U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Seedskadee

Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment

National Wildlife Refuge
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

and

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

September 2001

 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 700

Green River, Wyoming 82935

and

Division of Refuge Planning

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

P.O. Box 25486, DFC

Denver, Colorado 80225
i

Table of Contents

Summary ....................................................................................... 1

I. Introduction / Background

1.1 Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and Management

1.1.1 Seedskadee NWR Overview ..........................................................4

1.1.2 History of Seedskadee NWR Establishment, Acquisition, and Management ..................4

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...................................... 9

1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.5 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Purpose(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.6 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.7 Legal and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.8 Existing Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.9 Potential for Refuge Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

II. Planning Process

2.1 Description of the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.2 Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.2.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management Issues

2.2.1.1 Threaten ed and E ndangered Wildlife an d Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.2.1.2 Riparian H abitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.2.1.3 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.2.1.4 Upland H abitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2.1.5 Riverine H abitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2.1.6 Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2.1.7 Predators and Nuisance Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2.1.8 Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2.2 Public Use and Recreation Issues

2.2.2.1 Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.2.2 Universal Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.2.3 Wildlife Viewing and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.2.4 Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.2.5 Recreational Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.2.6 River Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.2.7 Sport Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.2.8 Commercial Guide Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.2.9 Camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.2.10 Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.2.11 Visitor Use Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.2.12 Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.2.13 Environmental Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.2.14 Public Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.2.15 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.2.16 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.3 Administrative Management Issues

2.2.3.1 Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.2.3.2 Miner als . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.2.3.3 Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.2.3.4 Livestock Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.2.3.5 Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ii

III. Refuge and Resource Descriptions

3.1 Geographic / Ecosystem Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.1.1 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.1.2 Geological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.1.3 Soil Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.1.4 The Seedskadee P roject and Mitig ation - E arly Pro posals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.1.5 Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir and River Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.1.6 Area Socio-Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.1.7 Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.1.8 Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.1.9 Economic Development Trends and Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.1.10 Changes in Demand for Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.2 Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses

3.2.1 Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.2.2 Refuge River Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.2.3 Reserv ed Rights and Private ly Owne d Minera l Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.2.4 Refuge Vegetation and W ildlife Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.2.4.1 Riverine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2.4.2 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2.4.3 Seedskadee M anaged Wetland Units

3.2.4.3.1 Ham p Wetland Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.2.4.3.2 Hawley, Low er Haw ley, and Dunkle Wetland Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.2.4.3.3 Pal W etland U nit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.2.4.4 Riparian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.2.4.5 Upland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.2.4.6 Other Habitat Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.2.4.7 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or Wyoming Plant Species of Special Concern . . . . . . 57

3.2.5 Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.2.5.1 Avian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.2.5.1.1 Predator Management and Nest Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3.2.5.2 Mam mals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.2.5.3 Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.2.5.4 Reptiles and Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3.2.5.5 Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3.2.5.6 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species and Other W ildlife Species of Special Concern 67

3.2.6 Cultural Resources Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.2.6.1 Prehistoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.2.6.2 Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.2.6.3 Lombard Ferry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.2.6.4 Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3.2.6.4.1 Bridger Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3.2.6.4.2 Green River Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3.2.7 Public Use Facilities and Program Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3.2.7.1 General Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.2.8 Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.2.8.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.2.8.2 Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.2.8.3 Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3.2.8.4 Non-Motorized Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3.2.8.5 Commercial Guiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3.2.8.6 Environmental Education/Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3.2.8.7 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.2.9 Non Wildlife-Dependent Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.2.9.1 Camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.2.9.2 Swimming and Power Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.2.9.3 Off-Road Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
iii

3.2.10 Administrative Support

3.2.10.1 Current Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

3.2.10.2 Current Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

3.3 Special Management Areas

3.3.1 Special Legislated Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

IV. Management Direction

4.1 Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

A Wildlife

A1 Goal - Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

A1.1 Bald Eagle Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

A1.2 Mountain Plover Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

A1.3 Whooping Crane Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

A1.4 Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

A2 Goal - Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

A2.1 Trumpeter Swan Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

A2.2 Moose and Mule Deer Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

A2.3 Sage Grouse Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

A2.4 Migratory Bird Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

A2.5 Other Indigenous Wildlife Species Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

B Habitat

B1 Goal - Riparian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

B1.1 Restoration Plan Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

B1.2 Forest Protection Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

B1.3 Riparian Regeneration/Planting Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

B2 Goal - Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

B2.1 Hamp and Hawley Wetland Units Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

B2.2 Sagebrush Pools and Dunkle Wetland Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B2.3 Pal Wetland Unit Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

B2.4 Oxbow Channel Wetlands Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

B3 Goal - Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

B3.1 Sagebrush/Salt Desert Shrub Habitat Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

B3.2 Upland Tallgrass/Great Basin Wild Rye Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

B4 Goal - Riverine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

B4.1 Riverine Habitat and Fish Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

B4.2 Riparian Corridor Restoration Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

B5 Goal - Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

B5.1 Control Exotic Plant Populations Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

C Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

C1 Goal - Wildlife-Dependent Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

C1.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

C1.2 Hunting and Fishing Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

C2 Goal - Environmental Education and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

C2.1 Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

C3 Goal - Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

C3.1 Public Use Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

C3.2 Designated Road Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

C3.3 Refuge Information and Regulations Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

C3.4 Livestock Management/Fencing Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

C3.5 Land Acquisition/Development Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

C3.6 Mineral and Oil Exploration Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

C4 Goal - Cultural Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

C4.1 Cultural Resource Protection Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

C5 Goal - Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

C5.1 Partnerships, Volunteers, and Leadership Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
iv

V. Implementation and Monitoring

5.1 Funding and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan Implementation and Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.3 Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

5.5 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Environmental Assessment ............................................................. EA-127

Appendices

A. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. RON S and M MS Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Legislation and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Species List of Seedskadee NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. Hydrographs of Green River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

I. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

J. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

Figures

1. Historic Peak Flows - Upper Green River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Maps

1. Vicinity Map ...............................................................................5

2. Ecosystem Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. Dominant Habitat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4. Habitat M anagem ent Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5. Water Management Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6. Special Hunting and Fishing Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7. Historical Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

8a. Public Use Map - Northern Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

8b. Public Use Map - Southern Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

9. Refuge Roads - Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

10. Refuge Roads - Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

11. Refuge Roads - Alternative 3 ........................................................... EA-153

Tables

1.1 Total Acreage ...........................................................................7

3.1 Winter Flow s in cfs Above and Below Fontene lle Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.2 Summary of Water Rights Held by the Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.3 Vegetation Type and Acreage on Seedskadee NWR, July 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.4 Plant species which may occur on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge which are Threatened,

Endangered, Candidate or of Special Concern in Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.5 Re-introductions and nesting history of trumpeter swans on Seedskadee NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.6 Nest Success Compared With Trap Effort On Seedskadee NWR (1987-1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3.7 Special Status Wildlife and Fish Species Potentially Occurring on Seedskadee NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.8 Bald Eagle Production on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.9 Summary of Surface Geologic Deposits and Paleontological Resources Seedskadee NWR Area . . . 79

3.10 Estimated Annual Visitors to Seedskadee NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.11 Current Personnel (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.1 Staffing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.2 RONS Project Summary for Seedskadee NWR (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5.3 Reclam ation Coo perative M itigation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

5.4 Management Plan Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.5 Status of Step-down Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 1

Summary

Seedskadee Natio nal Wildlife Refuge (N WR ) is 26,382 acres in size and located within the Gre en River Bas in in

southwestern Wyoming (Map 1). The Refuge is a unique and ecologically important component of the National

Wildlife Refuge System (System) which includes more than 530 refuges totaling over 93 million acres across the

United States. Seedskadee NWR w as established in 1965 through the Colorado River Storage Project Act of

1956. Section 8 of this Act provided for the establishment of wildlife habitat development areas to offset the loss

of wildlife habitat resulting from reservoir development in the Colorado River Drainage. The Seedskadee

Reclamation Act of 1 958 specifically authorize d acquisition of lan ds for Seedskadee N WR .

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This Act required development

of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for each refuge and that management of each refuge be consistent

with the CCP. In addition, the Act required that each refuge be managed to fulfill the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System as well as the specific purposes for which each refuge was established. Seedskadee

NWR’s purpose is defined by two pieces of Federal enabling legislation. The principal purpose of Seedskadee

NWR is to provide for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources and its habitat

including the de velopme nt and improvement of such w ildlife resources. Additionally, the Refuge is charged to

protect the scenery, cultural resources, and other natural resources and provide for public use and enjoyment of

compatible wildlife-dependent activities.

The two pieces of enabling legislation are:

1. Fish an d Wildlife Coord ination A ct: “. . . shall be administered b y him (S ecretary of the Interior) directly o r in

accordance with cooperative agreements . . . and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the

conservation, maintenance and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon, . . . .”

16 U.S.C. 664

2. Colorado River Storage Act: “. . . Secretary is authorized and directed to investigate, plan, construct, operate,

and maintain . . . (1) public recreational facilities on lands withdrawn or acquired . . .” for the Colorado River

project in order to “. . . conserve the scenery, the natural, historic, and archaeologic objects, and the wildlife

on said lands, and to provide for public use and enjoyment of the same and of the water areas created by

these projects . . . and (2) facilities to mitigate losses of and improve conditions for, the propagation of fish and

wildlife.” The Secretary may “. . . dispose of . . .” the facilities “. . . to federal . . . agencies . . . upon such terms

and conditions as will best promote their development and operation in the public interest.” 43 U.S.C 620g

Besides these two pieces of enabling legislation, the thirty-fifth legislature of the State of Wyoming passed

enrolled Act No. 54 in 1959 “providing consent of the State of Wyoming to the acquisition by the United States

where approved by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the State Land Board, of lands for the

establishment of migratory bird refuges.” In the Act, the State of Wyoming has consented to the acquisition of up

to 20,00 0 acres of land in Wyoming fo r the establishm ent and mainte nance of migratory bird refug es in

accordance with and for the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting

Stamp Act. Thus, if ever any of these authorities, and associated funds, were invoked for the acquisition of new

lands for Seedskadee NWR, these lands would be managed for “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d) in accordance with the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act. To date, all lan ds acqu ired hav e been through Section 8 of the 1956 C olorado River Storage Project Act.

All efforts leading to the preparation of this draft Com prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) w ere undertaken to

provide the Refuge with: 1) a vision for the future; 2) guidelines for wildlife and habitat management over the

next 15 years to ensure progress is made toward attaining the mission and goals of Seedskadee NWR and the

Refuge System; and 3) to comply with Congressional mandates stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997. The CCP planning effort provided opportunities for interested people, Federal and

State agencies, State and local governments, and private organizations to give input on future management of the

Refuge. This CCP provides clear goals and objectives for management of Refuge habitats, wildlife, threatened

and endangered species, cultural and paleontological resources, other compatible public uses, and partnerships. It

also pro vides im pleme ntation strategies and re comm ended staffing and funding.

The Seedskadee C CP w ill be used to prepare step-dow n man agem ent plans and re vise existing plans. It also w ill

be used to prepare budgets which describe specific actions to be taken by the Refuge over the next 15 years.

Given that new information, guidance, and technology frequently change and become available, the CCP and/or

step down management plans will be updated as necessary throughout the 15-year period. At a minimum the CCP

will be re viewe d and updated every 15 years.
2 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The draft CCP considers various alternatives for management of Seedskadee NWR. Each of the alternatives was

evaluated for environm ental consequences in accordance with the N ational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The draft CCP contains the goals, objectives, and strategies found by the Service to best aid the Refuge and the

National Wildlife Refuge System to attain their mission. For a summary of the alternatives considered during the

planning process, see the Seedskadee NWR Environmental Assessment following the CCP. The CCP is the

preferred alternative.

Vision Statement:

Seedskadee NWR w ill strive to preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological integrity of the Green River

riparian corridor and associated uplands as habitat for migratory birds and other indigenous wildlife for the

benefit of present and future generations. Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge will manage for a variety of

native plants and wildlife, with emphasis on migratory birds and threatened and endangered species. Natural

habitats of the Green River will be preserved or restored. The Refuge will provide interpretation of the

natural and human history of the area and provide for w ildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with

Refuge purposes. To meet this Vision, the Service will seek partnerships with other agencies, interest

groups, landowners, and local communities.

The management focus of the CCP is summarized by the following goals that are supported by a series of

objectives and implementation strategies. The goals are:

Wildlife:

■ To restore, enhance, or protect threatened and endangered flora and fauna that currently occur or have

historically occurr ed in the area of Seedskadee NW R.

■ Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of migra tory and resident wildlife w ith

emph asis on native species.

Habitat:

■ Protect and restore riparian habitats along the Green River to provide for the annual life needs of migratory

birds and native wildlife utilizing the Green River Basin.

■ Wetlands will be managed to meet the breeding and migratory requirements of waterfowl, shorebirds,

wadin g birds, and othe r wetland dependen t species.

■ Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of indig enous flora associated with the Great Basin

upland desert shrub and grassland habitats to support native wildlife found in the Gree n River Basin.

■ The Refuge staff, in collaboration with Wyoming Game and Fish Department and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation), will manage water quality and quantity in the Green River to maintain and/or restore the

riparian and cottonwood forests and provide habitat for waterfowl, trumpeter swans, fish, and other native

species dependent on river and forested hab itat.

■ Restore and maintain indigenous flora diversity by controlling the invasion of exotic plant species on the

Refuge.

Public Use and Recreation:

■ Nurture an understanding of and appreciation for wildlife and other natural resources of the Green River

Basin by providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation while maintaining the

primitive , uncrow ded nature of th e area.

■ Educate and inform the public about the Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Wildlife Refuge

System, and the Upper Colorado Ecosystem by providing quality environmental education and interpretation

opportunities.

■ Protect Refuge resources from adverse natural and/or man-made impacts.

■ Protect and interpret significant historic and prehistoric cultural sites and objects associated with Refuge

lands.

■ Foster partnerships to promote wildlife conservation and habitat management in the Green River Basin and

to help S eedskadee N WR accom plish its vision and goals.

The achievement of these goals and associated objectives will fulfill the mission and purposes of the Refuge and

Refuge System.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 3

Potential Refuge Expansion

After the release of the first draft CCP and EA for Seedskadee NW R, Reclamation announced to the Service its

intention to dispose of most of the lands acquired under the “Seedskadee Project.” Remaining Seedskadee P roject

lands owned by Reclamation are to be transferred to another Federal agency for management. A portion of the

lands av ailable fro m Re clamation surround the Big Sandy R iver and adjoin th e Refuge.

In this draft CCP we identify interest in amending the Refuge boundary if additional tracts of land become

available which would contribute to the Refuge’s mission. Included for consideration are lands surrounding the

Big Sandy River, a significant trib utary that joins the Gree n River inside the Refuge boundary (see se ction B3 .1

#16, and the EA ).

Careful consideration w as given to including an analysis in this draft CCP of am ending the R efuge bou ndary to

include lands associated with the Big Sandy River. However, the decision was made to not include the Big Sandy

analysis in this CCP process for two primary reasons: 1) the CCP is too far along in the review process; and 2) a

separate review process, independent of this CCP, would provide a more thorough analysis of any possible land

acquisition, including better public scoping and participation in the process. Currently, the Refuge is beginning an

internal review to evaluate the feasibility of amending the Refuge boundary to include lands along the Big Sandy

River. If a decision is ma de to pursue a land transfer, a full public pro cess w ill ensue comple te with p ublic

involvement consistent w ith the National Environm ental Policy Act (NEPA).
4 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

I.Introduction/Background

1.1 Refuge Overview: History of Establishment,

Acquisition and Management

1.1.1 Seedskadee NWR Overview

This Co mprehensive Conse rvation Plan (CCP) is being developed specifically

for Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge (Seedskadee NWR or Refuge).

Seedskadee NW R is located in southwestern Wyoming, 37 miles northwest

of the City of Green River. The Refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) as a component of the National Wildlife Refuge

System (Refuge System). The entire Refuge is within Sweetwater County,

Wyoming and within the Green R iver Ba sin. Geo graphically, the R efuge is

long and narrow, and bisected throughout its length by the Green River. The

north bounda ry of the Refug e is seven miles d ownstream from F ontene lle

Dam . From here, the Refuge extends 37 miles d ownstream and ran ges in

width from one to two miles. Total relief within the Refuge is 300 feet. The

highest elevation is 6,490 feet near the north end of the Refuge at McCullen

Bluff. The lowest elevation is 6,190 feet at the south end of the Refuge, below

Big Island. (See Map 1)

1.1.2 History of Seedskadee NWR Establishment, Acquisition, and

Management

Seedskadee NW R was authorized by the Colorado River Storage Project

Act of 1956 (CRSP). The CRSP authorized and funded construction of

Bureau of Reclam ation Colorado Rive r storage facilities and related projects

including Fontenelle Dam and the Seedskadee Irrigation Project. Section 8

of the CRSP provides for the establishment of wildlife habitat development

areas to offset the loss o f wildlife habitat resulting fro m rese rvoir

construction in the Colorado River drainage. The Seedskadee Reclamation

Act of 1958 specifically authorized acquisition of lands for Seedskadee NWR.

Seedskadee NWR w as established on November 30, 1965, through a

Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation) and the Service.

The U.S . Fish and W ildlife Service m ay acquire lands consistent with

legislation, other congressional guidelines or Executive Orders for the

conservation of fish and wildlife and their associated habitat and to provide

wildlife-dependent public use for education and recreation purposes. Service

policy is to acquire lands on ly when other mean s of achie ving pro gram goals

and objectives are not appropriate, available, or effective (USFWS, 341

FW1). In compliance with Section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Project

Act, Reclamation is responsible for funding land acquisitions within the

Refuge and funding Refuge developments to offset the loss of wildlife habitat

resulting from reservoir construction. Since 1958, the Service and

Reclamation have worked cooperatively to mitigate the habitat losses. Thus

far over 4.5 million dollars have been made available by Reclamation for land

acquisition and project development at Seedskadee NWR.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 5
6 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 7

The original Refuge acquisition boundary was designated in Public Land

Order 4834 (Federal Register, Vol. 35 - Wyoming 14982) on May 25, 1970,

and encompassed 22,112 acres for the mitigation of habitat lost due to the

construction of Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir. In the 1990s, the Refuge

boundary area increased with the purchase of additional acreage of

“uneconomic remnants” and in 1998 when additional acres were acquired

from Reclamation withdrawn lands to “roundout” boundary irregularities

and improve management opportunities. Today’s 1999 boundary includes

26,382.23 acres. All lands are fee title and located within Sweetwater County,

Wyoming. Two 2.5-acre privately-owned parcels remain within the boundary

of the Refuge. Lands acquired for Seedskadee NWR were all acquired under

Section 8 of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Act. No lands have been

acquired for the Refuge under the authority of the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act or Migratory B ird Hun ting Stam p Act. 

Table 1.1 Total Acreage

Tract

No

Acquired

Date

Tract Name Acres

1-5 11/06/61 Union Pacific Resources Company 3,483.70

1 5/20/70 USA 7,940.76

1 9/10/92 USA 440.77

10 1/28/74 Thoman et al 1,036.05

11 11/30/65 Hawley 916.48

12, a-k 11/26/96 Rock Springs Grazing Assn. 3,366.67

13, a 12/13/95 Crosson Ranche s (Pal Tract) 395.84

16 11/26/96 Taliaferro 294.28

17, a-h 4/23/93 UP Land Resources Corp. 3,552.15

2-5 7/30/62 State of Wyoming 719.29

5 6/13/81 Riverside Livestock 160.00

2,aec 8/25/93 State of Wyoming 1,959.24

1998 USA Roundout (Reclamation to

USFWS)

2,117.00

3 9/30/89 Meandered Acres (881.54 acres

included in the U SA Roundout)

Total Acres 26,382.23
8 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Initial mitigation strategies on the Refuge were intended to follow

preliminary mitigation concept. This included creation of ponds, other open

waters, and wetlands primarily for waterfowl use. However, it proved too

costly to install and operate pumps for pond filling, return flows from

irrigation use would not have been available, and construction of new

diversions, water systems, and dikes would have required extensive planning

and budget commitment. Instead, actual development in the 1960s focused on

use of pre-refuge diversions and irrigation ditches to develop wetlands. During

the next decade, minor dike improvements were made to increase wetland

size, but no exten sive wetland development o r managem ent occu rred.

Substantial wetland development did not occur until the 1980s with creation

of the Hamp, Hawley, Low er Hawley, and Dunkle water management units.

Development of these areas included gravity flow diversions from the Green

River and a series of ditches and dikes to create impoundments, marshes,

and irrigated wet meadows. These units totaled about 1,700 acres. The

Refuge’s objectives as stated in a 1987 management plan were:

1. To develop and maintain wetland habitat (primarily as nesting and

brood-rearing habitat for Canada geese and other waterfowl).

2. To preserve habitat c ondition s for the benefit of native wildlife species

thus ensuring wildlife diversity in the area, as well as providing

habitat for rare and endangered species which frequent the area.

3. To provide opportunities for interpretation and recreation to the

visiting public.

About 4,338 acres of riparian area parallel the Green River through the

Refuge; however, there has been little management of this resource to date.

Upland habitat management has historically centered on habitat protection

through fencing and prescribed burning. Fencing of the entire Refuge has

been completed. Acreages of existing habitat and locations are described and

mapp ed in the Vege tation an d Wildlife Habita t Section .

While the management emphasis at Seedskadee NWR was initially on

waterfowl habitat, in recent years there is a growing awareness that the

habitat of other migratory and native species dependent on the Green River

have been impacted by construction and operation of the Fontenelle Dam.

Artificial manipulation of the natural flows of the Green River have reduced

sedimentation in River flows and increased down-cutting (incision) of the

river channel. This has created negative effects on the health of the riparian

forest downstream from Fontenelle Dam. Because these effects were not

immediate nor fully anticipated, the extent and implications of the riparian

habitat changes were not identified as mitigation targets in initial

Seedskadee Proje ct plannin g. Even now these im pacts ar e not ea sily

quantifiable nor are their implications fully understood for wildlife that are

dependent on the riparian river corridor. There is a consensus that

Reclamation mitigation actions should continue post Seedskadee Project

construction to maintain, enhance, and/or restore riparian habitat

downstream of Fontenelle Dam (Auble and Scott, 1998; Bitterroot

Consultants, 1996; Berk, 1998).

The Service’s management approach to Seedskadee NWR has a broader

focus today than anticipated in the 1958 Fish and W ildlife Service R eport.

Managers today and into the foreseeable future are focused on maintaining

quality habitat for migratory and native species which use the Refuge. In

addition, when compatible with the Refuge’s wildlife and habitat

management goals, the Refuge also seeks to provide compatible wildlifedependent public use opportunities, interpretation and protection of cultural

resources , and interpretive a nd educatio nal info rmation on the R efuge ’s

habitat, wildlife, and cultural resources.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 9

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation

Plan

The Service has recognized the need for strategic planning for all the

components of the Refuge System. The System is currently comprised of

more than 530 refuges and 3,000 waterfowl production areas, totaling

approximately 93,604,644 acres (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Seedskadee NWR, located in southwestern Wyoming, is a unique and

ecologically important component of this System.

 In September 1996, Executive Order 12996 was enacted which gave the

System guidance on issues of compatibility and public uses of its land.

Congress passed the Nation al Wildlife Refug e Syste m Improvement A ct in

October 1997. This “organic act,” for the first time in the System’s history,

established the core mission of the Refuge system. Refuge’s were to be

managed as a system of units dedicated to wildlife and wildlife habitat. As

part of th is, each R efuge w as to pre pare a CCP within 15 years.

The CCP planning effort helped the Refuge system address the changing

needs of wildlife species and the public. CCP planning efforts provide the

opportunity to meet with Refuge neighbors, elected representatives, user

groups, and customers, and other agencies to ensure that CCP’s are relevant

and truly address natural resource issues and public interests. This CCP also

explains the planning process, a Refuge’s characteristics and purposes, and

the direction management will take during the next 15 years to attain the

stated purpose of the Refuge.

The purpose for developing this CCP for Seedskadee NWR is to provide the

Refuge and the public with a 15-year management plan for the conservation

of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats found on the

Refuge; while providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent

recrea tional use s. The C CP, w hen complete d, will guide the R efuge in

meeting its management objectives and contribute to the mission of the

Refuge syste m wh ile meeting all lega l mandates.

The Service’s goals for the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

are:

1. To provide a clear and comprehensive statement of desired future

conditions (vision) for each refuge or planning unit.

2. To provide a forum for the public to comment on the type, extent,

and compatibility of uses on refuges.

3. To ensure that the refuge is managed to fulfill the mission of the

System as well as the specific purposes for which it was established.

4. To ensure public involvement in refuge management decisions by

providing a process for effective coordination, interaction, and

cooperation with affected parties, including Federal agencies, State

conservation agencies, Tribal governments, local governments,

conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and interested

members of the public.

5. To encourage that we conduct refuge planning in concert with an

ecosystem approach.

6. To dem onstrate support for m anage ment d ecisions and their

rationale by sound professional judgment, biological initiative, and

public involvem ent.

7. To provide a uniform basis for budget requests for op erational,

maintenance, and capital improvement programs.
10 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge

System which is comprised of Federal lands that are acquired and managed

for the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. The S ervice’s

origins date back to 1871, when Congress established the U.S. Fish

Commission to study the decrease of the nation’s food fishes and recommend

ways to reverse the decline. The F ish Commission eventually evolved into

the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” and was located within the Department

of the Interior in 1956. The Service’s scope of responsibilities broadened

throughout the years to include m igratory birds, endange red spe cies, certa in

marine mammals, freshwater and anadromous fish, law enforcement, and

national wildlife refuges.

Our mission is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance

fish and wildlife and plan ts and their habitats for the continuing benefit

of the A merican people.

The Service carries out these responsibilities through several functional

entities. The National Wildlife Refuge System is one of those entities.

1.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and

Guiding Principles

The National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is the world's largest

collection of lands set aside specifically for the protection of fish, wildlife and

plant populations and their habitats. The first unit of the System was created

in 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt designated 3-acre Pelican

Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as a bird sanctuary.

In 1966, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act that assembled the refuges into a unified “System” and

codified their administration. This System has grown from 300 refuges

totaling 28 million acres in 1966 to today’s 530+ refuges in all 50 States and a

number of U.S. Territories, and Waterfowl Production Areas in 10 States,

totaling over 93 million acres.

However, the Refuge Administration Act did not establish a mission for the

System or conta in any planning require ments.

On March 25, 1996, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12996, on

management and public use of the System. The Executive Order served as

the foundation for the permanent statutory changes made by the National

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. The Executive Order modified

the management direction of Refuges by including provisions for

opportunities for six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The Executive

Order recognized “compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental

education and interpre tation as priority public uses of the S ystem.” These six

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are recognized as priority public uses of

System lands. These, and other uses, are allowed on refuges only after

finding that they are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and the

Refuge System. Uses are allowed through a special regulation process,

individual special use permits, or sometimes through State fishing and

hunting regulations.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 11

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. (National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997, Public Law 105-

Enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 provided the System with a true “organic” act, furnishing a mission for

the System, policy direction, and management standards for all Refuge

System units.

However, the System’s importance goes far beyond these services. It

contributes directly and indirectly to human welfare through a number of

ecosystem services and functions. Chapter 4 contains a detailed discussion of

ecosystem services. For the entire biosphere, the estimated annual

economic value of all the world’s ecosystem services and functions is about

$33 trillion (Constanza, et al. 1997).

The following broad goals, aimed at fulfilling the System’s mission, describe

the level of responsibility and concern for wildlife resources as a result of

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997:

a. To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and

further the System mission;

b. Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish,

wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with

becoming endangered;

c. Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine

mamm al populations;

d. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants;

e. Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems

of the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic

of those ecosystems;

f. To foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife,

and plants, and their con servation, by providing the public with

safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use.

Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photog raphy, and en vironmental educ ation and interpretation.

In addition, individual national w ildlife refuges are acquired un der a variety

of legislative acts and administrative orders and authorities. These orders

and authorities usually have one or more purposes for which land can be

transferred or acquired. These System units provide important habitat for

many native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and

plants. The System also plays a vital role in preserving endangered and

threate ned species an d offers a wide variety of wildlife-depen dent public

uses. Annually, national wildlife refuges receive 34 million visitors.

Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the preservation of

trust resources such as migratory birds. For example, waterfowl breeding

refuges in South and North Dakota provide important wetland and grassland

habitat to support breeding populations of waterfowl as required by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the North American Waterfowl Management

Plan. Seedskadee NWR also supports breeding populations as well as

providin g migra tion habitat during spring and fall periods. Other refuges in

Louisiana and Texas provide wintering habitat for these populations. The

network of lands is critical to these birds survival. A deficiency in one

location can affe ct the spe cies and the entire netw orks ab ility to maintain

adequate populations.

Other refuges may provide habitat for threatened and endangered plants or

animals. Refuges in these situations ensure that populations are protected

and habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges, by providing a broad network

of lands throughout the United States, help prevent species from being listed

as threatened or endangered by providing secure habitat for their use and

providing recovery habitats in portions or all of a species range.
12 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

1.5 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Purpose(s)

Each refuge in the Refuge system is managed to fulfill the mission of the

Refuge System as well as the specific purposes for which the refuge was

established. Seedskadee NWR’s purpose is defined by two pieces of enabling

Federal legislation. The principal purpose of Seedskadee NWR is to provide

for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources and

habitat including the development and improvement of such wildlife

resources. Additionally, the Refuge is charged to protect the scenery,

cultural resources, and other natural resources and provide for public use

and enjoyment of compatible wildlife-dependent activities.

The two pieces of enabling legislation are:

1. Fish an d Wildlife Coord ination A ct: “. . . shall be administered b y him

(Secretary of the Interior) directly or in accordance with cooperative

agreements . . . and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the

conservation, maintenance and management of wildlife, resources

thereof, and its habitat thereon, . . . .” 16 U.S.C. 664

2. Colorado River S torage A ct: “. . . Secretary is authorized and directed to

investiga te, plan, co nstruct, operate, and maintain . . . (1) public

recreational facilities on lands withdrawn or acquired . . .” for the

Colorado River project in order to “. . . conserve the scenery, the

natura l, historic, and archaeologic objects, and the wildlife on said lands,

and to provide for public use and enjoyment of the same and of the water

areas created by these projects . . . and (2) facilities to mitigate losses of

and improve conditions for, the propagation of fish and wildlife.” The

Secretary may “. . . dispose of . . .” the facilities “. . . to Federal . . . agencies

. . . upon such term s and co nditions a s will best promote their

development and operation in the public interest.” 43 U.S.C 620g

Besides these two pieces of enabling legislation, the thirty-fifth legislature of

the State of Wyoming passed enrolled Act No. 54 in 1959 “providing consent

of the State of Wyoming to the acquisition by the United States where

approved by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the State Land

Board, of lands for the establishment of migratory bird refuges.” In it, the

State of Wyoming is consenting to the acquisition of up to 20,000 acres of

land in Wyoming for the establishment and maintenance of migratory bird

refuges in accordance with and for the purposes of the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Thus, if ever

any of these authorities, and associated funds, were invoked for the acquisition

of new lands for Seedskadee NW R, these lands would be managed for “use

as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for

migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d) in accordance with the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act. To date, all lands acquired have been through Section 8 of

the 195 6 Colorado R iver Pro ject Storage A ct.

1.6 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement

Seedskadee NWR w ill strive to preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological

integrity of the Green River riparian corridor and associated uplands as

habitat for migratory birds and other indigenous wildlife for the benefit of

presen t and futu re generations of Am ericans.

Seedskadee National Wildlife Re fuge will ma nage for a variety of native plan ts

and wildlife, w ith emphasis on migratory birds and threatened and endangered

species. Natural ha bitats of the Green River will be preserved or restored. The

Refuge will provide interpretation of the natural and human history of the area

and provide for wildlife-depe ndent recreation that is compatible with Refuge

purposes. To meet this vision, the Service will seek partnerships with other

agencies, interest groups, landowners, and local communities.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 13

1.7 Legal and Policy Guidance

National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National

Wildlife Refuge System (System), the designated purpose(s) of the Refuge

unit as described in the establishing legislation and/or executive orders,

Service laws and policy, and international treaties (for a complete list see

Appendix E ).

Key concepts included in laws, regulations, and policies that guide

management of the System include primary versus m ultiple-use public lands,

compatibility, and priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

Examples of relevant guidance include the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (50

CFR), Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the

National Wildlife Refuge System), and selected portions of the Code of

Federal Regulations and F ish and W ildlife Service Manual.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as

amended, provided guidelines and directives for administration and

management of all areas in the System, including wildlife refuges, areas for

the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with

extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and

waterfowl production areas. Use of any area within the System was

permitted, provided that such uses were compatible with the major purposes

for wh ich such areas w ere established .

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 amends the

Refuge System Administration Act by including a unifying mission for the

System, a new formal process for determining compatible uses on refuges,

and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (CCP or Plan). This Act states that wildlife conservation

is the priority of the System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior

(Secretary) shall ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and

environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge must be

managed to fulfill the mission of the System and the specific purposes for

which it was established. Additionally, this Act identifies and establishes the

legitimacy and appropriateness of the six wildlife-dependent recreational

uses. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and

environmental education and interpretation. As priority public uses of the

System , these uses will re ceive enhanced consideratio n over other uses in

planning and m anage ment. F urtherm ore, this A ct requires that a CCP be in

place for each refuge by the year 2012 and that the public have an

opportunity for active inv olvem ent in plan developme nt and revision. It is

Service policy that CCPs are developed in an open public process and that

the agency is committed to securing public input throughout the process.

This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National

Wildlife Refug e Syste m Ad ministra tion Act of 1966.
14 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Lands within the System are different from other, multiple-use public lands

in that the y are closed to all public use s unless specifically and leg ally

opened. Unlike other Federal lands that are managed under a multiple-use

mandate (i.e., national forests administered by the U.S. Forest Service and

public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management), the

Refu ge Sys tem is m anage d specific ally for th e bene fit of fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their habitats. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation

is a legitim ate and appropriate general public use of the System.

Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and

interpretation are priority public uses of the System. These uses must

receive enhanced consideration over other public uses in refuge planning and

mana geme nt.

Before any uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational activities, are

allowed on national wildlife refuges, Federal law requires that they be

formally determined to be “compatible.” 

A compatible use is defined as a use that, in the sound professional

judgement of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of

the Refuge. Sound professional judgement is further defined as a finding,

determination, or decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish

and wildlife management and administration, available science, and

resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and

adherence with applicable laws. If financial resources are no t available to

design, operate, and maintain an activity, the refuge manager will take

reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from the State and other

conservation interests. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined

to be compatib le.

The Service has completed compatibility determinations for Seedskadee

NW R (see Appe ndix D).

The Re fuge Recreation A ct, as amended, authorized the Secretary to

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational

use when such uses did not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.

Executive Order 12996 (March 23, 1996) identified a new mission statement

for the System; established six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, environm ental education and interpretation);

emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality and diversity of

fish and wildlife habitat; stressed the importa nce of partnerships with

Federal and State agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general

public; mandated public involvement in decisions on the acquisition and

management of refuges; and required identification, prior to acquisition of

new refuge la nds, of existing compatib le wildlife-depen dent uses that w ould

be permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of

comprehensive plan ning.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 15

1.8 Existing Partnerships

Legal, administrative, policy, and planning guidelines provide the framework

within which management activities are proposed, developed, and

implemented. This framework also provides the basis for a continued and

improved partnership between the Service, Reclamation, and other natural

resource agencies.

In compliance with Section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of

1956, Reclamation is responsible for funding land acquisitions within the

Refuge and funding Refuge developments to offset the loss of wildlife habitat

resulting from reservoir construction. Since 1958, the Service and

Reclamation have worked cooperatively to mitigate the habitat losses. The

Service and Reclamation will continue to cooperate in close partnership for

the benefit of the natural resources involved. The CCP is a means of assuring

those benefits are achie ved.

See Chapter 3 for further information on Bureau of Reclamation/Fish and

Wildlife Service partnership history on the Seedskadee Project and

development of Seedskadee NWR.

The R efuge a lso works with a variety of othe r organ izations a nd individ uals

on natural resource projects including:

■ local law enforcement agencies (general enforceme nt)

■ Wyoming Game and Fish (wildlife and fish surveys, habitat

managem ent, enforcement, public outreach, public use) 

■ Sweetwater County w eed and pest (invasive species control)

■ Trout Unlimited (stream and river restoration, Take A Kid Fishing

Day)

■ Rural fire protection districts (wildfire suppression)

■ Private landowners (partners for wildlife program)

■ Universities (research on wildlife, vegetation, public use)

■ Wyoming Partners in Flight (bird monitoring)

■ Trumpeter Swan Society (swan m anagem ent)

■ Local school districts (environmental education)

■ Scout organizations (community and refuge projects)

■ Sweetwater County Chamber of Commerce (eco-tourism, special

events)

■ Big Sandy Working Group (river and riparian restoration)

■ Bureau of Land Management (grazing, historical interpretation and

restoration, public use)

■ Intermountain Joint Venture (coalition partners)

■ Rock Springs Grazing Association (livestock grazing management

via a contractual agreement)

■ Green River Green Belt Committee (wetland restoration)

■ Highland Desert Flies (Take a Kid Fishing Day)

■ Volunteers (local community folks, Good Sams Club, Student

interns)

■ USGS (riparian research)
16 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

1.9 Potential for Refuge Expansion

After the release of the first draft CCP and EA for Seedskadee NWR, the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclam ation) announced to the Service its

intention to dispose of most of the lands acquired under the “Seedskadee

Project” - which, among other things, resulted in the creation of the Refuge

in 1965. Remaining Seedska dee Proje ct lands owned by R eclamation are to

be transferred to another Federal agency for management. A portion of the

lands av ailable fro m Re clamation surround the Big Sandy R iver and adjoin

the Re fuge.

In this draft CCP, we identify inte rest in am ending the Re fuge bo undary if

additional tracts of land become available which would contribute to the

Refuge’s mission. Included for consideration are land s surrounding the Big

Sandy River, a significant tributary that joins the Green River inside the

Refuge boundary (see section B3.1 #16, and the EA ). As stated in this draft

document: “Other lands would be considered for acquisition on a willing

seller basis if information indicated that additional acres were necessary for

management of selected species or for mitigation purposes. Such areas may

include . . . lands surrounding the Big Sandy River. Any additional land

acquisition . . . would go through a public involvement process and be on a

willing seller basis o nly.”

Careful consideration was given to including an analysis in this draft CCP of

amen ding the Refug e boundary to include lands associated with the Big

Sandy River. However, the decision was made to not include the Big Sandy

analysis in this CCP process for two primary reasons: 1) the CCP is too far

along in the review process; and 2) a separate review process, independent of

this CCP, would provide a more thorough analysis of any possible land

acquisition, including better public scoping and participation in the proce ss.

Currently, the Refuge is beginning an internal review to evaluate the

feasibility o f amen ding the Refug e boundary to include lands alon g the Big

Sandy River. The land surrounding the Big Sandy River, which is proposed

for disposal by Reclamation, is considered a “study area.” Prior to any formal

action, the Refuge will complete an internal analysis of these lands and make

a recommendation to the Regional Director to pursue, or not to pursue, the

transfer of these lands to the Refuge. If a decision is made to pursue a land

transfer, a full public process will ensue complete with public involvement

consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 17

II. Planning Process

2.1 Description of the Planning Process

The development of this CCP was guided, in the beginning, by the Refuge

Planning Chapter of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Part 602 FW2.1,

November 1996) and later also by the Service’s Final Comprehensive

Conservation Planning Policy . Key steps include:

1. Planning;

2. Identifying issues and de veloping a vision ;

3. Gathe ring infor mation ;

4. Analy zing resource relationships;

5. Deve loping alternatives and assessing their e nvironm ental effects;

6. Developing managem ent goals, objectives, and strategies;

7. Identifying a pre ferred alternative;

8. Publishing the Draft Plan and soliciting public comments on the

Draft P lan;

9. Review of comm ents and effecting necessary and appropriate

changes to the Draft C CP; and,

10. Preparation of the final CCP for approval by the Region 6 Regional

Director, and finally

11. Implementa tion of the CCP.

During the course of this CCP planning effort, several formal and informal

meetings were held to determine the issues relative to Seedskadee NWR.

Meetings with Federal agencies, S tate age ncies, and mem bers of the public

assisted the Service and Reclamation in identifying most of the natural

resour ce and public use issues.

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were developed early through a scoping

process which began on May 31, 1996 and closed October 15, 1996.

On May 31, 1996, invitations and announcements of two open houses, an

explanation of Seedskadee NWR directive and purpose, and a request for

comments were mailed out to known interested parties. On June 6, 1996,

press releases annou ncing the open houses were m ailed to the appropriate

media outlets such as KMER Radio, KRKK Radio, KUGR Radio, KSIT

Radio, KUWR R adio, Sweetwater County TV, the Green River Star, the

Casper Star Tribune, Rocket Miner, Ke mme rer Ga zette, and the Pinedale

Roundup newspapers.

On June 8, 1996, an open house scoping meeting was held at the Seedskadee

NWR headquarters; questionnaires and comment sheets were handed out

and verbal com ments were taken. T he open house was held con currently

with the Refuge’s “Take a Kid Fishing” day. Thirty-three people attended.

On June 10, 1996, the second open house scoping meeting was held from noon

to 8:00 p.m. at the Sweetwater County Library in Green River, Wyoming.

Eight people attended .

On June 25, 1996, the questionnaire and com ment she et were mailed out to

the CCP mailing list. A complete list of all those who were sent information

on the Plan can be found in the project file. On July 1, 1996, signs were

posted for the Farson Open House. The open house was held on July 17, 1996

from 7 :00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Farso n Com munity Hall. Fo ur people

attende d.
18 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

On July 17, 1996, the Refuge Manager met with the Sweetwater County

Commissioners at the Courthouse. On September 3 and 4, 1996, the Green

River Refuges staff met to develop draft mission/goals/objectives for Green

River Refuges. On September 16, 1996, a press release announcing the final

two op en houses wa s mailed to the ap propria te med ia outlets.

On September 25, 1996, an open house in Rock Springs at the White

Mountain Library was held from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; six people attended.

On October 1, 1996 , a meeting was held with the Lincoln County

Commissioners followed by an open house from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the

Lincoln County Courthouse. One person (county planner), in addition to the

three commissioners, attended. On November 11, 1996, Seedskadee NWR

staff completed a set of “draft management goals and objectives;” these have

been submitted to the Service’s regional office for review and concurrence.

“Focus Group” meetings at Sweetwater County Library in Green River

were held on January 9, 1997, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to discuss

commercial recreation use and public access. Twenty-one people attended

including five permitted fishing guides, recreational fishermen, parties

interested in public access, and other agency representatives.

On April 29, 1997, a workshop was conducted at the Seedskadee National

Wildlife Refuge head quarters to identify potential alternative components

for consideration in preparation of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for

the Refuge. On April 30, 1997, a follow-up meeting was held with Service and

Consulting Team pe rsonne l.

Invitations to participate in the workshop were sent to selected resource

specialists with Federal and State agencies involved or interested in resource

management within or adjacent to the Refuge. The list included personnel

from Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S.

Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land M anagem ent, and the Wyoming Game

and Fish Department. Those who accepted the invitation to participate were

provide d a note book prior to the meetin g containing the meetin g’s purpose, a

meeting agenda, background on the planning process including the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s planning context, and issues identified during scoping.

The purpose of the meeting was to understand identified planning and

NEPA issues, discuss draft CCP goals developed by the Refuge, and explore

various alternative components that could achieve the goals and address

identified issues. 

