The Final Plan 

After reviewing public comments on the draft 

CCP and EA, our Region 6 Director selected alternative D as the preferred alternative. Subsequently, we 

produced this final CCP, which is based on the draft 

CCP but includes substantive changes. The biological 

evaluation for the final CCP determined that there 

would likely be no adverse effect on threatened or 

endangered species or on critical habitats as a result 

of the actions of the CCP (appendix C). The Regional 

Director approved the final CCP in February 2014 

after finding that it would cause no significant impact 

to the human environment (appendix A). 

Chapter 4 outlines the long-term guidance for 

management decisions that arose from the preferred 

alternative, sets forth objectives and strategies to 

accomplish refuge purposes and goals, and identifies 

our best estimate of future needs. The CCP details 

program levels that are sometimes substantially 

above current budget allocations yet serve to assist 

in our strategic planning. 
Chapter 2—The Refuge
 

Badger 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

For many years, resource professionals and con

servation agencies recognized the unique wetland 

habitat of the Upper Bear River floodplain near 

Cokeville, Wyoming, in Lincoln County and its value 

to migratory birds. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, 

we and WGFD reviewed the potential for protecting 

the area’s habitat. In July 1987, we gained conditional 

support for a refuge proposal from WGFD. 

This chapter discusses Cokeville Meadows Ref

uge’s establishment, management history, purposes, 

and special values as well as its proposed vision, 

goals, and planning issues. 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History 

We prepared a land protection plan and accompa

nying environmental impact statement that resulted 

in a record of decision in 1992 that approved an acqui

sition boundary for a refuge. The record of decision 

also authorized us to buy a total of 26,657 acres 

within the boundary. This lead to the creation of 

­

­

Cokeville Meadows Refuge. 

Establishment 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge was established in 

1993 with our first land acquisition. 

­

­
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Creation of the refuge was proposed to preserve 

and protect wetland-breeding and migration habitat 

for migratory and resident birds including trumpeter 

swan, redhead, white-faced ibis, long-billed curlew, 

sandhill crane, greater sage-grouse, and many other 

conservation-priority species (FWS 1990, 1992, 2002; 

Nicholoff 2003; WGFD 2005). 

Acquisition History 

The refuge has grown since 1993 (table 3) to consist of 9,259 acres of fee-title and conservation easement lands (6,466 acres in fee title, 1,689 acres in 

conservation easements, 320 acres of State-leased 

land, and 784 acres in Farmers Home Administration 

easements) (figure 8). 

Future acquisitions of land for refuge purposes, 

by easement or fee title, will depend on our having 

the available funds to pay the appraised fair market 

value for land and on having willing sellers (figure 9). 

ge primar

y control

 irrigation 

and ranch

Management History 

Since 1993, we have managed the refu ­

ily for waterfowl nesting and production. B ­

ling water with the existing ditches of an

system that was developed by the farmers ­

ers of the valley, our refuge staff improved and 

enhanced wet meadow habitats along the Bear River. 

Since 2003, we have improved the irrigation system 

for wildlife management purposes by adding and 

replacing water control structures. 

We primarily use grazing and haying as vegeta

tion management tools on wet meadow and upland 

habitats. We also manipulate water levels using 

existing irrigation ditches, irrigate, mow, harrow, 

and disk to improve grassland and wetland habitats. 

Prescribed fire has not been used to manage habitats 

on the refuge since establishment, primarily because 

the refuge has not had sufficient staff to prepare the 

necessary plans and required NEPA 

documentation. 

Except for a visitor contact station consisting of a 

kiosk and a parking lot, a short walking trail, and the 

refuge office, the refuge has not been open to public 

use. Approximately 3,200 visitors a year use these 

limited facilities for wildlife observation, photogra

phy, and interpretation. In December 2012, we issued 

a draft hunting plan and an associated EA for public 

comment with the intent to open portions of Cokev

ille Meadows Refuge to hunting in 2014. 

­

­

­

Table 3. Land acquisition history of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Percent of Date of Acres Acquisition Means of acquisition acquisition within acquisition acquired authority the refuge boundary 

10/12/1993 203 Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act 

Fee title – Land and Water Con

servation Fund 0.76% 

12/22/1993 625 Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act 

Fee title– Land and Water Conser

vation Fund 2.34 

03/05/1997 222 Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act 

Fee title–Land and Water Conser

vation Fund 0.83 

08/21/1997 263 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Fee title–Migratory Bird Conser

vation Fund 0.99 

06/02/1998 2,214 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Fee title–Migratory Bird Conser

vation Fund 8.31 

06/09/2000 2,264 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Fee title–Migratory Bird Conser

vation Fund 8.49 

04/15/2003 672 Fish and Wildlife Act Fee title–Land and Water Conser

vation Fund 2.52 

01/26/1995 1,689 Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act 

Conservation easement–Land and 

Water Conservation Fund 6.34 

Total percentage within the acquisition boundary acquired to date. 30.58 

2.2 Purposes 

Every refuge has one or more purposes for which 

it was established. The purpose is the foundation on 

which to build all refuge programs—from biology 

and public use to maintenance and facilities. No 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 2—The Refuge 19
 

Figure 8. Base map of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 9. Ownership of lands near and within Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 
action that we or the public undertake may conflict 

with these purposes. 

Refuge purposes are found in the statutes, Execu

tive orders, or other documents that authorize the 

refuge and the acquisition of any parcel of land

within the refuge boundary. An individual refuge 

may contain lands that have been acquired under a 

variety of authorities, giving a refuge more than one 

purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies identi

fied in the CCP (see chapter 4) support the purposes 

for which the refuge was established. 

The following laws specify the purposes for

Cokeville Meadows Refuge: 

■■	 “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

any other management purpose, for migra

tory birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act, 16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

■■	 “The conservation of the wetlands of the 

Nation in order to maintain the public bene

fits they provide and to help fulfill interna

tional obligations contained in various 

migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 

1986, 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b)) 

■■	 “For conservation purposes.” (Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act of 1961, 7 

U.S.C. § 2002) 

­

­

­

­

­

2.3 Vision 

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions 

for the future, that describes the essence of what we 

are trying to accomplish at a refuge. The following 

vision for Cokeville Meadows Refuge is future-ori

ented and designed to be achieved throughout the life 

of the CCP and beyond: 

Chapter 2—The Refuge 21 

­

For thousands of years, the sandhill 

cranes have returned each spring to dance 

on the Cokeville Meadows. Their thunderous majestic calls remind us of our obligation to manage wildlife for generations 

unborn. 

Nestled on the upper reaches of the Bear 

River in southwest Wyoming, the wet 

meadows, sage steppe, and riparian habitats of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge provide outstanding habitat 

for a myriad of migratory birds and resident wildlife species. 

Spectacular views and clean air add to the 

visitor’s enjoyment of compatible wildlifeoriented recreation. Refuge management 

and habitat restoration activities are complementary with historical land uses, creating opportunities for conservation 

partnerships with neighbors and friends. 

Greater sage-grouse males have gathered at a lek looking to attract females. 

FWS 

2.4 Goals 

A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not 

define measurable units. Goals direct efforts toward 

achieving the vision and purposes of the refuge and 

outline approaches for managing refuge resources. 

We developed seven goals for the refuge based on the 

Improvement Act, the purposes of the refuge, and 

information obtained during planning. 
e the pro

l diversity 

uatic habi

ptiles and Early on, our planning team and the public identi

fied the outstanding qualities of Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge. Refuge qualities are the characteristics and 

22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Goals 

Three goals were developed for habitat and wildlife management at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. 

Wet Meadow Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

Using the best scientific practices to manage and 

preserve critical wet meadow habitat, the refuge will 

provide quality feeding, loafing, and breeding opportunities for a diversity of migratory birds and resident wildlife. 

Upland Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

Manage and, where appropriate, enhance the 

diversity and composition of grassland and shrub– 

steppe habitats within the range of historical conditions for sagebrush-dependent species, upland 

nesting migratory birds, and other resident species. 

Riparian and River Habitats and Wildlife 

Goal 

Maintain and, where appropriate, restor ­

cesses necessary to sustain the biologica

and integrity of riparian vegetation and aq ­

tats for breeding birds, native fishes, re

amphibians. 

Wildland Fire Management Goal 

Manage wildland fires using a full array of strategic options from suppression to manipulating a fire to 

achieve benefits. Prescribed fire, manual, and 

mechanical treatments will be used to: (1) reduce the 

threat to land and property through hazardous-fuel 

reduction treatments, and (2) meet the habitat goals 

and objectives identified in this CCP. 

Visitor Services and Cultural 

Resources Goal 

Provide appropriate public access to refuge lands 

where visitors can safely enjoy compatible, wildlifedependent recreation, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. The refuge will seek 

partnerships to help protect onsite cultural 

resources. 

Partnerships Goal 

Engage in mutually beneficial partnerships to 

promote wildlife and habitat conservation, and public 

enjoyment of wildlife resources in the upper Bear 

River watershed that are consistent with historic 

land uses, refuge purposes and goals. 

Refuge Development and 

Operations Goal 

Effectively utilize all available resources to 

develop, enhance, and support refuge facilities and 

operations for wildlife, habitat, and public use pro

grams. We will pursue easements, habitat improve

ments, and other land protection opportunities with 

willing sellers and interested land owners within the 

approved refuge acquisition boundary and within the 

Bear River watershed. 

­

­

2.5 Special Values 

­

features that make it special, valuable for wildlife, 

and worthy of refuge status. It was important to 

name and describe the special values of the refuge to 

recognize the refuge’s worth and to make sure that 

its special values are preserved, protected, and 

enhanced through the planning process. 

Refuge qualities can be unique biological values or 

something as simple as “a quiet place to see a variety 

of birds and enjoy nature.” The following summarizes 

the qualities that make Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

unique and valued: 

■■	 The refuge lies within an important part of 

the Pacific flyway and plays an important 

role as a nesting and foraging area for 

migratory birds. 

■■	 These are public lands where people can 

take part in wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. 

■■	 The refuge lies in the Upper Bear River 


watershed.
 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 23 

■■	 The refuge is a greenbelt within southwest 

Wyoming’s high desert. 

■■	 The refuge has potential for a broad range 

of partnerships that are integral to every 

aspect of refuge management. 

■■	 The refuge can serve as an outdoor class

room to provide environmental education 

opportunities for local communities. 

■■	 Nearby universities are resources for natu

ral resource studies that can add to the 

body of scientific literature on a variety of 

environments within the Bear River water

shed and the importance of national wildlife 

refuges in the western United States. 

­

­

­

2.6 Planning Issues 

We identified several key issues raised during 

internal and public scoping. After reviewing refuge 

laws and policy, we fine tuned those issues that were 

within the scope of this document. These are sum

marized below. 

Substantive comments, those that can be 

addressed within our authority and management 

capabilities, were considered further in the formation 

of alternatives. 

Subdivision 

upland habitat

that occur wit

adjacent lands. 

The conversi

place on some r

Returning thes

with farming a

sider. Maintain

predation by bi

­ 1992) are also i

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Specific issues were identified for the unique habitats found at Cokeville Meadows refuge along with 

general issues that apply to the refuge as a whole. 

Wet Meadow Habitat 

The conservation of wet meadow habitat is one of 

the primary reasons Cokeville Meadows Refuge was 

established. Aside from some significant improvements to water control facilities, we manage water in 

these habitats much like the former private owners 

did. Prior economic uses of refuge wet meadows— 

hay production or grazing—did provide good habitat 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

The recent HGM study conducted on Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge shows that our management continues to provide good habitat but that the natural 

hydrologic regime was altered by human-produced 

flood processes in the valley, which has lead to a 

change in the vegetation communities found in wet 

meadows. Non-native grasses now dominate many 

meadows and there has been a proportional decline in 

some native sedge–rush communities. 

There are concerns about improving the monitoring and evaluation of water management effects on 

species composition and on the location and placement of water control structures in relation to historical sloughs and river channels. There are also 

concerns about enhancing water quality, wildlife 

habitat, and invasive species. Active management 

could be used to mimic natural processes. Tools the 

refuge could use include haying, grazing, and prescribed fire. 

Upland Habitat 

encroachment and the conversion of 

s from native vegetation are issues 

hin the acquisition boundary and on 

on of native habitat to cropland took 

efuge-owned lands before acquisition. 

e to native vegetation or continuing 

ctivities is an important issue to coning water rights and offsetting crop 

rds such as cranes and geese (FWS 

mportant topics, as are plant diversity 

in degraded or marginal upland habitats, grazing 

management, and restoring upland habitats to benefit sage-grouse, passerine birds, and nesting and 

brood-rearing by dabbling ducks. 

Former croplands with extensive weed seed 

banks and varying water rights are a concern. Potential solutions to this problem include using cooperative farming agreements to establish weed control, to 

grow native vegetation, or to farm small grains. 

Rotating small grains from site to site may also help 

combat the depredation of private lands by migratory 

birds. During this rotational phase, we could work 

cooperatively with the permittee and Lincoln County 

Weed and Pest District to control invasive plants. 

Riparian and River Habitats 

The Bear River channel through Cokeville Meadows Refuge is deeply incised and has severely eroding banks in places. Riparian vegetation also lacks 

woody overstory plants. As a result, restoring the 

natural processes of the Bear River Valley, as identified in the HGM report, came up during scoping. To 

assess native fish populations—emphasizing Bonneville cutthroat trout, a species of concern found in the 

area—partnerships with WFGD, neighboring landowners and other irrigators, nongovernmental organizations, and others would be required. And fish 

mobility in the Bear River is a concern due to the 

Beckwith and Quin (BQ) and Pixley Dams. 
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Another issue is the need to manage riparian vegetation to optimize habitat for selected passerine and 

other migratory birds and to restore the diversity of 

plant species with a focus on native grasses, sedges, 

rushes, and woody species like willow and cottonwood. Restoring riparian habitats will require 

streambank stabilization projects that may include 

mechanized streambank reconstruction, fencing to 

exclude livestock from the riparian corridor, and the 

use of adaptive management to decide if haying or 

grazing would be needed to improve migratory bird 

habitat. Conducting a big game hunting program may 

reduce the effects of wintering native ungulates. 

Haying, Grazing, and Prescribed Fire 

Haying and rotational grazing of refuge habitats 

in the summer and fall of each year have helped to 

support wet meadow use by migratory birds. Some 

areas along the Bear River may have the potential to 

support woody riparian vegetation which would benefit neotropical migrant bird species along with other 

aquatic and terrestrial species. Woody riparian vegetation would also improve bank stability and erosion 

control. We will consider management options for 

establishing woody riparian vegetation. 

On some sites, prescribed fire can be used to 

improve the control of invasive species, increase plant 

diversity, or set back succession to improve wildlife 

habitat. Prescribed fire would be a new tool in the 

habitat management toolbox, not a replacement of 

other treatment options. 

Invasive Species 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge occupies part of an 

agricultural landscape and is intermixed with private 

farm and ranch lands. As such, concerns have been 

raised about both plant and animal invasive species. 

The refuge would develop an Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) plan that would define the proper 

use of chemical, biological, and mechanical treatment 

methods for the most effective control of invasive 

plants. The refuge will also collaborate with the 

State and other cooperating agencies to address invasive species. 

The refuge will have to engage and work with the 

State and other cooperative agencies to address 

issues and concerns about aquatic invasive species, 

like zebra and quagga mussels, throughout the Bear 

River watershed. 

Carp control and management would be conducted on the refuge to reduce sediment and other 

pollutants and improve water quality within the wet 

meadow habitats. Scoping revealed a desire by some 

to harvest carp from flooded wet meadow habitats in 

the spring. While removing carp from the meadows 

could improve water quality, recreational harvest is 

unlikely to be an effective control technique and 

would create unacceptable disturbance to nesting 

migratory birds. The public harvest of carp could be 

allowed in designated areas on the Bear River. 

Pintail 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

Wildlife Disease, Crop Depredation, and 

Private Property Damage 

Neighboring landowners want us to address the 

potential spread of wildlife diseases to their livestock 

and crop depredation on their lands. These concerns 

were raised before and during public scoping for the 

CCP. 

The primary wildlife disease concern is brucella 

transmission when elk commingle with cattle. The 

refuge is working with WGFD to keep elk and cattle 

separate. In some extreme cases, elk are hazed from 

private and refuge lands. An elk hunting program 

may begin in 2014, and one of its goals is to disperse 

wintering elk from the refuge. 

Depredation involves damage to small grain crops 

by waterfowl and other migratory birds and is a 

more difficult issue. However, in recent years, refuge 

permittees have planted a small grain crop on the 

refuge to help offset depredation on private land. If 

upland restoration takes place on the refuge and 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 25 

small grain crops are used for 2–3 years per rotation, 

this will provide migrating flocks with a food source 

on the refuge, which may reduce their foraging on 

private fields. As the refuge acquires more in-holdings, we will continue to work with WGFD to address 

the depredation issue. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Native plant communities in the Bear River Basin 

evolved under a disturbance regime that included 

grazing animals, fire, and weather events. This periodic disturbance kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while supporting significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years. Historically, natural fire and 

Native American ignitions played an important role 

in most ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the effects of insects and diseases, stimulating regeneration, cycling critical nutrients, and 

providing a variety of habitats for plant and animal 

species. 

After European settlement, wildfires were suppressed. Today, most local fire departments and area 

farmers and ranchers still aggressively suppress 

wildfires. We have not used prescribed fire for habitat management or fuel reduction purposes on the 

refuge. It has been our policy to aggressively suppress wildfires because the refuge is too small and 

too close to farm and ranchsteads to use wildfire 

management as a tool. Thus, all unplanned ignitions 

will continue to be suppressed in accordance with 

Federal fire policy. 

Before establishment, local farmers and ranchers 

periodically burned agricultural lands within the 

refuge boundary. This CCP does allow the use of prescribed fire for specific purposes, contingent on the 

right plans, funding, and on having the qualified staff 

to conduct such a program. 

Visitor Services and Cultural 

Resources 

Following are issues involving visitor services and 

cultural resources. 

Public Access 

In accordance with the Administration Act (see 

appendix E), all national wildlife refuges are closed 

to public use until they are formally open to the public. Accordingly, Cokeville Meadows Refuge has been 

closed to the public since it was established. The lack 

of opportunities for people to engage in wildlifedependent recreation was perhaps the most consistent and widely held issue raised during public 

scoping. 

Because access to the refuge is required for 

authorized public use, resolving such issues must be 

considered in the planning process. Vehicular access 

is allowed only by special use permit and public 

access to the Bear River has not been authorized due 

primarily to private land access issues and to safety 

issues involving railroad crossings. We will work to 

provide foot and vehicle access points on both the 

east and west sides of the refuge. Because of limited 

staff and finances, however, creating and supporting 

one refuge access point is a more realistic goal. Additional foot or vehicle access points may depend on 

added volunteers, partners, and money. 

The Improvement Act identifies six priority public 

uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

Congress deemed these to be appropriate on refuges 

and to be facilitated whenever they are compatible 

with refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission. In 2006 the refuge constructed a visitor contact 

station, an information kiosk, and a walking trail at 

the Netherly Slough along U.S. Highway 30. It 

became the only area of the refuge open to public 

access. Environmental education, interpretation, 

wildlife observation, and photography are compatible 

uses for this area. Elsewhere on the refuge, 

We have not had the staff or money to conduct 

planning for opening hunting and fishing programs. 

Land acquisition at the refuge has been slow; for 

many years, the refuge did not have a sufficient land 

base to support some forms of recreation. In close 

consultation with WGFD, we prepared a draft hunting plan and associated EA to open Cokeville Meadows Refuge to the hunting of big game, small game, 

and migratory birds beginning in 2014. That plan 

was released for public review and comment in 

December 2012. If the NEPA analysis results in a 

finding of no significant impact, we will submit a rule 

for publication in the Federal Register that will open 

the refuge to hunting in the fall of 2014. 

Members of the public also want to use the refuge 

for non-wildlife dependent recreation such as all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, and horseback riding. 

These will be evaluated for appropriateness (603 FW 

1) within the development of this CCP. However, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (see appendix E) prohibits those forms of recreation that are not directly 

related to the primary purposes of the refuge until 

the Secretary of the Interior determines that (1) the 

recreational use will not interfere with primary purposes for which the areas were established; and (2) 

that funds are available for the development, opera­
 

26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

tion, and maintenance of these permitted forms of 

recreation (Fischman 2003). 

Visitor Safety 

Seeing that the public has safe access to the refuge is a top priority for us. Access from U. S. Highway 30, which parallels the east side of the refuge, 

goes over an active railroad. Thus, existing crossings 

would need signals and cross arms. Coordinating this 

with the railroad company, funding, and the upkeep 

of safety equipment are major issues to consider. 

Hunting 

In close consultation with WGFD, we prepared a 

draft hunting plan and associated EA to open Cokeville Meadows Refuge to the hunting of big game, 

small game, and migratory birds. The plan was 

released for public review and comment in December 

2012. If NEPA analysis results in a finding of no significant impact, we will submit a rule for publication 

in the Federal Register that will open the refuge to 

hunting in the fall of 2014. 

The plan would allow licensed hunters to take 

jackrabbits, fox, skunk, and raccoon during open seasons for game species. Some members of the public 

also requested access to hunt a variety of species 

classified as predators by the State of Wyoming. 

Under State law, predators may be taken year-round 

without a license. The hunting of wolves and coyotes, 

however, would not be permitted under this plan. 

The hunting program will provide wildlife-dependent recreation for the public, including families. The 

big game hunting program would also help us to discourage the commingling of wild ungulates and livestock by disturbing elk on the refuge during the 

hunting season. 

Fishing 

We will seek to open portions of the Bear River to 

fishing on the refuge and will work directly with 

WGFD to adopt State fishing regulations. It is anticipated that WGFD staff will help with enforcement 

and to guide the public on refuge lands. Where the 

potential exists and there is enough support, the refuge will engage partners to find sites and develop 

areas with better fishing opportunities. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education, and 

Interpretation 

In response to scoping, we will seek to open portions of the refuge to wildlife observation and photography and work with partners to find ways to 

enhance visitor facilities for these activities. Our 

current visitor contact station, information kiosk, and 

walking trail at Netherly Slough will be maintained, 

and we will continue to provide limited staff-led environmental education and interpretation by request. 

Public Information 

As wildlife-dependent recreation expands, we will 

need to provide more information about it, including 

regulations. The refuge has not yet produced public 

information materials. Opening of the refuge to hunting would require us to provide brochures, leaflets, 

media announcements, and maps. 

Cultural Resources 

While there are no known National Register-eligible historic properties on refuge lands, we need to 

do more to inventory and manage our cultural 

resources. We will seek partners to help develop 

projects and programs to provide stewardship and 

interpretation for significant sites like historic trails. 

Law Enforcement 

As noted in scoping comments, hunting and other 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses will require 

adequate refuge law enforcement to insure public 

safety and a high level of compliance with regulations 

that protect wildlife and private property. We expect 

there to be sufficient Federal wildlife officers 

assigned to the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex to provide law enforcement at the refuge. 

Before 2010, the refuge did not have an assigned, 

commissioned Federal wildlife officer. Now there are 

two officers assigned to the Seedskadee National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, and we will seek to keep at 

least two officers throughout the life of this CCP. We 

will also continue to cooperate with WGFD, the Lincoln County sheriff, and other law enforcement agencies to provide added law enforcement at the refuge. 

Partnerships 

“Working with others” is part of our mission 

statement and is needed to achieve the vision and 

goals for the refuge. We are unlikely to have the 

resources necessary to accomplish the actions proposed in this CCP unless we engage partners in our 

cause. Because of the varied land ownership pattern 

in the Bear River watershed, we will need to cooperate with several Federal, State and local agencies; 
 

Chapter 2—The Refuge 27 

nongovernment organizations; and private landowners to address issues on a landscape scale. 

Existing partnerships with cooperative farmers 

and ranchers and with WGFD have been instrumental in our management of the refuge, and we will 

expand these throughout the life of this CCP. Developing a refuge Friends group is also an important 

strategy. Friends groups are private, independent, 

and nonprofit organizations that link communities to 

national wildlife refuges. Friends organizations collaborate with refuges to conduct public events, teach 

communities about conservation, restore habitat, 

keep trails, coordinate volunteers, and more. 

Refuge Development and 

Operations 

Many issues surround the daily maintenance and 

long-term development of Cokeville Meadows Refuge. Because there are no plans to split Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge off from Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex as a stand-alone station, we 

expect it to be administered as part of the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex throughout 

the life of the CCP and will continue to depend on the 

resources of the complex. 

Staff, Equipment, and Facilities 

We are responsible for managing more than 9,000 

acres at the refuge, including fee-title lands and conservation easements, yet our staff consists of only 

one full-time employee, an assistant manager. Additional staff within the is available to conduct refuge 

operation activities at Cokeville Meadows Refuge, 

but more staff may be needed. We also have limited 

equipment, and some of it is in poor condition and 

needs replacement. However, Seedskadee National 

Wildlife Refuge has a good fleet of equipment that 

can be shared among stations. 

We built a new, multi-purpose headquarters for 

the refuge in 2009. It has an office, shop, cold storage 

units, and an apartment. Other facilities, such as 

signs and fences, are in good-to-moderate condition 

and are maintained or replaced as needed. Water 

control structures and dikes are in good working condition and receive minor repairs as needed. 

The most significant facility needing replacement 

is the Pixley Dam, which was built in 1903 and is 

near failure. The operation and maintenance of the 

Pixley Dam is hazardous. We will work with neighboring landowners, irrigation interests, and others to 

replace the dam to improve safety, water management, and fish passage. 

Junk and Debris Removal 

The lands we acquired for the refuge often came 

with junk, debris, and old infrastructure that we had 

to remove to restore wildlife habitats. Rocks, dilapidated fence posts, wire, culverts, and more were 

placed in piles on the refuge for later disposal. They 

are now a danger to people and have created a safe 

haven from which some animals depredate migratory 

bird nests. Our staff has properly disposed of some of 

the remaining junk and debris, but more remains. 

Water Rights and Resources 

Water is the lifeblood of the refuge. It is on a 

floodplain, and all wildlife and habitats on the refuge 

depend on an adequate quantity and quality of fresh 

water. The refuge will use and improve current facilities and infrastructure to enhance habitats and to 

manage its water in support of the Federal water 

rights that have been acquired for the public. 

Using the refuge’s HGM report, we will evaluate 

the placement of facilities and may move, remove, or 

upgrade them to improve hydrologic processes. We 

will seek partners to help us develop infrastructure 

projects. The refuge’s water rights have been identified, and we are working to keep our surface and 

ground water rights in good standing with the Wyoming State Engineers Office. With help from our 

regional division of water resources, we will develop 

a water management stepdown plan that will quantify the refuge’s water rights in relation to Wyoming 

water law, the Bear River Compact, and the water 

rights of neighboring landowners. 

Land Protection 

Little progress has been made in recent years to 

acquire more lands within the refuge acquisition 

boundary. This complex issue requires finding money 

and willing sellers. We will seek to buy more fee-title 

and conservation easement lands and their associated 

water rights throughout the life of the CCP. 

We will also seek to acquire public lands within 

the refuge acquisition boundary. Beginning in 2004, 

attempts to withdraw public domain lands have been 

unsuccessful. We will continue to work with the BLM 

to achieve the withdrawal of the Federal mineral 

estate and approximately 500 surface acres of public 

lands now administered by BLM within the acquisition boundary. We will also work with the State of 

Wyoming to acquire State lands within the acquisition boundary through land exchanges. 
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Refuge Mineral Rights and Energy 

Development 

We typically acquire land for the Refuge System 

subject to any outstanding mineral rights. Most refuges, including Cokeville Meadows Refuge, include 

lands where we own the surface estate but not the 

mineral estate. We also do not want, or have the 

authority, to prevent a mineral holder from exploiting 

their property. We may, however, require that the 

mineral estate owner or lessee comply with NEPA 

regulations before we issue them a special use permit 

for use of the refuge’s surface estate for the exploration and extraction of minerals. NEPA protects the 

public’s interest in the refuge and makes sure that 

mineral exploration and extraction is conducted in a 

way that reduces effects to habitat and wildlife. 

The geography that lead pioneers and settlers to 

develop wagon trails through the Bear River Valley 

during our country’s westward expansion now draws 

the attention of pipeline and transmission line planners who want to transport the rich energy resources 

from Wyoming to population centers in the west. 

Developing energy transmission corridors through 

the refuge may significantly affect resources. We will 

communicate with project proponents and other 

State and Federal agencies as these projects are considered, and, for projects affecting neighboring lands, 

we will work with all parties to reduce or mitigate 

the negative effects to refuge habitats and wildlife. 

Refuge law and regulations do not apply to lands 

within the acquisition boundary that we have not yet 

acquired. Any new lands we accept will be subject to 

existing property rights, including rights-of-way 

(ROW). On lands where we have an existing real 

property interest, either in fee title or easement, we 

would need to issue a right-of-way before any new 

above- or below-ground transmission infrastructure 

could be built. The issuance of such rights-of-way 

would require more NEPA compliance that would be 

paid for by the proponent of the project and would be 

subject to a compatibility determination. Compatibility, a requirement of the Improvement Act, is difficult for such projects to meet. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge has never received the 

staff or money necessary for a scientifically sound 

inventory and monitoring program. Although more 

resources may become available during the life of 

this CCP, partnerships with others are necessary to 

obtain the monitoring data necessary for us to adaptively manage refuge habitats. We will work with 

WGFD and other partners to inventory and monitor 

wildlife populations and habitat conditions both on 

and off the refuge. This includes monitoring water 

quality and salt loading in wet meadow habitats. 

Monitoring programs are needed to assess water 

quality, including temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and sedimentation load, and other baseline information to find issues in the watershed that may affect 

aquatic species. 

Nuisance Animal and Predator Control 

Managing nuisance animals like beavers and 

muskrats that affect private or refuge infrastructure 

will be handled on a case-by-case basis in cooperation 

with WGFD and neighboring landowners. Special use 

permits may be issued to control nuisance wildlife 

that damage water control structures, irrigation 

infrastructure, or other property. A stepdown trapping plan that includes more NEPA compliance will 

be developed in cooperation with WGFD to authorize 

permitted trapping for beaver, mink, muskrat, bobcat, coyote, red fox, badger, weasel, skunk and raccoon on refuge lands in conjunction with an existing 

WGFD trapping program along the Bear River. 

We collected several comments and questions during scoping about how we will manage predators and 

furbearers on the refuge, such as when coyotes or 

wolves depredate livestock on private land from the 

sanctuary of refuge habitats. In accordance with our 

regional refuge policy on predator management on 

Refuge System lands, we will cooperate with, and 

provide access to, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Wildlife Services or State of Wyoming Predator Management staff for ground-based (shooting 

and trapping) predator management actions when 

evidence suggests that an individual predator or family group is depredating livestock. We will not, however, authorize prophylactic predator control or aerial 

gunning on refuge lands. 

Volunteers Programs 

Volunteers programs are a great way to introduce 

interested individuals and groups to the Refuge System and to involve them in the management of refuges. They provide a venue for people who want to 

help conserve natural resources with hands-on work. 

These programs are also enormously important to us 

because they help us to manage refuge resources, 

especially during times of fiscal uncertainty. Our 

staff would like to foster and support more volunteer 

groups at Cokeville Meadows Refuge for help in dayto-day operations. 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and 

Description 

Elk 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

This chapter describes the resources of Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge in Wyoming, which share many 

characteristics with the greater Bear River 

watershed. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

Cokeville Meadow Refuge is located in Lincoln 

County, Wyoming, near Utah and Idaho. It is just 

south of the town of Cokeville, and both are so named 

for nearby coal deposits. The refuge consists of 9,259 

fee-title and conservation easement acres within the 

Bear River watershed, which has a drainage area of 

about 4.8 million acres in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho. 

occurs as 

gusty wind

The frost-f

Days ar

days per y

summer. M

from 35 per

ber. Mean 

sonal total 

that of ann

below 0 °F

Climate 

The climate of the Cokeville Meadows region is 

semiarid, midcontinental (FWS 1992). Most precipitation that falls in the region is of Pacific origin; average annual precipitation is about 12 inches, with 

ranges from 9 to 18 inches annually. The area is dry 

most of the year. About 38 percent of precipitation 

rainfall from April to June. In winter, 

s can produce blizzards and drifting snow. 

ree season is only 60–70 days. 

e generally clear and sunny (about 250 

ear) and evaporation rates are high in the 

onthly average relative humidity ranges 

cent in July to about 75 percent in Decemmonthly pan evaporation rates have a seaof 31.3 inches, which is nearly three times 

ual precipitation. Temperatures are often 

 in winter and can exceed 90 °F in midsummer. Annual mean temperature is 38 °F. 

The combination of low precipitation, high evaporation, and high summer temperatures leads to scant 

free-standing surface water from summer through 

winter. 

Climate Change 

The Secretary of the Interior issued an order in 

January 2010 requiring U.S. Department of the Interior agencies with land management responsibilities 

to consider the effects of a potential climate change 

as part of their long-range planning endeavors. The 
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Department of Energy’s report, “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” concluded that 

ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce, or prevent, the loss of carbon 

now stored in the terrestrial biosphere (U.S. Department of the Interior 2010). 

Some members of the atmospheric sciences community believe that an increase in the average 

amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to the 

gradual rise in the world’s surface temperature and 

commonly refer to this scenario as “climate change.” 

In relation to comprehensive conservation planning 

for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related effect to be considered in planning. 

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities of green plants that occupy major habitats— 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, and tundra—are 

effective both in preventing carbon emission and in 

acting as biological “scrubbers” of atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

One habitat management activity in particular 

found in many wildlife refuges throughout our 

Nation—prescribed fire—releases carbon dioxide 

directly into the atmosphere from the biomass consumed during combustion. However, there is no net 

loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly germinates and sprouts to replace the burned biomass. 

This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal 

amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 

2006). 

Some other potential effects of a change in climatic conditions may need to be considered in the 

future, including: 

■■	 Habitat available in lakes and streams for 

cold-water fish such as trout and salmon 

could be reduced. 

■■	 The composition of vegetation in forested 

areas may change, with some plant species 

shifting their range northward or dying out 

and other plant species moving in to take 

their place. 

■■	 Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat because of stronger and more 

frequent droughts. 

■■	 Changes in the phenology of migration and 

nesting could put some birds out of synchronization with the life cycles of their prey and 

the habitat conditions that are conducive to 

their reproductive cycles. 

Land Features 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge is located in the Bear 

River Valley in southwestern Wyoming on a 20-mile 

stretch of the Bear River, which flows into the Great 

Salt Lake and is the largest river in the Western 

Hemisphere that flows into an inland sea. The headwaters of the Bear River are in the Uinta Mountains 

in northern Utah (Laabs et al. 2007). The river flows 

northward into southwestern Wyoming and passes 

near Evanston before looping back into Utah. As the 

river continues northward, it flows back into Wyoming just north of U.S. Highway 30 southwest of the 

town of Cokeville. The southern edge of the Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge acquisition boundary is near the 

site where the Bear River enters Wyoming. After 

leaving the northern Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

acquisition boundary, the river loops into Idaho and 

then descends southward into Utah, and flows generally south and westward near Logan, Utah, and eventually enters Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and 

the Great Salt Lake west of Brigham City, Utah. 

The longitudinal profile of the river is steep near 

its headwaters but flattens quickly as it reaches the 

Wyoming border near Evanston. At Cokeville Meadows Refuge, the river gradient is about 2 feet per 

mile. The uplands to the east of the Bear River Valley constitute the divide between the Great Salt Lake 

and the Green River and Colorado River watershed. 

The uplands to the west of the Bear River Valley 

form the divide between the circuitous drainage of 

the Bear River and the direct drainage into the 

Great Salt Lake. 

The Bear River Valley reaches its greatest width 

(about 3 miles) just north of the south border of Wyoming. Then the valley narrows to less than one-quarter-mile wide at Myers Narrows, about nine miles 

south of Evanston, and then to less than 100 yards 

wide at the narrows, north of Evanston. The Bear 

River Valley widens again to about 2 miles at Cokeville Meadows Refuge and then narrows again just 

north of the town of Cokeville, Wyoming, where it is 

less than one-quarter-mile wide. 

Southwestern Wyoming, west of the Green River 

Basin, is characterized by north-trending mountain 

ranges, ridges, and valleys that represent diverse 

geological formations (Veatch 1907). The area under 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge includes complex folded 

and eastward-thrust rocks of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, 

and early Tertiary ages overlain by slightly deformed 

later Tertiary and Quaternary sediments. The 

north–south belt of mountains and overthrust faults 

is known as the “Overthrust Belt” Geologic Province 

of western Wyoming, southeastern Idaho, and northeastern Utah (Blackstone 1977). The Overthrust Belt 

is part of an extensive area of folding and faulting 
 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 31 

that runs north–south from Canada to Mexico, also 

known as the Cordilleran Fold Belt (Ver Ploeg and 

DeBruin 1982). Additional detailed information on 

the geology of the refuge vicinity can be found in 

other sources such as Lines and Glass (1975), Rubey 

et al. (1980), Bradley (1936), Laabs et al. (2009), 

Reheis et al. (2005), Reheis et al. (2009). 

The contemporary geomorphologic surfaces at 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge (Reheis et al. 2005) are 

primarily one- to two-mile-wide Holocene alluvial 

deposits from the Bear River flanked by younger-age 

alluvial fans and low terraces. The alluvial fill 

exceeds 185 feet in thickness in some areas of the 

Bear River Valley near Cokeville Meadows (Robinove et al. 1963). Alluvial fan deposits, which extend 

about two-thirds up the Bear River Valley in the 

Cokeville Meadows region, reach a thickness of 75 

feet. Natural levees occur next to larger perennial 

tributary streams, and some older, partly buried or 

scoured, natural levees exist next to former abandoned channels of the Bear River. Other important 

geomorphic surfaces include active alluvial fans on 

the west side of the valley, older Pleistocene terraces 

and glacial outwash on the southeast side of the valley, Pleistocene sediment deposits, the alluvium of 

side slopes and small intermittent streams, and older 

terraces and alluvial fans. Drainage within the area 

is through many streams and creeks that flow 

directly into the Bear River or by infiltration into 

alluvial fans and terrace deposits next to the river 

floodplain. 

Elevations on Cokeville Meadows Refuge range 

from about 6,500 feet above mean sea level on the 

bluffs at the south end, to about 6,170 feet on the 

north end where the Bear River exits the refuge. 

Topographic heterogeneity on the refuge is related to 

historical Bear River channel and tributary channel 

migrations, minor within-floodplain channels, floodplain scouring, and alluvial deposition. Significant 

topographic features include the many abandoned 

channels of the Bear River, old alluvial and glacial 

terraces, and alluvial fans. 

Subsurface Minerals within the Refuge 

Boundary 

The subsurface minerals that can be found within 

the approved acquisition boundary of the refuge 

include coal, phosphate, potash, sodium, oil, and gas. 

Soils 

Soil mapping for the Cokeville Meadows region of 

Lincoln County, Wyoming, is incomplete, and contemporary, detailed soil maps for the refuge are not 

available. Soil maps from the Bear River Valley 

immediately upstream of Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

in Rich County, Utah, and a preliminary interim soil 

map prepared by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service for the Bear River Valley in Lincoln 

County provide general descriptions of soil types and 

their distribution. Clearly, about 12 major soil types 

or groups are present on, or next to, Cokeville Meadows Refuge. The arrangement of soils on the refuge 

is complex and reflects the many channel migration 

events across this floodplain, introduction of mixederosion sediments from surrounding Quaternary and 

Tertiary terraces, and alluvial deposition of Bear 

River Valley parent materials. 

Most soils on the refuge are shallow, with thin 

veneers of loam, silt, and clay overlying deeper sands 

and gravels, and can generally be categorized by 

three broad groups. The largest geomorphic soil 

group occupies floodplains and low terraces and is of 

the Calciaquoll-Cryaquoll-Riverwash Association. 

This group is characterized by nearly level to 

strongly sloping (from 0- to 15-percent slopes) soils 

that are generally deep, variable in texture, and 

derived from alluvium. Test borings and wells show 

that the greatest thickness of the alluvium, including 

thin veneers of silt loams and underlying alluvial 

sands and gravel, is about 150 feet thick (Robinove et 

al. 1963). Silts that overlay gravel typically are less 

than 6 feet below the surface. Wader loam is made up 

of most soils immediately next to the active Bear 

River channel, and Dogie Creek sandy loam occupies 

natural levees along the Bear River channel. Floodplain soils that overlie former meander belts of the 

Bear River include Bear Lake silt loam, and Berenicteon silt loam. Abandoned channels and other meander belt depressions in the Bear River floodplain have 

clay or silt-clay soils overlying sands and gravels of 

former river channel bottoms. 

The second soil group at Cokeville Meadows Refuge occurs on alluvial fans and high terraces on the 

edges of the Bear River floodplain. These soils are 

found on nearly level to moderately steep slopes 

(from 0- to 30-percent slopes) and are generally welldrained gravelly and cobble silty and sandy loams 

such as Nevka loam, and Duckree gravelly loams. 

Alluvial fan deposits may reach a thickness of 75 feet. 

The third group is present on the foothills of the 

Overthrust Belt and is of the Calciorthrid-Haploxeroll-Torriothent Association. Geologic overthrusting 

and the resulting mixed parent materials have produced variable soil textures and complex soil or landform relationships. 
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Yellow-headed Blackbird 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

Water Resources 

Described below are Cokeville Meadows Refuge’s 

hydrology, water quality, and water rights. 

Hydrology 

Waterflow into the Bear River comes from 

regional precipitation, snowmelt, and ground water 

discharge. The Smith’s Fork River and the Sublette, 

Twin, Spring, Brunner, Muddy, and Coral Creeks are 

major tributaries to the Bear River near Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge. Water in the Bear River is fresh, 

but shallow depressions and larger lakes in the system can be highly saline. The Bear River at Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge has little gradient, channel slope is 

approximately 1.5–2 feet per mile. The flat relief and 

low stream gradient have caused the Bear River to 

often alter its course across the floodplain, which has 

created many abandoned river channels and 

entrenched meanders. Most of the refuge acquisition 

boundary is within the 100-year floodplain (figures 10 

and 11). 