Based on discussions in the workshop and subsequent discussion w ith

Seedskadee NW R staff, the issues considered significant for the EA were

identified by Refuge staff for analysis. Based on the issues, the Seedskadee

NWR staff developed alternatives to address the issues and the goals. The

issues, as they w ere identified during the scoping p rocess, are des cribed in

Chapter 2.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 19

Planning Participants

All individuals that provided comments, oral or

written, are listed below. Column 2 identifies the

forum in which the commentors participated or

submitted comments. The forum in which the

comm entors participa ted are identified in colum n 2 in

the following manner:

1. Project Initiation Meeting (SNWR1)

2. Planning Group Meeting (SNWR 2)

3. Alternatives Development Workshop (ALT)

4. Commercial Use/Access Meeting (CU)

5. Comment Form (C)

Name Comm ent

Reference1

# Rob Keith, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Bennie C. Johnson, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . CU, C

# Dennis Watts, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Les Skinner, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Van Beacham, Kemmerer, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU, C

# Ken Reed, Rock Springs, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Patrick Nichols, Rock Springs, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# George Stonebreaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Katie Legerski, Rock Springs, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Patti Smith, Rock Springs, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Duane Kerr, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Scott Talbott, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Jim Pasboy, Superior, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Jim Williams, Manilla, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Terry Dockter, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Carl Williams, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Beverly Williams, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Ron Remmick, Regional Fishery Supervisor, Game

and Fish Department Green River, WY .... CU, ALT

# Tom Brannan, Rock Springs, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Glen Sadler, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Patricia Sadler, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Bill Birmingham, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU

# Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs, WY . . . C

# Thoman Ranch, Kemmerer, WY ..................C

# M.K. Tucker, Rock Springs, WY ..................C

# Bruce Woodward, Rock Springs, WY .............. C

# John Roberts, Kemmerer, WY ...................C

# Lucy Diggins, Green River, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . C, ALT

# Tim Habenbenger, Wyoming Outfitters & 

Guides Assoc., Alpine, WY ...................C

# Mitch Nielson, Green River W ...................C

# Dave Vesterby, BLM, Pinedale WY . . . . . . . . . . C, ALT

# Howard Hart, Green River, WY ..................C

# Matt and Liz David, Pinedale, WY ............... C

# Darrell Welch, Reclamation, Denver, CO ...........

.................... SNWR1, ALT, C, SNWR2

# William Long, Jackson, WY ......................C

# Gary Harvey, Evanston, WY .....................C

# Ken Reed, City of Rock Springs, Family Recreation

Center Rock Springs, WY .......................C

# Barry Floyd, Casper, WY .......................C

# Marci Fagnant, Kemmerer, WY ..................C

# Barney Shrank, Lakewood CO ...................C

# illegible ...................................... C

# Carl T. Williams, Green River WY ................C

# Greg Auble, USGS Biological Resources Division,

Midcontinent Ecological Science Ctr . . . . . . . . . . . ALT

# Ty Berry, Refuge Supervisor, MT/WY, USFWS . ALT

# Renee Dana, BLM, Rock Springs District . . . . . . . . ALT

# Jaymee Fojtik, USFWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALT

# Mark Hatchel, BLM, Kemmerer Resource Area . . ALT

# Sally Haverly, BLM, Green River Resource Area . ALT

# John Henderson, BLM, Rock Springs District . . . . ALT

# Patricia Hamilton, BLM, Green River Res. Area . . ALT

# Robb Keith, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept . . . . . . ALT

# Duane Kerr, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept . . . . . . ALT

# Rhoda Lewis, Regional Archaeologist, USFWS . . . ALT

# Mike Misehledey, BLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALT

# Mike L. Scott, Midcontinent Ecological 

Science Ctr, USGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALT

# Al Simpson, Provo Area Office, Reclamation . . . . . ALT

# Dave Skates, Project Leader, USFWS . . . . . . . . . . ALT

# Kevin Spence, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept . . . . ALT

# Andy Tenney, ORP, BLM,Rock Springs District . ALT

# Anne Marie LaRosa, Seedskadee NWR 

Former Manager ....... SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Tom Koerner, Seedskadee NWR 

Former Deputy Manager . SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Adam Halverson, Seedskadee NWR

....................... SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Suzanne Beauchaine, Seedskadee NWR

....................... SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Carol Taylor, USFWS ........ SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Shannon Heath, USFWS ..... SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Dennis Earhart, Bear West . . . SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Emilie Charles, Bear West .... SNWR1, ALT, SNWR2

# Jan Striefel, Landmark Design .............. SNWR1 1 Project Initiation meeting 2/19-20/97(SNWR1)

Planning Group Meeting, 9/18-19/97 (SNWR2)

Alternatives Development Workshop 4/29/97 (ALT)

SNWR1 Commercial Use/Access Meeting 1/9/97 (CU)

Comment Form (C)
20 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The following list of planning and environmental assessment issues was

derived from the comments generated during the public process, from

interested jurisd ictions, and from the See dskadee NW R staff.

2.2 Planning Issues

Issues, concerns, and opportunities w ere identified through discussions with

planning team members and key contacts and through the public scoping

proces s. Com ments were receive d orally a t the me etings, via e-mail, and in

writing, both before and during the scoping process. The following issues,

concerns, and comments are a compilation and summary of those expressed

by the public, other Fede ral and State agencies, local and coun ty

governments, private organizations and individuals, and environmental

groups.

2.2.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management Issues

2.2.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants

What measures are taken to protect threatened, endangered, and

candidate species and species of management concern?

There are concerns regarding conflicts between human use, wildlife use,

and sensitive vegetation at the Refuge. Minimizing disturbance of

wildlife, especially during nesting, wintering, or other sensitive seasons,

is an issue.

2.2.1.2 Riparian Habitats

How will riparian habitat losses be mitigated to support migratory birds

and native wildlife species?

The hydrology and morphology of the Green River through Seedskadee

NW R hav e been altered by the co nstructio n and operation of Fontenelle

Dam. Changes in channel morphology, such as downcutting, have

occurred and overbank flooding is rare to nonexistent. Water

tempe ratures have decrea sed and river flows have been significantly

altered from their historical levels and patterns. Cottonwood gallery

forests are not regenerating under the current water management

regime. R iparian forest communities are losing their structural diversity

and becoming single storied. Existing stands of cottonwoods and willows

show evidence of severe drought stress and are heavily browsed by

native ungulates and some trespass livestock. Existing stands of trees

are also susceptible to wildlife, particularly in drought years. A major

loss of these forests could occur on the Refuge in 20 to 50 years if nothing

is done. Cottonwood forests provide very important habitat for

migratory bird s.

2.2.1.3 Wetlands

How will wetland losses be mitigated to support migratory birds and

native wildlife species? How will wetlands be managed to support

migratory birds and native wildlife species?

The Refuge was established as a m eans to mitigate for loss of wildlife

habitat from dam and reservoir construction within the upper Colorado

River Sy stem. The Fish and W ildlife Service is concerned ab out impacts

to wetland habitat because of their importance to migratory birds and

native wildlife species. The extent to which wetland creation or

enhancement ought to occur to achieve mitigation, and the types and

management of wetlands that should be pursued to support the mix of

migratory birds and native wildlife species are issues.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 21

2.2.1.4 Upland Habitats

How would upland shrub and grassland habitat be managed to support

native wildlife species and migrating birds?

Upland areas within the Refuge, including the Dry Creek Unit, have not

been managed with the intensity of the River corridor. A mosaic of

successiona l stages is desirable from a wildlife habitat standpoint.

Opportunities may exist to use a variety of management tools to alter

the successional state of upland shrub habitats and provide more habitat

diversity.

2.2.1.5 Riverine Habitats

How are fisheries managed on the Refuge?

The public is concerned about future management of the fishery. One

concern is that the Refuge installed water diversions and other

structures in the River, and their potential affect on fish and resources.

2.2.1.6 Weeds

To what extent are weeds (invasive, nonnative plants) controlled?

Noxious weeds, such as pepperweed, salt cedar, Canada thistle, Russian

knapweed, cheatgrasss, and musk thistle are invading most Refuge

habitats and dominating the vegetation in some areas. Control methods

for some weed species are unknown or not completely effective. Former

land management practices and current active management activities

have created many opportunities for weeds to become established. How

to manage the Refuge to control the spread of weeds and reclaim weeddominated habitats are issues.

2.2.1.7 Predators and Nuisance Species

How are predators and nuisance species controlled?

Controlled trapping of nest predators occurs during the waterfowl

nesting season. Beaver are removed when significant tree losses occur.

There is concern about how, and to what extent, predators and nuisance

species should be controlled.

2.2.1.8 Fire Management

How is fire managed on the Refuge?

Wildfires are contained and extinguished on the Refuge. Using

controlled fires in certain habitats as a management tool is a concern.

How much prescribed burning is re quired to mana ge certa in habitats is

also a co ncern.
22 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

2.2.2 Public Use and Recreation Issues

2.2.2.1 Access Management

How is access/travel managed on the Refuge?

The Refuge needs to seek a balance of access for wildlife-dependent

recreation while providing adequate protection for wildlife. Off-road

vehicle use is prohibited within the boundary of the Refuge; however,

unauthorized off-road vehicle use persists. New two-track roads are

being created continuously. Significant habitat degradation and wildlife

disturbance is occurring throughout the Refuge. In addition, other

designated Refuge roads create high levels of wildlife disturbance,

particularly during sensitive seasons, such as nesting and wintering.

Determining how travel should be managed on the Refuge is an issue.

Additionally, the public is interested in the development of walking

trails. Some mountain bike use is occurring. Improved access on

designated roads, trail development, location, management, and use are

concerns.

2.2.2.2 Universal Access

To what extent is universal access to public use facilities and activities

provided?

There is a desire to provide special activities/facilities for people w ith

disabilities.

2.2.2.3 Wildlife Viewing and Photography

To what extent are opportunities provided for wildlife viewing and

photography?

Wildlife observation and photography are priority wildlife-dependent

recreational activities. There is interest in developing or enhancing

opportunities for visitors to better view wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Proposals include photography and viewing overlooks/sites; auto tour

routes; and walking/hiking trails.

2.2.2.4 Hunting

What types of hunting opportunities are provided on the Refuge?

Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent public use on refuges. There are

different points of view on whether or not hunting should be allowed on

the Refuge. How will areas “ closed to hunting” be managed to provide

adequate sanctuary for wildlife species? There are concerns about what

species should be hunted and what are the Refuge’s goals and objectives

with respect to mana geme nt of gam e specie s. There is some interest in

the Refuge providing duck hunting blinds.

2.2.2.5 Recreational Trapping

What types of recreational trapping are allowed on the Refuge? 

A question arose about whether trapping should be used for predator

control and if this could be accomplished through recreational trapping.

2.2.2.6 River Access

How is River access managed?

Where and how should public River access, parking, and boat launch

ramps and associated public use facilities be provided are issues.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 23

2.2.2.7 Sport Fishing

What types of sport fishing opportunities are provided on the Refuge?

The Re fuge‘s fishery is popular for bank and float fishing including both

commercially guided and recreational fishing. There are conflicting

points of view a mong anglers and fishin g guides about how fishing is

regulated.

2.2.2.8 Commercial Guide Fishing

Is commercially guided fishing allowed and how is it managed?

There are concerns about what level of commercial and recreational

fishing on the Green River is appropriate in order to avoid negative

affects on wildlife. If Seedskadee NWR staff continues to allow

commercial guide fishing, issuance of Special Use Permits should be

based upon the desira ble level of River use. 

2.2.2.9 Camping

Is camping allowed and, if so, where and how are sites developed and the

use managed?

Camping is not considered wildlife-dependent recreation. However, at

Seedskadee NW R, there is dem and for camping opportunities, especially

from people floating the 35 miles of River through the Refuge.

Campgrounds are located upstream from the Refuge at Fontenelle and

primitive upland camping occurs downstream from the Refuge on Rock

Springs Grazing Association lands and on adjacent BLM land. There are

questions about whether or n ot camping is a compa tible use a nd should

be permitted.

2.2.2.10 Boating

What types of boating are allowed on the Green River through the

Refuge?

There are concerns that use of motorized watercraft on the Green River

may im pact wildlife and the area’s solitude.

2.2.2.11 Visitor Use Level

What is the appropriate visitor use level of the Refuge?

How are visitor use levels determined within the Re fuge? T here is

question about the extent of impact from public use, including recreation

and interpretive programs. Any determinations of visitor use levels are

complicated by the nee d to minimize w ildlife disturbance, to avoid

encroachment on solitude, and by the nature and capacity of visitor

facilities, parking, an d ame nities.

2.2.2.12 Environmental Education

What type of environmental education programing is provided to the

public?

The Refuge staff provides educational opportunities on an “as needed”

basis. There are opportunities to partner with other agencies to provide

an environmental education program and facilities that promote an

awareness o f the basic ecological foundation fo r the interrelation ship

between human activities and the natural system.
24 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

2.2.2.13 Environmental Interpretation

To what extent are opportunities pursued to interpret natural resources,

especially wildlife and their habitat for the visiting public?

Interpretive signs at the R efuge are limited to the kiosks and the auto

tour. Those that exist on the Refuge are outdated. Determining

opportunities and locations for interpretation for wildlife, habitat, and

cultural resources are issues.

2.2.2.14 Public Information

How is information on the Refuge, its resources, and regulations

provided to the public and what are the effects of public use, including

recreation and interpretive programs, on Refuge resources?

There are general concerns about better communication with the public,

neighbors, local jurisdictions, and other agencies on the purpose and

mission of the Refuge—why it and its management policies are

important, both locally and to the broader ecosystem.

2.2.2.15 Cultural Resources

How are cultural resources protected? To what extent are opportunities

pursued to interpret cultural resources for the visiting public?

Potential imp acts to cultural resources from facilities deve lopment,

habitat manipulation, visitor use, and Refuge operations and

maintenance are concerns. There is also an interest in developing more

interpretive opportunities of cultural resources such as locating

interpretive displays at sites/cabins and public points of interest.

2.2.2.16 Partnerships

To what extent are partnership opportunities pursued with volunteers,

local service groups, organizations, individuals, schools, and other

governmental agencies? 

Determ ining opportu nities for Refuge management to “partner” with

local groups, organizations, individuals, schoo ls, local and State

governments, and other agencies to achieve the Refuge’s mission and

goals and to conserve and enhance wildlife in the Green River ecosystem

is an issue. Likewise, finding opportunities to encourage and utilize

volunteers is an interest.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 25

2.2.3 Administrative Management Issues

2.2.3.1 Land Acquisition

Is further land acquisition or land disposal planned?

Land acquisition within the Refuge boundary is essentially complete.

Two 2.5-acre parcels remain to be acquired should there be willing

sellers. A proposal was set forth several years ago to transfer land along

the Big Sandy River from Reclamation to the Service to be managed as

part of the Seedskadee NWR . There are questions about whether there

is an interest in exchanging, acquiring, or disposing of lands within or

adjacent to the Refuge boundary.

2.2.3.2 Minerals

How will privately-owned minerals be developed?

Development of minerals on or immediately adjacent to the Refuge may

impact wildlife, wildlife habitats, and the quality of the visitor

experience. There is a question about whether seismic activity should be

allowed and, if so, under what circumstances. Protecting the wildlife

resources from unacceptable impacts is a concern.

2.2.3.3 Right-of-Way

What is the Service’s policy toward requests for grants of right-of-way

across the Refuge?

There is a question about how Refuge staff responds to right-of-way

requests.

2.2.3.4 Livestock Access

How is access to water for livestock provided?

The Refuge has traditionally provided access to the River for watering

livestock from adjacent private/public land allotments. Water access

lanes to the River are difficult to secure; for example, preventing

trespass from livestock. How ca n the Refuge provide livestock access to

water while maintaining the integrity of the Refuge boundary and

preventing trespass?

2.2.3.5 Grazing

Is grazing allowed on the Refuge? Wh at is Refuge management doing to

prevent livestock trespass?

The Refuge has been fenced to prevent livestock from entering, thus

improving and protecting habitat for wildlife. Grazing may be an

appropriate tool to manage some of the Refuge’s habitats. Construction

of new fences, maintenance of existing or new fences, and the removal of

old fence and w ire are concern s.
26 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

III. Refuge and Resource

Descriptions

3.1 Geographic / Ecosystem Setting

Seedskadee NW R is 26,382 acres in size and located in southwestern

Wyoming along the Green River (Map 1). The e ntire Refuge is within

Sweetwater County in the heart of the Green River Basin. Geographically, the

Refuge is long and narrow and bisected throughout its length by the Green

River. Biogeographers have divided North America into provinces; natural

regions that share similar climate, soils, topography, and vegetation. The

Refuge is within the Wyoming Basin provinc e—a high elev ation Great Basin

shrub dom inated habitat.

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to national natural resource

management and has identified 52 ecosystems within the United States.

Within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ecosystem organization, the

Refuge lies within the Upper Colorado River Ecosystem (Map 2). The Upper

Colorado River Ecosystem incorporates the watersheds, headw aters,

tributaries (including the Green River), and mainstem of the Colorado River

in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Brow ns Park Natio nal Wildlife Refuge in

northwestern Colorado and Ouray National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern

Utah are two other national wildlife refuges in the ecosystem. The three

refuges share many similarities. All are located along the Green River, the

primary tributary to the Colorado River system and have significant

amounts of marsh and riparian habitat. Together, the three refuges form a

valuable complex of w ildlife habitat.

The proposed management priority issues and goals for the Upper Colorado

River Ecosystem focus on national trust resources (endangered species,

migratory birds, and wetlands). Further, recreation is recognized as a high

priority where conflicts with native species and their habitats do not occur.

The following are the priority resource issues and goals for the Upper

Colorado River Ecosystem.

Priority Resource Issue: Decline of na tive aquatic communities due to

construction of dams and reservoirs; and . . . recovery of native aquatics

while recognizing competing demand for recreational use of nonnative

sport fishing.

Goal: Restore and maintain an aquatic system capable of supporting

the diversity of native aquatic communities to achieve recovery of

listed and candidate species and prevent the need for future listings.

Priority Resource Issue: The quality and quantity of native wetland and

riparian habitats continue to decline via floodplain development,

intensive land use, and impoundments of water courses throughout the

Upper Colorado River Ecosystem. Changes in flow regimes and channel

manipulation result in significant management issues for continued

health.

Goal: Reverse the trend; restore, maintain, and enhance the species

composition, areal extent, and spatial distribution of wetland and

riparian habitats.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 27
28 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 29

Priority Resource Issue: Terrestrial biological diversity within the Upper

Colorado River Ecosystem has declined due to the degradation of terrestrial

habitats. Range and forest land management practices, both public and

private, have resulted in the fragmentation, degradation, and loss of

terrestrial habitats.

Goal: Prom ote terrestrial biological diversity and ecosystem stability

through sound land management practices thereby avoiding

fragmentation, degradation and loss of terrestrial habitats.

3.1.1 Climate

The Refuge’s climate is characterized by long, cold winters and short, warm

summ ers with a grow ing seas on of ab out 90 d ays. Temperatures typically

range from minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit to 90 degrees Fahrenheit with frost

penetration to 50 inches . Most p recipitatio n falls during spring and early

summer. December and January are the driest months. Winds are

predominately from the west-northwest and average 8 to 10 mph. Average

annua l precipitation is 6.48 inches. 

3.1.2 Geological Resources

Beds of limestone, sandstone, and shale, ranging in age from Upper or

Middle Cambrian to Upper Cretaceou s, underlie the area. Overlying this are

gently warped Tertiary sediments avera ging several thousand feet in depth

and extending up onto the flanks of the surrounding mountains from which

they were derived. Upper Green River Basin formations contain rich

deposits of coal, oil, natural gas, and soda ash (trona).
30 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.1.3 Soil Resources

The soils located within the Seedskadee NWR are described in the BLM

Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan (1992) to include

the following four soil units:

II Cambarge, Pepal, Huguston, Leckman soils (northern and western

portion of the Refuge)

Deep , well dra ined, gra vely san dy loam and fine sandy loam soils

formed on nearly level or sloping stream terraces and alluvial fans.

Elevations are from 6,200 to 6,500 feet. Precipitation ranges from 7

to 9 inches per year.

II Teagulf, Huguston, Haterton, Wint, Tasselman, Seedskadee, Leckman,

Kandaly soils (eastern portion of the Refuge)

These soils are mode rately deep to v ery sha llow, well draine d soils

formed on rolling upland plains dissected by rock ravines, short

escarpm ents, and dra ws. Elevations are fro m 6,100 to 6,700 feet.

Precipitation ranges from 7 to 9 inches per year.

II Kandaly, Westvaco, Haterton, Teagulf, Huguston soils (eastern portion

of the Refuge)

Deep sand dunes intermingled with moderately deep to very

shallow, well drained, strongly alkaline soils formed on rolling upland

plains and fans. Included in this unit are some areas of badlands.

Elevations are from 6,300 to 7,000 feet. Precipitation ranges from 7

to 9 inche s per ye ar.

II Dines, Quealman, Chrisman soils (mid- to southern-portion of the

Refuge, bottomlands)

Deep, poorly to well-drained soils formed on nearly level or sloping

floodplains, bottomlands, and alluvial fans. Some soils in this unit are

strongly saline and/or alkaline. Elevations are from 6,000 to 6,600

feet. Precipitation ranges from 7 to 9 inches per year.

Seedskadee NW R’s sandy soils (Kandaly, Westvaco, Huguston) are very

susceptible to wind erosion when the protective vegetative cover has been

removed. Soluble salt levels in some soils affect management potentials due

to toxicity, reduced infiltration rates, limits on nutrient availability, and

reduction of water av ailable to plants. M ajor causes of increased salinity

contribution from public lands are irrigation, overgrazing, off-road vehicles,

and energy exploration and extraction. These activities cause some

compaction of the soil surface, with a reduction of plant cover, which in turn

leads to increased runoff carrying salt laden sediments into drainages.

Within the region, moderately saline soils can be found along major

drainages such as the Green River, Big Sandy River, Bitter Creek, and

Blacks Fork River. Soils especially susceptible to surface disturbing

activities include unstable soils, sandy soils and erosive soils.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 31

3.1.4 The Seedskadee Project and Mitigation - Early Proposals

Based upon Bureau of Reclamation feasibility studies completed in 1950, the

Seedskadee Project was authorized for construction as one of the series of

projects included in the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act. The

original primary purposes of the Seedskadee Project were: 1) diversion of

water from the Green River and delivery of irrigation water to 60,720 acres

of previously undeveloped desert lands, and 2) development of a w ildlife

refuge as mitigation for losses of fish and wildlife habitat. The lands proposed

for irrigation were to parallel the Green River on both sides and include

51,690 acres of family farm units and 9,030 acres of community pasture. The

Refuge was to be located along the Green River surrounded by irrigated

community pasture and privately-owned and operated farmlands.

Project feasibility studies continued after project authorization. By Act of

Congress in 1958, authorization was provided for withdrawals of public lands

and acquisition of privately-owned lands to achieve project purposes, namely,

project works and canals, lands for agricultural use, and lands for mitigation

developmen ts. By 19 59, it wa s determ ined that a dam and storage re servoir

(Fontenelle), as opposed to the originally proposed diversion structure,

would be necessary to regulate Green R iver flows and to deliver w ater to

farm units, community pastures, and the Seedskadee NWR. The 1959

Definite Plan proposed an 18,000-acre refuge with water supplies from

return irrigation flows, direct Green River flows, and storage releases from

Fontenelle Reservoir.

By the mid-1960s, approximately 193,850 acres had been withdrawn or

acquired by Re clamation for project purpose s. Prior to dam and rese rvoir

construction, the 1959 Definite Plan was modified to include a larger dam and

reservoir to provide municipal and industrial water storage. The dam was

completed in April 1964, creating a 20-mile-long reservoir upstream from

Seedskadee NWR and with a total storage capacity of 345,000 acre-feet that

at full pool, inundates almost 13 square m iles. Howe ver, even prior to

completion of the dam, the economic feasibility of the original Seedskadee

Projec t concep t began to unravel. A stop-order was issued by Reclamation in

May 1962 to suspend construction of delivery canals and irrigation features

until economic viability of the proposed high altitude farm units could be

reasonably demon strated.

In 1972, a revised Definite Plan for the Seedskadee Project was prepared that

significantly scaled back and phased in the acreage which might be made

available for irrigable farmland; increased commitments for downstream

industrial and municipal water; planned a 34,000 acre-feet annual water

supply for the Seedska dee National Wildlife R efuge; and continued to

provide flood control and power generation purposes. The 1972 Reclamation

Plan reported that $430,000 had been spent-to-date on acquisition of Refuge

lands and Refuge planning and construction.

Eventually, it was determined that irrigated farm units and com munity

pastures, the original driving motivation for development of the Seedskadee

Project, were not economically viable at this location and altitude, and that

there could be conflicts between development of irrigated farmlands and the

successful extraction of underlying and adjacent Green River Basin trona

deposits. The development of the farm units and the farm irrigation water

delivery systems was abandoned. Although the key element in the

Seedskadee Proje ct was never realized, the mo tivation and intere st in

successful mitigation for habitat loss continued.
32 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.1.5 Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir and River Hydrology

Today, Reclamation’s Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir purposes include water

storage and re gulation of the flow s of the G reen R iver for: 

1) pow er generation,

2) mun icipal and industrial use, 

3) fish and wildlife, and 

4) recreation.

Fontenelle Dam is an earthen filled structure with a crest of 4,820 feet and a

height of 116 feet above riverbed. Fontenelle Reservoir has a total storage

capacity of 345,000 acre-feet. A power plant is located adjacent to the toe of

the dam consisting of a 12 megawatt generator and one 16,000-horsepower

hydraulic turbine. Although it is not a specified purpose of the facility, the

reservoir provides incidental flood control on the Green River from the dam

downstream to Flaming Gorge Reservoir.

Recreation facilities have been developed at Fontenelle by Reclamation

including picnic areas, campgrounds, and boat launch facilities. Three

Reclam ation developed cam pgrounds (Tailrace, W eeping R ock, and Slate

Creek) are located on the Green River below Fontenelle Dam and just

upstream from Seedskadee NWR. These recreation facilities are now

mana ged by the Bureau of Land Managem ent.

Operation of the dam and reservoir has moderated the historical downstream

flows of the Green River. A number of factors guide operation of the

reservoir and downstream releases. Among these are providing a

marketable water yield from the reservoir to satisfy water commitments,

providing minimum downstream flows for maintenance of the fishery and

waterfowl habitat (a minimum flow of 300 cfs), power production, and dam

safety.

Fontenelle Reservoir’s storage capacity is small in relation to the inflows

from the Upper Green River Basin (Ryan, 1998). Because the storage

capacity is small compared to the inflow volume, there is limited operational

flexibility av ailable. In order to accom moda te spring inflows, reservoir levels

are dro pped through the winter and early spring dow n to its minimum pool,

93,000 acre-feet, by April 1. This provides a runoff storage capacity of

252,00 0 acre-feet.

Flood control was not an original purpose of Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir.

Outside of the City of Green River and its environs, few structures exist

within the floodplain between Fontenelle Dam and Flaming Gorge

Reservoir. The official flood stage at Green River, Wyoming is now set at

15,000 cfs; however, the National Weather Service would issue flood

warnings to the City of Green River at 12,700 cfs (Ryan, 1998).

Because storage capacity is limited in relation to the river’s flow volume,

releases mimic natural river flow patterns but greatly moderate the highs

and lows. These circumstances result in changes of the River hydrology

down stream from th e dam . Figure 1 display s some exam ples of ch anges in

peak flow events. Historical flood event data (USDI, BOR 1959), showed

periods of flows at the City of Green River exceeded 13,000 cfs between 1897

and 1921. These high flow events were of varying magnitude and duration

(from two days in 1927 to nearly a month in 1899) and were of irregular

frequency, but were substantially higher flows than those experienced at the

City of Green River since 1966.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 33

Figure 1 also displays flow data since 1966 and operation of the reservoir.

Since 1966, the re have been five flow events in which inflows into Fontenelle

Reservoir have exceeded 13,000 cfs. The chart displays four of the five major

flow events including the date and volume of peak reservoir inflow, the date

and peak reservoir release, and the date and volume at the City of Green

River for each event. An initial observation for these four events is that not

only is the flow at the City of Green River substantially less than the

historical peak flow events at the top of the chart, but the inflows into the

reservoir are also less than three of the historical high flows at the City of

Green River.

It would appear that even if the dam and reservoir were not in operation,

flood events greater than 20,000 cfs, like those experienced in 1899, 1918, and

1921 would not have occurred on the Green River through Seedskadee and

the City of Green River since 1966. However, the chart also displays that the

peak flow volumes that were experienced on the Upper Green River since

1966 were substantially moderated with operation of the dam.

In three of the four peak flow events since 1966, peak flows below the dam

and through the Refuge were substantially lower than the peak flows

entering the reservoir. N ote that for 19 72, 1986, and 1997, flows at the C ity

of Green River exceed the flow release from the reservoir reflecting

downstream contributions from tributaries, notably the Big Sandy River.
34 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

In addition to moderating the peaks of high flow s below the dam , reservoir

operations have stabilized and raised winter low flows below the dam.

Winter flows are maintained at higher than reservoir inflow rates to realize

fishery and hydropower production benefits. Table 3.1 displays the range and

average of inflows for December through February for each of the past four

winters as well as the range and average of reservoir releases for the same

time pe riods. W inter rele ase rates are calculated to gradually and evenly

drain the reservoir back down to its 93,000 acre -foot minimum pool by April

1 so that it has cap acity to re ceive and store spring ru noff. By gradually

releasing the remaining storage pool, minimum flows and power production

can be maintained throughout the winter season.

Table 3.1 Winter Flows in cfs Above and Below

Fonte nelle Reservo ir

December,

January and

February

High

Inflow

Low

Inflow

Average

Inflow

High

Release

Low

Release

Average

Release

Winter

1994-1995

674 224 423.2 894 796 841.1

Winter

1995-1996

891 227 508.3 1332 1134 1,253.8

Winter

1996-1997

810 308 638.7 1321 1106 1,208.4

Winter

1997-1998

902 447 626.6 1469 1326 1,411.1

The relationship between inflows and releases at Fontenelle on the Green

River are graphically depicted on consolidated hydrographs in Appendix H and

provide a visual depiction and summary of the above discussions. The operation

of Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir moderates flows of the Green River below

the dam from what would be experienced if the dam were not in place. The

high peaks of major high flow events are substantially reduced below the dam.

The time between high peak inflows and high peak releases into the River

below the dam is usually o nly a few days. W inter flow release s are fairly stable

and substantially exceed inflows.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 35

3.1.6 Area Socio-Economics

Prior to the mid-1800s, the region was populated by native Americans and

occasional explorers, fur trappers, and traders. For several years, fur trappers

and traders would travel long distances to annually swap goods, tales, and furs

at rendezvous along the Green River. Starting with the 19th Century

migration of settlers to the west coast and Utah, remote trading outposts and

military posts were established, marking the first modern permanent

settlement in the region. Hundreds of thousands of people and their livestock

passed through southwestern Wyoming. They traveled the Mormon Trail, the

Oregon Trail, the Califo rnia Tra il, and num erous cutoffs an d shortcuts, all

crossing the Gre en River and many passing through today ’s Seedskadee NW R.

The completion of the Union Pacific Railroad in May 1869 developed the first

major Wyoming communities: Cheyenne, Laramie, Rawlins, Green River, and

Evanston. Rock Springs, Superior, Frontier, Kemmerer, and other towns grew

up where coal was successfully mined and used to fuel the rail engines.

Upon statehood, the Federal government retained lands that had not been

converted to private ownership and the State of Wyoming was provided from

those lands two sections in each tow nship. Thus, by the end of the 19th

Century, the landownership patterns were set. Privately-owned lands are

primarily lowla nds alon g stream s and rivers, tow n sites, and the U nion Pa cific

land grant. Generally, Wyoming owns two sections per township. But, most

lands are Federally-owned being managed by the Bureau of Land

Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

Bureau of R eclamation, or the Na tional Pa rk Service. Of th e 6,773 ,340 acres in

Sweetwater County, 1,828,641 acres are priva tely-ow ned, and they are held

primarily by the railroad.

Rich natural resources underlie much of the Green River Basin and

surrounding lands. Coal, trona, oil, and natural gas have been discovered and

extracted in enormous quantities, often through lease of Federally-owned

minerals. These mining operations and their processing operations and related

coal-fired pow er plants hav e provided significant employmen t and grow th

opportunities for the region.

The region’s economy is a product of history and environment. Principal

sources of employment and income are mineral extraction and processing

industries, tourism, service industries, government employment, and

agricultural—primarily ranching, and transportation. The population density of

Wyoming is low at 4.9 persons per square mile. People live in isolated ranches

or relatively smaller cities and towns and are accustomed to traveling long

distances for work, recreation, and shopping.

3.1.7 Population Growth

In 1950, the populations of the cities closest to Seedskadee NWR w ere 10,857

(Rock Springs), 3,187 (Green River), and 1,667 (Kemmerer). The 1990 census

for these communities were 19,050, 12,711, and 3,020 respectively,

establishing a net 121 percent grow th. However, based on 2000 census data

Rock Springs and Green River populations decreased to 18,708 and 11,805,

respectively. Between 1990 and 2000, Sweetwater County’s population

decre ased 3 percent w hile Lincoln County increased 15 perce nt. Wyoming’s

population in 2000 was 493,782 and is projected by the U.S. Bureau of

Economic A nalysis to grow slowly o ver the next 10 years. 
36 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.1.8 Income

Per capita personal income fo r Wyo ming in 1993 w as $15,415, 24th highest in

the natio n. How ever, w ith a highe r percentage o f its wage earners wo rking in

relatively highe r wage paying production and extractive industries, per cap ita

personal income for Sweetwater County in 1994 was $20,666.

3.1.9 Economic Development Trends and Pressures

Employment over the past ten years in Sweetwater County peaked in 1994 at

19,935 jobs. This was up 2,599 jobs from 1989, or a 15 percent increase. By the

first six months of 1998, employment in the county had declined to 18,594. In

1998, leading employment sectors w ere mining (3,668 jobs), retail trade (3,414),

local government (3,320), services (2,629), transportation, communication, and

public utilities (1,447), m anufacturing (1,445), and construction (1 ,041), with

other sectors having fewer than 1,000 workers in each. Retail trade and

services are economic sectors which have grown over the past decade and can

be expected to continue to grow with tourism, relative stable economies, and

growth in leisure time and disposable income. Wyoming economic development

efforts often credit the State’s natural wonders and National Parks,

recreational opportunities, abundance of open space and wildlife, and the

absence of personal or corporate State income taxes.

3.1.10 Changes in Demand for Outdoor Recreation

Outdoor recreation continues to grow in popularity with over 70 percent of

people 16 and over participating in some form of outdoor recreation. A U.S.

Forest Service study (1989) projects significant continuing gro wth in

participation in activities such as day hiking, backpacking, camping, canoeing,

kayaking, rafting, cross-country skiing, bicycling, wildlife observation, and

photog raphy through the next several deca des.

It is estimated that about 70 percent of visitors to Seedskadee NWR live

within the region. With continuing higher than average per capita income,

projections fo r statewide and regional population growth, and overall growth

in participation in outdoor recreation, visitatio n to See dskadee NW R will like ly

increase over the decades ahead.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 37

3.2 Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public

Uses

3.2.1 Water Rights 

Wyoming water law dates back to territorial days and is based on the “doctrine

of prior appropriation.” U nder this doctrine, the first to put the water to

beneficial use has the most senior right. When adequate w ater supplies are

available for all users, the issue of senior water rights is minor. This has been

the case for the use of water by the Refuge since it was established. As

demands increase for the use of water from the Green River and the Colorado

River and its tributaries, this will likely become an important issue for the

Refuge in the future. W ater righ ts held by the Re fuge are summarize d in Table

3.2.

Table 3.2 Summary of Water Rights Held by the Refuge

Permit # Cert. # Name Flow, Storage, Use Priority

 Date

12202 15164 Ham p No. 1 1.54 cfs 1/9/1914

12203 15165 Ham p No. 2 1.67 cfs 1/9/1914

12203 15166 Ham p No. 2 4.04 cfs 1/9/1914

13463 24399 Rood Ditch 1.00 cfs 4/28/1913

15906 20188 Herman Ditch 0.17 of .99 cfs 12/9/1920

15907 20189 Otterson Ditch 1.18 cfs 12/9/1920

15907 20191 Otterson Ditch 0.19 cfs 12/9/1920

15907 20190 Otterson Ditch 1.35 cfs 12/9/1920

15907 20758 Otterson Ditch 2.27 cfs 12/9/1920

15907 21649 Otterson Ditch 2.65 cfs 12/9/1920

16985 22614 Tallman Ditch 1.30 cfs 6/13/1925

22364 Fontenelle Res 115.00 cfs; FW Use 4/26/1955

22365 Res O utlet, Canals 0.00 cfs 7/9/1962

22368 Fontenelle Res 0.00 cfs; FW Use 7/9/1962

3576E 36028 Super ior Enl. .13 cfs 4/6/1916

4006E 36029 Super ior Enl. 1.04 cfs 5/19/1919

5330E 24400 Rood Ditch E nl. 0.14 cfs 4/29/1942

5402-E 26566 Hamp No. 2 Enlarge 0.56 cfs 6/26/1945

6629 RES Fontenelle Res 5,000 acre-feet storage for FW

Use

1/22/1962

U.W. 47679 Headquarters Well No 1 50 gpm; Domestic use 4/23/1979

U.W. 69131 Headquarters Well No 2 30 gpm; Fire Protection Use 12/14/1984

The Re fuge staff believes it holds sufficient water rights to implem ent its

goals and objectives based on the following reasons:

1. Irrigation water rights were attached to the agricultural lands

acquired for the Refuge and are utilized to restore, enhance, or

create wetlan ds and other habitats.

2. Under C ontract No. 14-06-40 0-6193 w ith Reclam ation, first priority

to 5,000 acre-feet of Fontenelle Reservoir storage water is reserved

to the United States for use on the Seedskadee NWR.

3. The Refuge is allocated up to 28,000 acre-feet annually, at a rate of

115 cfs, deliverable under Reclamation’s Direct Flow Permit for

wildlife re fuge requirem ents.
38 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.2 Refuge River Jurisdiction 

Navigability and jurisdiction on and under water bodies, including lakes,

rivers, and streams, is a complex and confusing issue. Most states, including

Wyoming, have chosen to rely on precedents set by court decisions rather

than resolve those issues legislatively.

The only body of water in the State of Wyoming that is considered to be

navigable by Federal agencies (Corps of Engineers [COE]) is the Flaming

Gorge Reservoir to its high water mark. While the Wyoming Constitution

declares all natural waters within the State the property of the State, the

Supreme Court of Wyoming concluded in a 1961 decision (Platte River

Boating Supreme Court Decision) th at there are no navigable water bodies in

the State. In that same decision, the Wyoming Supreme Court also declared

the river bottoms to be the property of the adjacent landowners. In essence,

accord ing to the court’s interpretation, a person m ay float o n the publicly

owne d wate r, but cou ld not anchor tha t boat no r wade on the river bottom.

Federal Courts have clarified these issues in regards to Federal agencies (i.e.

National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges) that own and

manage lands that encompass portions of water bodies (lakes or rivers). The

Federal Courts have consistently maintained that Federal agencies have

jurisdiction over recreational uses on these water bodies when the water

body is integral to the primary purposes for which the park, refuge, or forest

were establish ed.

For example, in the U.S. v. Hells Canyon Guide Service case, the District

Court maintained that the Property Clause of the Constitution gave the

government power “to regulate conduct on non-federal land {the Snake

River that runs through the National Forest} when reasonably necessary to

protect adjace nt Federal pro perty or naviga ble waters.” In addition, this

case stated “Congre ss’ power over Federal lands includes the authority to

regulate activities on non-federal waters in order to protect the

archaeological, ecological, historical and recreational values on the lands”

(United States v. Hells Canyon Guide Service; U.S. District Court of Oregon,

Civil No. 79-743; 5-6; 1979).

In the court decision in U.S. v. Brown, the Circuit Court wrote, “. . . we view

the congre ssional pow er over F ederal lands to include the a uthority to

regulate activities on non-federal public waters in order to protect wildlife

and visitors on the lands” (United States v . Brow n, 552 F .2d 822; 8th Cir. 1977).

Finally, in the U.S. v. Armstrong case, the Circuit Court upheld a conviction

against Armstrong and Brown w ho were conducting a commercial business

without a permit within a National Park. In this case, the Circuit Court

relied on a U.S. Supreme Court precedent stating, “In Kleppe v. New

Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 546 (1976), the Supreme Court held that Congress may

make those rules regarding non-federal lands as are necessary to accomplish

its goals with respect to Federal lands” (United States v. Armstrong; No. 99-

1190; 8 th Cir. 1999).

The primary purposes of Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge were

established in Section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Act of 1956. Pertinent

sections of this act read:

In connection with the development of the Colorado River storage

project . . . , the Secretary [of the Interior] is authorized and directed to

investigate, plan, construct, operate, and m aintain . . . (2) facilities to

mitigate losses of, and improve conditions for, the propagation of fish and

wildlife.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 39

There is no question that the Green River played a critical role in the

establishment of Seedskadee Refuge and is a necessary component for the

Refuge to meet its primary purposes. However, regardless of jurisdiction,

the Refuge’s first priority is to strive to work w ith appropriate departm ents

within the State of Wyoming to meet Refuge management goals and

objectives.

3.2.3 Reserved Rights and Privately-Owned Mineral Estate

Purchase of many tracts on the Refuge were subject to existing rights-ofway or granted in deeds at the time of purchase. Some of these existing

rights-of-way include Sweetwater County Road near Big Island, a 200 foot

highway right-of-way to the W yoming H ighway D epartment along State

Highway 28, buried telephone and electric lines along Highway 28, and a

high voltage power line through the south end of the R efuge.

Many tracts of land also contain outstanding reserved subsurface minerals.

On these lands, oil and gas leasing is limited to those areas on which drainage

is occurring from adjacent public land lease s. Curre ntly, there are active oil

and gas leases on 2,390.4 ac of the Refuge although none are currently under

development. According to the 1997 BLM Green River Resource

Management Plan, there is an “oil shale withdrawal” extending over the

entire R efuge, F arson, a nd Gre en River area to protect wildlife values o f this

area. H owev er, the B LM la nds surrounding the R efuge a re com pletely

leased for oil and gas (BLM G reen R iver RMP, 1997). M inerals are priva tely

owned on about 15,000 acres purchased from private parties and the State of

Wyoming by Reclamation.

Because there are proven economic reserves of oil, gas, trona, and

aggregates w ithin and near the Refuge, the Refug e is expe riencing, and will

continue to experience, direct and indirect impacts from mineral exploration

and developmental activities. Regulation of mineral activities can be grouped

into one of three categories.

Locatables (Hardrock): Regulations for mining on refuges and the

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, are contained within the Code of

Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 3500 and 3800, and 50 CFR 27. On

Seedskadee NWR, where valid existing mineral rights are outstanding,

the exe rcise of such rights will be p ermitte d by a sp ecial use permit

issued by the project leader. The permit does not affect the vested right

of the mining claimant to reasonable access to the claim for prospecting

and mining. The presence of locatable (hardrock) minerals within the

Refuge is unknown.

Leasables: This categ ory includes those minerals tha t are disp osable only

by leases issued under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

as amended. By Federal regulations, the Secretary of Interior has

determined not to issue leases on lands within the contiguous 48 states

that are in the Refuge System except where it is determined by the

Service and B LM th at a lease should be issued to prevent th e loss of o il

or gas underlying the Refuge by drainage or that the lands are needed

for unitization and/or spacing requirements (43 CFR 3103.5). Although

leases are issued by the BLM, they are subject to conditions

recommended by the Service for reasonable access and the protection of

Refuge resources.
40 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Salables: Salables are common variety materials, which may be sold, or

given away to other governmental units and nonprofit organizations, at

the discretion of the Service, and with stipulations to protect refuge

resources (Mineral Materials Act of 1947, 43 CFR 3600, and 50 CFR 29).

Salable minerals within the authorized Refug e boundary potentially

include sand, gravel, crushed stone, and rock. There is one abandoned

gravel pit along the Green River in the southern portion of the Refuge.

The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (612 FW1) goes into detail on the

Service’s responsibility in exploration and production activities, processing

permit applications, and protecting wildlife and refuge resources. Basically,

the Service has three distinct roles involving mineral activities on refuge

lands:

1. Management of surface use operations to minimize adverse

environmental consequences and to ensure proper reclamation of

disturbed lands.

2. Validation of mining claims (the BLM administers United States mining

laws).

3. Reviewing right-of-way applications for ancillary activities such as

pipelines and ra ilroad spurs crossing refuge lands.

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for granting a right-of-way

for off-lease facilities, and intra-service coordination on right-of-way

applications is the responsibility of the service’s Division of Ecological

Services. The Service policy on rights-of-way is not oriented toward

analyzing cost-effectiveness or social impacts, but to minimize impacts on

wildlife.

Rights were reserved to water and roundup livesto ck according to Warranty

Deeds with the Rock Springs Grazing Association and Crosson Ranches Inc.

Specific rights are outlined in each Warranty D eed w hich are located in

Refuge files. The construction of 17 water access lanes has fulfilled most

livestock water ing requ irements. Cro sson R anches has access to specific

Refuge lands for the purposes of calving and rounding up cattle. Other righ ts

involve access to various ditches and headgates for the maintenance of

irrigation system s.

Adjacent Land Use: Nearly all adjacent lands are federally-owned and

mana ged by either the BLM or R eclamation. Use of these lands primarily

consists of grazing by livestock (cattle, sheep, horses), extraction of oil and

gas, and outdoor recreation. Several private ranches exist near the Refuge.

Rock Springs Grazing Association also ow ns large tracts of la nd, prim arily

adjacent to the southern half of the Refuge and south of the Refuge. They

also hold cooperative grazing leases with the BLM along much of this area.

Mining is the other principal economic use of the adjacent lands.

Southwe stern Wyo ming produces a pproxima tely 90 perce nt of the wo rld’s

soda ash. O ne trona m ine is located immediately downstream of the south

border. There is also a large natural gas processing plant near the north end

of the R efuge (Shute Creek -Exxo n plant). 
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 41

3.2.4 Refuge Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats

Seedskadee NWR is located on what is classified as a high desert plain.

Native upland plant associations include sagebrush/grass, greasewood and

shadscale. Bottomland plant associations include wet meadow riparian types

with willows and cottonwoods dom inating the overstory (Map 3).

Various agencies an d consu ltants have wo rked w ith the R efuge staff in

conducting past and current studies on vegetation and habitat at Seedskadee

NWR. Because the studies have been done for different purposes, they have

not been consistent in their classifications of habitat types or vegetative

communities. Information from these studies has been utilized in this section

and in the preparation o f vegetation maps. For vegetation comm unity

components and descriptions, the text primarily relies upon Seedskadee

National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife-Habitat Matrix and Species Accounts,

prepared for the Refuge by Pioneer Environmental Services, December 22,

1997. A copy of the report is available for review at the Refuge.

While the broad habitat types may be consistent, there are variations in

subgroupings. Therefore, in the discussions of the various groups and

communities, the corresponding groups or classifications as mapped will be

listed for cross referencing purposes.

Habitat on the Refuge can be separated into four broad types: riverine,

wetlands (marsh and wet meadow), riparian (shrub and forested), and upland

(sagebrush an d mixed low stature sh rubland s).
42 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The following text provides general information about each of these broad

habitats that are displayed on Map 3. Table 3.3 provides acreage of each

vegetation type (Berk 1998).

Table 3.3. Vegetation Type and Acreage on Seedskadee NWR, July 1997

(Berk 1998)

Category Description Acres

Wetland Open/ponded Water 174

Cattail Dominant 31

Bulrush Dominant 54

Short Emergents 32

Mixed Tall Emergents 89

Perennial Pepperweed 400

Existing Managed Wetlands 335

Wetland Subtotal 1,115

Riparian Grass/Herbaceous 1,629

Buffaloberry Bush 4

Willow 322

Mixed Riparian Shrub 1,134

Cottonwood Closed1

/grass understory 75

Cottonwood Closed/shrub understory 188

Cottonw ood Moderate 2 /grass understory 342

Cottonwood Moderate/shrub understory 332

Cottonwood Scattered3

/grass understory 111

Cottonwood Scattered/shrub understory 212

Riparian Subtotal 4,349

Upland Sagebrush Dominant 15,874

Greasewood Dominant 218

Low Stature Shrub 3,120

Upland Subtotal 19,212

Riverine Main River Channel 1,254

Bare Ground/Sand Bars 140

Riverine Sub total 1,394

Total Acres Seedskadee NWR4 26,070

1

 Closed = greater than 70 percent canopy cover

2

 Moderate = 30 to 70 percent canopy cover

3

 Scattered = less than 30 percent canopy cover

4

 Acreage does not include recent roundouts (current refuge acreage = 26,382)
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 43
44 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 45

3.2.4.1 Riverine

Riverine habitats encompass those sites occupied by the active river channel

that are directly and dramatically influenced by the seasonal hydrology of

the Green River. Riverine habitats are made up of two components denoting

the presence or absence of flowing water. Permanent water sites (1,254

acres) encompass only the active river channel and feature flowing water.

The remainder of the habitat (140 acres) is gravel bars, sandbars, mud flats,

and other similar sites which occur within the active river channel, are not

submerged, and which do not support permanent vegetation.

The river prov ides hab itat for w aterfow l, raptors, other birds such as gulls

and shorebirds, and aquatic species including fish. Due to the influence of

Fontenelle Dam, portions of the Green River remain ice-free, providing

important wintering habitat for trumpeter swans, bald eagles, and

waterfowl.

The vegetation map (Map 3) displays riverine habitat as riverine/palustrine

open water. Riverine habitats include the main Green River channel and

sandbars/ bare ground (Table 3.3). 

3.2.4.2 Wetlands

Approximately 1,115 acres of wetland habitat exists on the Refuge including

open water, marshes, and wet meadows (Map 3). Wetland development and

management has been the primary focus at Seedskadee NW R since its

creation. In the 1 980s, approximately 300 acres of w etlands were created in

the Ham p, Hawley, Lower Haw ley, and Dunkle we tland management units

(Map 4 Habitat Management Units). Water from the Green River is diverted

through a series of ditches to fill seasonally and permanently flooded

wetlands which provide habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other marsh

dependent wildlife. This flow-through system returns much of the diverted

water back into the Green River.

Wetland management on the Refuge consists of controlling the timing and

the extent of water de livery to the units, drawdown of som e ponds to

produce habitat for shorebird species, occasional dry-down of units to

increase aquatic productivity, and prescribed burning to prevent excessive

cattail encroachment into open water. A maximum of 50 percent encroachment

is desired. Flooding begins in mid-March, after the thaw, and some of the

ponds are kept full through the fall. This provides habitat for both spring and

fall migrants and breeding waterfowl. Meadows are generally flooded for 2 to

3 weeks in the spring and fall to provide food for shorebirds, cranes, geese,

and ducks. The ability to divert water into wetlands relies entirely on

elevation of the Green River. During moderate to severe drought, it may be

difficult to divert sufficient flows.

Some of the species that use this habitat for breeding include: trumpeter

swan, Canada geese, numerous species of ducks, rail species, marsh wren,

red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, tiger salamander, boreal

chorus frog , northern leopard frog, m ink, and mu skrat. Refu ge wetlan d units

are identified as important breeding areas for trumpeter swans in the draft

Service “plan for enhancing the Rocky Mountain Population of trumpeter

swans on units of the NWR system (2001).” 
46 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Seedskadee NW R wetlands may be grouped and described as follows:

Open ponded water encompasses all ponds that are entirely free of

permanent emergent vegetation. Open ponded water habitats may be

flooded either year-round, seasonally, or according to some management

schedule.

Open ponded water habitats provide cover for aquatic wildlife and

protection from terrestrial predators for amphibious wildlife. Such

habitat also provides herbaceous vegetation, tubers, roots, seeds, fruits,

invertebrates, and vertebrate foods . On Seedskadee, vegetative

components probably include filame ntous algae, coo ntails, ma re’s tail,

and several species of pondweeds. Floating macrophytes are assumed to

be insignificant. Where salinity is high, horned pondweed, widgeon grass,

and fennel-leaf pondweed may predominate.

Tall emergent habitats are either cattail-dominant or bulrush-dominant.

These marshes are typically flooded to an average depth of up to 2

meters year-round, although depth will vary seasonally. Site vigor

depends on periodic drawdowns that oxidize the organic substrate.

Vegetation is typically taller than 1 meter above the water surface.

Tall emergent cattail-dominant habitat provides herbaceous forage and

tubers for a limited array of wildlife species, as well as, invertebrates

and vertebrates. Tall emergent bulrush-dominant habitats provide

herbaceous forage, tubers, and seeds, in addition to invertebrates and

vertebrates. Both habitats provide dense cover for a variety of wildlife

species.

Short emergent habitats are typically flooded to an average depth of less

than 0.25 meter for at least three months, although the timing and

duration of flooding may vary from year-to-year. Short emergent

habitats are characterized by soils that are saturated year-round.

Vege tation is ge nerally le ss than 0 .5 mete r tall.

Proba ble asso ciates in short em ergent habitats include spikerus h, Baltic

rush, alkali bulrush, creeping foxtail, reed canarygrass, several sedges,

and many others.

Dense, continuous short emergent habitats provide vertical and

horizontal cover for many species of wildlife. When flooded, these sites

provide herbaceous material, tubers, seeds, an d abundant invertebra te

foods. W hen standing w ater is ab sent, these sites co ntinue to yield

herbaceous and seed resources; however, invertebrates diminish

somew hat and terrestrial vertebrates may becom e more abundant.

The above wetland communities are displayed as Wetlands on Map 3.

Vegetation types include open/ponded water, cattail dominant, bulrush

dominant, mixed tall emergents, short emergents, and perennial pepperweed

vegeta tion type s (Table 3.3). 
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 47
48 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 49

3.2.4.3 Seedskadee Managed Wetland Units 

3.2.4.3.1 Hamp Wetland Unit

The Hamp W etland Unit is 55 acres and contains a wetland complex of short

emergent, tall emergent, and open water determined largely by topography

(Map 5). The unit is fed by the Hamp No . 1 headgate, and water gravity

flows into the wetland. At flows of 2,000 cfs or greater, adequate water

exists to maintain most of the unit at full pool. Pool depths at full pool range

from 0.3 to 1.25 meters. Vegetation is dominated by creeping foxtail and

perennial pepperweed. Areas of softstem bulrush and spikerush are found

along the margins. Open wa ter areas are found adjacent to the dikes and in

the ditches. They provide little submerged aquatic vegetation except in the

ditches. The unit contains a number of dikes with drop-board water control

structures. In reality, this unit is managed together as a whole by adjusting

the flow into and out of the wetlan d unit. M anage ment o f individua l pools

separately is difficult because of the water delivery system.

3.2.4.3.2 Hawley, Lower Hawley, and Dunkle Wetland Units

The Hawley (24 acres), Lower H awley (147 acres) and Dunkle (36 acres)

wetland units each contain a complex of short emergent, tall emergent, and

open w ater (M ap 5). Th e vegetative composition of ea ch of these units is

determined largely by the wetland units topography. The units are fed by the

Hamp No. 2 headgate, and water flows by gravity into the H awley U nit first,

followed by Lower Hawley and Dunkle Units. At flows of 1,200 cfs or

greater, adequ ate wa ter exists to maintain mo st of the H awley unit at full

pool. At low er flows, w ater must be rotated between individual pools to

maintain adequate head pressure. At flow s less than 1,20 0 cfs, adequate

water may not exist to maintain the L ower Haw ley and Dunkle units at full

pool. Vegetation in each wetland unit is comprised of a diverse mix of short

emergents (spikerush and Baltic rush), tall emergent (cattail and softstem

bulrush) and submerged aquatics. Open water areas are found throughout

the Hawley unit and provide large amounts of submerged aquatic vegetation.

Open w ater areas in the Low er Haw ley and Dunkle Units exists adjacent to

dikes and provides limited submerged aquatic vegetation. All wetlands

contain a number of dikes with drop-board water control structures.

Manageme nt of sub-unit pools is difficult because of the water delivery

system. The Hawley Unit provides the best opportunity for managing subunit pools.

3.2.4.3.3 Pal Wetland Unit

The Pal Wetland Unit is 73 acres and contains a diverse mix of short

emergent an d tall emergent vegeta tion (Map 5). Little open water habitat is

provided. The unit is fed at the Superior headgate and water gravity flows

through the Superior Ditch system. There are no dikes created within the

unit. Water flows over low depressions (3 small pools and 1 old river oxbow)

within the unit creating a wet m eadow habitat. Vegetation is comprised of a

mix of short em ergent (spikeru sh and Baltic rush) and tall emergent (cattail

and softstem bulrush) vegetation. Water levels drop in the unit as river

levels drop.
50 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.4.4 Riparian

Approximately 4,349 acres of riparian habitat (forest and shrub) exist on the

Refuge (Map 3). The dominant plant species in this habitat are narrow-leaf

cottonwood with an understory of shrubs and grasses. Areas of coyote willow

also exist in the riparian corridor. Principal shrub species include: several

willow species, Wood’s rose, silver buffaloberry, silverberry, skunkbush,

golden current, and gooseberry. The riparian habitat type is found

predominately along the Green River. The Big Sandy River riparian corridor

has no oversto ry tree h abitat.

Several wildlife species that depend on this habitat for breeding include:

great blue heron, bald eagle, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, merlin,

kestrel, common merganser, eastern kingbird, willow flycatcher, house wren,

yellow warbler, Bullock’s oriole, mountain bluebird, northern flicker, moose,

beaver, river otter, masked shrew, water shrew, vagrant shrew, and the

little brown myotis.

Riparian forests provide critical migrational and breeding habitat for

approximately 150 bird species. Forest breeding birds that winter in Central

and South America are known as neotropical migrants. Many neotropical

migrants are not capable of migrating non-stop through the arid semidesert

shrubland that predominates much of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Over 50

neotropical migrant species rely on the north-south riparian forest corridors

of the Colorado and Green rivers for feeding, resting or breeding.

Extensive stands of mature narrow-leaf cottonwood clearly distinguish the

riparian forest from the surrounding landscape. Field research has confirmed

that cotto nwoo d forests are ag ing and mature trees are in po or health. A

comparison o f cottonw ood forests abo ve and below Fontenelle Reservo ir

showed forests below the dam had fewer seedlings and saplings, lower tree

densities, and reduced tree vigor (Auble and Scott, 1998). Coring of mature

cottonwoods in 1996 at two sites below Fontenelle Dam found that the vast

majority of trees were well over 100 years in age and only a few were less

than 50 years of age (USFWS, 1996 Refuge Narrative). Not only are the

mature, aging trees exhibiting stress, but there is not sufficient regeneration

to estab lish a new age class of cottonwoo ds. The age class diversity within

cottonwood forests is not being sustained.

In a 1997 report on Green River refuges, Murray Laubhan of the USGS

wrote , “Since construc tion of da ms on the river , the natural extre mes in

seasonal high and low flows that historically maintained productivity have

been lost. Although flows still differ among years, the extremes have been

moderated to maintain more stable flows. Stabilization of river flows may

have improved the ability to manage cold water fisheries, but there are also

many detrimental effects to vegetation and associated wildlife. Obviously,

the construction of dams has altered several functional aspects of river

hydrology, including: flow regimes, sediment deposition patterns, and rates

and types of channel movement. The most obvious impact of these changes

has been decreased recruitment and lower vigor of existing riparian

vegetation that, in combination, have changed the spatial and structural

complexity of the riparian habitat.” Additionally, Laubhan reported that

stabilization of the river hydrology has reduced the dynamics of off-channel

wetlan ds alterin g the hydro-periods of p alustrine wetlan ds in the floodplain

(Laubhan 1997).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 51
52 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 53

Auble and Scott (1998) presented several plausible explanations for the

differences observed between cottonwood forests located above and below

Fontenelle Dam. Sediment trapping in the reservoir eliminates deposition of

new sediment in the downstream river channel and produces a “sediment

hungry” downstream river which may have resulted in downcutting of the

river channel. This would place the river surface at a low er than historic

elevation and contribute to dewatering of mature trees established prior to

dam construction. Field studies verify that maximum tree densities occur at

a higher elevation relative to the river surface, below the dam, than above

the dam (Auble and Scott, 1998).

Dam and reservoir operation have controlled and modified the natural flows

of the Green River. The timing and volume of annual peak flows have

changed and unusua lly high flow flood events have been significantly

reduce d. For successful natural cottonwood regeneration, high flow s would

establish a moist seedbed for the cottonwood seeds. High waters would then

recede slowly from mid-June through July, the peak cottonwood germination

window (see Appendix H). Since 1966, controlled flows peak and decline too

rapidly. Under controlled management, peak flows are also lower than

historical major runoff events. Current peak flows wet a fraction of the area

saturated historically, do not raise water levels high enough to provide

sufficient moisture to existing tree s, and, ab sent sed iment, do not result in

the shifting of stream channels. Channels tend to stabilize. With similar

volume peak flow events year-to-year, and no change in channels,

subsequent peak flows and river ice tend to sheer off those seedlings which

have established (Auble and Scott, 1998).

This decreased cottonwood reproduction is further challenged by grazing

pressure from native ungulate s and ro dents. The loss of reproduction will

lead to the eventual replacement of multi-storied forested habitat by a much

simpler vegetative structure and lower plant species diversity. This loss of

plant structure and diversity will be echoed in a similar loss of wildlife

diversity .

The invasion of several nonnative plants is a serious threat to Refuge wet

meadows and adjoining riparian areas. Perennial pepperweed, Canada

thistle, salt cedar, Russian knapweed, and musk thistle are the most

troublesome species. Of these, pepperweed is the most widespread and

difficult to control. Currently, the only practical method for controlling

pepperweed is with the use of herbicides. Biological control through the

release of bene ficial insects is under developme nt; how ever, its a pproval is

not expected for another 10 years. Mechanical control through mowing or

grazing can reduce the spread of seed; however, it does little to stress the

plant which stores most of its energy underground. Likewise, fire does very

little to control the plant. Fire often benefits the plant by reducing

competition from the surrounding grasses and forbs. The other weed species

are currently found only in isolated patches. They are aggressively controlled

through a varie ty of me thods inc luding m echanical, and chemical.
54 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Riparian habitat at Seedskadee NWR includes the following components:

Riparian grass/forb habitats are either regularly flooded in the spring

(mid-May through mid-June) or sub-irrigated. Plant species include

Rocky Mountain iris, wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, inland saltgrass,

bluegrass, wildrye, horsetail, perennial pepperweed, aster, and

groundsel.

Riparian shrub communities are characterized by annual flooding cycles

(high water mid-May through mid-June) and mineral soils that are

saturated for at least part of the year. Riparian shrub sites may include

scattered trees so long as mature canopy trees comprise no more than 15

percent total areal coverage. While regenerating cottonwood and willow

trees resemble shrub communities in structure, sites dominated by these

species in the seedling/sapling stage are classified as riparian forest to

reflect their distinct temporal dynamics.

Riparian shrub habitats are described by their species composition and

shrub distribution. Willow-dominant habitat occurs where coyote willow

dominates the shrub flora. The mixed shrub habitat occurs where other

species, such as wild rose, gooseberrie s, basin big sageb rush, m ountain

silver sagebrush, redosier dogwood, skunkbrush, silver buffaloberry, and

river birch, predominate. In addition, Riparian Shrub habitats may

include scattered narrow-leaf cottonwood or peach-leaf willow trees.

Riparian forest habitats are floodplain sites characterized by woody

vegetation (greater than 15 perce nt areal coverage) w ith the potential to

grow greater than 6 meters tall. Like the riparian shrub class, these

communities are characterized by historical annual flooding cycles and

mineral soils that are saturated for at least part of the year. This habitat

type is often dominated by either coyote willow or narrow-leaf

cottonwood, which are ecologically similar. Riparian forest sites may

include one or more mid-story layers and well-developed shrub or

grass/forb layers.

Riparian forest habitats with a 15 to 30 percen t canopy coverage in

mature trees are described as scattered trees. Riparian forest habitats

with greater than 30 percent canopy coverage in mature trees are

described a s Forest O verstory (closed). These canopied forest habitats

may then be described as grass/forb under or shrub under, according to

the com position of their understo ry.

Riparian vegetative communities are displayed as Riparian on Map 3.

Vegetation types include grass/herbaceous, willow, mixed riparian

shrub, cottonwood closed/grass, cottonwood closed/shrub, cottonwood

moderate/grass, cottonwood moderate/shrub, cottonwood scattered/

shrub, buffalobe rry bush, and silverberr y bush v egetation types (Table

3.3).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 55

3.2.4.5 Upland

Approximately 19,212 acres of semi-desert upland habitats exist on the

Refuge (Map 3). These habitat types are generally characterized by varying

vegetation communities interspersed with large areas of bare ground, desert

pavement, and rocks. The largest block of upland habitat on the Refuge is the

Dry Creek Unit. Since 1983, the Dry Creek Unit has been fenced and free of

grazing by domestic livestock. These lands are likely returning to an

approximatio n of their condition prior to introduction of livestock.

Special status species utilizin g these habitat ty pes include the m ountain

plover and the burrowing owl. The burrowing owl was a former candidate for

listing as endangered or threatened species. Burrowing owls are uncommon

and are often associated with areas that have burrows created by whitetailed prairie dogs or some other fossorial species. Mountain plovers are

currently proposed for listing as a threatened species and utilize areas that

are cha racterized by sh ort vegetation interspersed w ith bare ground.

Other wildlife species that rely on this habitat for breeding include: sage grouse,

ferruginous hawk, sa ge thrashe r, sage sparrow, logge rhead shrike, shorteared owl, Brewer’s sparrow, great basin pocket mouse, and sagebrush vole.

Upland mixed-grass habitats are found in well-drained upland sites and are

rarely flo oded. C omm on grass associates include bottlebrush squirreltail,

Indian ricegrass, needlegrasses, sandberg bluegrass, Junegrass, and

wheatgrasses. Commo n forb associates include locoweeds, phloxes, lupines,

globem allows, prickly pe ar cactu s, and nu merous com posite sp ecies.

The invasion of several nonnative plant species is a serious threat to Refuge

and surround ing uplan d habitats. Chea tgrass, halogeto n, and R ussian th istle

are among the most troublesome. Cheatgrass, an annual, rapidly invades

roadsides and disturbed areas because of its winter and early spring growth.

When mature, it becomes a fire hazard. Fire favors the growth of cheatgrass,

which out-com pletes native perennial shrubs and gra sses afte r a burn.

Saltgrass habitats are found on mildly saline playas that are flooded for short

periods in the spring (mid-April through mid-May). Saltgrass sites are

characterized by a preponderance of saltgrass, with alkali sacaton, and

whitetop as possible associates.

Upland Shrub habitats include those sites that are dominated by shrubs and

have a subsurface water table. Upland Shrub habitats may support standing

surface water for some portion of the year.

Four Upland Shrub habitats are described below. The Basin Big Sage

comm unity is do minate d by basin big sagebrush, which typically grow s in

comparably moist, well-drained, undisturbed sites with relatively low

salinities. These sites are typically confined to draws and arroyos. Woody

associates include shadscale, spiny hopsage, rabbitbrush, and plains

pricklypear. Common grass and forb associates include those described for

Upland Grass/forb communities above. Additional vegetative associates may

include d esert pa intbrush , milkvetch, penstemo ns, even ing prim rose, w ild

onions, and snakeweed. Basin Big Sage communities are characterized by

shrubs greater than 1 meter in height covering up to 80 percent of the

ground surface. Basin Big Sage often comprises 70 percent of the cover and

90 percent of the plant biomass within this habitat type. Nonnative annual

weeds, including halogeton, Russian knapweed, tansy mustard, clasping

pepperweed, filaree storksbill, and cheatgrass brome, may be found on

disturbed sites.
56 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The Wyoming Big Sage community is dominated by the Wyoming Big Sage,

which typically grows in dry, w ell draine d, undistu rbed site s with re latively

low salinities. Wyoming Big Sage communities may support many of the

woody, grass, and herbaceous associates indicated in the Basin Big Sage

comm unity. W yoming Big Sage commu nities are characterized b y shrubs 0.5

to 1.0 mete r tall with a lower areal cov erage, rarely exceed ing 75 percent.

Inter-sh rub spa ces typically supp ort gras ses and forbs, alth ough bare soil is

also common. Additional vegetative associates include spiny horsebrush,

littleleaf horsebrush, four-wing saltbush, spreading fleabane, and phlox. The

Wyoming B ig Sage comm unity rep resents the dominant vegeta tive type in

the uplands.

Short Shrub communities are characterized by a variety of widely spaced

woody shrubs less than 0.5 meter (often less than 0.2 meter) tall. Areal shrub

covera ge is typically less than 50 percent and inter-shrub spaces are typically

bare soil. This community typically occurs on dry upland sites with modera te

to highly alkaline soils. Common shrubs include Wyoming big sage, black

sagebrush, and shadscale. Sp ecies composition varie s on a co mparably sm all

spatial scale. Sages, shadscale, and other similar shrubs dominate patches

according to local soil conditions, thermal environment, hydrology, and

disturbance. Grass and forbs are not abundant but may include needlegrasses

and pussytoes.

The Greasewood community is dominated by greasewood, which dominates

seasonally flooded lowlands where the water table is within 1 meter of the

soil surface and where soils are moderately saline. The Greasewood

comm unity is characterized by widely spaced shrubs 0.5 to 1.0 meter tall,

with a generally low areal cov erage rarely exceeding 75 percent. This

classification system assumes flooding occurs for a short period in April. Like

the Short Shrub community, grass and forbs are uncommon and feature

many of the same species. A dditional associates also include sa ltgrass, B altic

rush, alkali sacaton, and possibly pickleweed on the most alkaline sites.

The upland communities are mapped as Upland on Map 3. Vegetation types

include sagebrush Dominant, greasewood dominant, and low stature shrub

(Table 3.3).

3.2.4.6 Other Habitat Features

A number of western wildlife species are associated with distinct landscape

features. This classification system recognizes two geomorphic features:

Bare Rock/Soil and Cliffs/Outcrops. Cliffs and Outcrops may be further

subdivided as Bedrock or Unconsolidated to reflect their substrate stability.

Some wildlife species associated with these features include various bat

species, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, bank swallow, and

Northern rou gh-win ged sw allow. F our anthropogenic features merit

attention: Fences, Ro ads, Powerlines and Buildings (including bridge s).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 57

3.2.4.7 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or Wyoming Plant Species

of Special Concern

Table 3.4 identifies federally threatened, endangered or candidate and

Wyoming listed plant species of special concern which may occur on the

Refuge because suitable habitat currently exists.

Table 3.4 Plant species which may occur on Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge which are Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or of 

Special Concern in Wyoming.

Common Name Latin Name Heritage Rank

Federal and/or

State Status

Located

on

Refuge

Ute la dies’-

tresses orchid

Spiranthes diluvialis USFWS

Threatened G2/S1

None

found

Rollins’ cat-eye Cryptantha rollinsii G4/S1 No

Record

Wilco x’s

woollystar

Eriastrum wilcoxii G5/S1S2 No

Record

Juniper pricklypear

Opuntia polyacantha

var. juniperina

G5T3?Q/S1 No

Record

Nelson’s

milkvetch

Astragalus

nelsonianus

G2/S2 No

Record

Dwarf milkweed Asclepias uncialis G3?/SH No

Record

Several plant surveys by qualified botanists have been conducted to record

the flora of Seedskadee NW R. The Ute ladies’-tresses has b een of specific

interest. The distribution of this species is believed to be limited to wet

meadow habitats and, to date, has not been found on the Refuge.

3.2.5 Wildlife Resources

Seedskadee’s habitat diversity is reflected in its broad diversity of wildlife.

The Refuge’s wetland and riparian habitats are unique to the surrounding

predominantly dry upland habitat. This oasis-like setting is a valuable habitat

for numerous resident and migratory species.

As part of the CCP planning process, a report was prepared, “Seedskadee

National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife - Habitat Matrix and Species Accounts”

(Pioneer Environmental Services, 1997). The Pioneer (1997) report lists each

of the species known or suspected to use the Refuge, and estimates what

time of y ear spe cific habita t(s) are utilized by e ach spe cies. The matrix is

useful in understanding the wildlife value of each habitat type found on

Seedskadee Natio nal Wildlife Refuge.

Except for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species and Species of

Special Co ncern, only those species that are residents or frequent visitors to

Seedskadee are discussed in the following te xt. Many othe r species, birds in

particular, may infrequently inhabit or migrate through the Refuge. Species

lists for bird s, mam mals, fish , amphibians, an d reptiles are found in Appendix

F. Additional information is available from the Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge Wildlife - Habitat Matrix and Species Accounts located in the Project

File at Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge.
58 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.5.1 Avian

Waterfowl - ducks, geese, and swans: A great number of migratory water

birds rely on the Refuge’s wetland, riverine, and marsh habitats for foraging

and resting during spring and fall migration. The habitats utilized depend

upon the species, their life stage, and the time of year. The most common

species of ducks breeding on the Refuge include mallard, gadwall, and

cinnam on teal. 

Most of the ducks common to the Refuge use all four broad habitat types;

riverine, wetland/marsh, riparian, and upland. These ducks include the

green-winge d teal, mallard, no rthern p intail, blue-winge d teal, cinn amon teal,

northern shoveler, gadwall, and American wigeon.

The lesser scaup, canvasback, redhead, ruddy duck and bufflehead rely upon

riverine habitats and open ponded w ater.

The Barrow’s goldeneye, common goldeneye, and common merganser utilize

riverine and wetland habitats along with the riparian forest and its tree

cavities.

The Canada goose is an abundant year-round resident of Seedskadee NWR

utilizing rive rine, we tland/marsh, an d grass/forb habitats.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 59

The trumpeter swan uses open ponded water, marsh, and riverine habitats.

Trumpeters use the Refuge for migration, breeding and as critical wintering

habitat. D uring w inter, the open riv er water that e xists betw een Fontene lle

Dam and Highwa y 28 pro vides go od foraging and loafing habitat w hen all

other wetland areas are frozen. As many as 36 trumpeter swans (2000) have

been observed wintering on the Refuge in addition to numerous tundra

swans. Trumpeter swans were reintroduced to the Green River drainage

through the trumpeter swan ra nge expa nsion program. A total of 70 cygnets

and adults have been released on Seedskadee NW R from various capture

sites (Table 3.5). The first successful nesting attempt occurred in 1997 and

fledged five cygnets from Seedskadee NWR. One cygnet was fledged in 1998

and fou r were fledged in 1999 and 2000, resp ectively. Two p airs successfully

nested on the Refuge for the first time in 2001 producing a total of five

cygnets.

The Service h as developed a draft plan for “E nhancing the R ocky M ountain

Population of Trumpeter Swans on units of the National Wildlife Refuge

System” (2001). Seedskadee NWR is included in the Plan and is recognized

as an area providing suitable migration, breeding and wintering habitat. The

plan, when finalized, will help to prioritize significant areas and projects

relative to their importance for maintaining and improving the Rocky

Mountain Trumpe ter Sw an Pop ulation.

Table 3.5. Re-introductions and nesting history of trumpeter swans 

on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge 

(Data from Refuge swan files and Trumpeter Swan Society)

Year # Reintroduced

#

Nests

# Cynge ts

Hatched

# Cygne ts

Fledged

1992 summer RRL1 5 Adults

5 Cygne ts

00 0

1992-93 winter HSP 19 Adu lts

19 Cygn ets

00 0

1993-94 winter HSP 5 Adults

11 Cygn ets

00 0

1996 WYWS 4 Adults

1997 WYWS 2 Juveniles 1 5 5

1998 0 1 4 1

1999 0 1 4 4

2000 0 1 4 42

2001 0 2 53 4

Totals 70 4 17 14

1 Areas swans were introduced from:

RRL= Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge; 

HSP= Harrim State Park; 

WYWS= Wyoming Wetland Society Trumpeter Swan Fund. 2 One cygnet lost in winter due to a fishing lure stuck in its bill.

3 One nest produced 4 cygnets and the other nest hatched 1 cygnet

4 Still evaluating - too early in season
60 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Wading birds are water birds that usually do not swim or dive for their prey,

but wade in shallow edges of lakes, ponds, creeks and other waters for food

not ava ilable on shore. The great blue heron, w hite-face d ibis, and sandhill

crane are wading birds common to Seedskadee NWR . The heron and ibis use

the broad range of Refuge habitats, foraging in wetlands and shallow

riverine areas and nesting over water in cottonwood trees or tall shrubs.

Sandhill cranes utilize both wetland/marshy areas and grass/forb habitats for

both foraging and nesting.

Shorebirds are most often found foraging for food along water margins.

Shorebirds use the Refuge during migration and also for nesting. Shorebirds

frequent open water areas, riverine, and wetland habitats on the Refuge.

Common sho rebird species utilizing Seedskadee NW R include: killdeer,

spotted sandpiper, greater and lesser yellowlegs, willet, long-billed

dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope, and common snipe.

Divers or swimmers are water birds that swim or dive for their prey. The

common merganser, pied-billed grebe, and American coot use open water

areas, tall emergent marshes, and nest on the Refuge. The double-crested

cormorant and American white pelican subsist on a diet of fish and frequent

riverine and open-water habitats. Exposed river rocks, cottonwood trees,

and graveled shorelines prov ide roosting hab itat.

Raptors consist of several families of hawks a nd owls. R aptors com mon to

Seedskadee NWR include the northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, red-tailed

hawk, rough-legged hawk, golden eagle, American kestrel, and the great

horned owl. The bald eagle is a common year-round resident. Raptors utilize

a variety of we tland, ripa rian, and upland habitats to forage and nest. The old

growth cotton wood trees ar e heavily utilized by red-ta iled haw ks, bald

eagles, Ame rican ke strel, and great horned owls. The abundant small

mammal and fish populations supplied by the Refuge provide an excellent

forage base for all raptors.

Upland bird species rely primarily on upland habitats. Several of the more

common upland bird species include sage grouse, horned lark, and mourning

dove. The sage grouse and horned lark are year-round resident species. The

sage grouse prefers Wyoming Big Sagebrush communities. The mourning

dove is a summer resident that nests in riparian or upland areas and forages

primarily in moist riparian or upla nd grasslands.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 61

Neotropical m igrants a re birds that breed in North America , but winter in

Central and South America or the West Indies. The following species are

those that are more commonly found on the Refuge during migration, but

many nest on the Refuge as well. With only a few exceptions, these birds

rely heavily upon riparian habitats, riparian shrub and/or forest, for cover,

foraging, and roosting during their stay on the Refuge. Swallows on the

Refuge use a combination of habitats including wetland/marsh, open water,

riverine, riparian shrub, forest, and grass/forb communities. The tree

swallow and violet-green swallow nest in trees and tree cavities. Northern

rough-winged swallow, cliff swallow, and barn swallow, rely on cliffs, river

banks or rock outcrops for nesting. The riparian shrub and forest habitats

are the primary habitats utilized by the rufous hummingbird, cordilleran

flycatcher, western kin gbird, ea stern kin gbird, w estern wood -pewee, hermit

thrush, wa rbling vireo, yellow warbler, yellow -rum ped w arbler, Wils on’s

warbler, northern oriole, house wren, Lincoln sparrow, common

yellowthroat, and western tanager. A few of these species also use the

grass/forb, upland shrub, or emergent marsh for foraging. The common

nighthawk and brown-headed cowbird use a combination of almost all the

habitats found a t Seedskadee NW R. The marsh wren’s habitat is tall

emergent marsh; the vesper sparrow uses the grass/forb and upland shrub

communities; and the savannah sparrow utilizes short emergent marsh and

grass/forb communities. Primary nesting habitat for the belted kingfisher,

rock wren, and Say’s phoebe consists of cliffs and outcrops. The kingfisher

forages in nearby open water, while the rock wren and phoebe tend to forage

in upland shrub and grass communities.

Woo dpeckers are small an d med ium sized insectivorous b irds with stiff tails

and specially adapted skulls and tongues. The northern flicker is the most

common woodpecker. This species inhabits the riparian forest’s largediameter trees and standing dead wood. It also uses upland shrub and

grass/forb habitats. Other less common woodpeckers include downy, and

hairy w oodpe ckers and the red-nap ed sapsucker.

Resident and migra nt songbirds breed in N orth Am erica and m igrate

throughout a limited North American range. This group includes the

mountain bluebird, American robin, dark-eyed junco, white-crowned

sparrow, pine siskin, and American goldfinch that use both riparian and

upland habitats. The western meadowlark, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow,

and sage sparrow predominantly use upland habitats. Species like the rubycrowned kinglet and the black-capped chickadee use primarily the riparian

forest/shrub habitat. Three blackbirds (the red-winged, yellow-headed, and

Brewer’s) utilize dense wetland marsh for nesting and foraging. The

Brewer’s blackbird will also utilize riparian shrub/forest and upland shrub for

foraging and migration habitat. The song sparrow often nests near

permanent open-water, in dense riparian shrub, dense regenerating forest,

or dense upland shrubs. Forage habitat for the song sparrow is in adjacent

marsh and riparian meadows.
62 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.5.1.1 Predator Management and Nest Success

Seedskadee NWR controls mammalian predators in most wetland units to

enhance nesting success for ground-nesting birds. Predators targeted for

trapping include red fox, skunk, and raccoon. Coyotes are not trapped as

research indicates they are not as effective of nest predators as other

predator species, and they tend to suppress or displace fox populations.

Ground-nesting birds which benefit include waterfowl, shorebirds, sage

grouse, meadowlarks, sparrows, colonial nesting birds, northern harriers,

etc.

Nest success, with and without predator trapping, is a measure of success of

the predator control program for waterfowl production and the production of

other ground-nesting birds (Table 3.6). Apparent success is calculated as the

numb er of suc cessful nests obs erved divided b y all nests observ ed. Ma yfield

nest success (found in row 1) takes into account the number of days the nest

is exposed to predation and, therefore, is a more accurate measure of the

actual nest success. The Mayfield index is almost always substantially less

than ap parent success.

Table 3.6 Nest Success Compared With Trap Effort on 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1998)

Nest Success 19871 1988 1989 1990 1993 1998

Mayfield Success 5% 45% 70% 51% 34% 25%

Apparent Success 14% 63% 84% 71% 58% 50%

Total Nests

Observed

60 92 113 129 95 83

Trap Nights 0 5,679 5,919 5,292 4,710 3,100

Total Predators 0 97 65 63 59 36

Number of trap

nights/predator

captured

0 59 91 84 88 86

1 No trapping conducted prior to 1987 - data for 1987 represents nest success prior to

implementing a predator management program. 
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 63

3.2.5.2 Mammals

Big game species common to the area are pronghorn, mule deer, and moose.

Although less than 1 percent of Wyoming is classified as riparian, almost 80

percent of its wildlife require riparian areas for critical portions of their life

cycle. The Refuge (with adjacent BLM lands) supports a herd of

approximately 20 to 40 moose and 140 mule deer. Mule deer range

throughout the area, but concentrate in greater numbers within the Refuge

riparian zone. Moose forage extensively on willows and shrubs associated

with the Refuge’s riparian habitat and also utilize the Refuge for breeding

and calving. Pronghorn range year-round throughout most of the areas

below 7,000 feet. The Refuge lies within the range of the Sublette Antelope

herd (approximately 49,000 animals), which is one of the largest migratory

ungulate herd sin the low er 48 sta tes.

Many small mammals are present within the Refuge and utilize all habitat

types depending on their life requisites. More common species include dusky

shrew, little brown myotis, cottontail rabbit, white-tailed jackrabbit, least

chipmunk, Wyoming ground squirrel, white-tailed prairie dog, Northern

pocket gopher, deer mice, beaver, meadow vole, muskrat, porcupine, coyote,

red fox, raccoon, badger, and striped skunk. Other small animals that may be

found on the Refuge, but are less common, include the long and short

(ermine) tailed weasels, otter, pygmy rabbit, marmot, mink, and bobcat

(Appendix F).

3.2.5.3 Fish

Two main types of aquatic communities are present on Seedskadee NWR: 1)

those which occur in the Green River and its perennial tributaries,

principally the Big Sandy River, and 2) those which occur in ponds along the

lower terraces. The following fish are commonly found in the Green River

and its tributaries: rainbow trout, Sn ake R iver cutth roat trout, Bonneville

cutthroat trout, kokanee salmon, brown trout, mountain whitefish, mottled

sculpin, white sucker, flannel-mouthed sucker, Utah chub, Bonneville redside

shiner, and speckled da ce. Othe r less com mon species a re listed in Appe ndix

F.

Prior to construction of Fontenelle Dam, the stretch of Green River included

within the Refuge was characterized as a poor quality fishery with high

turbidity and sediment filled streambeds. As a result of Fontenelle Dam, the

Green River is now a clear, gravel bottomed River and provides excellent

habitat for trout. The fishery resource on Seedskadee NWR is managed

jointly by the Refuge and the Wyom ing Game and Fish Department (Map 6).

The chief limiting Refuge habitat factors for trout are the lack of deep pools,

lack of bank cover, and the potential for rapidly fluctuating flows from

Fontennelle Reservoir. These habitat factors are important to ensure over

winter survival and successful spawning. Winter mortality is high. Small size

fish suffer the highest mortality, especially stocked fish. For this reason, the

Wyoming Game and Fish Department has reduced their expenditure and

effort in stocking. Rainbow trout were stocked in May 1996 at a rate of 430

subcatchables per m ile totaling 15,000 fish (average length of 6 inches).

Cutthroat trou t were stocked at a rate of 290 a dvanced fingerlings per mile

for a total of 10,000 fish (average length 3 inches). In mid-June 1996, 6,000

advance fry cutthroat were stocked upstream and downstream from the

McC ullen Blu ff sill. Rece nt resea rch on th e Wind River indicate s that “fra zil

ice” forming below the dam is causing physical harm to trout and injuring the

gills of fish. Deeper holes help fish to avoid this fine, free floating ice. The

Wyoming Game and Fish Department continues to conduct spring

electroshockin g on the Refug e to dete rmine population levels.
64 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Brow n trout w ere stocked in th e Gree n River on Seedskadee N WR until

1993. After 1993, brown trout stocking was discontinued after it was

determined from electroshocking that natural reproduction was sustaining

the fishery.

Wyoming Gam e and Fish records indicate that Kokanee salmon were first

stocked in Flaming Gorge Reservoir in 1989 as a new forage species for lake

trout. A small population likely existed in the Green River system before

1989 because of downstream drift from lakes in the Pinedale, Wyoming, area.

The first Kokanee were stocked in the Green River in 1991. They now

produce a reliable run through Seedskadee NWR that terminates at

Fontenelle Dam. Many of the Kokanee running the Green River were

established from releases out of the hatching facility on Flume Creek. Since

natural, successful spawning does not appear to be substantial the WYG&F

spawns the Kokanee, hatches the eggs, and then restocks the Green River.

Two different strains were stocked ,and as a result, two different spawning

runs were produced in September and late October/November.

3.2.5.4 Reptiles and Amphibians

Known species diversity of reptiles and amphibians is low. Amphibians

include the tiger salamander, Great Basin spadefoot toad, northern leopard

frog, and the boreal chorus frog. The tiger salamander and the spadefoot

toad utilize a combination of habitats including marsh, wetland, and riverine

areas as well as upland shrub communities near open water. The frogs are

found along vegetated margins of riverine permanent water, open ponded

water, and tall emergent marshes. Other wetland and riparian areas may be

used when close to water or flooded.

Reptiles found at Seedskadee NWR include the many-lined skink, northern

sagebrush lizard, eastern short-horned lizard, and the wandering garter

snake (Appendix F). The many-lined skink can be found in upland grasses

with m oist subsoils, riparia n grass/forb, riparian shrub, riparian forest, basin

big sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush comm unities. The lizards are

likely to be found in upland shrub and grass habitats and particularly in rock

outcrops. The eastern yellowbelly racer and the gopher snake prefer upland

grass/forb habitats, upland shrub, riparian meadows, and open riparian

forests with rocky outcrops which are important for overwintering. The

garter snake’s habitat is similar, but also includes tall and short emergent

marshes or upland habitats which are near to open water.

3.2.5.5 Invertebrates

Data has not been gathered on invertebrates. Incidental observations reveal

that mosquito populations, though somewhat cyclical with drought cycles,

can be extremely high on the Refuge. Aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates

are an essential component in the food chain for Seedskadee wildlife.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 65
66 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 67

3.2.5.6 Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species, and Other

Wildlife Species of Special Concern:

Table 3.7 lists special status wildlife and fish species that are known to use

habitat ty pes which currently or formerly occurred a t Seedskadee NW R. A

special status species would be one that is listed as an Endangered Species,

Threatened Species, Candidate Species, and Species of Special Concern (The

Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming

Partner’s In Flight).