Historically, the Bear River had a strongly unimodal discharge, or river stage pattern, with peak 

discharges above 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 

June and relatively sustained low discharges near 100 

cfs from August through February. Water from the 

Bear River begins to enter many off-channel oxbows 

and depressions at about 300 cfs, and much of the 

floodplain is inundated at discharges of greater than 

1,000 cfs. Consequently, historical flow data suggest 

overbank and backwater flooding from the Bear 

River into the Cokeville Meadows floodplain ecosystem has typically occurred for only short time periods in late May through mid-June in most years. 

While of short duration, these seasonal floods 

recharge floodplain wetlands to their highest levels in 

spring. Thereafter wetlands gradually dry from 

evapotranspiration to low maintenance levels in the 

winter. 

Besides the strong seasonal pattern of river discharge, stage data from the Bear River below Pixley 

Dam, near Cokeville, Wyoming, show a long-term 

pattern of peak discharges about every 12–15 years 

when the river exceeds 1,500 cfs. In contrast, intervening dry years did not have river discharges 

greater than 500 cfs. During the 60-year record 

below Pixley Dam, the Bear River exceeded 1,500 cfs 

for 9 years and was below 500 cfs for 15 years. This 

suggests that there is a highly dynamic flooding environment for floodplain wetlands in the Cokeville 

region. Years with extensive overbank flooding punctuate years with more regular, moderate flows and 

frequent dry years (Wyoming Water Development 

Commission 2001). 

The central division of the Bear River in Wyoming, including Cokeville Meadows Refuge, has 

about 500,000 acre-feet of waterflow in wet years, 

about 190,000 acre-feet in average years and essentially no flow in extremely dry years. In average and 

wet years, available waterflow occurs during the 

nonirrigation season (August–March) on both the 

Smith’s Fork and Bear River mainstem channels. The 

long-term, alternating wet–dry pattern of waterflow 

into the Bear River and the related, variable annual 

recharge of floodplain wetlands probably caused longterm, regularly fluctuating patterns of wetness and 

dryness in these wetlands at about 10- to 15-year 

intervals. 

Ground water in the refuge area is present in the 

Bear River Valley alluvium, alluvial fan deposits, and 

in older, underlying geologic formations. The alluvial 

aquifer underlying the refuge is bounded laterally 

and vertically by relatively impermeable shale 

(Glover 1990). This shale layer effectively prevents 

ground water movement between the alluvial aquifer 

and other, deeper formations. The potentiometric 

surface of the alluvial aquifer, a hypothetical surface 

representing the level to which ground water would 

rise if not trapped in a confined aquifer, shows that 

water enters the aquifer as underflow from the Bear 

River at the upstream part of refuge and then this 

water discharges downstream into the Bear River 

(Berry 1955). A second source of water recharge into 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 33 

the alluvium is leakage from tributary streams. Generally, ground water levels in the alluvium mirror 

seasonal precipitation and Bear River discharge 

patterns. 

Alluvial fan deposits also yield large quantities of 

water where they overlie the alluvium, but the 

amount of ground water gradually decreases away 

from the Bear River as the saturated thickness 

decreases (Berry 1955). The recharge for alluvial 

fans is derived mainly from infiltrations of surface 

runoff. Several older geologic formations that underlie the area, including Madison limestone, the Amsden Formation, Tensleep sandstone, the Bear River 

Formation, and the Wasatch Formation, also provide 

moderate quantities of ground water to wells. Water 

from these formations is generally under artesian 

head and often moves to the land surface as low elevations dip from their outcrop areas. Up to 100 gallons of water per minute occur in artesian wells 

derived from the Madison limestone and Tensleep 

sandstone outcrops. 

Transpiration, primarily from willows, persistent 

emergent wetland plants, and wet meadow grasses 

and sedges or rushes that obtain water directly from 

the water table, is a significant type of ground water 

discharge during the summer (Glover 1990). The 

amount of water that discharges as transpiration 

depends on the consumptive needs of various plant 

species and the depth to water. Transpiration is 

higher when the water table is high and at the land 

surface (such as in wetter years) and decreases as 

depth to water increases. 

Ground water from the northern part of the Bear 

River Valley, including the Cokeville Meadows area, 

is of a calcium bicarbonate type, but constituents 

vary by geological source (Robinove et al. 1963). 

Total mineral content of alluvial ground water is 

285–510 parts per million dissolved solids. Ground 

water seepage from the Smith’s Fork River influences local ground water quality and clearly reduces 

local sodium and chloride levels. Generally, wells tapping alluvium up gradient and away from return flow 

into the Bear River have water that is lower in dissolved solids and with lower sodium and chloride 

content than sites close to the river channel. Terrace 

deposits and alluvial fans contain magnesium-calcium 

bicarbonate-type ground water with moderate 

amounts of sulfate. Deeper artesian ground water 

contains mixed-type water, predominantly sodiumcalcium sulfate and bicarbonate types. 

White-faced Ibis 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

Water Quality 

Surface water quality in the Bear River and floodplain wetlands varies because of human activities and 

natural processes and is affected by the water’s 

source and drainage. The area is underlain by Precambrian metamorphic rocks on the north slopes of 

the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah and 

underlain by Tertiary formations and lined by Tertiary and Cretaceous rocks in Wyoming. Seasonal 

fluctuations in the discharge of the Bear River are 

accompanied by relatively minor changes in the total 

mineral content of the water; the effects of high flows 

in spring include mainly the dilution of major 

constituents. 

Bear River water generally has a progressive 

increase in mineral content as it approaches the 

Beckwith and Quin Dam (BQ Dam) and then 

decreases in mineral content as it flows downstream 

from the BQ Dam to Cokeville, Wyoming. Part of this 

latter decrease in mineral content is due to dilution 

by lower-mineral water entering the Bear River from 

the Smith’s Fork River (Robinove et al. 1963). In the 

central watershed, water quality is changed by 

excess suspended sediments, high levels of nutrients, 

and high water temperatures along some reaches 

(Bear River Watershed Information System 2007). 

Nutrient and sediment loads of the Bear River progressively decrease through the central region until 

the river reaches the confluence with Smith’s Fork 

(Bear River Watershed Information System 2007). 

Inflow from Smith’s Fork has especially high nutrient 

and sediment loads during the summer. 

The upper part of the Smith’s Fork has relatively 

good water quality. However, as this tributary travels through lower-gradient land, water quality 
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 10. Light detection and ranging-generated (LIDAR) topography—with hydrology and water 

control structures—of the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming (North). 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 35 


Figure 11. Light detection and ranging-generated (LIDAR) topography—with hydrology and water 

control structures—of the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming (South). 
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

decreases due to a variety of sources. At the confluence of Smith’s Fork with the Bear River, water quality is changed by sediments. Bank erosion is the main 

identified contributor. WFGD established the Smith’s 

Fork Steering Committee in 2004 to attempt to 

reduce high-sediment loads, increase bank stability, 

and improve wildlife habitat through best management practices, changing grazing practices, and controlling seasonal burns. 

Agrichemicals pose another water quality issue. 

Elevated levels of phosphorus and nitrogen degrade 

water quality, but this issue occurs primarily downstream of the refuge and is beyond the scope of this 

CCP. Now, sediments are the greatest concern on the 

refuge and for adjacent upstream and downstream 

reaches of the Bear River. Sediment loads increase 

because of construction, grazing, and natural 

instream erosion. Irrigation return flows to the Bear 

River may also contribute to water quality issues, 

including nitrogen concentrations from animal 

wastes. Streambank stabilization and keeping livestock at controlled watering points may address the 

larger issues (Krueger 1994; Winward 1994). 

Water Rights 

The Bear River Commission was formed by compact in 1958 to allocate water use throughout the 

watershed. Major uses include agriculture, irrigation, 

power generation, recreation, and municipal and 

industrial needs. The Bear River’s average annual 

inflow to the Great Salt Lake is nearly 1.2 million 

acre feet, and, with this plentiful water supply, the 

Bear River Basin is one of the few areas remaining in 

the State of Utah with a substantial amount of developable water. Water rights for the Bear River are 

fully allocated, but not fully developed (table 4). 

Table 4. Water rights summary for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Volume Volume, 

Permit number, proof Priority rate, cubic gallons Irrigation Use	 number date	 feet per per acres
 

Source 

second minute 


Permit #12453 

Proof 16322 6/1/1914 1.22 Irrigation 80 Ellen Reservoir 

Permit #195333 Ground water 

Beckwith No. 1 Enl. 12/22/2010 2000 Irrigation 290.67 (Pending 2,000 gallons 

and Replacement per minute) 

Permit #195332 Ground water 

Thornock Bros No. 1 12/22/2010 2000 Irrigation 284.16 (Pending 2,000 gallons 

Replacement Well per minute) 

U.W. 42138 

Cornia No. 3 Well 4/8/1977	 1300 Irrigation 347.76 Ground water 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 23297 (44A)	 6/9/1909 4.97	 Domestic, Irrigation 348 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 20756 (15, a)	 6/9/1909 0.29 Irrigation 39.76 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 15155 (15, A)	 6/9/1909 0.69	 Irrigation, 

Stock 48.6 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

U.W. 15162 	

Corina No. 2 Well	 8/14/1972 25	 Domestic or Stock Ground water 

Permit 295E 	

Proof 9993 (41, a)	 5/31/1897 7.34 Domestic, Stock 

Smith’s Fork 

Irrigation District 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 23411	 6/9/1909 2.2	 Irrigation, 

Domestic 514.66 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Air Quality 

Air quality problems in Wyoming are usually 

related to urban areas in mountain valleys or to river 

valleys that are sensitive to temperature inversions. 

Particulate matter and carbon monoxide have the 

greatest adverse affects on Wyoming’s air quality. 

Particulate matter is a measure of tiny liquid or solid 
Table 4. Water rights summary for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Volume Volume, 

Permit number, proof Priority rate, cubic gallons Irrigation Use	 number date	 feet per per acres
 

second minute 


Source 

Proof 4451E 

Tanner Supply Ditch 

Enl. 

4/18/1925 0.38 Irrigation 27.1 Antelope Creek 

U.W. 74218	 

Buckly No. 4 

Enl. Well	 

11/9/1984 450	 Irrigation* 

Ground water 

(450 gallons per minute Supplemental Sup

ply to lands under 

U.W. 60699) 

U.W. 59625 	

Buckly No. 3 Well	 7/1/1982 25	 Domestic, 

Stock Ground water 

U.W. 60689 	

Buckly No. 4 Well 2/8/1982 1000	 Irrigation* 158.62 

Ground water 

(Supplemental supply 

under 9120 and 4451E 

1000GPM) 

Permit 9120 

Proof 23297 (Etcheverry Sheep CO) 6/9/1909 0.4	 Irrigation,	 

Domestic	 27.55 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Permit 9120 

Proof 23412 

(20A, 30) 

6/9/1909 0.93	 Irrigation* 65.21 

Smith’s Fork 

Irrigation District 

(36.67 Acres irrigated 

by supplemental sup

ply through Pixley) 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 15155 (20a, 30)	 6/9/1909 0.75	 Irrigation, 

Stock 52.6 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 20756 (20A, 30)	 6/9/1909 1.14 Irrigation 80.45 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Territorial Permit 

Proof 8617 (19, a-c) 5/31/1878 1.6	 Irrigation 787 Bear River 

Territorial Permit 

Proof 8619 12/31/1879 2.29 Irrigation 160 

Bear River 

(Service has part of 

total permit) 

Territorial Permit 

8621 (19, a-c) 12/31/1880 0.43 Irrigation 30 

Bear River 

(Service has part of 

total permit) 

Territorial Permit 

8634 (19, a-c) 12/31/1881 2.37 Irrigation 166 

Bear River 

(Service has part of 

total permit) 

U.W. 57459	 

Thornock No. 3 Well	 4/14/1981 1200	 Irrigation, 

Stock 212.6 Ground water 

U.W. 73966 

Thornock No. 3 

Enl. Well 

6/9/1982 200 Irrigation 158.62 Ground water 

Permit 3264 

Proof 8722 6/12/1901 1.14 Irrigation 80 Bear River 

Territorial Permit	 

Proof 8883	 12/31/1881 0.28 Irrigation 20 North Lake Spring 

Creek 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 37 

­

­
Table 4. Water rights summary for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Volume Volume, 

Permit number, proof Priority rate, cubic gallons Irrigation Use	 number date	 feet per per acres
 

second minute 


Source 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 16241	 6/9/1909 5.49 Irrigation 384 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Permit 9120 	

Proof 23412	 6/9/1909 0.08	 Irrigation* 5.98 

Smith’s Fork 

Irrigation District 

(Supplemental supply 

under Terr through 

Pixley Ditch) 

Territorial Permit 

Proof 8918 12/18/1908	 Not	 

quantified	 

Stock*, 

Domestic*, 

Irrigation* 

Tributary of Bear 

River (supplemental 

supply for BQ Dam 

East Use: S, D, I) 

Territorial Permit	 

Proof #8617	 5/31/1878 0.68 Irrigation 48 Bear River (Plus Sucker Springs) 

Territorial Permit 

Proof #8634 (44A) 12/31/1881 0.29 Irrigation 20 Bear River 

U.W. 41237 

Bartek No. 1 Well 7/20/1977	 718 Irrigation 352 Ground water 

Permit 9120 

Proof #23297 (20A, 30) 6/9/1909 0.01	 Irrigation* 6.91 

Smith’s Fork 

Irrigation District 

(Supplemental supply 

under Leeds Ditch 

1888 Priority and 1301 

Enl. 

Permit 9120 	

Proof #20756 (44A)	 6/9/1909 3.38	 Irrigation, 

Domestic 236 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

Permit 1761E 

Proof 8782 8/3/1907 0.08 Irrigation 6 Bear River 

Territorial Permit 

Proof #8621 (Etcheverry Sheep CO) 12/31/1880 2.35 Irrigation 165 Bear River 

Territorial Permit 

Proof #8634 (Etcheverry Sheep CO) 12/31/1881 0.58 Irrigation 41 Bear River 

Territorial Permit 

Proof #8622 12/31/1880 11	 Irrigation 766 Bear River 

U.W. 308 

Etch No. 1 Well 7/24/1959	 1440 Irrigation 154.25 Ground water 

Permit 295E 

Proof 9993 (Etcheverry Sheep CO) 5/31/1887 0.37 Stock, 	

Domestic	 

Smith’s Fork 

Irrigation District 

Permit 2066E 

Proof #14118 3/8/1909 0.4 Irrigation 28 Pine Creek 

Permit 9120 	

Proof #23410	 6/9/1909 0.01	 Irrigation, 

Domestic 0.75 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

­
Table 4. Water rights summary for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Volume Volume, 

Permit number, proof Priority rate, cubic gallons Irrigation Use	 number date	 feet per per acres
 

second minute 


Source 

Permit 2065E 	

Proof #14114	 3/6/1909 0.4 Irrigation 28 Smith’s Fork Irrigation District 

*Title 41-3-113 Wyoming Statute for Supplemental Supply Water Rights: A supplemental supply water right is 

defined as a permit or certificate of appropriation for the diversion, from a stream, of water from a new source of 

supply for application to lands for which an appropriation of water from a primary source already exists. Such 

supplemental supply permits or certificates of appropriation may be allowed by the State engineer or the State 

board of control under such regulations or conditions as he or it may prescribe. The use and administration of presently existing rights for supplemental supply appropriations or rights for supplemental supply appropriations 

hereafter acquired shall hereafter be made upon the express condition that the total amount of water to be diverted 

at any one (1) time both under a primary appropriation of water and a supplemental supply appropriation shall 

not be in excess of one (1) cubic foot of water per second of time for each seventy (70) acre tract so irrigated, except 

that when the right to divert water under the provisions of W.S. 41–4–317 through 41–4–324, is permitted the total 

amount of surplus water to be diverted at any one (1) time both under a primary appropriation of water and a supplemental supply appropriation shall not be in excess of one (1) cubic foot of water per second for each seventy (70) 

acre tract so irrigated. Nothing herein shall be construed to apply to water stored under a reservoir permit. (Wyoming Legislative Services Office. [No date]). 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 39 

particles in the air that may be breathed into the 

lungs. In the area of the refuge, carbon from automobiles, including all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, 

and diesel engines; soot from slash burning, forest 

fires, fireplaces, and wood stoves; and dust associated 

with windblown sand and dirt from roadways and 

fields may all contribute to particulate matter. The 

major sources of particulate matter are dust from 

vehicles traveling on unpaved roads and forest fire 

The wide range of altitudes in the Bear River 

watershed allows for diverse habitats. Grasslands 

and shrublands dominate the flats and lowlands, 

while pinion–juniper woodlands and pine forests are 

found on higher slopes. Big sagebrush is common on 

much of the landscape, although other shrubs, such as 

rabbitbrush, saltbush, and greasewood, may domi

nate some areas. Lower elevations are mostly private 

land, with most of the pasturelands in the wide val

leys used for agriculture and grazing. Bear River 

water is used extensively to irrigate alfalfa, pastureland, and small grain crops. 

The Bear River provides important wildlife cor

ridors for species migration in the western United 

States. The small, pristine mountain streams in the 

forested headwaters are ideal breeding habitat for 

the Bonneville cutthroat trout and leatherside chub, 

important native species. Many species, such as elk, 

black bear, pika, and marmots use these high-elevation forests and snow-covered mountain slopes. 

smoke. 

The refuge is in a designated Class I air quality 

area as defined under the Clean Air Act of 1977. Air 

quality here is considered good, with no nearby man

ufacturing sites or major air pollution sources. 

Throughout the year, occasional widespread regional 

smoke from large-scale forest fires located to the 

west and annual agricultural burning that occurs in 

Idaho reduce visibility at the refuge. The small par

ticles and aerosols resulting from these fires are car

ried long distances in the air and cause haze. 

­

­

­

Sandhill Cranes	 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

3.2 Biological Resources 

­

­

­
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

In the course of its 500-mile journey, the Bear 

River passes through three national wildlife refuges: 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge, Bear Lake Refuge, and 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. The primary 

routes of migratory birds following the Pacific and 

central flyways combine in the Bear River watershed. The refuges and adjacent areas provide essential habitat for many species of waterfowl and 

wading, shore, and upland birds that migrate 

through on their way to and from Canadian and Alaskan interior and coastal wetlands. 

More than 200 bird species have been documented 

within the watershed, half are closely associated 

with wetlands. Many marsh and shorebirds, including 

white-faced ibis, snowy egret, long-billed curlew, 

black tern, great blue heron, American bittern, blackcrowned night-heron, trumpeter swan, and sandhill 

crane, along with upland birds, such as the greater 

sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, can 

be found throughout the watershed. 

Besides bird species, several mammals are dependent on the blocks of intact habitat and the key 

migration linkages between these areas. Elk, mule 

deer, moose, and pronghorn depend on key wintering 

areas and migration corridors throughout the 

watershed. 

This section describes the specific wet meadows, 

uplands, riparian and river habitats (figure 12) and 

wildlife found on the refuge. 

Many of the wetlands on Cokeville Meadows Refuge flood seasonally. Local snowmelt initially fills the wetlands 

followed by snow at higher elevations that melts and eventually raises the Bear River. 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

Wet Meadow Habitat 

Wet meadows include a variety of wetlands, which 

are defined as lands where soil is saturated by water 

at least periodically or is covered by water (Cowardin 

et al. 1979). The degree of saturation determines the 

types of plants and animals that live in the soil or on 

the surface. Furthermore, wetlands can be consid

ered to be transitional areas between aquatic habi

tats and dry upland habitats. 

Several types of wetlands occur on Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge: (1) saline meadow; (2) wet meadow, 

consisting of native or tame grasses; (3) tall emergent 

wetland; and (4) open water, including managed 

impoundments that have shallow standing water for 

most of the growing season, small stock ponds, and 

irrigation canals. 

­

­

Saline Meadow 

Because of the geologic origins of some soils, salts 

tend to percolate to their surfaces when they are 

saturated with water. Only salt-tolerant plants may 

survive in saturated saline or alkali soils. Saline 

meadows are dominated by salt grass, greasewood, 

alkali sacaton, alkali cordgrass, and other salt-tolerant species. 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 41 


Figure 12. Existing habitats within the approved acquisition boundary of the Cokeville Meadows National 

Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

As snow on nearby mountains melts, the Bear River rises and water diverts into many of the refuge’s wetlands. 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

Wet Meadow 

Wet meadows may have shallow standing water of 

less than 6 inches dominated by meadow foxtail (Garrison grass is a cultivar), wire rush, and sedges. 

Tall Emergent Wetland 

Tall emergent wetlands occur during the primary 

growing season from late spring through summer 

and always have shallow standing water of less than 

12 inches dominated by hardstem bulrush and 

cattails. 

Open Water 

Open water plant communities include rooted, 

submerged aquatic plants such as pondweed and 

floating plants such as duckweed. 

Typically, wetlands support hydrophytes (waterloving plants) and hydric soils and hold water for 

most of the growing season (Cowardin et al. 1979). In 

predominantly arid southwestern Wyoming, water is 

a limiting factor for many species, and is highly 

attractive for most species. For many plant and animals, the availability of unbound water is essential. 

Below are listed the obligate emergent wetland and 

wet meadow bird species. 

Obligate emergent wetland bird species: 

■■ trumpeter swan 

■■ Canada goose 

■■ redhead 

■■ greater sandhill crane 

■■ white-faced ibis 

■■ Forster’s tern 

■■ black tern 

■■ common yellowthroat (warbler) 

Obligate wet meadow bird species: 

■■ American bittern 

■■ sora (rail) 

White-tailed deer, elk, striped skunks, deer mice, 

meadow voles, muskrats, northern leopard frogs, and 

wandering garter snakes are among the more common nonbird wildlife species found on the refuge’s 

wet meadow and wetland habitats. 

Results of the refuge’s HGM study show that 

human-caused changes in the local hydrology have 

altered the nature of wet meadow habitats on the 

refuge (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). Since refuge establishment, we have continued to flood wet meadows 

every year in a way similar to that used by the pioneer farmers and ranchers who developed the valley’s irrigation system in the early 20th century. 

Thus, the natural pulses of flooding and drying and 

drought cycles have been removed from the wet 

meadows for over 100 years. Our irrigation practices 

and those of earlier landowners resulted in extended 

hydroperiods. The meadows are flooded longer and 

deeper than they were under natural conditions. 

While the economic use of these lands for haying 

and grazing has resulted in excellent habitat for a 

variety of migratory birds and other wildlife, it has 
 

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 43 

also caused potentially negative changes, including 

the loss of native vegetation types and habitat diversity. Much of the meadows are covered with a near 

monoculture of creeping meadow foxtail (Alopecurus 

arundinaceus). As a result, native sedge, rush, and 

bulrush communities have declined. 

Water can be deep and semipermanent flooding prevalent in old river channels and depressions. This allows 

submerged aquatic vegetation such as bladderwort to thrive. 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

Upland Habitat 

Sagebrush-dominated habitats form one of the 

largest ecosystems in North America (Gleason and 

Cronquist 1964; Trimble 1999). In North America, 

sagebrush or shrub–steppe habitats are bounded on 

the west by the Sierra Nevada and the Cascade 

Range and on the east by the Rocky Mountains and 

the Colorado Plateau. These habitats run as far north 

as the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, and south 

to almost the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. 

These habitats are dominant in Utah, Nevada, western Colorado, southwestern Wyoming, southern 

Idaho, eastern California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Three major characteristics generally describe 

shrub–steppe habitats: (1) the great expanse in area 

occupied contiguously by a single plant or structural 

type; (2) the sharpness of the boundary, or ecotone, 

between adjacent habitat types; and (3) the occurrence of a single dominant species, like sagebrush, or, 

alternatively, the occurrence of few codominant species (Gleason and Cronquist 1964; Trimble 1999). 

In western States, shrub–steppe has been seriously degraded or completely removed through agricultural conversion, overgrazing by domestic 

livestock, invasion by exotic plants, expansion of 

pinion–juniper (Pinus spp.–Juniperus spp.), uncharacteristic wildfires, and habitat fragmentation. In 

fact, the changes that occurred since Euro-Americans arrived in the early 1800s were so rapid that 

little is known about the original landscape. 

Wildlife associated with shrub–steppe habitats 

may also be characterized by a limited number of 

species (Paige and Ritter 1999; Nicholoff 2003), and 

some of these are experiencing population declines. 

The sagebrush-obligate greater sage-grouse is of 

significant conservation concern throughout its 

range. The species is a candidate for listing under the 

ESA, and efforts to restore shrub–steppe habitat 

and grouse numbers are now the focus of multiple 

Federal and State agencies throughout western 

States and Provinces. Other obligate birds of shrub– 

steppe habitats, including many long-distance 

migrants, (Rich et al. 2005) have also shown significant population declines in recent years, including 

the sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage 

sparrow. 

Other species are considered shrub–steppe obligates part of the time, as they are found in habitats 

such as grasslands. Many of these species are also 

declining in population, including the short-eared owl 

and the vesper sparrow. Even the widely distributed 

Western meadowlark has shown declines in recent 

years. Below are listed the obligate and semiobligate 
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

grassland and shrub–steppe nesting bird species 

occurring at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. 

Obligate grassland community bird species: 

■■ short-eared owl 

■■ mountain plover 

■■ horned lark 

■■ western meadowlark 

Obligate sagebrush–steppe (Sagebrush-dominated) community bird species: 

■■ greater sage-grouse 

■■ sage thrasher 

■■ Brewer’s sparrow 

■■ sage sparrow 

Semiobligate sagebrush–steppe (Sagebrushdominated) community bird species: 

■■ ferruginous hawk 

■■ golden eagle 

■■ prairie falcon 

■■ mourning dove 

■■ western burrowing owl 

■■ common nighthawk 

■■ Brewer’s blackbird 

Pronghorn, mule deer, western jumping mice, 

Wyoming ground squirrels, black-tailed jackrabbit, 

desert cottontails, coyotes, northern sagebrush lizards, and Great Basin gopher snakes are among the 

more common nonbird wildlife species found on the 

refuge’s uplands habitat 

Emergents such as Baltic rush, native sedges, and creeping foxtail grow in large, seasonally flooded wetlands during 

the summer. 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

Riparian and River Habitats 

Riparian habitats compose less than 1 percent of 

the total area of the Wyoming Basin, and are important to regional biological diversity. Riparian zones 

can vary considerably in size and plant composition 

because of the many combinations that can be created between water resources and the physical characteristics of a site, such as gradient, aspect, 

topography, soil types, water quality, timing and 

period of water availability, elevation, and plant 

community. 

Riparian Corridors 

Several characteristics set the Bear River riparian corridor apart from its surrounding shrub– 

steppe habitat: (1) a well-defined moist-soil or wet 

habitat-type boundary, typically linear and parallel 

with the river; (2) a small size relative to the overall 

valley; (3) greater productivity in terms of biomass, 

both plant and wildlife; and (4) greater biodiversity. 

Riparian habitats are essential for many native wildlife species, especially migratory birds (Nicholoff 

2003) and are generally less resistant to human disturbances than other habitat types and sensitive to 

channel incision (Germanoski and Miller 2004). 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 45 

Listed below are the obligate riparian corridor 

bird species found at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. 

Obligate riparian corridor bird species: 

■■ western wood peewee
 

■■ yellow warbler
 

■■ common yellowthroat
 

■■ willow flycatcher
 

■■ song sparrow
 

Semiobligate riparian corridor bird species: 

■■ yellow-billed cuckoo
 

■■ MacGillivray’s warbler
 

■■ black-billed cuckoo
 

Raccoons, red foxes, moose, long-tailed weasels, 

North American porcupines, American beavers, Valley garter snakes, and tiger salamanders are among 

the more common nonbird wildlife species found on 

the refuge’s riparian habitat. 

Wetland Conditions 

Wetland acreages in Wyoming have declined in 

recent years because of agricultural conversion and 

urbanization (figure 13). Agricultural diversions, initially developed to remove soil salts and increase hay 

meadow production, have enhanced some wetlands 

along the central Bear River Basin. The Bear River 

wetlands are among the most productive and diverse 

bird habitats in Wyoming (USGS 1996). 

However, since the establishment of Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge in 1993, subtle changes in land use 

have occurred. There has been a shift from gravity 

flow flood irrigation to mechanical pump-driven 

sprinklers, which has dropped the water table in the 

Bear River floodplain (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). A lack 

of proactive wildlife management actions has 

affected vegetation types, and conveyance systems 

deteriorated, which affected wildlife use of the area. 

The initial refuge focal species, particularly Canada 

geese, redhead, canvasback, white-faced ibis, American bittern, and terns now range farther and nest in 

more favorable habitats. Field studies are ongoing, 

but preliminary results show that American bittern 

and cinnamon teal numbers have increased substantially since 1993. Nesting pairs of Canada goose, redhead, white-faced ibis, and terns have declined on the 

refuge, but they nest on adjacent lands and into Utah. 

The Thomas Fork and Smith’s Fork, tributaries to 

the Bear River, and the Bear River reach between 

them provide ideal habitat for the Bonneville cutthroat trout (Behnke 1992, Baxter and Stone 1995). 

The most genetically pure strain of Bonneville cutthroat trout within its ranges is found here. The Bear 

River links these tributary populations, resulting in 

what is likely the last connected large-river habitat 

available to Bonneville cutthroat trout. Habitat loss, 

migration barriers, and proposed reservoir development on Smith’s Fork threaten the native Bonneville 

cutthroat populations in the central watershed of the 

Bear River Basin. 

Trout Unlimited is involved in supporting and 

restoring migration corridors for the fish in Thomas 

Fork and Smith’s Fork, and WGFD completed fishery 

habitat improvements on the headwaters of Thomas 

Fork as part of the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Conservation Strategy (Bear Lake Regional Commission 

2000, Trout Unlimited 2005). Besides Bonneville cutthroat trout, several native nongame fish of conservation concern also inhabit the Bear River and its 

tributaries. These include bluehead sucker, western 

silvery minnow, and the finescale dace. 

There are a large number of carp in the river. 

When water is diverted into the wet meadows, carp 

make their way there. Carp can swim in the meadows where there is as little as 3 to 4 inches of water. 

Carp affect native species of fish and are not desirable on the refuge; however, there are not any wellknown ways to control this population. Some 

members of the public expressed interest in harvesting carp with archery equipment. Our refuge staff 

will address this request as a potential recreational 

opportunity in a future fishing plan. 

Haying, Grazing, and Prescribed 

Fire 

Haying and rotational grazing of refuge habitats 

is conducted in the summer and fall every year. Past 

management techniques have degraded some habitat 

types, particularly woody riparian communities. 

Prescribed fire has not yet been used on the refuge. If allowed, it would be a new tool in the habitat 

management toolbox and not a replacement for other 

treatment options. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

No federally listed threatened or endangered spe

cies are known to occur at Cokeville Meadows Ref

uge. However, one listed plant may occur in the area 

and several candidate species occur, or may occur, 

that warrant our attention. 

­

­
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 13. Potential historical habitats per the 2010 hydrogeomorphic method evaluation of the Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 47 

Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid 

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid is federally listed as a 

threatened species under the ESA. 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge lies within the range 

of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. This is a perennial 

orchid, 8- to 20-inches tall, with white or ivory flowers clustered into a spike arrangement at the top of 

the stem. This orchid normally blooms from late July 

through August. However, it may bloom in early July 

or still be in flower as late as early October, depending on climatic conditions. It is endemic to moist soils 

near wetland meadows, springs, lakes, and perennial 

streams where it colonizes early successional point 

bars or sandy edges. The elevation range of known 

occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet, although no known 

populations in Wyoming occur above 5,500 feet. Soils 

in which this orchid has been found typically range 

from fine silt or sand to gravels and cobbles, as well 

as highly organic and peaty soil types. It is not found 

in heavy or tight clay soils or in extremely saline or 

alkaline soils. Ute ladies’-tresses typically occurs in 

small, scattered groups found primarily in areas 

where vegetation is relatively open. 

Because this orchid species appears to take 5 to 10 

years to reach reproductive maturity, reproductively 

mature plants do not flower every year, and the refuge has not been specifically surveyed for its presence, it is unknown if this species exists within the 

boundary of the refuge 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Yellow-billed cuckoo is a candidate for Federal 

listing. The distinct population segment of the yellowbilled cuckoo west of the Continental Divide is a candidate for listing under the ESA (66 FR 143, 25 July 

2001). In Wyoming, the yellow-billed cuckoo is dependent on large areas of woody, riparian vegetation 

that combine a dense shrubby understory for nesting 

and a cottonwood overstory for foraging. Destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of wooded, 

riparian habitats are continuing threats to yellowbilled cuckoos in Wyoming. Additionally, project 

actions to control outbreaks of caterpillars, cicadas, 

or grasshoppers and the general use of insecticides 

in, or next to, riparian areas may negatively affect 

yellow-billed cuckoos. Surveys to find the presence of 

yellow-billed cuckoos are difficult because of the 

secretive nature of the species and the variability in 

the timing of nesting. None have been sighted or 

documented on the refuge. 

Greater Sage-grouse 

Greater sage-grouse is a candidate for Federal 

listing. They are dependent on sagebrush habitats 

year-round. Habitat loss and degradation, as well as 

the loss of population connectivity, have been identified as important factors contributing to the decline 

of greater sage-grouse populations across its range. 

This species has been documented in upland sites 

next to the refuge’s boundary, and there are historical records of this species using lands within the refuge’s acquisition boundary. 

Wyoming has adopted a “Greater Sage-grouse 

Core Area Protection” strategy to enhance conservation of the greater sage-grouse (State of Wyoming 

2011). The recommendations of the State Sagegrouse Implementation Team and State of Wyoming’s Core Area Protection strategy attempt to 

limit new development and harmful activities in 

areas with substantial sage-grouse populations. The 

northernmost portion of the Cokeville Meadows Refuge lies approximately 1 and a half miles due west of 

a designated sage-grouse core area. 

Gray Wolf 

Gray wolf is a species of concern in Wyoming and 

is federally listed under the ESA in other states. In 

Wyoming, gray wolves are no longer included on the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(50 CFR 17.11) and are no longer listed as a nonessential experimental population under the ESA (77 

FR 55530; September 10, 2012). The gray wolf in 

Wyoming is now managed by the State under the 

Wyoming Gray Wolf Management plan. This management plan strives to support a gray wolf population in 

Wyoming of at least 150 individual wolves and 15 

breeding pairs (at least 100 individuals and 10 breeding pairs outside of Yellowstone National Park and 

the Wind River Indian Reservation). 

Section 4(g)(1) of the ESA requires us to monitor 

for at least 5 years, in cooperation with the States, 

the status of all recovered species that have subsequently been removed from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The primary 

goal of this monitoring is to make sure that the status of the recovered species does not deteriorate. If 

an unanticipated decline were detected, measures 

would be taken to avoid the need to relist the species 

as threatened or endangered. 

Gray wolves follow the seasonal movements of big 

game and may occur in large ungulate migration, 

wintering, or birthing areas. While some project 

activities can affect gray wolves directly, changes to 

big game populations or herd movements can also 

affect their distribution, abundance, and survival. 

Pygmy Rabbit 

Pygmy rabbit is a species of concern. It is the 

smallest member of the rabbit family, and it occurs in 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

portions of many western states, including southwestern Wyoming. Pygmy rabbits are sagebrushobligate species that are primarily found in areas 

with deep soils that support dense big sagebrush 

communities, often where other species of sagebrush 

and forbs also occur. The conversion of sagebrush 

grasslands, habitat fragmentation, fire, invasive 

plants, and overgrazing are considered potential 

threats to pygmy rabbits. 

Planning measures that keep large tracts of suitable habitat and corridors to adjacent habitat will aid 

in the conservation of this species. In January 2008, 

our agency’s division of ecological services started a 

status review to find out whether or not this species 

warrants listing under the ESA. 

Mountain Plover 

Mountain plover is a species of concern. It is a 

migratory, terrestrial shorebird averaging 8 inches 

(21 centimeters) in body length. Mountain plovers are 

light brown above and white below, but lack the contrasting band characteristic of other plovers. They 

feed on invertebrates, primarily beetles, crickets, 

and ants. These plovers arrive at their breeding 

grounds in the western Great Plains and Rocky 

Mountain States in the spring. Southbound migration 

is prolonged, starting in late June and continuing 

through October. 

Suitable habitat for nesting mountain plovers 

includes grasslands, mixed-grassland areas and 

short-grass prairie, shrub–steppe, plains, alkali flats, 

agricultural lands, cultivated lands, sod farms, and 

prairie dog towns. 

White-tailed Prairie Dog 

The white-tailed prairie dog is approximately 13- 

to 15-inches long and weighs 1 to 3 pounds. It is a 

small, stout rodent within the squirrel family. Whitetailed prairie dogs have a short, white-tipped tail, 

large eyes, a blackish-brown cheek patch above and 

below each eye, and a tan-brown pelt. They typically 

inhabit moderately sloped grasslands, desert grasslands, and shrublands at altitudes ranging from 5,500 

to 9,800 feet. While this rodent occurs over much of 

its historical range, colonies are more widely dispersed and population sizes have declined. This species inhabits areas across western and central 

Wyoming, northwest Colorado, northeastern Utah, 

and a small area in south-central Montana. Wyoming 

holds most of its range. 

Prairie dogs serve as the primary prey species for 

the black-footed ferret and several raptors, including 

the golden eagle and ferruginous hawk. Prairie dog 

colonies and burrows also provide shelter or nest 

sites for species like the mountain plover and the burrowing owl. In May 2008, we started a status review 

to find out whether this species warrants listing 

under the ESA. 

Species of Concern 

Besides species that are federally listed for protection under the ESA, there are others that are of 

special concern because of the threats they face and 

because they may fit one of the following categories: 

■■	 They are now or have recently been under 

review to find out whether they may warrant listing under the ESA in the future. 

■■	 They were recently delisted and there is 

still need for some protection to ensure the 

species’ continued recovery. 

■■	 They are protected under Federal laws and 

warrant more attention. 

■■	 They are species that are considered likely 

to become candidates or proposed for listing 

in the near future and for which we have 

entered into conservation agreements. 

Effective planning now can help the long-term 

conservation of these species and remove threats 

that may contribute to the future need for listing 

under the ESA. 

The WGFD’s wildlife action plan entitled “A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Wyoming” provides a long-range conservation plan to 

conserve Wyoming’s “Species of Greatest Conservation Need”. The following are Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need for the area of Cokeville Meadows Refuge: 

■■ Bonneville cutthroat trout
 

■■ bluehead sucker
 

■■ leatherside chub
 

■■ mountain sucker
 

All of these species are identified as endemic 

aquatic species of the Bear River watershed in Wyoming. Among the threats they face are changes in 

the quantity and quality of the river waters in which 

they dwell because of pollution and increased sedimentation and temperatures; diseases like whirling 

disease; stream channel modifications such as dredging, impoundments, channelization, erosion, tree and 

shade removal; competition from aggressive, nonnative species; and hybridization with nonnative species, which makes them less resilient. 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 49 

Invasive Species 

Invasive plants found on the refuge include creeping meadow foxtail. Noxious weeds from the Wyoming State Noxious Weed List found at Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge include perennial pepperweed and 

Canada thistle. The only known aquatic invasive species of concern currently found on the refuge is carp. 

Other aquatic invasive species of concern, such as 

zebra and quagga mussels, have not been found on 

the refuge. 

Wildlife Disease, Crop 

Depredation, and Private Property 

Damage 

The greatest wildlife disease concern on the ref

uge is the potential for brucella transmission to cattle 

when they commingle with elk. Diseases such as 

botulism and West Nile are also informally moni

tored, but do not have a history of prevalence, at the 

refuge. 

Depredation concerns include damage to small 

grain crops by waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

In recent years, we have worked with permittees to 

plant a small grain crop on the refuge to help offset 

depredation and damage on nearby private lands. 

­

­

3.3 Visitor Services, Human 

History, and Cultural 

Resources 

This section details the various services provided 

to visitors at Cokeville Meadows Refuge and

describes its human history and cultural resources. 

Public Access 

Since establishment, Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

has been closed to public access. In 2006, the refuge 

constructed a visitor contact station, an information 

kiosk, and a walking trail at the Netherly Slough 

along U.S. Highway 30 for public use. Environmental 

education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and 

photography are compatible uses that are allowed at 

this site on the refuge. No other public uses are 

authorized without a special use permit. 

Private land issues affect access, which is allowed 

by vehicle only with a special use permit and which is 

not allowed via river boat. 

Pressure has grown to allow greater public use. 

But a lack of funding has meant there was not enough 

staff to manage public use activities. As a result, the 

refuge has remained closed. 

Visitor Safety 

The refuge acquisition boundary is bisected from 

north to south by the Union Pacific Railroad. Several 

tracts owned by the refuge are within this area. 

Thus, access to portions of the refuge requires crossing the railroad track, which poses a danger. 

Concerns about visitor safety have been few 

because public access is limited to a small number of 

special use permit holders. 

River Boating 

River boating is not allowed on the Bear River 

within the refuge acquisition boundary because: (1) 

riverflows can be reduced substantially at any of the 

dams and diversions, (2) inadequate access points for 

boat launching combined with low flows make it an 

unattractive recreational activity, and (3) it is not one 

of the six priority wildlife-dependent public uses of 

the Refuge System. 

Hunting 

We completed a hunting plan and EA in January 

2012 to open designated portions of the refuge to big 

game, upland game, and migratory bird hunting. The 

hunt plan package was submitted to our headquar

ters, and we anticipate the refuge will be open to 

hunting for the first time in the fall of 2014. 

Shed Antler Collecting 

The collecting of shed antlers is not one of the six 

priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities of 

the Refuge System. It is considered an economic 

activity, and all economic activities that take place on 

national wildlife refuges must pass an appropriateness test to be allowed and then must be found not 

only compatible with a refuge’s purposes but a contributor to their achievement and that of the mission 

­
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

of the Refuge System. We have conducted an appropriateness test (appendix H) for shed antler hunting 

and found it to be inappropriate at the refuge. 

The State of Wyoming has adopted shed antler 

collection regulations that prohibit the hunting or collection of shed antlers between January 1 and April 

30. This regulation allows shed antler hunting to 

start at the beginning of the migratory bird nesting 

season. Since Cokeville Meadows Refuge was established for the protection of migratory birds and their 

habitats, allowing antler collectors on the refuge to 

conduct this activity would pose unwanted disturbance to the migratory birds. By the time most elk 

and deer have shed their antlers, they have moved off 

the refuge to the east and onto BLM lands. There is 

more opportunity on those lands to collect antlers 

than on the refuge. Thus, shed antler collecting is not 

an appropriate use of Cokeville Meadows Refuge, and 

it is not compatible with the refuge’s purposes or 

with the Refuge System mission. 

Fishing 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge is not open to the public for recreational fishing, though that may change. 

A stepdown fishing plan will be prepared to open 

portions of the Bear River to fishing opportunities in 

accordance with WGFD fishing regulations. The fishing plan must undergo public review and comment 

and then be submitted to the Federal Register and 

be published as a final rule. 

Upon approval of a fishing plan, we anticipate that 

WGFD staff will help to enforce activities and guide 

the public on refuge lands. Where the potential exists 

and when there is enough support, the refuge will 

engage partners to find sites and to develop adequate 

public access for sportfishing. 

Trapping 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge has not been open for 

recreational or commercial trapping, but will be open 

to limited recreational trapping. Limited furbearer 

trapping may be authorized by special permit in 

accordance with State regulations. Furbearers and 

predator species available for regulated take by trapping include beaver, mink, muskrat, bobcat, red fox, 

badger, weasel, skunk and raccoon. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography are only 

allowed at the public use facilities located at the 

Netherly Slough, though we may seek to open more 

of the refuge to these uses. We will also work with 

partners to find areas where facilities and opportunities can be enhanced to improve these activities. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Environmental education and guided interpretation are provided by refuge staff, volunteers, or partners on request and when resources allow. Staff-lead 

programs are limited. We plan to add self-guided 

interpretive opportunities such as brochures and 

walking trails. 

Public Information 

Public information is available at the refuge office 

and at the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex headquarters and Web site, by way of the 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge link. The refuge does not 

currently have a general information brochure. We 

would like to expand the public information program 

at Cokeville Meadows Refuge to include the development of brochures and leaflets. 

Human History and Cultural 

Resources 

This section describes the human history and cultural resources found at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. 

Prehistoric Era 

Current archaeological evidence shows that the 

earliest human inhabitants of the area, referred to as 

paleo-Indians, migrated to the region near the close 

of the last ice age approximately 12,000 years ago. 

These people had a highly mobile lifestyle that 

depended on the hunting of large animals, including 

mammoths and huge, now-extinct bison species. The 

hallmarks of most paleo-Indian sites are the beautiful, but deadly, spear points that are recovered from 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 51 

animal kill and butchering sites, small temporary 

camps, or isolated occurrences. 

There was a gradual, but definite, shift in the pattern of human use of the region beginning about 

8,500 years ago that continued until approximately 

1,800 years ago. The changes during this period, 

referred to as the Archaic Period, were the result of 

a combination of a growing population, technological 

innovation, and regional influences. Regional climatic 

changes also had a strong influence. 

It is clear that the environmental conditions of 

early portions of the Archaic Period were affected by 

an Altithermal Climatic Period, characterized by a 

hotter, dryer climate that negatively affected human 

populations (James Enterprises, Incorporated 2003). 

The Altithermal was supplanted by the cool and wet 

Neoglacial Climatic Period during later portions of 

the Archaic Period (Johnson and Pastor 2003). As 

these environmental changes affected floral and faunal communities, cultures adjusted settlement and 

subsistence strategies accordingly (James Enterprises, Incorporated 2003). 

The Archaic Period is better represented in the 

archaeological record than the preceding PaleoIndian Period with a greater variety of tools and the 

evidence of a larger variety of plant and animal use 

found on many of the sites from that time. Houses 

built in shallow depressions (pit houses), generally 

smaller spear points, ground stone that reflects food 

processing, a wide variety of animal remains, a 

diverse tool assemblage, and multiple fire features 

are all often found on Archaic Period sites. 

The Late Prehistoric Period began approximately 

1,800 years ago and ended 250–300 years ago when 

European influences began to alter Native American 

cultures. The development of the bow and arrow, 

advancements in ceramic production, influences from 

neighboring regions, and a variety of features are 

hallmarks of sites dating to this period. Although 

population increases during this time are reflected in 

the increased number of sites, people continued to 

move about the landscape in small groups between 

periods of more sedentary lifestyles. 

Between Anno Domini 1700 and 1750, the beginning of the Protohistoric Period, Europeans and their 

material culture began to have a significant influence 

on the native populations. By the early 1700s, horses 

were introduced to the region, and, over the next several decades, trade and settlement increased at a 

steady and sometimes accelerated rate. The Shoshone were the dominant Late Prehistoric Period 

and Protohistoric Period Native Americans in the 

region. Other Native American tribes, including the 

Crow, Ute, Comanche, Salish, Arapahoe, Cheyenne, 

Sioux, and the Gros Ventre, also inhabited, or passed 

through, southwestern Wyoming (Backer et al. 2001, 

Thompson and Pastor 1995). By the beginning of the 

Historic Era, the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the 

closely allied Northern Shoshone-Bannock Tribe 

inhabited the area, at which time it was less frequently used by the Ute, Arapahoe and Cheyenne 

tribes. 

The Historic Era of the Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

featured a great western expansion as pioneers took to 

one of many trails in the area, like the Oregon Trail. 

WS F

Historic Era 

The Historic Era of the Cokeville Meadows Refuge region began in the early 1800s and continued 

through World War II. Some of the first people of 

European decent in the region were the diverse and 

independent early trappers and explorers often 

referred to as mountain men. The height of mountain 

men activity in southwestern Wyoming encompasses 

the years from about 1810 to 1840 and was closely 

aligned with the rise and fall of the beaver skin trade 

networks. Several of their rendezvous—large gather­
52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

ings of Mountain Men and Native Americans for beaver skin trade and exchange of various other 

goods—were held in the area, and many of the transportation routes used in later decades were explored 

and charted during this time. 

Many transportation corridors crossed through 

the Cokeville Meadows Refuge area. Four major trail 

systems, the Oregon trail, the Mormon trail, the 

Overland trail, and the Emigrant trail, carried hundreds of thousands of people as they traveled west 

seeking new homes or fortunes. Each trail consisted 

of a system of primary routes and many cutoffs and 

side routes that often overlapped with other trails in 

the area. Beginning in the early to mid-1830s and 

continuing until 1869, these trails brought people, 

goods, and mail to much of the Rocky Mountain West. 

The completion of the transcontinental railroad in 

1869 provided a quicker and easier way to travel 

west, and traffic along trails quickly slowed to a 

trickle. 

The construction of the Lincoln Highway, starting 

in 1913, running just south of the refuge, allowed 

automobile traffic through the area. 

The historical military presence in the refuge 

area was closely associated with the early trails and 

the need to move goods across the frontier. Fort 

Bridger, located approximately 40 miles to the southsoutheast of the refuge, was a vital trading and military post from the early 1840s to 1890 and served as 

a resupply point for many of the wagon trains as they 

continued west. Confrontations with Native Americans occurred during the early years and increased 

as settlers poured into the region. The Fort Laramie 

Treaties of 1851 and 1868 were attempts to quell the 

increasing conflicts but yielded limited results. By 

the 1860s, the hostilities worsened, and many battles 

and skirmishes ensued. By 1890, the tribes had been 

moved off their lands and relocated to reservations. 

The Homestead Acts of 1862 and 1909, along with 

many other acts that encouraged settlement and 

industry, started a boom and bust cycle that, to some 

extent, continues to the present. Industries, including 

charcoal production, coal mining, railroad tie manufacture, and oil exploration, in addition to cattle and 

sheep ranching, spurred the fast establishment of 

many settlements and small towns, many, of which, 

faded as quickly as they appeared. 

Cokeville, Wyoming, is situated at the confluence 

of the Bear River and Smith’s Fork valleys. Between 

1812 and 1828, these valleys were the domain of 

Native Americans, fur trappers, and traders; during 

the 1830s and 1840s they became a well-traveled 

pathway of emigrant trains traveling to Oregon and 

California. Known as “Smith’s Fork on the Bear 

River” to fur trappers and pioneers, Cokeville 

acquired its permanent name after the discovery of 

nearby coal deposits that produced coke, an intense 

burning, and virtually smokeless product. 

The Mormon Church sent the first permanent settlers to the area in 1874 to found a community. Sylvanus Collett and Robert Gee arrived with their 

families at the Smith’s Fork River, soon to be followed by the John Bourne family. The men trapped, 

hunted, and traded hides, furs, and extra meat for 

supplies in Evanston, Wyoming, about 70 miles south. 

The trip to Evanston was arduous; winter journeys 

were sometimes made on the frozen Bear River. The 

launching of the Oregon Short Line in 1881 made 

travel easier. The railroad stimulated trade, changing the center of the main settlement to the vicinity 

of the tracks. 

Before 1906, Cokeville consisted of two saloons, a 

hotel, a general store, and boarding houses. In the 

next nine years it incorporated and added a state 

bank, a newspaper, a water system, and electric lighting. In 1922, Cokeville made national headlines when 

Ethel Stoner became mayor and two other women 

won seats on the town council. They ran on a law 

enforcement ticket, though, once in office, they found 

that the local police were disinclined to enforce Prohibition laws that were then in force. 

After U.S. Highway 30 was commissioned 

through the town in 1926, then surfaced with oil in 

1935, Cokeville found itself on a major cross-country 

route. The highway continues to play an important 

role in the town’s economy (BLM 2004). 

Identified Cultural Resources of the 

Refuge 

Although many cultural resource sites have been 

recorded near Cokeville, Wyoming, few have actually 

been documented on the Cokeville Meadows Refuge. 

This lack of information reflects the relatively low 

potential for resources on most of the refuge because 

of its extensive wetlands and the lack of cultural 

resource surveys. Four resources, all historic, have 

been recorded; and their eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places has been decided: 

■■	 Depot or Thornock Property (site 


48LN3936). Consensus: not eligible as of 


June 10, 2002.
 

■■	 Etcheverry Property or Bear River Ranch 

(site 48LN4119). Consensus: not eligible as 

of October 25, 2004. 

■■	 Antelope Property (site 48LN4120). Field 

not eligible as of June 15, 2004. 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 53 

■■	 Beckwith and Quin Canal (site 48LN2711). 

Consensus: not eligible as of June 1, 2009. 

Based on the USGS topographic map, several 

unrecorded ditches, water control structures, transportation-related features, and ranch structures are 

located on the refuge. Prehistoric sites, if present, 

are likely located in the upland areas of the refuge. 

We will seek to develop a program that will find 

and interpret significant cultural resources in the 

area such as historic trails. Portions of the OregonCalifornia Trail System exist within the refuge 

acquisition boundary, but we do not now own them. 

Law Enforcement 

Law enforcement on the refuge is provided by a 

full-time Federal wildlife officer and a dual-function 

Federal wildlife officer, both stationed at Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge. We seek and support coop

erative law enforcement help from WGFD and the 

Lincoln County Sheriff’s Department. 

­

3.4 Partnerships 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge actively expands its 

many partnerships. We see that partnerships, both 

on and off the refuge, are important ways to accom

plish wildlife-dependent goals. These include coordi

nation with WGFD to conduct wildlife disease 

control, surveys and monitoring, and habitat 

improvement projects both on and off the refuge. We 

also engage in partnerships with local, State, and 

Federal agencies, nongovernment organizations, local 

landowners, cooperators, and private corporations. 

Our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is 

active in the refuge area providing technical help and 

cost-share projects to help landowners improve wild

life habitat on private land. When possible, our ref

uge staff work closely with the Partners biologist on 

projects that can help wildlife on both private and 

refuge lands. 

The refuge does not now have, but would like to 

develop, a Friends group. 

mated that

is used for

tory 2011). 

the Upper 

ownership,

Service. A

owned, 4 p

Wyoming, 

can tribes 

­

­

­

­

Landscape Conservation 

We coordinate with Bear River Watershed Conservation Area partners to enhance and preserve 

wildlife habitat connectivity, and we would like to 

strengthen these efforts. However, because the ref

uge is not staffed, we are often limited to conserva

tion activities within the refuge boundary. 

3.5 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge is located in Lincoln 

County in the southwest corner of Wyoming. The 

county serves as a good starting point for evaluating 

the socioeconomic environment of the refuge. 

Current Land Types and Uses 

Lincoln County lies in the region known as the 

Upper Bear River area, where the land cover is made 

up primarily of grasslands and shrublands. It is esti­

 about 75 percent of the land in this region 

 grazing (Utah Water Research LaboraAs of 2006, about 63 percent of the land in 

Bear River area counties was in Federal 

 mostly under the BLM and USDA Forest 

bout 24 percent of the land is privately 

ercent is owned by the States of Utah or 

and 7 percent is owned by Native Ameri­

(Conservation Biology Institute 2006). 

County Population 

Since the year 2000, Wyoming’s population has 

increased by approximately 14 percent (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010). Lincoln County has grown by 24 percent since 2000 with an estimated total population of 

17,961 persons in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). 

From 2000 to 2010, Lincoln was the fastest growing 

Wyoming county in the Bear River watershed. It is 

estimated that approximately 200 new homes are 

being built within Lincoln County each year (Royster 

and Gearino, 2006). While the total population and 

population density of this county is relatively sparse 

(table 5), the population of this area of the country is 

expected to continue growing apace with the Cache 

Valley area of Wyoming (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

­

­
54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

A meeting of the planning team. 

S Wn / Foillad GdoT

Table 5. Population, income, education, 

unemployment, and poverty rate statistics for 

Lincoln County, Wyoming. 

Residents (2010)2 18,106 

Persons per Square Mile4 4.4 

Percentage Population change since 

20004 +24 

Median household income (2009)4 $59,160 

Percentage of the population with a 

bachelor’s degree or higher3 17 

Percentage unemployed in 20081 3.6 

Percentage unemployed in 2011 6.6 

Percentage of individuals below poverty 

(2009)4 8 

Source: 1(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008), 2(Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2011a), 3(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011b), 4(U.S. 

Census Bureau 2009). 

Ethnicity and Education 

In 2010, only 2 percent of Lincoln County’s population identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, 

while the rest of the population in the county identified themselves as white (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

The rate of individuals possessing degrees in higher 

education in this county is 23 percent. 

Economy, Employment, Income, 

Recreation and Industries 

Wyoming’s poverty rate in 2009 stood at 10.2 per

cent. By contrast, Lincoln County had a poverty rate 

in 2009 lower than the statewide average (8 percent) 

and a median household income level ($59,160), which 

is higher than the statewide average (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010). 

Forestry, fishing, hunting, agriculture, and min

ing accounted for roughly 19 percent of total jobs in 

Lincoln County (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Employ

ment in timber is a small fraction of total employment 

and has decreased since 1999 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2010). 

Following the national trend, wildlife viewing has 

become increasingly popular, while hunting and fish

ing have decreased or remained stable in popularity 

in and around Lincoln County. Statewide, for resi

dents 16 years of age and older, 84 percent of indi

viduals surveyed watched wildlife, 39 percent fished, 

and 19 percent hunted in Wyoming. (FWS 2008). 

­

­

­

­

­

­

3.6 Operations 

Operations at the refuge were limited from 1992 

until 2002. A small budget was allocated in 2002, and 

a dedicated assistant manager was hired in 2004 but 

has since left the refuge. Other staff or resources to 

support refuge operations and maintenance have 

come from the headquarters at Seedskadee National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. In 2008 funding was pro

vided for a new building at the refuge and for the 

demolition of existing, dilapidated structures. The 

new building was completed in December 2009. 

The following is a description of what constructed 

items exist on the refuge today and what is needed 

for the refuge to develop and operate. Topics include 

staff, equipment, facilities, railroad facilities, junk 

and debris, refuge mineral rights and energy devel

opment, and volunteers programs. 

Funding and Staff 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge is not currently 

staffed. Since 1993, our staff headquartered at the 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex in 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, has managed Cokeville Meadows Refuge. The Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex staff of five full-time equivalent 

positions and two to three seasonal employees are 

­

­
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 55 

responsible for management activities at Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge as well for Cokeville Meadows Refuge. The two refuges total 36,489 acres. Staff 

from Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

travel approximately 83 miles to work at the refuge. 

In addition, Refuge System administrative staff 

support the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex as part of a business team concept. 

Remotely stationed in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and 

Colorado, they provide assistance with contracting, 

budget tracking, travel, and payroll. 

Table 6 illustrates staff needs at Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Table 6. Staff needs at Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Wyoming.. 

Full-time 

Official title Working title Series, grade equivalent Assignment Stationed at 

position 

Permanent staff 

Wildlife refuge 

manager 

Complex 

manager 

GS–0485–13 1 Seedskadee 

Refuge Complex 

Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Wildlife refuge 

manager 

Deputy project 

leader GS-0485-11 1 Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge 

Wildlife refuge 

specialist 

Wildlife refuge 

specialist GS-0485-09 1 Seedskadee Refuge Complex 

Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Wildlife biologist Wildlife biologist GS–0485–09/11 1 Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Engineering 

equipment 

operator 

Maintenance 

worker WG–5716–10 1 Seedskadee Refuge 

Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Maintenance 

worker 

Maintenance 

worker WG–4749–08 1 Seedskadee Refuge 

Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Biological science 

technician 

Biological science 

technician GS-0404-07 1 Seedskadee Refuge Complex 

Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge 

Federal wildlife 

officer 

Federal wildlife 

officer GL–1801–09 1 Seedskadee Refuge Complex 

Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Temporary, term, and seasonal staff (as money allows) 

Biological science 

tech (temp) 

Biological science 

tech (Temp) GS–0404–05 0.5 Seedskadee Refuge Complex 

Seedskadee 

Refuge 

Biological science 

tech (temp) 

Biological science 

tech (Temp) GS–0404–03 0.5 Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge 

Equipment 

The refuge has limited equipment to conduct refuge and maintenance operations. Some of the equipment is in poor condition and needs replacement. 

However, Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge has a 

good fleet of equipment, and the two refuges share 

these resources. 

Facilities 

One multipurpose building on the refuge houses 

an office, a maintenance shop, cold storage, and a 

two-bedroom apartment. Other facilities include 

many dikes and water control structures, stock 

fences, gates, two-track service roads, the Pixley 

Dam (of which we own about half), multiple wells and 

pumps, a center pivot irrigation system, and four old 

buildings that are in need of demolition and removal. 

There are two diversion dams on the Bear River 

within the refuge’s acquisition boundary. Upstream, 

the BQ Dam provides water to several thousand 

acres of wet meadow and wetland habitats on both 

sides of the river via the BQ East and BQ West 

canals. The Pixley Dam is located in the center of the 

refuge boundary and provides irrigation water to 

several thousand more acres of wet meadow and wetland habitats along the Bear River via the Pixley 

East and Pixley West canals. Both dams are in bad 

condition, and the Pixley Dam needs to be replaced. 

Public use facilities on the refuge include a parking lot, information kiosk, and short nature trail 

located near Netherly Slough, along Highway 30, on 

the east side of the refuge. 
56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Railroad Facilities 

The Union Pacific Railroad bisects the Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge acquisition boundary from north to 

south and has facilities in the area. 

Junk and Debris 

Junk piles and unwanted property on the refuge 

pose risks to human safety and health. 

Land Protection 

The refuge is working with partners and local 

governments to prevent development by attempting 

to acquire lands in fee title or through conservation 

easements to reduce the threat of urban encroachment and habitat conversion. 

Private lands outside the refuge acquisition 

boundary are being developed and turned into housing projects or converted and further developed via 

center pivot irrigation systems. It is anticipated that, 

in the short term, some private land within the acquisition boundary will also start to be developed. 

Refuge Mineral Rights and Energy 

Development 

We do not own the mineral estate of the lands we 

hold in fee title at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. In the 

past, oil and gas were extracted from lands surrounding the refuge boundary. Some mineral development is taking place within the approved 

acquisition boundary and some is taking place outside, and adjacent to, the acquisition boundary. Mineral development poses threats to refuge lands and 

habitat within the Bear River watershed both on and 

off the refuge. To protect wildlife habitats from the 

undue effects of human activities, we seek the withdrawal of subsurface Federal mineral rights from 

lands within the refuge boundary that are now 

administered by the BLM. Where appropriate, we 

will attempt to secure the subsurface mineral estate 

of lands purchased in fee title when the opportunity 

arises and work to reduce or mitigate changes 

brought on by such development. 

Where we are successful in securing subsurface 

mineral rights, wildlife and the habitats on which 

they depend will be protected for the enjoyment of 

future generations. Where we are unable to secure 

subsurface mineral rights, wildlife and their habitats 

may be subjected to the temporary and permanent 

adverse effects of mineral development and 

transportation. 

Pipeline and transmission line corridors have not 

been designated within the refuge boundary. We will 

evaluate requests for rights-of-way and surface disturbance on a case-by-case basis. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and 

Research 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge has never received the 

staff or money necessary for a scientifically sound 

inventory and monitoring program. 

Nuisance Species and Predators 

Nuisance species, whether terrestrial or aquatic, 

may include animals and invasive plants that could 

occur in some of the refuge’s habitats and which 

threaten either the variety or abundance of native 

species; the stability of the ecosystem; the infrastructure of the refuge; and the commercial, agricultural, 

aquacultural or recreational activities that are 

dependent on the refuge’s habitats. An animal or 

plant that is considered a nuisance species in a refuge 

because of the effects that its population size or 

behavioral patterns have on the refuge’s habitats or 

infrastructure may not be considered a nuisance species on another refuge. Examples of species that at 

times have been considered a nuisance at Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge are muskrat and beaver. 

The refuge also lies within the historical range of 

some species considered predators, such as the gray 

wolf, coyote, red fox, weasel, and others. Predators 

are an integral part of, and carry out important functions in, a healthy ecosystem. Sometimes predators 

that make use of refuge habitats may pose a danger 

to humans or cause damage to private livestock or 

property near the refuge. Under certain circumstances we allow these animals to be captured or 

lethally controlled on refuge lands (appendix I). 

Volunteers Programs 

The refuge operates a small volunteers program. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction
 

Leopard Frog 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

This CCP will serve as the primary management 

document for Cokeville Meadows Refuge until it is 

formally revised. We will carry out the actions identified herein with help from existing and new partner 

agencies, organizations, and the public. There are no 

assurances that projects identified in this CCP will 

be fully, or even partially, financed. However, within 

every planning effort there are opportunities to 

examine current funds and other available resources, 

to choose implementation strategies, and to prioritize 

projects for improved effectiveness. 

It is important to note that we place the highest 

priority on two groups of species—together known as 

trust species—and hold special responsibility in managing and conserving them. The first group contains 

those that are State or federally listed as endangered 

or threatened. The second group contains those 

listed as migratory birds, and a long list of these can 

be found in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For the 

most part, migratory birds include all bird species 

that occur in the U.S. with the exception of nonnative 

birds like European starling, English sparrow, and 

Eurasian collared dove and nonmigratory birds like 

sage-grouse. Objectives in this chapter are written 

with trust species in mind. 

According to Section 3, Subsection 7, of Service 

Director’s Order 172, “Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” many Service 

programs are actively involved in bird conservation 

activities. Our objective for migratory bird management and conservation is to reduce the potential 

adverse effects of migratory bird take, with the goal 

of ending take, while implementing our mission. All 

Service programs strive to take an ecosystem 

approach to the protection and restoration of species 

and their associated habitats. As migratory birds is 

one of our trust resources, all programs must emphasize an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to 
4.2 Summary of the CCP 

The issues discussed in this CCP were derived 

from the input of local citizens and communities, 

cooperating agencies, conservation organizations, 

and refuge staff. We developed four unique manage

ment alternatives to address the issues, concerns, 

and opportunities expressed during the scoping pro

cess (chapter 1). Once we assessed the environmental 

consequences of the implementation of each of the 

four alternatives, we identified alternative D as the 

proposed action after deciding that it would accom

plish the following: 

■■	 best achieve the purposes, vision, and goals 

of the refuge 

■■ help fulfill the Refuge System mission 

■■	 maintain and, where appropriate, restore 

the ecological integrity of the refuge and the 

Refuge System 

■■	 address identified significant issues and 


mandates
 

■■	 be consistent with the principles of sound 

fish and wildlife management 

We developed objectives in support of the goals 

identified in chapter 2 to carry out the proposed 

action. Strategies to achieve those objectives; ratio

nales supporting the goals, objectives, and strategies; 

and the assumptions used in developing the CCP are 

described in this chapter. A description of refuge 

resources that will be affected by the proposed action 

may be found in chapter 3. 

The Administration Act (appendix E) requires the 

Secretary of the Interior to make sure that public 

uses are compatible with refuge purposes before they 

are permitted. The CCP process requires a compati

bility determination for all existing and proposed 

uses. Compatibility determinations for the refuge 

(appendix B) include cooperative farming, hunting, 

fishing, trapping, wildlife observation and photogra

phy, environmental education and interpretation, 

prescribed haying and grazing, and research. 

58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

migratory bird conservation in cooperation with 

other Service programs, in addition to other govern

ments, State and Federal agencies, and non-Federal 

partners. However, we recognize that direct or indi

rect actions taken by our employees in the execution 

of their duties and activities as authorized by Con

gress may result in the take of migratory birds. In 

many instances, short-term negative impacts on 

migratory birds are balanced by long-term benefits. 

We will incorporate ecosystem integrity, reduction of 

invasive species, and long-term adaptive manage

ment in migratory bird management, using the best 

available scientific information (FWS 2004). 

­

­

­

­

4.1 Management Focus 

We will manage the refuge to improve resources 

and refuge operations and increase wildlife and habi

tat productivity within, and outside of, the refuge 

boundary. We will focus on managing lands within a 

greater landscape footprint by using partnerships to 

enhance habitats throughout the Bear River water

shed in Wyoming. We recognize that great wildlife 

habitat exists outside of the refuge in private owner

ship or managed by other government agencies, and 

we would broaden our scope to work with partners 

throughout the Wyoming portion of the Bear River 

watershed where opportunities exist to improve and 

conserve wildlife habitat. We also want to reach out 

to private landowners to help them improve habitat 

for wildlife while they run their farms and ranches as 

they see fit. 

We will continue to acquire land and easements to 

round out the acquisition boundary. We will restore 

and manage wet meadow and upland habitats to 

increase wildlife productivity and diversity. We will 

specifically gear agricultural practices to enhance 

refuge habitats for wildlife both on and off refuge 

lands. We will emphasize developing visitor 

resources such as access and opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses like hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, and envi

ronmental education to encourage a greater under

standing and appreciation of the Bear River 

watershed; wet meadow, riparian, and stream habi

tats; and wildlife. 

We propose that greater attention be given to 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge by the staff of the Seeds

kadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex so that we 

may conduct site-specific research; strengthen and 

support current partnerships and build new ones; 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

develop specific, biologically based, and goal-oriented 

stepdown management plans; and guide future man

agement decisions for the refuge. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
4.3 Overview of Goals and 

Objectives 

This section discusses objectives, and strategies 

that serve as the steps needed to achieve the goals of 

this CCP: 

■■	 A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of 

desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable 

units. 

■■	 An objective is a concise statement that 

shows what is to be achieved, the extent of 

the achievement, who is responsible, and 

when and where the objective should be 

achieved. 

■■	 The rationale for each objective provides 

context, such as background information, 

assumptions, and technical details. 

■■	 The strategies describe the actions needed 

to achieve the objectives. 

We base many goals and objectives on habitats 

rather than on wildlife because wildlife often respond 

to factors beyond the control of local refuge manage

ment. Managing migratory birds is a good example. 

And our management practices, such as fire, grazing, 

haying, tree planting, and water level manipulation, 

usually help wildlife communities by way of improved 

habitat conditions rather than by helping them 

directly. Habitat-based objectives emphasize the 

checking of important vegetation structure over 

time, which can be done by the staff we have. Check

ing wildlife population responses to changes in habi

tats, however, would require more staff. In lieu of 

checking wildlife directly, site-specific inventories, 

applied research, and literature reviews offer reason

able predictions of wildlife responses to habitat 

management. 

Wet Meadow Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

Using the best sci

preserve critical 

will provide qua

ing opportuniti

birds 

Indicator Species. 

ern pintail, whi

Chapter 4—Management Direction 59 

­

­

­

­

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Goals 

This section discusses objectives and strategies 

for habitat and wildlife management. 

entific practices to manage and 

wet meadow habitat, the refuge 

lity feeding, loafing, and breedes for a diversity of migratory 

and resident wildlife. 

American bittern, redhead, northte-faced ibis. 

Aim. Restore and expand bulrush sites where appropriate throughout the refuge; keep a variety of 

seasonal to semi-permanent flooding regimes to 

encourage the nesting and feeding of indicator 

species. 

Table 7 shows the vegetation needs of indicator or 

focal species in the wet meadow habitat. 

Wet Meadow Habitat Objective 1 

Continue to keep at least 10 percent bulrushdominant wet meadows and wetlands, and increase 

the bulrush part in selected wet meadow and wetland 

sites by 20 percent over the course of the CCP. Make 

sure that wet meadow habitat is moderately dominated by native graminoids (sedges, rushes and 

grasses). 

Wet Meadow Habitat Objective 1—Specific 

Strategies 

■■	 Determine white-faced ibis nesting status 

and trends on refuge lands. 

■■	 Collaborate with other agencies, nongovernment organizations and volunteers to conduct forage and foraging habitat baseline 

and availability on refuge lands. 

■■	 Use GIS to map important foraging habitat 

on refuge lands. 

■■	 Find sites on refuge lands that are conducive to establishing bulrush patches adequate for waterbird nesting. 

■■	 Work to establish bulrush patches suitable 

for white-faced ibis nesting. 
Table 7. Indicator species in wet meadows habitat by needs at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Wyoming. . 

Vegetation Vegetation species Food preference or Habitat and Water Indicator species structure or cover diversity needs source regime needs needs 

American bittern 

Bulrushes, cattails, 

reeds, sedges, dense 

wet meadow 

grasslands 

Tall (3–4.5 feet), 

dense emergent 

vegetation, prefers 

wetlands greater 

than 7 acres 

Frogs and other 

amphibians, small 

fish, aquatic insects 

and invertebrates, 

small mammals 

occasional reptiles 

Water >= 10 

centimeters (4 

inches), nests above 

water 4–24 inches 

deep 

Redhead 

Rushes, cattails, 

dense stands of 

emergent vegetation 

for nesting 

Nests on emergent 

vegetation on shallow 

water attached to 

surrounding 

vegetation and built 

with rushes, reeds, 

and cattails; may 

sometimes nest on 

the ground on the 

edge of wetlands 

Aquatic vegetation, 

insect larvae, snails, 

mollusks, small 

crustaceans, seeds, 

buds and tubers of 

submergent aquatic 

plants 

Shallow water for 

nesting but deep for 

feeding (commonly 

3–10 feet) and broodrearing, near larger 

water bodies 

Northern pintail 

Grasslands, 

cultivated fields, 

sandy flats, lake 

marsh pond 

Nest concealed in 

grass stubble 

Nests further from 

wetlands and sparser 

vegetation 

Vegetation height less 

than 12 inches 

40 percent open 

water for brood 

habitat 

Snails, shrimp, 

midges, earthworms, 

grains, bulrush seeds, 

pond weeds, 

spikerush, widgeon 

grass, smartweeds 

Diet 90 percent 

vegetation: seeds, 

aquatic vegetation, 

sedges, grain, 

minnows, aquatic 

invertebrates, 

tadpoles, insects 

Uses a variety of 

wetlands from 

seasonal to 

semipermanent 

Breeding sites are 

typically small, 

shallow wetlands, 

with emergent 

vegetation and low 

vegetation cover in 

surrounding uplands 

Aquatic and moist soil 

White-faced ibis 

Nests in bulrushes 

and cattails (either 

floating or attached to 

aquatic vegetation); 

forages in flooded 

meadows and 

agricultural fields 

Tall, dense emergent 

vegetation for nesting 

and shallow water 

areas for foraging* 

invertebrates, 

especially 

earthworms and 

larval insects, 

leeches, snails, 

crayfish, small fish, 

frogs, midges, 

occasional aquatic 

Strong preference for 

>74 acres, relatively 

level (<5-percent 

slope) fields with 

standing water 

8 inches or less water 

depth 

vegetation 

Source: *Andrea Orabona, WGFD nongamebird biologist, personal communication. 

60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Wet Meadow Habitat Objective 2 

Keep a variety of constant and stable water levels 

and reduce human disturbances to nesting areas during the breeding season (mid-April through July 10) 

in wet meadows and wetlands. 

Wet Meadow Habitat Objective 2 —Specific 

Strategy 

■■ Reduce human disturbances in nesting colonies during the breeding season through 

proper area and seasonal closures; the careful placement of public parking lots, roads, 

and trails; and continued coordination with 

cooperators. 

Wet Meadow Habitat Objective 3 

Within 5 years, make sure that at least 10 acres of 

contiguous wet meadow habitat scattered throughout 

the refuge are dominated by water depths of between 

6 to 36 inches and emergent vegetation that creates a 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 61 

mosaic of relatively short ( less than 1 foot) to moderately tall (1–2 feet) cover conducive for brood rearing 

and foraging habitat. 

Cub scouts looking for wildlife on the refuge. 

S Wn / Foillad GdoT

Strategies Common to All Wet Meadow Habitat 

Objectives 

■■	 Use a combination of prescribed fire, prescriptive livestock grazing, and mechanical 

or chemical treatments to determine the 

best method for invasive plant species control and the restoration of native wet 

meadow vegetation. 

■■	 Collaborate with WGFD, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and other entities to 

conduct necessary monitoring and wildlife 

data-gathering activities in support of these 

objectives. 

■■	 Collaborate with the Lincoln County Weed 

and Pest District, permittees, and other 

stakeholders to control invasive plant 

species. 

■■	 Conduct a vegetation inventory and monitoring program to assess if target species’ 

habitat needs are being met. 

■■	 Review all water-management structures 

for improvements or repairs that would 

enhance management capabilities, assess 

and adjust water control structures and 

management plans to achieve habitat 

objectives. 

■■	 Determine baseline waterfowl, waterbird, 

and shorebird nesting status in wet meadow 

habitats. 

■■	 Sample vegetation zones (wet meadow, shallow and deep marsh, open water) to measure the percentage cover of different 

species and to complete a vegetation species 

inventory for each zone. 

■■	 Work with partners to conduct aquatic vegetation and invertebrate abundance and biomass surveys on the refuge to assess 

current wet meadow health and 

productivity. 

■■	 Estimate the percentage of emergent vegetation cover either visually or by GIS area 

determination using aerial photography. 

■■	 Find out if prescriptive wet meadow livestock grazing and haying are achieving habitat objectives through increased and 

improved oversight, monitoring, and 

research, and determine the distribution, 

abundance, and nesting success of wet 

meadow species. 

■■	 Conduct water quality sampling to determine amounts of salinity and total dissolved 

solids. 

■■	 Issue special use permits exceeding 5 years 

but for no more than 10 years at the manager’s discretion and when it is found to be 

appropriate to meet the goal and objectives 

of wet meadows habitat. This permit is 

intended to offset the substantial financial 

costs associated with carrying out longterm restoration projects that a cooperator 

would accept to improve refuge habitats. 

Wet Meadow Habitat Objectives Rationale 

Healthy wet meadows on the refuge are essential 

because they provide habitat for a large variety of 

wetland-dependent species, which need to have a 

variety of vegetative heights and water depths, with 

some areas of vegetation that are dense and others 

that provide open areas for loafing and foraging. The 

American bittern, for example, is totally dependent 
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

on wetland habitats and prefers large wetlands (at 

least 7 acres) with tall, dense, emergent vegetation 

such as cattails, rushes, and reeds inhabiting 

marshes with open water in the center, gradual 

slopes, a band of emergent vegetation around the 

periphery, and idle grassland in the adjacent uplands. 

Water quality conducive to the prey base is essential 

for these species. 

To keep these habitats healthy and productive, we 

would use a combination of water management, prescribed fire, prescriptive livestock grazing, and 

mechanical or chemical treatments to provide a variety of wet meadow habitats for the greatest number 

and variety of species possible. Using all management techniques and the best science available, we 

would find methods to control invasive plant species 

and restore native wet meadow vegetation. 

Upland Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

Manage and, where appropriate, enhance the 

diversity and composition of grassland and 

shrub–steppe habitats within the range of historical conditions for sagebrush-dependent species, 

upland nesting migratory birds, and other resident species. 

Indicator Species. Sage sparrow and short-eared owl. 

Aim. Keep sagebrush in Wyoming in large continuous 

stands made up of a mosaic of open (5 percent) to 

moderate (25 percent) shrub cover and a variety 

of ages and heights. 

Upland Habitat Objective 1 

Within 4 years and for the duration of this plan, 

reestablish native grassland vegetative cover made 

up of an understory of western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, Indian rice grass, and other native grasses and 

native forb species to help upland-nesting and broodrearing species such as dabbler, horned lark, vesper 

sparrow, Savannah sparrow, western meadowlark, 

long-billed curlew, short-eared owl, and northern 

harrier. 

Upland Habitat Objective 2 (existing native habitat) 

Within 7 years of plan approval, and for the duration of this plan, manage shrub–steppe grasslands to 

improve vegetation conditions to meet a sagebrush 

canopy cover of at least 5 percent and no more than 

30 percent with heights greater than 20 inches and a 

clumped or patchy low grass or forb understory made 

up of mostly bunchgrasses and native forb species. 

Upland Habitat Objectives 1 and 2 Strategies 

■■	 Use prescriptive livestock grazing to make 

sure that both early and late-successional 

stages help short-eared owls and other wildlife species. 

■■	 Begin the vegetation monitoring of shrub– 

steppe and grassland habitats to make sure 

that there is adequate sagebrush, native 

bunchgrass, and forb cover to support target species. 

■■	 Support partnerships to make sure that 

there is adequate monitoring of greater 

sage-grouse. 

■■	 Collaborate with WGFD, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and other entities to 

conduct necessary monitoring and wildlife 

data-gathering activities. 

■■	 Evaluate interior fences for their condition 

and effectiveness in managing the prescriptive livestock grazing program. 

■■	 Collaborate with the Lincoln County Weed 

and Pest District, permittees, and other 

stakeholders to control invasive plant 

species. 

■■	 Conduct experiments using a combination of 

prescribed fire, prescriptive livestock grazing, and mechanical or chemical treatments 

to find the best method for invasive species 

control and the restoration of native 

grasses. 

■■	 Find and rank future areas for restoring to 

native species. 

■■	 Examine potential revegetation choices 

based on the surrounding native plant 

communities. 

■■	 Issue special use permits exceeding 5 years, 

but for no more than 10 years, at the manager’s discretion and when found to be appropriate to meet the goal and objectives for 

upland habitats. This long-term permit is 

intended to offset the substantial financial 

costs associated with carrying out longterm restoration projects that a cooperator 

would accept to improve refuge habitats. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 63 

Upland Habitat Objectives Rationale 

It is important that upland habitats be restored 

for the health of wildlife species that depend on them. 

Some of the upland habitats on the refuge were converted to agricultural crops before our ownership 

and need work to be restored to their native conditions. Doing this restoration would provide a key 

habitat type that is missing for many species. 

To keep these habitats healthy and productive, we 

would use a combination of water management, prescribed fire, prescriptive livestock grazing, and 

mechanical or chemical treatments to provide a variety of healthy and productive upland habitats for the 

greatest number and variety of species possible. 

Using all management techniques and the best science available, we will find methods for controlling 

invasive plant species and restoring native upland 

vegetation. After restoration, a range assessment 

will be conducted to figure out stocking rates for livestock. This will help make sure that grazing used as 

a management tool will not negatively affect newly 

restored habitats. 

Riparian and River Habitats and Wildlife 

Goal 

Maintain and, where appropriate, restore the 

processes necessary to sustain the biological 

diversity and integrity of riparian vegetation and 

aquatic habitats for breeding birds, native fishes, 

reptiles and amphibians. 

Indicator Species. yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, northern leopard frog. 

Aim. Restore and expand riparian woodlands and 

wooded marshes, where appropriate throughout 

the refuge, to provide the adequate variety and 

structure of plant species needed to encourage the 

nesting of indicator species and to attract and support adequate food sources. 

Table 8 shows the vegetation needs of the indicator and focal species of riparian and river habitats. 

Table 8. Indicator species in riparian and river habitats by needs at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Wyoming. 

Vegetation species Vegetation structure Food preference Habitat and Water Indicator species diversity needs or cover needs or source regime needs 

Yellow warbler 

Nests in wet 

deciduous thickets, 

dominated by 

willows, alder, 

dogwood 

Riparian woodlands, 

wooded marshes; 

riparian shrubs (nest 

placement at 1–14 feet) 

below 8,000 feet. 

Midstory and canopy. 

Will eject cowbird eggs 

or build another layer 

over them 

Insects and other 

arthropods; 

caterpillars, moths, 

beetles, aphids; 

some occasional 

berries 

Riparian-obligate 

Nest placement at 0–3 Insects such as 

feet; Dense, riparian grasshoppers, 

Common 

yellowthroat 

Willow and marshes 

below 8,000 feet. 

shrubs near water. Uses 

understory. Third most 

spiders, beetles, 

butterflies, Riparian-obligate 

commonly cowbird­ dragonflies, and a 

parasitized bird few seeds 

Breed and lay eggs in 

Northern leopard 

frog 

Sedges, cattails and 

tallgrasses. 

stock ponds, 

semipermanent ponds, 

margins of larger lakes 

and beaver ponds, or in 

the backwaters out of 

the main flow of the 

stream; Forage among 

sedges, cattails and 

Invertebrates such 

as beetles, flies, 

ants, worms, and 

snails. But adult 

frogs sometimes 

consume voles, 

small birds, 

Riverine and wet 

meadow wetlands, up 

to 9,000 in elevation; 

Swampy cattail 

marshes on plains 

and in beaver ponds 

in montane zones 

tallgrasses. Winter in 

ponds, buried in mud; 

shallow ponds for 

breeding and deep pools 

snakes, small fish, 

and other 

amphibians 

Breeding season: 

mid-march through 

July 

to hibernate 
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

A panorama of Cokeville Meadows Refuge looking west. 