Table 3.7 Special Status Wildlife and Fish Species Potentially Occurring on Seedskadee NWR

Common Name Seasonal

Occurrence1

Scientific Name Heritage

Rank2

Federal and State

Status2

Date Last

Observed3

BIRDS

Clark’s grebe M Aechmophorus clarkii G5/S2B,SZN WYGF SSC4 PIF-L1 WOL1998

Western grebe M, SR Aechmophorus

occidentalis

WYGF SSC4 PIF-L1 WOL2001

American bittern M, PB Botaurus lentiginosus G4/S2B,SZN WYGF SSC3 WOL1990

Black-crowned nightheron

M Nycticorax nycticorax WYGF SSC3 WOL2000

Snowy egret M Leucophoyx thula WYGF SSC3 WOL2000

White-faced ibis SR, M, PB, Plegadis chihi G5/S1B,SZN WYGF SSC3 WOL2001

Whooping crane M Grus americana G1/S1N USFWS

Experimental

WOL1991

Trumpeter swan B, YR Cygnus buccinator G4/S1B,S2N WYGF SSC2 PIF-L1 WOL2001

Mountain plover M, PB Charadrius montanus G2/S2B,SZN USFWS Proposed

Threatened

WYGF SSC4 PIF-L1

WOL1995

Long-billed curlew M, PB Numenius

americanus

G5/S3B,SZN WYGF SSC3 PIF L-1 WOL1998

Wilson’s phalarope B, M Phalaropus tricolor G5/S3B,S3N PIF-L1 WOL2001

Caspian tern M, SR Sterna caspia G5/S1B,SZN WYGF SSC3 WOL2000

Forster’s tern M Sterna forsteri G5/S1B,SZN WYGF SSC3 PIF-L1 WOL1986

Black tern M, PB Chlidonias niger G4/S1B,SZN WYGF SSC3 PIF-L1 WOL1993

Bald eagle B, YR Haliaeetus

leucocephalus

G4/S2B,

S3N

USFWS Threatened

(proposed delisting)

WYGF SSC2 PIF-L1

WOL2001

Northern goshawk M Accipiter gentilis G5/S23B,S4N WYGF SSC4 PIF L-1 WOL1991

Swainson’s hawk B, M Buteo swainsoni PIF-L1 WOL2000

Ferruginous hawk B, M Buteo regalis WYGF SSC3 PIF-L1 WOL2001

Merlin M, PB Falco Columbarius G5/S2B,SZN SSC3 PIF-L1 WOL1994

Peregrine falcon M, PB Falco peregrinus

anatrum

G4T3/S1B,S2

N

USFWS Delisted/

WYGF SSC3 PIF-L1

WOL2000
Table 3.7 Special Status Wildlife and Fish Species Potentially Occurring on Seedskadee NWR

Common Name Seasonal

Occurrence1

Scientific Name Heritage

Rank2

Federal and State

Status2

Date Last

Observed3

68 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Sage grouse B, YR Centrocercus

urophasianus

PIF-L1 WOL2000

Short-eared owl B, YR Asio flammeus G5/S2S3 PIF-L1 WOL2001

Burrowing owl PB, YR Athene cunicularia G4/S3B, SZN WYGF SSC4 WOL1994

Lewis’ woodpecker M Asyndesmus lewis G5/S2B,SZN WYGF SSC3 PIF-L1 WOL1986

Yellow-billed cuckoo M, PB Coccyzus americanus G5/S2B,SZN WYGF SSC2 WOL1994

Brewer’s sparrow B, M Spizella breweri G5/S3B, SZN PIF-L1 WOL2001

Sage sparrow B, M Amphispiza belli G5/S3B,SZN PIF-L1 WOL2001

FISH

Colorado

Pikeminnow

No Record Ptychocheilus lucius G1/SX USFWS Endangered No Record

Humpback Chub No Record Gila cypha G1/SX USFWS Endangered No Record

Bonytail Chub No Record Gila elegans G1/SX USFWS Endangered No Record

Bluehead sucker YR Catostomus

discobolus

G4/S2S3 No Record 

Flannelmouth sucker YR Catostomus latipinnis G3G4/S3 No Record

Razorback sucker No Record Xyrauchen texanus G1/SX USFWS Endangered No Record

MAMMALS

Long-eared myotis

spotted bat

SR, M Myotis evotis G5/S1B,S1?N WYGF SSC2 BMN1994

Townsend’s bigeared bat

No records Corynorhinus

townsendii

G4/S1B,S2N WYGF SSC2 No

Records

Pallid bat SR, M Antrozous pallidus G5/S1B,SZ?N WYGF SSC2 BMN1994

Pygmy rabbit B, YR Brachylagus

idahoensis

G4/S2 WYGF SSC3 WOL1991

Swift fox No records Vulpes velox G3/S2S3 WYGF SSC3 No

Records

Black-footed ferret No records Mustela nigripes G1/S1 USFWS Endangered 1976-78

River otter YR, PB Lontra canadensis G5/S3 WOL2001

1 Seasonal occurrence: B = Breeding (assumes summer resident); PB = Possible or Potential Breeding (no confirmed

records); SR = summer resident (no evidence of breeding); YR = year-round resident; M = Migrant 2 See Glossary for special status definitions. 3

WOL = Refuge Wildlife Observation Log; BMN= Refuge bat mist netting records; WFS=Refuge waterfowl surveys. #’s

indicate year last observed. Includes data through 2001.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 69

Three federally-listed bird species have been observed on the Refuge. The

bald eagle is a year-round resident and nests an nually (T able 3.8). Bald

eagles use riparian forest habitat on the Refuge year-round. Mature

cottonwoods provide nest and perch sites for the bald eagles, where they

hunt for fish, waterfowl, and carrion along the Green River. The fish and

ducks in the river provide an important food source for the bald eagle.

Approxima tely 25 eagles spend the winter on the R efuge e ach year.

Table 3.8. Bald Eagle Production on Seedskadee NWR

(data from Refuge bald eagle observations file)

Year # Nests

Active1

# Successful

Nests

# of Young

Hatched

# of Young

Fledged

1992 1 1 2 2

1993 0 0 0 0

1994 1 0 0 0

1995 3 0 0 0

1996 2 0 0 0

1997 2 2 4 3

1998 2 2 4 4

1999 4 2 62 2

2000 3 3 6 6

2001 3 3 7 7

1 An active nest = birds initiated nest building, but may not have progressed

further. 2

One of the successful nests produced 3 young, but the nest and chicks were

destroyed when the nest fell out of the tree. 

The peregrine falcon and whooping crane have been observed on the Refuge

infrequently during migration. For four consecutive years (1996 to 2000), one

peregrine sighting was recorded in the Tallman, Hay Farm, and Hawley

mana geme nt units, respective ly. Maintenance of mig ration habitat is

important for these species. Whooping cranes have infrequently been

observ ed on the Haw ley wetland unit (1991). The bird s are suspect m igrants.

The four federally-endangered fish species have not been recorded as

occurring within the Refuge. Prior to Fontenelle Dam these fish may have

occurred as far north as Green River, Wyoming. These native fish require

turbulent rivers with great extremes of flow, temperature, and turbidity.

Such conditions no long er exist b elow F ontene lle Dam .

The federally-endangered black-footed ferret has been observed on the

Refuge historically. The current population of white-tailed prairie dogs that

occurs on the Refuge is one of the ferret’s preferred prey items but current

prairie dog populations may not be big enough to sustain a ferret population.

The R efuge staff continues to monito r for the presen ce of this species.

The white-faced ibis, black tern, and the American bittern are Species of

Special Concern that have been observed utilizing Refuge wetland/marsh

habitat. The white-faced ibis is now a common migrant seen in the spring and

fall. The A merica n bittern and black tern a re infreq uently observe d in

migration.
70 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The northern goshawk is a former candidate species for consideration of

listing as federally endangered or threatened. Northern goshawks are rare

migrants on the Refuge. Numerous sightings on the Wind River and

Wyoming mountain ranges indicate that the Green River may occasionally be

used as a migration corridor between summer and winter range.

The Service (July 2001) has determined that the yellow-billed cuckoo in the

western United States, roughly west of the Rocky Mountains, meets the

criteria to qualify as a “distinct population segment” (DPS), and, as such,

may be proposed for listing. As a result of this finding, the Service will add

the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo to the list of species that are

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The cuckoo

migrates through and breeds on the Refuge in sm all numbers. It breeds in

willow and cottonwo od forests along rivers and strea ms. Populations are in

decline primarily as a result of destruction of their stream side habitat.

The merlin falcon is a Species of Special Concern. Some of the last recorded

breeding territories for merlins on the Green River were located on the

Refuge. Merlin nesting has not be en docum ented on the Refuge since the late

1980s. A 1999 survey detected no sign of merlins during the breeding season.

The mountain plover, a proposed threatened species, is known to use Refuge

lands or lands adjacent to the Refuge. The Refuge staff monitors the Dry

Creek Unit annually to look for breeding or migrating birds.

State listed species known to use Refuge lands or lands adjacent to the

Refuge include: pygmy rabbit, trumpeter swan, American white pelican,

ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, and long-billed curlew. Trumpeter swans

now utilize the Refuge for breeding, migration, and as wintering habitat

(Table 3.5).

Other state listed species that have a potential to occur on the Refuge

include: long-eared myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, snowy

egret, Clark’s grebe, western grebe, Caspian tern, Forester’s tern, blackcrowned night-heron, and Lewis’ woodpecker.

3.2.6 Cultural Resources Inventory

The western Wyoming Basin and the vicinity of today’s Seedskadee NWR

has a sequence of uninterrupted human use, at least since the Folsom times

(10400 to 10800 BP), and perhaps dating even further back. At least one

surface find of Clovis (10600 to 11900 BP) is documented by Frison (1978)

(Miller and Kornfeld, 1996). The people who passed through or used the

resour ces of these lands over thousa nds of years left evidence of their

occupation. Within the past 150 years, fur trade and pioneer migrations west

brought European peoples through the region resulting in the eventual

establishment of trading centers, private landownership, and communities.

As with prehistoric occupation, these historic uses left behind evidence of

their presence at Seedskadee, including trail remnants, old outposts, and

ranch structure s (Map 7). Seedskadee NW R’s dun e form ations are rich in

artifacts from prehistoric use, and the Refuge has numerous historic sites.

These artifacts provide opportunities to add to the body of knowledge about

prehistoric and historic peoples and to also learn more about how these lands

and resources were utilized by both prehistoric and historic occupation.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 71
72 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 73

3.2.6.1 Prehistoric

The Wyoming Basin was occupied by small groups of hunter-gatherers at the

band level of organization. They practiced seasonal movements which

optimized the procurement of resources including food, water, shelter, and

raw materials such as toolstone. Movement coincided with seasonal

availability for critical resources. Aboriginal populations became more

familiar with certain plant species through time and gradually incorporated

them as part of their subsistence strategy.

Three broad cultural periods are recognized in the western Wyoming Basin,

generally corresponding to those established for the Northwestern Plains by

Frison (1978,1991): Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric. The

Paleoindian Period (12000 to 8000 BP) sites are dominated by bison bone

beds and the subsistence is interpreted as being dependent on big game

(such as camel and mamm oth), specifically on extinct sp ecies. Th e Arch aic

Period (8000 to 2000 BP) is characterized by a Pan-American broad-based

subsistence stra tegy. Th e Arch aic Perio d is subdivided into Early, Middle

and Late subperiods based on differences in projectile point styles and

associated with minor differences in subsistence. The Late Prehistoric Period

(2000 to 250 BP) is defined by the introduction or innovation of the bow and

arrow as well as the production and use of ceramics (Miller and Kornfeld,

1996).

During the Paleoindian Period, lush grasslands and savanna-like conditions

existed with notably higher precipitation supporting large herbivores such as

the mammoth, horse, and extinct forms of bison. This period is distinctive for

its meticulous workmanship of projectile points. The point styles serve as

chronological indicators within the period (Thompson and Pastor, 1995).

The Archaic Period is characterized by reduced precipitation and warmer

than average temperatures. Megafauna (horse, camel, mammoth, and bison)

became extinct or smaller. Hunters had to target smaller animals. The large

stemmed lanceolate projectiles were replaced with smaller side and corner

notches dart points. A gr eater use of vegetable foods occurred during this

period. Summer occupation in the mountains, winter occupation in the

foothills, an d spring and fall m ovem ents utilized all available zon es. Early

Archaic subsistence strategies centered around pronghorn, rabbits, and

other small animals. Late Archaic subsistence strategies included more

bison, but still focused on pronghorn, rabbits, and other small animals.

Ground stone is com mon in both periods (Thompson and Pastor 1995).

The Protohistoric Period began with the first European trade goods reaching

the area (300 years BP) and ended with the development of the Rocky

Mountain fur trade 150 years ago. Protohistoric sites often contain trade

goods such as glass trade beads and metal artifacts. The most important

impact on Native American cultures during this period was the introduction

of the horse in the early 1700s. Hunting bison became more efficient and

cultural m aterial w as easie r to transport (Thomp son and Pasto r 1995).

Evidence of housepits or other types of living structures are present in the

archaeological record since paleoindian times. Structures were identified at

the Agate Basin sites in eastern Wyoming from the Folsom period (ca. 10,600

BP) and the use of housepits has been documented to the Early Archaic.

Stone circle (tipi ring) sites date from the Middle Plains Archaic through the

historic period.
74 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.6.2 Historic

It was the Shoshone Indians that gave the Green River its first name “sisk-adee-agie” or “River of the Prairie Chicken.” Fur traders later corrupted the

Indian name to “Seedskadee.” Shoshone Indians hunted “prairie chickens”

(sage grouse), as well as deer, pronghorn, and other wildlife along the banks

of the Green River. The River corridor contains many significant

archaeological sites. Early explorers and mountain men trapped beavers

extensively in the Seeds kadee area. 

Thousands of pioneers crossed the Green River on what is now Seedskadee

NWR. The Oregon and Morm on Trails, which cross the Refuge, have been

designa ted as N ational H istoric Trails by Congress. Ruts from th ese trails

are still visible on the Refuge today. The Pony Express Trail also crosses the

Refuge. Jim Bridger and others operated ferries on the Green River in the

1840s and 1850s. Settlement of the area by stockman began with the arrival

of the railroad in 1868. The remains of numerous homesteads are located

along the River (Map 7). 

Known cultural resources are fragile and highly susceptible to vandalism.

Old hom esteads are particularly susceptible to fire. Th e lack of adequate

funding, existing and anticipated, precludes stabilizing these structures and

sites. In compliance with current Fe deral legislation, it is necessary to

document them as thoroughly as possible before they deteriorate further

from natural and other causes.

3.2.6.3 Lombard Ferry

Lombard Ferry, named after Wiilliam Lombard, who operated ferries at the

site in 1889, was probably the main crossing of the Green River used by

Oregon Trail emigrants and thus represented a landmark in many travel

diaries as well as a difficult crossing site. During low water periods, wagons

could ford the River on a shallow sand bar only 10 feet wide. Divergence

from the shallow sand bar led to many a wet wagon and several watery

graves. After the initial Mormon trek to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, the

Latter Day Saints quickly realized the importance of establishing a ferry

operation for following Mormon trains, and the ensuing ferry capitalized

upon the Oregon Trail emigrants by charging three to four dollars per

wagon. Several other ferry operations followed in later years, and as late as

1943, the site was marked by the ruin of several stone buildings.

Today, the Lombard Ferry crossing, located 42 miles west of Parting-of-theWays is marked with five interpretive panels, a graveled parking area, and a

paved pedestrian path (Map 7 and 8a). Access to the site is south of Highway

28. Interpretive panels describe the significance of the site. Lombard Ferry

has been identified as a historic site for the Mormon Pioneer National

Historic Trail.

Management plans and implementing actions have been prepared by the

National Park Service (NPS) for both the Oregon and Mormon Pioneer

National Historic Trails. The Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Historian

has reviewed these plans and assured NPS that trail routes across the

Refuge will be preserved and the Lombard Ferry Site would be preserved

and interpreted.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 75
76 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 77
78 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 79

3.2.6.4 Paleontological Resources

The Bridger and Green River formations are exposed geologic formations

that are found on the Refuge. These formations have yielded paleontological

resources at other locations. Table 3.9 summarizes the resources in the area.

Table 3.9. Summary of Surface Geologic Deposits and Paleontological Resources, Seedskadee NWR Area

(summarized from material provided by Gustav F. Winterfeld, Ph.D., 

who provided assistance with the paleontological resource review)

Geologic Deposit Geologic

Age

Type of D eposit/

Environment of Deposition

Fossil

Resources

Paleo

Potential

Area

Present

alluvial sedime nts

(including

alluvium and

colluvium)

latest

Holocene

(500-1,000,000

mya)1

unconsolidated silts, sands of

valleys and plains,

Terrestrial- fluvia l.

none low widespread

Bridger

Formation

middle

Eocene--

Bridgerian

(37-58 mya)

tuffaceous sandstone and

bentonitic mudstone,

limestone. Terrestrial-flu vial,

floodplain, accumulated after

drying up of Lake Gosiute.

vertebrates,

invertebrates,

plants, trace

fossils

high widespread

Green River

Formation

Laney Shale

Member

middle

Eocene--

Bridgerian

(37-58 mya)

chiefly oil shale, lesser algal

limestone, sandstone,

claystone and tuff.

Lacustrine, accumulated

during renewed expansion of

Lake Gosiute.

vertebrates,

invertebrates

trace fossils

high T23 N,

R111W

1 mya = million years ago

3.2.6.4.1 Bridger Formation

Exposures of the Bridger Formation comprise most of the surface of the

Refuge area along the Green River. The Bridger Formation interfingers

with the Laney Member of the Green River Formation described below and

is divided into an upper and lower unit by a tongue of that me mber. D eposits

above the tongue comprise the Main Body of the Bridger Formation and

those below com prise the Whiskey B utte Bed (Sullivan, 1980).

Fossil vertebrates have been collected from the Bridger Formation for more

than 120 years (Leidy, 1869, 1871; Matthew, 1909; West, 1976; Gunnell and

Bartels, 1994) and collections of these specimens are housed at nearly every

major paleontology museum in the world.

Recent work in the Bridger Formation has been conducted in the Moxa Arch

area and documented the presence of 43 genera of fossil mamm als, 18 genera

of reptiles, and at least 2 genera of fish (Bartels, 1991; Gunnell and Bartels,

1994).

The most common fossil animals found in the Bridger Formation include

Lepisosteus (gar pike), Amia (bowfin), Echm atemys (emydid- turtle),

Hybemys (emydid -turtle), Trionycid (soft-shelled -turtle) and the crocodilian

taxa D iplocyno don and Crocodylus.
80 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.6.4.2 Green River Formation

The Green River Formation is represented in the Seedskadee NWR area by

the Laney Shale Member of middle Eocene age. The Laney Member forms

the top of the Green River Formation and records in its sediments the

greatest expansion of ancient Lake Gosiute followed by its final restriction

and desiccation. Lake Gosiute once occupied more than 75 percent of the

Greater Green River Basin, or approximately 15,000 square miles (Roehler,

1992, 1993). In Seedskadee NWR, the Laney overlies the Wasatch

Formation of early Eocene age and consists of tan and brown silty algal

limestone and ostracodal marlstone.

Significant fossils have been found in the Green River Formation for over

150 ye ars (Grande, 1984). The first fish fossil (herring) was discovered in

1856 by Dr. John Evans, near Green River, Wyoming. The herring fossil was

named Knightia eoceaena, and is now Wyoming’s State fossil. Since 1856

numerous fossil fishes, other vertebrates, insects, and plants have been

discovered in this formation.

The Laney Member of the formation produces fossils from four major

localities that occur over wide parts of the G reen River Basin (Grande, 1984).

Plant and insect fossils are very common. The mosquito, Culex sp., comprises

more than 98 percent of the known fauna. Other invertebrates include

ostracodes, mollusks, and gastropods. Common plant fossils include the

remains of Plantanus sp. (Sycamore) and Equisetum (scouring rush)

(MacGinitie, 1969). The remains of algal mounds or stromatolites occur

elsewhere in the member.

The most common vertebrates found in the locality are fish in the herring

genera Knightia and Gosiutichthys. Birds, salamanders, turtles, and

crocodilians are rare. At least one complete articulated turtle and two

crocod ilian skeletons are know n from this locality. The remains of small

perchin g birds, primobucconid s, occur a s prima rily feather impressions.

3.2.7 Public Use Facilities and Program Inventory

The current Refuge road system consists of 77 miles of designated roads

within the Refuge boundary (Map 9). Twenty miles are classified as

administrative roads and 57 miles are classified as open public roads. There

are m any tw o-tracks, tra ils, and roads crea ted pr ior to th e Re fuge’s

establish ment w hich are not official Refug e roads. Closed roads will

eventually be restored by seeding with native vegetation.

One nine mile auto tou r routes is located on the R efuge. T his tour route is

passable by passenger vehicles in the summer months, and often open in the

winter. The 2.5 mile entrance road is an improved all-weather gravel road

from State Highway 372 to the Refuge Headquarters.

All other designated roads are only seasonally passable and are not improved

or maintained. Four-wheel drive and high-clearance vehicles are

recomm ended. Se asonal closures are imposed. Fo r the protection of habitat,

vehicles are allow ed only on established o pen roads and must be parked in

designated locations (areas created for parking or signed as designated

parking areas) or within 10 feet of the road.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 81
82 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 83

3.2.7.1 General Public Use

The Refuge has 21 road access points (Map 8a & 8b). The numerous access

points make it difficult to accurately estimate the number of visitors. An

estimated 11,000 visits were made in 1996, up slightly from 1994 and 1995.

Visits jumped to 15,000 in 1997. The increase was likely a reflection of visits

associated with the 1997 Mormon Pioneer Trail Sesquicentennial celebration.

Table 3 .10 sum marize s estima ted visitor use fro m 199 0 to 199 7.

Table 3.10 Estimated Annual Visitors to Seedskadee NWR

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Total

Estimated

Visitors

3,757 4,264 5,12 6,009 8,327 10,355 12,017 15,000 13,000 15,500 16,500

Environmental

Education**

107 214 762 1,045 642 605 592 700 762 850 400

Anglers 1,300 1,625 1,800 1,580 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,500 5,000 6,500 6,000

Hunters 450 700 850 1,525 1,185 1,250 1,925 2,500 5,000 6,500 5,000

Wildlife

Observation

2,000 1,725 2,000 1,859 3,500 4,500 5,500 5,000 4,000 5,500 6,000

Note: Estimates are taken from Seedskadee NWR Annual Narrative Reports;

* Includes Mormon Trail Sesquicentennial; ** Includes on-site environmental

education only.

An estimated 50 to 70 percent of the Refuge’s visitors are from southwestern

Wyoming. The remaining out-of-state visitors are comprised of three

primary groups: those who are visiting wildlife refuges in the west ; those

who are passing by the Refuge on their way to Yellowstone or Grand Teton

National Parks; and anglers/hunters from Utah and Colorado.

A recent survey of visitors to Sweetwater County found that one of the most

popular recreation activities was viewing wildlife (88.1 percent). Eighty-five

percen t of those survey ed had Sweetwater County as one of th eir

destinations (Taylor, 1996).

The Refuge Headquarters is open Monday-Friday (7:30 am to 4:30 pm).

Information and universally accessible rest rooms are available at the

Refuge headquarters sev en days a week during daylight hours.

The Refuge has a general brochure/leaflet which contains a Refuge map,

describes facilities, and states general Refuge regulations. Brochures are

available at the Refuge Headquarters, 14 primary R efuge road access po ints

(Map 8a & 8 b), the Farson Inform ation Center, W yoming Gam e and F ish in

Green River, BLM in Rock Springs, and at the Chambe rs of Co mme rce(s) in

Rock Springs and G reen R iver.
84 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.8 Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Seedskadee NWR offers visitors a wide variety of self-guided and dispersed

recreation opportunities. The Refuge Improvement Act (1997) states that

public use of a refuge may be allowed only where the use is “compatible”

with the Refuge System mission and the purpose of the individual refuge

(see Legal and Policy Guidance section). The Act also sets forth a current

standard by which the Secretary of the Interior shall determine whether

such uses are compatible. The term “compatible use” means a proposed or

existing “wildlife-dependent recreational use” or any other use of a refuge,

that in the sound professional judgem ent of the Service , will not m aterially

interfere with or detract from, the fulfillment of the Refuge System’s mission

or the purpose of the refuge. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photog raphy, and environm ental education and interpretation are the six

priority general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Before a new use is allowed on a refuge, the Service must determine that the

use is compatible and not inconsistent with public safety. To determine if a

new use is compatible, a refuge must estimate the time frame, location, and

purpose of each use. Furthermore, the refuge staff must identify the direct

and indirect impacts of each use on refuge resources and evaluate the use

relative to the R efuge’s purpose.

On lands added after 1996, the Service must identify, prior to acquisition,

withdrawal, transfer, reclassification, or donation, which existing wildlifedepen dent compatib le recreational uses the S ervice w ill permit. 

3.2.8.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Visitor e stimate s indicate that wildlife observation is the mo st popular public

use on the Refuge (Table 3.10). Most wildlife observation activity occurs

along the wildlife auto tour route and river corridor. The auto tour is on the

west side of the River and passes by the Hawley wetland unit, Refuge

headquarters, and H amp wetland unit (Map 9). Much of the optimum w ildlife

watching opportunities occur in the River bottom, which is easily viewed

from the auto tour route and many other open designated roads. Foot travel

is permitted throughout the Refuge and affords exceptional opportunities for

individua ls wanting to hike and explore off-road areas (Map 8a & 8 b).

3.2.8.2 Hunting

Hunting seasons usually occur between September 1 and mid- February.

Hunting is permitted for select gam e species in accordance with State

regulations. The most common species hunted are mule deer, pronghorn

antelope, sage grouse, cottontail rabbit, ducks, and Canada geese. Other

species which are open to hunting under State regulations include red fox,

raccoon, white-tailed jackrabbit, coots, mourning doves, sora/Virginia rails,

and snipe. A special hunt for moose occurs every 2 to 5 years to reduce

populations and avoid habitat damage due to over browsing.

Certain areas are closed to hunting to protect R efuge facilities and to

provide resting and feeding habitat for migratory birds (Map 6). Areas closed

to hunting are clearly posted with signs. A voluntary avoidance program was

instigated in 1997 to reduce hunter disturbance of wintering trumpeter

swans. Hunters, as well as the non-hunting visiting public, are asked to stay

at least 400 yards from swans. Winte r is a critical time for swans which rely

exclusively on food resources located in the open water (non-frozen) sections

of the Green River to meet their energy demands. The River also provides a

critical resting (loafing) area for winter waterfowl, especially swans. Less

disturbance helps swans to reduce their overall energy demands.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 85

3.2.8.3 Fishing

Fishing primarily focuses on four introduced cold water trout species

(rainbow, brown, Snake River cutthroat, and Bonnieville cutthroat). Lake

trout are occasionally caught during the winter/spring and kokanee salmon

are occasionally caught in the fall. Appro ximately ha lf of the Refuge (north

boundary of Refuge to the Green River and Big Sandy confluence) is a

special regulations fishing area (Map 6). Only one fish over 20 inches may be

taken and fishing is restricted to artificial lures and flies. The Green River

within the Refuge is designated as a Red Ribbon trout stream, which means

it supports a trout standing crop of between 500 and 900 pounds per mile.

Fishing is the second most popular public use at Seedskadee. Fishing on the

Refuge is subject to State regulations. The Wyoming Game and Fish

Department manages the fishery with assistance from the Refuge staff.

3.2.8.4 Non-Motorized Boating

More than 99 percent of all Refuge boating use is non-motorized. The lack of

motorized boats provides solitude and excellent angling and wildlife viewing

opportunities. Four improved boat ramps have been developed and are

spaced to provide easy one day float trips.

3.2.8.5 Commercial Guiding

Commercial fishing guides started to guide clients on the Refuge before

1990. To comply with Refuge regulations, this activity was regulated via an

annual permit system which was initiated in 1996. Eleven permits were

issued in 1996. Commercial guides are charged fees to utilize the Refuge and

are also required to meet strict Refuge regulations regarding the number of

boats and anglers occu rring in various R iver sections.

In 1997, the Service, BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service agreed to issue

a single commercial permit for the Green River stretch starting at

Fonte nelle Dam an d ending at the beginning of Flaming G orge R eservo ir

(Fire Hole). This joint permit for commercial guiding was discontinued after

1997 and is currently under review to determine its feasibility. A new Refuge

draft commercial guide plan was developed and implemented in 2000. The

new plan will eventually reduce (via attrition) the total number of permitted

commercial outfitters to a maximum of four. Currently six commercial

outfitters are permitted on the Refuge.

3.2.8.6 Environmental Education/Outreach

Environmental education is usua lly conducted while touring the Refuge with

school, scout, and civic groups. Demand for these tours continues to increase.

In 2001, over 680 people participated in tours that were provided to 16

different groups.

Since 1993, the Refuge, in cooperation with Trout Unlimited , Highland

Desert Flies, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, has sponsored

“Take A Kid Fishing Day.” A local pond is stocked at the Rock Springs

Fairgrounds with catchable trout, and refreshments are served. This event

has attracted up to 300 people from local communities. The event provides an

opportunity to inform young people and their parents about wildlife and the

Refuge.

Seedskadee NWR partners with the Wyoming Game and Fish and the

Bureau of Land Management Green River Resource Area in providing

seasonal wildlife updates for media outreach programs. In addition,

Seedskadee NW R conducts special programs for International Migratory

Bird Day and National Wildlife Refuge Week.
86 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.2.8.7 Interpretation

Four interpretive areas occur on Seedskadee NWR: Lombard Ferry,

Wetlands Overlook, Headquarters Kiosk, and Headquarters visitor area

(Map 8a & 8b). Current interpretive signs are limited to these areas. The

Refuge Headquarters contains indoor space dedicated to interpretive

exhibits. Interior e xhibits include a w all-mou nted m ap, a touch table, a

children’s board, three dimensional models of primitive cultures, and several

bird and mammal mounts.

Currently, four Refuge brochures are published (General Information and

Travel Map, Hunting and Fishing, Historical, and Wildlife Observation). The

general Information brochure describes basic regulations and provides

suggestions for enjoying the Refuge. The brochure “Seedskadee National

Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity: A Historical Perspective” describes 14 of the

historic sites existing on the Refuge, including numerous homesteads,

trading posts, and ferry crossings.

Refuge staff conduct public outreach efforts by hosting display booths at the

Green River Fly Swap, Casper Hunting and Fishing Expo, and Red Desert

Sport S how.

3.2.9 Non Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

The Refuge staff is concerned with the non wildlife-dependent recreation

activities occurring at the Re fuge. These activities are a concern to

management because they are unauthorized, conflict with Service policy, and

create significant wildlife and habitat disturbance. These non wildlifedependent recreational activities include, but are not limited to,: camping,

swimming and pow er boating, off-road vehicle use, etc.

3.2.9.1 Camping

It is Service policy that, “Camping will not be permitted when any other

practical alterna tive is available and only when required to implem ent a

planned and approved wildlife-wildlands oriented recreational activity (8 RM

9.5).” Camping is not necessary to enjoy the wildlife and fish resources on the

Refuge. Practical alternatives are offered at the Bureau of Land Management

operated campgrounds located just upstream from the Refuge (Slate Creek,

Tailrace, and Weeping Rock). The Bureau of La nd Man agement allows sho rtterm (14 day) dispersed camping on lands which surround the Refuge.

No authorized general public overnight camping opportunities are provided

on the Refuge. Currently, camping occurs on a limited permit basis for scout

troops performing civic projects for Seedskadee NWR.

3.2.9.2 Swimming and Power Boating

Swimming and power boating on the Green River are not encouraged at

Seedskadee. Opportunities exist for such recreational activities above and

below the Refuge at Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge Reservoir, and

down stream of the R efuge o n the Green R iver.

3.2.9.3 Off-Road Vehicles

Off-road vehicle use is prohibited in any area which is not an established and

designated roadway for public travel within the Refuge. Designated Refuge

roads are shown in the Refuge General brochure. Non-designated two-track

“roads ” crisscro ss areas and re sult in hab itat degradation . Eventually, all

non-designated roads will be closed and restored by seeding with native

vegetation. The num ber of roads are limited on the Refuge to protect wildlife

habitat, reduce disturbance to wildlife, protect the beautiful views, and

enhance the overall visitor experience.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 87

3.2.10 Administrative Support

3.2.10.1 Current Facilities

Refuge buildin gs include:

■ Headquarters building consisting of a small visitor information

center, four offices and a conference room

■ Maintenance shop

■ Two equipment storage buildings

■ Three older 3-bedroom hom es (refuge staff residences) 

■ One 3-bedroom bunkhouse for multiple-occupancy of seasonal staff

and volunteers 

■ One cold storage building located at the Hay Farm

The maintenance shop and storage facilities are relatively new and will meet

the Refuge needs for the immediate future. Inadequate housing, however,

could limit the capacity for the increasing Refuge’s volunteer workforce.

Demand currently exceeds supply in the summer month s. Office space is at a

premium and may need to be expanded if staffing increases.

The Refuge also has the following recreational facilities to orient visitors and

provide for public use: 4 primitive boat launches; 24 walk-over and walkthrough stru ctures along the Refuge’s perimeter fence; nine-mile mile auto

tour roa d; one w etland interpretive overlook; the Lombard F erry H istoric

Site (interpretive); 14 information sites; and an orientation kiosk at Refuge

headquarters. Universally accessible rest rooms are available at the Refuge

headquarters (Maps 8a & 8b)

3.2.10.2 Current Staffing

Seedskadee NWR staffing has always been limited, but has fluctuated

significantly in the last six years. In 1993, the Refuge had a permanent staff

of five full-time positions, including a refuge manager, a refuge operations

specialist, two maintenance worke rs, and a biological technician/clerk. In

1994, the permanent staff was reduced by 1 full-time equivalency (FTE), and

in 1995 the permanent staff was further reduced to 3 FTE’s. Since 1995,

various FTE ’s have b een restored. Current (2000) staffing includes six

permanent p ositions (T able 3.11).

Table 3.11 Current Personnel (2000)

FTE Current Position

1 Refuge Manager/Project Leader, GS 12

1 Assistant Refuge Manager (ROS), GS 11

1 Administrative Support Assistant, GS 6 

1 Biologist GS 9/11

1 Engineering Equipment Operator, WG 9

1 Biological Technician, GS 6 

6 Total Current FTE

The Seedskadee staff also m anage s Coke ville Meadow s NW R, currently

about 8,000 acres, located two hours west near Cokeville, Wyoming. A CCP

will be pr epared for Cokeville Meadows NWR under sepa rate cover.
88 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

3.3 Special Management Areas

3.3.1 Special Legislated Designations

No wilderness areas currently exist or are proposed for Seedskadee NWR.

The Service has not pursed any formal review of Seedskadee lands for

designation as wilderness. Portions of the Refuge may qualify for

designation. Future Service policy may require the formal review of all lands

within the Refuge Sy stem. A draft of th e Serv ice “Wilderness Stew ardship

Policy” is currently in review. Within the Rock Springs District of the

Bureau of Land Management, a total of four wilderness areas and eight

wilderness study areas have been proposed. The closest of these is 50 miles

from the Refuge boundary.

The Refuge contains an abundance of historical/cultural resource sites and

has four National Historic Trails which traverse through it (Map 7). Several

historic sites and trail segments have been included in the National Register

of Historic Places. The general Refuge setting provides landscape views

which look much like they did in the early 19th century. Maintaining the

current landscapes of the Refuge and surrounding area are im portant to

mainta ining the natural and histo ric nature of the a rea.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has designated Seedskadee NWR,

and the surrounding B LM lands, as a G lobally Important Bird A rea (IBA).

To qualify for this designation an area m ust have sign ificant ongoing efforts

to conse rve wild birds an d their ha bitats. ABC’s IB A program, supported in

part by The Nature Conservancy and the Disney Wildlife Conservation

Fund, aims to identify and protect a network of key sites to further bird

conser vation efforts.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 89

IV.Management Direction

4.1 Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and

Strategies

The mission and purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the

purposes(s) for which a refuge was established are the primary references

for setting refuge goals and objectives. The ecosystem priorities provide a

secondary reference for setting refuge goals and objectives. Seedskadee

National Wildlife Refuge management has established two wildlife, five

habitat, and five public use, recreation, and resource protection goals.

Refuge goals are qualitative statements that define what outputs and

outcomes a refuge strives for to satisfy the System’s mission as well as the

refuge’s purpose(s). Refuge o bjectives are de fined by the Ser vice manual:

“as milestones which lead to the fulfillment of unit and system

purposes. Ea ch objective sho uld be a description of de sired an d, in

most cases, measurable conditions(s) and/or outcomes(s). Objectives

should be viewed as targets around which long-range management

strategies are developed and with which success can be monitored”

(602 FW 2, D(1) (a)). Strategies are techniques employed to achieve

objectives.”
90 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The following is a list of the Refug e’s goals. These are each described in

detail with objectives and strategies in the following section s.

Wildlife

A1. Threatened and Endangered Species Goal: To restore, enhance, or

protect threatened and endangered flora and fauna that currently occur or

have historically occurred in the area of Seedskadee NWR.

A2. Wildlife Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and

abundance of migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native

species.

Habitat

B1. Riparian Goal: Protect and restore riparian habitats along the Green River

to provide for the annual life needs of migratory birds and native wildlife

utilizing the Green River Basin. 

B2. Wetland Goal: Wetlands will be managed to meet the breeding and

migratory requirements of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other

wetland dependent species.

B3. Uplands Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of

indigenous flora associated with the Great Basin upland desert shrub and

grassland habitats to support native wildlife found in the Green River

Basin.

B4. Riverine Goal: The Refuge staff, in collaboration with Wyoming Game

and Fish Department and Reclamation, will manage water quality and

quantity in the Green River to maintain and/or restore the riparian and

cottonwood forests and provide habitat for waterfowl, trumpeter swans,

fish, and other native species dependent on river and forested habitat.

B5. Invasive Species Goal: Restore and maintain indigenous flora diversity

by controlling the invasion of exotic plant species on the Refuge.

Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

C1. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Goal: Nurture an understanding of and

appreciation for wildlife and other natural resources of the Green River

Basin by providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent

recreation while maintaining the primitive, uncrowded nature of the area.

C2. Environmental Education and Interpretation Goal: Educate and

inform the public about the Refuge, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, The

National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Upper Colorado Ecosystem by

providing quality environmental education and interpretation opportunities. 

C3. Resource Protection Goal: Protect Refuge resources from adverse

natural and/or man-made impacts. 

C4. Cultural Resource Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural sites and objects associated with Refuge lands.

C5. Partnership Goal: Foster partnerships to promote wildlife conservation

and habitat management in the Green River Basin and to help Seedskadee

NWR accomplish its vision and goals.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 91

A. Wildlife

A1. Threatened and Endangered Species Goal: To restore, enhance, or

protect threatened and endangered flora and fauna that currently occur or have

historically occurred in the area of Seedskadee NWR.

Bald eagles are increasingly using the Refuge for nesting and 20 to 30

wintering bald eagles use the ice-free areas along the River to hunt. The

Refuge will minimize construction and other disturbing activities during

critical nesting and wintering perio ds. These activitie s will also benefit

wintering waterfowl and trumpeter swans. Mountain plovers have been

observed in the Dry Creek Unit and circumstantial evidence of nesting has

been recorded. Several whooping crane observations have been confirmed on

the Refuge. The Service will continue to monitor for these species and

evaluate opportunities to provide m igration or bre eding habitat.

No records exist of the Federally-thre atened Ute ladies’-tresses orchid

occurring on the Refuge. Intensive surveys in southeast Wyoming have

produced a number of new populations. Although, on the fringe of its range,

it is possible that small, isolated populations exist on the Refuge. The Service

will contin ue mo nitoring for this species an d protect any found populations.

A1.1 Bald Eagle Objectives: The Refuge will provide large mature

cottonwood trees (35 to 40 feet,100 to 150 years old) along the banks of

the Green River to serve as nesting, roosting, and hunting perching sites

for bald eagles. A total of 1,200 acres of cottonwood habitat will be

protected and/or restored. Maintain a minimum of 10 percent of the

riparian forest in m ature or old-gro wth tim ber.

Strategies:

1. Re-establish cottonwoods at suitable locations by enhancing the

natural regene ration, pla nting see dlings or conducting pole

plantings. Suitable sites and methods will be determined by

current on-goin g resea rch.

2. Protect cottonwood trees from damage by beaver, mule deer,

moose, cattle, and wildfires.

3. Protect nesting and roosting sites from human disturbances

using temporary and/or permanent closures when necessary.

4. Annually monitor bald eagle population trends and reproductive

success.

5. Work with Reclamation to manage river flows to maintain open

water during the winter months to provide foraging habitat and

reduce winter mortality of fish.
92 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

A1.2 Mountain Plover Objectives: The Re fuge staff will investigate

managing part of the 3,120-acre Dry Creek Unit as open shortgrass and

sagebrush ha bitat to provide nesting and feed ing area s for mountain

plovers. The acreage managed for this species will be based on further

investigation of its local abundance and distribution and the assessment

of current habitat conditions in the Dry Creek Unit. Surveys for plovers

will be conducted annually and an assessment of the dry creek habitat

should be completed within five years after the CCP is finalized. If

appropriate, manage for shrub density of 12.3 m2

, grass height average of

8.4 cm, average forb height of 4.3 cm, average shrub height of 3.7 cm,

percent cover grass(13%), forb(10%), Shrub (10.4%), bare ground (71%),

and litter (2%) (P arish 19 88, Parish et. al 19 93).

Strategies:

1. Nesting habitat will be pr otected from trampling by domestic

livestock and off-road vehicle use by fencing Refuge boundaries

and enforcing Refuge regulations.

2. Review historical record s and annually survey existing habitats

for nesting mountain plovers.

3. Conduct vegetative tr ansects in the D ry Creek ma nagem ent unit

to evaluate current habitat conditions relative to the breeding

and m igratory needs of the m ountain plover. 

4. Based on habitat and population assessments, implement

appropriate management strategies to maintain, improve, or

create desired habitat characteristics.

A1.3 Whooping Crane Objectives: The Re fuge staff will continue to

manage wetland units to provide a minimum of 20 percent open shallow

wetlands and open shortgrass habitat types. During migration, whooping

cranes feed and roost in a wide variety of habitats, including large and

small freshwater marshes and submerged sandbars in rivers (Howe

1989, Armbruster 1990, and Kuyt 1992). Approximately 850 acres of

wetland will be managed to provide a variety of wetland types as

potential feeding sites for migrating whooping cranes.

Strategies:

1. Section s of the H awley and Hamp w etland unit will be flooded in

early spring to a depth ranging from 6 to 36 inches.

2. Wetlands will be managed to accomplish and maintain a coverwater ratio of 50:50.

3. If cranes are sighted on the Refuge, implement an emergency

closure in the area the cranes are located to protect cranes from

disturba nce.

A1.4 Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid Objectives: Protect any populations

of the federally threatened Ute ladies’-tresses orchid found on the

Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Survey any suitable habitat prior to any ground disturbance

activities. T he plant grows in areas of open vegetation in

exposures that heat up with the late summer sun. Most

occurrences are along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows,

and in moist to wet meadows along perennial stream and

springs. Survey suitable habitat during the flowering period

(late July - early Septem ber). M ap any populations found. This

species has not been documented in southw est Wyoming.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 93

A2. Wildlife Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and

abundance of migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native species.

Seedskadee Refuge is home to a diverse group of bird and mammal species.

One pair of trumpeter swans has nested on the Refuge since 1997 and

between 20 to 35 trumpeter swans currently utilize the Refuge as wintering

habitat. The State and Service has identified the Refuge as an important

component in the restoration of the Rocky Mountain trumpeter swan

population. The Service will continue management efforts to maintain and

enhance habitat for trumpeter swans.

Moose, mule deer, and antelope herds utilize portions of the Refuge yearround. Hunting of all three species, especially moose and mule deer, is used

as a management tool to reduce over-browsing and grazing of Refuge

habitats. Hunting is also considered a compatible wildlife-dependent use,

thereby fulfilling a priority public use of the Re fuge System. The Se rvice w ill

continue close coordination with WYG&F to maintain a balance between

watchable wildlife opportunities, hunting opportunities, and healthy habitat

conditions.

Sage gro use use the Refuge for wintering and brood-rearing habitat.

Nationally, this sp ecies has been petitioned for the enda ngered species list.

Information is lacking about the number of grouse using the Refuge and

general importance of Refuge habitats to local populations. Additional

information is needed to evaluate the role of Refuge lands to management of

local pop ulations.