Bernardo Garza / FWS 

Riparian Habitat Objective 1 

Support, protect, and enhance existing shrub 

(greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover) 

and tree habitat to allow it to expand into dense 

patches with a variety of native herbaceous, shrub, 

and tree species (various native sedges, willows, 

alder, dogwood, cottonwood); age classes; and structural heights to provide the cover needed for neotropical migratory bird nest concealment and for 

streambank stabilization and shading. 

Riparian Habitat Objective 1—Specific Strategy 

■■	 Survey, name and map (using GIS) all herbaceous, shrub, and tree species found along 

the refuge’s riparian corridor; define native 

species’ potential; and figure out the degree 

of invasive plant infestation. 

Riparian Habitat Objective 2 

Restore at least 25 acres of dense (greater than or 

equal to 40 percent canopy cover) willow in patches 

greater than or equal to 0.5 acre in size and greater 

than or equal to 60 feet wide on either side of the 

river to connect existing willow patches for yellow 

warbler, common yellowthroat, and other neotropical 

migratory birds that nest here and for increased 

streambank stabilization and stream shading. 

Riparian Habitat Objective 2—Specific Strategies 

■■	 Cordon off segments of the riparian corridor 

with electric and wildlife-friendly fencing 

during the establishment of woody species. 

■■	 Using adaptive management, find and apply 

effective methods, including planting native 

vegetation, to restore the riparian corridor 

composition of the Bear River watershed. 

■■	 Manage livestock grazing to make sure that 

riparian habitat is allowed to establish and 

that willows are not removed or that canopy 

is not reduced. 

River Habitat Objective 1 (find and improve river 

habitat types) 

Within 7 years, develop partnerships to help find , 

monitor, and improve various river habitat types, 

such as pools, riffles, runs, glides, in greater than or 

equal to 1 mile of the Bear River within the boundary of the refuge. 

River Habitat Objective 1—Specific Strategy 

■■	 Develop and support all necessary partnerships, such as with Trout Unlimited, 

WGFD, and the Lincoln County Conservation District, to find and map river habitat 

types and where sources of dissolved solids 

and other sediments enter the Bear River 

within and beyond the refuge boundary. 

River Habitat Objective 2 

Work with partners to find and remove barriers 

to improved habitat connectivity for all native riverine species in the Bear River within and beyond the 

refuge boundary. 

River Habitat Objective 2—Specific Strategies 

■■	 Replace the Pixley Dam with a fish passagefriendly structure designed to allow the 

movement of native fishes from one side of 

the dam to the other. 

■■	 Replace or update irrigation diversion 

structures and culverts that create barriers 

and entrapment issues for fish species. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 65 

■■ Work with the Partners for Fish and Wild

life program to find private landowners who 

are interested in projects to improve ripar

ian and riverine habitats on their lands. 

■■ Work with cooperators of the BQ Dam to 

help resolve riverine species passage issues. 

■■ Strategies Common to All Riparian and 

River Habitats Objectives 

■■ Use a combination of prescribed fire, pre

scriptive livestock grazing, and mechanical 

or chemical treatments to find the best 

method to control invasive plant species con

trol and restore native riparian vegetation. 

■■ Collaborate with WGFD, the Rocky Moun

tain Bird Observatory, and other entities to 

conduct the necessary research, inventory, 

and monitoring of terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife populations. 

■■ Collaborate with the Lincoln County Weed 

and Pest District, permittees, and other 

stakeholders to control invasive plant 

species. 

■■ Collaborate with WGFD to monitor and control aquatic invasive species. 

■■ Conduct a vegetation inventory and monitoring program to see if target species’ hab

itat needs are being met. 

■■ Review all water management structures 

for improvements or repairs that would 

enhance management capabilities, and 

assess and adjust water control structures 

and management plans to achieve habitat 

objectives. 

■■ Determine baseline waterfowl, waterbird, 

shorebird, and neotropical migratory bird 

species nesting status in the riparian corri

dor and aquatic species’ life history habitat 

needs in the riverine corridor within the 

refuge. 

■■ Sample riparian and riverine corridor vege

tation zones to measure the percentage 

cover of different species. 

■■ Sample physical characteristics of riverine 

habitats within the refuge boundary. 

■■ Work with partners to conduct aquatic and 

riparian vegetation and invertebrate abun

dance and biomass surveys on the refuge to 

assess current river and riparian health and 

productivity. 

■■ Figure out if prescriptive livestock grazing 

is achieving habitat objectives by using 

increased and improved oversight, monitor

ing, and research, and determine the distri

bution, abundance, and nesting success of 

riparian corridor species. 

■■ Sample water quality for salinity and total 

dissolved solids. 

Riparian and River Habitats Objectives Rationale 

Sections of the Bear River on the refuge had wil

lows removed before we acquired them, probably in 

an effort to increase hay yields. These open stretches 

of river have: 

■■ less bank stability, resulting in the potential 

for increased sedimentation; 

■■ decreased shade over the stream, resulting 

in increased water temperatures for trout; 

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

A panorama of Cokeville Meadows Refuge looking east. 

Bernardo Garza / FWS 
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 sparse woody vegetation for use by songbirds or other wildlife. 

Given the growth characteristics of willows, their 

lack of expansion here leads us to believe that there 

is substantial herbivory by species other than livestock or that hydrology has been significantly altered 

by upstream diversions. With this in mind, we will 

fence willow plantings. Haying and grazing practices 

in the riparian zone will be modified to encourage 

willow establishment, and hydrological needs will be 

considered. Monitoring will be needed to document 

our efforts and to note any significant changes to 

existing willow communities. 

We also recognize that there are issues with 

instream habitat for fish and other aquatic species 

including: 

■■	 sediments in the water from upstream agricultural and irrigation practices; 

■■	 instream diversions (BQ and Pixley Dams) 

that cause river downcutting below them 

and reduce species diversity because they 

lack fish passage; 

■■	 lack of instream structure to provide quality fish habitat, such as riffles, runs, glides, 

and shading from overhanging riparian vegetation on the riverbanks. 

Willow plantings and changes to haying and grazing practices in the riparian zone would help to 

improve some of the riverine issues identified, but 

more work would be required to create necessary 

structures in the river to promote better habitat conditions for aquatic species such as fish, mollusks, and 

amphibians. 

Invasive Species 

The following objectives propose abatement and 

control measures for several species. 

Mosquito Abatement and Control Objective 

Within 3 years, meet with State and county officials to share with them our nationwide policy and to 

begin coordinating efforts to make sure that mosquito abatement on the refuge complies with Federal 

and State regulations. 

Mosquito Abatement and Control Objective 

Strategies 

■■	 Develop a mosquito monitoring, abatement, 

and control plan in coordination with State 

and county officials. 

■■	 Set up all necessary points of contact to 

make sure that there are sufficient meetings 

and that there is adequate coordination with 

State and county officials. 

Grasshopper Abatement and Control Objective 

Within 3 years, meet with State and county officials to share with them our nationwide policy and to 

begin coordinating efforts to make sure that grasshopper and cricket control on the refuge complies 

with Federal and State regulations. 

Grasshopper Abatement and Control Objective 

Strategies 

■■	 Develop a grasshopper and cricket monitoring, abatement, and control plan in coordination with State and county officials. 

■■	 Set up all necessary points of contact to 

make sure that there are sufficient meetings 

and that there is adequate coordination with 

State and county officials. 

Mosquito and Grasshopper Abatement and Control 

Objectives Rationale 

Developing a plan with the help of local community, county and State officials that describes monitoring protocols and establishes thresholds for 

treatment in the event that there are threats to 

human health and safety would provide a better 

understanding of the refuge and how it deals with 

infestations and disease issues. It should also provide 

an advanced directive on how to deal with such 

issues. 

Integrated Pest Management Objective 

Within 7 years, our staff would develop and have 

a final IPM plan in place to deal with fast-spreading 

diseases among animals and pest-carried disease 

issues. 

Integrated Pest Management Objective Strategies 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s IPM coordinator to 

develop the IPM plan for the refuge. 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s contracting division to 

find ways to contract out the writing of an 

IPM plan. 

■■	 Hire a term employee to develop and write 

an IPM plan. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 67 

Integrated Pest Management Objective Rationale 

We not only have to apply our own regulations, 

but we need a plan that has undergone the NEPA 

process to help us deal with all pest species in an 

agile and proactive way. The plan must provide 

thresholds and acceptable alternatives for 

treatments. 

Wildlife Diseases, Crop Depredation, and 

Private Property Damage 

The following objectives propose actions to control 

wildlife diseases, crop depredation, and private property damage. 

Wildlife Diseases Objective 

Carry out management activities and establish 

partnerships that help to prevent disease transmission from wildlife to livestock on and off refuge lands. 

Wildlife Diseases Objective Strategies 

■■	 Develop a comprehensive wildlife disease 

contingency plan. 

■■	 Develop and carry out a hunt plant that 


reduces the commingling of elk and 


livestock.
 

■■	 Work with partners to institute a forage 

reserve and grazing management plan to 

make sure that there is wide distribution 

and adequate dispersal of wild large ungulates throughout the Bear River watershed 

to end their commingling with domestic 

livestock. 

■■	 Coordinate with WGFD and other agencies 

to conduct hazing operations when necessary to prevent the commingling of wild 

large ungulates and domestic livestock. 

■■	 Coordinate with WGFD to increase game 

sampling operations in the area. 

Wildlife Diseases Objective Rationale 

Developing plans to reduce or mitigate the potential transmission of wildlife diseases to domestic 

livestock or humans is an important part of wildlife 

management and part of our being a good neighbor. 

While the potential for disease transmission is low, 

having plans in place would allow us to apply measures to address a problem in order to save lives and 

reduce financial hardships. 

Crop Depredation Objective 

Use small grain crops or other vegetative cover in 

designated areas of the refuge to help adjacent landowners to reduce damage to their crops from wildlife 

depredation. 

Crop Depredation Objective Strategies 

■■	 Rotate crops through areas designated for 

the establishment of native vegetation to 

exhaust weed seed banks before planting 

native vegetation. 

■■	 Find two to three small areas on the refuge 

where small grain crops can be grown. 

■■	 Find ways to offset crop damage through 

permitting for other agricultural uses on 

the refuge. 

■■	 Define a rotational scheme for different vegetative covers in designated areas of the 

refuge. 

Private Property Damage Objective 

Make sure that our management activities and 

our compatible public use activities on the refuge help 

abate damage to private property next to the 

refuge. 

Private Property Damage Objective Strategies 

■■ Coordinate hunting seasons with WGFD. 

■■	 Hold annual meetings with WGFD and local 

landowners to discuss damage issues and to 

develop solutions to abate damage. 

■■	 Find ways to offset private property damage through permitting for other agricultural uses on the refuge. 

Crop Depredation and Private Property Damage 

Objectives Rationale 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge will be in a restoration 

phase for several years on areas identified to be 

reseeded to native vegetation. We will have grain 

crops in advance of native seeding to reduce weed 

seed buildup in those fields being restored. This 

would provide a grain crop on the refuge for wildlife 

and reduce damage on private lands. 

After restoration activities are completed, and in 

cooperation with WGFD, we will find areas on the 
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

refuge that could be used to plant small grains to 

reduce crop damage on private land. 

Mallard Ducklings 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

Wildland Fire Management Goal 

Manage wildland fires using a full array of strategic options from suppression to manipulating 

a fire to achieve benefits. Prescribed fire, manual, 

and mechanical treatments will be used to: (1) 

reduce the threat to land and property through 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments, and (2) 

meet the habitat goals and objectives identified in 

this CCP. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 1 

Manage wildfires according to our and Federal 

wildland fire policies. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 1 

Rationale 

Current (2009) Federal wildland fire policy allows 

wildfires to be managed for multiple objectives. A 

wildfire can be managed for suppression in one area 

and managed to achieve benefits in another. As conditions change, these objectives can change. 

Before European settlement, wildfires had the 

ability to burn vast areas. Today, there is still potential to have large fires (greater than 300 acres), but 

this has been reduced mostly because of wildfire suppression. While the potential for large fires has 

decreased, there is still a high probability that wildfires on Cokeville Meadows Refuge will damage 

neighboring property. Therefore, most wildfires that 

occur on the refuge will be suppressed. 

Region 6 has identified fire management zones. 

Under this approach, the level of fire management 

staff would be determined by established modeling 

systems based on workload. Data used to figure out 

the workload is based on historical wildfire suppression activities as well as on historical and planned 

fuel treatments. 

Realizing that fire management staff and equipment may be placed anywhere within a fire management zone, using our refuge staff as well as other 

Federal and non-Federal partners to aid in wildfire 

suppression is a priority. We will attempt to keep and 

encourage more fire qualifications for our refuge 

staff. In addition, local agreements between Federal 

and non-Federal partners will be kept or added. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 2 

Within 1 year of plan approval, complete and submit for Region 6 review and approval a revised fire 

management plan (FMP) that reflects the goals and 

objectives identified in this CCP. Within 3 years, 

begin carrying out a prescribed fire program at the 

refuge. 
 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 69 

Mallard Drake 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 2 

Rationale 

Our policy requires that every refuge that has 

burnable vegetation must have an FMP. The FMP is 

a stepdown plan from the CCP that guides the fire 

management program. One will be instituted to meet 

national, Region 6, and refuge goals and objectives. 

An approved FMP allows our refuge manager to consider a wide range of suppression alternatives and to 

conduct prescribed fires. 

The FMP is intended to be dynamic and reflect 

current policies and situations and is periodically 

reviewed or revised. Required updates or revisions 

will follow our national and Region 6 policies and 

guidance. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 3 

Increase the use of prescribed fire to 1,000–1,500 

acres per year. This includes maintenance-style 

burning such as in irrigation ditches and around 

water control structures. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 3 

Rationale 

Fire supports and restores nearly all the habitats 

located within the refuge. The frequency and magnitude of prescribed fires can have a profound effect on 

a habitat’s successional state and the transition from 

one habitat type to another. After European settlement, wildfires were suppressed, which disrupted the 

natural disturbance cycle. Prescribed fire is an effective tool for restoring native plant communities, recycling nutrients, reducing or eliminating nonendemic 

vegetation, increasing the growth and production of 

native plants, reducing woody encroachment, and 

reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The 

Improvement Act states that we must make sure 

that “biological diversity,” “biological integrity,” and 

“environmental health” is maintained and, by definition, these include, “...the natural biological processes 

that shape genomes, organisms, and communities...” 

such as fire. 

Past fire history for the refuge is not well known. 

Since the refuge was established, no prescribed fires 

have occurred. Local residents have periodically 

burned lands now within the refuge acquisition 

boundary. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 4 

Within 3 years, develop a comprehensive prescribed burn plan that identifies priority areas within 

the refuge for treatment and establishes burns on a 

rotational basis. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 4 

Rationale 

Per our policy, a prescribed burn plan is required 

before conducting prescribed fire. Because staff is 

limited, priorities need to be established to find 

which areas are most suitable for prescribed fire 

application. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 5 

Increase the number of partners and interagency 

prescribed fires. 
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 5 

Rationale 

We have limited fire staff within our Region 6 fire 

management zone and limited staff at Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Help from partners is needed to fully carry out a prescribed fire 

program at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. We will pursue partnerships with other Federal agencies like the 

BLM and non-Federal cooperators to carry out prescribed fire on the refuge. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 6 

Carry out and monitor prescribed fire, chemical, 

or mechanical treatments to reduce hazardous fuels 

throughout the refuge. Over the next 5 years, if funding allows, treat 20 percent of our lands that are close 

to places where values are at risk. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 6 

Rationale 

Hazardous fuel treatments are conducted to 

reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire to values at 

risk. Values at risk may include sensitive habitats or 

species, cultural resources, Federal and private 

infrastructure and facilities, and nearby local communities. Our fire management and refuge staffs will 

collaborate with affected parties in developing Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) and hazardous fuels reduction treatments and in adding or 

removing communities that are at risk or that are of 

interest. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 7 

Use Burned Area Emergency Response or 

Burned Area Rehabilitation funding as needed following wildfires. 

Wildland Fire Management Objective 7 

Rationale 

Wildfires can cause damage to natural and cultural resources or improvements. Burned Area 

Emergency Response treatments are intended to 

protect public safety and stabilize and prevent further degradation to natural and cultural resources. 

These treatments are considered emergencies and 

are done within 1 year of wildfire containment. 

Burned Area Rehabilitation treatments are nonemergency efforts done within 3 years of wildfire containment to improve fire-damaged lands that are 

unlikely to recover to management-approved conditions or to repair or replace minor facilities that are 

damaged by wildfire. The use of Burned Area Emergency Response or Burned Area Rehabilitation funding will follow our national and Region 6 policies and 

guidance. 

It is anticipated that Burned Area Rehabilitation 

has the potential to be used most within the refuge. 

Burned Area Rehabilitation funding can be used to 

repair or replace fences damaged because of wildfire 

as well as to treat burned areas to prevent the spread 

of invasive plants. 

Strategies Common to All Wildland Fire 

Management Objectives 

■■	 Safely suppress all wildfires within the refuge boundary. 

■■	 Maintain fire qualifications for all capable 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex staff. 

■■	 Update the FMP as needed to accommodate 

this plan. 

■■	 Make the treatment of refuge lands near the 

wildland–urban interface a high priority for 

the reduction of hazardous fuels. 

■■	 Develop and support all necessary partnerships with State, county and local agencies 

and authorities to make sure that wildland 

fire suppression efforts are successful. 

Visitor Services and Cultural 

Resources Goal 

Provide appropriate public access to refuge 

lands where visitors can safely enjoy compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation, such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The 

refuge will seek partnerships to help protect 

onsite cultural resources. 

Public Access Objective 1 

Within 7 years, develop a safe auto tour route and 

open it to the public. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 71 

Public Access Objective 1 Strategies 

■■	 Work with Union Pacific Railroad to develop 

a safe auto tour route within the refuge. 

■■	 Work with Wyoming Travel and Tourism 

Board to secure money to develop an auto 

tour route and facilities. 

■■	 Contact the Federal highway coordinator to 

get Federal access over the railroad. 

■■ Develop projects through Region 6’s EVS. 

■■	 Develop projects for Federal highways 


money on the identified auto tour route.
 

■■	 Include Federal highways and refuge roads 

funds as potential sources to pay for roads, 

not just to pay for potential projects. 

Public Access Objective 2 

Within 3 years, develop a safe access point into 

the Etcheverry tract or another site on the western 

side of the refuge. 

Public Access Objective 3 

Within 3 years, develop a safe access point into 

the Thornock tract or another site on the eastern side 

of the refuge. 

Public Access Objective 4 

Within 3 years, develop a new walking trail that 

includes interpretive panels and a photography blind 

to improve access to Netherly Slough. 

Public Access Objective 5 

Find and study sites on the refuge where potential access points could be developed to provide the 

public with access to compatible, wildlife-dependent 

activities (figure 9). 

Public Access Objectives 2 through 5 

Strategies 

■■	 Use refuge resources and money to develop 

refuge access points. 

■■ Apply for EVS money. 

■■ Develop projects through EVS. 

■■	 Work with WGFD to obtain money for these 

projects. 

■■ Use challenge cost share. 

■■ Work with Region 6’s GIS coordinator. 

Public Access Objectives Rationale 

Access to wildlife-dependent recreational activities is needed to fulfill the purposes of Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge, our mission, and the vision and 

goals of this CCP. Local residents have been seeking 

access to the refuge for many years to conduct these 

consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent 

activities. 

Visitor Safety Objective 1 

Within 2 years, establish the means to increase 

the safety of our refuge staff and visitors who cross 

over the railroad tracks to access refuge lands. 

Visitor Safety Objective Strategy 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s department of transportation coordinator to find ways to finance 

safe railroad crossings onto refuge lands. 

Visitor Safety Objective Rationale 

Public safety and railroad crossings have to be 

addressed with the help of Union Pacific Railroad 

because the railroad bisects the refuge acquisition 

boundary and refuge fee-title lands. 

River Boating Objective 1 

Within 2 years, find proper launching and takeout sites along the Bear River within the refuge to 

allow the public to enjoy nonmotorized recreational 

boating opportunities necessary for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, and environmental 

education. 

River Boating Objective 2 

Within 2 years of plan approval, find safety portages, obstacles, and disturbance areas along the 

Bear River to create a map that shows safe boating 

recreational opportunities for the public. 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

River Boating Objectives Strategies 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s GIS coordinator to 

develop the necessary GIS layers for a correct map. 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s EVS to develop a brochure and map with information on river 

boating. 

■■	 Develop or improve all necessary roads to 

launch and take out sites. 

■■	 Coordinate with the State and the BLM to 

obtain gravel from developed pits necessary 

to create or improve access roads and 

launch sites. 

River Boating Objectives Rationale 

Nonmotorized boats provide a unique opportunity 

for visitors to experience and learn about the refuge 

by ways other than from a vehicle. Keeping these 

nonmotorized would provide excellent conditions for 

angling, wildlife viewing, photography, and other 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Hunting Objective 1 

Carry out the refuge hunt plan, once it is 

approved, before the 2014 Wyoming hunting season. 

Hunting Objective 2 

Develop a hunt map before the 2014 Wyoming 

hunting season to guide refuge users to designated 

hunting areas and access points and to inform of refuge hunting regulations and hunting opportunities 

for people of all abilities (see figure 14). 

Hunting Objective 3 

Upon hunt plan approval, work with WGFD to 

establish hunts that are consistent with WGFD commission regulations and that support population management objectives. 

Hunting Objectives Strategies 

■■	 Develop media contacts and outreach materials to inform the hunting community of 

hunting opportunities. 

■■	 Allow hunters access to portions of the refuge that would provide reasonable challenges and opportunities for taking species 

that have harvest objectives and create 

minimal conflict with other priority wildlifedependent recreational uses or with refuge 

operations. 

■■	 Produce and distribute a factsheet with a 

map that designates areas open and closed 

to hunting along with all pertinent rules, 

regulations, and restrictions so hunters can 

make informed decisions. 

■■	 Provide information in collaboration with 

WGFD about opportunities on surrounding 

lands to allow hunters to plan for a quality 

experience. 

■■	 Erect signs to designate closed and 


restricted areas to reduce the chance of 


noncompliance and conflicts with
 

nonhunters.
 

■■	 Provide adequate law enforcement staff in 

collaboration with WGFD during peak hunting periods. 

■■	 Erect interpretive displays at designated 

parking areas and at the contact station that 

describe ways to hunt ethically and to 

explain hunting rules, regulations, and 

restrictions. 

■■	 Use seasonal road and access closures to 

make sure that there is a quality hunt, to 

protect refuge habitats from erosion, and to 

reduce the overlapping of other public uses 

like rifle hunting and birdwatching. 

Hunting Objectives Rationale 

We recognize hunting as a traditional outdoor 

pastime that is deeply rooted in America’s heritage. 

As long as resources can support it, hunting is considered a legitimate and proper public use on national 

wildlife refuges. Hunting can foster an understanding and instill appreciation of native wildlife and 

plants and generate support for their restoration and 

conservation as well as to generate support for the 

refuge, the Refuge System, and the Service. 

The refuge is part of a larger system of lands. 

Given that many native wildlife species migrate on 

and off the refuge, such as waterfowl, elk, deer, and 

pronghorn, our refuge hunting program affects more 

than just refuge lands. The key to success is a strong 

working relationship with sportsmen and women and 

with the State and incorporating our hunting goals 

and objectives into a hunting stepdown management 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 73 


Figure 14. Proposed public uses at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

plan. We will work with the State to promote sound 

hunting practices as a wildlife management tool. 

Pronghorn 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

Fishing Objective 1 

Within 10 years, determine the feasibility of 

restoring native sport fisheries. 

Fishing Objective 2 

Develop a public use area where one fishing event 

per year could be held for youth and where other 

wildlife-dependent public uses could also be served. 

Fishing Objective 3 

Develop an area that provides access for safe fishing opportunities to people of all abilities. 

Fishing Objective 4 

Work with WGFD to obtain access to fishing 

areas through private lands next to the refuge in conjunction with the refuge fishing program. 

Fishing Objectives Strategies 

■■	 Gather baseline resource data, review literature, and develop and carry out restoration 

plans, in collaboration with USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Trout 

Unlimited, WGFD, and USGS. 

■■	 Develop a map with access points and areas 

that are accessible to fishing. 

■■	 Develop a volunteer base to help with a 

youth fishing program and event. 

■■	 Work with EVS to plan, develop, and finance 

the public use area and a youth fishing 

program. 

■■	 Collaborate with local outdoor groups 

(sportsmen and women) to promote and 

sponsor a youth fishing program. 

■■	 Work with youth programs, such as Girl 

Scouts and Boy Scouts, and with schools to 

encourage a broad spectrum of participation 

in fishing events. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 75 

■■	 Develop a fishing brochure that details fishing access points and rules and regulations, 

and sign open and closed areas. 

Fishing Objectives Rationale 

We recognize fishing as a traditional outdoor pastime that is deeply rooted in America’s heritage. As 

long as resources can support it, fishing is considered 

a legitimate and proper public use. Fishing can foster 

and understanding and instill appreciation of native 

fish, wildlife, and plants and generate support for 

their restoration and conservation as well as to generate support for the refuge, the Refuge System, and 

the Service. 

Trapping Objective 1 

Carry out a management-directed trapping program that would be administered by refuge staff. 

Trapping Objective 1 Strategy 

■■	 Administer a trapping program on the refuge by issuing special use permits to qualified trappers who will serve to: 

❏■ observe mammal populations; 

❏■ remove portions of the annual surplus of 

furbearing mammals; 

❏■ reduce mammals that cause damage to 

infrastructure and are responsible for 

localized predation or depredation issues. 

Trapping Objective 1 Rationale 

Trapping is done in accordance with the needs of 

the Refuge Recreation Act, the Administration Act, 

and NEPA. Authorized by 50 CFR, part 31.16, we 

administer recreational trapping and recognize it as 

a traditional outdoor pastime that is deeply rooted in 

America’s heritage. As long as resources can support 

it, trapping is considered a legitimate and proper 

public use on national wildlife refuges. Trapping can 

foster an understanding and instill appreciation of 

native wildlife and plants and generate support for 

their restoration and conservation as well as to generate support for the refuge, the Refuge System, and 

the Service. 

Permit trappers are essential because they provide cost-effective information for assessing populations of various furbearing mammals. They also find 

furbearing mammals, like muskrats, that damage 

refuge infrastructure. Trappers who continue to 

remove mammals that predate ground-nesting birds 

late in the winter or early spring may help reduce 

their adverse effects. 

Trapping Objective 2 

Allow recreational trapping for economic benefits 

on refuge lands. 

Trapping Objective 2 Strategies 

■■	 Allow trapping on refuge lands within the 

framework of State seasons and regulations 

as prescribed by law. 

■■	 Watch and enforce trapping access and use 

regulations for compatibility with other refuge objectives. 

Trapping Objective 2 Rationale 

As refuge acreage allows, we would offer limited, 

refuge-permitted, WGFD-coordinated trapping for 

beaver, mink, muskrat, bobcat, red fox, badger, weasel, skunk, and raccoon. How we would address nuisance animals, predators like wolves and coyotes, and 

furbearers will be described in a stepdown management plan to this CCP. For compatibility reasons, the 

use of motorized vehicles will be restricted to designated roads. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective 1 

Within 5 years, provide opportunities with minimal disturbance to wildlife and habitat and develop 

designated viewing sites (one auto tour route and 

two accessible wildlife-viewing areas) to promote an 

appreciation of natural and cultural resources. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective 2 

Within 5 years, develop at least two photography 

blinds. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objectives Strategies 

■■	 Work with EVS to plan, design, and find the 

best locations to build viewing sites and 

blinds. 
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Evaluate which public access points can 


serve multiple functions.
 

■■	 Work with local sportsmen and sportswomen organizations and volunteer groups 

to construct and support local viewing areas 

or blinds. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objectives Rationale 

Wildlife observation and photography are two of 

the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational public uses as defined in the Improvement Act. They 

should be allowed if found compatible and if the refuge has the resources to support them. 

Promoting wildlife observation and the photography of plants and animals and their habitats can foster an understanding of, and an appreciation for, 

America’s natural resources and the role of the Refuge System in managing and protecting these 

resources. The refuge is part of an intermontane 

ecosystem that typically has been used for farming 

and ranching. It offers a unique opportunity to view 

plants and animals in a natural setting. 

Engaging in wildlife viewing or photography on 

foot would generally be allowed unless our staff designates specific areas or periods closed to the public . 

This would be the case during hunting seasons when 

visitor safety would be an issue. Developing an auto 

tour route and areas to interpret to visitors are also 

important ways to reach out to the public and to educate visitors about national wildlife refuges. Through 

such, they would get a feel for what refuges do and 

how they run. Additionally they would provide modes 

of access to enhance opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1 

Within 5 years, evaluate refuge lands for the possible development of environmental education and 

interpretation sites. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1 Strategies 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s EVS, WGFD, Lincoln 

County officials, and the Wyoming Department of Transportation to find areas of 

potential development along Highway 30 

and Lincoln County Road 207. 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s EVS to design and 

develop environmental education and interpretation signage as well as to obtain money 

for their development and placement. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2 

Within 5 years, work with EVS and develop a visitor services plan that covers all wildlife-dependent 

compatible uses. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2 Strategy 

■■	 Work with EVS to develop a visitor services
 

plan.
 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objectives 1 and 2 

Rationale 

We plan to develop opportunities to interpret 

wildlife resources, the Refuge System, and the Bear 

River watershed. Through these, visitors should be 

well informed of refuge resources and their roles 

within the larger landscape. Any environmental education and interpretive facilities would complement 

the habitats of the refuge and surrounding landscapes while better orienting and educating visitors. 

A visitor services plan should be developed to find 

areas for public uses and to guide our staff on how to 

develop these areas. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 3 

Work with the Wyoming Department of Transportation to develop at least two highway pullouts on 

State Highway 30 along the east side of the refuge 

boundary to allow the driving public an opportunity 

to engage in wildlife observation and interpretation. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 3 Strategies 

■■	 Work and develop a relationship with the 

Wyoming Department of Transportation to 

plan and establish pullouts. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 77 

■■	 Involve other partners to engage the Wyoming Department of Transportation on pullout development. 

■■	 Establish a needs list of what the Wyoming 

Department of Transportation can provide 

and what we can provide to make pullouts 

happen. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 3 Rationale 

There is a substantial amount of traffic on State 

Highway 30 traveling to and from the Jackson Hole 

and Yellowstone areas in the spring, summer, and 

fall. Cokeville Meadows Refuge receives many of 

those visitors, and pullouts would provide good 

opportunities to reach out to these people (see figure 

9). 

Public Information Objective 1 

Within 2 years, develop and begin disseminating a 

refuge brochure that contains information on the refuge’s background, a refuge map, access points, and 

available wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities. 

Public Information Objective 2 

Within 2 years, update the refuge’s Web site to 

include pertinent, up-to-date information, such as 

hunting and fishing guidance and maps, species lists, 

and access points. 

Public Information Objectives Strategies 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s EVS staff to develop 

the refuge brochure. 

■■	 Collaborate with local, county and State 

groups and agencies to disseminate the brochure as far and wide as possible. 

■■	 Update the refuge Web site and include 

electronic versions of refuge maps and the 

refuge brochure. 

■■	 Coordinate with local communities and 

chambers of commerce to alert them on the 

status of refuge programs and the brochure. 

■■	 Post printed and Web site press releases, at 

least monthly, on what is happening on the 

refuge. 

Public Information Objectives Rationale 

It is important that information about the refuge 

be developed and disseminated to the public, especially to help protect refuge resources. The information should be in place to inform and direct the public 

so refuge regulations can be understood, wildlife 

disturbance can be avoided, and the public can learn 

about the refuge and what the Refuge System provides to wildlife and refuge visitors. 

Cultural Resources Objective 

Protect documented cultural and historic 

resources to preserve them for all Americans and to 

comply with applicable laws. 

Cultural Resources Objective Strategies 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s archaeologist to 

develop and perform a formal review of documented resources every 5 years for protection, evaluation of condition, and 

preservation. 

■■	 Survey for cultural resources before development and restoration activities begin. 

■■	 Submit potential prescribed fire treatments 

and management activities for clearance, 

such as Section 106 clearance, before they 

begin. 

■■	 Use the most up-to-date techniques for surveys, documentation, preservation, restoration, and research through coordination 

with Region 6’s archaeologists, the Wyoming State Historical Preservation Office, 

and local scholars and experts. 

■■	 Provide one half-time law enforcement officer to protect cultural resources. 

Cultural Resources Objective Rationale 

Our policy and certain laws direct Federal land 

managers to protect cultural resources found on Federal lands. It is important that they are identified and 

that adequate protection is provided to keep them 

intact for future generations. 

Law Enforcement Objective 

Provide adequate law enforcement coverage to 

make sure that wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities and other refuge programs and man­
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

agement activities are conducted in accordance with 

State and Federal laws and regulations to protect 

human safety and wildlife resources. 

Law Enforcement Objective Strategies 

■■	 Collaborate and coordinate with the State of 

Wyoming and other Federal and State agencies to conduct patrol activities on refuge 

lands. 

■■	 Coordinate all law enforcement efforts and 

programs with our zone officer at Bear 

River Migratory Bird Refuge. 

Law Enforcement Objective Rationale 

Law enforcement on refuges is an essential part 

of protecting public safety and infrastructure and 

enforcing refuge laws and regulations. Collaborating 

with other agencies is an important way to broaden 

cooperation and to help each other with wildlife law 

enforcement. 

Indian Ricegrass. 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

Partnerships Goal 

Engage in mutually beneficial partnerships to 

promote wildlife and habitat conservation, and 

public enjoyment of wildlife resources in the 

upper Bear River watershed that are consistent 

with historic land uses, refuge purposes and 

goals. 

Partnerships Objective 

Work with local, State, and Federal agencies, as 

well as with private organizations and individuals, to 

achieve refuge goals and objectives and to help these 

groups with management activities that promote 

habitat health and wildlife productivity across the 

Bear River watershed. 

Partnerships Objective Strategies 

■■	 Coordinate with State agencies and private 

conservation organizations on projects that 

directly help wildlife and their habitats. 

■■	 Seek partnerships with private landowners 

in the Cokeville Valley to improve wildlife 

habitat along the Bear River. 

■■	 Work with WGFD and private landowners 

to increase fishing access on the Bear River. 

■■	 Set priorities for our money and support for 

projects (land protection, staff, and equipment) that accomplish refuge objectives and 

that use partner contributions. 

■■	 Work with WGFD to manage public lands 

that are near each other more efficiently 

through the coordinated exchange of staff, 

cooperators, equipment, and facilities. 

■■	 Pursue partnerships to develop a field bird 

guide that is specific to the refuge. 

■■	 Develop, coordinate, and support working 

relationships with State and local law 

enforcement authorities and fire departments to protect refuge properties and 

trust species. 

■■	 Develop, coordinate, and support working 

relationships with cooperating agencies and 

other partners who conduct prescribed 

burns. 

■■	 Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program and other partners, develop, coor-
Chapter 4—Management Direction 79 

dinate, and support working relationships 

with those who deliver private lands 

projects. 

Great Blue Heron 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

Partnerships Objective Rationale 

A major objective of this CCP is to establish partnerships with landowners, volunteers, private organizations, and county, State, and Federal natural 

resource agencies. In particular, landowners would 

be informed of opportunities to take part in habitat 

protection programs, such as conservation easements, for which they would be compensated. Opportunities exist to enhance, or to establish new, 

partnerships with nonprofit organizations, sporting 

clubs, community organizations, and educational 

institutes. Strong partnerships already exist with 

The Nature Conservancy, WGFD, the Lincoln 

County Weed and Pest District, and Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife. 

Working across entire landscapes with multiple 

partners to protect and enhance wildlife habitat on 

large tracts of land is more effective than having 

individual groups working alone within their organizational boundaries. Partnerships bring about better 

understanding and coordination between different 

groups and illustrate what various partners can and 

cannot do to improve habitat. Partnerships also 

improve the odds for garnering and leveraging 

money for important projects that may help all the 

groups involved. 

Refuge Development and 

Operations Goal 

Effectively utilize all available resources to 

develop, enhance, and support refuge facilities 

and operations for wildlife, habitat, and public 

use programs. We will pursue easements, habitat 

improvements, and other land protection opportunities with willing sellers and interested land 

owners within the approved refuge acquisition 

boundary and within the Bear River watershed. 

This section discusses our goals, objectives, and 

strategies for refuge development and operations. 

Projects required to carry out the CCP are financed 

through two separate systems, as follows: 

■■	 The Refuge Operations Needs System is 

used to document requests to Congress for 

money and staff needed to carry out projects above the existing base budget. 

■■	 The Service Asset Maintenance Management System is used to document the equipment, buildings, and other existing 

properties that require repair or 

replacement. 

Staff 

The Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex has six full-time employees. All of them have 

duties at Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge and at 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge, but all are stationed at 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge. Table 6 in 

chapter 3 lists these positions along with one new, 

full-time equivalent position assigned to Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge that is needed to carry out this 

CCP. 

Staff Objective 

Seek to hire at least one new, full-time equivalent 

position at Wage Grade-7 or Wage Grade-8 to function as maintenance staff for Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge to support public use and refuge facilities. 
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

The Pixley Dam is in need of replacement. 

Mike Artmann / FWS 

Staff Objective Strategies 

■■ Refer to the 2008 staff model for the refuge. 

■■	 Look at split or joint positions with other 

agencies. 

Staff Objective Rationale 

The addition of this position is instrumental in 

supporting wetland impoundments, carrying out new 

habitat projects, giving proper care and maintenance 

to all refuge facilities and equipment, and to help 

with public access. 

Equipment Objective 

Within 5 years, replace all decrepit equipment and 

obtain all necessary equipment to carry out day-today activities to reduce dependence on the equipment 

at Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Equipment Objective Strategies 

■■ Replace pickup truck and tractor. 

■■	 Obtain tractor with mowing attachment and 

front-end bucket (at least 50 horsepower). 

■■ Replace backhoe. 

Equipment Objective Rationale 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge relies on Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge to provide equipment and 

fleet support for operations. The refuge needs support to conduct its day-to-day activities that require 

maintenance equipment. The refuge has some equipment, but needs more tools to complete priority habitat and maintenance projects. 

Facilities Objective 1 

Replace the Pixley Dam with a more efficient irrigation management structure that includes fish passage and river connectivity and is large enough to 

allow for single-lane access. 

Facilities Objective 1 Strategies 

■■ Obtain full ownership of the Pixley Dam. 

■■	 Add the Pixley Dam to refuge property 

inventory for replacement in the Service 

Asset Maintenance Management System. 

■■	 Obtain all necessary Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office and Region 6’s 

archaeologist approvals. 

■■	 Work with regional engineering and water 

resources to develop a new plan and design. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 81 

■■	 Work with our fisheries program and 

WGFD, the State Engineers Office, and 

other partners in the design and placement 

of a new structure. 

Facilities Objective 1 Rationale 

Pixley Dam is now jointly owned by a private 

owner and us. The dam was built in 1903, is in poor 

condition and near failure, and poses major safety 

hazards to anyone who works on it or uses it as a 

river crossing. The dam is an in-river structure that 

does not allow fish to pass upstream or downstream 

and has, over the years, created a situation where the 

biodiversity of species above the dam is low. 

Facilities Objective 2 

Work with other interests on the BQ Dam to make 

sure that this structure continues to serve the irrigation needs of refuge and private habitats. 

Facilities Objective 2 Strategies 

■■	 Meet on an as-needed basis with other BQ 

Dam interests and coordinate all maintenance and repair activities. 

■■	 Use permittees to help with necessary 


repairs.
 

■■	 Find grant opportunities for repairs and 


maintenance.
 

Facilities Objective 2 Rationale 

The BQ Dam is an old, in-river structure that is 

used to divert water from the Bear River to irrigate 

wet meadow habitats in the Cokeville Valley. This 

structure requires annual maintenance to keep it 

functioning properly and safely. It does not allow fish 

to pass upstream or downstream and has, over the 

years, created a situation where the biodiversity of 

species below the dam is low. 

Facilities Objective 3 

Support irrigation infrastructure to provide adequate and proper irrigation of refuge habitats. 

Facilities Objective 3 Strategies 

■■	 Use our staff and equipment to support irrigation infrastructure. 

■■	 Work with partners to support infrastructure and facilities on the refuge and on private properties to support the proper 

function of irrigation systems. 

Facilities Objective 3 Rationale 

Proper irrigation and facilities maintenance 

throughout the Cokeville Valley greatly enhance 

wildlife habitat conditions. 

Facilities Objective 4 

Support wildlife-friendly boundary fencing and 

evaluate interior fences for removal. 

Facilities Objective 4 Strategies 

■■	 Use permittees to repair or remove refuge 

fences, as necessary, to support wildlife 

management objectives. 

■■	 Replace fencing with deferred maintenance 

money. 

Facilities Objective 4 Rationale 

Refuge fences are required to properly manage 

and protect refuge lands from trespass. Fences help 

to separate uses such as grazing and haying. Evaluating interior fences for removal is an ongoing 

process. 

Railroad Facilities Objective 1 

Within 2 years, work with Union Pacific Railroad 

officials to define roles and responsibilities relating to 

railroad right-of-way maintenance and other issues 

that affect refuge operations. 

Railroad Facilities Objective Strategy 

■■	 Contact Union Pacific Railroad officials to 

work through right-of-way issues about 

crossing over railroad tracks for refuge and 

public uses. 

Railroad Facilities Objective Rationale 

Railroad right-of-way issues, including fires, noxious weeds, accidents, contaminants, and wildlife 

effects, have to be addressed by working with the 

Union Pacific Railroad because the railroad bisects 

the refuge acquisition boundary and refuge fee-title 

lands. 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Rip rap, used to reduce bank erosion, made its way onto the refuge before acquisition by the Service. A substantial 

amount of junk and debris has been removed by our partners and by refuge staff. 

Mike Artmann / FWS 

Junk and Debris Removal Objective 

Within 5 years, find and remove all junk and 

debris piles from lands managed by the refuge. 

Junk and Debris Removal Objective 

Strategies 

■■	 Find and map areas where junk and debris 

are located. 

■■	 Work with partners and cooperators to find 

safe and proper ways to remove and dispose 

of all the junk and debris piles on refuge 

lands. 

■■	 Hire seasonal employees to help clear debris 

piles. 

■■	 Work with partners and cooperators to find 

ways to keep junk and debris materials 

from being dumped on refuge lands. 

Junk and Debris Removal Objective 

Rationale 

Junk and debris piles on refuge lands are a health 

hazard to humans and wildlife and are eyesores. 

Small mammals, especially animals that depredate 

on migratory bird nests, often burrow under or dwell 

inside them. It is important that the staff and its 

partners find ways to promptly and properly dispose 

of all debris and junk piles to protect humans and 

wildlife and to restore a pristine look. 

Water Rights and Resources Objective 

Within 3 years, conduct an evaluation and develop 

a plan to define the refuge’s water rights and how 

they should be used for habitat management. 

Water Rights and Resources Objective 

Strategies 

■■	 Work with the division of water resources to 

develop a comprehensive refuge water 

rights evaluation. 

■■	 Name unneeded water rights for abandonment such as unused domestic water wells. 

■■	 Find money to allow us to drop unneeded 

abandoned wells. 

■■	 Work with the State Engineer’s Office to 

define all refuge water rights and proper 

uses. 
Water Rights and Resources Objective 

Rationale 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 83 

We have water rights important for habitat management on the refuge that need to be identified, 

understood, and used to show that we are properly 

managing them. 

Land Protection Objective 

Incorporate all ways to protect habitat and wildlife values, as well as to preserve and enhance habitat 

connectivity. 

Land Protection Objective Strategies 

■■	 Acquire lands in fee title from willing sellers within the refuge boundary. 

■■	 Use conservation or access easements 


throughout the Bear River watershed in 


Wyoming.
 

■■	 Work with partners to find money to help us 

acquire easements. 

Land Protection Objective Rationale 

We feel that urban sprawl and development pose 

major threats to wildlife habitat in the Cokeville Valley. Steps need to be taken to protect habitat conditions and connectivity through fee-title acquisition 

and conservation easements and by working with 

partners to improve and protect key habitats within 

the Bear River watershed. 

Refuge Mineral Rights and Energy 

Development Objective 

Find ways to protect refuge habitats and the wildlife and plants that depend on them from onsite and 

offsite mineral and energy development and transportation activities. 

Refuge Mineral Rights and Energy 

Development Objective Strategies 

■■	 Work with the BLM and other agencies and 

partners to secure mineral rights on refuge 

lands as opportunities arise. 

■■	 Work with partners to identify existing and 

future mineral and energy development and 

transportation activities that could 

adversely affect refuge habitats and 

resources and find ways to avoid or reduce 

effects. 

Refuge Mineral Rights and Energy 

Development Objective Rationale 

Mineral rights associated with refuge lands 

should be sought and bought whenever possible to 

protect refuge resources. Mineral and energy development and transportation in and around the 

approved acquisition boundary have the potential to 

adversely affect habitats and the plants and wildlife 

that depend on them. We will continue to work with 

partners and adjacent landowners to find ways to 

protect refuge resources while respecting private 

property. 

Monitoring 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to the 

long-term management of biotic resources. Adaptive 

management is directed, over time, by the results of 

ongoing monitoring activities and other information. 

More specifically, adaptive management is a process 

by which projects are carried out within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined by a CCP (figure 15). 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols would be 

adopted for Cokeville Meadows Refuge. The habitat 

management strategies would be systematically 

evaluated to identify management effects on wildlife 

populations. This information would be used to refine 

approaches and to figure out how effectively the 

objectives are being accomplished. If monitoring and 

evaluation show undesirable effects for target and 

nontarget species or communities, management projects would be altered accordingly and the CCP would 

be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities would be described in a stepdown management 

plan (table 9). 

Monitoring Objective 1 

Within 5 years, define refuge monitoring needs 

with the help of Region 6’s inventory and monitoring 

team and our partners. 

Monitoring Objective 1 Strategies 

■■	 Define and rank habitat management 


research needs.
 
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Promote refuge research needs within the 

scientific community. 

■■	 Encourage research that focuses on the refuge’s habitat management goals. 

Monitoring Objective 2 

Within 7–10 years, develop a monitoring plan. 

Monitoring Objective 2 Strategy 

■■	 Work with Region 6’s inventory and monitoring team to develop a comprehensive 

monitoring plan for Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge. 

Monitoring Objectives Rationale 

We recognize that the refuge has substantial 

inventory, monitoring, and research needs, but we 

lack the resources to harvest data. Thus, we need to 

find creative ways to encourage data gathering and 

scientific studies by outside parties. We first need to 

find and categorize the most substantial data gaps. 

Research Objective 1 

Where possible, allow third-party research to 

help us make sound, management-based decisions 

and to use the collected data. 

Research Objective 2 

Have outside groups perform refuge-specific 

research that would help us manage refuge habitats 

and resources or would fill in information and data 

gaps. 

Research Objectives Strategies 

■■ Conduct animal species inventories. 

■■ Conduct vegetation inventories. 

■■ Conduct soils data and inventories. 

■■	 Create breeding bird and nesting data 


baselines.
 

Research Objectives Rationale 

The refuge needs baseline data for habitat and 

wildlife. Our staff would collaborate with universities 

and other entities to collect baseline data on refuge 

resources and obtain a better understanding of the 

effects of our management activities. 

Nuisance Animal and Predator Control 

Objective 

Allow the take of any nuisance species within the 

refuge boundary to reduce conflicts with our 

neighbors. 

Nuisance Animal and Predator Control 

Objective Strategies 

■■	 Develop a nuisance animal management 


plan that identifies potential species and 


treatment choices.
 

■■	 Work with WGFD and other agencies and 

partners to develop thresholds and management actions when problems are identified. 

Nuisance Animal and Predator Control 

Objective Rationale 

Our landscape-level plan can only be carried out 

by working cooperatively with our neighbors both on 

and off the refuge. Thus, our staff needs to make sure 

that animals that cross boundaries and become problems or a nuisances to the refuge and its neighbors 

are dealt with properly. 

Volunteers Programs Objective 1 

Within 1 year, create a list of tasks that a volunteers group could undertake to help the refuge and 

its habitats. 

Volunteers Programs Objective 1 

Strategies 

■■	 Name refuge needs and create a list of 

activities that volunteers could undertake. 

■■	 Seek input from our staff and partners on 

needs and possibilities. 

Volunteers Programs Objective 2 

Within 5 years, create at least one volunteers 

group to help our staff with priority volunteer projects that would be identified in objective 1. 
Volunteers Programs Objective 2 

Strategies 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 85 

■■	 Develop and put out press releases in surrounding communities. 

■■	 Contact the regional volunteer program 


coordinator.
 

■■ Contact local universities. 

■■	 Work with local governments to promote a 

volunteer program. 

Volunteers Programs Objectives Rationale 

Volunteers have taken a more important role in 

refuge operations as budgets tighten and staff 

become scarce. It is important for our staff to select 

which refuge activities can be delegated to 

volunteers. 

Figure 15. The adaptive resource management process. 

4.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 

We believe that the uncertainty surrounding habi

tat management can be dealt with most efficiently 

■■	 commu

to direc

The adapt

an iterative 

the effective

conditions of

improved ov

habitat mana

­

within the paradigm of adaptive resource management (see figure 15) (Holling 1978, Kendall 2001, 

Lancia et al. 1996, Walters and Holling 1990). This 

approach provides a framework within which we can 

make objective decisions and reduce the uncertainty 

surrounding those decisions. The key components of 

an adaptive resource management plan follow: 

■■	 clearly defined management goals and 


objectives
 

■■	 a set of management actions with associated 

uncertainty as to their outcome 

■■	 predictions of various alternative responses 

to management strategies 

■■	 monitoring or assessing select natural 


resource conditions of interest, largely 


directed by objectives
 

nicating and using new information 

t future decisionmaking 

ive management framework facilitates 

process, whereby our understanding of 

ness of strategies and the response and 

 natural resources on the refuge is 

er time. Reducing the uncertainty of 

gement via adaptive resource manage-
ment helps in the continual development of long-term 

habitat management plans. 

4.5 Plan Amendment and 

Revision 

This CCP will be reviewed annually to find out if 

there is a need for plan revision. A revision would 

occur if and when significant information becomes 

available. This CCP will also be supported by 

detailed stepdown management plans to address the 

completion of specific strategies to support Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge goals and objectives. Revisions to 

the CCP and the stepdown management plans would 

be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. At 

a minimum, the CCP will be evaluated every 5 years 

and revised after 15 years. 

Table 9 shows the timeline for stepdown manage

ment plans for Cokeville Meadows Refuge. 

Table 9. Stepdown management plans for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

New or completed plan, Revised plan, Plan approved year completion year 

Habitat management — 2019 

Fire management 2002 2014 

Disease contingency 2006 2016 

Wilderness management 1986 2012 

Refuge safety 2002 2010 

Visitor services 1986 2019 

Wildlife inventory and monitoring — 2020 

Spill prevention control and 

countermeasures 2006 2012 

Hunting plan 2014 — 

Trapping plan — 2017 

Fishing plan — 2017 

Predator and nuisance animal 

management plan — 2017 

Water and drought management 

plan — 2017 

Integrated pest management plan — 2017 

86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

“Snow angels” made by magpies. 

Tom Koerner / FWS 

­
Glossary
 

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving things. 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, 

especially those with physical impairments. 

adaptive management—Rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary to assess and 

change management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to support or change 

objectives and strategies at all planning levels; a 

process in which policy decisions are carried out 

within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent in a management plan. Analysis of results 

helps managers figure out whether current management should continue as is or whether it should 

be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—See National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

alternatives—Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission 

and resolving issues. 

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

anadromous—Migrating from saltwater to spawn in 

fresh water, as some salmon species do. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination. 

baseline—Set of essential observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control. 

Beckwith and Quin Dam—An instream water control 

structure located within the Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge boundary. 

biological control—Reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted species by the introduction of 

natural predators, parasites, or diseases. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—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 (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System’s focus is on endemic species, biotic communities, and ecological processes. 

biological integrity—Composition, structure, and 

function at the genetic, organism, and community 

levels consistent with natural conditions and the 

biological processes that shape genomes, 

organ¬isms, and communities. 

biomass—Total amount of living material, plants and 

animals, above and below the ground in a particular habitat or area. 

biota—Animals and plants of a given region. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms. 

BLM—See Bureau of Land Management. 

BQ Dam—See Beckwith and Quin Dam. 

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds 

or other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zone or buffer strip—Protective land borders 

around essential habitats or water bodies that 

reduce runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; areas created or sustained to lessen the negative effects of land development on animals and 

plants and their habitats. 

Bureau of Land Management—A Federal agency 

under the executive branch of government. 

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy 

closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs—An abbreviation for cubic feet per second, a 

measurement of water flow. 

climax—Community that has reached a steady state 

under a particular set of environmental conditions; a relatively stable plant community; the 

final stage in ecological succession. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of the 

general and permanent rules published in the 

“Federal Register” by the Executive departments 

and agencies of the Federal Government. Volumes 

of the CFR are updated once each calendar year. 

community—Area or locality in which a group of 

people resides and shares the same government. 

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational use 

or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission 

of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

supports the choice of compatible uses and identi

fied stipulations or limits necessary to make sure 

that there is 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 Refuge System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (“Draft U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and

enhancement. 

cooperative agreement—Legal instrument used 

when the principal purpose of the transaction is 

the transfer of money, property, services or any

thing of value to a recipient to accomplish a public 

purpose authorized by Federal statute and sub

stantial involvement between the Service and the 

recipient is anticipated. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present vegeta

tion of an area. 

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people in the past. 

cultural resource inventory—Professionally con

ducted study designed to locate and evaluate evi

dence of cultural resources present within a 

defined area. Inventories may involve various 

levels including background literature search 

(class I), sample inventory of project site distribu

tion and density over a larger area (class II), or 

comprehensive field examination to name all 

exposed physical manifestation of cultural 

resources (class III). 

database—Collection of data arranged for ease and 

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually 

computerized. 

deciduous—Pertaining to any plant organ or group 

of organs that is shed annually; perennial plants 

that are leafless for some time during the year. 

defoliation—Removing of vegetative parts; to strip 

vegetation of leaves; removal can be caused by 

weather, mechanical, animals, and fire. 

demography—Quantitative analysis of population 

structure and trend. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat struc

ture or composition. May be natural (for example, 

fire) or human-caused events (for example, timber 

harvest). 

drawdown—Manipulating water levels in an 

impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out 

cycle of a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

easement—Agreement by which a landowner gives 

up or sells one of the rights on his or her 

property. 

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving environment; a biological community, with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United 

States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries and 

their sizes and ecological complexity vary. 

education and visitor services—A division of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such 

as cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended—A law 

that required all Federal agencies to carry out 

programs for the conservation of threatened and 

endangered species. 

endangered species, Federal—Plant or animal species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant part of its range. 

endangered species, State—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular State 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 significant 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)—Concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, that briefly 

discusses the purpose and need for an action and 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of changes to figure out 

whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

environmental education—Education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable about the 

biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, 

and motivated to work toward their solution. 

environmental health—Natural composition, structure, and functioning of the physical, chemical, 

and other abiotic elements, and the abiotic processes that shape the physical environment. 

ESA—See Endangered Species Act (1973), as 

amended. 

EVS—See education and visitor services. 
Glossary 89 

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing. 

extirpation—Extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area. 

°F—See Fahrenheit. 

Fahrenheit—A measurement of temperature. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal Government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

federally listed species—Species listed under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, either as endangered, threatened, or 

species at risk (formerly candidate species). 

fee title—Acquisition of most or all the rights to a 

tract of land. 

fire regime—Description of the frequency, severity, 

and extent of fire that typically occurs in an area 

or vegetative type. 

fire management plan (FMP)— A plan that identifies 

and integrates all wildland fire management and 

related activities within the context of approved 

land or resource management plans. It defines a 

program to manage wildland fires (wildfire and 

prescribed fire). 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

FMP— See “fire management plan.” 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

geographic information system (GIS)—Computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; a set of computer hardware and software for 

analyzing and displaying spatially referenced features (points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic attributes such as species and age. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable 

units (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 620 FW 1.5). 

GPS—Global Positioning System. 

guild—A group of species that use a common 

resource base in a similar fashion within an ecological community. It can be generally defined (for 

example, grassland birds) or specifically defined 

(for example, seed-eating small mammals). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

habitat conservation—Protection of animal or plant 

habitat to make sure that the use of that habitat 

by the animal or plant is not altered or reduced. 

habitat disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for 

example, wildland fire) or human-caused events 

(for example, timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—Land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. 

herbivore—Animal feeding on plants. 

herbivory—The eating of plants, especially ones that 

are still living. 

HGM—See hydrogeomorphic method. 

hydrogeomorphic method—An interdisciplinary science that focuses on the interaction and linkage of 

hydrologic processes with landforms or earth 

materials and the interaction of geomorphic processes with surface and subsurface water in temporal and spatial dimensions. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—See National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

integrated pest management—Methods of managing 

undesirable species such as invasive plants; education, prevention, physical or mechanical methods 

of control, biological control, responsible chemical 

use, and cultural methods. 

introduced species—A nonnative plant or animal 

species that is intentionally or accidentally 

released into an ecosystem where it was not 

adapted before. 

introduction—Intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement of a species 

into an ecosystem because of human activity. 

invasive plant, also noxious weed—Species that is 

non¬native to the ecosystem under consideration 

and whose introduction causes, or is likely to 

cause, economic or environmental harm or harm 

to human health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

IPM—See integrated pest management. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in 

uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (“Draft U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

lek—A physical area where males of a certain animal 

species gather to show their prowess and compete 

for females before or during the mating season. 

local agencies—Municipal governments, regional 

planning commissions, or conservation groups. 

management alternatives—See alternatives. 
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

management plan—Plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land. See 

cooperative agreement. 

mean sea level—The sea level halfway between average levels of high and low water. 

mechanical control—Reduction in numbers or elimination of unwanted species through the use of 

mechanical equipment such as mowers and 

clippers. 

mesic—Characterized by, relating to, or requiring a 

moderate amount of moisture; having a moderate 

rainfall. 

microhabitat—Habitat features at a fine scale; often 

identifies a unique set of local habitat features. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

migratory gamebird—Bird species, regulated under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State laws 

(legally hunted, including ducks, geese, woodcock, 

and rails). 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being. 

monitoring—Process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

monotypic—Having only one type or 

representative. 

moraine—Mass of earth and rock debris carried by 

an advancing glacier and left at its front and side 

edges as it retreats. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969—Required 

all agencies including the Service to examine the 

environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Required Federal agencies to integrate 

this act with other planning needs and prepare 

proper documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 CFR 1500). 

national wildlife refuge—Designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

Refuge System, but does not include coordination 

areas; a complete listing of all units of the Refuge 

System is in the current “Annual Report of Lands 

Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wild¬life 

Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System—Various categories 

of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife 

including species threatened with extinction, all 

lands, waters, and interests therein administered 

by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife 

that are threatened with extinction, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, 

and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966—Defined the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorized the Secretary of the Interior 

to allow any use of a refuge, provided such use is 

compatible with the major purposes for which the 

refuge was established. 

Native species—Species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or now 

occur in that ecosystem. 

neotropical migrant, also neotropical migratory bird 

—Bird species that breeds north of the United 

States–Mexico border and winters primarily 

south of this border. 

NEPA—See the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969. 

nest success—Percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of 

nests started in an area. 

nongovernment organization—Any group that does 

not include Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other government entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed in 

1986, recognizes that the recovery and perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends on restoring wetlands and associated ecosystems 

throughout the United States and Canada. It 

established cooperative international efforts and 

joint ventures made up of individuals; corporations; conservation organizations; and local, State, 

provincial, and Federal agencies drawn together 

by common conservation objectives. The Souris 

River Basin refuges are included in the “Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture.” 

notice of intent—Notice that an environmental 

impact statement will be prepared and considered 

(40 CFR 1508.22); published in the “Federal 

Register.” 

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or not widely prevalent in the United 

States) and can directly or indirectly injure crops, 

other useful plants, livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife resources, or public health. 

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 

93-639), a noxious weed (invasive plant) is one that 

causes disease or has adverse effects on humans 

or the human environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the 

United States and to public health. 
 

Glossary 91 

NWR—See national wildlife refuge. 

objective—Concise statement of what is to be 

achieved, when and where it is to 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 reachable, time-specific, and 

measurable. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into by 

two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations, or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind service, such as labor, for a mutually beneficial 

enterprise. 

patch—Area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a 

lifespan of more than 2 years. 

phenology—The relationship between plant or animal development and climatic conditions. 

planning team—Team that prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consists of a planning team leader; refuge manager and staff biologist; staff specialists 

or other representatives of Service programs, 

ecosystems or regional offices; and State partnering wildlife agencies as proper. 

planning team leader—Typically a professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable 

of the needs of National Environmental Policy Act 

and who has planning experience. The planning 

team leader manages the refuge planning process 

and ensures compliance with applicable regulatory and policy needs. 

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or 

administratively related refuge complex, or distinct unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may 

include lands now outside refuge boundaries. 

plant association—Classification of plant communities based on the similarity in dominants of all 

layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

plant community—Assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; a reflection 

or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar 

radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community (ponderosa pine or bunchgrass). 

potentiometric surface—A hypothetical surface representing the level to which ground water would 

rise if not trapped in a confined aquifer. 

predation—Mode of life in which food is primarily 

obtained by the killing or consuming of animals. 

prescribed fire—A wildland fire originating from a 

planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan 

for which NEPA requirements (where applicable) 

have been met before ignition. 

priority public use—See wildlife-dependent recreational use. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land that is owned by a private individual, a group of individuals, or a nongovernment 

organization. 

private landowner—Any individual, group of individuals, or nongovernment organization that owns 

land. 

private organization—Any nongovernment 

organization. 

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the significant issues, and is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management). 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials 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 

shown an interest in Service issues and those who 

do or do not realize that Service decisions may 

affect them. 

public involvement—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. 

public land—Land that is owned by the local, State, 

or Federal government. 

purpose of the refuge—Purpose specified 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 (“Draft U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

refuge lands—Lands in which the Service holds full 

interest in fee title, or partial interest such as 

limited-interest refuges. 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 
 

92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Region 6—Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, which administers Service 

programs in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Artificial manipulation of a habitat to 

restore it to something close to its natural state. 

Involves taking a degraded grassland and reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals. 

Restoration usually involves the planting of native 

grasses and forbs, and may include shrub removal 

and prescribed fire. 

riparian area or riparian zone—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 parts are directly or indirectly 

attributed to the influence of water; of or relating 

to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and 

directly influenced by streams. For example, 

riparian vegetation includes all plant life growing 

on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over the 

land surface into a waterbody. 

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder of birds such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or mudflat areas. 

sound professional judgment—Finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management and 

ad¬ministration, available science and resources, 

and adherence to the needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

and other applicable laws. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space. 

special status species—Plants or animals that have 

been identified through 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; the Service’s species of 

management concern; and species identified by 

the Partners in Flight program as being of 

extreme or moderately high conservation 

concern. 

special use permit—Permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually 

avail¬able to the public through authorizations in 

Title 50 CFR or other public regulations 

(“National Wildlife Refuge System Manual” 5 RM 

17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or clear populations declines, small or 

restricted populations, or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats. Species that: (1) 

are documented or have clear population declines; 

(2) are small or restricted populations; or (3) 

depend on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with 

more or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. Typically used to refer to forested areas. 

stepdown management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation 

plan (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely 

beneath the water surface, except for flowering 

parts in some species. 

succession—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. 

surficial—Relating to or occurring on the surface. 

temporarily flooded—Surface water is present for 

brief periods during the growing season. 

trust	 resource—Resource that, through law or 

administrative act, is held in trust for the people 

by the government. A Federal trust resource is 

one for which trust responsibility is given in part 

to the Federal Government through Federal legislation or administrative act. Generally, Federal 

trust resources are those considered to be of 

national or international importance no matter 

where they occur, such as endangered species and 

species such as migratory birds and fish that regularly move across State lines. Besides species, 
Glossary 93 

trust resources include cultural resources pro

tected through Federal historic preservation 

laws, nationally important and threatened habi

tats, notably wetlands, navigable waters, and pub

lic lands such as State parks and national wildlife 

refuges. 

trust species—See trust resource. 

understory—Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) is 

below, or closer to the ground than canopies of 

other plants. 

upland—Dry ground; other than wetlands. 

USDA—See U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture—A Federal agency 

under the executive branch of government. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Principal Federal 

agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service manages the 93-million-acre National 

Wildlife Refuge System made up of more than 530 

national wildlife refuges and thousands of water

fowl production areas. It also runs 65 national fish 

hatcheries and 78 ecological service field stations, 

the agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, man

ages migratory bird populations, restores national 

significant fisheries, conserves and restores wild

life habitat such as wetlands, administers the 

Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign gov

ernments with their conservation efforts. It also 

oversees the Federal aid program that distributes 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and 

hunting equipment to State wildlife agencies. 

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 fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the con

tinuing benefit of the American people. 

FWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Geological Survey—Federal agency whose mis

sion is to provide reliable scientific information to 

describe and understand the earth; reduce loss of 

life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

vision statement—Concise statement of what the 

planning unit should be, or what the Service 

hopes to do, based primarily on the Refuge Sys

tem mission, specific refuge purposes, and other 

mandates. In addition, the vision statement is tied 

to the maintenance and restoration of biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

each refuge and the Refuge System. 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a 

plant community; the height of vegetation that 

­

­

­

blocks the view of predators and conspecifics to a 

nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—Measurement of 

the density of a plant community; the height of 

vegetation that blocks the view of predators to a 

nest. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading. 

wadingbirds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water. Includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

Wage Grade—Pay rate schedule for certain Federal 

positions. 

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water 

drains into a particular river, stream or body of 

water. A watershed includes both the land and the 

body of water into which the land drains. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water. 

WGFD—See Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

wildfire—Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such 

as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires) and 

escaped prescribed fires. 

wildland fire—A general term describing any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland. There 

are two types of wildland fire—wildfire and prescribed fire. 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation. These are the six priority public 

uses of the Refuge System as established in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority public 

uses, are those that depend on the presence of 

wildlife. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating wildlife populations either directly through regulating 

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or 

in¬directly by providing favorable habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming from 25 to 60 

percent cover. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department—A government 

department of the State of Wyoming. 

xerophytic—Pertaining to a plant that needs little 

water (adapted to growing in dry habitat). 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

___________________________________________________ 

 

________________________________________________ 

 

 

__________________________________________________ 

 Date 

Appendix A 

Environmental Compliance 

Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge” is found not to 

have significant environmental effects, as determined 

by the attached “finding of no significant impact” and 

the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Noreen Walsh Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Will Meeks Date 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

___________________________________________________ 

Carl Millegan Date 

Acting Refuge Supervisor, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Tom Koerner 

Project Leader 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Green River, Wyoming 
Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

INTRODUCTION 

This finding of no significant impact provides the 

basis for management decisions for the final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment 

for the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Wyoming. The comprehensive conservation plan was 

prepared along with an environmental assessment in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act and relevant planning policies. We worked closely 

with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Other 

Federal, State and local agencies, tribal governments, 

nongovernmental organizations, and individuals contributed input to the plan. 

ALTERNATIVES 

Based on an analysis of comments collected from the 

public, input from our staff, and a review of the needs 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy 

Act, we identified several key issues for Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. These were addressed in the alternatives for future management, 

which are summarized below. 

Alternative A—No Action 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which 

represents the current management of Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. This alternative 

provides the baseline against which to compare the 

other alternatives. It also fulfills a need of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Funding, infrastructure, 

staff levels, partnerships, and management activities 

at the refuge would not change from current levels. 

Alternative B—Maximum Restoration 

Alternative B seeks to restore habitats so that they 

closely resemble those conditions found before the 

Cokeville Valley was settled. Our refuge staff would 

use recommendations from a recently completed hydrogeomorphic study report of the area and would 

consider removing all water control infrastructure so 

that wet meadows would follow historical flood patterns and allow vegetative communities that existed 

before development to reestablish. The flooding of wet 

meadows would primarily take place over riverbanks. 

Haying and grazing activities would be used to keep 

habitats productive, and nonnative agricultural crops 

would be limited or used as a tool to reestablish native 

habitats. We would emphasize public uses that are 

compatible or that support habitat restoration. Land 

and easement acquisition would continue to round out 

and complete the acquisition boundary. 

Alternative C—Resource Management 

Alternative C strives to improve resources and 

refuge development with the use of partners to increase the refuge’s wildlife and habitat productivity. 

Wet meadow, riparian, riverine, and upland habitats 

would be managed and restored to increase wildlife 

productivity and diversity. The use of agricultural 

practices would be specifically geared to enhance 

refuge habitats for wildlife. Our refuge staff would 

emphasize the development of visitor resources, such 

as access and outdoor recreational opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent uses like hunting, to encourage a 

greater understanding and appreciation of the Bear 

River watershed and wet meadow habitats and wildlife. Land and easement acquisition would continue 

to round out and complete the acquisition boundary. 

Alternative D—Landscape-Level Management 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative D best addresses the vision and goals 

for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. 

Under this alternative, refuge staff would seek to 

restore and manage wet meadow, riparian, riverine, 

and upland habitats, in partnership with other agencies and groups and with refuge neighbors, to develop 

and improve resources to increase wildlife and habitat 

productivity in the refuge and throughout the Bear 

River watershed in Wyoming. 

The use of agricultural practices would be specifically 

geared to enhance habitats for wildlife throughout the 

Bear River watershed in Wyoming. We would reach 

out to private landowners to help them improve habitat for wildlife while they run their farms and ranches 

as they see fit. Our refuge staff would provide greater 

public access to refuge lands and a greater variety 

of visitor resources and wildlife-dependent outdoor 

recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education. This is expected to encourage a greater understanding and appreciation of the 

important and diverse habitats and wildlife sustained 

by the Bear River watershed. Land and easement acquisition would continue to round out and complete 

the acquisition boundary. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH 

A notice of intent to prepare the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment 
 

APPENDIX A—Environmental Compliance 97 

was published in the Federal Register on November 

5, 2009. We compiled a mailing list of more than 80 

names during preplanning. The list includes private 

citizens; local, regional, and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; 

and interested organizations. Public scoping began immediately after publication of the notice of intent and 

was announced through news releases and issuance of 

the first planning update to the mailing list. Two public open houses were held in local communities in the 

refuge area including Cokeville and Kemmerer, Wyoming, November 17–18, 2009. All written comments 

were due December 31, 2009. Several comments were 

received during the scoping effort. Input obtained from 

public meetings, letters, emails, and comment forms 

was considered in developing the draft plan. 

Comments on the Draft Plan and Environmental 

Assessment 

A notice of availability for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment was 

published in the Federal Register in September 2013 

announcing its availability, our intention to hold a public 

meeting, and a request for comments. This opened a 

30-day review period during which we held one public 

meeting in Cokeville, Wyoming. Comments on the plan 

were received from individuals; Federal, State, and 

local agencies; and nongovernmental organizations. 

FINDING AND BASIS FOR DECISION 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning 

of Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action 

is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects. The implementation of the preferred 

alternative will: 

■■ increase the sustainability and resiliency of the 

refuge and improve our ability to adjust to the uncertainty of possible climatic changes and extreme 

weather patterns; 

■■ reduce threats from development and subsequent 

fragmentation by protecting wetland, grassland, 

riparian, and riverine habitats through the acquisition of conservation easements or fee-title lands; 

■■ protect or improve sagebrush–steppe habitat conducive to sage grouse; 

■■ preserve all refuge water rights; 

■■ provide a balance between resource protection 

and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

without negatively impacting natural resources; 

■■ provide new access points and open the refuge to 

hunting and fishing; 

■■ provide expanded opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation on refuge lands; 

■■ support local, traditional agricultural practices that 

preserve wildlife habitat; 

■■ reduce the comingling of domestic cattle and wildlife thus limiting the danger of wildlife transmitting 

diseases to cattle; 

■■ potentially increase our staff by two full-time 

equivalents, including a wildlife refuge manager 

and a biological science technician; 

■■ provide impetus to develop new partnerships and 

improve existing ones; 

■■ not adversely impact endangered or threatened 

species or their habitats; 

■■ not adversely impact archaeological or historical 

resources; 

■■ not adversely impact wetlands, nor call for structures that could be damaged by, or that would significantly influence, the movement of floodwater; 

■■ not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations. 

The State of Wyoming, through the Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department, participated in the development of this comprehensive conservation plan and was 

given the opportunity to review the draft plan and its 

associated environmental assessment. 

Noreen Walsh Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

B.2 Date Established 

October 12, 1993. 

B.3 Establishing and 

Acquisition Authorities 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 

U.S.C. § 3901(b)) 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

(7 U.S.C. § 2002) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

715d) 

B.5 National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

B.1 Refuge Name 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. 

B.4 Refuge Purposes 

The establishing and acquisition authorities set 

out the purposes for the refuge, as described below: 

■■	 “...for the conservation of the wetlands of 

the Nation in order to maintain the public 

benefits they provide and to help fulfill 

international obligations contained in vari

ous migratory bird treaties and conventions 

....” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wet

lands Resources Act of 1986) 

■■	 “...for conservation purposes ....” 7 U.S.C. § 

2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Devel

opment Act) 

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

any other management purpose, for migra

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

Bird Conservation Act) 

■■	 “to preserve and protect wetland riparian 

habitat for its migratory waterfowl and 

other migratory bird values; for resident big 

game, small game, furbearers and upland 

gamebirds; for public educational and inter

pretive values; and for public recreational 

values” (FWS 1990). 

B.6 Description of Uses 

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the refuge: 

Appendix B 

Compatibility Determinations 

Cooperative Farming 

Cooperative farming is the term used for cropping 

activities done by a third party on lands that we own 

in fee title or control through a conservation easement. This activity is usually done on a short-term 

basis (3–4 years or less) to provide an optimal seedbed for the establishment of native grasses and forbs 

or other desirable planted cover for wildlife. Cooperative farming on certain tracts can provide a fall food 

­

­

­

­

­
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

source for migratory waterfowl or a winter food 

source for resident wildlife. A farmer acts under 

authority of a cooperative farming agreement or special use permit issued by the project leader or refuge 

manager. Terms of the agreement make sure that the 

farmer follows all current Service restrictions. 

Cooperative farming activities are generally limited to areas of former cropland or poor quality 

stands of tame or cool-season invasive grasses. Service policies do not allow the tilling or cropping of 

highly erodible soils without an approved USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation plan. Generally, farmed areas (before reseeding 

to more desirable plant species) would not cover more 

than 50 percent of the tract. Areas at the refuge that 

are planted for food plots would be limited to the size 

needed to provide sufficient food for the targeted 

wildlife species. 

Availability of Resources 

Staff time is available to develop and administer 

cooperative farming agreements. Most of the needed 

fieldwork to prepare and plan for this use would be 

done as part of routine grassland or upland management. The decision to use a cooperating farmer would 

occur as part of the overall strategy for managing 

land within a refuge. The time needed to coordinate 

the issuance of, and oversee, the special use permit or 

cooperative farming agreement is relatively minor 

and within the refuge’s abilities. In addition, the use 

of a cooperating farmer would free up Service 

employees who would otherwise have to conduct the 

farming operation. In most cases, farmers conduct 

cooperative farming operations on Service lands on a 

share basis rather than for a fee. We typically receive 

our share as: 

■■	 harvested grain used for other management 

purposes such as standing grain left for 

wildlife food; 

■■	 added work such as the control of invasive 

plants, cultivation, or added seedbed 

preparation; 

■■	 supplies such as herbicide or grass seed to 

be used on the same tract of land. 

We deposit any fees or cash income related to 

farming into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. 

We receive fair market value from cooperating farmers, but generating income is of secondary importance when developing the terms and conditions of a 

special use permit or cooperative farming agreement. To remove the appearance of favoritism or 

impropriety, managers follow “Refuge Manual” procedures for establishing rental rates and choosing 

cooperators. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

Cooperative farming to prepare suitable seedbeds 

for planting better cover and habitat will result in 

short-term disturbances and long-term help to both 

resident and migratory wildlife using the refuge. 

Short-term effects include the disturbance and displacement of wildlife that is typical when noisy heavy 

equipment is used and the loss of poor-quality cover 

while the tract is farmed. Wildlife may find food on 

farmed areas. 

Establishing diverse or more-desirable habitat for 

nesting, escape cover, perching, or noncrop feeding 

activities would provide long-term help. The resulting habitat would generally improve conditions for 

most of the species that were negatively affected during the short period of farming activity. 

There would be no negative effects on cultural 

resources or threatened and endangered species. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Cooperative farming is a compatible use with the 

following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Monitor vegetation and wildlife to assess 

the effects of cooperative farming as a management tool. 

■■	 Require general and special conditions for 

each permit to make sure that there is consistency with management objectives. 

■■	 Restrict the use of vehicles and motorized 

equipment to the minimum necessary to 

conduct operations to meet management 

objectives. 

■■	 Restrict farming permittees to use 

approved chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife and the environment. 
 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 101 

Justification
 

Habitat conditions would deteriorate without the 

use of a full range of management tools. Migratory 

bird habitat and ecological diversity would decrease 

as habitat suitability declined. Invasive plant species 

would increase and habitat diversity would decrease 

if farming practices did not continue at the refuge. To 

support and enhance habitat for migratory birds and 

other wildlife, habitat manipulation such as farming 

is needed. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2024 

Prescribed Haying and Grazing 

We will issue special use permits to manage various refuge land tracts cooperatively to improve habitat conditions and help migratory and resident 

wildlife species. To accomplish this, we will allow 

permittees to prescriptively cut meadow hay and 

graze wet meadow, wetland, and upland areas on 

specified portions of refuge tracts to support healthy 

and vigorous vegetative stands on Cokeville Meadows Refuge. In return, cooperators will complete 

habitat improvement projects on the tracts, including 

irrigating wet meadows, controlling noxious weeds, 

repairing or replacing fences, cleaning up tracts, 

seeding native vegetation, and other mutually 

agreed-on projects. 

Cooperatively managing refuge tracts, including 

haying and grazing, is not one of the priority public 

uses of refuge lands. However, occasionally haying or 

grazing, particularly wet meadow habitat, is an 

important habitat management technique that supports the health and vigor of vegetation in these 

areas. 

Prescribed haying and grazing would occur on 

refuge-owned tracts in areas designated by our refuge manager and specifically outlined in each special 

use permit. These tracts are located within the refuge acquisition boundary in Townships 22, 23, and 24 

North and Range 119 and 120 West. These areas 

provide a mosaic of habitats, including wet meadows 

and cattail or bulrush sloughs, that provide nesting 

and migratory habitat for many duck species, Canada 

geese, greater sandhill cranes, white-faced ibis, 

snowy egret, long-billed curlew, black tern, great 

blue heron, American bittern, black-crowned nightheron, and other marsh and shorebirds and raptors. 

The special use permits would allow operations on 

the tracts to be completed between specified periods. 

Irrigation activities usually take place between 

March and July, haying of meadow grasses in mid-tolate August, and prescriptive (usually short-term, 

intensive) grazing primarily in the fall but occasionally in the early spring or, in some circumstances, 

during the winter dormant season. Meadow grass 

haying would not be permitted before August 1st to 

prevent destroying the nests of migratory birds. 

Cooperators must provide their own agricultural 

equipment to complete operations. Standard agricultural equipment and techniques are permitted. A 

permittee may complete the work or hire contract 

labor. 

Availability of Resources 

The refuge resources required for administering 

and managing special use permits include staff time 

to conduct site reviews before and throughout the 

growing season, cooperator meetings and coordination, administrative time to complete pesticide use 

permits or reports and special use permits or compatibility determinations, and enforcement. Refuge 

tracts are located within Cokeville Meadows Refuge, 

a satellite refuge of Seedskadee National Wildlife 

Refuge, about a 1 1/2-hour drive away. Meetings with 

each cooperator would be conducted a minimum of 

two times each season and are often held in conjunction with site visits. General coordination with cooperators, including phone calls and incidental 

meetings, occur on a regular basis and may total 8 or 

more hours each year per permit. Research for writing and editing special use permits and associated 

compatibility Determinations take about 4 to 6 hours. 

These staff costs are estimated to total about $700 

per permit. Direct fuel, telephone, and miscellaneous 

supplies are estimated to total about $100 per 

permit. 

Maintaining and repairing refuge equipment such 

as irrigation systems, pumps, and ditches are the 

responsibility of the permittees and result in no 

direct costs to the refuge. Major repairs outside of 

normal wear and tear and replacing equipment, such 

as irrigation systems or pumps, are the responsibility 

of the refuge and can result in a wide range of 

expenses. Furthermore, we do not expect that refuge 

staff will be increased to handle these activities. The 

most cost-efficient way for us to support irrigation 

equipment, other infrastructure, water rights, and to 

improve habitat for wildlife on refuge lands now is 

through haying and grazing operations because the 

revenue generated by the uses outlined in each permit directly help habitat and wildlife management of 

the tracts. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

Haying would result in short-term disturbances 

to wildlife and long-term help to wet meadows and 
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

uplands and the wildlife species that use these grasslands. Short-term changes would include the disturbance and displacement of wildlife that is typical 

from using any noisy heavy equipment. Cutting and 

removing standing grass would result in the shortterm loss (late summer to midsummer the following 

year) of habitat for those species requiring taller 

grass for feeding and perching. We would typically 

schedule prescribed haying after August 1st to avoid 

changes to most nesting birds. 

Long-term help would accrue because of the 

increased vigor of regrown grasses or the establishment of highly desirable native grass and forbs species, which would improve habitat conditions for the 

same species affected by the short-term removal of 

cover. Long-term negative effects may occur to some 

resident wildlife species such as sage-grouse, which 

may lose overwinter habitat in hayed areas. Strict 

time constraints and limiting grass stands to no more 

than 50 percent being hayed at any one time would 

limit the anticipated effects on these species. 

Grazing by domestic livestock has the short-term 

effect of removing some or much of the standing vegetation from a tract of grassland. Properly prescribed, the effect of this vegetation removal 

increases the vigor of the grassland, stimulates 

growth of desired species of grass and forbs, and 

reduces the abundance of targeted species such as 

cool-season invasive plants, noxious weeds and other 

invasive plants, and cattails. Grazing in the spring 

may cause the loss of some bird nests because of 

trampling and may cause some birds not to nest in 

grazed areas. Prescribed grazing is usually done in a 

short period of time and results in enhanced, more 

diverse, and vigorous grassland habitats. 

Grazing livestock may create a minor and temporary disturbance to wildlife, but generally does no 

harm. Grazing on public wildlife lands can cause aesthetic concerns for some people, including visitors, 

who do not understand grassland or upland management. There is a slight potential for conflict between 

visitors and livestock or permittees, particularly 

during fall hunting seasons. To remove any appearance of favoritism or impropriety, managers follow 

“Refuge Manual” procedures for choosing cooperators and permittees. There would be no negative 

effects on cultural resources or threatened and 

endangered species. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Prescribed haying and grazing is a compatible use 

with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

Permittees would comply with all stipulations in 

their special use permits. The following conditions 

will be included in each permit (more conditions may 

be added): 

■■	 The Cooperator agrees that grazing and 

haying activities must be conducted according to the conditions and rates specified by 

the permit. Any changes in the agreement 

must be made by an addendum, will be 

attached to, and become part of, the 

agreement. 

■■	 Capital improvements to facilities (fences 

and irrigation system) will become the property of the Service unless specifically stated 

otherwise. 