In addition to implementing habitat management actions (discussed in the

habitat goals section) that improve and maintain the diverse native plant

communities, the Service will consider and implement management regimes

that meet various native bird requirements. Biological monitoring of birds

and other wildlife will allow management to better document population

trends a nd effects of manage ment a ctions.

A2.1 Trumpeter Swan Objectives: Maintain habitat to accom modate

one to three pairs of nesting swans. Breeding pairs require two 100 acre

areas and often only one pair nests per pond. Provide wetland ponds

with room for take-off (100m); accessible forage (0.3 - 1.2 m depth);

diverse submergent and emergent vegetation; muskrat islands or nest

platforms; and low human disturbance. Provide winter habitat for 2 0 to

40 trumpeter swans.

Strategies:

1. Manage the Hawley and Ham p wetland impound ments to

provide a mix of tall emergents, submergents, and deep open

water habitats (50:50 w ater to vegetation ratio).

2. Develop a wintering closed area on the Refuge to minimize

disturba nce to w intering swans and other waterfow l species.

3. Work cooperatively with Reclamation and Wyoming Game and

Fish to maintain winter river flows of at least 500 cfs to ensure a

majority of the main G reen R iver cha nnel between Fontenelle

Dam and Highway 28 remains open (ice-free) to provide foraging

and resting habitat for trumpeter swans.

4. Conduct summer monitoring of nesting pairs to determine

nesting and fledgling success. Conduct winter m onitoring to

docum ent num bers an d distribution on the Refuge.
94 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

A2.2 Moose and Mule Deer Objectives: Establish vegetation browse

transects in the riparian habitat. Manage herds so that browse transects

indicate less then 50 percent browse by moose and deer on cottonwood

and willow species. Maintain moose populations at 30-40 animals for the

River riparian corridor between the town o f Green River and F ontene lle

Dam. Maintain a mule deer population of 80 to 100 animals withing the

Refuge boundary.

Strategies:

1. Establish browse transects to assess current and future habitat

conditions.

2. Assist WYG&F with aerial wildlife surveys by providing

observers and funds for flights.

3. Coordinate closely with WYG&F to establish hunt seasons and

harvest levels. 

A2.3 Sage Grouse Objectives: Evaluate the importance of Refuge

habitats to the local sage grouse populations within the next 5 to 8 years.

Maintain or improve nesting, brood, and winte ring sage grouse habitat.

For nesting habitat, provide mean sagebrush heights of 29 to 36 cm,

mean sagebrush canopy cover of 24 to 26 percent, mean grass heights of

15 to 21 cm, and mean grass/forb cover of 5 to 11 percent. For brood

habitat, provide mesic shrub sites with an abundance of grasses and

forbs. For w inter habitat, provide mea n sagebrush canopy cover of 15 to

43 percent above snow and mean sagebrush heights of 20 to 56 cm above

snow ( Connelly et al. 20 00).

Strategies:

1. Support research opportunities to evaluate local sage grouse use

of the R efuge (populations and use of Refug e habitats.

2. Coordinate closely with WYG&F on sage grouse management

initiatives.

3. Initiate Refuge surveys to determ ine the current amount,

location, and timing of sage grouse use .

4. Monitor harvest of sage grouse via field surveys, sign in logs,

and w ing barrels.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 95

A2.4 Migratory Bird Objectives: Determine breeding and migration

use of the Refuge for a diversity of migratory and resident bird species

within 10 years of completing the CCP. Conduct baseline surveys in each

habitat type to determine species richness/ diversity and relative

abundance. Based on surveys, establish average densities of key

indicator species for each habitat type to provide an index to ove rall

species richness/ diversity, document population trends of selected

species over time, and evaluate the effectiveness of habitat management

strategies.

Strategies:

1. Hire a seasonal position for 3 to 5 years to Implement

monitoring procedures that provide an index to overall species

richness/diversity and document population trends of selected

species over tim e.

2. Conduct predator removal program targeting skunk, raccoon,

fox, and mink. Animals would be removed during spring and

summ er to red uce pre dation on ground nesting birds.

A2.5 Other Indigenous Wildlife Species Objectives: Ensure the

diversity and abundance of indigenous mammals, reptiles, amphibians,

fish and invertebrates remain intact. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct baseline surveys in each habitat type to determine

species richness/diversity and relative abundance within 8-10

years of completing the CCP. Compare information to historical

data to e valuate changes in species diversity or abundance.
96 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

B. Habitat

B1. Riparian Goal: Protect and restore riparian habitats along the Green River

to provide for the annual life needs of migratory birds and native wildlife

utilizing the Green River Basin. 

Data from several studies indicate that riparian forests on the Refuge are

aging; are in poo r health compared w ith upstre am for ests; hav e relatively

few age classes and, therefore, are becoming simpler in structure; and have

insufficient regeneration to establish new age classes. Under these

conditions, the existing riparian forested habitat, which is crucial for

migrating songbirds, is highly vulnerable and without management

intervention, likely to disappear from the Refuge. The Service will develop a

plan to outline plausible actions to mitigate this situation. Management

actions w ill empha size ma intaining plant stru ctural an d specie s diversity.

Natural regeneration from seedfall, either by creating artificial off-channel

sites or altering flows to create m ore sites within the historic river channel,

is the preferred solution for long-term replacement of cottonwood stands and

other w oody riparian v egetation. Con certed effort w ill be put into this

potential solution before choosing a widespread planting program. The

progra m will begin with two to three experim ental sites in the D unkle

Management Unit which have been selected for their relative ease and

reliability of controlled artificial flooding and proximity to cottonwood seed

source s. Monitoring of the success of na tural reg eneration with in the histo ric

flood channel is a lso an im portant component to gauge the success of this

alternative. The Service may implement a protection and planting program

which could quickly provide a mid-story vegetative layer for use by forest

birds while natural regeneration is proceeding at a slower pace. This step

may b e more important as an interim solution if n atural re generation is

ultimate ly successful. If natural reg eneration is unsuccessful, a broa der scale

planting progra m ma y be critica l.

B1.1 Restoration Plan Objectives: Within four years of completing the

CCP, prepare a Riparian Restoration Plan which determines the

potential for restoration of riparian habitat, identifies restoration sites

and methods, and estimates costs. Maintain and improve the existing

4,300 a cre cotto nwoo d/willow riparian comm unity.

Strategies:

1. Support current riparian restoration research conducted by U.S.

Geological Survey and the University of Washington on

Seedskadee NWR to determine potential methods for

restoration of habitat degraded by upstream dam operations.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 97

B1.2 Forest Protection Objectives: Maintain or improve the vigor of

the existing 2,700 acres of woody riparian vegetation which contain a

variety of forest canopy types (scattered, open and closed) through

floodpla in recha rge. Pro vide dense willow understory habitat in parc els

greater than five acres in size to provide breeding habitat for neotropical

migrant birds. M aintain an average live crown vigor of 75 percent in

existing narrow leaf cottonwood stands. Aggressively protect 1,200 acres

of mature cottonw ood forested areas from drought, wildfire, and wildlife

damage.

Strategies:

1. Protect existing woody vegetation and new regeneration from

extensive browsing and trampling by native ungulates and

livestock. The Refuge staff will use exclosures, chemical

deterrents, and management of livestock and wildlife populations

in the riparian areas of the Refuge to ensure protection.

2. Work with Reclamation to recharge the floodplain during

August in most years, and periodically throughout the growing

season in dry years.

3. Install water monitoring wells in riparian areas to monitor

underground water tables and evaluate the effects of varying

water flows . 

4. Wrap or paint mature cottonwood trees to protect from beaver

damage. Harvest beaver, when necessary, according to Beaver

Trapping Plan.

5. Provide increa sed wildfire protection by increa sing veh icle

patrols during periods of high fire danger. Suppress all fires that

are detected.

6. Monitor riparian forested communities to determine success of

management activities and accomplishment of objectives.

Methods may include resampling of green-line transects (1996

Riparian Revegetation Feasibility Study) every 3 to 5 years or

the establishment of additional permanent transects/plots using

methods described by Scott and Auble during the 1997-1998

Riparian Restoration Studies on the Refuge.
98 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

B1.3 Riparian Regeneration/Planting Objectives: If required, cre ate

a regeneration class of narrow-leaf cottonwood, willows and berryproducing shrubs on 100 acres of early successional riparian habitat

through a program of natural recruitment. Achieve narrow-leaf

cottonwood regeneration with median seedling densities of 2,500 to 5,000

seedlings per acre and 10 to 20 saplings per acre. Potential sites include

the McCullen , Tallman, Pal, Dunkle, H amp, O tterson, Johnso n, and B ig

Island m anage ment u nits. Initiate a tree and shrub planting program if

necess ary, at a minimum of 5 suitable lo cations w ithin the R efuge.

Strategies:

1. Work with R eclamation to m anage a flow regime , particularly in

years of favorable seed production, suitable for establishment of

narrow-leaf cottonwood and willow species during the critical

post-seedfall period (July - September). Daily drop in river

channel water levels are not to exceed 4 cm/day during the

critical period.

2. Determ ine the feasibility of using abandoned river channels to

regenerate cottonwoods.

3. Work with Reclamation, U SGS, and other intere st groups to

determine the flow regime needed to maintain and benefit the

regeneration of cottonwoods and willow trees.

4. Prepa re a soil su rvey in a reas w ith suitable regeneration sites. 

5. Initiate and monitor a shrub and tree (pole) planting program

utilizing live plant materials on suitable riparian sites. Protect

plantings, or areas with natural regeneration, from browsing

using ex closures.

6. Monitor succe ss of plan tings and regeneration efforts. 

7. Work with Reclamation to continue mitigation funding for

restoration of riparian willow and cottonwood forests until such

a time as the decline of this habitat is reversed and the health of

the system im proves.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 99

B2. Wetland Goal: Wetlands will be managed to meet the breeding and

migratory requirements of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other

wetland dependent species.

Spring and fall migrational habitats are a very limited resource along the

Green River. They consist of secure areas where birds seeking out wetland

habitats may feed and rest on their migration through Seedskadee NWR.

Foraging sites are made available in several ways. Shallow flooding of short

emergent vegetation in the spring makes a variety of last years seed crops

available to ducks and geese. This shallow water also warms much quicker

than the river or surrounding deeper wetlands and stim ulates invertebrate

activity, thereby making them available to wa terfow l and sho rebirds. Fall

migrational habitat is even more limited along the Green River than spring

migrational habitat, as most of the naturally-occurring river-fed wetlands

have dried up during the summer. Drawing down short emergent wetlands

will concentrate aquatic invertebrates and make them available to many

species of shore birds and wate rfowl.

Maintaining open, deep water areas with submerged aquatic vegetation

provides secure loafing and foraging habitat for species like ring-necked

ducks, redheads, and trumpeter swans. This type of habitat can be achieved

in portions of the Hawley, Hamp, and Sagebrush wetland units. Other

migrating and breeding birds prefe r shallow flooded emergent w etlands with

little open water. Opportunities to provide this habitat type exist in portions

of the Pal, Sage brush, H amp, H awley , and Dunkle w etland units.

Breeding habitat consists of areas where courtship and breeding may occur,

suitable nest sites are available, and adequate resou rces are provided to

sustain birds to fledgling. The S ervice will strive to manage all wetland units

to meet the diverse needs of breeding wetland dependent birds.

Channel downcutting in the Green River has occurred. As a result, many of

the historic oxbow river channels are no longer connected to the river and

have lost m uch or most of their wetland values and function s. Prior to

Fontenelle Dam these river oxbows would likely flood more often and for

longer periods. Dam operations have moderated timing, duration, and

volume of peak flows. The Dam has also reduced the amount of

sedimentation flowing downstream which in turn reduces the ability of the

river to create sandbars and islands. The river channel receives reduced

sediments and over the long-term b ecomes sedim ent dep leted. Th ere is little

accretion of the river channel, just erosion, and, therefore, the channel

continues to incise. Partial restoration of these old channels can be

accomplished by constructing a rock weir in the river and reflooding such

channels. Several weir projects have already been completed. Depending

upon the micro-relief of the area, these restored channels may provide spring

migration, breeding, or fall migration habitats or all of these habitats. Rock

weirs do not need to be actively managed other than to maintain the function

of the w eir to dive rt wate r into the channel.
100 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

B2.1 Hamp and Hawley Wetland Units Objectives: The Hamp,

Upper H awley, and Lower Haw ley wetland units will be m anaged to

provide a mix of deep a nd shallow water habitats depending on unit

topography. Management will attempt to maintain a water and cover

ratio of approximately 50:50. 

Strategies:

1. The H amp (# 1 and #2) head -water gates w ill be open ed in early

spring (usually around A pril 1), and wa ters will be allow ed to

seep from Hamp to Lower Hawley unit over a period of three

weeks. Approximately 50 percent or more of the units will be

flooded to a depth of 2 to 10 inches. The remaining 50 percent

(primarily tall emergent aquatic and open submergent) of the

units will be floode d to a depth of 2 to 4 feet. Beginning in early

August, short emergent vegetation pools will be slowly drawn

down to provide fall migration food. D eep w ater units will

remain flooded.

2. Minimize the effect of nest predation on waterfowl and other

birds by conducting predator control from mid-March to midJuly according to an approved Predator Control Plan.

3. Monitor waterfow l use bim onthly during spring and fall

migrations and nesting success every 3 years. Monitor

trumpeter sw an use year-round in all wetland units. 

4. Drawdowns, burning, mowing, and discing will be used to control

encroachment of emergents (cattails) in wetland units. Strive to

obtain a cover-water ratio of 50:50: that is to maintain equal

portions of open water and emergent vegetation.

5. Waters levels will be m anipulated to promote moist soil plants

and invertebrate production. Drawdowns and re-flooding will be

used to mimic wetland cycles that will produce food (plants and

invertebrates) and cover.

6. Maintain existing water rights.

7. Provide areas with minimal disturbance during nesting periods

for trumpeter swans and waterfowl. Use temporary/ permanent

closures when necessary.

8. Low er the height of th ree islands constructed in the Hamp U nit

to eradicate pepperweed and encourage growth of emergent

vegetation. Replace w ater control structures w ithin unit.

9. Replace or enhance current dike structures in portions of the

Hawley unit and replace several worn out water control

structures.

10. Evaluate vegetative response to depth, timing, duration, and

frequency of flooding.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 101

B2.2 Sagebrush Pools and Dunkle Wetland Objectives: Manage the

Sagebrush and Dunkle units to optimize fall and spring migration habitat

for migrating wetland dependent species by managing for shallow open

water (10 to 15 cm) during spring and /or fall mig ration.

Strategies:

1. In early spring (mid-April to mid-June), Sagebrush Pool and

Dunkle wetland units will be drawn down slowly (2-3 cm per

week) to concentrate and increase the availability of

invertebrates for duck s and ea rly migrating sho rebirds. In fall

(between A ugust and Sep tembe r), Sage brush P ool and Dunkle

wetland units will be slowly (2-3 cm/week) flooded to a water

depth o f 18 cm. This will provide foraging habitat for fall

migrating birds. Water levels will be increased in these units to

approximate ly 45 cm before heavy freeze, and water w ill be held

in these units through the winter to enable invertebrates to lay

eggs and survive over the winter.

2. Units that have undesirable vegetation will be drawn down,

shallow ly disced in the sum mer, and shallowly flooded in the fall.

Vegetation density in the wetlands will be maintained at less

than 50 percent cover.

3. Draw downs, discing, burning, and mow ing will be used to

promote moist soil plants and invertebrate production.

4. Monitor wildlife use and evaluate vegetative response to depth,

timing, duration, and frequency of flooding.

5. Maintain existing water rights.

6. Eliminate the islands currently existing in these units. The

islands are too high, infested with perennial pepperweed, and the

wetlan d units are too sm all to supp ort pred ator-fre e islands.
102 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

B2.3 Pal Wetland Objectives: Manage the Pal wetland unit as a

primarily a shallow (<10 cm) wet meadow and willow shrub habitat for a

diversity of wetland dependent birds. Wet meadow areas will be no less

then 5 a cres in size.

Strategies:

1. Draw downs, discing, burning, and mow ing will be used to

promote moist soil plants and invertebrate production.

2. Cooperate with Reclamation to enhance wetland management

potential in the Pal Wetland Management Unit by re-designing

the water delivery system and increasing water control

capabilities.

3. Maintain existing water rights.

4. Monitor wildlife use and evaluate vegetative response to depth,

timing, duration, and frequency of flooding.

B2.4 Oxbow Channel Wetlands Objectives: In cooperation with

Reclamation, restore one or more river oxbows to provide riverine

wetland habitat which was lost with the construction of Fontenelle Dam.

These restored wetlands will provide for spring and fall migration and

breeding habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other water birds.

Maintain existing oxbow restoration projects.

Strategies:

1. Minimize disturbance to soil surface and utilize existing

topography at every opportunity when constructing water

delivery system s and dik es.

2. Evaluate the feasibility of constructing a rock weir in the Green

River to divert water into a stranded oxbow near Big Island. If

feasible, construct a weir to restore the oxbow. Explore other

potential oxbow restoration projects in conjunction with the

WY G&F and other intere sted public’s.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 103

B3. Uplands Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of

indigenous flora associated with the Great Basin upland desert shrub and

grassland habitats to support native wildlife found in the Green River Basin.

The Sagebrush/Salt Desert Shrub habitats provide vital foraging and

breeding habitat for sage grouse, pronghorn antelope, neotropical migratory

birds, and other indigenous species dependent on these habitats. Sagebrush

habitats are not monotypic but, in fact, consist of a mosaic of shrub types of

which sagebrush is the most dominant. Most of the Refuge uplands are

dominated by this habitat. A unique variety of Wyoming big sagebrush

exists in the valley from the upper Gre en River around Pinedale south to

approximately K emmerer. This variety is extremely palatable to w ildlife

which may account for the area’s ability to support sage grouse, a declining

species, and larg e herds of wintering pr ongho rn. Maintenan ce of this

sagebrush/ salt desert shrub community is a priority for the Service.

The Hay Farm unit was once planted to a mix of “tame grass” species to be

used as irrigated hay for elk feed. When the irrigation was abandoned the

area reverted to a mix of grasses and tall annual weedy forbs. Without

irrigation it would be very difficult to convert this habitat to a native grassshrub mix and it provides the only upland tallgrass cover on the Refuge.

Following several wildfires on the Refuge, areas previously dominated by

solid stands of greasewood were succeeded by vigorous stands of Great

Basin wildrye. Tallgrass uplands and wildrye, in particular, are not very

abundant on the Refuge and management will seek to maintain or

moderately expand these unique vegetation types.

B3.1 Sagebrush/Salt Desert Shrub Habitat Objectives: Sagebrushdominate d (15,000 acres) and S alt Desert S hrub (3,000 acres) habitats

will be managed for no-net loss and to minimize fragmentation of these

habitats. Manage existing sagebrush/ salt desert shrub stands for a

balance be tween sh rub and pe rennial grass cover, and for open to

moderate shrub cover (5 to 35 percent) and multiple height classes. Grass

and forb canopy cover shou ld be a m inimum of 15 pe rcent.

Strategies:

1. Survey upland shrub habitats and evaluate which shrub stands

need restoration.

2. Extensively, overly dense and crowded sagebrush stands that

have lost much the native herbaceous understory and plant

diversity may be selectively thinned to re-establish a balance

betwe en shru b cover and pe rennial grass and forb cover. 

3. Upland habitat will be protected from trampling and grazing by

domestic livestock and off-road vehicles by maintaining

boundary fences and enforcing off-road vehicle regulations.

4. Monitor treatment sites for habitat and wildlife response.

Establish long-term monitoring transects/plots in all major

upland habitat types to detect changes in cover and major

species composition.

5. Aggressively suppress fires w hich thre aten sta nds of tall

sagebrush in draws. These areas provide crucial winter thermal

cover for num erous species.
104 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

B3.2 Upland Tallgrass/Great Basin Wild Rye Objectives: Manage

grasslands to maintain shrub cover at less than 10 percent for the

improvement and maintenance of habitat for ducks, geese, sage grouse,

moose, mule deer, prongho rn, and n eotropical migratory birds.

Strategies:

1. Protect grasslands from grazing and trampling by dom estic

livestock and off-road vehicles by maintaining boundary fences

and enforcing off-road vehicle regulations.

2. Survey range and site conditions and inventory vegetation

composition.

3. Prescribed burns and mechanical methods, such as discing and

mowing, may be used individually or together to achieve

grassland objectives.

4. Monitor wildlife and habitat response to treatments. Establish

long-term monitoring transects/plots to detect changes in cover

and m ajor species composition.

5. Reseed old fields to native grasses and forbs when the

composition of native grasses and forbs is less than 50 percen t.

6. Initiate se veral sm all scale (3 to10 acres) pre scribed burns in

decadent stands of greasewood to increase the cover of Great

Basin wild rye (up to 50 acres).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 105

B4. Riverine Goal: The Refuge staff, in collaboration with Wyoming Game

and Fish Department and Reclamation, will manage water quality and quantity

in the Green River to maintain and/or restore the riparian and cottonwood

forests and provide habitat for waterfowl, trumpeter swans, fish, and other

native species dependent on river and forested habitat.

Ice-free areas along the Green River are important wintering areas for the

Rocky Mountain population of trumpeter swans, waterfowl, and raptors. The

trophy trout fishery is also dependent on winter flow management to

maintain open water reaches and maintain minimum dissolved oxygen levels.

Maintaining open w ater areas on the Gre en River during winte r is

dependent upon climate and flow releases from Fontennelle Dam. The

Service w ill work with R eclamation and W YG& F to provide winter flow s to

meet these diverse species needs. Providing minimum flows will ensure

breeding, foraging, wintering, and migration habitat for native fishes,

waterfowl, swans, bald eagles, and other native species.

River management is also instrumental in maintaining the health of the

riparian corridor (cottonwoods and willows). Research is currently underway

to evaluate the h ealth of th e riparian corridor. Recomm endatio ns from this

research may involve changes in summer river flows to help maintain and

rejuvenate the aging cottonwood/ willow forests. In coordination with

Reclamation and the WYG&F, the Service will seek to establish summer

flows which will facilitate the maintenance and restoration of the riparian

corridor.

B4.1 Riverine Habitat and Fish Objectives: Work with Reclamation

and WYG& F to maintain minimum winter river flows of 500 cfs to

ensure the existence of areas in the River that are free of frazil ice and

provide open water for wintering wildlife. Strive for winter flows of 700

to 800 cfs. Assu re dissolved oxygen (D .O.) level of at least 6.3 mg /l.

Strive to ensure that fluctuations do not exceed 100 cfs in a 24-hour

period.

Strategies:

1. Estab lish aqua tic vegetation tra nsects to evaluate changes in

aquatic vegeta tion in rela tion to R iver manage ment.

2. Cooperate w ith WY G&F to mon itor population trends in

roundtail chubs, flannel-mouth suckers, trout, and trumpeter

swans.

3. Evaluate the effects of instream river projects on targeted

species.

4. Use temporary or permanent closures on the Refuge when

necessary to provide areas with minimal disturbance to wildlife.

5. Monitor winter use by wildlife and visitors, including human and

wildlife interactions.

6. Work with Reclamation to minimize sudden fluctuations in river

flows.

7. Coordina te with US GS to esta blish standard water quality

monitoring sites at 2 to 3 sites w ithin the Refuge to evaluate

changes in wa ter quality.

8. Estab lish invertebrate monito ring sites to evaluate changes in

invertebrate abundance relative to changes in River

mana geme nt.
106 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

B4.2 Riparian Corridor Restoration Objectives: Maintain River flows

of a minimum of 500 cfs during summer. Strive for spring flows over

2,000 cfs (April to June), flows of 800 to 1200 cfs from July to October,

and winter (Novem ber to March) flows of 700 to 800 cfs. Provide a one to

two week pulse of 2,000 cfs in late July or August to recharge the

floodpla in.

Strategies:

1. Work with Reclamation and the WYG&F to evaluate and

potentially modify summer river flows with respect to

mainte nance and res toration of the riparian co rridor.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 107

B5. Invasive Species Goal: Restore and maintain indigenous flora diversity

by controlling the invasion of exotic plant species on the Refuge.

The most aggressive control will take place on scattered, new invasive

populations. The Refuge staff will regularly update and implement a weed

containment plan utilizing Integrated Pest Management practices to reduce

the extent of target weed species in riparian/wetland habitats and to prevent

their spread to new locations. Much of the wet meadow/short emergent

habitats along the middle third of the riparian area (longitudinally along the

length of the river) are heavily infested with perennial pepperweed. The

short-term strategy is to use mecha nical methods (mow ing) and herbicides to

reduce populations. Efforts have focused from the north refuge boundary

working southward. Re-seeding of heavily infested areas may be required.

Tamarisk can be readily found in low densities upstream off Refuge lands.

Control on the Refuge and cooperative upstream control are both considered

essential. This species may be at the limits of its range in this area. The exact

potentia l for invasion and spread here is unknow n.

B5.1 Control Exotic Plant Populations Objectives: Eradicate or

reduce by 90 percent over the next 10 years the frequency of the

following noxious plants: perennial pepperweed, Russian knapweed,

Canada thistle, musk thistle, salt cedar, and hoary cress.

Strategies:

1. Use fire, herbicides, mechanical methods, and biological control

to eradicate or reduce undesirable exotics.

2. In areas where exotic weed control has been conducted, reseed

the treated sites to native grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

3. Evaluate effects of noxious plant control, and develop

appropriate strategies.

4. Continue to support research into exotic plant control on the

Refuge.

5. Network with local noxious plant experts to maintain current

information on techniqu es and practices used to control e xotic

plants.

6. Develop “watch list” of noxious weed species which occur on the

Refuge for use by the staff and volunteers.

7. Annually monitor suitable habitat and known infestations of

tamarisk and treat immediately. Coordinate with Reclamation

and BLM in the development and implementation of a control

program for salt cedar infestations occurring on lands upstream

of the Refuge.
108 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

C. Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

C1. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Goal: Nurture an understanding of and

appreciation for wildlife and other natural resources of the Green River Basin

by providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation while

maintaining the primitive, uncrowded nature of the area.

C1.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography Objectives: Provide

visitors with quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities.

Provide opportunities and minimal facilities for visitors of all abilities to

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation without compromising the quality of

the visitor experience o r the purpose o f the Re fuge.

Strategies:

1. Maintain the nine mile west side auto tour route at least twice

per year to ensure year-round access for visitors.

2. Maintain and enhance current road pullouts along the auto tour

routes. Provide directio nal signs to indicate parking areas. 

3. To improve access to the river and reduce visitor impacts to the

river corridor, maintain and enhance the four existing boat

ramps on the west side of the River at Dodge Bottom, Hay

Farm, Highway 28, and 6 Mile Hill. Install or add additional

cable crete to boat ramps to improve launching of boats.

Delineate parking areas at boat ramps.

4. Work with the WYG&F to establish a no-wake zone on the

Green River through the Refuge.

5. Maintain availability of Refuge lands for miscellaneous

occasional compatible public uses (i.e., horseback riding,

picnicking, cross-country skiing, snow shoeing, and bicycling)

without further expenditure of Refuge resources.

6. Update and convert the existing species list brochure according

to the latest Service graphics format.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 109

C1.2 Hunting and Fishing Objectives: Provide a variety of quality

River fishing opportunities and hunting opportunities on portions of the

Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Continue participation in “Take a Kid Fishing Day” and establish

at least one additional annual activity for local youth.

2. Meet annually with the WYG& F to determine hunting and

fishing op portunities/seasons on Refug e lands. 

3. Develop a fishing and hunting leaflet to explain special Refuge

regulations and enhance the visitor experience.

4. Modify the existing are as “closed to hunting” and “closed to

migratory bird hunting” to improve wildlife observation/

photography opportunities, simplify boundaries for hunters,

maintain a quality hunt program, and provide better

resting/feeding opportunities for migrating birds. The closed

area will likely center on the Hawley, Hamp, and Pal wetland

management units and include wetland and riverine habitat.

Establishm ent of the new closed a rea will be in coordination w ith

the WYG& F and with participation of the general public.

Barring the establishm ent of a closed area on Riverine habitat,

the Refuge would explore closure of the waterfowl season on

December 1 to reduce distu rbance to winte ring wildlife.

5. Conduc t law enforcement patrols to ensure visitors com ply with

refuge regulations and provide a quality experience for law

abiding visitors.

6. Monitor and mana ge permitted g uided use of the Refug e, in

accordance with the Recreation Fee Pilot Program. Finalize a

“Commercial Guide Plan” for the Refuge. Sections of the River

may be closed to commercial guiding in the future to avoid overcrowding.

7. Explore opportunities to offer special hunting and fishing

opportunities for persons with disabilities or disadvantaged

youth.

8. Install an accessible pit toilet and associated parking area, at

Dodge Bottoms boat ramp.

9. Roadside parking areas will be delineated for anglers in high use

areas.
110 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

C2. Environmental Education and Interpretation Goal: Educate and

inform the public about the Refuge, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, The

National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Upper Colorado Ecosystem by

providing quality environmental education and interpretation opportunities. 

C2.1 Environmental Education and Interpretation Objectives:

Seedskadee NWR w ill provide a high-quality environmental education

and interpretive progra m for visitors of all abilities to enhance their

appreciation and understanding of wildlife and people’s role in the

environm ent.

Strategies:

1. Develop one river interpretive canoe trail and provide

interpretive brochures to inform and educate boaters about the

natural and cultural resources found within the Refuge and the

importance of riparian areas in the a rid west.

2. Develop and maintain interpretive panels at a minimum of five

pullouts along the auto tour route Map 8a & 8b. Interpretive

panels will highlight topics such as: river hydrology, habitat

management, fishery and wildlife resources.

3. Develop and maintain one nature interpretive trail near the

headquarters and one cultural resource trail at the Lombard

Ferry site. Trails will include interpretive panels. Trails will be

made accessible to visitors of all abilities. Map 8a & 8b.

4. Conduct a minimum of two on-site teacher training workshops

that demonstrate activities educators may use to inform

students about the Green River and its related natural

resources.

5. With the assistance of local educators, develop one

environmental education curriculum package for the proposed

nature trail.

6. Construct an environmental education/ interpretation facility

(6,000 ft2

) at Seedskadee NWR and explore partnering

opportunities for opera ting the fa cility. The fa cility wou ld

include an activity room, interpretive display area, kitchen, rest

rooms, and office. Map 8a& 8b

7. Assist schools by conducting limited Refuge environmental

education tours as requested.

8. Continue participation in local and State community events like

the Green River Fly Swap, Red Desert Sport Show, and Casper

Wildlife Expo .

9. Update existing kiosk signs within the next 15 years. Map 8a &

8b

10. Develop and maintain interpretive panels at 5 significant

cultural/historical sites.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 111

C3. Resource Protection Goal: Protect Refuge resources from adverse

natural and/or man-made impacts. 

C3.1 Public Use Objectives: Determine public use levels year-round

and monitor impacts to habitat and wildlife via surveys.

Strategies:

1. Continue collection of river registration information at boat

ramps. Data will be used to assess if there is a correlation

between river uses and habitat impacts and/or wildlife

disturbance.

2. Install automatic traffic counters at selected Refuge entrances.

Provide visitor sign-in logs at Refuge headquarters and at the

Lom bard F erry inte rpretive site. 

3. Monitor R iver use activities and recreation num bers via rem ote

video to evaluate what type of uses are occurring and locations

of uses. Data collected by these mea ns will be used in

conjunction with other resource data to analyze impacts to

Refuge reso urces.

4. Develop a Public Use and Sign Plan for the Refuge.

5. Visitor u se limits and seasonal closures m ay be instituted if

visitor use levels increase to a level which disturbs wildlife,

causes resource impacts, or exceeds visitor tolerances.

C3.2 Designated Roads Objectives: Establish designated roads for

visitor use which are compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and

provide s for com patible w ildlife recre ation opportunities.

Strategies:

1. Reduce fragmentation, damage to habitat types, and disturbance

to wildlife by closing select roads which enter sensitive areas.

Forty-five mile s of desig nated roads w ill remain open fo r public

travel if it is determined this does not significantly disturb

and/or harm habitat and/or wildlife. Seasonally close 5.4 miles of

designated roads on the east side of the River to vehicle use

from November 15 through March 15 to reduce disturbance to

wintering wildlife utilizing riverine habitat (Map 10).

2. Install numbered road markers at road intersections. These road

markers will be depicted on Refuge brochure maps and assist

visitors to locate their position on the refuge. Install gates on

Refuge administrative roads. Establishment of road markers

and gates should alleviate any confusion regarding which roads

are open or closed and thus reduce the potential for off-road

travel.

3. Close all non-designated roads using a combination of signs,

gates, and restoration techniques (ripping and seeding roads).
112 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

C3.3 Refuge Information and Regulations Objectives: Provide up to

date information to visitors about Refuge regulations to ensure

compliance and ensure visitor safety.

Strategies:

1. Conduct education and information campaign using news

releases and public meetings to gather public comments on

proposed changes to refuge management and to inform the

public of regulation changes.

2. Update the general Refuge information brochure every two

years.

3. Improve directional an d regulatory signing on the Refuge to

ensure visitors comply with regulations.

4. Ensure information stations located throughout the Refuge are

filled regularly with Refuge Brochures (Map 8a & 8b).

5. Provide at least one full time or three collateral law enforcement

officers to ensure prote ction of R efuge resourc es and public

safety.

C3.4 Livestock Management/Fencing Objectives: Manage livestock

access to water in accordance with legal requirements, to minimize

impacts to wildlife and habitat, and reduce conflicts with visitors.

Maintain fencing around Refuge lands in accordance with WYG&F

antelop e fence standards.

Strategies:

1. Manage livestock access/watering lanes to minimize co nflicts

between livestock and Refuge public use. Designate parking

areas near livestock watering lanes and create signs informing

the public about the purpose of livestock access lanes. (Map 5)

2. Segm ents of R efuge la nds, which are not currently fen ced, will

be evaluated and, where feasible, they will be fenced. Segments

of current fence which are not “antelope-friendly” will be

modified to comply with antelope fencing recommendations.

3. Subject to valid existing rights, access to water for livestock

would be provided in designated watering lanes only. (Map 5)

4. Providing spring watering opportunities for Rock Springs

Grazing Association (RSGA) members will be coordinated as

specified by the conditions set forth in the warranty deed which

accompanied the sale of he lands from RSGA to the Refuge.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 113
114 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 115

C3.5 Land Acquisition/ Development Objectives: Protect and acquire

lands which support the purposes of the Refuge or mission of the

Nation al Wildlife Refug e Syste m.

Strategies:

1. Cluster facility development at the current site of the Refuge

headquarters and other buildings and leave the remainder of the

Refuge in a primitive and semi-primitive condition. (Map 8a &

8b)

2. The remaining five acres of privately held land within the

Refuge boundary would be purchased if there were a willing

seller. Other lands would be considered for acquisition on a

willing seller basis if information indicated that additional acres

were necessary for mana geme nt of selected spe cies (i.e.,

threatened and endangered species), to simplify boundary

management, or for mitigation purposes. Such areas may include

upstrea m riverine riparian are as, espe cially betw een Fontene lle

Reservoir and Big Piney or lands surrounding the Big Sandy

River. Any additional land acquisition or disposal would go

through a public involvement process and be on a willing seller

basis only.

3. Conduct a formal review of Refuge lands to determine if portions

of the R efuge a re eligible for desig nation as “wilde rness.”

C3.6 Mineral and Oil Exploration Objectives: Minimize impacts/

threa ts to the Re fuge a ssocia ted w ith the developm ent of future ROW ’s

and from mining and gas exp loration.

Strategies:

1. Mineral exploration and development would be allowed only for

privately-owned minerals and under surface use stipulations

designed to maximize protection of wildlife, stabilization of soils,

and restoration of disturbed vegetation; as well as to minimize

adverse effects to the Refuge visitor’s experience.

2. No surface occupancy would be allowed for access to privatelyowned minerals if they may be otherwise reasonably accessed.

3. Rights-of-way would be reviewed and approved on a case-bycase ba sis. A righ t-of-wa y through the R efuge w ould be denied if

feasible alternative routes were available. If no alternative route

were available, restrict right-of-way to existing utility corridors

with Refuge stipulations.
116 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

C4. Cultural Resource Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural sites and objects associated with Refuge lands.

C4.1Cultural Resource Protection Objectives:Continue inventorying

of Refuge lands for cultural resources and provide quality interpretation

and protection of significa nt sites. 

Strategies:

1. Consult with the State Historic Preservation Office prior to all

proposed actions.

2. Avoid disturbance to areas of known cultural sites and potential

sensitive areas when practical and mitigate any adverse e ffects

to sites. (Map 7)

3. Obtain data and produce a cultural resource overlay for the

spatial resource information database (GIS).

4. Incorporate interpretation of the Lombard Ferry replica into the

existing Lombard Crossing interpretive site. (Map 7 and 8a)

5. Update the Refuge historical brochure as new information

becomes available.

6. Maintain the character of the historic viewshed of the Oregon/

Morm on National Historic Tra ils by minimizing visual impacts

during Refuge dev elopment.

7. Identify sites for additional protection and interpretation.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 117

C5. Partnership Goal: Foster partnerships to promote wildlife conservation

and habitat management in the Green River Basin and to help Seedskadee

NWR accomplish its vision and goals.

C5.1 Partnerships, Volunteers, and Leadership Objectives: Create

opportunities for new partnerships among Federal, State, and local

agencies, organizations, schools, corporations, communities, and

volunteers in order to promote and sustain the development and

management of the Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Encourage the development of a local “Friends” group to support

Refuge goals and assist in future fund raising and cooperative

ventu res. Potential groups to approach include the G ood S am’s

Club, Audubon groups, Trout unlimited, and local school and

univers ities.

2. Encourage the development of a cooperative study between

USFWS, BL M, and Reclamation to determine the eligibility and

suitability o f designating the Green River as a wild and scenic

River.

3. Designate a volunteer coordinator to recruit, train, and supervise

volunteers.

4. Utilize a variety of sources (web sites, email, university contacts,

wildlife and fishery professional societies) to recruit volunteers

with diverse backgrounds.

5. Provide room and board if necessary, for volunteers working at

the Refuge. Provide at least one bunkhouse with three bedrooms

and three trailer pads w ith RV hookups.

6. Annu ally evaluate the volunteer program and implement changes

when needed.

7. Provide technical assistance on wetland and riparian habitat

management and restoration to landowners and land managers.

8. Stay actively involved in other neighboring Federal, State, and

private planning processes to protect Refuge resources and

foster cooperative management of those resources in the Green

River Basin. 

9. Continue participation w ith Trout Unlimited and WYGF to

assist with local river improvement projects .

10. Continue or expand opportunities with the Rock Springs, Green

River, and Farson Chambers of Commerce to participate in local

events, develop websites, and improve dissemination of

literature about th e Refuge.

11. Continue inter agency coordination with BLM, Counties

(Sweetwater, and Lincoln), USFS, WY State Forest Service,

Green River and Rock Springs Fire Departments, and National

Park S ervice to assist with wildfire suppre ssion activities.

12. Continue coordination with the American Bird Conservancy

(ABC ) to publicize the R efuge’s designa tion as a Globally

Important Bird Area. Expand birding opportunities and work

with ABC to provide additional funding for bird related habitat

improvement or education projects.
118 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

V. Implementation and

Monitoring

5.1 Funding and Personnel

Staffing Needed to Implement This Plan: Table 5.1 shows current staff and

proposed additional sta ffing nee ded to fu lly implem ent this plan. If all

positions were filled, the R efuge w ould be able to ca rry out a ll aspects of this

plan to a reasonable standard. If some positions are not filled, completion of

some projects may be delayed or not completed. Staffing and funding are

expected to come ov er the 15-year life of this Plan. See dskadee NW R is

currently responsible for management of Cokeville Meadows NWR (7,677

acres) which remains an unfunded Refuge.

Table 5.1 Staffing Plan

Current Personnel Personnel Needed

Refuge Manager (Project Leader) GS-12 Refuge Manager (Project Leader) GS-12

Assistant Refuge Manager (ROS) GS-11 Assistant Refuge Manager GS-11

Administrative Support Assistant GS-06 Administrative Assistant GS-07

Ecologist GS-06 Ecologist GS-11

Biological Technician (Wildlife) GS-06 Biological Technician (Wildlife) GS-07

Engineering Equipment Operator WG-09 Engineering Equipment Operator WG-10

New Position Public Use Specialist GS-09/11

New Position Maintenance Mechanic WG-09

New Position Biological Tech nician GS-5 (Se asonal)

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan: Currently, a large backlog of

maintenance needs exists on the Refuge. The needs are recorded in a national

Maintenance Management System (MMS). In 2000, under current management

plans, the backlog for See dskadee NW R wa s $2,271,000. T hese needs w ould

need to be met under this plan. A summ ary of these needs is listed below.

Vehicles and Equipment $1,428,000

Water Control Structures and Dikes $ 335,000

Domestic Water System $ 375,000

Bridges and Roads $ 25,000

Buildings $ 90,000

Radio System $ 18,000

TOTAL $2,271,000
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 119

The System also uses another database, the Refuge Operating Needs System

(RON S). Table 5.2 reflects the S ervice’s (Refuge’s) pro posed projects, in

priority order, as detailed in the Refuge Operational Needs System (R ONS).

Many of these “projects” involve increases to the Refuge’s permanent staffing

and funding to carry out the increased responsibilities outlined in this CCP.

They also represent needs stemming from an increase in acquired acreage and

the maintenance of additional facilities. Each year RONS projects are

submitted and compete with similar projects within the Region and with other

Service R egions for R efuge funding increases. Completed RO NS data sheets

for the proposed proje cts can be fou nd in Appendix C of this document.

Table 5.2 RONS Project Sum mary for 

Seedskadee NWR (2000)

Project Description

(in priority order) 

Base Increase (B)

# of Year Funds (1-4)

Hire Personnel (P)

Projected

Cost

Enhance Public Education and Outreach Activities B/P $139,000

Control and Eradicate Noxious Weeds B/P $78,000

Maintain Public Use and Refuge Facilities B/P $125,000

Improve Water Level Management to Enhance

Wetland Impoun dments

1 $49,000

Improve Trumpeter Swan Management and

Augmentation Program

1-2 $38,000

Improve Directional and Interpretive Signing To

Enhance Visitor Experience and Protect Habitat

1 $36,000

Enhance Refuge Brochures and Public Information 1 $29,000

Enhance Volunteer and Temporary Hire Housing

Facility

1 $65,000

Implem ent Riparian Restoration Efforts B $54,000

Provide Education Outreach Displays and Protect

Historic Trails

1 $40,000

TOTAL $653,000
120 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Table 5.3 outlines projects which the Service and Reclamation agree to carry

out jointly as part of Reclamation’s mitigation obligations for the Seedskadee

Projec t. Funding is generally av ailable for this mitigation w ork and it is

anticipated that these projects will be complete d on or a bout the schedu le

proposed below . None of these “p rojec ts” rep resent increases to the Refu ge’s

base funding.

Table 5.3 R eclamation Coope rative Mitigation Projects

Project Description Wor k Schedule

(FY)

Habitat D evelopm ent Projects

Enhance Pal Unit Wetlands 2001-2002

Restore Oxbow/Other Wetlands 2002-2003

Enha nce Dikes and Wate r Control in Ha wley U nit 2002-2003

Control Pepperweed/Restore Infested Areas 1999-2010

Restore Riparian Areas 1999-2010*

Rip, Seed and Restore Non-designated Roads 2000-2004

Reclaim Gra vel Barrow Pit 2002

Enha nce Voluntee r Housing by A dding A ir

Conditioning, Propane Heat, Mudroom, and Screen

Porch

2002

Public Use Projects

Construct Boat Ramps and Parking 1999-2002

Improve Access and Auto Tour Route, Upgrade Road

System to All-Weather

Completed

Design and Install Interpretive Signs Along A uto

Tour Route

2003-2004

Construct a L omba rd Interpretive Trail 2001

Construct Interpretive Trail Near Headquarters 2002-2003

Revise and Reprint Refuge Brochures 1999-2003

Construct Environmental E ducation Facility 2001-2003

Construct Accessible Restroom and Associated

Parking Lot Facility at Upper Dodge Bottoms Boat

Ramp

2002

Finish Fencing of “Roundout” Parcels Transferred

From Reclamation in 19997/78

2003

Install Gates at Administrative Roads Throughout

the Refuge to Reduce Off-Road Travel

2002

Cultura l Resource Inventory; Documen t Historic

sites

Complete

* (Reclamation funding through 2003 - work likely to extend well beyond 2003)
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 121

5.2 CCP Implementation and Step-down Management Plans

The 1987 Refuge Master Plan, 1989 Station Plan, and 1995 Refuge

Development Plan will be replaced by this Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(Table 5.4). The CCP describes Refuge management and priorities for the next

15 yea rs and details Refuge d evelopment (infrastru cture, ha bitat, and public

use) projects, both by the Service and by Reclamation under their mitigation

obligation. This CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan that provides

general concepts, specific wildlife and habitat objectives, and federally listed

species, public use, and partnership objectives. Depending on the Refuge

needs, these may be very detailed or quite broad. The purpose of step-down

management plans is to provide greater detail to managers to implement

specific actions authorized by the CCP. Step-down management planning is the

formulation of detailed plans that describe management activities necessary to

implement strategies identified in this CCP. Step-down management plans

describe the specific management actions to be followed, “stepping down” from

the gen eral goals, objectives, an d strategies.