■■	 Cooperators and a Service representative 

would meet before, during, and at the conclusion of the permit to assess habitat conditions and other work completed under the 

special use permit. The duration of grazing 

on the tract may be shortened or lengthened 

at the discretion of the refuge manager to 

meet vegetation goals. Corresponding 

changes would be made in computing rental 

fees. 

■■	 We must have a pesticide use proposal completed and approved before applying any 

chemicals to crops. Cooperators will follow 

the directions on labels and our recommendations when applying any herbicides or 

pesticides. Cooperators must provide correct records of the chemicals used, including 

acreages and application rates. 

■■	 Changes in deduction rates, custom services, or termination dates will be by an 

addendum, which will be attached to, and 

become part of, the agreement. 

■■	 Cooperators will be subjected to the same 

restrictions, terms, and agreements about 

land and water management as those of the 

Service. 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 103 

■■	 Haying of irrigated meadow areas would 

not be permitted until after August 1 each 

year to prevent the destruction of migratory 

bird nests. 

Justification 

The proposed use will not materially interfere 

with, or detract from, the refuge’s purposes or the 

Refuge System’s mission. Haying and prescriptive 

grazing operations in sedge or grass communities 

will support or improve the health and vigor of vegetation and keep the area as open wet meadows or 

grasslands for use by sandhill cranes, shorebirds, 

ducks, geese and other marsh species. Haying and 

grazing operations will be rotated from year to year 

to increase the revitalization of meadow grasses and 

other vegetation throughout the tract. Continuing 

the irrigation of hay meadows and lowland pastures 

would provide foraging, nesting, or resting areas for 

geese, ducks, cranes, sage-grouse, and other migratory birds. Other species that will be directly helped 

include deer, elk, pronghorn, and amphibian species. 

Without irrigation, most of the area would convert to 

dryland grasses and shrubs. Continued use of the 

water supply will keep water rights for the refuge 

valid, which will be needed for future wetland management and development. 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge is managed by the 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

which is about 90 miles away. Only one full-time staff 

position is now allocated to manage lands at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. Cooperative farmers are 

instrumental in conducting habitat management projects for wildlife. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2024 

Hunting 

Hunting occurred on these lands when they were 

private property before refuge establishment but has 

not been authorized since. It is one of the six legislated, wildlife-dependent, priority public uses of the 

Refuge System. Hunting will occur within designated areas on the refuge during designated refuge 

hunting seasons that are within WGFD-established 

hunting seasons. Hunting would be subject to Federal, State and refuge-specific regulations. 

Because Cokeville Meadows Refuge is a newer 

refuge, we don’t know how many hunters would use 

it. Based on hunting that occurs on adjacent private 

and public lands, we anticipate that up to 50 people 

and 20 vehicles will use the public hunting area each 

weekend day during the peak of elk and deer season. 

We expect about 15 people and 8 vehicles on a weekday during the peak of elk and deer season. In addition, we expect there to be up to 300 more user-days 

per year for all other species hunted. 

Hunting could be designated on all refuge lands 

acquired to date. As more areas are acquired, they 

will be evaluated to see if they are suitable for this 

activity. Access is limited because of ongoing refuge 

acquisition. As a result, hunters will need to hike to 

many hunting areas on the refuge. All-terrain vehicles will not be allowed. As refuge acquisition is completed, more access could be provided. Camping will 

not be allowed, and hunters will need to vacate tree 

stands and blinds every day. 

Availability of Resources 

The hunting program will be reviewed yearly, and 

any needed changes will be made. Law enforcement 

will include random checks of hunting licenses and 

bag limits and the aggressive investigation and prosecution of flagrant offenses. We will encourage 

hunter compliance in the first and second years of the 

program through educational efforts while placing a 

progressively greater emphasis on enforcement. 

We have not yet projected operational and maintenance costs, but most will go toward infrastructure 

and enforcement work hours. Some overtime can be 

anticipated as collateral law enforcement and fulltime officers work more hours. Local costs may be 

defrayed, in part, by our regional law enforcement 

officer overtime budget. Added costs are expected 

for signs, brochures, parking lots and access points, 

which would be constructed and reviewed. 

Anticipated Effects of the Use 

We expect this use to affect biological resources, 

public uses, and our administration. 

Biological Conflicts 

Hunting will cause few biological conflicts with 

nonhunted wildlife species. Some wildlife disturbance is unavoidable when people are on the refuge 

and when they are using firearms. However, most 

current and future refuge lands were, or are, open for 

private or public hunting. As well, hiking, birdwatching, and similar activities may be conducted on these 

lands today. Public hunting on refuge lands will not 

change the situation much unless hunting pressure 

markedly increases. If that happens, we would take 

measures—such as using a permit system or allowing hunting only on certain days of the week—to 

reduce the number of hunters. 

Refuge staff will make every effort to protect 

endangered species and other nontarget wildlife. 
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

High-visibility and covert law enforcement activities 

will be conducted to dissuade hunters from affecting 

wildlife other than target species. In addition, refuge-specific regulations will reduce disturbances and 

protect flora and fauna in the area. 

Public Use Conflicts 

No conflicts of consequence are expected between 

sport anglers and big game, upland game, or small 

game hunters. Hunting areas for sport anglers, 

migratory bird hunters, and big game hunters may 

overlap, but not by much because of the dissimilar 

nature of these activities and the areas of the refuge 

where these activities are expected to occur. 

The demand for nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented 

use on Cokeville Meadows Refuge continues to grow, 

and conflicts between hunters and nonconsumptive 

users may occur. Following CCP guidelines when 

providing nonconsumptive users access to wildlife 

viewing areas, notifying when users are entering a 

hunting area, and closing hunting areas to nonconsumptive users when appropriate would reduce conflicts, as would restricting hunting methods and 

hunting use near designated public use facilities and 

trails. If serious conflicts arise, changes in time and 

space scheduling or zoning will be considered. We 

will try not to disrupt uses and apply best management practices for wildlife. 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge has been a popular 

hunting area for many years. The refuge hunting 

program is designed to offer hunting activities while 

also protecting wildlife and providing for public 

safety. The public widely supported continuing this 

traditional use both before and after establishment of 

the refuge, and this is expected to continue. 

Administrative Conflicts 

Few administrative conflicts are expected. Existing refuge staff will administer the hunting program. 

Our refuge manager will set station priorities to 

assure that required support staff is available. As 

this hunt program evolves over time, the refuge manager may enact or change refuge-specific regulations, 

controls to limit the number of hunters, and fees. 

Fall activities that occur during hunting seasons 

may include prescribed burns and the maintenance of 

fences, gates, signs, water control structures, and 

roads. These activities can be managed so that they 

will not interfere with hunting opportunities. Waterfowl surveys, water level checking, and other habitat 

surveys may also occur during hunting seasons as 

well as some research activities that will be separated from hunting areas when possible. 

Safety briefings for staff and researchers working 

in hunting areas would make them aware of hunting 

times and locations. Approved hunter safety vests 

and hats must be worn by all non-law enforcement 

persons working in areas open to hunting activities 

during the hunting season. 

Haying and grazing practices do occur on the refuge and in the hunting area for management purposes. Permittees will be told of the conflicts that 

mat occur during the hunting season. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Hunting is a compatible use with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

Stipulations for the hunting program would be 

made available in the refuge’s hunting brochure. 

Justification 

Hunting is a traditional and legislated wildlifedependent, priority public use. It would be properly 

managed in cooperation with WGFD. Hunting at the 

refuge is a legitimate and necessary wildlife management tool that can be used to keep wild animal populations at healthy levels. 

Allowing hunting on the refuge would be consistent with established refuge goals. Hunting is one of 

the six wildlife-dependent public uses that are to be 

supported within units of the Refuge System when 

they are compatible. This use is not expected to conflict with any proposed habitat management or reclamation projects on the refuge, provided the refuge 

uses closures as necessary to protect public safety 

and to allow habitat management actions. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2029 

Fishing 

Fishing occurred on these lands when they were 

private property before refuge establishment but has 

not been authorized since. It is one of the six legislated wildlife-dependent, priority public uses of the 

Refuge System. Fishing will occur within designated 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 105 

areas on the refuge within WGFD-established fishing seasons and will be subject to Federal, State and 

refuge-specific regulations. 

Because Cokeville Meadows Refuge is a newer 

refuge, its exact number of users is unknown. Based 

on fishing that occurs on adjacent private and public 

lands, we anticipate that up to 20 people and 8 vehicles will use the public fishing areas each day of the 

weekend during the peak fishing season. We expect 

approximately eight people and four vehicles on a 

weekday during the summer months. 

Access to the refuge for fishing will be limited to 

walking or by nonmotorized boats because of ongoing 

refuge acquisition. As refuge acquisition is completed, more access could be provided. Fishing activities include shore or bank fishing and fishing from a 

boat or canoe. Fishing will only occur on the Bear 

River, wetland and wet meadow pools are closed to 

public fishing access. Ice fishing is not permitted on 

the refuge, nor are camping, littering, fires and the 

use of all-terrain vehicles. 

As more areas are acquired by the refuge, they 

would be evaluated for their suitability for fishing. 

Availability of Resources 

The fishing program will be reviewed yearly, and 

necessary changes will be incorporated. Law 

enforcement will include random fishing license and 

creel limit checks as well as the aggressive investigation and prosecution of flagrant offenses. We will 

encourage fishing compliance in the first and second 

years of the program through educational efforts 

while placing a progressively greater emphasis on 

enforcement. 

Operational and maintenance costs for the fishing 

program are not know, but the bulk of those costs 

will go to infrastructure and law enforcement hours. 

There will be some overtime, as collateral law 

enforcement and full-time officers work more hours. 

Local costs may be defrayed in part by our regional 

law enforcement officer overtime budget. Added 

costs are expected for signs, brochures, parking lots 

and access points, which would be constructed and 

reviewed. 

Anticipated Effects of the Use 

We expect this use to affect biological resources, 

public uses, and our administration. 

Biological Conflicts 

Fishing will cause few biological conflicts with 

other wildlife species. Some wildlife disturbance will 

be unavoidable when people fish on the refuge. However, most current and future refuge lands were, or 

are, open for private or public fishing. As well, hiking, 

birdwatching, and similar activities may be conducted on these lands today. Public fishing on refuge 

lands will not change the situation much unless fishing pressure markedly increases. If that happens, we 

would take measures—such as using a permit system 

or allowing fishing only on certain days of the week— 

to reduce the number of anglers. 

High-visibility and covert law enforcement activities will be conducted to dissuade anglers from 

affecting wildlife other than the target species. Refuge-specific regulations will reduce disturbances and 

to protect flora and fauna in the area. 

Public Use Conflicts 

No conflicts of consequence are expected between 

sport anglers and big game, upland game, or small 

game hunters. Hunting areas for sport anglers, 

migratory bird hunters, and big game hunters may 

overlap, but not by much because of the dissimilar 

nature of these activities and the areas of the refuge 

where these activities are expected to occur. 

The demand for nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented 

use on Cokeville Meadows Refuge continues to grow, 

and conflicts between anglers and nonconsumptive 

users may occur. Following CCP guidelines when 

providing nonconsumptive users access to wildlife 

viewing areas, notifying when users are entering a 

fishing area, and closing fishing areas to nonconsumptive users when appropriate would reduce conflicts, as would restricting fishing methods and 

fishing use near designated public use facilities and 

trails. If serious conflicts arise, changes in time and 

space scheduling or zoning will be considered. We 

will try not to disrupt uses and apply best management practices for wildlife. 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge has been a popular 

fishing area for many years. The refuge fishing program is designed to offer fishing activities while also 

protecting wildlife and providing for public safety. 

The public widely supported continuing this traditional use both before and after establishment of the 

refuge, and this is expected to continue. 

Administrative Conflicts 

Few administrative conflicts are expected. Existing refuge staff will administer the fishing program. 

Our refuge manager will set station priorities to 

assure that required support staff is available. As 

this fishing program evolves over time, the refuge 

manager may enact or change refuge-specific regulations, controls to limit the number of anglers, and 

fees. 

Fall activities that occur during fishing seasons 

may include prescribed burns and the maintenance of 

fences, gates, signs, water control structures, and 

roads. These activities can be managed so that they 

will not interfere with fishing opportunities. Water­
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

fowl surveys, water level checking, and other habitat 

surveys may also occur during fishing seasons as well 

as some research activities that will be separated 

from fishing areas when possible. 

Haying and grazing practices do occur on the refuge and in the fishing area for management purposes. Permittees will be told of the conflicts that 

mat occur during the fishing season. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Fishing is a compatible use with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 The designated areas for fishing on Bear 

River may need stabilization to prevent erosion before and after being opened. 

■■	 Enforcement will be conducted to help curb 

illegal fires, disorderly conduct, and littering, and commercial guiding will not be 

permitted. 

■■	 Enforcement will help to make sure that 

fishing regulations are observed, unauthorized trails are reduced, and that there is 

direct contact with the fishing public. 

■■	 Public meetings with local fishing clubs and 

interested parties will be required to reinforce refuge regulations. If these measures 

do not curb unauthorized activities, other 

measures will be carried out to control 

activities. 

■■	 Law enforcement patrol of public use areas 

should reduce the above-mentioned types of 

violations. 

Justification 

The Improvement Act identifies six legitimate and 

proper uses of wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education. These priority public uses 

are dependent on healthy wildlife populations. Where 

these uses are found to be compatible, they are to 

receive enhanced consideration over other uses in 

planning and management. 

According to the Improvement Act, fishing is a 

wildlife-oriented activity that provides substantial 

recreational opportunities to the public (FWS 1992). 

Fishing is a traditional form of outdoor recreation. 

These activities would not materially interfere 

with, or detract from, the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. This use is not expected to conflict with any 

proposed habitat management or reclamation projects on the refuge, provided we use closures as necessary to protect public safety and to allow for habitat 

management actions. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2029 

Trapping 

Though not a priority wildlife-dependent public 

use of the Refuge System as defined by the Improvement Act, trapping will be used at the refuge manager’s discretion whenever a problem arises. 

Trapping will most often occur in and around locations where wildlife, such as beaver or muskrat, hamper land and water management objectives by 

burrowing and building dams, typically along roads, 

levees, and water control structures. Trapping may 

occur around refuge buildings when wildlife becomes 

a nuisance. We prefer live trapping and relocation to 

deal with nuisance animals. If lethal trapping is necessary it will occur during Wyoming furbearer season, if possible, but may occur at other times if it is 

needed to meet refuge management objectives. 

Trapping would be used only in specific locations 

to remove wildlife hampering refuge management 

objectives. This work will be done by Service employees or through contract with others. Special use permits will be issued to qualified trappers. Animals will 

be relocated to other, outlying fee-title properties or 

to other sites with willing landowners and suitable 

habitat. State regulations define approved trapping 

methods, such as trap size and types of allowable sets 

to protect nontarget species and to provide for the 

safe use of the area by others. The use of snares on 

the refuge is prohibited. 

Availability of Resources 

Our staff is sufficient to issue the required permits and to oversee this periodic use. Facilities and 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 107 

staff are available to provide access and to support 

roads, parking lots, and secondary access roads. 

Anticipated Effects of the Use 

The refuge was established to provide for the 

needs of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Trap¬ping does not adversely affect our ability to 

fulfill these purposes and is used as a tool to help 

accomplish refuge management objectives. National 

wildlife refuges are managed first and foremost for 

wildlife (FWS 2001). However, the focus is on wildlife 

populations not individuals (FWS 1992). 

We expect trapping to improve or help support 

the habitats of many wildlife species. Any lethal trapping will cause the mortality of targeted species and, 

in some cases, is likely to cause the mortality of nontargeted species. In either case, the mortality of individuals is not expected to adversely affect wildlife 

populations on the refuge. Trapping is expected to 

help achieve refuge management objectives. The use 

will occur at the discretion of the refuge manager and 

will be limited to specific locations and times when 

problems occur. 

Trapping is not expected to affect other refuge 

uses or public safety, and cumulative effects are not 

anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Trapping is a compatible use with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Trapping is only permitted via a special use 

permit issued by the refuge manager. 

■■	 Permittees must adhere to all special conditions listed in their special use permits. 

■■	 Whenever possible, trapping will be done in 

compliance with WGFD regulations. 

■■	 When necessary, the permittee will provide 

a map and report in writing on the number, 

age, and sex of animals taken and the number of trapping days and nights. The report 

and maps will be provided to our refuge 

office when trapping is done. 

■■	 Failure to comply with any terms of a special use permit or other refuge regulations 

may result in the revocation of the permit. 

Justification 

In view of the above, and with the stipulations 

described before, trapping will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the refuge. Trapping is a tool 

used to control nuisance wildlife to help fulfill refuge 

management objectives. Its use is regulated and at 

the discretion of the refuge manager. It is not 

expected to adversely affect wildlife populations or 

their habitats or conflict with other refuge uses. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2024 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography will be 

allowed on most of the refuge year-round to provide 

opportunities that support wildlife-dependent recreation as two of the six priority public uses specified in 

the Improvement Act. These uses will not interfere 

with migratory birds. Wildlife observation and photography are major visitor services at the refuge. 

The beauty and uniqueness of the area combined 

with the abundance of various bird and mammal species draw a variety of visitors each year. 

We will support these uses by improving vehicle, 

foot (including hiking trails), and nonmotorized boat 

access. Passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles 

would be restricted to county and other public roads. 

Snowmobiles are not permitted on refuge roads and 

are restricted to county roads. All-terrain vehicles 

are not allowed on refuge roads and must be licensed 

for highway use to be able to use county roads. Nonmotorized boat access is allowed on the Bear River. 

Sailing is not permitted. Horses, mules, llamas, and 

other animals used for riding or packing are not permitted on the refuge. 

We will update and improve refuge signs and brochures, develop an auto tour route, update kiosks and 

interpretive panels, add an interpretive kiosk, and 

investigate developing accessible, habitat-specific, 

wildlife-viewing and photography areas, infrastructure, or trails. 
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Availability of Resources 

Facilities and staff are available to provide access 

and to support roads, parking lots, secondary access 

roads, and signs. This is part of our routine management duties, and staff and money are available. 

Kiosks and interpretive trail signs will be added to 

improve visitor information, but are not necessary to 

support the use. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

These activities may temporarily disturb wildlife. 

Direct, short-term effects may include minor damage 

to roads and trails when they are wet and muddy, 

minor damage to vegetation, littering, increased 

maintenance activity, and potential conflicts with 

other visitors. These activities would have only minor 

effects on wildlife and would not detract from the 

purposes of the refuge. 

At this time there are no anticipated long-term 

effects on the refuge. 

Cumulative disturbances are not expected to 

adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or their 

habitats. Several factors, including suit¬able site conditions, the presence of facilities, access limitations, 

and seasonal restrictions or other regulations, tend to 

concentrate uses. At any one time, much of the refuge 

is unaffected by these uses and free of disturbance. 

Wildlife observation and photography are not 

expected to adversely affect other refuge uses or 

public safety in the short or long terms and will have 

minor cumulative impacts. As public use on Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge expands, unanticipated conflicts 

between user groups may occur. Our visitor services 

programs will be adjusted as needed to remove or 

reduce problems and provide a quality, wildlifedependent recreational opportunity while promoting 

public safety. The experiences of many national wildlife refuges have shown that time and space zoning 

(for example, establishing separate use areas, separate use periods, and restrictions on the number of 

users) can eliminate conflicts between user groups. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Wildlife observation and photography are compatible uses with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Our refuge manager will check use 

pat¬terns and densities and make adjustments in timing, location, and duration as 

needed to limit disturbances. 

■■	 These uses would be directed to current and 

future public use facilities that are not in, or 

near, sensitive areas. Trail layout and 

design would continue to make sure that 

there is adequate adjacent cover for wildlife 

and that sensitive wildlife areas or habitat 

are avoided. 

■■	 Interpretive signs will include messages 

about reducing wildlife disturbance. Certain 

modes of access, such as motorized vehicles, 

will be limited to designated roads and 

parking lots. 

■■	 Stipulations about the public use program 

would be made available in published refuge 

brochures. These will include dates, closed 

areas, and other information. 

■■	 We will restrict vehicles to designated roads 

and trails and check vehicle use for wild¬life 

disturbance and law enforcement violations. 

We will monitor use, regulate access, and 

support the facilities necessary to prevent 

habitat degradation and to reduce wildlife 

disturbance. 

Justification 

The Improvement Act identifies six legitimate and 

proper uses of wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, environmental education. These priority public uses are 

dependent on healthy wildlife populations. Where 

these uses are found to be compatible, they are to 

receive enhanced consideration over other uses in 

planning and management. 

Wildlife observation and photography are wildlife-oriented activities that provide substantial recreational opportunities to the public in accordance with 

the Improvement Act (FWS 1992). Wildlife observation and photography are traditional forms of outdoor 

recreation. 

These activities will not materially interfere with, 

or detract from, the mission of the Refuge System or 

the purposes of the refuge. These uses are not 

expected to conflict with any proposed habitat management or reclamation projects on the refuge, pro­
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 109 

vided we use closures as necessary to protect public 

safety and to allow for habitat management actions. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2029
 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

both defined as wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

under the Improvement Act. At Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge, these programs have depended on staff 

availability. Environmental education for school 

groups is severely limited because staff has not been 

available and because the refuge is far from communities. A few organized groups request tours and 

talks during the spring and summer months. Interpretation is limited to information panels at the visitor contact station, three stand-alone panels, and 

kiosks. In addition, the refuge offers limited interpretation along designated trails and does not have 

an auto tour route. 

To improve these uses, we will hire a seasonal 

technician to develop and carry out interpretive programs, update and improve refuge signs and refuge 

trails identification, develop and interpret an auto 

tour route, update existing kiosks and interpretive 

panels, and add an interpretive kiosk. 

Availability of Resources 

Money for these activities comes solely from 

annual operation and maintenance budgets, and 

resources are stretched. Providing new facilities is 

closely tied to budget requests for refuge operation 

needs system and maintenance management system 

projects. Existing programs, such as current refuge 

directional signs, can be updated and the development of brochures can be completed with available 

resources. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

These activities may temporarily disturb wildlife. 

Direct, short-term effects may include minor damage 

to roads and trails when they are wet and muddy, 

minor damage to vegetation, littering, increased 

maintenance activity, and potential conflicts with 

other visitors. These activities will have minor 

effects on wildlife and would not detract from the 

purposes of the refuge. 

At this time there are no anticipated long-term 

effects on the refuge. 

The cumulative effects of wildlife observation and 

photography on other wildlife-dependent recreation 

or public safety at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge are expected to be minor. Several factors, 

including suit¬able site conditions, the presence of 

facilities, access limitations, and seasonal restrictions 

or other regulations, tend to concentrate uses. At any 

one time, much of the refuge is unaffected by these 

uses and free of disturbance. 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

not expected to adversely affect public safety. As 

public use on Cokeville Meadows Refuge expands, 

unanticipated conflicts between user groups may 

occur. Our visitor services programs would be 

adjusted as needed to remove or reduce problems and 

to provide a quality, wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunity while promoting public safety. The experiences of many national wildlife refuges have shown 

that time and space zoning (for example, establishing 

separate use areas, separate use periods, and restrictions on the number of users) can eliminate conflicts 

between user groups. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible uses with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Visitors will follow all refuge regulations. 

On-site activities should be held where few 

changes will occur. 

■■	 Our refuge manager will watch use patterns and densities and make adjustments 

in timing, location, and duration as needed 

to limit disturbances. Uses will be directed 

to current and future public use facilities 

that are not in, or near, sensitive areas. 

■■	 Trail layout and design will continue to 

make sure that there is adequate adjacent 
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

cover for wildlife and that sensitive wildlife 

areas or habitat are avoided. 

■■	 Interpretive signs will include messages 


about reducing wildlife disturbance.
 

■■	 Certain modes of access, such as motorized 

vehicles, will be limited to designated roads 

and parking lots. 

■■	 Stipulations about the public use program 

would be made available in published refuge 

brochures. These will include dates, closed 

areas, and other information. 

■■	 We will restrict vehicles to designated roads 

and trails and check vehicle use for wild¬life 

disturbance and law enforcement violations. 

We will monitor use, regulate access, and 

support the facilities necessary to prevent 

habitat degradation and to reduce wildlife 

disturbance. 

Justification 

A goal of the Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the public to develop an understanding of, 

and appreciation for, wildlife, provided they are compatible with other goals. Environmental education 

and interpretation are identified as priority visitor 

services by the Improvement Act and would help 

meet this goal with few conflicts. These uses encourage citizens of all ages to act responsibly in protecting wildlife and its habitat and are tools used to build 

land ethics, develop support for the refuge, and 

decrease wildlife violations. 

Environmental education at the refuge is incidental to other programs because there is only one fulltime staff person available to conduct these 

activities. However, the program is important and 

provides visitors with an awareness of refuge-specific issues such as wetland ecology, migratory bird 

management, and others relating to the entire Refuge System. 

Based on anticipated biological effects and on the 

EA for Cokeville Meadows Refuge, it is found that 

environmental education and interpretation would 

not interfere with refuge habitat goals and objectives 

or with the refuge’s purposes. Limits to access and 

monitoring can help mitigate any adverse effects. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2029 

Research 

We receive requests to conduct scientific research 

on the refuge every year. Priority will be given to 

studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge’s 

native plant, fish, and wildlife populations and their 

habitats. Research applicants must submit a proposal 

that outlines (1) objectives of the study; (2) justification for the study; (3) detailed study methods and 

schedule; and (4) potential effects on refuge wildlife 

and habitat, including disturbance (short and long 

term), injury, or mortality. A description of measures 

the researcher would take to reduce disturbances or 

changes will include (1) the staff required and their 

qualifications or experience; (2) the status of necessary permits (scientific collecting permits, endangered species permits); (3) the costs to the refuge and 

requested refuge staff time, if any; and (4) anticipated progress reports and end products (such as 

reports or publications). Refuge staff or others, as 

needed, will review research proposals and issue special use permits if the proposals are approved. Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the 

following: 

■■	 Research that would contribute to specific 

refuge management issues will be given 

higher priority over other requests. 

■■	 Research that would conflict with other 

ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will not be approved. 

■■	 Research projects that can be conducted off 

of the refuge will be less likely to be 

approved. 

■■	 Research that causes undue disturbance or 

is intrusive will likely not be approved. The 

degree and type of disturbance will be carefully weighed when evaluating a research 

request. 

■■	 Research evaluation will decide if any effort 

has been made to reduce disturbance 

through study design, including adjusting 

the location, timing scope, number of permittees, study methods, and number of 

study sites. 

■■	 If staff or logistics make it impossible for us 

to watch researcher activity in a sensitive 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 111 

area, this may be reason to deny the 


request, depending on the specific 


circumstances.
 

■■	 The length of the project will be considered 

and agreed on before approval. Projects will 

be reviewed annually. We have an active 

land acquisition program. If newly acquired 

property includes areas of research interest, 

the same special use permit process and 

evaluation criteria described above will be 

followed. 

Availability of Resources 

Adequate money and staff exist to manage a limited amount of research at Cokeville Meadows Refuge. As always, discretionary use of staff time would 

be weighed using a cost-benefit analysis. It is anticipated that approximately $2,000 per year would be 

required to administer and manage research activities. Administration would include, but not be limited 

to, the evaluation of applications, management of 

permits, and oversight of research projects. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

Some disturbance is expected with all research 

activities because most researchers would enter 

areas that are seasonally closed or conduct research 

in remote areas of the refuge that have limited public 

visitation and some research requires collecting 

samples from, or handling, wildlife. However, few 

effects on refuge wildlife and habitats are expected 

with research studies because special use permits 

would include conditions to make sure that effects 

are kept low. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the refuge’s draft CCP and EA 

and received public review and comment at the same 

time as that document. 

Determination 

Research is a compatible use with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Limiting proposed research activities in and 

among extremely sensitive wildlife habitat 

areas and species would protect them from 

disturbances. 

■■	 All refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge 

management. 

■■	 Our staff will use the criteria for evaluating 

a research proposal, as outlined above under 

“Description of Use” when deciding whether 

or not to approve a proposed study. If proposed research methods are found to have 

potential effects on refuge resources (habitat or wildlife), it must be shown that the 

research is necessary for refuge resource 

conservation management. 

■■	 Measures to reduce potential effects will 

need to be developed and included as part of 

the study design. In addition, these measures will be listed as conditions on the special use permit. 

■■	 Our staff will watch research activities for 

compliance with conditions of their special 

use permits. At any time, refuge staff may 

accompany researchers to look for potential 

effects. Staff may decide that approved 

research and special use permits should be 

terminated because of the effects they 

observe. The refuge manager will also be 

able to cancel a special use permit if the 

researcher is out of compliance or for wildlife and habitat protection. 

Justification 

The program as described is found to be compatible. Potential effects of research activities on refuge 

resources will be reduced because sufficient restrictions will be included as part of the study design, and 

research activities will be observed by our refuge 

staff. Research projects will contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge’s wildlife populations and their 

habitats. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2024 
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refu

B.7 Signatures 

Submitted by: 

ge, Wyoming 

Tom Koerner, Project Leader Date 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Green River, Wyoming 

Reviewed by: 

Carl Millegan, Acting Refuge Supervisor Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Approved by: 

Will Meeks, Assistant Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 
 

 

 

Appendix C 

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Persons: Tom Koerner 

Telephone Numbers: (307) 875-2187 x 16 

Date: June 28, 2013 

I. Region: 6 

II. Service Activity (Program): Refuges & Wildlife, Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area: 

Black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes (listed endangered) 

Ute ladies’- tresses orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis (listed threatened) 

There is no federally designated critical habitat on the action area (Seedskadee NWR) 

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: 

No proposed species 

C. Candidate species within the action area:
 

Yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus
 

Greater Sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus
 

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map: see attachment 

IV. Geographic area or station name and action: 

Station: Cokeville Meadows Wildlife Refuge (Bear River basin in southwestern Wyoming) 

Action: Approve and implement the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

V. Location (map attached): 
114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Cokeville Meadows NWR is located within the Service’s Region 6, 

Mountain-Prairie Region, and specifically in the Bear River Ecosystem (Bear River Basin) 

B. County and State: Lincoln County, Wyoming 

C. Section, township, and range: 

Cokeville Meadows NWR includes parts or all of Sections 4, 5, 6, & 7, Township 22 North, Range 119 

West; Sections 6, 7, 8 , 9 , 16, 17, 18, 20, 29, 31 & 32, Township 23 North, Range 119 West; Sections 

31, 32 & 33, Township 24 North, Range 119 West; Section 1 Township 22 North, Range 120 West; 

Sections 10, 25, 35 & 36, Township 23 North, Range 120 West; Sections 22, 23, 26, 35 & 36, Township 

24 North, Range 120 West. 

D. Distance & direction to nearest town: Cokeville Meadows NWR is approximately 10 miles south 

of Cokeville, WY 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Black-footed ferret: The Refuge lies within the historical range of this listed species, however it 

 has never been documented. The Refuge has very limited white-tailed prairie 

 dog colonies. At present it is unknown what is the prairie dog density at the 

 Refuge. It is unlikely that a large enough population of prairie dogs exists to 

 support black-footed ferrets. 

Ute ladies-tresses While the Refuge lies in between areas known to have populations of this 

orchid: listed species (Colorado and Montana), there are no known populations of this 

 species on the Refuge. An orchid survey, within suitable orchid habitat, 

 performed during the blooming period of this species in the Refuge (2000) 

 failed to locate this plant within the Refuge. 

Greater Sage-grouse: The Greater Sage-grouse is a candidate species that occupies the refuge 

 from Mid-Summer through late to early winter. In Mid-Summer adults with 

 young broods come to the refuge in search of their early life cycle needs. They 

 winter on adjacent private and Federal (BLM) big sagebrush stands. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo: The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is a candidate species that has not been 

 documented on the refuge. The refuge lies within the historical range of this 

 species. The cuckoo relies on riparian habitat types which include 

 cottonwoods with a shrub understory. A limited amount of this habitat is 

 found within Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. 

VI. Description of proposed action 

See attached draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 115 
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

VII. Determination of effects: 

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III. A, B & C 

black-footed ferret: Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” this 

 mammal. The continued preservation and management of Service lands for 

 the benefit of wildlife species, including white-tailed prairie dogs which are 

 a primary prey species, should preserve an opportunity for this species to 

 return in the future. This species is considered endangered and is protected 

 both federally and by the state. Implementation of the actions listed in the 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan should not have negative effects to the 

 habitats and/or prey species of this federally listed species. 

Ute ladies’-tresses Implementing the CCP “May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” this 

orchid: plant species. It has never been found on the Refuge despite an orchid-

 specific survey (2000) within suitable habitats. If this species is found in the 

 Refuge in the future, the Service will establish and enforce measures to 

 protect this listed plant and its habitats. Implementation of the actions listed 

 in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan should not have negative effects to 

 the habitats of this federally listed species. 

Greater Sage-grouse: Implementing the CCP will have “No Affect” on this candidate species. The 

 continued preservation and management of Service lands for the benefit of 

 wildlife species, including sagebrush obligates such as greater sage grouse, 

 will provide more opportunities to preserve existing habitat and restore habitat 

 in the future. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo: Implementing the CCP will have “No Affect” on this candidate species. The 

 continued preservation and management of Service lands for the benefit of 

 wildlife species, including species requiring woody riparian habitat, will 

 provide more opportunities to preserve existing habitat and restore habitat in 

 the future. This species relies on healthy riparian habitats and actions listed in 

 the CCP will work to improve the habitat conditions. 

There is no federally designated critical habitat on the action area (Cokeville Meadows NWR) and there is no 

need to propose designating critical habitat within the Refuge at this time. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:
 

See attached draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 


VIII. Effect determination and response requested: [* = optional] 

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat: 

Determination Response requested 

no effect/no adverse modification ____________*Concurrence 

(species: NONE) 
__________________

 

 

 

__________________ 

 

Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 117 

Determination Response requested 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect _____X______ Concurrence 

species/adversely modify critical habitat 

(species: black-footed ferret, Ute ladies’-tresses orchid) 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species ____________ Formal Consultation 

and adversely modify or destroy their critical habitat 

(NONE) 

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat: NONE 

Determination Response requested 

no effect on proposed species/no adverse _____X______*Concurrence 

modification of proposed critical habitat 

(species: NONE) 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/ ___________ Concurrence 

adversely modify proposed critical habitat_ 

(species: NONE) 

C. Candidate Species: 

Determination Response requested 

no effect (species: Greater sage grouse 

and yellow billed cuckoo) _____X______*Concurrence

 likely to jeopardize candidate species ___________ Concurrence 

(species: NONE) 

______________________________________ 

Tom Koerner, Project Leader, Date 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______X_________ Nonconcurrence____________________ 

B. Formal Consultation required: ___ 

C. Conference required: ___ 

D. Informal conference required: ___ 

E. Remarks: 

______________________________________ 

Mark Sattelberg 

Wyoming Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Date 

Appendix D 

Public Involvement 

D.1 Public Involvement 

A notice of intent to prepare the draft CCP and 

EA was published in the Federal Register on Novem

ber 5, 2009. We compiled a mailing list of more than 

80 names during preplanning. The list includes pri

vate citizens; local, regional, and State government 

representatives and legislators; other Federal agen

cies; and interested organizations. Public scoping 

began immediately after publication of the notice of 

intent and was announced through news releases and 

to those on the mailing list by issuance of the first 

planning update. 

The planning update provided information on the 

history of the refuge and the CCP process along with 

an invitation to, and schedule for, public open houses 

to be held throughout the planning area. Each plan

ning update included a comment form to give the 

public an opportunity to provide written comments. 

Email was also accepted at the Seedskadee National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex’s address: seedskadee@ 

fws.gov. Open houses were also announced to local 

newspapers and radio stations. Flyers were posted, 

and announcements were made via email and at the 

meetings of local organizations. 

Two public open houses were held in Cokeville 

and Kemmerer, Wyoming, November 17–18, 2009. At 

the meetings informational posters, maps, handouts, 

and a power point presentation provided a history of 

the Refuge System, orientation to the planning area, 

and an overview of the CCP and NEPA processes. 

The draft vision statement developed for the refuge 

was also presented. Service staff were available to 

answer questions on a variety of topics about refuge 

management and the CCP process. Attendees were 

encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. 

Verbal comments were recorded and each attendee 

was given a comment form to submit thoughts or 

questions in writing. Turnout was high at the Cokev

ille meeting, with 50–55 people attending, but low at 

the Kemmerer meeting. 

All written comments were due December 31, 

2009. Several comments were received during the 

scoping effort. Input obtained from public meetings, 

letters, emails, and comment forms was considered in 

developing the draft CCP. These comments identified 

biological, social, and economic concerns about refuge 

management. 

The planning team’s response to public comments 

can be found in section D.3. The mailing list for the 

CCP and EA follows. 

D.2 Public Mailing List 

Following is the mailing list for the Quivira Ref

uge CCP. 

­

Federal Officials 

U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator John Barrasso, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, Washington, DC 

Federal Agencies 

BLM, Kemmerer, Wyoming 

BLM, Rock Springs, Wyoming 

National Park Service, Fossil Butte National 

Monument, Kemmerer, Wyoming 

USDA National Resources Conservation Service, Cokeville, Wyoming 

USDA Forest Service, Kemmerer, Wyoming 

USGS, Bozeman, Montana 

Tribes 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck, Poplar, Montana 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, South 

Dakota 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council, Fort Thompson, South Dakota 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council, Fort 

Washakie, South Dakota 

­

­

­

­

­
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council, Lower Brule, 

South Dakota 

Northern Arapaho Business Committee, Fort 

Washakie, Wyoming 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, Lame Deer, 

Montana 

Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah, 

Brigham City, Utah 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, Pine Ridge, South 

Dakota 

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, Rosebud, South 

Dakota 

Santee Sioux Tribal Council, Niobrara, Nebraska 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council, Fort Yates, 

North Dakota 

State Officials 

Governor Dave Freudenthal, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 

Representative Kathy Davison, Kemmerer, 

Wyoming 

Representative Allen M. Jaggi, Lyman, 

Wyoming 

Representative Robert M. McKim, Afton, 

Wyoming 

Representative Owen Petersen, Mountain View, 

Wyoming 

Representative Jim Roscoe, Wilson, Wyoming 

Wyoming State Senator Stan Cooper, Kemmerer, 

Wyoming 

Wyoming State Senator Dan Dockstader, Afton, 

Wyoming 

State Agencies 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, 

Idaho 

State Historic Preservation Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 

State Historic Preservation Office, Laramie, 

Wyoming 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ogden, 

Utah 

WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

WGFD, Cokeville, Wyoming 

WGFD, Green River, Wyoming 

WGFD, Jackson, Wyoming 

WGFD, Lander, Wyoming 

WGFD, Pinedale, Wyoming 

Local Governments 

Board of County Commissioners, Lincoln 

County, Kemmerer, Wyoming 

City of Afton, Wyoming 

City of Cokeville, Wyoming 

City of Evanston, Wyoming 

City of Kemmerer, Wyoming 

City of Montpelier, Idaho 

Green River Chamber of Commerce, Green 

River, Wyoming 

Lincoln County Planning Office, Kemmerer, 

Wyoming 

Lincoln County Weed and Pest District, Afton, 

Wyoming 

Randolph City Office, Randolph, Utah 

Local Businesses 

Hideout Motel, Cokeville, Wyoming 

Organizations 

American Bird Conservancy, Mountain Green, 

Utah 

Audubon Public Policy Office, Washington, DC 

Audubon Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 

The Conservation Fund, Jackson, Wyoming 

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC 

Ducks Unlimited, Fort Collins, Colorado 

Hawkwatch International, Salt Lake City, Utah 

International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, 

Wisconsin 

International Migratory Bird Day, Boulder, 

Wyoming 

Mule Deer Foundation, Salt Lake City, Utah 

National Trappers Association, Bedford, Indiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC 

The Nature Conservancy, Evanston, Wyoming 

North American Pronghorn Foundation, Rawlins, Wyoming 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, 

Montana 

Trout Unlimited, Logan, Utah 

Water for Wildlife Foundation, Lander, Wyoming 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland 

Wyoming Native Plant Society, Laramie, 

Wyoming 

Wyoming Outdoor Council, Lander, Wyoming 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 
 

fetched. Does th

counts of fish per

population that 

Enhance would b

EA needs to mak

is considered com

be consistent wit

Policy. 

Response 1. This is

stakeholders dur

table 2 in the fin

planning process.

counts of fish per 

presettlement co

River system is 

that this river sy

the same presettl

species compositi

Appendix D—Public Involvement 121 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Lander, Wyoming 

Libraries 

Bear Lake County Library, Montpelier, Idaho 

Cokeville Public Library, Cokeville, Wyoming 

Lincoln County Library, Kemmerer, Wyoming 

Star Valley Branch Library, Cokeville, Wyoming 

Uinta County Library, Evanston, Wyoming 

Universities and Schools 

University Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 

Utah State University, Logan, Utah 

Western Wyoming Community College, Rock 

Springs, Wyoming 

Media 

Green River Star, Green River, Wyoming 

Kemmerer Gazette, Kemmerer, Wyoming 

The News Examiner, Montpelier, Idaho 

Rocket Miner Newspaper, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming 

Uinta County Herald News, Evanston, Wyoming 

Individuals 

12 private individuals 

D.3 Public Comments on the 

Draft Plan 

The public provided many comments during the 

public review period for the draft CCP and EA. We 

reviewed all comments and found the following to be 

substantive. As defined by National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) compliance guidelines, comments 

are considered substantive if they: 

■■ question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document; 

■■	 question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental analysis;
 

■■	 present reasonable alternatives other than 

those presented in the environmental 

assessment; 

■■ cause changes or revisions in the proposal. 

In compliance with the spirit of the Privacy Act of 

1974, it is our policy to not publish the names, 

addresses, or other personal information of individuals. Agencies, business, and organizations are 

excluded. Rather than print every letter from individuals and redact (black out) all personal information, the Service has summarized the general nature 

of the comments received and responded to each 

substantive comment. Some of the comments do not 

meet the definition of “substantive” (as defined previously), and those are shown as “comment noted.” In 

some instances, we have opted to respond to specific 

nonsubstantive comments where the public displayed 

a strong interest. Specific comments and responses 

are included below. 

Wildlife Management 

Comment 1. The statement in the draft CCP and EA 

in which you state that you want to restore native 

game and nongame fish populations seems far 

e refuge have pre-settlement 

 mile? What is the historic fish 

would be recovered or restored? 

e a much better word to use. The 

e known at what point recovery 

plete. This is needed in order to 

h Lincoln County Public Land 

sue was raised by one of our 

ing our scoping meetings (see 

al CCP) to be addressed in our 

 We do not have presettlement 

mile nor do we strive to achieve 

unts of fish per mile. The Bear 

highly altered, so it is unlikely 

stem would be able to support 

ement fish-per-mile numbers or 

on. 
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Comment 2. Focal species should be identified as key 

indicator species and include both vertebrates 

and invertebrates. 

Response 2:. The comment regarding focal species 

and indicator species is valid, however most of the 

species listed as focal species for the Great Northern Geographic Area are not currently found on 

the refuge. We recognized this and settled on the 

indicator species addressed in the CCP as the 

best to represent the species endemic to the refuge. The species we selected as indicators each 

represent other species, vertebrates and invertebrates, which occupy the same ecological niche. 

Since the refuge was established for migratory 

birds, it follows that they make up most of our 

indicator species (see chapter 4). The list includes 

American bittern, redhead, northern pintail, and 

white faced ibis for wet meadow habitats; yellow 

warbler, common yellowthroat and northern leopard frog for riparian and river habitats; and sage 

sparrow and short-eared owl for shrub–steppe 

and grassland upland habitats. Our planning team 

included a variety of wildlife professionals and 

botanists as well as experts in range and habitat 

management, who used their expertise and experience to select these indicator species. 

Habitats Management 

Comment 3. With no previous or baseline information to make a comparison it is speculative to 

state that the refuge’s riparian and river habitats 

along the Bear River are severely degraded. Some 

would argue that past agricultural practices 

have improved habitats. This is evident when we 

compare present off-site wildlife populations to 

those within the refuge. Some would not say river 

habitat along the Bear River is severely 

degraded. Ecological sites along the Bear River 

have been greatly enhanced by past irrigation 

practices. Without human intervention there 

would not be near the wetland habitat along Bear 

River that exists today. Care needs to be taken 

not to expect a lot more than what currently 

exists. 

Response 3. There is baseline information in the 

numerous accounts of the vegetation within the 

Bear River Valley and adjacent uplands that were 

made by early explorers and travelers in the 

Cokeville Valley since 1834 (Heitmeyer et al. 

2012). Based on those accounts, we believe that 

riparian habitat vegetation on the refuge has been 

degraded from the conditions that existed when 

the accounts were made. We agree that irrigation 

infrastructure and practices in the area of the 

refuge have created many of the wetlands and wet 

meadows in the Cokeville Valley that provide the 

habitats on which a great variety of migratory 

birds and other wildlife depend and thrive. We 

have removed the adjective “severely” from the 

statement in question to avoid 

misrepresentations. 

Comment 4. Without baseline data to compare, the 

statement that past management techniques and, 

possibly herbicide spraying have degraded some 

key areas and habitat types, particularly wood 

riparian communities is speculative. Willow and 

cottonwoods need disturbance and deposition to 

stimulate growth. Without a disturbance event, 

woody vegetation will not establish. Previous 

attempts by WGFD and FWS to plant cottonwoods failed, in part, because trees have difficulty 

surviving under water for six months of the year. 

Refuge partners tried to explain this phenomenon to staff, prior to the undertaking. Local 

knowledge and coordination will be critical in 

future, successful habitat improvements 

Response 4. Thank you for your comment. As mentioned in response 3, baseline data comes from 

numerous accounts by early explorers and travelers dating back to 1834 (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). 

We have changed the statement in question to 

more accurately reflect the habitat conditions (see 

the Planning Issues of the Refuge and Haying, 

Grazing, and Prescribed Fire sections in the summary of the final CCP). 

Comment 5. We question whether restoring cropland 

back to native vegetation would improve habitat. 

In most cases, this seems to be the preferred habitat of wildlife. For instance, alfalfa fields are 

heavily used by sage grouse, particularly during 

brood rearing season. We question whether native 

vegetation can be established under sprinkler 

irrigation, especially from a ground well water 

source. Our experience in the gas fields where 

sprinkler irrigation has been used in reclamation is that it is largely ineffective. 

Response 5. Thank you for your comments. Based on 

them, we have clarified our plans in the CCP for 

the existing cropland sites in the refuge. We 

invite you to read the objectives, strategies and 

rationales developed for management of refuge 

habitats (see chapter 4 of the final CCP). 

Comment 6. The objective to return all irrigated croplands within refuge boundaries to “native vegetation” as suggested on pages 124-125 seems to run 

contrary to the desire to improve wildlife habitat 

on a sight specific scale as well as a landscape­
Appendix D—Public Involvement 123 

level scale proposed under alternative D. This 

proposal also negates the opportunity to achieve 

the maximum wildlife benefits that could be realized with the nearly $500,000 that has recently 

been invested in irrigation wells, a new pivot irrigation system, and recent conversion from diesel 

to electric power of the pumping station for the 

pivot. This large investment would have been 

completely unnecessary if the objective was simply to return all irrigated cropland to native 

vegetation. This could have easily been achieved 

with existing irrigation facilities prior to investing in those resources. It is also completely counterintuitive to suggest that wildlife benefits would 

be enhanced by implementing this strategy. For 

the past 7 years the center pivot has been in 

alfalfa production. The center pivot is surrounded on three sides by thousands of acres of 

“native vegetation” and “native nesting habitat”. 

On any given day throughout the spring, summer 

and fall it would be extremely difficult to find any 

significant wildlife population on those vast acres 

of native vegetation surrounding the pivot. On the 

other hand, it would be very uncommon to find a 

day during those same months where significant 

populations of wildlife could not be found on the 

215 acres of the pivot-irrigated lands. Throughout 

the summer and fall, literally hundreds of sage 

grouse can be found inhabiting the alfalfa that is 

irrigated by the pivot. Ducks, geese and sandhill 

cranes are not uncommon. Deer and elk also 

seem to prefer green alfalfa over the surrounding 

native grasses. In the current year, the pivot was 

in small grains. Literally hundreds of geese, 

ducks and cranes could be observed on a daily 

basis throughout the fall benefiting from the 

resource that was provided by the 215 acres of 

irrigated cropland. Just across the fence on the 

thousands of acres of native vegetation a single 

goose, duck, sandhill crane, sage-grouse or wildlife of any kind would have been an extremely 

rare occurrence. Additionally, we as permittees 

and private landowners depend on the hay production that comes from those irrigated croplands to sustain our livestock throughout the 

winter months. Considering a “landscape-level 

scale” as proposed under alternative D, if the 

refuge-owned irrigated croplands are returned to 

native vegetation and taken out of agricultural 

production, we will be forced to find alternative 

sources for hay production to sustain our livestock. This would likely mean conversion of 

native vegetation outside refuge boundaries to 

irrigated croplands to compensate for the loss of 

those croplands on refuge property. 

Response 6. The comment is noted and, as stated in 

response 5, changes have been made to the CCP. 

Comment 7. One of the biggest threats to woody species establishment has been the prevalence of 

beaver. Muskrats and Beaver have been known to 

cause dike and stream bank instability, yet they 

are not mentioned here. Livestock have historically been turned on the meadows October 1st, 

which is too late in the season to alter plant diversity. We would support water gaps for watering 

livestock. 

Response 7. We will work with WGFD and other 

partners to develop a stepdown management plan 

for the recreational trapping of select furbearers. 

Trapping for management purposes to protect 

dikes, culverts, and other structures from burrowing and blockage is conducted where needed. 

Woody vegetation holds its nutrient content longer into the fall and winter than most non woody 

vegetation. Grazing repeatedly during the fall and 

winter may, over time, reduce or eliminate it. We 

agree that, for most plant species, grazing in the 

fall and winter does not impact the ability of the 

plants to store nutrient reserves in root systems 

and cannot alter the plant community or diversity 

as dramatically as grazing during the growing 

season. Providing livestock water when portions 

of the refuge are grazed has been, and will continue to be, included when setting up areas to be 

grazed. 

Comment 8. Prescribed fire has been an effective tool 

to improve willow habitats and should be considered here. Herbicide spraying should be continued in the treatment of noxious weeds. Instead of 

requiring a rest period from grazing and the 

elimination of haying, we suggest not spraying 

the riparian corridor. The 1990 draft environmental impact statement encourage cattle grazing as an effective control for woody vegetation 

encroachment. “Cattle will be used for crowd 

grazing in selected locations on the refuge to control woody vegetation encroachment on wetland 

areas. Approximately one-quarter of the woody 

shrub vegetated wetland areas would need to be 

grazed each year for effective control.” Environmental impact statement, page 13. 

Response 8. Thank you for the comment. Prescribed 

fire is one of the management options discussed in 

the CCP. It may be used for specific management 

purposes where feasible and appropriate. We will 

continue to use approved herbicides as one component in an integrated pest management program. 

We will avoid spraying willows, cottonwoods, and 

other desired woody vegetation that has either 

become established or has been planted. The 1990 

draft environmental impact statement was conceptual in nature and there may have been concerns at that time that willows would become 
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

established on large areas, limiting other types of 

grassland and wetland habitats. Since then, we 

recognize that few willows, cottonwoods, and 

other vegetation establish under existing haying, 

grazing, flooding regimes. There has also become 

an increasing awareness that riparian vegetation, 

including willow, cottonwoods, and other woody 

vegetation, provides important habitat in the 

West for neotropical migrants such as yellow warblers for nesting and for migration corridors. We 

hope to use an adaptive management process to 

establish this woody riparian habitat where a 

degree of successful establishment can be 

achieved. 

Comment 9. The draft CCP and EA states, “Today, 

most local fire department and area farmers and 

ranchers still aggressively suppress wildfires.” 

We have witnessed two range fires within the past 

10 years within the Bear River Valley. There was 

a fire break that was bladed around the north 

side of Taylor Subdivision during a range fire. 

Ranchers have historically burned ditches and 

canals each spring and often burned their fields. 

The EA statement is completely inaccurate. 

Response 9. The comment is noted. The section on 

page 28 of the draft CCP and EA, “Wildland Fire 

Management” gives a brief overview of past and 

present wildland fire in the area. There is no suggestion that wildfire no longer occurs as the comment suggests. There is also no suggestion that 

local landowners no longer use fire as a management tool on their private property. 

Comment 10. Regarding “Riparian Habitat Objective 

2 – Specific Strategies,” how big will the riparian 

corridors be if fenced out? It could involve a lot of 

land that is currently hayed and grazed. Where 

and how would livestock water if riparian corridors are fenced out? Would fenced corridors be 

grazed periodically to control noxious weeds and 

stimulate decadent grass growth? 

Response 10. The comment is noted. Our intent with 

riparian corridor fencing is to allow woody vegetation to establish in certain areas. Temporary 

electric fences would likely be the best way to 

accomplish this, permanent fence might be considered. We will not suspend noxious weed control in 

these areas and will work with permittees to 

allow access to water. Fence designs and locations 

have not been selected. The objective for installing any fence would be to allow us to manage 

where and when livestock graze while not preventing the movement of big game or other wildlife. We will look at a variety of fencing options. 

We have not identified areas where prescribed 

grazing is not one of the tools that will be used. 

Rest from disturbance is also one of the tools that 

may be used. Resting from prescribed grazing or 

prescribed burning for several years may allow 

woody vegetation to become well established 

before grazing resumes. Some species of wildlife, 

particularly nesting birds, need some decadent 

grass, often called residual vegetation. Species 

such as mallards prefer areas where there are one 

or more years of previous years’ vegetation to 

place their nests. Management will continue to 

apply adaptive management. In coordination with 

permittees, we will conduct management activities, learn from the process, and do more of what 

is moving us towards our goals and objectives and 

less of what is taking us in the other direction. 

Comment 11. It is critical that grazing and haying be 

allowed within the refuge over the years to maintain vegetation vigor and curtail weed 

infestation. 

Response 11. We value our current and future relationships with our neighbors, many of which are 

permittees. We recognize that management of 

this refuge has, and will, continue to be a mutually 

beneficial partnership between the refuge and 

permittees. The management tools we have for 

increasing wildlife habitat benefits in these 

largely seasonally flooded wetlands consists of 

flooding and drying, haying, prescribed grazing, 

prescribed burning, and rest. Much of the day-today irrigation is conducted through these partnerships. Haying and grazing, which are two of our 

primary management tools, would not be possible 

without permittees. We further recognize that 

there is limited irrigable private land in the valley 

and that it is important for operating working 

ranches in the area. We are committed to continuing these relationships where they benefit wildlife 

habitat and the working ranches of the area. 

Predators and Nuisance Species 

Control 

Comment 12. Concerning invasive species within the 

refuge, more emphasis needs to be placed on the 

control of raccoons, skunks, feral house cats, 

crows, and ravens within the plan, otherwise, you 

will not have any eggs to hatch or chicks to raise. 

Response 12. The comment is noted, and we agree 

that raccoons, skunks, feral house cats, crows and 

ravens can have a negative impact on bird nest 

success. The CCP includes actions that we will 

use to address bird nest depredation. Please see 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 125 

the trapping objectives and their strategies in 

chapter 4 of the final CCP. However, crows and 

ravens are not considered invasive species, and we 

are unaware of feral house cat problems at this 

time. Coyote presence on the refuge will help to 

reduce feral cat, striped skunk, and raccoon populations and has been shown to support higher bird 

nest success when compared to areas with few 

coyotes and high numbers of these species. 

Comment 13. The draft CCP and EA states that, “The 

hunting of wolves and coyotes, however, would 

not be permitted under this plan.” We question 

why these two predators would be signaled out for 

exclusion from hunting, particularly wolves 

since the refuge falls within the designated predator boundary adopted by the FWS. They should 

not be exempt due to the need to protect wildlife 

and livestock in the area. This exclusion runs 

counter to statements made elsewhere, where the 

Service sought to protect wildlife habitats. 

Response 13. The comment is noted. We have 

regional policy in place to address such issues 

(please see appendix I) and Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge and the rest of the national wildlife refuges in Region 6 are subject to it. 

Comment 14. The EA calls for a trapping plan. We 

support efforts to reduce predation on wildlife as 

well as to control nuisance animals. This should 

include burrowing animals such as muskrat and 

bank-denning beaver when damage to dike systems or blockage of water control structures is 

experienced. Interestingly, the proposed action in 

the 1990 draft environmental impact statement 

allowed for the use of traps, snares and gunning 

to effect control. We support the use of gunning by 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control specialists within 

refuge boundaries 

Response 14. We will work with WGFD and other 

partners to develop a stepdown management plan 

for the recreational trapping of select furbearers. 

Trapping for management purposes to protect 

dikes, culverts, and other structures from burrowing and blockage is conducted where needed. 

For information on the policies governing the disposal of predators on national wildlife refuges in 

this region, please see appendix I of the final CCP. 

Invasive Species 

Comment 15. Care needs to be taken not to totally 

eliminate all herbicide spraying within the refuge; otherwise, you will end up with a giant pepper weed infestation from top to bottom. 

Response 15. Thank you for your comment. In 

response, we made changes to the CCP. 

Comment 16. The town expressed its desires to open 

up the flooded wet meadows to bow fishing for 

carp, believing this to be the simplest, most costeffective control of carp and, in turn, an enhancement of water quality by lessening suspended 

particulates in the water. Furthermore, poisoning the entire length of the river is the only feasible way of eliminating invasive species, such as 

carp, from the system. This should be analyzed in 

the document. 

Response 16. The comment is noted. We do not 

oppose opening the refuge to bow fishing for carp. 

We will evaluate its feasibility in a fishing management plan in the near future, and, if it is compatible and feasible, we will open the refuge to 

this recreational opportunity. However, we 

believe that carp control, alone, would not likely 

cause a marked improvement in water quality. 

Regarding the complete elimination of carp, we 

only have control over a small part of the Bear 

River. We would be glad to cooperate with WGFD 

and other landowners in efforts to eliminate carp 

from the Bear River watershed. 

Comment 17. The EA should address the impacts of 

waterfowl as the major dispenser of invasive and 

noxious weeds. This has been especially evident 

in the Dakotas, where snow geese have decimated 

agricultural cropland. Recreational harvest is 

considered an ineffective control for addressing 

carp, and to this we agree. Poisoning the entire 

length of the river is the only feasible way of 

eliminating invasive species, such as carp, from 

the system. This should be analyzed in the document, including the cost of reintroducing native 

species. 

Response 17. The comment is noted. Noxious weeds 

can be transported by many means, including 

wind, water, vehicles, imported hay, and seeds 

that have passed through the digestive systems, 

or have lodged in the fur and feathers, of livestock 

and wildlife, including waterfowl. We will continue to work with neighbors and the Lincoln 

County Weed District to control the establishment or spread of noxious weeds on refuge lands. 
 

126 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Inventory and Monitoring 

Comment 18. Inventory and monitoring are only 

casually addressed in the alternatives. We believe 

this to be critical in determining what, if any, 

actions should take place. 

Response 18. The comment is noted, and we agree 

that inventory and monitoring are a very important part of any management plan. Therefore we 

have added more information regarding inventory 

and monitoring throughout the CCP. 

Comment 19. The draft CCP and EA admits that the 

refuge does not have the staff or money necessary 

for inventory and monitoring of baseline information and yet proposes additional acquisitions. 

No additional acquisitions should be made until 

baseline monitoring has taken place on previously acquired lands. 

Response 19. Refuge staff, along with partners and 

neighbors, have completed inventory and monitoring in the last decade. WGFD has completed 

marshbird surveys for species of concern in Wyoming, fisheries inventories of the Bear River, and 

other surveys for sandhill cranes, Canada geese, 

and big game. Refuge staff and contractors have 

completed amphibian surveys, plant surveys, and 

the monitoring of water quantity. Adding a biologist to our staff would allow us to complete additional surveys and monitoring. 

Public Uses, Safety, and Access 

Comment 20. Past landowners of land within the refuge boundary have crossed the railroad tracks 

many times without a log of accidents. Shutting 

down the refuge due to the railroad track would 

not be appropriate. Access through the refuge 

could be improved by using the railroad crossing 

west of the current bird refuge headquarters and 

fixing the bridge crossing at the Pixley diversion 

to the west side for public use. 

Response 20. Thank you for your comments. The 

issue of public safety in relation to the existing 

railroad tracks and access to the refuge was 

raised at the scoping meeting held in Cokeville 

and is addressed in the CCP with regard to opening the refuge to the public. We take the safety of 

visitors and refuge staff seriously. While it is our 

desire to open Cokeville Meadows Refuge to the 

public to enjoy wildlife-dependent, compatible 

uses, we must also make that access as safe as 

possible. We have carefully considered your suggestions on how to improve access to the refuge 

and will make use of them when we are able to 

open different sections of the refuge. 

Comment 21. The FWS currently has one railroad 

crossing, which is at the former Thornock place 

and has been used for one hundred years without 

incident. The costs of improving the crossing with 

railroad signals and crossing arms would deter 

the Service from ever making the investment. We 

believe that the Service is using visitor safety as 

the defense to continue the exclusion of refuge 

lands. 

Response 21. Thank you for the comment. Please see 

the response we gave to this same issue in 

response 20. 

Comment 22. Creating one refuge access point may 

be a realistic goal, but we believe it does not go far 

enough in providing access to a refuge that is 

nearly 23 miles in length. It would require a 

greater amount of surface disturbance to go 

around an area of that length. We believe there 

should be multiple access points from both the 

east and the west sides of the valley. The EA 

needs to address utility corridors and livestock 

driveways. 

Response 22. Access to refuge lands is a difficult 

issue with few obvious locations readily accessible 

to the public. Interior portions of the refuge do 

not have existing routes that are suitable for the 

public’s vehicle travel. We would be very interested in working with Lincoln County, the State 

of Wyoming, and other partners to develop and 

improve access to refuge lands. Currently the 

highways on the east and west sides of the refuge 

provide the primary points of access. 

Comment 23. The draft CCP and EA states that, 

“Opening of the refuge to hunting would require 

us to provide brochures, leaflets, media 

announcements, and maps.” We question why 

this requirement would preempt hunting. Other 

Federal land partners do not require brochures 

and leaflets prior to the opening of the hunting 

season. 

Response 23. The Refuge System informs the public 

of approved hunting regulations through publishing in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Recognizing that the public may 

not routinely have access to, or read, these, we 

inform the public through signs, hunting brochures that include refuge-specific regulations 

and maps, Web site postings of refuge-specific 

regulations, and a variety of other ways. As proposed, portions of the refuge have recently been 

opened to the hunting of select wildlife species, 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 127 

while a few areas may remain closed to hunting 

that are in administrative areas or where we have 

developed interpretation sites. Our intent is to 

inform hunters of existing refuge-specific regulations to avoid violations. We have developed a 

hunting brochure and are working on installing 

additional parking lots and access points. Other 

Federal land partners do provide brochures to 

inform the public about specific rules and regulations regarding uses on their lands. Typically, 

BLM and USDA Forest Service lands adopt existing State of Wyoming seasons and regulations 

while national wildlife refuges are more restrictive, which may require an extra effort to inform 

the hunting public of the differences. 

Comment 24. Need hunting and fishing access within 

the refuge. Consideration needs to be given for 

handicapped access within the refuge. This is 

Federal law. 

Response 24. We are committed to opening portions 

of the refuge to the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, interpretation). To that 

effect, changes have been made to the CCP. We 

have completed all of the necessary steps for hunting, and the final rule has been published in the 

Federal Register, which officially opened the refuge to hunting. Completion of the CCP will aid in 

opening the refuge to the other five uses. As recognized by most, access for vehicles will take 

thought and coordination. No all-weather roads 

exist in the interior. We have developed one accessible interpretive site and will seek opportunities 

for additional sites. Please refer to the public 

access objectives and strategies contained in 

chapter 4 of the final CCP. 

Refuge Operations, Staff, 

Equipment, and Facilities 

Comment 25. The Lincoln Conservation District definitely agrees the refuge needs to be staffed locally 

with suitable personnel that can work well with 

local people. 

Response 25. We agree with your comment, and we 

are doing our best to staff the refuge with the 

best qualified personnel. 

Comment 26. The replacement of the Pixley Dam to 

improve safety, water management, and fish passage seems to contradict alternative B, which 

seeks to remove the Pixley Dam altogether. 

Response 26. This was one of the issues identified in 

the scoping process, so it was included in the EA. 

Alternative B was not selected. 

Comment 27. The EA admits that the refuge does not 

have the resources to remove junk and debris, 

replace water infrastructure, provide law 

enforcement, etc. And yet, the refuge seeks to buy 

more fee-title lands and conservation easements? 

Until it can be demonstrated that the refuge has 

adequate funds to develop what they currently 

hold, we will oppose additional acquisitions. 

Response 27. In the last decade, refuge staff, along 

with partners and neighbors, have removed a considerable amount of junk and debris and replaced 

degraded water management infrastructure. 

Recently, we have assisted neighboring private 

landowners with improvements to their water 

management infrastructure. We have worked 

with the local WGFD conservation officer to 

address law enforcement issues. We have been 

responsive to issues that arise, such as when elk 

are legally shot on private land and manage to 

make it to refuge land before dying. 

Land Protection 

Comment 28. Before purchasing any more ground, 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) staff 

needs to be in place to locally operate the refuge 

and clean up the environmental concerns that 

currently exist. 

Response 28. The comment is noted, and the Service 

will hire a new manager for the refuge as soon as 

the budget allows. Meanwhile, the refuge will continue to be managed by the Seedskadee National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex staff. 

Comment 29. We request that the wording be changed 

from “We will pursue easements and other land 

protection opportunities with willing sellers....” 

to read instead “We will pursue habitat improvements and expansion opportunities with willing 

participants....” This wording more closely 

aligns with alternative D and allows for additional opportunities, besides acquisition, to 

enhance habitats. This could include offsite mitigation, habitat leasing, and candidate conservation agreements. 

Response 29. Thank you for your suggestion. In 

response, we made changes to the CCP. 

Comment 30. Lincoln County Land Use Regulations 

prohibit the subdivision of floodplain. We have 
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

not seen a single residence built within the acquisition boundary since the enabling act created 

the refuge in 1989. 

Response 30. The comment is noted. The valley south 

of Cokeville has remained relatively undeveloped 

and has many active working ranches. The prohibition on subdividing the floodplain shows Lincoln 

County’s active planning efforts. While it is hard 

to predict the future, other nearby areas in Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah have seen increased development that has impacted both working ranches 

and wildlife habitat. 

Comment 31. Strategic Habitat Conservation supports our position to open [the refuge] to all 

opportunities such as habitat leasing, candidate 

conservation agreements, mitigation, etcetera. 

Response 31. We agree with this comment, and we 

are open to considering the opportunities mentioned. In response, we made changes to the CCP. 

Comment 32. Strategic Habitat Conservation: The 

great northern geographic area encompasses 

nearly 500,000 square miles (43 percent in Canada). We believe the EA needs to focus closer to 

home, at least to the local area or watershed. 

Many of the species of the geographic area are not 

existent to the watershed (grizzly bears, salmon, 

steelhead, wolverines, etcetera). 

Response 32. Overall, the CCP is about focusing management on the local area of Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge. Mentioning that Cokeville Meadows Refuge is part of the great northern geographic area 

acknowledges that the refuge is part (albeit a 

small one) of a greater system for the purposes of 

Strategic Habitat Conservation, which is an 

important consideration for landscape-scale conservation. Landscape-scale conservation is 

included in chapter 1 of the final CCP because it 

was mentioned in a scoping meeting as an issue 

for consideration during the development of alternatives for the CCP. The species of the geographic 

area are a general depiction of the entire 500,000 

square mile area. Please refer to “Strategic Habitat Conservation—Final Report of the National 

Ecological Assessment Team” (USGS 2006) for 

more information on how these species were 

chosen. 

Comment 33. The EA admits that there are not the 

resources necessary to accomplish actions on a 

landscape scale. This supports the County’s idea 

of habitat leasing and other schemes to accomplish habitat goals on a wide-scale basis. 

Response 33. Thank you for the comment. The first 

step is planning. Funding and resources may follow. We fully recognize that conservation on a 

landscape scale is conducted by many partners. 

Some actions require many partners and others 

need only the attention of certain individuals. 

Local, county, and State governments and partners are already accomplishing much, and we 

hope to work more with them in the future. 

Comment 34. The Lincoln Conservation District 

board members do not support the conservation 

easement concept due to the problems it can 

cause to agriculture producers in the future. The 

LCD will leave conservation easement decisions 

to landowners as they see fit. Habitat leasing for 

five to ten years makes better sense. This is short 

termed, not a perpetually agreement. 

Response 34. Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 35. The Lincoln Conservation District 

(LCD) has operating policy discouraging any 

additional net loss of private land to public land 

within the district boundaries. The LCD also recognizes that a private property owner has a right 

to dispose of or exchange his property as he or she 

sees fit within applicable laws. The LCD still will 

not support the concept of more public land 

within the district. It disrupts private agricultural enterprise by escalating land values and 

the local tax base becomes smaller. 

Response 35. The comment is noted. Fee-title acquisition from willing sellers within the approved refuge acquisition boundary was a priority in, and a 

key component of, the refuge’s establishing environmental impact statement. We will continue to 

work with willing sellers as opportunities arise. 

We will also discuss conservation easements with 

landowners interested in that option. The Bear 

River Watershed Conservation Area, which went 

through the public review process and was authorized in 2013, also allows us to discuss conservation easements with interested landowners 

outside of the Cokeville Meadows Refuge 

approved acquisition boundary and within the 

Bear River watershed. We will continue to work 

with private landowners and other willing participants wishing to enhance habitat, as we have done 

with a number of our neighbors. We added wording to the final CCP to reflect other options available besides acquisition. We respect that the 

Lincoln Conservation District recognizes that a 

private property owner has a right to dispose of, 

or exchange, property as he or she sees fit, within 

applicable laws. 
 

Appendix D—Public Involvement 129 

Partnerships 

Comment 36. You mention in alternative D (proposed 

action) that you will be using partnerships to 

enhance habitats, both on and off the refuge. Do 

you currently have buy off from private land 

owners around the refuge for your plan, plus 

local government support? Memorandums of 

understanding need to be developed with local 

government, county government, and the Lincoln 

Conservation District on how the refuge will be 

operated. 

Response 36. We currently work with permittees, 

neighbors, and others through the Service’s Partners for Wildlife program. However, we plan to 

expand our partnerships and will develop all 

appropriate memorandums of understanding. We 

received a wide range of both positive and negative comments during the Bear River Watershed 

planning process. We plan to work with those 

interested parties. 

Comment 37. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. 

The partnerships mentioned in the draft CCP 

and EA leave out landowners and local governments. There are no direct attachments to any of 

the entities listed. They are far removed from the 

ground. The cooperative seeks outside guidance 

with no local direction. 

Response 37. This comment is valid. However, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives do not exclude 

private landowners and local governments. We 

corrected this error in the final CCP. 

Comment 38. Sharing LIDAR [light detection and 

ranging-generated] information for ground 

within the refuge and surrounding private 

ground could be helpful to Lincoln Conservation 

District conservation activities in the future. 

Response 38. We would be happy to share light detection and ranging-generated (LIDAR) information 

with the Lincoln County Conservation District 

and will provide the digital data to them as 

appropriate. 

Minerals Withdrawal 

Comment 39. The Service may not infringe on 

excepted mineral rights. This should be analyzed 

in the document. The Federal government has the 

duty to protect federal minerals from drainage. 

Current technology such as fracking and horizontal or directional drilling could easily drain 

the mineral resource from withdrawn lands, thus 

losing mineral royalty to Federal, State and local 

governments. The only sure way to protect the 

mineral estate from drainage is by leasing. There 

are proven methods where drilling is being done 

in sensitive areas where it is not affecting wildlife. These include the location of production 

facilities outside riparian areas or wetlands, 

closed drilling systems, directional and horizontal drilling, and mitigation. Offsite mitigation 

within the landscape area or within the refuge 

boundary may be an effective tool to help enhance 

habitats. Although the EA is correct in that the 

refuge does not have the authority to prevent a 

mineral holder from exploiting their property, we 

are concerned that the withdrawal of mineral 

estate from isolated refuge lands may lead to the 

sterilization of adjoining State and private 

lands. 

Response 39. Refuge mineral rights and energy 

development was an issue identified during the 

scoping process and included in the EA. 

Comment 40. Lincoln County encourages and supports environmentally responsible natural 

resource exploration and development. See Lincoln County Comprehensive Land Use Plan at 39, 

53 (Nov. 9, 2010. Natural resource exploration 

and development is a primary land use in the 

County and supports the local economy of these 

rural areas. It also significantly contributes to 

the State revenues. There is some discussion in 

the EA with respect to the withdrawal of mineral 

rights from the public domain lands managed by 

the BLM. The 1990 draft environmental impact 

statement identifies 2,911 acres of land in the proposal area to have Federal mineral rights, both 

under BLM-managed land and under private 

lands. This does not match the 8,000 acres proposed for withdrawal. The draft CCP for Cokeville Meadows Refuge admits to not having 

acquired any mineral rights to refuge lands. The 

EA must provide evidence that the FWS does in 

fact hold the mineral right and disclose their 

location before proposing withdrawal of the mineral estate. 

Response 40. The comment is noted, and we made 

changes to the final CCP. We will seek to work 

with mineral interest owners to reduce impacts to 

wildlife habitats and provide for rehabilitation 

upon the completion of extracting mineral 

resources. 

Comment 41. The Lincoln Conservation District is 

not in favor of the withdrawal of subsurface mineral rights from the land within the refuge 

boundary or the right to have pipeline or trans­
 

130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

mission line corridors within the refuge. Current 

drilling techniques and placement of pipeline 

and transmission lines can be done so the natural resources are minimally affected. Placing 

public infrastructure project on Federal land 

should be the preferred option since the public 

already owns the land. Private landowners 

should not carry the burden alone. Private lands 

around the refuge have just as good of habitat for 

waterfowl and wildlife as those within the 

refuge. 

Response 41. Thank you for your comment, however 

the draft CCP and EA does not address mineral 

withdrawal. Your comment has been noted and 

placed with the mineral withdrawal EA, which is 

a separate document with a separate planning 

process. The withdrawal of Federal mineral 

rights was first addressed in the 1991 establishing 

environmental impact statement for Cokeville 

Meadows Refuge. We have developed a separate 

EA that is being completed concurrently with the 

CCP. A more detailed description and analysis is 

included in this separate EA. An environmental 

impact statement has been developed by the BLM 

for the Gateway West Transmission Line with a 

Record of Decision which selects a route through 

the north end of the approved acquisition boundary for the refuge. This route does not include any 

lands currently owned by the refuge. Any future 

acquisition for the refuge would be subject to 

existing rights-of-way. We agree that private 

lands in the valley provide good wildlife habitat 

and are committed to working with the many 

working ranches in the area. 

Planning Process and Public 

Involvement 

Comment 42. The EA mentions that the City and 

Lincoln County requested to join the planning 

team. The refuge, instead, should have requested 

the participation of local governments in the 

planning process. We’ve been very disappointed 

in the process. Meetings on Cokeville Meadows 

were held in Kemmerer. The Lincoln Conservation District was denied cooperating agency status, even though Wyoming statutes recognize 

their authority over air, water and soil. Requests 

for comment extensions were denied, even though 

in at least one case the request came because the 

share point site was unavailable to cooperators. 

And finally, notices for public meetings came out 

the same afternoon that the meeting was held. All 

this contributes to the distrust 

Response 42. The comment is noted. Our policy and 

NEPA guidelines provide us with mechanisms to 

enter into memorandums of understanding and 

other means to seek out expertise and help from 

other governmental organizations and agencies. 

We invited all necessary agencies and welcomed 

others with expertise to develop this plan. We did 

extend the comment period, both internally and to 

the public, on more than two occasions to provide 

ample time for comments. We regret that some 

groups feel that they were ignored. All comments 

provided within the comment period were welcome and have been taken into consideration as 

we prepared the CCP. Refuge staff welcome the 

opportunity to meet with agencies, governmental 

organizations, and others as time allows. 

Comment 43. The Lincoln Conservation District 

(LCD) board members have met numerous times 

with FWS employees concerning the need to 

actively manage the refuge over the years during 

various board meetings. It is concerning that the 

LCD was not invited to participate in the development of the Draft CCP and EA as a cooperating agency. No mention exists in the document of 

the LCD being involved. This is concerning, since 

the LCD board members are locally elected officials responsible for the management of all natural resources both federal and private within 

their local district jurisdiction. 

Response 43. The comment is noted. As mentioned by 

the commenter, members of the Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex staff, who manage Cokeville Meadows Refuge, have met and held 

conversations numerous times with Lincoln Conservation District members over many years on a 

wide range of refuge management subjects. We 

value our working relationship with the Lincoln 

Conservation District and look forward to maintaining and expanding this relationship. This is 

now acknowledged in the final CCP. 

Comment 44. We are deeply concerned the FWS has 

kept the Lincoln Conservation District out of 

planning efforts in the past, giving little consideration to our concerns. As a conservation district, we have rights to be a cooperating agency 

under NEPA regulations and can request that 

status anytime during your planning process. 

Response 44. The comment is noted. However, we 

have given full consideration to all Lincoln Conservation District comments and concerns and 

value their expertise and knowledge. In accordance with NEPA regulations and Service policies, it is up to the lead agency, in this case the 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 131 

Service, to decide which agencies and governmental organizations are part of a specific planning 

process. We will continue to seek input from the 

Lincoln Conservation District in this and future 

planning efforts. We will work to improve this 

relationship in the future. 

Comment 45. Concerning public involvement, notices 

for review of the draft CCP and EA for the refuge 

were received somewhat late. An email or letter 

was not received by the Lincoln Conservation 

District (LCD) when you held a public meeting 

concerning your draft plan. As a cooperating 

agency under the NEPA regulations, the LCD 

needs to be more involved in your management 

strategies in the future. Appropriate notification 

is very important. 

Response 45. The comment is noted. As required by 

internal policy, and in the spirit of NEPA, we used 

announcements in the Federal Register, local 

media outlets, and in public and private establishments, as well as timely press releases to inform 

the public, our partners, and stakeholders of public involvement opportunities and meetings. 

Unfortunately, we do not control who will report 

on the information we provide and when our items 

are published or aired by media outlets. 

Climate Change 

Comment 46. The draft CCP and EA lists several 

guiding principles in responding to climate 

change. These include action items such as: make 

difficult choices, commit to a new spirit of coordination, professionalism, evaluate priorities and 

approaches, etcetera. However, none of the principles are responsive to climate change. Guiding 

principles should include monitor, verify, and 

make adjustments accordingly. The Town of 

Cokeville and Lincoln County oppose incorporating climate change policies into the EA without 

examining the underlying data or responding to 

the significant scientific questions raised about 

whether there is climate change and whether it is 

due to carbon emissions. 

Response 46. The comment is noted. We agree that 

monitoring should be done at the ground level and 

include some aspects of adaptive management. 

The section “Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change” in the final CCP refers to a document 

produced by the Service to develop policy at the 

Department of the Interior level and guiding principals at ground level for managers. Please refer 

to “Rising to the Urgent Challenge—Strategic 

Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change” (FWS 2010). Our agency’s planning policy requires that our CCPs address climate 

change as part of the planning process. 

Comment 47. Concerning your comments about climatic change within the document, it is still not 

accepted in all circles of science that any really 

abnormal climate events are occurring. The geographic area the refuge occupies has highly variable climate events normally. We suggest you 

emphasize a “Drought Contingency” plan be 

developed for the refuge to address dry years 

which will occur normally anyway along with 

wet years. 

Response 47. Thank you for your comment, and we 

agree with your observation that not all atmospheric scientists agree that we are experiencing, 

or on what the causes might be for the issue of, 

climate change. In response, we made changes to 

the CCP. For underlying data examination please 

refer to “Rising to the Urgent Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change” (FWS 2010). A drought contingency plan 

would be a component of our water management 

plan, which is a stepdown plan that we will complete at a later date. Please see table 9 in chapter 

4 of the final CCP. 

Editorial and Miscellaneous 

Comments 

Comment 48. The draft CCP and EA reads “...so that 

Cokeville Meadows Refuge can fulfill the purposes for which it was created....” Those purposes 

should be listed. The creation document or 

enabling act should be included in the EA. 

Response 48. The comment is noted. The purposes 

and enabling legislation for Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge are listed in the Purposes section in chapter 2 of the final CCP, as was the case in the draft 

CCP and EA. Other relevant legislation and policies that guide the management of national wildlife refuges can be found in appendix E of this 

document. We have added extra references to the 

purposes of the refuge in appropriate sections of 

the CCP. 

Comment 49. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service includes the direction “to conserve, 

protect, and enhance.” Please note that this mission does not mention “restore,” which is used 
 

132 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

extensively in the draft CCP and EA for this 

refuge. 

Response 49. The comment is correct. The mission of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not mention “restore.” However, the mission of the Refuge 

System (also found in this CCP) does include “... 

where appropriate, restoration....” And that is 

why the CCP states that restoration of habitats 

and wildlife species is very important. 

Comment 50. The draft CCP and EA states that the 

alternatives were developed based on a wide 

range of public comments. A Scoping Report and 

Scoping Summary should be included within the 

document. These should be reviewed in detail for 

their environmental consequences. 

Response 50. The comment is noted. We have placed 

the information commonly found in a scoping 

report or a scoping summary in The Planning 

Process and Planning Issues sections of the final 

CCP and in “Appendix D—Public Involvement.” 

Adding scoping reports to the CCP would be 

redundant and cost taxpayers more money. Furthermore, we believe that all substantive issues 

raised by the public, our cooperators, partners, 

and stakeholders have been adequately addressed 

in the four alternatives developed for the draft 

CCP and EA and were sufficiently analyzed in the 

draft for their environmental consequences. 

Comment 51. The first two paragraphs of the vision 

statement are statements of fact...not a vision of 

the future. Only the third paragraph is a vision 

statement. The first paragraph is inaccurate. It 

was after WWII before the first sandhill crane 

was documented in the Bear River Valley. The 

vision statement needs to be amended or 

corrected. 

Response 51. The comment is noted. Though the 

vision statement might seem, and could indeed be 

taken, as a statement of fact, it is a vision of the 

future. The reason the vision statement reads the 

way it does is because of our agency’s definition of 

a vision statement: a compelling, future-oriented 

expression of what the refuge will be, or what the 

Service hopes to achieve, based primarily on the 

Refuge System mission and the refuge’s purposes. 

We write vision statements in the present tense, 

but we describe the future conditions of the refuge. With regard to its accuracy, we note that 

records of sandhill crane sightings in the Bear 

River Valley were likely first taken in the early 

20th century at a time when cranes and other 

large birds, such as swans and pelicans, were 

hunted to near extinction. Before settlement of 

the Cokeville Valley, it is likely that sandhill 

cranes were frequent visitors to this area. 

Comment 52. There appears to be a typographical 

error in the Summary section of the Draft CCP 

and EA in which alternative D is mistakenly 

named “Current Management” instead of the 

correct name “Landscape-Level Management.” 

Response 52. Thank you for your comment. We corrected this error in the final CCP. 

Comment 53. The language of the Upland Habitat 

and Wildlife Goal (Manage and restore the diversity and composition of grassland and shrubsteppe....) should be adjusted based on 

monitoring and facts. What was the historic vegetative diversity and composition condition? 

Without any baseline monitoring data, this is 

speculative. It necessarily implies degradation 

by agriculture. 

Response 53. The comment is noted. In response, we 

made changes to the CCP. 

Comment 54. The language of the Riparian and 

River Habitats Goal (...restore the process necessary to sustain the biological diversity and integrity of riparian and aquatic habitats....) should 

be changed. Restore to what condition? This 

implies degradation of riparian vegetation. The 

EA needs to identify at what point restoration of 

biological diversity is complete. 