Table 5.4 Management Plan Status

Plan Date Last

Revised

Action Revise

Refuge Master Plan

(Development Plan 1987)

7/87 Replaced by the CCP 2001

Station Plan 

(with goals and objectives)

8/89 Replaced by the CCP 2001

Refuge Development Plan 12/95 Replaced by the CCP 2001
122 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Table 5.5 displays a list of step-down plans and a schedule for their revision.

Following completion of the CCP, most plans will need to be reviewed and

revised, as necessary, to comply with the CCP and new policies following the

passage of the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Additionally, several new

plans, including the Public Use Plan and the Habitat Management Plan, will be

developed. The prep aration of new step-do wn plans or substantial changes to

existing step-down plans typically will require further compliance with the

National E nvironmental Policy A ct (NEP A), other policies, and opportunity

for public review .

The Habitat Management Plan is a new plan that will address management of

all habitat types on the Refuge. It will include a discussion of habitat

management objectives and various treatments (tools) to be used in habitat

management and incorporate several existing step-down plan s which deal with

habitat management. The Public Use Plan will address the appropriate types

and level of public use to be allowed on the Refuge, program management, such

as hunting, and the development of facilities to accommodate public use.

Table 5.5 Status of Step-down Plans

Step-down Plan Date Last

Revised

Objective Revise

Beaver Trapping Plan 3/81 Review and incorporate into Habitat Plan 2004

Cultural Resource Plan New Complete 2004

Fire Management Plan 5/83 Review and revise 2002

Fishing Plan with

 Commercial Guide Sub-Plan

3/81 Review and revise 2002

Grassland Management Plan 5/82 Review and incorporate into Habitat

Management Plan

2004

Habitat Management Plan New Complete 2004

Hunting Plan 8/86

1990 amended

Review and revise 2002

Integrated Pest Management

Plan

1/98 Review and incorporate into Habitat

Management Plan

2003

Predator/Furbearer Management

Plan

4/91 Review and revise 2002

Public Use/ Sign Plan New Complete 2002

Safety Plan 7/98 Review 2001

Water Management Plan 1/98 Review and incorporate into Habitat

Management Plan

2004

Wildlife Inventory Plan 8/91 Review and revise 2004

Commercial Guide Plan NEW Draft Complete 2000 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 123

5.3 Partnership Opportunities

Only with public support will the Service succeed in its mission. That support

comes through outreach: fostering education, understanding, and

communicating the importance of the Service commitment to protecting

habitat upon which wildlife depends. Outreach includes a broad array of

activities and services focused on building relationships and communication.

The Service is committed to getting its message to both traditional and

nontraditional groups.

Seedskadee NWR w ill continue to actively seek out and foster partnerships

with organizations and individuals with whom a common goal is shared. Many

individuals, groups, and organizations have contribute d in significant ways to

the Refuge. Local Scout Troops have assisted with many fencing and other

maintenance projects. Ducks Unlimited has assisted with construction,

placement, and maintenance of nesting structures. Trout Unlimited has helped

the Refuge sponsor “Take a Kid Fishing” day and assisted with planning for

numerous instream fish habitat structures on lands upstream off-Refuge.

Individual volunteers have completed habitat and biological surveys,

constructed brochure boxes, graded roads, repaired fence, entered data into

computers, completed environmental education programs, conducted general

mainte nance, completed numerous wood wo rking projects, etc.

The WYG& F has been a partner with the Refuge by coordinating management

of game species and fisheries on the Refuge, distributing information to the

public about the Refuge, and providing cost share and technical assistance on

habitat projects. The Bureau of Reclamation has provided extensive financial

and technical assistance for com pletion of Refuge projects. M any individuals

with an interest in the Refuge have provided thoughts and ideas for habitat

projects, have assisted with cleanup of trash, and provided the Refuge

information to enhance law enforcement e fforts.

Seedskadee NWR has partnered with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau

of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Natural Resource Conservation

Service, the Wyom ing Gam e and Fish Department, and private individuals to

produce The Green River and Bear River Focus Area Plans of the

Interm ountain West Joint V enture. This plan supports proje cts that benefit

wetlan d and rip arian ha bitats. The Partn ers for F ish and W ildlife Program is

another example. Through this program, Seedskadee NWR provides technical

assistan ce to priv ate landowne rs interested in im proving habitat o n their

property.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) recently partnered with Seedskadee

NWR to designate the Refuge as a “Globally Important Bird Area (IBA). The

Refuge’s designation as a IBA will assist ABC in developing a network of key

sites in the U.S. and globally to further national and global bird conservation

efforts. The Refuge will benefit through national attention as a valuable bird

area, increased visitor su pport, and pote ntially increased funding.
124 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The Big S andy W orking Group is a grou p of land managers and private

individua ls interested in improving riparian and upland habitat along the Big

Sandy River. The Big Sandy watershed, upstream of the Refuge, has a direct

impact on the success of Refuge projects to restore habitat. The Refuge has

also partnered with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and

Bureau of Reclamation to cooperatively manage recreation resources along the

lower section o f the Green R iver in W yoming. These partnerships benefit

wildlife and fisheries and their habitats in the Green River Basin.

Many new partnership opportunities await Seedskadee NW R. The Partne rs in

Flight program strives to “improve our understanding of neotropical migrants,

identify species most at risk, and develop and carry out cooperative plans to

protect their habitat.” This partnership is a natural area of emphasis for

Seedskadee with its important riparian habitats. While the Refuge participates

in this program to some exten t, a more active role in the future is a nticipated.

Additionally, the Refuge staff needs to spend more time on outreach. The staff

has, and will continue to communicate and work with local ranchers,

congressional staffs, State and local governments, local businesses in Green

River, Rock Springs and Farson, area schools, and universities and colleges

(particularly in W yoming). M ore outrea ch in the local com munities is needed to

understand the concerns of local citizens and to help them understand the

mission, goals and objectives of Seedskadee NWR. An environmental

education center, constructed by the Service and Reclamation could provide a

place for area schools to conduct year-round environ menta l education as w ell

as a center for forums with the local communities on issues affecting wildlife

and the environment in southwestern Wyoming. It would be advantageous for

the Refuge to explore the development of a “Friends” group or other

comm unity sup port org anization to assist the Re fuge in ca rrying out its goals

and objectives. The Environmental Education center could provide the catalyst

for such a group .
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 125

5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation

This CCP is designed to be effective for a 15-year period. The plan will be

reviewed annually and revised as required to ensure that established goals and

objectives are still applicable and that the CCP is implemented as scheduled.

The monitoring program will focus on issues involving public use activities,

habitat management programs, wildlife inventory, monitoring and

management activities, and the progress and success of Refuge development as

part of Reclamation’s mitigation efforts. Monitoring and evaluation will utilize

the adaptive management process which includes goal and objective setting,

applying management tools and strategies, and monitoring and feedback to

validate objectives. Adaptive management provides a framework within which

biological measures can be evaluated by comparing the results of m anagem ent,

to results expected from objectives.

Where inform ation gaps exist, a concerted effort will be m ade to o btain

information. With new information, goals and objectives may need

modification. Public involvement will be encouraged during the evaluation

process.

Monitoring of public use programs will involve the continued collection of

visitor use statistics. Monito ring will be done to evaluate the e ffects of p ublic

use on Refuge habitat, wildlife, and refuge visitor experience. In particular,

river use will be closely monitored to assess success and satisfaction with river

use leve ls and comme rcial use of the river by pe rmitted outfitters.

Collection of baseline data on all wildlife populations will continue. This data

will be used to update existing species lists, wildlife habitat requirements, and

seasonal use patterns. Neotropical migratory birds, raptors, and species of

managem ent concern will be the focus of monitoring efforts. Wildlife

monitoring will be used to evaluate the effects of public use and habitat

management programs on wildlife populations. Additionally, a series of

vegetative transects/plots in all major habitat will be established as a longterm habitat monitoring network. This information will be used to assess the

effects of abiotic factors (weather), habitat manipulation (such as burning and

invasive species control), and wildlife population management strategies

(hunting, trapping, etc.) on long-term habitat trends on the Refuge.

This CCP outlines the development actions needed to complete Reclamation

mitigation efforts on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge under the

Seedskadee Project (Section 8, CRSP) and, as such, supersedes the 1958

“Coordination Act R eport” for S eedskadee NW R. A list of pro jects, with

expected start and completion dates, responsibilities, and estimated budgets,

will be reviewed and revised annually by the Service and Reclamation. Most

activities, particularly in the area of infrastructure and public use developm ent,

are detailed in this CCP . Some actions n ecessa ry for ha bitat mitigation (i.e.,

riparian restoration) are still in the developmental stages and therefore

specific m itigation actions are not inclu ded here but w ill be part of later spe cific

action plans (i.e., riparian restoration plan). The Service will provide an annual

progress report to Reclamation. The success of mitigation efforts in meeting

goals and objectives, outlined in this CCP, will also be addressed.
126 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

5.5 Plan Amendment and Revision

The Seedskadee N ational W ildlife Refuge CCP is a d ynam ic plan. W hile it will

serve as a guide for overall Refuge direction, it will be adjusted to consider

new and better information, ensuring that Refuge activities best serve the

established purpose of this Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. The CCP will be reviewed every five years, and monitored

continuously to ensure the developed mana geme nt actions suppo rt the goals

and objectives of Seedskadee NWR.

This CCP will be informally reviewed by Refuge staff while preparing annual

work plans and updating the Refuge Information Management System (RMIS)

databa se. It ma y also be review ed during routin e inspec tions or p rogram matic

evaluations. Results of the reviews may indicate a need to modify the CCP.

The monitoring of objectives is an integral part of the plan, and management

activities may be modified if desired results are not achieved. If minor changes

are required, the level of public involvement and associated NEPA

documentation will be determined by the project leader. This CCP will be

formally revised at least every 15 years.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Assessment

September 2001

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-127

Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Issues .................................................. EA-129

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Alternative 1 Current Management Continues (No Action) ..................................... EA-130

Alternative 1A. Wildlife ................................................................... EA-130

Alternative 1 A1. Goal: Threatened and Endangered Species ................................ EA-130

Alternative 1 A2. Goal: Wildlife ......................................................... EA-131

Alternative 1B. Habitat

Alternative 1 B1. Goal: Riparian ........................................................ EA-132

Alternative 1 B2. Goal: Wetland ......................................................... EA-133

Alternative 1 B3. Goal: Uplands ......................................................... EA-133

Alternative 1 B4. Goal: Riverine ........................................................ EA-134

Alternative 1 B5. Goal: Invasive Species ................................................. EA-134

Alternative 1C. Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

Alternative 1 C1. Goal: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ..................................... EA-135

Alternative 1 C2. Goal: Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................ EA-136

Alternative 1 C3. Goal: Resource Protection .............................................. EA-137

Alternative 1 C4. Goal: Cultural Resource ................................................ EA-138

Alternative 1 C 5. Goal: Partnership ...................................................... EA-138

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ............................................................ EA-139

Alternative 2A. Wildlife ................................................................... EA-139

Alternative 2 A1. Goal: Threatened and Endangered Species ................................ EA-139

Alternative 2 A2. Goal: Wildlife ......................................................... EA-140

Alternative 2B. Habitat

Alternative 2 B1. Goal: Riparian ........................................................ EA-141

Alternative 2 B2. Goal: Wetland ......................................................... EA-142

Alternative 2 B3. Goal: Uplands ......................................................... EA-143

Alternative 2 B4. Goal: Riverine ........................................................ EA-143

Alternative 2 B5. Goal: Invasive Species ................................................. EA-143

Alternative 2C. Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

Alternative 2 C1. Goal: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ..................................... EA-144

Alternative 2 C2. Goal: Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................ EA-146

Alternative 2 C3. Goal: Resource Protection .............................................. EA-147

Alternative 2 C4. Goal: Cultural Resource ................................................ EA-148

Alternative 2 C 5. Goal: Partnership ...................................................... EA-148

Alternative 3

Alternative 3A. Wildlife ................................................................... EA-149

Alternative 3 A1. Goal: Threatened and Endangered Species ................................ EA-149

Alternative 3 A2. Goal: Wildlife ......................................................... EA-149

Alternative 3B. Habitat

Alternative 3 B1. Goal: Riparian ........................................................ EA-149

Alternative 3 B2. Goal: Wetland ......................................................... EA-149

Alternative 3 B3. Goal: Uplands ......................................................... EA-150

Alternative 3 B4. Goal: Riverine ........................................................ EA-150

Alternative 3 B5. Goal: Invasive Species ................................................. EA-150

Alternative 3C. Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

Alternative 3 C1. Goal: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ..................................... EA-151

Alternative 3 C2. Goal: Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................ EA-152

Alternative 3 C3. Goal: Resource Protection .............................................. EA-152

Alternative 3 C4. Goal: Cultural Resource ................................................ EA-152

Alternative 3 C 5. Goal: Partnership ...................................................... EA-152
EA-128 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Chapter 3. Affected Environment: Resource Inventory ................................ EA-168

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. EA-168

Chapter 5. List of Preparers ............................................................. EA-193

Chapter 6. CCP Goals and Objectives ................................................... EA-193

Tables

Table 1.Seedskadee NW R Alternative Comparison Summ ary ...................................... EA-155

Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences ................................ EA-182
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-129

Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Issues

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to publicly disclose the

possible environmental consequences that implementation of the Seedskadee

NWR C CP could have on the quality of the physical, biological, and human

environment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

This assessment analyzes three levels of management intensity on

Seedskadee NWR. The Preferred Alternative, the CCP, is an intensive

habitat and w ildlife manage ment pro gram alternative designed to

incorporate science-based management practices and monitoring. The

Preferred Alternative also emphasizes development of education,

interpretation, and outreach opportunities. The No Action, or current

management, alternative is science-based but narrower in scope than the

CCP. The third Alternative maximizes wildlife benefits by focusing on

habitat p rotection and describes a redu ced public use approach.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) recognized the need for

strategic planning for all the components of its Refuge System, and in

September 1996, Executive Order 12996 was enacted which gave the Refuge

System guidance on issues of compatibility and public uses of its land. Later

on, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

in October 1997, which, for the first time in the Refuge System’s history,

require d that Comprehensive Conserva tion Plan s (CCP ) be prepared for all

refuges within 1 5 years. The C CP should describe how lands and wildlife w ill

be managed, monitored, and evaluated to determine if the desired habitat

and wildlife responses occur. The CCP must also address which wildlifedependent recreation and visitor opportunities are compatible and

appropriate. The planning pro cess also provide s opportunities fo r the public

and State and Federal agencies to p rovide input. 

The CCP is intended to provide long-range guidance for the management of

Seedskadee NWR based on careful consideration of the physical and

biological characteristics of the land base. It is designed to further achieve

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System

missions and Seedskadee’s goals and objectives which emphasize the

protection and enhancement of wildlife and their habitats. Refer to Chapters

1, 2, and 3 of the CCP for background information, a description of the

planning process and a description of Refuge resources.
EA-130 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Chapter 2. Management Alternatives

Several alternatives were considered when developing the EA. One of the

alternatives that was discussed but wa s elimina ted from the deta iled analysis

is discussed below.

Maximized Public Use Alternative

This alternative would have developed the R efuge a s a recre ational area. All

areas would have been opened to the public and m any new facilities would

have been built. Development might include multiple hiking trails, parking

lots, two additional boat ramps, campgrounds, and a fishing pond facility.

This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it conflicts with the

Refuge purpose of serving as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory

birds and other wildlife and the intent of the National Wildlife Refuge

System Impro veme nt Act, putting w ildlife first. 

Alternative 1 Current Management Continues (No Action)

Unde r the No Action Alternative, the current man agem ent direction would

continue. The emphasis is on management of existing wetlands and

additional wetland creation and enhancement. Wetlands are managed

primarily to provide sha llow wetland habitat for migra tory bird s (wate rfowl,

shorebirds, and wading birds) and more permanent water for waterfowl

production. To the extent other Refuge resources are available, riparian and

upland wildlife habitats are protected and managed to benefit native and

migratory species. Minimal monitoring of migratory and resident wildlife

populations occurs. No habitat monitoring or monitoring of management

activities occurs with the exception of the efficacy of weed control efforts.

Public use opportunities are focused on wildlife-dependent public uses.

Facilities are few and largely primitive. Accessible rest rooms are located at

Refuge headquarters. Travel is restricted to existing designated roads. Most

roads are primitive and infrequently m aintained. An auto-tour route exists

near the Headquarters. There are no developed interpretive trails.

Interpretive panels are located at Refuge headquarters and one is located at

the Hawley overlook. Simple brochures provide information on the Refuge,

regulations, hunting and fishing, the area history, and watchable wildlife.

Alternative 1 A. Wildlife

Alternative 1 A1. Goal: Threatened and Endangered Species

To restore, enhance, or protect threatened and endangered flora and fauna

that currently occur or have historically occurred in the area of Seedskadee

NWR.

1. Management for threatened and endangered, candidate, and species

of special concern consists primarily of habitat protection, protection

of individuals from disturbance, providing adequate food resources

and some population monitoring. Populations of bald eagles are the

only federally-threatened species using the Refuge which are

monitored each year. Observations of any special status species are

recorded in the Refuge database. When necessary, special

regulations and closures are instituted for protection of wildlife

species and their habitat on the Refuge.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-131

Alternative 1 A2. Goal: Wildlife

Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of

migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native species. 

1. Management of trumpeter swans consists primarily of managing the

Hawley wetland unit to provide nesting habitat, protection of

individuals from disturbance, providing adequate food resources and

some population monitoring. The Refuge cooperates with WYG&F

in the reestablishment of the Rocky Mountain Population of

trumpeter swans.

2. Management of moose and mule deer populations consists of setting

harvest objectives in conjunction with the WYG&F. There is no

monitoring of grazing impacts to habitats. WYG& F conducts aerial

survey s to estim ate pop ulations.

3. Management of sage grouse consists primarily of protection of

habitat fr om do mestic livestock grazing and off-road vehicle tra vel.

There is no population monitoring or evaluation of habitat conditions.

4. Management of habitat for migratory birds consists of maintaining

and enhancing existing managed wetlands, and the protection of

riparian, upland and riverine habitats. Waterfowl surveys are

conducted bi-w eekly in the fall. W aterfow l nest pro duction is

monito red every 3 to 5 years.

5. Management for other indigenous wildlife species consists of

protection and enhancement of existing habitats. Predators and

furbearers are managed to reduce these species impacts to riparian

vegetation and ground-nesting birds.

6. When necessary, special regulations and closures are instituted for

protection of wildlife species and their habitat on the Refuge.
EA-132 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 1B. Habitat

Alternative 1 B1. Goal: Riparian

Protect and restore riparian habitats along the Green River to provide for the

annual life needs of migratory birds and native wildlife utilizing the Green River

Basin.

1. Approximately 40 cottonwood groves occur on terraces along the

Green River and another 15 or so on islands. A riparian restoration

pilot project was conducted to determine potential success of

restoration and enhancement of woody riparian species and

management prescriptions. Restoration includes an emphasis on

woody species planting. Planting of understory woody shrubs may

occur in up to nine randomly selected sites based upon the results of

the pilot project. Riparian restoration research will continue through

2002 and recommendations to protect and restore this habitat will be

available in 2003.

2. No monitoring wells are installed to determine the groundwater

levels.

3. The flow regime for the Green River through the Refuge is managed

by Reclamation for its project purposes and consistent with

downstream water rights and commitments.

4. Monitoring of the impacts of browsing by native wildlife is not

conducted . Control of na tive wildlife that browse on woody plants

(deer and moose) is coordinated with WYG&F with the objective of

providin g hunting opportunities a nd to reduce over bro wsing. A

special hunt for mule deer occurs outside the reg ular season to

reduce their numbers. Beaver activity is monitored annually and

plant barriers and trapping are used to deter browsing. Livestock

grazing is not allow ed or used in ripa rian are as. Live stock re mova l is

conducted on an as-needed basis. Surveys of the boundary fences are

conducted about two times per yea r or as tim e and staff perm it.

5. Prescribed fire has been used in the past in an attem pt to rejuven ate

decadent willows in the riparian area. Present management uses fire

infrequently to manage invasive species.

6. Monitoring data were collected for three years on avian productivity

and survivorship in riparian forest habitats. There is no regular

ongoing monitoring program specific to riparian forest communities

and their habitats.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-133

Alternative 1 B2. Goal: Wetland

Wetlands will be managed to meet the breeding and migratory requirements

of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other wetland dependent species.

1. Three oxbow wetlands have been restored in the M cCullen Bluff,

Hamp, and Haw ley Units through diversions into side channels.

Wetlands have been created and enhanced through development of

impoundments (dikes and water control structures) in the Hamp,

Hawley, Lower Hawley, and Dunkle Units. Further mitigation for

loss of wetland emphasizes restoring historical, enhancing existing,

and creating new wetlands. One additional managed wetland

complex would be developed in the Pal Manage ment U nit.

2. One additional rock sill would be installed to divert water from the

Green River into historic side channels and restore associated

wetlan d habitat. Natural topography would be used to minim ize soil

disturbance and alterations to natural features.

3. Existing wetlands units (Hamp, Hawley, and Dunkle) are managed

to provide migratory and breeding habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds,

and wading birds. A Water Management Plan is applied and

modified as necessary to provide shallow wetland habitats for spring

and fall migration and deeper wetland habitats for breeding and

brood-rearing areas.

4. Predators and beaver are controlled under the direction of an

approved Predator Management Plan. Management trapping by

Refuge staff occurs in the Hawley and Dunkle units for mammalian

nest predators during waterfowl nesting season. Beaver are

removed when significant damage occurs to cottonwoods or water

management infrastructure. Animals are live-trapped where

possible. Some trapping permits are issued for management

purposes.

5. Little monitoring of wildlife use occurs. Waterfowl production

monitoring occurs every 3 to 5 years. No vegetative monitoring

occurs.

Alternative 1 B3. Goal: Uplands

Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of indigenous flora

associated with the Great Basin upland desert shrub and grassland habitats to

support native wildlife found in the Green River Basin.

1. Upland areas are fenced, but not intensively managed. Grazing and

prescribed fire have not been used as a management tool. No

monitoring occurs in the upland habitats.
EA-134 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 1 B4. Goal: Riverine

The Refuge staff, in collaboration with Wyoming Game and Fish Department

and Reclamation, will manage water quality and quantity in the Green River to

maintain and/or restore the riparian and cottonwood forests and provide

habitat for waterfowl, trumpeter swans, fish, and other native species

dependent on river and forested habitat.

1. No significant native fishery exists in this section of the Green River.

Management of the cold-w ater (sport) fishe ry is generally left up to

the WYG&F . The Refuge occasionally assists with habitat

improvements for fisheries. No opportunities exist to restore

endangered Colorado River fishes in this stretch of the Green River

due to the presence downstream of Flaming Gorge dam and lack of

suitable habitat.

Alternative 1 B5. Goal: Invasive Species

Restore and maintain indigenous flora diversity by controlling the invasion of

exotic plant species on the Refuge.

1. The weed control efforts are targeted to small, spreading

infestations and to preventing existing large populations from

seeding. Pepperweed has been aggressively treated starting at the

north boundary of the Refuge and working south. An integrated

approach is used (the Refuge’s Draft Integrated Pest Management

Plan); however, chemical control is generally the only effective

method available for m any species. Some biological contro l agents

have been released on the R efuge. T he Un iversity o f Wyo ming is

currently researching long-term sustainable methods to remove

pepperweed from R efuge lands.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-135

Alternative 1 C. Public Use , Recreation, and Resource Protection 

Alternative 1 C1. Goal: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Nurture an understanding of and appreciation for wildlife and other natural

resources of the Green River Basin by providing opportunities for compatible

wildlife-dependent recreation while maintaining the primitive, uncrowded

nature of the area.

1. A comprehensive wildlife observation guide is available to assist the

visitor. Using the existing road system, Seedskadee NWR provides

a 9-mile-long seasonal wildlife auto-tour route. Several pullouts have

been dev eloped but do not have interpretive signs. An ov erlook with

interpre tive signs is provided at the developed H awley wetlan d unit

near Refuge headquarters.

2. The Headquarters public rest room is universally accessible.

Accessibility would be a high priority in developing new facilities and

public use opportunities.

3. All vehicle travel, including bicycles, are restricted to existing

designated roads. All-terrain-vehicles and vehicles not licensed for

highway driving are not permitted on the Refuge. Vehicle access

through fences is provided by cattle guards and is limited to existing

designated roads. Seventy-seven miles of designated roads are open

to public travel (Map 9). Two-track spur roads are closed to protect

resources. Closed two-tracks are allowed to naturally revegetate.

Parking is informal along existing designated roads and occurs

hapha zardly.

4. All areas are open to foot travel. Cross-over structures are provided

for foot access across Refuge fence.

5. Seedskadee NWR partners with WYG&F to manage hunting. The

Refuge hunting plan was completed in 1986 and is updated annually.

Hunting is allowed except in two areas. The administration area

around the houses and office is closed to all regular hunting. The

Dunkle a nd Sagebrush managed wetland units are closed to

waterfowl hunting. The entire River is open to hunting. Only

portable blinds or blinds constructed from dead, downed wood may

be used. Cutting of standing live o r dead vegeta tion or dig ging pit

blinds are prohibited. Portable blinds, tree stands, and decoys must

be removed daily.

6. The Green River is managed by the WYG&F as a trophy trout

fishery from the CCC bridge downstream to the confluence of the

Big Sandy, and State regulations apply. Boating is allowed on the

River thro ugh the R efuge. Most use is by no n-motorized watercraft.

The Refuge provides four boat launch sites and associated parking

areas. Recreational fishing is unlimited.

7. “Take A Kid Fishing Day” is one of the principal outreach activities

for the Refuge.
EA-136 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

8. Comm ercially guided floats are allow ed from the north boundary to

the 6 Mile Hill boat ramp (just south of Big Sandy confluence)

through issuance of fee permits. Fee permits are issued on an annual

basis only. Through attrition, the Service will reduce the number of

permits to 4 or less. The season is from April 1 to October 30 of each

year. The number of boats per day/outfitter and the num ber of boats

per day/section of River is limited. Daily use is first-come, first-serve

and coordinated via a telephone answering service; and use can be

provided for both fishing and scenic tours. Use data are required

from permitted guides; however, formal monitoring of recreational

use is not conducted by the Refuge.

9. The Refuge is closed after dark. No camping is provided on the

Refuge. Visitors are directed to overnight facilities located outside

the boundary of the Refuge.

10. Visitor use levels are low and not limited except for commercial use

on the G reen R iver which has been se t at a low level.

Alternative 1 C2. Goal: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Educate and inform the public about the Refuge, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, The National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Upper Colorado

Ecosystem by providing quality environmental education and interpretation

opportunities.

1. Current interpretive resources include: historical and biological

interpretive exhibits at the headquarters, a portable exhibit for

interpretive outreach, an information kiosk near headquarters, and

two interpretive signs at the Hawley Wetland Overlook (“Waterfowl

in a Dry Land” and “Cattails and Sagebrush”). In addition to these,

two interpretive panels are located inside the Refuge headquarters

(i.e., “Welcome To Seedskadee” and “Kids Corner”).

2. No inte rpretive trails exist on the R efuge.

3. Upon request, the Refuge staff prov ides tours to schools, civic

groups, and other organizations. The Refuge staff conducts activities

on Migratory Bird Day and Take a Kid Fishing Day. Environmental

Education is integrated with recreational opportunities. No facilities

or developed programs are available, and little outreach is dedicated

to environmental education.

4. Lombard Crossing historical display is accessible.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-137

Alternative 1 C3. Goal: Resource Protection 

Protect Refuge resources from adverse natural and/or man-made impacts.

1. The primary public use brochure (Seedskadee NWR travel map and

general information) contains a map of the Refuge showing

designated roads and facilities, and explains Refuge regulations and

resources. This brochure is available at the headquarters, at 15

primary entrance locations, the WYG& F, Farson visitor center, and

Green River/Rock Springs Cham ber of C omm erce.

2. The Refuge staff makes available hunting and fishing regulations

and access information (parking, road closures, hunting closures,

ORV regulations, opportunities for people w ith disabilities).

3. Known River hazards are posted.

4. Directional signs are provided on most of the Refuge to help guide

visitors along designated roads. A recent road numbering system

was installed along roa ds in the n orth sec tion of the Refug e to help

protect habitat a nd reduce off-r oad vehicle use. This system w ill

eventually be installed in the south end of the Refuge. Additional

signs will be installed, especially in the southern reaches of the

Refuge to facilitate the visitors e xperience and reduce impacts to

resour ces.

5. No monitoring of public use occurs except for use by commercial

operations.

6. The remaining five acres of privately held land within the Refuge

boundary would be purchased when there is a willing seller. No

additional new lands would be acquired. No lands would be disposed.

7. Surface use is subject to Refuge approval and stipulations.

8. Several rights-of-way and easements currently exist within the

Refuge. Rights-of-way are reviewed and approved on a case-by-case

basis.

9. The Refuge has a Fire Management Plan and an Interagency

Dispatch Plan. All wildfires are suppressed using the “closest forces

concept” and appropriate suppression strategies. A cooperative

agreement for fire suppression exists with local, State, and other

Federal agencies in the area.

10. Law enforcemen t is conducted year-round as sta ff and tim e perm it

and in response to emergencies and information tips.

11. Access to water for livestock is provided to Rock Springs Grazing

Association permit holders according to deeded reservation. Access

may be via watering lane (water gap), off-site water development or

via a Refuge special use permit. Access is also provided as a courtesy

to other BLM permit holders through fenced livestock watering

lanes (17 water gaps). Existing water gaps are maintained solely at

Refuge expense.

12. A single reservation exists on the Refuge for a livestock holding pen

and for a calving area at the south end of the Refuge. These would be

mana ged under a Special U se Permit. No permitted grazing is

currently ongoing on the Refuge.

13. Livestock trespass occurs; enforce ment of trespass is difficult.

Boundary fencing is used to exclude livestock but fences are

sometimes cut. Trespass occurs largely through watering lanes.

Three water gaps need additional rock installed to be considered

complete.
EA-138 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 1 C4. Goal: Cultural Resource

Protect and interpret significant historic and prehistoric cultural sites and

objects associated with Refuge lands.

1. Cultural resource protection is largely reactive. The Refuge complies

with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. If an

undertaking could result in an effect on a significant cultural

resource, the Refuge consults with the State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP). The Re fuge staff also consults with the SHPO to assess

information needs, locate properties, and to make determinations of

eligibility. A cultural resource overview exists for the area (People of

the Sage). Little direct protection/stabilization occurs for histo ric

sites.

2. Interpretation of the cultura l history of the area is largely limited to

the historic period. An interpretive site was constructed at Lombard

Ferry site. The site features five interpretive signs, a graveled

parking area, and a paved pedestrian path. A replica of the Lombard

Ferry was donated to the R efuge a nd place d at the site. A trail will

be constructed to the Ferry in 2001 using Reclamation funding and

support from the Mormon Church. The FWS has an interest in

interpre ting Native Am erican h istory of the surrounding area. A

historical leaflet is available which interprets local and national

history of westward expansion and settlement of the area.

Alternative 1 C5. Goal: Partnership

Foster partnerships to promote wildlife conservation and habitat management

in the Green River Basin and to help Seedskadee NWR accomplish its vision

and goals.

1. Cooperation with Reclamation, WYG &F, and BLM continues.

Refuge staff conducts ongoing volunteer programs involving student

interns, retired persons , comm unity sup port, and local sco ut groups.

2. The Refuge participates in the Partners for Wildlife Program for

habitat improvement on private lands and Partners in Flight

Program for protection and monitoring of migratory birds. The

Refuge also has the lead in the Green River Focus Area of the

Intermountain West Joint Venture: a cooperative venture with other

Federal agencies and with private landowners in the Green River

Basin.

3. Locally, the Refuge partners with Trout Unlimited on restoration

projects on the Big Sandy River and assists local chamber of

comm erce groups by providing information for tourism.

4. The Re fuge would participate in o ther neighboring Federal, State

and local planning processes.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-139

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Management emphasis would be on restoring riparian function and forest

health, restoring historic wetlands types, and enhancing wetlands. The

Refuge would be managed for a mix of wetland, riparian, and upland hab itats

to benefit migratory birds and other native and migratory species as well as

threatened, endangered, candidate, and species of special management

concer n.

Existing wetland units would be managed to provide migratory habitat and

incidental breeding habitat. Riparian (floodplain) forest habitat would be

restored through a variety of management activities. Limited management

would occur in upland habitats. Efforts at cooperative management would be

aggressively sought. Monitoring would include long-term habitat change,

selected wildlife with an emphasis on migratory birds, threatened and

endangered species, public use, and effects of management activities.

Public use opportunities would include wildlife-dependent public uses. In

addition, opportunities would be coordinated with other recreational

opportunities in the general area such as the Green River Basin. The

experience would be largely primitive. Closure and restoration of nondesignated roads to protect habitats would be a priority. Additional facilities

would be allowed where they support and enhance wildlife-dependent

activities or where resource protection or sanitation would be necessary.

Facilities and programs would be universally accessible. Opportunities for

environmental education and interpretation would be expanded.

Alternative 2 A. Wildlife

Alternative 2 A1. Goal: Threatened and Endangered Species

To restore, enhance, or protect threatened and endangered flora and fauna

that currently occur or have historically occurred in the area of Seedskadee

NWR.

1. Management of threatened and endangered species would: continue

habitat protection, protection of individuals from disturbance, and

providing adequate food resources; expand monitoring to include

populations and habitat; and allow active habitat management where

necessary. Regular monitoring of populations of threatened and

endangered, and candidate species and selected species of

mana geme nt conce rn using the Re fuge w ould occ ur regu larly. A

survey of available habitat and habitat quality for all species with

potential to use the Refuge would also occur.

2. Surveys would be conducted for Ute ladies’-tresses orchid and its

suitable habitat every 5 to 10 years or if current River management

flows are chan ged. Recent su rveys (1 999) did not dete ct this species.

3. When necessary, special regulations/closures would be instituted for

protection of wildlife species and their habitats on the Refuge.
EA-140 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 2 A2. Goal: Wildlife

Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of

migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native species. 

1. The Re fuge would continue to expand cooperative efforts with

WYG& F, the Trumpeter Swan Society, and the Refuge Trumpeter

Swan Working Group to improve habitat for the Rocky Mountain

population of trumpeter swans. The goal would be to provide

breeding habitat for 2 to 3 pairs of trumpeter swans in the Hawley,

Hamp, and Pal U nits. Efforts w ould be to m inimize disturbance to

wintering swans via seasonal closures.

2. Management of moose and mule deer populations consists of setting

harvest objectives in conjunction with the WYG&F. Vegetation

transects w ould be initiated to monitor grazing impacts to habitats

and success of harvest management strategies. The WYG&F

conducts annu al aerial surveys to estim ate pop ulations.

3. Monitoring of sage grouse hab itat and populations will be initiated to

evaluate the R efuges contribu tion to local populations. H abitat w ill

be protected from do mestic livestock grazing and off-road vehicle

travel.

4. Management of habitat for migratory birds and other indigenous

wildlife sp ecies is sim ilar to Alternative 1. 

5. When necessary, special regulations and closures are instituted for

protection of wildlife species and their habitat on the Refuge.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-141

Alternative 2 B. Habitat

Alternative 2 B1. Goal: Riparian

Protect and restore riparian habitats along the Green River to provide for the

annual life needs of migratory birds and native wildlife utilizing the Green River

Basin.

1. Emphasis for mitigation work during this planning cycle would be on

restoring, if possible, the dynamic functioning of the Green River and

adjace nt floodp lain forests.

2. A long-term riparian restoration plan based on site specific research

would determine effective methods to establish new age classes of

woody plant species and restore health to the riparian system.

Strategies from that plan would be implemented in a multi-year

restora tion effort.

3. If feasible and effective (based on research), regeneration of

cottonwoods and willows may be achieved on new sites created by

increased water availability through manipulated river flows and/or

irrigation. Some pole planting may occur at up to 10 suitable sites.

Sites for restora tion ma y include the: Mc Cullen, T allman, Ham p, Pal,

Dunkle, Otterson, Johnson, and Big Island management units.

Planting of understory shrubs would occur in up to five areas with

adequate groundwater. Temporary exclosures may be used to deter

browsing.

4. Wells would be installed to monitor groundwater depth and changes

in depth in the riparian zone. This informa tion would be used to

select sites for restoration efforts.

5. The long-term riparian restoration plan would include a prescriptive

flow regime for the Green River through the Refuge to increase the

vigor of existing cottonwood/willow communities and to increase

riparian regeneration. The flow regime would be proposed to

Reclamation; the needs of other affected interests would be integral

to the prescription. Implementation would be coordinated with other

water uses such as sport fisheries, hydropower generation, and flood

control.

6. An agreement would be sought to provide long-term flow regimes

geared toward maintenance and regeneration of the riparian plant

community.

7. Wildlife would be aggressively managed during the restoration

phase to reduce populations of specie s on the Refug e that he avily

browse riparian woody plants (deer, moose, and beaver). Exclosures

may be constructed in selected areas to protect regeneration and

allow for vegetative recovery.

8. Livestock grazing would not be allowed or used in riparian areas

except for habitat man agem ent purposes. F ences w ould be regular ly

mainta ined to exclude livestock and trespass laws would be strictly

enforced.

9. Work with Reclamation to continue mitigation funding for

restoration of riparian willow and cottonwood forests until such as

time as the decline of this habitat is reversed and the health of the

system improves.
EA-142 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

10. Fire would not be used in floodplain forest habitats as long as

cottonwoods in those habitats were in poor vigor and not

reproducing. Fire may be used in non-forested habitats (shrub or

grass/herbaceous vegetation types of the floodplain/lower terraces)

to rejuvenate decadent stands of vegetation or control invasive

species.

11. A long-term habitat monitoring plan for riparian forested

communities including monitoring of “browse transects” would be

designed and implemented to determine the success of management

activities and the achievement of objectives including growth and

vigor of woody plants and their utilization by wildlife. Monitoring

Avian Productivity and Survival (MAPS) surveys would occur as

necessary for management.

Alternative 2 B2. Goal: Wetland

Wetlands will be managed to meet the breeding and migratory requirements

of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other wetland dependent species.

1. Similar to Alternative 1, except wetland development would restore

and/or enhance existing wetlands or former wetland types. The

existing wetlands in the Pa l Management U nit would be enhanced to

provide migratory habitat. De velopm ent wo uld include little

alteration of natural features and use low-head dikes to impound

water. Inflow w ould be passive (gravity flow).

2. A combination of seasonal and permanent water flows would be

restored to suitable sites in one to two old river channel (oxbows) by

constructing rock sills in the Green River.

3. The Hamp, Hawley, and Pal Units would be managed for breeding

and migratory habitat. The remaining wetland units would be

mana ged principally as migra tory bird habitat fo r wate rfowl,

shorebirds, and wading birds. Wetlands would also be managed to

benefit o ther wetland depend ent species.

4. For seasonal/temp orary natu ral wetland areas, ma nagement/

maintenance would be through natural river flows and flooding.

5. A Water Management Plan would be applied and modified as

necess ary to provide shallow wetlan d habitats for spring and fall

migration, and breeding and brood-rearing habitats during summer.

Such management would be applied in the Hamp, Hawley, Dunkle,

and Pal wetland units. Water management would be varied and

mimic natural wet/dry cycles to maintain habitat productivity and

diversity while minimizing disturbance to wildlife.

6. Managem ent trapping by Refug e staff for nest predators would

occur in Hamp, Hawley, Dunkle, and Pal units.

7. Prescribed fire may also be used in em ergent wetlan ds to maintain

open water or to rejuvenate decadent stands of vegetation such as

grasses.

8. Vegetative recovery and the kinds and numbers of wildlife species

using wetland units, restored oxbows, and natural wetlands would be

monitored. Waterfowl production will be monitored once every 3 to 5

years.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-143

Alternative 2 B3. Goal: Uplands

Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of indigenous flora

associated with the Great Basin upland desert shrub and grassland habitats to

support native wildlife found in the Green River Basin.

1. Existing stands of tall sagebrush in woody draws would be protected

from unplanned disturbance. Small burns with associated monitoring

to determine results may occur in greasewood stands to convert

them to an early successional state and increase species diversity of

grasses and forbs.

2. Habitat management and protection for wildlife species of

management concern, such as prairie dog colonies, mountain plover,

burrowing owl, and pygmy rabbit, would occur.

3. Fences would be regularly maintained. No domestic livestock

grazing would be allowed.

4. Upland vegetation would be sampled to determine distribution, age

class, structure, and species composition prior to any treatmen t.

5. A long-term habitat monitoring program would be instituted in the

three upland habitat types to determ ine effects of m anagem ent.

Distribution and abundance of wildlife species of management

concer n wou ld be monitored.

Alternative 2 B4. Goal: Riverine

The Refuge staff, in collaboration with Wyoming Game and Fish Department

and Reclamation, will manage water quality and quantity in the Green River to

maintain and/or restore the riparian and cottonwood forests and provide

habitat for waterfowl, trumpeter swans, fish, and other native species

dependent on river and forested habitat.

1. Similar to Alternative 1, except that the Refuge would seek closer

coordination of management activities and habitat improvements with

the WYG&F.

Alternative 2 B5. Goal: Invasive Species

Restore and maintain indigenous flora diversity by controlling the invasion of

exotic plant species on the Refuge.

1. The Refuge would decrease dependence on chemical control of

plants; increase, where possible, biological and other means of

control as they become available. The Refuge would support, where

possible, current research on biology and effective control of target

species.

2. Refuge staff would more ag gressively im plement a program to

prevent the spread of weeds and new introductions. The Refuge

would partner with Reclamation and BLM to develop and implement

a control program for salt cedar infestations occurring on lands

upstream of the Refuge.

3. Convert fields of tall whitetop in Headquarters area to a mix of

grasses and forbs common to area and consistent with cultural

practices and IPM techniques.
EA-144 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 2 C. Public Use, Recreation ,and Resource Protection

Alternative 2 C1. Goal: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Nurture an understanding of and appreciation for wildlife and other natural

resources of the Green River Basin by providing opportunities for compatible

wildlife-dependent recreation while maintaining the primitive, uncrowded

nature of the area.

1. Similar to Alternative 1; however, existing improved roads will be

maintained on a regular basis. Parking areas will be provided and

signed along all designated roads.

2. Two-tracks and trails identified which currently enter sensitive

areas and compromise important wildlife habitat, and two-tracks and

other ro ads determined unnecessa ry for R efuge m anage ment, w ould

be closed and reclaimed. Sixty-five miles of designated roads will be

open fo r public tra vel (Map 10). O f the 65 m iles of ope n roads, 5.4

miles will be seasonally closed every year from November 15

through March 15 to reduce disturbance to wintering wildlife (Map

10). As appropriate for wildlife protection or road conditions, other

roads m ay be se asonally or tem porarily closed. A ll refuge lands w ill

be open to foot travel. 

3. Eleven pullouts would be enhanced along improved roads (auto tour

routes) to provide wildlife and habitat viewing site opportunities.

4. One universally accessible nature interpretive trail (near

headquarters) would be constructed to offer wildlife viewing/

photography opportunities in major habitats to a complete spectrum

of people of various ages and abilities. The trail would have

designated accessible parking. No vehicular use would be allowed on

trails.