Response 54. The comment is noted. However, the 

commenter left off the beginning of the sentence 

which reads, “Maintain, and where appropriate, 

restore the processes....” This acknowledges that 

the refuge is a small part of a much bigger watershed, and many actions would not be appropriate 

in this context. The goal acknowledges that processes such as cyclic wetting and drying, disturbance from grazing animals, fire, long-term rest, 

or other processes have shaped the vegetative 

community. In some cases, increasing or decreasing the timing and duration of one or more of 

these processes may help to “sustain the biological 

diversity and integrity....” 

Comment 55. The language of the Refuge Development and Operations Goal (We will pursue easements and other land protection opportunities 

with willing sellers....) needs to be changed to “We 

will pursue habitat improvements and expansion opportunities with willing participants.” 

This wording more closely aligns with alternative D and allows for additional opportunities, 

besides acquisition, to enhance habitats. This 

could include offsite mitigation, habitat leasing, 

and candidate conservation agreements. 

Response 55. The comment is noted, and we have 

added wording about options available besides 

acquisition. Fee-title acquisition from willing sell­
Appendix D—Public Involvement 133 

ers within the approved refuge acquisition boundary was a priority, and a key component, in the 

establishing environmental impact statement. We 

will continue to work with willing sellers as 

opportunities arise. We will also discuss conservation easements with landowners interested in that 

option. The Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area, which went through the public review process and was authorized in 2013, also allows us to 

discuss conservation easements with interested 

landowners outside of the Cokeville Meadows Refuge’s approved acquisition boundary but within 

the Bear River watershed. We will also continue 

to work with private landowners and other willing 

participants wishing to enhance habitat, as we 

have done with a number of our neighbors. 

Comment 56. The comment found in the Planning 

Issues section of the CCP, “Fortunately, the prior 

economic uses of refuge wet meadows –hay production or grazing-also provided good habitat....” 

is confusing. Why consider management changes 

then? “Non-native grasses now dominate many 

meadows and there has been a proportional 

decline in some native sedge-rush communities.” 

This doesn’t necessarily equate to a loss of habitat. Some non-native grasses enhance habitats. 

Response 56. The goals and objectives for a private 

ranch are different than for a national wildlife 

refuge. There are areas of overlap, such as with 

haying and grazing, where the goal of a national 

wildlife refuge to maintain or improve wildlife 

habitat can be reached by cooperating with local 

livestock operators who, in turn, can also reach 

their business goals. At times, there may be differences in the timing, duration, or frequency of 

haying and grazing needed by private ranches 

and by refuge staff for increasing wildlife benefits 

on a refuge. The mission of the Refuge System, 

repeated in the CCP, includes “...and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and 

plant resources and their habitats....” We recognize that the lands and waters we own in the valley are a small part of a much larger system in 

which there exists a mix of both native and nonnative vegetation. We agree that non-native vegetation in a modified system can provide 

important habitat to fulfill the needs of wildlife 

during some or all of their life cycles. 

Comment 57. Regarding the comment found in the 

Planning Issues section of the CCP “...would be 

required to restore native game and nongame fish 

populations...,” we ask that a specific population 

be provided for in the plan so that we may know 

when restoration is complete. The original environmental assessment from 1990 provided wildlife population objectives. We ask that wildlife 

production levels be included in this EA as well, 

or else remove all wording that infers wildlife 

loss. The BQ and Pixley Dams are noted as concerns to fish passage and the restoration of fish 

populations. In other locations the WGFD are 

installing fish barriers to protect native game 

and nongame fish populations from invasive, 

non-native fish species. We believe the Bonneville 

cutthroat have benefited from these structures by 

prohibiting the migration of non-native, invasive 

fish from the Bear River in Idaho and Utah. 

Response 57. The comment is noted. We consulted 

with WGFD fisheries biologists and other partners to determine that fish barriers in some locations are considered beneficial to preserving the 

genetics of Bonneville cutthroat trout and reducing competition. These locations were based on a 

number of considerations, most importantly being 

that the native, pure strain of Bonneville cutthroat trout occupy the site. In other locations, 

such as on the main stem of the Bear River, structures that prevent the movement of fish may prevent Bonneville cutthroat trout from moving 

between spawning sites and from seeking deeper 

pools to overwinter, as when the main stem of the 

Bear River would be more hospitable. Carp are 

widely established in much of the main stem of the 

Bear River. 

Comment 58. Statements within the document concerning water quality are ambiguous and erroneous at best. There are some sediment inflows 

above and within the refuge due to various side 

channels, but due to irrigation water being taken 

out within the refuge, sediment waters are 

cleaned by the wet meadow vegetation, etcetera. 

Wetlands can trap sediment which can enhance 

the overall vegetative production within the refuge if not too excessive. A lot of sediment in Bear 

River is suspended, making it hard to eliminate 

totally. 

Response 58. The comment is noted. A portion of the 

Bear River upstream from the refuge is classified 

by the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality as impaired due to its exceeding standards for total maximum daily load for suspended 

sediments. Woodruff Narrows Reservoir above 

the refuge likely reduces suspended sediments, 

improving the total maximum daily load in the 

river through the refuge, a section which is not 

considered impaired. Wetlands can be effective in 

improving water quality and clarity by allowing 

nutrients and sediment to settle and nutrients to 

be absorbed, or taken up, by plant roots. 
134 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Comment 59. The Statement “that inflows from the 

Smiths Fork River increases nutrient and sediment loads in the Bear River, especially during 

the summer” is suspect. Water quality data collected by the Lincoln Conservation District indicates the opposite. The Smiths Fork River 

appears to be a much cleaner river due to sediment and nutrients, than the Bear River where it 

enters. The Lincoln Conservation District would 

be interested in obtaining the source of data used 

for your statements. 

Response 59. The comment is noted. In response, we 

made changes to the CCP. 

Comment 60. The statement that bank erosion caused 

by stream widening from past channel straightening and willow removal on the Bear River 

within the allotment is misleading. As you stated 

in your document, the refuge has little gradient 

or fall. The channel slope is approximately 1.5–2 

feet per mile. This flat gradient is what creates 

wetlands. Wetland ecological sites do not have a 

lot of willows associated with them. Some subirrigated ecological sites exist within the refuge 

which could support willow growth, but long belts 

of willows along Bear River is probably not 

achievable. The Lincoln Conservation District is 

not aware that the Bear River through the refuge 

has been straightened, other than by normal 

river movement over time. The Union Pacific 

Railroad has rock riprapped some meanders on 

the river to stop encroachment into the tracks, 

but [there has been] no major river 

straightening. 

Response 60. The comment is noted. We agree that 

many of the ecological sites within the refuge do 

not support a climax plant community including a 

dominance of willows and other woody vegetation. 

There are some limited sites that may support 

establishing willows, cottonwoods, and other 

woody vegetation. These are the sites where we 

would direct efforts to benefit wildlife species that 

require this habitat type during some portion of 

their life cycles. In response, we made changes to 

the CCP. 
Appendix E 

Key Legislation and Policy 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for 

the Refuge System and other key legislation and poli

cies that guide management of the Cokeville Mead

ows Refuge. 

E.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The mission of the Refuge System is to admin

ister a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

­

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997) 

Goals 

A. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats, including species 

that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered. 

B. Develop and maintain a network of habitats 

for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges. 

C. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes 

that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

D. Provide and enhance opportunities to par

ticipate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

E. Foster understanding and instill apprecia

tion of the diversity and interconnectedness 

of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats. 

Guiding Principles 

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System estab

lished by Executive Order 12996 (1996): 

■■	 Public Use—The Refuge System provides 

important opportunities for compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observa

tion, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation. 

■■	 Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without quality habitat and without fish and 

wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot 

be sustained. The Refuge System will con

tinue to conserve and enhance the quality 

and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat 

within refuges. 

■■	 Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and 

women were the first partners who insisted 

on protecting valuable wildlife habitat 

within wildlife refuges. Conservation part

nerships with other Federal agencies, State 

agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, 

and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and manage

ment of the Refuge System. 

■■	 Public Involvement—The public should be 

given a full and open opportunity to partici

pate in decisions regarding acquisition and 

management of our national wildlife 

refuges. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
136 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refu

E.2 Legal and Policy Guidance 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges 

are circumscribed by many mandates including laws 

and Executive orders. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)— 

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to figure out proper 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 scientific 

investigation of antiquities on Federal land and pro

vides 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 inter

est from unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires feder

ally owned, leased, or financed buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Required consultation 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 per

mits) for major wetland modifications. Section 404— 

Authorized the Secretary of the Army, acting 

through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, 

after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for 

discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable 

waters of the United States, including wetlands, at 

specified disposal sites. Required choice of disposal 

sites be in accordance with guidelines developed by 

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency in conjunction with the Secretary of the 

Army. Stated that the Administrator can prohibit or 

restrict use of any defined area as a disposal site 

whenever she or he decides, after notice and opportu

nity for public hearings, that discharge of such mate

rials into such areas will have an unacceptable 

adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish 

beds, fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

(1961)—amended January 23, 2004: provides loans for 

soil and water conservation and protection, water 

treatment and many other agricultural related 

activities. 

Dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Sec

retary of the Department of the Interior to provide 

financial help for State fish restoration and manage

ment plans and projects. Financed by excise taxes 

paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, and other fish

ing tackle. Known as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish 

Restoration Act. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Pro

moted wetland conservation for the public benefit to 

help fulfill international obligations in various migra

tory bird treaties and conventions. Authorized the 

buying of wetlands with Land and Water Conserva

tion Fund monies. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all Fed

eral agencies to carry out programs for the conserva

tion of endangered and threatened species. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990—Established 

the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and 

administer a Federal environmental education pro

gram. Responsibilities of the office include developing 

and supporting programs to improve understanding 

of the natural and developed environment and the 

relationships between humans and their environ

ment, supporting the dissemination of educational 

materials, developing and supporting training pro

grams and environmental education seminars, man

aging a Federal grant program, and administering 

an environmental internship and fellowship program. 

Required the office to develop and support environ

mental programs in consultation with other Federal 

natural resource management agencies including the 

Service. 

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Lands (1972)—Provided policy and procedures 

for regulating off-road vehicles. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977)—Required Federal agencies to provide lead

ership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, 

reduce the effect of floods on human safety, and pre

serve the natural and beneficial values served by the 

floodplains. Prevented Federal agencies from con

tributing to the “adverse impacts associated with 

occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the 

“direct or indirect support of floodplain develop

ment.” In the course of fulfilling their respective 

ge, Wyoming 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Appendix E—Key Legislation and Policy 137 

authorities, Federal agencies “shall take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, to reduce the effect of 

floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977)—Directed Federal agencies to (1) reduce 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)—Defines the mission, purpose, and priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

It also presents four principles to guide management 

of the Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of American 

Indian sacred sites by American Indian religious 

practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites, and where proper, keep 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)—Directed Federal agencies that have programs and activities that 

have a measurable effect on public land management, 

outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and 

the management of game species and their habitat. 

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. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the preservation of evidence of the Government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities and basic historical and other information. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972— 

Required any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a 

discharge into navigable waters to obtain a certification from the State in which the discharge originates 

or will originate, or, if proper, from the interstate 

water pollution control agency having jurisdiction 

over navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that the discharge will comply with applicable effluent 

limitations and water quality standards. Required 

that a certification obtained for construction of any 

facility must also pertain to subsequent operation of 

the facility. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—Directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop the policies and procedures necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife 

laws and to research and report on fish and wildlife 

matters. Established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior, as 

well as the positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Director of the Service. 

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. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978— 

Improved the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956. Authorized the Secretary to 

accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. Authorized the 

use of volunteers for Service projects and appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), 

known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended 

(1965)—Declared a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located at refuges and districts. Provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites and for designation 

of national historic and natural landmarks. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965— 

Provided money from leasing bonuses, production 

royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, 

and sulfur extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and State and local agencies for 

purchase of lands for parks, open space, and outdoor 

recreation. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, 

or gifts 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. 
 

138 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates the 

protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility; and enables the setting of seasons and other 

regulations, including the closing of areas, Federal or 

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Mineral Leasing Act (1920), as amended—Authorized and governed leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas and other 

hydrocarbons, sulfur, phosphate, potassium and 

sodium. Section 185 provided for granting of rightsof-way over Federal lands for pipelines. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)— 

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 this 

Act with other planning requirements, and prepare 

proper documents to facilitate better environmental 

decisionmaking. [From the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 1500] 

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 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior to allow any use of a refuge, provided 

such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which the refuge was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy 

for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; mandates comprehensive conservation planning 

for all units of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998— 

Encouraged the use of volunteers to help the Service 

in the management of refuges within the Refuge 

System. Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge System and non-Federal entities to promote public awareness of the resources of the Refuge System 

and public participation in the conservation of those 

resources. Encouraged donations and other contributions by persons and organizations to the Refuge 

System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Requires Federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, find ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or possession. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(1989)—Provided for the conservation of North 

American wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on 

such habitats. 

Pittman–Robertson Act (1937)—Taxed the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the 

proceeds to be distributed to the States for wildlife 

restoration. Known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration Act or P–R Act. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient money is available to manage the uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, section 401 (1935)— 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes 

using revenues derived from the sale of products 

from refuges. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906—Provided 

the first Federal protection for wildlife at national 

wildlife refuges. Made it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, 

or take or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any 

lands of the United States set apart or reserved as 

refuges or breeding grounds for such birds or animals by any law, proclamation, or Executive order, 

except under rules and regulations of the Secretary. 

Protected Government property on such lands. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility and physical accessibility for all facilities 

and programs paid for by the Federal Government to 

make sure that any person can take part in any 

program. 

Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration 

Act (2006)—Furthered the purposes of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 

1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to 

carry out an assessment and demonstration program 

to control saltcedar and Russian olive trees and for 

other purposes. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948—Provided that, on 

determination by the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if 
Appendix E—Key Legislation and Policy 139 

the land has particular value for migratory birds or 

to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Order Number 3226 

(2001)—Directed bureaus and offices of the Department to analyze the potential effects on climate 

change when undertaking long-range planning, setting priorities for scientific research, and making 

major decisions about use of resources. 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encourages the use of volunteers to help 

in the management of refuges within the Refuge System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the 

resources; and encourages donations and other 

contributions. 

Wilderness Act of 1964—Directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within the Refuge System 

and National Park Service for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Appendix F 

Preparers and Contributors 

This CCP is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of our planning 

team, listed below. Many others contributed insight and support. 

F.1 Core Planning Team 

Team member Position Work unit 

Carl Bezanson Range biologist BLM, Kemmerer, WY 

Mark Ely Former branch chief Regional 6 office, Denver, CO 

Jeanette Fagnant Development administrator Board of Lincoln County Commission

ers, Kemmerer, WY 

Natalie Fath Biological science technician Seedskadee Refuge 

Todd Gallion Former refuge manager Cokeville Meadows Refuge, Cokev

ille, WY 

Bernardo Garza Planning team leader Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation program special

ist FWS, Helena, MT 

Neil Hymas Game warden, Cokeville WGFD, Cokeville, WY 

Robert Keith Regional fisheries supervisor WGFD, Cody WY 

Tom Koerner Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, project leader 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, 

Green River, WY 

Ron Lockwood Game biologist WGFD, Kemmerer, WY 

Carl Millegan Former Seedskadee National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex project leader 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, 

Green River, WY 

Erik Norelius Wildlife Biologist BLM, Kemmerer, WY 

Andrea Orabona Nongamebird biologist WGFD, Lander, WY 

Floyd Roadifer Aquatic habitat biologist WGFD, Pinedale, WY 

Harry Staven Cokeville community and economic 

development manager Cokeville, WY 

Jonathan Teichert Senior planner Lincoln County Office of Planning and 

Development, Kemmerer, WY 

Stan Thompson Former mayor Cokeville, WY 

John Woodward Planning director Lincoln County Office of Planning and 

Development, Kemmerer, WY 

Mark Zornes Wildlife management coordinator WGFD, Green River, WY 

­

­

­
142 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

F.2 Added Planning Team Members 

Team member Position Work unit 

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist, GIS specialist Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Mark Conrad NEPA coordinator Wyoming Department of Environ

mental Quality, Water Quality Divi

Martin Grenier 

sion, Cheyenne, WY 

Nongame Mammal Biologist WGFD, Lander, WY 

F.3 Contributors 

Team member Position Work unit 

Richard Coleman Former assistant regional director, 

Refuge System 

Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Megan Estep Chief, Division of Water Resources Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and Visitor Services Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Mark Hogan Private lands coordinator for Wyoming FWS, Casper, WY 

Matt Hogan Former assistant regional director, 

Refuge System 

Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Wayne King Region 6 Refuge System biologist Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Socheata Lohr Region 6 inventory and monitoring 

coordinator 

Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

David Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Will Meeks Assistant regional director, Refuge 

System 

Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Manuel Oliveira Deputy assistant regional director, 

Refuge System 

Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor (MT, UT and WY) Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Meg Van Ness Region 6 archaeologist Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Amy Thornburgh Region 6 land protection planner Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

Mitch Werner Writer–editor, Division of Refuge 

Planning 

Region 6 office, Lakewood, CO 

­

­
Appendix G
 

Species Lists 

What follows are the common and scientific names of animals and plants found on Cokeville Meadows 

Refuge. 

G.1 List of Birds 

The following bird species are known or are suspected to occur at Cokeville Meadows Refuge, Lincoln 

County, Wyoming. This list is not all inclusive. A thorough inventory has yet to be conducted. 

Common name Scientific name 

Ducks, geese, and swans 

snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’s goose Chen rossii 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator 

tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

gadwall Anas strepera 

American wigeon Anas americana 

mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

blue-winged teal Anas discors 

cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

northern pintail Anas acuta 

green-winged teal Anas crecca 

canvasback Aythya valisineria 

redhead Aythya americana 

ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

greater scaup Aythya marila 

lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica 

hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

common merganser Mergus merganser 

red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Partridges, grouse, turkeys 

greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus 

Loons 

common loon Gavia immer 
Common name Scientific name 

Grebes 

pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

horned grebe Podiceps auritus 

red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena 

eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii 

Cormorants 

double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Pelicans 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Bitterns, herons, and egrets 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

great blue heron Ardea herodias 

great egret Ardea alba 

snowy egret Egretta thula 

cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

green heron Butorides virescens 

black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Ibises and spoonbills 

white-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 

New World vultures 

turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

Hawks, kites, and eagles 

osprey Pandion haliaetus 

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

common black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 

red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 

golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

Caracaras and falcons 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

merlin Falco columbarius 

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

Rails, gallinules, and coots 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

sora Porzana carolina 

American coot Fulica americana 

144 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 
Common name Scientific name 

Cranes 

sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

whooping crane Grus americana 

Plovers 

black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica 

snowy plover Charadrius nivosus 

killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

mountain plover Charadrius montanus 

Stilts and avocets 

black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Sandpipers and phalaropes 

spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius 

solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

willet Tringa semipalmata 

lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 

long-billed curlew Numenius americanus 

marbled godwit Limosa fedoa 

red knot Calidris canutus 

sanderling Calidris alba 

semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

western sandpiper Calidris mauri 

least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata 

common snipe Gallinago gallinago 

American woodcock Scolopax minor 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Gulls and terns 

Bonaparte’s gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia 

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan 

ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

California gull Larus californicus 

herring gull Larus argentatus 

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia 

black tern Chlidonias niger 

common tern Sterna hirundo 

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri 

Appendix G—Species Lists 145 
Common name Scientific name 

Pigeons and doves 

rock pigeon Columba livia (Introduced) 

Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto (Introduced) 

white-winged dove Zenaida asiatica 

mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Cuckoos, roadrunners, and anis 

yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Barn owls 

barn owl Tyto alba 

Typical owls 

western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii 

great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

snowy owl Bubo scandiacus 

burrowing owl Athene cunicularia 

long-eared owl Asio otus 

short-eared owl Asio flammeus 

Nighthawks and nightjars 

common nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 

Swifts 

white-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis 

Hummingbirds 

calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope 

broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus 

rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 

Kingfishers 

belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers 

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis 

red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

American three-toed woodpecker Picoides dorsalis 

northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

Tyrant flycatchers 

olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus 

willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

least flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii 

gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii 

dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri 

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis 

146 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 
Common name Scientific name 

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya 

ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens 

Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans 

western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus 

Shrikes 

loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

northern shrike Lanius excubitor 

Vireos 

plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus 

blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius 

warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Crows and magpies 

black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

common raven Corvus corax 

Larks 

horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

Swallows 

tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

bank swallow Riparia riparia 

cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Titmice and chickadees 

black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli 

Nuthatches 

red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

white-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Creepers 

brown creeper Certhia americana 

Wrens 

rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus 

Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii 

house wren Troglodytes aedon 

winter wren Troglodytes hiemalis 

marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

Old World warblers and gnatcatchers 

blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

Appendix G—Species Lists 147 
Common name Scientific name 

Dippers 

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus 

Kinglets 

golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

Thrushes 

mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides 

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

veery Catharus fuscescens 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus 

hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

Mimic thrushes 

gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 

Starlings 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Wagtails and pipits 

American pipit Anthus rubescens 

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii 

Waxwings 

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Longspurs and buntings 

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus 

McCown’s longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii 

snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Wood warblers 

ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 

Tennessee warbler Oreothlypis peregrina 

orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata 

Nashville warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla 

Virginia’s warbler Oreothlypis virginiae 

MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis tolmiei 

common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

hooded warbler Setophaga citrine 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

magnolia warbler Setophaga magnolia 

Blackburnian warbler Setophaga fusca 

yellow warbler Setophaga petechia 

chestnut-sided warbler Setophaga pensylvanica 

black-throated blue warbler Setophaga caerulescens 

yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata 

148 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 
Common name Scientific name 

black-throated gray warbler Setophaga nigrescens 

Townsend’s warbler Setophaga townsendi 

Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla 

yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

Sparrows and towhees 

green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus 

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 

vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

sage sparrow Amphispiza belli 

lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

fox sparrow Passerelia iliaca 

song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

Tanagers 

western tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

Cardinals, grosbeaks, and allies 

black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 

lazuli bunting Passerina amoena 

Blackbirds and orioles 

red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

western meadowlark Surnella neglecta 

yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii 

Finches 

gray-crowned rosy-finch Leucosticte tephrocotis 

black rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata 

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii 

house finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

red crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

common redpoll Acanthis flammea 

pine siskin Spinus pinus 

American goldfinch Spinus tristis 

evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Old World sparrows 

house sparrow Passer domesticus 

Appendix G—Species Lists 149 
150 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

G.2 List of Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish, and Freshwater Mussels 

The following reptile, amphibian, fish, and freshwater mussel species are known or are suspected to occur 

at Cokeville Meadows Refuge, Lincoln County, Wyoming. This list is not all inclusive. A thorough inventory 

has yet to be conducted. 

G.3 List of Mammals 

The following mammal species are known or are suspected to occur at Cokeville Meadows Refuge, Lincoln 

County, Wyoming. This list is not all inclusive. A thorough inventory has yet to be conducted. 

Common name Scientific name 

Amphibians 

tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Great Basin spadefoot Scaphiopus intermontanus 

northern leopard frog Rana pipiens 

boreal chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata 

Reptiles 

Great Basin skink Eumeces utahenis 

northern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus 

greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi 

Great Basin gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucas 

wandering garter snake Thamnophis elegans 

valley garter snake Thamnophis fitchi 

Fish 

Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus utah 

mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni 

mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi 

Utah sucker Catostomus ardens 

common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Utah chub Gila atraria 

redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus 

speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus 

bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus 

yellow perch Perca flavescens 

Freshwater mussels 

California floater Anodonta californiensis 

western pearlshell Margaritifera falcata 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Order Insectivora—insectivores 

cinereus or masked shrew Soricidae—shrews Sorex cinereus 

Merriam’s shrew Soricidae—shrews Sorex merriami 

dusky or montane shrew Soricidae—shrews Sorex monticolus 
Appendix G—Species Lists 151 

Common name Family Scientific name 

American water shrew Soricidae—shrews Sorex palustris 

vagrant shrew Soricidae—shrews Sorex vagrans 

long-eared myotis Vespertilionidae—vesper bats Myotis evotis 

little Brown myotis Vespertilionidae—vesper bats Myotis lucifugus 

long-legged myotis Vespertilionidae—vesper bats Myotis volans 

silver-haired bat Vespertilionidae—vesper bats Lasionycteris noctivagans 

pygmy pabbit Leporidae—hares and rabbits Brachylagus idahoensis 

desert cottontail Leporidae—hares and rabbits Sylvilagus audubonii 

black-tailed jackrabbit Leporidae—hares and rabbits Lepus californicus 

white-tailed jackrabbit Leporidae—hares and rabbits Lepus townsendii 

least chipmunk Sciuridae—squirrels Neotamias minimus 

Uinta chipmunk Sciuridae—squirrels Neotamias umbrinus 

yellow-bellied marmot Sciuridae—squirrels Marmota flaviventris 

Uinta ground squirrel Sciuridae—squirrels Spermophilus armatus 

Wyoming ground squirrel Sciuridae—squirrels Spermophilus elegans 

golden-mantled ground squirrel Sciuridae—squirrels Spermophilus lateralis 

thirteen-lined ground squirrel Sciuridae—squirrels Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

white-tailed prairie dog Sciuridae—squirrels Cynomys leucurus 

northern pocket gopher Geomyidae—pocket gophers Thomomys talpoides 

plains pocket gopher Geomyidae—pocket gophers Geomys bursarius 

Great Basin pocket mouse Heteromyidae—Pocket mice and 

kangaroo rats Perognathus parvus 

American beaver Castoridae—beavers Castor canadensis 

deer mouse Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Peromyscus maniculatus 

bushy-tailed woodrat Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Neotoma cinerea 

southern red-backed vole Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Clethrionomys gapperi 

western heather vole Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Phenacomys intermedius 

long-tailed vole Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Microtus longicaudus 

montane vole Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Microtus montanus 

meadow vole Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Microtus pennsylvanicus 

sagebrush vole Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Lemmiscus curtatus 

common muskrat Muridae—mice, rats, and voles Ondatra zibethicus 

Western jumping mouse Zapodidae—jumping mice Zapus princeps 

Order Carnivora—carnivores 

coyote Canidae—dogs, foxes, and wolves Canis latrans 

red fox Canidae—dogs, foxes, and wolves Vulpes vulpes 

northern raccoon Procyonidae—raccoons, ringtails, 

and coatis Procyon lotor 

ermine or short-tailed weasel Mustelidae—weasels, otters, 

and badgers Mustela erminea 

long-tailed weasel Mustelidae—weasels, otters, 

and badgers Mustela frenata 

American mink Mustelidae—weasels, otters, 

and badgers Mustela vison 

American badger Mustelidae—weasels, otters, 

and badgers Taxidea taxus 
152 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Common name Family Scientific name 

northern river otter Mustelidae—weasels, otters, 

and badgers Lontra canadensis 

striped skunk Mephitidae—skunks Mephitis mephitis 

bobcat Felidae—cats Lynx rufus 

wapiti or elk Cervidae—deer Cervus canadensis 

mule deer Cervidae—deer Odocoileus hemionus 

white-tailed deer Cervidae—deer Odocoileus virginianus 

moose Cervidae—deer Alces alces 

pronghorn Antilocapridae—pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

G.4 List of Plants 

The following plant species are known or are suspected to occur at Cokeville Meadows Refuge, Lincoln 

County, Wyoming. This list is not all inclusive. A thorough inventory has yet to be conducted. 

Common name Scientific name 

Narrow riparian- or riverfront-type forest corridors 

black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 

narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolis 

coyote willow Salix exigua 

Bebb willow Salix bebbiana 

Semipermanent, flooded floodplain, wetland depressions 

cattail Typha latifolia 

hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus 

coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 

naiads Najas sp. 

pondweed Potamogeton sp. 

marsh buttercup Ranunculus aquatilis 

arrowhead Sagittaria latiifolia 

sedges Carex sp. 

rushes Juncus sp. 

Wet meadow sedge and grass communities 

meadow foxtail Alopecurus partensis 

arrowhead Sagittaria latiifolia 

sedges Carex sp. 

rushes Juncus sp. 

wheat grass Apropyron sp. 

saltgrass Distichlis stricta 

basin wild rye Elymus cinereus 

greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus 

nuttail alkali grass Puccinellia airoides 

alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides 

alkali cordgrass Spartina gracilis 
Appendix G—Species Lists 153 

Common name Scientific name 

Upland sagebrush or grassland communities 

Wyoming sagebrush Artemisia tridentate spp wyomingensis 

big sagebrush Artemisia tridentate 

thickspike wheatgrass Agropyron dasystachyum 

western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

needle and thread Stipa comate 

rabbit-brush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

galletta grass Hilaria rigida 

bottlebrush squirreltail Sitanion hystrix 

bluegrasses Poa sp. 

Appendix H 

Collection of Shed Antlers, Finding of Appropriateness 

Appendix I
 

Predator Management Activities 
158 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 
Bibliography
 

Backer, A.; Reed, A.; Echman, J. 2001. Cultural 

resource inventory and reevaluation for the 2003 

Kern River expansion project: Lincoln and Uinta 

Counties, Wyoming. Montrose, CO: Alpine 

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Baker, M. 2006. 2005 demographic study of Coryphantha robustispina ssp. robustispina. Status 

report prepared for Bureau of Reclamation. 

[Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 17 p. 

Baxter, G.; Stone, M. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. 

Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. [Pages unknown]. 

Bear Lake Regional Commission. 2000. Thomas 

Fork Watershed stream bank restoration project. 

Fish Haven, ID: Bear Lake Regional Commission. 

Prepared for Idaho Division of Environmental 

Quality. [Pages unknown]. 

Bear River Watershed Information System. 2007. 

Bear River Watershed Information System 

homepage. [Internet]. [Date revised unknown]. 

<http://www.bearriverinfo.org/htm 

/watershed-data> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Behnke, R. 1992. Native trout of western North 

America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 

6. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Berry, D. 1955, Reconnaissance of the geology and 

ground-water resources of the Cokeville area, 

Lincoln County, Wyoming. [Place of publication: 

publisher unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey open 

file report. 11 p. 

Blackstone, D., Jr. 1977. The overthrust belt salient 

of the Cordilleran fold belt western Wyomingsouthwestern Idaho-northwestern Utah. In: 

Rocky Mountain thrust belt geology and 

resources. [Place of publication: publisher 

unknown]. Wyoming Geological Association 29th 

Annual Field Conference Guidebook. 20 p. 

(367–87). 

Bradley, W. 1936. Geomorphology of the north flank 

of the Uinta Mountains, Utah. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 183-1. 41 p. (163–204). 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Labor force data 

by county–2008 annual averages. Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor. [Internet]. <ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special 

.requests/la/laucnty08.txt> accessed November 

14, 2011. 

———. 2011a. Local area unemployment statistics. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. [Internet]. <http://www.bls 

.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm> accessed November 

14, 2011. 

———. 2011b. Labor force data by county (not seasonally adjusted)—July 2010–August 2011: Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. [Internet]. <http://www.bls 

.gov/lau/laucntycur14.txt> accessed November 14, 

2011. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Cultural 

resources class I regional overview. Kemmerer, 

WY: Kemmerer Field Office Planning Area, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. [Pages unknown]. 

Conservation Biology Institute. 2006. Protected 

areas database. Compiled using Headwaters Economics Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit. [Place of publication: publisher 

unknown]. [Pages unknown]. 

Cowardin, L.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.; LaRoe, E. 1979. 

Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats 

of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. 

FWS/OBS–79/31. [Pages unknown]. 

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M.; Ansley, 

R.J.; Jessup, K.E. 2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen 

storage in response to fire in a temperate mixedgrass savanna. Journal of Environmental Quality. 

35:1620–1628. 

Fischman, R. 2003. The national wildlife refuges, 

coordinating a conservation system through law. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 224 p. 

Germanoski, D., Miller, J. 2004. Basin sensitivity to 

channel incision in response to natural and 

anthropogenic disturbance. In: J.C. Chambers, J.; 

Miller, J. Eds. Great Basin riparian ecosystems: 

ecology, management, and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press. 35 p. (88–123). 

Gleason, H.; Cronquist, A. 1964. The natural geography of plants. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. [Pages unknown]. 

Glover, A. 1990, Coal resources of Cambria and Blair 

Counties, Pennsylvania. Part 1. Coal crop lines, 

mined-out areas, and structure contours: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser. [Place of publica­
160 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

tion: publisher unknown]. Mineral Resources 

Report 96. 129 p. 

Heitmeyer, M.; Henry, A.; Artmann, M. 2012. 

Hydrogeomorphic evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. 

Bloomfield, MO: Blue Heron Conservation Design 

and Printing LLC. Prepared for U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6. Greenbrier Wetland 

Services Report 12-02. [Pages unknown]. 

Holling, C.S.; editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental 

assessment and management. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 377 p. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated bird conservation plan—version 1.1. Missoula, MT: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages 

unknown]. 

James Enterprises, Incorporated. 2003. Class III 

cultural resources inventory of the cedar ridge 

periphery: Natrona and Fremont Counties, Wyoming. Casper, WY: James Enterprises, Inc. for 

Bureau of Land Management, Casper Office. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Johnson, D.; Pastor, J. 2003. The blue point site: 

paleoindian/archaic transition in southwest Wyoming. Rock Springs, WY: Archaeological Services, Western Wyoming College. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, Tanya M.; Franklin, 

Alan B.; editors. Modeling in natural resource 

management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

147–170. 

Krueger, W. 1994. Agriculture and riparian areas. 

In: Rasmussen, G; Dobrowski, J. Eds. Riparian 

resources: a symposium on the disturbances, management, economics, and conflicts associated with 

riparian ecosystems. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources. Natural 

Resources and Environmental Issues No. 1. 4 p. 

(15–18). 

Kushlan, James A.; Steinkamp, Melanie J.; Parsons, 

Katharine C. [and others]. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American 

waterbird conservation plan. Version 1. Washington, DC: Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 78 p. 

Laabs, B.; Munroe, J.; Rosenbaum, J.; Refsnider, K.; 

Mickelson, D.; Singer, B.; Caffee, M. 2007. Chronology of the last glacial maximum in the Upper 

Bear River Basin, Utah. Arctic, Antarctic, and 

Alpine Research. 39(4):537–48 

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; [and others]. 1996. ARM! for the future: adaptive resource 

management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 24(3):436–42. 

Lines, G.; Glass, W. 1975. Water resources of the 

thrust belt of western Wyoming. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. [Pages unknown]. 

Nicholoff, S. 2003. Wyoming bird conservation plan, 

version 2.0. Wyoming Partners in Flight, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 

[Internet]. <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife 

/nongame/ConservPlan/index.asp> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

Oring [and others]. 2010. Intermountain West 

regional shorebird plan. U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Missoula, MT: Intermountain West 

Joint Venture. [Pages unknown]. 

Paige, C.; Ritter, S. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: 

managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Western Working Group, Partners in Flight, 

Boise, ID. [Internet]. <http://fishandgame.idaho 

.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/sagebrush.pdf> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Reheis, M.; Hershler, R.; Miller, D. Eds. 2005. Late 

cenozoic drainage history of the southwestern 

Great Basin and lower Colorado River region: 

geologic and biotic perspectives. [Place of publication unknown]: The Geological Society of America. Special Paper 439. [Pages unknown]. 

Reheis, M.; Laabs, B.; Kaufman, D. 2009. Geology 

and geomorphology of Bear Lake Valley and 

upper Bear River, Utah and Idaho. In: Rosembaum, J.; Kaufman, D. eds. Paleoenvironments of 

Bear Lake, Utah and Idaho, and its catchment. 

[Place of publication: publisher unknown]. Geological Society of America Special Paper 450. 33 p. 

(15–48). 

Rich, T.; Beardmore, C.; Berlanga, H.; [and others]. 

2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird 

conservation plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. [Internet]. Revised March 2005. 

<http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Rich, T.; Wisdom, M.; Saab, V. 2005. Conservation of 

priority birds in sagebrush ecosystems. P. 589­

606. In: Ralph, C.; Rich, T. Eds. Bird conservation 

implementation and integration in the Americas. 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific 

Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service, Berkeley, CA. [Internet]. <http://www 

.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191 

/Asilomar/pdfs/589-606.pdf> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

Rubey, W.; Stevens, S.; Tracey, J. Jr. 1980. Geology of 

the Sage and Kemmerer 15-minute quadrangles, 

Lincoln County, Wyoming. [Place of Publication: 

publisher unknown]. Geological Survey Professional Paper 855. [Pages unknown]. 

Thompson, K.; Pastor, J. 1995. People of the sage: 

10,000 years of occupation in southwest Wyoming. 
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 161 

Rock Springs, WY: Archaeological Services, 

Western Wyoming College. [Pages unknown]. 

Robinove, C.; Berry, D.; Connor, J. 1963. Availability 

of ground water in the Bear River Valley, Wyo

ming. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1539­

V. 44 p. (VI–V44). 

Royster, W.; Gearino, J. 2006. Squeezed in Star Val

ley. Casper Star Tribune. October 15: [Page loca

tion unknown]. 

Trimble, S. 1999. The sagebrush ocean: a natural his

tory of the Great Basin. Reno, NV: University of 

Nevada Press. [Pages unknown]. 

Trout Unlimited. 2005. Grant application for Esche 

Diversion fish passage and Thomas Fork habitat 

restoration for Bonneville cutthroat trout conser

vation. Coeur d’Alene, ID: Trout Unlimited with 

Bear Lake Regional Commission, Faucet Irriga

tion Company, and Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game. [Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Small area income and 

poverty estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Census 

Bureau. [Internet]. <http://www.census.govl/did 

/www/saipe/> accessed November 14, 2011. 

———. 2010. State and county quickfacts. Washing

ton, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Internet]. [Date 

revised unknown]. <http://quickfacts.census.gov 

/qfd/index.html> accessed November 14, 2011. 

———. 2011. American factfinder. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Census Bureau. [Internet]. [Date revised 

unknown]. <http://factfinder2.census.gov/main 

.html> accessed November 14, 2011. 

———. 2013. State & county quickfacts: Lincoln 

County, Wyoming. [Internet]. <http://quickfacts. 

census.gov/qfd/states/56/56023.html> [Date

accessed unknown]. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. County busi

ness patterns. Compiled using Headwaters Eco

nomics Economic profile system-human

dimensions. Washington, DC: Census Bureau. 

[Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010. Secretarial 

Order No. 3289, Amendment No. 1. Addressing 

the impacts of climate change on America’s water, 

land, and other natural and cultural resources. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior. 4 p. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. National 

water summary on wetland resources. Compiled 

by Fretwell, J.; Williams, J.; Redman, P. USGS 

Water Supply Paper: 2425. 431 p. 

———. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation—final 

report of the National Ecological Assessment 

Team. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Geo

logical Survey. 45 p. 

[FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Pro

posed Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Ref

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

uge, Lincoln County, Wyoming: draft 

environmental impact statement. Lakewood, CO: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1992. Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge proposal, Lincoln County, Wyoming: final 

environmental impact statement. Lakewood, CO: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the promise, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System: visions for wildlife, habitat, people, and leadership. Washington, DC: 

[Publisher unknown]. 94 p. 

———. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 601FW3. In: Fish and Wildlife 

Service Policy Manual. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. 8 p. 

———. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. 

Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Migratory Bird Management. [Internet]. <http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports 

/bcc2002.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2004. Director’s order 172, responsibilities of 

Federal agencies to protect migratory birds. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

15 p. 

———. 2008. 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife—associated recreation. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge—strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. 32 

p. 

———. 2011. Conserving the future: wildlife refuges 

& the next generation. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 93 p. 

———. 2012. Division of realty. Refuge revenue 

sharing. Final files for fiscal year 2011 paid in 

August 2012 for Region 6. On file at U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Lakewood, CO. 

———. 2013a. Birds of conservation concern. [Internet.] <http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Pages 

/Species/Species_SpeciesConcern 

/BirdsConsvConcern.html> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

———. 2013b. Mountain-Prairie Region. National 

Wildlife Refuge System. [Internet]. <http://www 

.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/plans_wy 

/index.html> accessed July 2012. 

———. 2013c. Mountain-Prairie Region. Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife. Accomplishments in Wyoming. [Internet]. <http://www.fws.gov/mountain 

-prairie/pfw/wy/wy2e.htm> accessed July 2012. 

Utah Water Research Laboratory. 2011. Bear River 

watershed information system. Logan, UT: Utah 

Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University. [Internet]. <http://www.bearriverinfo.org/> 

accessed September 05, 2011. 

­

­

­

­

­
162 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming 

Veatch, A. 1907. Geography and geology of a portion 

of southwestern Wyoming, with special reference 

to coal and oil. [Place of publication: publisher 

unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 56. 178 p. 

Ver Ploeg, A.; DeBruin, R. 1982. The search for oil 

and gas in the Idaho-Wyoming-Utah salient of the 

overthrust belt. [Place of publication: publisher 

unknown]. The Geological Survey of Wyoming. 4 

p. (17–20). 

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71(6):2060–68. 

Winward, A. 1994. Management of livestock in riparian areas. In: Rasmussen, G.; Dobrowski, J. Eds. 

Riparian resources: a symposium on the disturbances, management, economics, and conflicts 

associated with riparian ecosystems. Logan, UT: 

Utah State University, College of Natural 

Resources. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues No. 1. 4 p. (49–52). 

Wyoming, State of. 2011. Executive Order 2011-5, 

greater sage-grouse core area protection. [Place 

of publication unknown]: Office of the Governor, 

Executive Department. Pages unknown]. 

[WGFD] Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

2005. A comprehensive conservation strategy for 

Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department. [Internet]. <http://gf.state 

.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/index.asp> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Wyoming Legislative Services Office. [No date]. 

Title 41 – water. Chapter 3—water rights; administration and control. sections 41-3-101 through 

41-3-103. [Internet]. [Date revised unknown]. 

<http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes 

.aspx?file=titles/Title41/Title41.htm> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

Wyoming Water Development Commission. 2001. 

Irrigation system survey report. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 30 p.