5. An accessible pit toilet would be installed at Dodge Bottoms.

6. Selected species (large antlered moose and deer) would be managed

for enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities.

7. Similar to Alternative 1, a comprehensive wildlife observation guide

would be available.

8. Special youth activities oriented toward wildlife observation and

photography would be established.

9. Similar to Alternative 1, hunting would be a priority public use. Most

of the R efuge w ould be open fo r game bird, w aterfow l, small and big

game hunting subject to specific closures or regulation fo r public

safety or resource protection. A new closed area would be

establish ed via a separa te public p rocess. The closed are a wou ld

include wetland and riverine habitat and would replace the existing

closed areas. Barring the establishment of a closed area on Riverine

habitat, the Refuge would explore closure of the waterfowl season on

December 1 to reduce distu rbance to winte ring wildlife.

10. Efforts would be made to p rovide hunting opportunities for people

with disabilities.

11. Duck blinds would be allowed (similar to Alternative 1).

12. Decisions on hunting would be influenced by habitat (controlling

browse pressure), public use, watchable wildlife needs, and other

conside rations a nd wo uld be co ordinated with the WYG& F. A

fishing and hunting leaflet for the Refuge would be enhanced and

professionally printed.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-145

13. Boat launches and parking would continue to be improved. Four

designated boat ramps (River at Dodge Bottom, Hay Farm,

Highway 28, and 6 Mile Hill) will have cable create installed to

improve boat launching. Boat laun ching would be restricted to

developed launches. Road-side pullouts would be delineated for bank

anglers in high use areas. Universal access rest rooms would be

provided at Dodge Bottoms and the headquarters. River access by

vehicle would be limited to designated roads and small improved

pullouts. Livestock access lanes will be enhanced by designating

parking areas and increased signing to reduce conflicts between

livestock and rec reationists.

14. Efforts would be made to p rovide fishing op portunities for pe ople

with disabilities.

15. Comm ercially guided floats would be regulate d similar to

Alternative 1. Sections of the River through the Refuge may be

closed to guided fishing in the future to avoid crowding.

16. Recreational use would be monitored. Use limits and seasonal

closure may be instituted if visitor use levels increase to a level

which disturbs wildlife, cause resource impacts, or exceed visitor

tolerances.

17. The Refuge would cooperate with the WYG& F to create a no-wake

zone/re strictions through the R efuge.

18. An interagency River Management Plan would be prepared and

implemented to coordinate River use on the Green River among

agencies and provide a range of recreational opportunities over the

length of the Riv er.

19. Visitors would be provided inform ation on user safety, on w ho to

notify in case of a medical emergency, and on the potential for slow

emergency response due to the distance from emergency care

providers.
EA-146 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 2 C2. Goal: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Educate and inform the public about the Refuge, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, The National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Upper Colorado

Ecosystem by providing quality environmental education and interpretation

opportunities.

1. Quality interpretive sites on the ecology o f Green R iver and its

associated resources, Refuge purposes, issues of concern and other

related inform ation wou ld be developed, in partnership with

WYG& F at five pullouts along the auto tour route.

2. Interpretive themes at headquarters/visitor center would be carried

through the Refuge with signs, overlooks, and tour

guide/information brochures.

3. One nature interpretive walking trail (headquarters), one

river/floater’s interpretive trail, and one cultural trail at the

Lombard Ferry site would be developed to educate and inform

visitors about the natural and cultural resources found within the

Refuge and the importance o f riparian areas in the arid w est.

4. Interpretive information would be made accessible to all. Existing

interpretive signage would be updated.

5. Environmental education emphasis would be on the Refuge’s unique

resources, riparian systems and their importance to wildlife in the

Green River ecosystem. To encourage environmental education

independent of the Refuge staff, the staff would conduct a minimum

of two on-site teacher training workshops on the Green River and

Refuge resources. Opportunities to partner with WYG&F for these

workshops would be pursued.

6. An environm ental education curriculum package for one w ildlife

interpretive trail would be developed with assistance from local

educators.

7. An environmental education/visitor facility would be constructed

next to the headquarters. The facility wou ld be designe d and built to

‘blend’ with the landscape and have an interpretive display area and

classroom/demonstration space for up to 30 to 35 students. A fee may

be charged for exclusive third party use of the facility.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-147

Alternative 2 C3. Goal: Resource Protection 

Protect Refuge resources from adverse natural and/or man-made impacts.

1. The Refuge brochures would be updated and a more detailed travel

map produced. Refuge and River use guidelines and regulations

would be posted at Refuge entrances, along roads, and at popular

public use areas, e.g. boat ramps. Visitors would be provided

information on user safety, who to notify in case of a medical

emergency, and on the potential for slow em ergency response due to

the distance from emergency care providers.

2. Directional signs would be added or improved. Road closed signs and

other information would provide statements about why closures

would be made.

3. Segments of Refuge lands not currently fenced will be evaluated

and, where feasible, will be fenced. Segments of current fence which

are not “antelope friendly” will be modified to comply with antelope

fencing recommendations.

4. The Refuge staff would conduct an active outreach/public relations

program establishing relationships with and providing informa tion to

State and local governmental officials, neighboring communities,

appropriate organizations and interest groups, and State and local

media outlets. 

5. Cluster facility development in the northwest quadrant of the

Refuge and leave the remainder of the Refuge in a primitive and

semi-primitive condition.

6. The remaining five acres of privately held land within the Refuge

boundary would be purchased if there w ere a willing seller similar to

Alternative 1. Other lands would be considered for acquisition on a

willing seller basis if information indicated that additional acres were

necessary for management of selected species (for example,

threatened and endangered species) or for mitigation purposes. Such

areas may include up stream riverine riparian areas, e specially

between Fontenelle Reservoir and Big Piney or lands surrounding

the Big Sandy River. Any additional land acquisition or disposal

would go through a public involvement process and be on a willing

seller basis only.

7. No lands would be disposed of unless in a trade with another Federal

agency to further Refuge purposes.

8. Mineral exploration and development would be allowed only for

privately-owned minerals and under surface use stipulations

designed to maximize protection of wildlife, stabilization of soils, and

restoration of disturbed vegetation; as well as to minimize adverse

effects to the Refuge visitor’s experience.

9. No surface occupancy would be allowed for access to privatelyowned minerals if they may be otherwise reasonably accessed.

10. Rights-of-way would be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case

basis. A right-of-w ay through the Refug e wou ld be denied if fea sible

alternative routes were available. If no alternative route were

available, restrict right-of-way to existing utility corridors with

Refuge stipulations.

11. Subject to valid e xisting rights, access to water for livestock would

be provided in designated watering lanes only.

12. Providing access to RSGA to water livestock would continue as

outlined by the warranty deed. (similar to Alternative 1)

13. Law enforcement would be conducted year-round (similar to

Alternative 1). Livestock trespass laws will be strictly enforced.
EA-148 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 2 C4. Goal: Cultural Resource

Protect and interpret significant historic and prehistoric cultural sites and

objects associated with Refuge lands.

1. Similar to Alternative 1; however, the strategy would largely be

proactive. The Refuge would comply with Sections 106 and 110 of the

National HistoricPreservation Act. Known cultural resource sites and

potential sensitive areas would be avoided when practical. Adverse

effects to sites would be mitigated.

2. The Refuge would obtain data and produce a cultural resource

overlay (i.e. map) for its spatial resource information database (GIS)

for internal use and avoidance/protection of cultural resources.

3. Significant historic sites would be thoroughly recorded.

4. Interpreta tion w ould be based on a unify ing the me of peop le’s

relationship to and use of the habitat and wildlife in the Green River

Basin over time including historic and prehistoric use. The Refuge

staff would interpret nationally significant historic sites including

Lombard Ferry, the Oregon/Mormon National Historic Trails, and

Pony E xpress Trails and their crossings, Jim B ridger’s Trad ing Post,

and locally significant homesteads site. Interpretation of the Lombard

Ferry would be incorporated into the existing site. Intere st in

interpretation of Native American history would be maintained.

5. The historical leaflet would be updated as new information becomes

available. Information on prehistoric use of the area would be

developed in a variety of formats, including indoor and outdoor

exhibits, and leaflets. Sites discussing the use of local plants and

animals by people through time would inform visitors of the

importance of plants and animals in the human history of the area.

6. A floater’s interpretive trail and River guide wou ld be developed to

inform and educate River users about natural and cultural resources

of the Green River.

Alternative 2 C5. Goal: Partnership

Foster partnerships to promote wildlife conservation and habitat management

in the Green River Basin and to help Seedskadee NWR accomplish its vision

and goals.

1. Cooperation with Reclamation, WYG&F, and BLM continues, and

the Refuge staff would actively seek additional volunteer assistance

from local organizations, retired persons, and user/interest groups.

2. The staff would encourage and support the development of a local

“Friends” organization or other cooperative association to support

Refuge goals and assist in future fund raising and cooperative

ventures.

3. Partnersh ips would be developed regiona lly to assure op portunity

for acce ss and program s for peo ples with disabilities.

4. The Refuge would continue partnerships similar to Alternative 1.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-149

Alternative 3

Management alternative maximizes wildlife benefits by focusing on habitat

protection and enhancement, and describes a reduced public use approach.

This Alternative is similar to Alternative 2 with respect to management of

habitats and wildlife but de-emphasizes public use enhancements.

The public use experience would be primitive with uncrowded conditions and

center on the compatible wildlife-dependent priority public uses. No

additional improvements to public use and supporting facilities would occur.

The miles of roads open for public travel would be reduced to protect habitat

and reduce disturbance to wildlife. Commercial use of the River would be

discontin ued.

Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2 with the following

exceptions.

Alternative 3 A. Wildlife

Alternative 3 A1. Goal: Threatened and Endangered Species

To restore, enhance, or protect threatened and endangered flora and fauna

that currently occur or have historically occurred in the area of Seedskadee

NWR.

1. Similar to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 A2. Goal: Wildlife

Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of

migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native species. 

1. Similar to Alternative 2.

2. Hunting for sage grouse, snipe, mourning dove, and rails would be

discontinued to reduce hunting pressure, simplify hunting seasons,

and reduce general disturbance to w ildlife on the Refuge.

3. The waterfowl hunting season would end December 1 to reduce

disturbance to wintering wildlife, specifically providing an area

where waterbirds can rest and feed. Ice formation in backwaters

limits the use of w etland im poundments after ea rly Novemb er.

Alternative 3 B. Habitat

Alternative 3 B1. Goal: Riparian

Protect and restore riparian habitats along the Green River to provide for the

annual life needs of migratory birds and native wildlife utilizing the Green River

Basin.

1. Similar to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 B2. Goal: Wetland

Wetlands will be managed to meet the breeding and migratory requirements

of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other wetland dependent species.

1. Similar to Alternative 2.
EA-150 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 3 B3. Goal: Uplands

Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of indigenous flora

associated with the Great Basin upland desert shrub and grassland habitats to

support native wildlife found in the Green River Basin.

1. Similar to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 B4. Goal: Riverine

The Refuge staff, in collaboration with Wyoming Game and Fish Department

and Reclamation, will manage water quality and quantity in the Green River to

maintain and/or restore the riparian and cottonwood forests and provide

habitat for waterfowl, trumpeter swans, fish, and other native species

dependent on river and forested habitat.

1. Similar to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 B5. Goal: Invasive Species

Restore and maintain indigenous flora diversity by controlling the invasion of

exotic plant species on the Refuge.

1. Similar to Alternative 2.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-151

Alternative 3 C. Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

Alternative 3 C1. Goal: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Nurture an understanding of and appreciation for wildlife and other natural

resources of the Green River Basin by providing opportunities for compatible

wildlife-dependent recreation while maintaining the primitive, uncrowded

nature of the area.

1. The auto-tour would remain as in Alternative 1. No additional

interpretation facilities would be created. Parking areas would be

delineated along designated roads. Existing pullouts would be

enhanced along improved roads (auto tour routes) to provide w ildlife

and scenic viewing opportunities.

2. Fifty-nine miles of roads would be open for public travel (Map 11).

This Alternative has the fewest miles of roads open to public use in

order to m inimize disturbance to wildlife and habitat. A s appropriate

for wildlife protection or road conditions, other roads may be

seasonally or temporarily closed. All areas remain open for foot

travel.

3. Hunting would continue as a priority public use but hunting for

mourning doves, rails, snipes, and sage grouse would be

discontinued. Hunting closures would be implemented similar to

Alternative 2. The waterfowl hunting season would be shortened and

end D ecember 1 to reduce disturba nce to w intering w ildlife.

4. The River would be closed for commercial use.

5. The Refuge would cooperate with the WYG& F to create a nomotorized water craft zone through the Refuge. Motors would be

allowed for emergency purposes only.

6. Visitor use levels on the River would be determined by a future

Reclamation and FWS study. Use levels and resource impacts would

be monitored. If visitor use levels increase to a level where resource

impacts occur, areas m ay be closed temporarily or perm anently to

protect wildlife and habitat, and to maintain the primitive character.

7. No new trails would be created.

8. Similar to Alternative 1, a comprehensive wildlife observation guide

would be available.

9. Special youth-oriented activities would be maintained similar to

Alternative 1. N o new activities w ould be pursue d.

10. Huntin g and fish ing opportunities for peo ple with disabilities w ould

be provided informally and on a reque sted basis.

11. Decisions on hunting and fishing would be controlled similar to

Alternative 1. A new fishing and hunting leaflet w ould be developed.

12. There would be no additional improvements to boat ramps and

roads.

13. Recreational use would be monitored. Use limits and seasonal

closure may be instituted if visitor use levels increase to a level

which disturbs wildlife, causes resource impacts, or exceeds visitor

tolerances.
EA-152 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 3 C2. Goal: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Educate and inform the public about the Refuge, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, The National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Upper Colorado

Ecosystem by providing quality environmental education and interpretation

opportunities.

1. Wildlife viewing would be self-guided. No new environmental

education facilities would be developed at the R efuge.

2. No new interpretive signing would be created. Existing interpretive

displays would be updated.

3. Additional trails would not be created.

4. The development of a River interpretive brochure and the creation

of teach er curriculum p ackages would not be pursu ed.

Alternative 3 C3. Goal: Resource Protection 

Protect Refuge resources from adverse natural and/or man-made impacts.

1. Visitors would be provided information on universal access and the

best user opportunities for people with disabilities. Universal access

would be prov ided on a case-by-case basis. 

2. No new public use facilities would be developed that require

management and maintenance by the Refuge.

3. The remaining five acres of privately held land within the Refuge

boundary would be purchased if there were a willing seller similar to

Alternative 1. Other lands would be considered for acquisition on a

willing seller basis if information indicated that additional acres were

necessary for management of selected species (for example,

threatened and endangered species) or for mitigation purposes. Such

areas may include up stream riverine riparian areas, e specially

between Fontenelle Reservoir and Big Piney or lands surrounding

the Big Sandy River. Any additional land acquisition or disposal

would go through a public involvement process and be on a willing

seller basis only.

4. No surface occupancy would be allowed within the Refuge boundary

for development of privately-owned minerals.

5. Rights-of-way through the Refuge would be denied if alternative

routes were available.

6. Off-site water for livestock watering would be developed and grazing

or trailing of livestock would be eliminated on Refuge la nds.

Alternative 3 C4. Goal: Cultural Resource

Protect and interpret significant historic and prehistoric cultural sites and

objects associated with Refuge lands.

1. Similar to Alternative 1; however, little other formal protection or

stabilization occurs.

Alternative 3 C5. Goal: Partnership

Foster partnerships to promote wildlife conservation and habitat management

in the Green River Basin and to help Seedskadee NWR accomplish its vision

and goals.

1. Similar to Alternative 2.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-153
EA-154 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-155

Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

Threatened and

Endangered

Wildlife and Plant

What measures are

taken to protect

threatened,

endangered, and

candidate species

and species of

management

concern?

Management for T/E species

consists primarily of habitat

protection, protection of

individuals from disturbance,

providing adequate food

resources, and some population

monitoring.

Management of T/E species

would continue with habitat

protection, protection of

individuals from disturbance,

providing adequate food

resources; expand monitoring

to include populations and

habitat; and allow active

habitat management where

necessary. Regular

monitoring of populations of

all sensitive species occurs.

Surveys are conducted.

Same as Alternative 2.

Special regulations/closures are

instituted for protection of

wildlife sp ecies an d their

habitat on the Refuge.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Wildlife

What measures are

taken to protect and

manage native

wildlife?

Hawley wetland managed for

breeding trumpeter swans.

Winter river flows maintained

to keep areas ice free for

wintering swans. Refuge

cooperates w ith WY G&F in

reestablishment of the Rocky

Mtn. Trumpeter Swan

population.

Refuge works to expand

trumpeter swan nesting

areas. Efforts to reduce

disturbance to wintering

waterfowl via seasonal road

closures.

Same as Alternative 2.

Moose and deer m anage d in

cooperation with WYG&F.

Similar to Alternative 1;

establish vegetative

monitoring transects to

evaluate management actions.

Same as Alternative 2.

Sage grouse management

involves protection of habitat.

Initiate population and

habitat monitoring for sage

grouse.

Similar to Alternative 2;

however, hunting for

sage grouse, snipe,

mourning dove and rails

are discontinue d.

Management of habitat for

migratory birds and other

indigenous wildlife species

focuses on hab itat prote ction.

Similar to Alternative 1; focus

on additional enhancement of

all habitat types and

vegetative monitoring

Same as Alternative 2.

When necessary, special

regulations and closures are

instituted for protection of

wildlife sp ecies an d their

habitat.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

EA-156 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Riparian

How will riparian

habitat losses be

mitigated to

support migratory

birds and native

wildlife species?

A riparian restoration pilot

project has been conducted.

Restoration includes an

emphasis on woody species

planting.

Emphasis on restoring the

dynamic functioning of the

Green River and adjacent

floodplain forests. Long-term

riparian restoration plan

developed.

Same as Alternative 2.

Refuge will explore

regeneration of cottonwoods

and willows on new sites

(McCullen, Tallman, Otterson,

Johnson, and Big Island

management units) created

by increased water

availability through

manipulated River flows

and/or irrigation. Pole

planting at suitable sites. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Planting of understory shrubs

in up to 9 sites. Repellants and

plant barriers used to deter

browsing. No monito ring wells

installed.

Planting of understory shrubs

in up to 5 areas. May be

fenced to deter browsing.

Wells installed to monitor

groundwater depth and

changes in depth in the

riparian zone.

Same as Alternative 2.

The flow regime for the Green

River through the R efuge is

managed by USBR for its

project purposes and consistent

with dow nstream water rights

and commitments.

A prescriptive flow regime

for the Green River through

the Refuge would be

established w ith USBR to

increase the vigor of existing

cottonwood/ willow

communities and riparian

regeneration.

Same as Alternative 2.

B1. Issue: How will

riparian habitats be

managed to support

migratory birds?

See flow regime under A2. See flow regime under A2. Same as Alternative 2.

There is little control of native

wildlife that browse. A special

hunt for mule deer occurs

outside the re gular seaso n to

reduce their numbers.

Wildlife that heavily browse

riparian woody plants

aggressively managed during

the restoration phase.

Exclosures may be

constru cted. Fire not used in

floodplain forest while in poor

vigor and not reproducing.

Same as Alternative 2.

Livestock grazing not allowed

or used in riparian areas.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-157

Monitoring - There is no regular

monitoring program specific to

riparian forested communities.

Monitoring - A long-term

habitat monitoring plan for

riparian forested communities

established. MAPS

monitoring may occur

periodically.

Same as Alternative 2.

Wetlands

How will wetland

losses be mitigated

to support

migratory birds and

native wildlife

species?

Three oxbow wetlands have

been restored in the McCullen

Bluff, Hawley, and Hamp units.

Wetlands’ creation and

enhancements in the Hamp,

Hawley, Lower Hawley, and

Dunkle Units. Further

mitigation focus on restoring

historical, enhancing existing,

and creating new wetlands. One

wetland complexes will be

developed in the Pal

management units.

Similar to Alternative 1,

except wetland development

would restore and/or enhance

existing or former wetlands.

Pal Manage ment U nit

enhanced.

Same as Alternative 2. 

One additional sill would divert

water from the Green River

into historic side channels and

restore associated wetland

habitat. Natural topography

used to minimize soil

disturbance and alteration s to

natural features.

Similar to Alternative 1,

except one additional oxbow

may b e restored if feasible.

Same as Alternative 2.

How will wetlands

be managed to

support migratory

birds and native

wildlife species?

Existing wetlands units (Hamp,

Hawley, Dunkle) are managed

to provide migratory and

breeding habitat for w aterfow l,

shoreb irds, and wading birds. 

Hamp, Hawley, and Pal U nits

managed for breeding and

migratory habitat. The

remaining wetland units

managed as migratory habitat

for waterfowl, shorebirds, and

wading birds. For

seasonal/temporary natural

wetland a reas, management/

maintenance through natural

river flows and flooding.

Same as Alternative 2.

A Water Management Plan

applied and modified to provide

shallow wetland habitats for

spring and fall migration, and

breeding and brood-rearing

areas.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, the Water

Managem ent Plan applied in

the Hamp, Hawley, and Pal

units. Water management

varied and mimic natural

cycles. Prescribed fire may be

used to control emergent

vegetation.

Same as Alternative 2.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

EA-158 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Monitoring: Little for wildlife

use; infrequent for waterfowl

production; no vegetative

monitoring.

Monitoring: Yes for wildlife

species using wetland units,

restored oxbows and natural

wetlands. Infrequent for

waterfowl production

Same as Alternative 2.

How are predators

and nuisance

species controlled?

Predator Management Plan

followed. Management trapping

occurs in the Hawley and

Dunkle unit for nest predators

during waterfowl nesting

season. Beaver removed when

significant damage occurs.

Animals live-trapped where

possible. Trapping perm its

issued for management

purposes.

Similar to Alternative 1.

Management trapping by

Refuge staff for nest

predators may occur in the

Hamp, Hawley, Dunkle, and

Pal management units during

breeding season.

Same as Alternative 2.

Upland

How would upland

shrub and grassland

habitat be managed

to support native

wildlife species and

migrating birds?

Upland areas are fenced, but

not intensively managed.

Grazing and prescribed fire

have not been used as a

mana geme nt tool.

Habitat m anagem ent/

protection for wildlife species

of management concern.

Fences maintained. Stands of

tall sagebrush in woody

draws protected. May conduct

small burns with monitoring

in greasew ood stands to

convert to an early

successional state and

increase species diversity of

grasses and forbs. No

domestic livestock grazing

allowed.

Same as Alternative 2.

No monitoring. Vegetation monitoring prior

to any treatment. Long-term

habitat monitoring program

instituted. Monitoring of

wildlife species of

management concern.

Same as Alternative 2.

Riverine

How are fisheries

managed on the

Refuge?

WYG&F manages the coldwater (sport) fishery.

Cooperation occurs with fishery

habitat improvements.

Similar to Alternative 1;

except closer coordination

with WYG&F.

Same as Alternative 2.

Weeds

To what extent are

weeds (invasive,

nonnative plants)

controlled?

Weed control efforts targeted

to small, spreading infestations

and to preventing existing large

populations from seeding.

Integrated Pest Management

Plan used.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, more aggressive.

Decrease dependence on

chemical control. Fields of tall

whitetop in Headquarters

area converted to mix of

grasses and forbs.

Same as Alternative 2.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-159

Partner with USBR and BLM

to control upstream salt cedar

infestations

Same as Alternative 2.

Public Use and

Recreation

Wildlife Viewing

and Photography

To what extent are

opportunities

provided for wildlife

viewing and

photography?

Comprehensive wildlife

observation guide is available.

No special accommodation made

for photography. Nine mile long

seasonal wildlife auto-tour route

exists. One overlook at wetland

unit near Refuge headquarters.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, existing 15 miles of

improved road system

maintained on a regular basis.

Pullouts enhanced along autotour route.

Same as Alternative 2.

Selected species managed for

enhanced wildlife viewing

opportunities.

Same as Alternative 2.

One nature trail developed

near Headquarters.

No new trails developed.

Hunting

What types of

hunting

opportunities are

provided on the

Refuge?

Refuge partners with WYG&F

to manage hunting. Hunting

plan updated annually. Hunting

is allowed in all but two areas.

Temporary duck blinds made

from artificial materials or dead

down materials allowed. Special

doe deer hunt to reduce

population. Hunting

opportunities for persons with

disabilities provided on a

requested basis.

Similar to Alternative 1. Most

of the Refuge open for game

bird, wa terfow l, small, and big

game hunting subject to

closures or regulation for

public safety or resource

protection. A new closed area

established via a separate

public process. E fforts w ould

be made to provide hunting

opportunities for people w ith

disabilities. Blinds permitted

similar to Alternative 1.

Similar to Alternative 2;

however, seasons for

sage grouse, rails, snipe,

and mourning doves

would be discontinued.

Waterfowl season on

Refuge lands shortened

to end December 1.

Hunting opportunities

for persons with

disabilities provided on a

requested basis.

Recreational

Trapping

What types of

recreational

trapping are

allowed on the

Refuge?

Recreationa l trapping is

allowe d by spe cial use permit

for management purposes only.

Trappers must be experienced

and licensed with the State of

Wyoming.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Sport Fishing

What types of sport

fishing

opportunities are

provided on the

Refuge?

The Green River is managed by

WYG&F as a trophy trout

fishery; State regulations apply.

The Refuge provides informal

launch sites and parking.

Recreationa l fishing is

unlimited. “Take A Kid Fishing

Day” is one of the principal

outreach activities.

Similar to Alternative 1, Four

boat ram ps developed with

parking and improved ramps.

Boat launching restricted to

developed launches. Roadside pullouts provided for

bank anglers in high use

areas. Accessible rest rooms

provided at Dodge Bottoms.

Similar to Alternative 1,

except no additional

enhancements to

existing boat launching

facilities.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

EA-160 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Commercial Guide

Fishing/ Floating

Is commercial guide

fishing/floating

allowe d and how is

it managed?

Com mercially guided scenic

floats and fishing trips allowed

from the north boundary to the

take-out dow nstream of the Big

Sandy confluence (6 M ile Hill

boat ramp).

Similar to Alternative 1. No commercial guided

fishing or guided scenic

tours would be

authorized.

Fee permits issued on an annual

basis. Currently 6 permits.

Through attrition, reduce

number to 4 or less. The season

is from April 1 to October 30.

The number of boats per

day/outfitter and the number of

boats per day/section of river

limited. Daily use is first-come,

first-served and coordinated by

permittees. Permittees can

provide both fishing and scenic

tours.

Similar to Alterative 1. No permits issued.

Use data required from

permitted guides. Formal

monitoring of recreational use

not conducted by Refuge.

Recreational use monitored

and commercial permitted use

enforced on the river by

Refuge staff. If visitor use

levels increase to a level at

which wildlife disturbance

occurs, resource impa cts

occur, or which exceed visitor

tolerances, use limits and

seasonal closures instituted.

Monitoring of

recreational use similar

to Alternative 2.

Camping

Is camping allowed,

and if so, where and

how are sites

developed and the

use managed?

Refuge closed after dark. No

camping or ov ernight parking is

provided on the Refuge.

Visitors directed to facilities

outside the Refuge.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Boating

Is boating allowed

on the River

through the

Refuge?

Unrestricted boating allowed on

the river through the Refuge.

Most use is by non-motorized

water cra ft.

Refuge cooperates with

WYG&F to create a no-wake

zone restrictions through the

Refuge. Interagency River

Management Plan prepared

and implemented to

coordinate river use on the

Green River.

Refuge cooperates with

WYG&F to create a nomotor water craft zone

through the R efuge.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-161

Visitor Use Level

What is the

appropriate visitor

use level of the

Refuge?

Visitor use levels not limited

except for commercial use on

the River.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, current and

proposed future use levels on

the river determined by

future recreational use

studies. Use levels and

resource impacts monitored.

If visitor use levels increase

to a level where resource

impacts occur, areas may be

closed temporarily or

permanently to protect

wildlife and habitat.

Same as Alternative 2.

Access

Management

How is

access/travel

managed on the

Refuge?

All vehicle trav el restricted to

existing designated roads.

Seventy-seven miles of roads

are open to public travel. Some

spur two-track closures have

occurred. Contain traffic to

designated roads via signing.

Closed roads allowe d to

naturally revegetate. Parking

occurs haphazardly. All areas

are open to foo t travel.

Two-tracks a nd trails

identified which currently

enter sensitive areas and

compromise important

wildlife habitat, and twotracks and other roads

determined unnecessary for

Refuge ma nagem ent, wo uld

be closed and reclaimed.

Sixty-five miles of designated

roads w ill be open for public

travel. Of the 65 miles of open

roads, 5.4 miles will be

seasonally closed every year

from November 15 through

March 15 . As appropriate for

wildlife protection or road

conditions, other roads may

be seasonally o r temporarily

closed. A ll refuge lands w ill

be open to foot travel.

Fifty-nine miles of roads

would be open for public

travel. This Alternative

has the fewest miles of

roads open to public use

in order to minimize

disturbance to wildlife

and habitat. As

appropriate for wildlife

protection or road

conditions, other roads

may be seasonally or

tempo rarily closed. All

areas remain open for

foot trav el.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

EA-162 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

River Access

How is River access

managed?

Informal vehicle parking and

boat launching areas have been

“established” by users over the

years. Maintain four improved

boat ramps with parking areas.

Reduce development of twotrack ro ads.

Four designated boat ramps

with associated parking

developed at Dodge Bottom,

Hay F arm, H ighwa y 28, 6

Mile Hill. Further improve

boat ramps w ith cable create.

Improve directional signing

and provide road pullouts at

key locations. Improve

control of access by signing

designa ted roads.

Livestock access lanes will be

enhanced by designating

parking areas and increased

signing to reduce conflicts

between livestock and

recrea tionists.

Same as Alternative 1.

Same as Alternative 2.

Livestock lanes

eliminated and off site

water established.

Universal Access

To what exte nt is

universal access to

public use facilities

and activities

provided?

The Headquarters public rest

room is universally accessible.

Lombard Crossing historical

display is accessible.

Accessibility will be a high

priority in developing new

facilities and public use

opportunities. Otherwise access

is informal and on a requested

basis.

Similar to Alternative 1, in

addition new facilities

univers ally accessible. A

range of accessible wildlifedependent recreational

activities provided.

Efforts made to provide

hunting and fishing

opportunities for people w ith

disabilities.

Similar to Alternative 1.

Visitors would be

provided information on

universal access and the

best user opportunities

for people w ith

disabilities. Limited

facility development

planned. Universal

access would be

provided on a case-bycase ba sis.

Environmental

Interpretation and

Education

Environmental

Interpretation

To what extent are

opportunities

pursued to

interpret natural

resources,

especially wildlife

and their habitat for

the visiting public?

Interpretive exhibits at

headq uarters, a porta ble exhibit

for interpretive outreach, an

information kiosk, two

interpretive signs at the

Overlook. No interpretive

“trails” exist on the Refuge.

Similar to Alternative 1. Add

pullouts and interpretive sites

along the auto-tour route.

Interpretive themes at

Headquarters visitor area

carried out through the

Refuge. One nature

interpre tive wa lking trail

(near Headquarters), one

river floater’s interpretive

“trail,” and one cu ltural trail

at Lombard Ferry.

Interpretive information

made accessible to all.

Existing interpretive signs

updated.

Same as Alternative 1.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-163

Environmental

Education

What type of

environmental

education program

is provided to the

public?

Refuge provides tou rs to

schools, civic groups, and other

organization s upon request.

Environme ntal education is

integrated with recreational

opportunities.

Similar to A lternative 1, w ith

the following additions: EE

emphasis on K-12. Refuge

conducts a minimum of two

on-site teacher training

workshops on the Green

River and Refuge resources.

Opportunities to partner

pursued. EE curriculum

packages for interpretive

trails developed. A new

education/visitor accessible

center located near

headquarters.

Similar to Alternative 1.

Wildlife viewing wou ld

be self-guided. No new

environmental education

facilities would be

developed at the Refuge.

No additional

educational programs

developed.

Resource

Protection

Public Information

How is information

on the Refuge, its

resources, and

regulations

provided to the

public?

A general Refuge brochure,

historical brochure, hunting and

fishing regulations, and access

information are available upon

request.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, all brochures

updated, and a more detailed

travel map produced. Refuge

and River use guidelines and

regulations posted.

Same as Alternative 2.

Known river hazards are

posted.

Visitors provided information

on user safety and emergency

help notification.

Same as Alternative 1.

Few directional signs are

provided.

Directional signs added or

improved.

Same as Alternative 2.

Outreach and public relations

programs provided upon

request if staff are available.

Refuge staff conducts an

active outreach/public

relations program to establish

relationships and provide

information to state and local

governmental officials,

neighboring communities,

appropriate organizations and

interest groups, and state and

local me dia outlets.

Same as Alternative 1.

Facility development is not

clustered.

Facility development

clustered in the northwest

quadrant of the Refuge with

the remainder of the Refuge

in a prim itive and semiprimitive condition.

Same as Alternative 2.

Install accessible toilet at

Dodge Bottoms.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

EA-164 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Cultural Resources

How are cultural

resources

protected?

Resource protection largely

reactive. The Refuge complies

with section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act and

consultation w ith the State

Historic Preservation Office

(SHPO) and the Advisory

Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) occurs.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, more proactive.

Refuge complies w ith

Sections 106 and 110 of the

NHPA. A Class III

pedestrian cultural resource

survey would be conducted

for Refuge areas not

previously surveyed. Known

cultural resource sites and

potential sensitive areas

avoided whe n practical.

Adve rse effects to sites would

be mitigated.

Same as Alternative 1.

A cultural resource overlay

(i.e. map) is prod uced for its

spatial resource information

data base (GIS).

Little direct

protection/stabilization occurs

for historic sites.

Significant historic sites

would be thoroughly

recorded.

Same as Alternative 1.

To what extent are

opportunities

pursued to

interpret cultural

resources for the

visiting public?

Interpretation of the cultural

history of the a rea limited to

the historic period. An

interpretive site at Lombard

Ferry site with a Lombard

Ferry replica. There is interest

by the FWS to interpret Native

American history of the

surrounding area. An historical

leaflet is available which

interprets local and national

history of westward expansion

and settlement of the area.

Similar to Alterative 1;

however, the interpretation

based on a unifying theme.

Refuge interprets na tionally

significant historic sites

including ferries, the

Oregon/Mormon Pioneer and

Pony E xpress Trails an d their

crossings, Jim Br idger’s

Trading Post and locally

significant homesteads site.

Incorporate interpretation

the Lombard Ferry replica

into the existing Lombard

Crossing interpretive site.

Historical leaflet updated.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, no new

facilities developed that

require management and

maintenance by the

Refuge.

Partne rship

To what extent are

partnership

opportunities

pursued w ith

volunteers, local

service groups,

organizations,

individuals, schools,

and other

governmental

agencies?

Cooperation with USBR,

WYG&F, and BLM continues.

Refuge conducts ongoing

volunteer program.

Similar to Alternative 1, plus

seek additional volunteer

assistance. Encourage and

support the developm ent of a

local “Friends” organization

or other cooperative

association.

Same as Alternative 1.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-165

The Refuge looks for partnering

opportunities to provide

interpretive facilities at the

Lombard Crossing site.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

The Refuge participates in the

Partners for Wildlife Program

and Green River Focus Area of

the Intermountain West Joint

Venture.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

The R efuge w ill participate in

other neighboring Fe deral,

State and local planning

processes.

Same as Alternative 1.

Encourage the development

of a study with USFWS,

BLM, and USBR to establish

eligibility and suitability of

designating the Green River

as wild, scenic, and

recreational river.

Partnerships developed

regionally to assure

opportunity for access and

program s for peoples with

disabilities.

Same as Alternative 1. 

Administrative

Management

Concerns

Land Acquisition

Is further land

acquisition or land

disposal planned?

Remaining five acres of

privately held land within the

Refuge boundary purchased on

a willing seller basis. No

additional new lands acquired.

Similar to Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Other lands considered for

acquisition if necessary for

management of selected

species or for mitigation

purposes.

Same as Alternative 2.

Additional land acquisition or

disposal would go through a

public involvement process.

Same as Alternative 2.

No lands would be disposed. No lands disposed of unless in

a trade with another Federal

agency to further Refuge

purposes.

Same as Alternative 2.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

EA-166 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Miner als

How will privatelyowned minerals be

developed?

Surface use subject to Refuge

approval and stipulations.

Mineral exploration and

development allowed only for

privately-owned minerals and

under surface use stipulations

designed to maximize

protection of wildlife,

stabilization of soils, and

restoration of disturbed

vegetation.

No surface occupancy allowed

for access to privately-owned

minerals if they could be

otherw ise reasonably

accessed.

No surface occupancy

allowed within the

Refuge boundary for

development of

privately-owned

minerals.

Acquisition of minerals may

be considered at select sites if

resource/public use conflicts

occur and cannot be mitigated

under use and occupancy

stipulations.

Rights-of-Way

What is the

Refuge’s policy

toward requests for

grants of ROW

across the Refuge?

Several ROW s and ease ments

currently exist within the

Refuge. ROWs are reviewed

and approved on a case-by-case

basis.

ROWs reviewed and

approved on a case-by-case

basis. ROWs through Refuge

would be denied if feasible

alternative routes are

available. If no alternative

route available, restrict ROW

to existing utility corridors

with Refuge stipulations.

ROWs through Refuge

would be denied if

alternative routes are

available.

Livestock Access

How is access to

water for livestock

provided?

Access to water livestock

provided to Rock Springs

Grazing Asso ciation pe rmit

holders according to deeded

reservation. Access to water

may be via w atering lane, offsite water development, or by a

Refuge Spe cial Use Perm it.

Access provided as a courtesy

to other BLM permit holders

through fenced livestock

watering lanes (water gaps).

Existing lanes maintained

solely at Refug e expense.

Subject to deeded

reservation. Similar to

Alternative 1.

Off-site water would be

developed where

possible. Trailing of

livestock through the

Refuge to access water

would be eliminated.
Table 1. Seedskadee NWR Alternative Comparison Summary

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-167

Grazing

Is grazing allowed

on the Refuge?

What is the Refuge

doing to prevent

livestock trespass?

A single reservation exists on

the Refuge for a livestock

holding pen and for a calving

area at the south end of the

Refuge. These will be managed

under a Special Use Permit. No

permitted grazing is currently

ongoing on the Refug e.

Similar to Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Livestock trespass occurs;

enforcement of trespass

difficult. Boundary fencing used

to exclude livestock.

Upon completion of the

Refuge boundary fence and

watering lanes, livestock

trespass laws would be

strictly enforced. The Refuge

would continue to try new

designs for w atering lanes to

prevent trespass. The

boundary fence will be

regularly checked and

repaired as necessary.

Same as Alternative 2;

howe ver, effo rts would

be made to remove

water lanes and develop

off-site water sites.

Fire Management

How is fire

managed on the

Refuge?

Fire Management Plan and an

Interagency Dispatch Plan

followed. Wildfires suppressed.

A cooperative agreement for

fire suppression exists with

local, State, and other Federal

agencies in the area.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.
EA-168 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Chapter 3. Affected Environment: Resource Inventory

Chapter 3 of the EA incorporates by reference Chapter 3 - Refuge and

Resource Description of the CCP.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

The following effects discussion is organized by Seedskadee NWR goals and

the issues identified during the public process, by the general public, interested

agencies, and organizations.

Alternative 1 Present Management Continues

Alternative 1 Wildlife

Alternative 1 Threatened and Endangered Plants and Wildlife

Generally, beneficial effects may occur to threatened, endangered, candidate,

and wildlife species of management concern from habitat protection, limiting

disturbance to individuals, provision of adequate food resources, and minimal

population monitoring. Continued or increased disturbance by winter visitors

to wintering waterfowl, trumpeter swans, and other sensitive species

continues to be an issue under this Alternative.

Sensitive species that are dependent upon riparian shrub communities along

the Riv er and riparian forest m ay experience continue d degradation of their

habitats. Under Alternative 1, there is no assurance that the riparian forest

along the Green River would be preserved. Current impacts from invasive

species, uncontrolled visitor access, and the lack of public use monitoring may

continue to impact sensitive vegetation and riparian areas, thus reducing the

quality of potential habitat for sensitive wildlife and plant species.

Alternative 1 Wildlife and Habitat

Managem ent of the existing H awley wetlan d unit for trumpeter sw ans would

continue to benefit this species in addition to numerous other wetland

dependent species. Development of an additional wetland unit would increase

benefits for a variety of w etland species. Management of winter flow s to

maintain ice free waters will continue to benefit a variety of wintering bird

species.

Management of moose and deer would continue but lack of vegetative

monitoring would m ake evaluation of ma nagement strategies difficult.

Enhancement of portions of the riparian corridor would benefit a variety of

avian and mammal species; however, riparian restoration efforts may be

jeopar dized w ithout proper m anage ment o f herbivores.

Protection with out active man agem ent of upland habitats may eventually

result in degraded habitat conditions for the sage grouse and other upland

species. Lack of monitoring in upland habitats for grouse and other species

makes management programs difficult to develop and eventually evaluate.

Current impacts from invasive species, uncontrolled visitor access, and the lack

of public use monitoring may continue to impact all habitat types, thus

reducing the quality of potential habitat for all wildlife and plant species.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-169

Alternative 1 Riparian

The operation of Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir moderates flows of the Green

River below the dam from w hat wo uld be experienced if the dam were not in

place. The high peaks of major high flow events are substantially reduced

below the dam. Channelizing has likely incised the R iver channel. Coupled with

lower peak flows and timing changes in restricted flows, the hydrologic system

through the Refuge has changed depriving woody plants and seeds of adequate

water when needed to sustain the historic plant communities and also has

resulted in many fewer disturbed sites where regeneration can take place.

These circumstances negatively effect the riparian habitat within the Refuge.

Higher than historic winter flows have also increased ice scouring which, over

the winter, essentially cuts off cottonwood seedlings that have emerged along

the River banks.

The riparian forest would continue to age, be in poor health when compared

with the upstrea m fore st above Fontenelle R eservo ir, rema in simple r in

structure, and have insufficient regeneration to establish new age classes.

Under these continued conditions, the existing riparian forested habitat, which

is crucial for migrating and breeding songbirds, may severely deteriorate.

Without m anagem ent intervention over the long-term, the forest is likely to

die out.

Riparian forest provides habitat for the greatest number of migratory bird

species on the Refuge. Countless numbers and species of birds rely on the

riparian forest of the Green River to migrate to and from their breeding areas

to the north. Birds use this habitat for foraging, roosting, and cover during

migration. Forest breeding birds that winter in Central and South America are

not capable of migrating solely through the arid semidesert shrubland that

predominates much of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Instead, they rely on the

north-south riparian forest corridor of the Colorado and Green Rivers.

The planting of understory woody shrubs in up to nine sites would increase the

shrub cover for wildlife and migratory birds.

Riparian habitat may continue to be negatively effected by the insufficient

control of native wildlife such as deer, moose, and beaver that browse on

woody plants. Some effort is made to reduce the number of mule deer that

browse by holding a special hunt. While the riparian forest is managed for

migratory birds, without ongoing monitoring of ungulate and deer populations,

the degree of success would be unmeasured.
EA-170 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 1 Wetland

Providing one additional managed wetland complex in the Upper Hawley and

Pal Management Units would benefit migratory and breeding habitat for

waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds.

Breeding habitat consists of areas where courtship and breeding may occur;

suitable nest sites are available; and adequate resou rces are av ailable to

sustain birds through fledgling from the nest. Existing nesting islands are

inadequately designed and are infested with perennial pepperweed. These

problems are unreso lved in A lternative 1. 

The continuation of predator trapping in the Hawley and Dunkle units has a

beneficial effect for ground-nesting birds. Apparent nesting success over the

last five years has been over 65 percent. However, in the other units where

trapping is not occurring, nest success would continue to be a management

concern.

Water within the wetland units is managed for shallow wetland habitats for the

spring and fall migration and breeding and brood-rearing areas to ensure the

most successful result fo r migra tory bird s. Species that benefit by this

Alternative include the trumpeter swan, Canada goose, numerous species of

ducks, the marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, tiger

salamander, boreal chorus frog, northern leopard frog, m ink, and mu skrat.

However, with limited wildlife and waterfowl production monitoring, the

degree of success would be unmeasured.

Restoring historic oxbow river channels may provide additional spring

migration, bree ding, or fa ll migratio n habitats for birds. Restorations would

also improve conditions for fisheries by providing spawning, nursery, or

overw intering a reas.

Alternative 1 Uplands

Sagebrush habitats are not monotypic but in fact consist of a mosaic of shrub

types of which sagebrush is the most dominant. The largest block of upland

habitat (s agebrush, salt shrub, greasew ood, and grass) is the Dry Creek Un it

which is fenced and free of grazing by domestic livestock. This practice has

resulted in an upland system closer to approximation of natural conditions

(prior to introduction of grazing in the last century) than anywhere else in the

imme diate region. Therefore, overtime, w ithout intensive m anage ment, th is

system should be vital to and supporting of native wildlife species and

migratory bird s such as wintering sage grouse, burrowing owl, mountain

plover, prairie dog, loggerhead shrike, pygmy rabbit, antelope, and m ule deer.

All wildfires would be suppressed, and controlled prescribed fire would not be

used as a manageme nt tool. Because fire is controlled and not used as a

management tool, habitat would tend to become a similar age class diminishing

habitat diversity and beneficial use by native species and migratory birds.

Invasive greasewood and sagebrush would continue to become dominant over

more important forage plants.

The 35 0 acres in the Hay Farm M anage ment U nit wou ld continu e to be a mix

of grasses and tall annual weedy forbs and may gradually convert to a

grease wood /sage ha bitat type .
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-171

Alternative 1 Riverine

Existing winte r flows provide some ice-free water each ye ar which would

continue to ben efit the R ocky M ountain population of trumpete r swan s, bald

eagles, and wintering w aterfow l. However, un restricted public access w ould

continue to negatively impact these species, compromising the open water

benefits.

The lack of restrictions on m otorized w ater-based activities could co ntribute to

water quality problems affecting fingerling trout populations. Increased

turbidity from boat launching, shoreline a ngling or motorized watercra ft could

affect littoral zones and decrease feeding efficiency. However, with visitor use

levels as low as they are, the chance of these negative effects occurring are

minimal.

Vehicular use of undesignated roads is prohibited under this Alternative, but

without full-time enforcement staff monitoring the area, it is doubtful that

warning signs would be consistently obeyed. The use of motorized vehicles

near the Green River would degrade habitat by increasing river bank erosion,

destroying vegetation, disturbing riverine wildlife (waterfowl), disturbing

river recreationists, and degrading the viewshed.

Unrestricted visitor uses over time could cause degradation in river bank

vegetation that provides cover for fish and wildlife.

Providing rock sills in the Green River provides structure, cover, and

beneficial habitat for the fishery. These structures may also improve adjacent

wetland/riparian areas by increasing the water table and subsequent water

availability to riparian vegetation.

Alternative 1 Invasive Species

The invasion of several nonnative plants is a serious threat to Refuge habitats,

especially wet meadows and adjoining riparian areas. Perennial pepperweed,

salt cedar, Russian knapweed, and musk thistle are the most troublesome

species. Of these, pepperweed is the m ost widesprea d and difficult to control.

Currently, the only practical method for controlling pepperweed is the use of

herbicides. Biological control through the release of beneficial insects is under

development; however, its approval is not expected for another ten years.

Mechanical control through mowing or grazing can reduce the spread of seed;

however, it does little to stress the plant which stores most of its energy

underground. Likew ise, fire does very little to control the pla nt. Often it

actually benefits the plant by reducing its competition from the surrounding

grass and forbs. The other troublesome species are currently foun d only in

isolated patches. They are aggressively controlled through a variety of

metho ds including biolog ical, mechanical, and che mical.

The invasion of this nonnative plant poses an additional problem by providing

cover for predators, loss of beneficial wildlife forage and cover, and loss of

plant diversity. Under Alternative 1, neither the problems of weed control or

reclaim ing weed-dom inant habitats are well resolved.
EA-172 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 1 Public Use and Recreation

There is no change in the management of public use and recreation experience

at Seedskadee in the short-term. There is potential for increased use as the

Refuge becomes more popular. Effects of public use may be evident in

increased damage to vegetation, fisheries, water quality, soils and visual

quality due to the absence of direction of use, vehicles, boating, and other

activities.

Visual quality would remain the same under Alternative 1 but may degrade

over time as visitors are accommodated rather than managed. The visual

condition of the area has been impacted by off-road uses which have changed

or destroyed vegeta tion. The continued erosion of disturbed riverbanks due to

uncontrolled river access may cause runoff and siltation in the river as well as

continued damage to existing vegetation. The random creation and continued

use of two-tracks fragment habitat, destroy vegetation, increase weed

problems, disturb wildlife and visitors, and significantly degrade the viewshed.

The nine mile long wildlife auto-tour rou te wou ld continu e to be seasonal.

Pullouts wo uld not be improved along the auto -tour so there would continue to

be no unique accommodations for the wildlife photographer. While no

designated nature trails are on the Refuge, all areas are open to foot traffic.

Upon request, the Refuge staff would continue to provide special activities for

youth.

Hunting is a priority public use and would be allowed under all Alternatives.

With the hunting population, a positive pu blic relations effect occurs with

hunters gaining an appreciation for the Refuge as a resource. Hunting serves

as a manage ment to ol by assisting in reducing b rowsers.

The developed Dunkle and Hawley wetland areas are closed to waterfowl

hunting resulting in decreased disturbance to trumpeter swans and other

waterfowl species using this as fall migrational habitat. However, after

mana ged w etland units freeze up, the only water open for w intering b irds is

the River. Alternative 1 does not address the need to provide a disturbance

free area for w intering w aterfow l to rest an d feed. 

Trapping is allowed by special use permit for management purposes. Predator

trapping has a positive effect on nest success.

Under Alternative 1, without a comprehensive fishing and hunting leaflet, the

public may continue to be confused about areas open for hunting and Refuge

regulations.

The Green River through Seedskadee NWR is open for angling year-round.

There is a positive public relations effect with anglers gaining an appreciation

for the Refuge as a resource. Young people who fish the Refuge benefit from

the “Take a Kid Fishing Day” education programs.

During peak seasons, increased use with boats passing through the Re fuge is

not monitored or controlled. Unimproved and undesignated parking, boating,

and angling access would continue to have an impact on sensitive vegetation.

Although general public camping is prohibited under this Alternative, without

enforcement, unauthorized camping occurs. Unregulated and undesignated

camping may continue to disturb sensitive wildlife and vegetation. Without

monitoring of public use on Refuge resources, it is difficult to quantify the

impact of the use on sensitive species.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-173

Educational interpretation w ould con tinue to be very minimal and the public

would continue to rely on “self guided” tours of the Refuge.

Environmental education would continue to occur on a limited as-requested

basis, consisting mainly of tours of the Refuge. No facilities or developed

programs exist, and little outreach is dedicated to environmental education.

Without an ongoing education program, an understanding and appreciation for

wildlife and other natural resources of the Green River basin is not nurtured.

Alternative 1 Cultural Resources

The Refuge would comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations.

Little direct protection or stabilization occurs for historic sites. Resource

protection would largely be reactive. Any interpretation of Native American

history would have a positive effect expanding the public knowledge of the

history of the Green River Basin.

Alternative 1 Partnerships

Cooperation with USBR, WYG&F, and BLM would continue on an as-needed

basis. Refuge management would conduct ongoing volunteer programs

involving student interns, retired persons, and local scout groups. However,

recruiting, training, and supervising volunteers would be managed by existing

staff and compete aga inst day-to-day respon sibilities. The Refuge staff would

continue to look for partnering o pportunities as needs arise. Staff would

participate in the Wyoming Partners for Wildlife Program for habitat

improvement on private lands and Partners In Flight Program for improved

monito ring and protection of m igratory birds. The Refuge w ould also mainta in

the lead in the Green River Focus Area of the Intermountain West Joint

Venture —a cooperative venture w ith other Federal agen cies and with private

landowners in the G reen River Basin. The Refuge would continue to

participate in other neighboring Federal, State, and local planning processes.

Under Alternative 1, no minority or low income populations would be

disproportionately affected by implementation of this Alternative.

Alternative 1 Administrative Management Concerns

The purchase of the remaining five acres would result in Seedskadee NWR

owning all lands within their boundary and preclude any land management

conflicts with private landowners.

Under Alternative 1, mineral exploration and development would be allowed

subject to Refuge approval and stipulations. This approach gives those holding

privately-owned minerals reasonable access. It is difficult to determine the

extent o f potential chang e to occu r (roads, drill pads, or pipeline) if reasonable

access were to occur.

Rights-of-way are granted on a case-by-case basis. If a right-of-way were

approved, changes would occur in habitat on the right-of-way itself. Potential

erosion and soil loss may occur until reclamation is achieved on the right-ofway. Short-term impacts may occur to the fishery depending on means of

crossing the Green River.

Domestic livestock trespass would continue to occur largely through water

lanes.
EA-174 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Alternative 2 Wildlife and Habitat

Alternative 2 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants

Beneficial effects may likely occur to special status species by providing

habitat management and protection, limiting disturbance to individuals,

provision of adequate food resources, surveying habitat and habitat quality,

and conducting regular monitoring.

Using temporary or permanent closures, or both, to prevent wildlife

disturbance or protect sensitive habitats, would benefit a variety of special

status species. Regeneration of cottonwoods would be achieved on new sites

created by increased water availability providing needed habitat for a number

of special status species.

Alternative 2 Wildlife

Increased monitoring of vegetation in all habitat types will improve

management decisions for trumpeter swans, grouse, migratory birds, deer,

moose, etc. Initiation of population monitoring for gro use will facilitate

development of management strategies for upland shrub habitats. Increased

knowledge of browsing impacts will improve management of herbivores like

deer and mo ose and suppo rt riparian restor ation efforts.

Using temporary or permanent closures, or both, to prevent wildlife

disturbance or protect sensitive habitats, would benefit a variety of wildlife

species, especially trump eter sw ans. Reduction in designated o pen roads will

reduce overall disturbance to wildlife and reduce fragmentation of habitats.

Seaso nal closure of some roads and eventual mo dification of closed areas w ill

provide much needed resting areas for wintering w aterfow l.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-175

Alternative 2 Riparian

Alternative 2 would provide the greatest ben efit of any of the Alternatives to

the riparian forest, migratory birds, and native wildlife species. Alternative 2

would de velop a riparian restoration plan to determine effective methods to

establish new age classes of woody plant species and restore the health to the

riparian system. Increased and timely water availability would ensure

regeneration of cottonwoods and improve the health of existing trees and

willows. However, any change in flow regime could also affect optimal power

production at Fontenelle. Changes in the prescriptive flow regime could also

effect the frequency of flooding at Green River, Wyoming.

Suppressing wildfire and trapping for beaver would protect mature

cottonwood forested areas. Maintaining the large diameter trees, snags, and

dead trees would provide enhanced breeding, foraging, and migratory habitat

for num erous b ird species.

By installing wells to monitor groundwater depth and changes in depth,

Seedskadee could select the most suitable sites and flows for restoration

efforts. W orking w ith Reclamatio n to establish a flow regime, particu larly in

years of favorable seed production or drought, may result in an increase of the

vigor of existing cottonwood/willow communities and increased riparian

regeneration.

Wildlife would be aggressively managed during the restoration phase to reduce

populations of species that heavily browse riparian woody plants (deer, moose,

and beaver). E xclosures would be co nstructe d in selected areas which would

protect regeneration and allow for vegetative recovery. Regularly maintaining

livestock trespass fences would result in less livestock trespass and better

vegetative growth.

If strategies are successfu l, a healthier com munity pro viding long-term quality

habitat may occur over time. Success for migratory birds would be measured

through a monitoring program.

Alternative 2 Wetland

In Alternative 2, wetlands would be managed first as migration habitat and

habitat for resident species and second as breeding habitat for migratory

waterbirds. The Hamp, Hawley, and Pal units would be managed for breeding

and migratory habitat. The remaining wetland units would be managed

principally as migratory habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds and wading birds.

Specifically, the trumpeter swan, Canada goose, num erous species of ducks,

the marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, tiger

salamander, boreal chorus frog, northern leopard frog, mink, and muskrat

would benefit from wetland management in Alternative 2.

Periodically drawing down tall emergent vegetation and open water habitat

every 5 to 7 years ma y stimulate natu ral wet and dry cycles and maintain

wetlan d productivity. D rawing dow n short e mergent veg etation for fall

migration concentrate s aquatic invertebrates and makes them available to

many species of shorebirds. Extensive monitoring of the vegetative recovery

and m onitoring the kinds and numbers of sp ecies using the areas w ould

determine the success of the approach of Alternative 2. The effects of restoring

the historic oxbow river channels would be similar to Alternative 1.
EA-176 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 2 Uplands

Providing a dive rse mix of upland desert shrub and gra ssland habitats co uld

have positive effects for sage gr ouse, log gerhead shrike, prairie dog, mountain

plover, burrow ing owl, and pyg my rabbit. Protecting existing sta nds of tall

sagebrush in woody draws from unplanned disturbance may provide crucial

thermal cover and foraging areas for winter sage grouse, pygm y rabbit,

antelope, and mule deer.

Converting the 350-acre Hay Farm Management Unit to an upland mixedgrass habitat type would benefit grassland species such as western

mead owlark, savan nah sparrow , vesper sparrow, bobolink, and lark sparrow.

Using small controlled burns as prescribed in Alternative 2 should realize a

conversion of small areas of decadent greasewood to an early successional

state. This conversion would provide a variety of successional stages across

certain upland portions of the Refuge. Using prescribed fire in emergent

wetlands would maintain open water and could rejuvenate decadent stands of

grasses and other vegetation. Restricting the use of fire in floodplain forest

habitats would protect existing stands of cottonwoods that are in poor vigor

and not reprod ucing.

Implementing minor upland treatments could result in more vigorous and

diverse upland habitats and, therefore, enhance habitat for resident and

migratory species. Invoking long-term monitoring will measure the effects of

various treatm ents.

Alternative 2 Riverine 

Similar to Alternative 1; however, negative effects to the riverine habitat

should d iminish. P roviding open w ater (ice-free) ha bitat in the River channel,

sufficient aquatic vegeta tion, and explorin g temp orary closures may benefit

wintering trum peter sw ans, waterfow l, and bald eagles.

Closer coordination between managing agencies may also lead to positive

effects to the fishery providing better recreational fishing and a food source for

migratory birds such as white pelicans, bald eagles, herons, egrets, and

cormorants. An improved public education and awareness campaign about

river management may help to build support and understanding for

management actions. Monitoring winter use by wildlife and visitors, including

human-wildlife interactions will be important to evaluate the effectiveness of

mana geme nt strategies. Ev aluation of changes to fish eries an d aquatic

vegetation from changes in flows will also be key factors to measuring the

success of various flow strategies.

Alternative 2 Invasive Species

Decreasing the Refuge’s dependence on chemical control of weedy plants may

have a positive impact on wildlife. However, chemical control is generally the

only effective method available for many species and the decrease in control

may incre ase the spread of certa in weeds. Developing partnerships with

Reclamation and BLM may have positive effects by decreasing the

encroachment of salt cedar and pepperweed from adjacent lands.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-177

Alternative 2 Public Use and Recreation

Alternative 2 Recreation

The direct effects to the public use and recreation experience would be changes

in developm ent and leve l of control wh ich may or may not be acceptable to

those that currently use the Refuge. There would be the potential for

enhancement of habitats, water quality, fisheries, and visual quality caused by

the River access improvements and the restriction on Refuge access.

The closure of non-designated two tracks, the overall reduction in roads open

for public travel, and the control of public access to the River would improve

the areas’ natural appearance and the solitude experienced by visitors.

Modifications to conduct or improve public use opportunities such as hardening

roads and ramps, and development of trails, interpretive information, and

other amenities would be minor intrusions to the landscape that would not

substantially detract from the larger natural setting.

Maintaining the nine mile wildlife auto-tour route would ensure year-round

access for visitors. Enhancing pullouts along the auto-tour would provide new

wildlife viewing and photography opportunities. The construction of one nature

trail in a riparian area would expose a larger spectrum of people (various ages

and abilities) to major habitats within the Refuge. Expanding special activities

for youth would provide a greater opportunity to nurture an understanding of

and an appreciation for wildlife and other resources.

Under Alternative 2, a new winter closed area would be established via a

separate public process. The future closure would address the current lack of

sanctua ry for w intering b irds. The season al road closure proposed in this

Alternative partially addresses the needs of wintering wildlife. With the

hunting population, there is a positive public relations effect with hunters

gaining an appreciation for the Refuge as a resource. Hunting also serves as a

management tool by assisting in reducing browse. Young people who hunt the

Refuge benefit from the safety and courtesy of education programs. Species

may b enefit w ith managem ent regulations. Increased law enforcemen t patrols

may increase compliance. People with disabilities would be provided

opportunities to participa te.

The effects from sport fishing opportunities are similar to Alternative 1;

however, Alternative 2 may entice more people to visit. Providing designated

roads w hich are well sign ed in the field and mapp ed on the travel brochure will

reduce destruction to ve getation and sen sitive hab itats.

Restricting and eventually reducing the number and allocation of commercial

use permits to specific outfitters may add stability to the fishing program. The

limitations set on comm ercial use and re aches a vailable for guide d use in

Alternative 2 may improve the quality of the recreation experience but

increase demand for permits. Commercial scenic/wildlife viewing floats may

become popular in the future. With limits on permits and river use segments,

non-commercial floaters/anglers may feel their experienced is enhanced.

Without additional enforcement, unauthorized camping and off-road travel may

continue to disturb sensitive wildlife and vegetation. Monitoring of public use

on Refuge resources, would help reduce the potential impact of these uses on

sensitive species.
EA-178 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

The development of a comprehensive fishing and hunting leaflet would enhance

the visitor experience and the increased law enforcement patrols should realize

beneficial effect from more compliance. The monitoring of public use of Refuge

resources would add greater protections.

The increased environmental interpretation efforts would have a positive

effect informing visitors of the importance of plants and wildlife relative to the

human history of the area. The river and riparian interpretive trail and

interpretive panels at pullouts along the auto-tour would improve the quality

of the ed ucational experience o n the R efuge.

The im proved enviro nmen tal education and public informa tion programs would

enhance a visitors appreciation and understanding of the Refuge, wildlife, and

history.

Clustering facility development in the northwest quadrant of the Refuge

directs public use and keeps the remaining por tion of the Refug e in a sem iprimitive state. This would have a positive effect on vegetation, wildlife, and

visual quality resources.

Alternative 2 Cultural Resources

The effects would be similar to Alternative 1; howev er, the approach would

largely be proactive. Significant cultural resources (historic and prehistoric)

would be preserved and protected from inadvertent damage that could occur

as a result of Refuge undertakings. A positive effect would be realized because

significant cultural resources would be recorded and avoided. Maintaining the

charac ter of the historic vie wshed of the O regon and M ormon Natio nal Historic

Trail would ensure the historic visual quality of the area.

Alternative 2 Partnerships

New opportunities for partne rships are developed that ma y result in

promoting and sustaining the development and management of the Refuge.

Providing room and board for volunteers wh ile working at the Refuge w ould

encourage more people with diverse backgrounds to volunteer at the Refuge

and provide a higher quality volunteer experience and probably a more

productive program . Management w ould assum e a leadership role with

governm ent officials on issues relating to w ildlife and habitat m anagem ent.

This may improve the understanding of the Service’s mission, the mission and

goals of the Re fuge System, and the purpose and goals of Seeds kadee NWR.

Under Alternative 2, no minority or low income populations would be

disproportionately affected by implementation of this Alternative.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-179

Alternative 2 Administrative Management Concerns

Alternative 2 w ould pro vide an opportunity for acquisition of add itional land if

warranted fo r managem ent of selected sp ecies or for mitigation purposes . This

approach ensures that the Refuge would be able to meet their purpose and

address unknown future nee ds. How ever, if new lands were acquired , impacts

would occur on budgets and m anagem ent.

Under A lternative 2, m ineral exploration and de velopme nt would be similar to

Alternative 1; howev er, no surface occupan cy would be allowed for access to

privately-owned minerals if they could be otherwise accessed.

Similar to Alternative 1; however, Alternative 2 requires that any ROW

granted would be restricted to an existing utility corridor which consolidates

any visual or vegetative disturbances that may occur.

Livesto ck trespass wo uld be re duced. Livesto ck and public use conflicts would

be reduced.
EA-180 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 Wildlife and Habitat

Alternative 3 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants

Similar to Alternative 2; however, additional benefits as a result of reduced

roads, reduced hunting pressure, and the elimination of commercial use. All of

the above result in overall reduced disturbance to wildlife and decreased

fragm entation of habita ts.

Alternative 3 Wildlife

Similar to Alternative 2. Elimination of sage grouse, snipe, rail, and mourning

dove hunts directly benefit these species and reduces overall hunting

disturbance to all wildlife species. Reduction in length of the waterfowl hunt

season will incre ase the availability of wintering re sting/feeding are as for all

wintering waterbirds. Areas hunted off-refuge may see increased hunting

success as the Refuge sanctuary area may invite birds to remain in the local

area.

Reduced roads, reduced hunting pressure, and the elimination of commercial

use will reduce overall disturbance to wildlife and decrease fragmentation of

habitats.

Alternative 3 Riparian

Similar to Alternative 2. Reduced fragmentation and disturbance as a result of

decrea sed roa ds.

Alternative 3 Wetland

Similar to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 Uplands

Similar to Alternative 2. Reduced fragmentation and disturbance as a result of

decrea sed roa ds.

Alternative 3 Riverine

Similar to Alternative 2. Visitor use would decrease with the elimination of

commercial/guided use of the River through the Refuge and overall reduction

in roads open to public travel. This may result in reduced public use and

subsequently reduce disturbance and dam age to sensitive vegetation/wildlife

inhabiting the rive r corrido r.

Alternative 3 Invasive Species

Similar to Alternative 2.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-181

Alternative 3 Public Use and Recreation

Alternative 3 Recreation

The effects of public use and recreation would be similar to Alternative 1. The

elimination of commercial guided fishing or guided scenic tours, the prohibition

of motorized watercraft, reduction in some hunting opportunities, and reduced

public roads may displace guides, visitors, and motorized uses to other

recreation destinations within the larger recreational region. The results of

this change may be a reduction in the amount of angling, hunting, wildlife

viewing, and in general, Refuge visitation. It may have a positive effect by

providing a quieter recreational experience for non-commercial anglers and

visitors as well as decreasing disturbance to wildlife and vegetation. Noncommercial anglers would not have to compete for launch sites, parking, or

angling opportunities.

Alternative 3 Cultural Resources

Alternative 3 effects w ould be the similar to Alternative 1. The Refug e wou ld

continue to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. No new

facilities would be built under Alternative 3, and resource protection would be

reactive.

Alternative 3 Partnerships

Partnership opportunities would be similar to Alternative 2. Under

Alternative 3, no minority or low income populations would be

disproportionately affected by implementation of this Alternative.

Alternative 3 Administrative Management Concerns

Similar to Alternative 2; however, no opportunity to dispose of lands.

Alternative 3 does not provide access to privately-owned minerals and

assumes that they would be accessed from outside the boundary of the Refuge.

If no surface occupancy were successfully applied, there would not be the

potential for surface disturbance for extraction of privately-owned minerals.

Providing off-site watering would allow the closure of existing water gaps. The

potential effects for livestock trespass wo uld be further reduced and the efforts

to enforce trespass w ould be minimal.
EA-182 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

Threatened and

Endangered

Wildlife and Plant

What measures

are taken to

protect

threatened,

endangered, and

candidate species

and species of

management

concern?

Beneficial effects from

habitat protection, limiting

disturbance to individuals,

provision of adequate food

resources and limited

population monitoring.

Sensitive species dependent

upon riparian shrub

communities and riparian

forest may experience

degradation. No assurance

that the riparian forest

along the Green River

would be preserved.

Vegetation and riparian

impacts from livestock,

uncontrolled visitor access,

and boat launching may

continue.

Beneficial effects from habitat

management and protection,

limiting disturbance to individuals,

provision of adequate food resources,

surveying habitat and habitat

quality. Regular monitoring of

threatened, endangered, and

candidate wildlife and plant species

and wildlife species of management

concer n will incre ase their

protection. Wintering waterfowl

and trumpeter swans continue to

benefit. Using temporary or

permanent closures or both to

prevent wildlife disturba nce benefit

all species of concern. Regeneration

of cottonwoods achieved on new

sites.

Same as Alternative 2.

Except trumpeter swans

may decrease use of the

area fo r breed ing if

management is not

directed towar ds this

species.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-183

Wildlife

What measures

are taken to

protect and

manage native

wildlife?

Management of existing

wetlands and development

of additional wetlands

benefits trumpeter swans

and numerous other

wetland dependent species.

Management of winter

flows to maintain ice free

waters w ill continue to

benefit a variety of

wintering bird and aquatic

species.

Lack of vegetative

monitoring makes

evaluation of management

strategies difficult.

Enhancement of portions of

the riparian corridor w ould

benefit a variety of avian

and mammal species;

however, riparian

restoration efforts may be

jeopardized without proper

mana geme nt of herbivores.

Protection without active

management of upland

habitats may eventua lly

result in degraded habitat

conditions for the sage

grouse and other upland

species. Lack of monitoring

in upland habitats for

grouse and other species

makes management

program s difficult to

develop and eventua lly

evaluate.

Current impacts from

invasive species,

uncontrolled visitor access,

and the lack of public use

monitoring may continue to

impact all habitat types,

thus reducing the quality of

potentia l habitat fo r all

wildlife and plant species.

Increased monitoring of vegetation

in all habitat types will improve

management decisions for

trumpeter swans, grouse, migratory

birds, deer, moose, etc. Initiation of

population monitoring for grouse

will facilitate development of

management strategies for upland

shrub habitats. Increased

know ledge of brow sing imp acts will

improve management of herbivores

like deer and moose and support

riparian restora tion efforts.

 Reduction in designated open roads

will reduce overall disturbance to

wildlife and reduce fragmentation of

habitats. Seasonal closure of some

roads and eventual modification of

closed areas will provided much

needed resting areas for wintering

waterfowl and may increase hunting

success by holding waterfowl in the

local area.

Similar to Alternative 2.

Elimination of sage

grouse, snipe, rail, and

mourning dove hunts

directly benefit these

species and reduces

overall hunting

disturba nce to all

wildlife species.

Reduction in length of

the waterfowl hunt

season will increase the

availability of wintering

resting/ feeding areas for

all wintering waterbirds.

Areas hunted off-refuge

may see increased

hunting success as the

refuge sanctuary area

may invite birds to

remain in the local area.

Reduced roads, reduced

hunting pressure, and

the elimination of

comm ercial use will

reduce overall

disturbance to wildlife

and decrease

fragmentation of

habitats.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

EA-184 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Riparian

How will riparian

habitat losses be

mitigated to

support migratory

birds and native

wildlife species?

A3. Issue: How

will riparian

habitats be

managed to

support migratory

birds?

Negative effects to the

riparian habitat from

channelizing, lower peak

flows and timing changes in

restricted flows, and ice

scouring. Riparian forest

continue to age, be in poor

health compared with the

upstream forest above

Fontenelle Reservoir; be

simpler in structure and

have insufficient

regeneration to establish

new age classes and may

continue to be highly

vulnerable.

Alternative 2 provides the greatest

benefit of the alternatives to the

riparian forest, migratory birds, and

native wildlife species. Increased

and timely water availability, and

increased habitat and w ildlife

management would ensure

protection and regeneration of

cottonwoods and a healthier

community will impro ve the health

of existing trees a nd willows.

Same as Alternative 2. 

Degradation of riparian

forests impacts migratory

bird species. Planting of

understory woody shrub

would increase the shrub

cover for wildlife and

migratory birds. Riparian

habitat may continue to be

negatively effected by the

insufficient control of

browsers.

Change in flow regime may have

negative effects on power

production at Fontenelle and the

frequency of flooding at Green

River, Wyoming. Maintaining the

large diameter trees, snags and

dead trees would enhance breeding

habitat and benefits raptors, great

blue herons and cavity nesters and

enhance foraging availability.

Same as Alternative 2.

Wetlands

How will wetland

losses be mitigated

to support

migratory birds

and native wildlife

species? How will

wetlands be

managed to

support migratory

birds and native

wildlife species?

How are predators

and nuisance

species controlled?

Benefit migratory and

breeding habitat for

waterfowl, shorebirds, and

wading birds. Mode rate

negative effects from weeds

and predators and nuisance

in nesting areas continue.

With limited wildlife and

waterfowl production

monitoring, the degree of

success unmeasured.

Restoring historic oxbow

river channels may provide

additional spring migration,

breeding, or fall migration

habitats.

Benefits migratory and breeding

habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds

and w ading birds.

Periodically drawing down ta ll

emergent vegetation and open

water habitat may maintain wetland

productivity. Drawing down short

emergent ve getation for fall

migration may have a positive effect

on shorebirds, wading birds, and

dabblers. Extensive monitoring of

the vegetative recovery and the

kinds and numbers of species using

the areas would occur to measure

management effectiveness.

Same as Alternative 2.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-185

Upland

How would upland

shrub and

grassland habitat

be managed to

support native

wildlife species and

migrating birds? 

The Dry Creek Unit which

is fenced and free of grazing

by domestic livestock has

resulted in an upland

system closer to

approximation of natural

conditions (prior to

introduction of grazing in

the last century) than

anywhere else in the

imme diate region. This

system should be vital to

and supporting of native

wildlife species and

migratory birds. Habitat

may tend to become a

similar age class

diminishing habitat

diversity and beneficial use

by native species and

migratory birds. Invasive

greasewood and sagebrush

would continue to become

dominant over more

important forage plants.

Providing a diverse mix of upland

desert shrub and grassland habitat

and increased protection of this

habitat may have positive effects

for wildlife. Protecting existing

stands of tall sagebrush in woody

draws from unplanned disturbance

may provide crucial thermal cover

and foraging areas for winter sage

grouse, pygmy rabbit, antelope, and

mule deer.

Converting the Hay Farm

Management Unit to a upland

mixed grass habitat typ e wou ld

benefit grassland species.

Same as Alternative 2.

The 350 acres in the Hay

Farm Managem ent Un it

would remain as a mix of

grasses and annual weedy

forbs.

Using small controlled burns should

realize a conversion of greasewood

stands to an early successional state

providing a variety of successional

stages. Using p rescribe d fire in

emergent w etlands would mainta in

open water and could rejuvenate

decadent stands of grasses and

other vegetation.

Restricting the u se of fire in

floodplain forest habitats may have

a positive effect on cottonwoods.

Managem ent of up lands should

result in a greater variety of upland

habitats available for native wildlife

species and migratory birds. Longterm monitoring should show the

measure of success.

Same as Alternative 2.

Same as Alternative 2. 
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

EA-186 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Riverine

How are fisheries

managed on the

Refuge

Ice-free w ater continues to

benefit the tri-state

population of trumpeter

swans, bald eagles, and

wintering waterfow l.

Minimal negative effects to

littoral zon es. Rock sills

provide beneficial habitat

for fishery.

Similar to Alternative 1; however,

overall negative effects to the

fishery should diminish.

Implementing a minimum 500 cfs

winter flow would ensure open

water is available in winter for

wintering fish and wildlife.

Monitoring wildlife, visitor use, and

population trends in roundtail

chubs, flannel-mouth suckers, and

trout would evaluate management

effective ness.

Same as Alternative 2. 

Weeds

To what extent are

weeds (invasive,

nonnative plants)

controlled?

The invasion of several

nonnative plants continues

to threaten wet meadows

and adjoining riparian

areas. Weeds provide cover

for predators, and there is a

loss of beneficial forage,

cover and plant diversity.

Under Alternative 1 weed

control is addressed at a

basic maintenance level and

large stands are not

reduced and restoration of

weed-dominant habitats

would not occu r.

Attempts to decrease the R efuge ’s

dependence on chemical control of

weedy plants may have a positive

impact on wildlife. However, it may

increase the spread of certain

weeds. Developing partnerships

may have a positive effect by

decrea sing the e ncroac hmen t of salt

cedar from adjacent lands.

Nega tive effects could

occur from the continued

spread of noxious weeds

in the Refuge and the

spread of salt cedar from

adjacent lands. Weeds

may con tinue to com pete

with m ore desirable

wildlife cover and

forage.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-187

Public Use and

Recreation

No change in public use and

recreation experience in the

short-term. Effects of use

may be evident in increased

damage to vegetation,

fisheries, water quality,

soils, and visual quality.

These impacts would result

from a reduced em phasis to

control human use, vehicles,

boat launch sites, and lack

of site planning for future

facilities.

Changes in recreation experience

occur. Rive r access improvem ents

enhance habitats, water quality,

fisheries, and visual quality.

Modifications to conduct or improve

public use opportunities such as

hardening roads, reducing roads,

improving ramps, and development

of trails, interpretive information,

and other amenities would not

substantially detract from the

larger natural setting.

The effects of public use

and recreation would be

similar to Alternative 1.

Some recreation and

public uses (guided trips,

hunting of select species)

are displaced to other

recreation destinations

within the larger

recreational region. May

be a reduction in the

amount of angling,

hunting, wildlife viewing

and in general, the

displacement of visitors.

Positive effects are a

quieter recreational

experience for noncommercial anglers and

visitors as well as

decreasing disturbance

to wildlife and

vegetation. Noncommercial anglers

would no t have to

compete for launch sites,

parking or angler

opportunities.

Wildlife Viewing

and Photography

To what extent are

opportunities

provided for

wildlife viewing

and photography?

The majority of roads

including the auto-tour

route would continue to be

seasonally impassible. No

unique accommodations for

the wildlife photographer.

Wildlife auto-tour route accessible

year-round. New wildlife viewing

and photography opportunities

provided via pullouts. Greater

exposure for a larger spectrum of

people to habits within the Refuge.

Similar to Alternative 1;

however, the reduced

number of roads may

reduce viewing/

photography

opportunities for

individuals which do not

hike and improve

opportunities for others

due to less disturbance

by vehicles.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

EA-188 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Hunting

What types of

hunting

opportunities are

provided on the

Refuge?

Recreational

Trapping.

What types of

recreational

trapping are

allowed on the

Refuge?

Sport Fishing

What types of

sport fishing

opportunities are

provided on the

Refuge?

With the hunting and

angling populations there is

a positive public relations

effect as they gain an

appreciation for the refuge

as a resource. S ome b enefit

to nesting waterfowl from

predator trapping.

Improved angler

opportunities for noncommercial anglers as

commercial use is reduced

via attrition.

Creation of a new closed area via a

separate public process may

improve waterfowl hunting

opportunities but limit some winter

fishing and floating opportunities.

All winter wildlife wou ld benefit

from a new type of closed area

which includes the river.

Establishment of new closed area

may improve hunting opportunities

by attracting birds onto the Refuge

and m aintaining local po pulations.

People with disabilities would be

provided opportunities to

participate in hunting/angling.

Improved trapping operations

would benefit ground nesting

species. Improved angler

opportunities for non-commercial

anglers as com mercial use is

reduce d via attrition.

Similar to Alternative 2;

however, hunting

opportunities for select

species would be

reduced. Establishment

of new closed area

similar to Alternative 2.

Fishing opportunities

would be decreased

without commercial

operations. This may

limit accessibility of

anglers with disabilities

and improve

opportunities for noncommercial users.

Trapping opportunities

similar to Alternative 2.

Commercial Guide

Fishing/ Floating

Is commercial

guide fishing/

floating allowed

and how is it

managed?

Camping

Is camping

allowed, and if so,

where and how are

sites developed and

the use managed?

Boating

Is boating allowed

on the River

through the

Refuge?

There is a slow reductio n in

commercial guide fishing

/floating as permits are

reduced via attrition to four

or less. Unimproved and

undesignated parking,

boating, and angling access,

and unauthorized camping

would continue to have an

impact on sensitive

vegetation and wildlife.

Without a comprehensive

fishing and hunting leaflet,

the public may continue to

be confused about areas

open for hunting and special

regulations for fishing. The

visual condition has been

impacted and continued

damage to existing

vegetation from off-road

vehicle use and dispersed

public use would continue.

Restricting and standardizing the

number of permits for commercial

use may add stability to the fishing

program, and provide a better

experience and more protection for

the resource. However, the

limitations set on commercial use

may improve the quality of the

recreation experience but increase

demand for permits. The

development of a comprehensive

fishing an d hunting leaflet w ould

enhance the visitor experience and

the increased law enforcement

patrols should realize beneficial

effects from more compliance.

Commercial guides and

uses would be displaced

to other recreation

destinations within the

larger recreational

region. Displacement of

commercial visitors and

reduction of angling,

wildlife viewing may

occur providing a quieter

recreational experience

for non-commercial

visitors as well as

decreasing disturbance

to wildlife and

vegetation. May

decrease opportunities

for persons with

disabilities to recreate.

The developm ent of a

comprehensive fishing

and hunting leaflet

similar to Alternative 2.

Camping is not permitted

and is diverted to other offrefuge sites.

Cam ping is not permitted and is

diverted to other off-refuge sites.

Camping is not

permitted and is

diverted to other offrefuge sites.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-189

Barring motorized craft

would reduce impacts to

habitats and wildlife.

Creating a no-wake zone would

reduce disturbances to habitats and

wildlife.

Same as Alternative 1 -

Barring motorized craft

would reduce impacts to

habitats and wildlife.

Visitor Use Level

What is the

appropriate visitor

use level of the

Refuge?

Without monitoring of

public use on refuge

resources, it is difficult to

quantify the impact of the

use on sensitive species.

Disturbances to wildlife

may continue at

inappropriate levels and

visitor experiences may

diminish without

monitoring.

The m onitoring of gen eral pub lic

use of refuge resources would guide

future use levels on the refuge so

the purpose and mission of the

refuge is not compromised and the

overall visitor experience is

protected.

Same as Alternative 2.

Access

Management

How is

access/travel

managed on the

Refuge?

River Access

How is river

access managed?

Universal Access

To what exte nt is

universal access to

public use facilities

and activities

provided?

Current impacts from

uncontrolled visitor access

and boat launching may

continue to impact sensitive

vegetation and riparian

areas. New roads continue

to be established.

Additional signs and

updated brochures may

assist the visitor and

protect habitats. Additional

law enforcement patrol may

minimize access conflicts.

There are no new

univers ally accessible

opportunities.

Visitor access, vehicles and boat

launching is controlled having a

positive effect on vegetation,

wildlife, visual resources, and the

visitor experience. Existing boat

launch facilities are enhanced.

Opportunities for universal access

and experiences are expanded.

Reduction in roads may limit some

direct access to River by vehicles.

All areas rem ain open to foot travel.

Similar to Alternative 2;

however, with further

reduction in roads, the

elimination of

commercial users, and

prohibited use of

motorized boats, impacts

to wildlife and their

habitat could be reduce d.

Similar to Alternative 1;

no new universally

accessible opportunities.

Direct access

opportunities by vehicle

to certain parts of the

Refuge are reduce d. All

areas rem ain open to

foot trav el.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

EA-190 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Environmental

Interpretation and

Education

Environmental

Interpretation

To what extent are

opportunities

pursued to

interpret natural

resources,

especially wildlife

and their habitat

for the visiting

public?

Environmental

Education.

What type of

environmental

education program

is provided to the

public?

Educational interpretation

would continue to rely on

“self guided” tours of the

Refuge. Without an ongoing

education program, an

understanding of and

appreciation for wildlife and

other natural resources of

the Green River basin is not

nurtured.

Positive effect from informing

visitors of the importance o f plants

and wildlife in the human history of

the area. The quality of the

educational experience on the

refuge improves with the

interpretive trails and panels along

the auto-tour. Visitors gain a

greater appreciation and

understanding of the refuge,

wildlife, and people’s role in the

environment w ith addition of a

visitor/education center.

Same as Alternative 1.

Resource

Protection

Public

Information

How is information

on the Refuge, its

resources and

regulations

provided and what

are the effects? 

Com munication info rmal.

Hunters, anglers, wildlife

viewers, and the youth

would benefit most from

available information.

Location of facilities and

use determined by where

the use is occurring.

Clustering public use facilities

benefits vegetation, wildlife, visual

resources and management.

Improved brochures and availability

of information should reduce

impacts to reso urces. O verall

reduction in open roads and

increased law enforcement

improves communication of Refuge

regulations and protects resources

and visitor safety. Improved

directional signing would also

reduce impacts.

Similar to Alternative 2;

however, greater

protection afforded by

reducing roads and

eliminating commercial

use.

Cultural

Resources

How are cultural

resources

protected?

To what extent are

opportunities

pursued to

interpret cultural

resources for the

visiting public?

Little direct protection or

stabilization occurs for

historic sites. Resource

protection would largely be

reactive. Any interpretation

of Native American history

would have a positive effect

expan ding the public

knowledge of the history of

the Green River Basin.

The effects would be similar to

Alternative 1; however, the

approach would be proactive.

Significant cultural resources

(historic and prehistoric) would be

preserved and protected. A positive

effect from recording and avoiding

cultural resources. The character of

the historic viewshed maintained.

Addition of a trail at Lombard

Ferry may improve the visitor

experience and increase use of area.

Additional visitation may disturb

wildlife. Monitoring use will assist

management of site.

Same as Alternative 1.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-191

Partne rship

To what extent are

partnership

opportunities

pursued w ith

volunteers, local

service groups,

organizations,

individuals,

schools, and other

governmental

agencies?

Partnerships and volunteer

programs continue on an asneeded permits basis.

Recruiting, training, and

supervising volunteers

would be managed by

existing staff and compe te

against day-to-day

responsibilities.

Partnership and volunteer

programs are more developed and

result in a higher quality experience

and improved understanding of the

Service’s mission, the mission and

goals of the refuge system and the

purpose and goals of Seedskadee

NW R.

Same as Alternative 2.

Administrative

Management

Concerns

Land Acquisition.

Is further land

acquisition or land

disposal planned?

The purchase of the

remaining 5 ac res wo uld

result in Seedskadee NWR

ownin g all lands within

their boundary and

preclude any land

management co nflicts with

private landowners.

Similar to Alternative 1 and ensures

that the Re fuge would be able to

meet their purpose and address

unknown future needs. Howev er, if

new lands were acquired, there

would be impacts on budgets and

management.

Same as Alternative 2. 

Miner als

How will

privately-owned

minerals be

developed?

Under Alternative 1

mineral exploration and

development may occur. It

is difficult to determine the

extent of potential change

to occur (roads, drill pads or

pipeline) if reasonable

access were to occur.

Under Alternative 2, mineral

exploration and developme nt wou ld

be similar to Alternative 1;

however, no surface occupancy

would be allowed if they could be

otherwise accessed. Impacts

unknown.

If no surface occupancy

were successfully

applied, there would not

be the potential for

surface disturbance for

extraction of privately

owned minerals.

Right-of-Way

What is the

Refuge’s policy

toward requests

for grants of ROW

across the Refuge?

If a right-of-way were

approved, there would be

changes in habitat on the

right-of-way itself.

Potential erosio n and so il

loss ma y occur until

reclamation is achieved on

the right-of-w ay. Shortterm impacts may occur to

the fishery depending on

means of crossing the Green

River.

Alternative 2 requires that any

ROW granted wou ld be com patible

with refuge purposes and if allowed

restricted to an existing utility

corridor which consolidates any

visual or vegetative disturbances

that may occur.

Same as Alternative 2.
Table 2. Effects Matrix Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Issue Questions Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred

Alternative

Alternative 3

EA-192 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001

Livestock Access

How is access to

water for livestock

provided?

Grazing

Is grazing allowed

on the Refuge?

What is the

Refuge doing to

prevent livestock

trespass?

Refuge provides 14 access

lanes for livestock.

Domestic livestock trespass

would continue to occur

largely through water

lanes. There are no changes

in the grazing policies.

Refuge provides 14 access lanes for

livestock.

Livestock trespass would be

reduced.

Grazing not permitted.

Effects from livestock

trespass would be

further reduced and the

efforts to enforce

trespass no longer

required.

Grazing not permitted.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2001 EA-193

Chapter 5. List of Preparers

The list of preparers is found in Appendix I.

Chapter 6. CCP Goals and Objectives

Chapter 6 of the EA incorporates by reference Chapter 4 - Refuge Goals and

Objectives - of the CCP.