U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Seedskadee

Comprehensive

Conservation

Plan

National Wildlife Refuge
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set

forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge

purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs.

These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes

substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are

primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization

purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing

increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for

future land acquisition.
Seedskadee

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation

Plan

September 2002

Prepared by U.S. Fish & 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
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 i

Table of Contents able of Contents

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

Photo Display .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

I. Introduction / Background

Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and Management .......................................... 7

Seedskadee NWR Overview .................................................................................................................................. 7

History of Seedskadee NWR Establishment, Acquisition, and Management ................................................ 7

Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan .................................................................................. 11

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mission ........................................................................................................................... 12

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles ............................................................. 12

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Purpose(s) ...................................................................................................... 14

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement .......................................................................................... 14

Legal and Policy Guidance ............................................................................................................................................. 15

Existing Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

Potential for Refuge Expansion .................................................................................................................................... 18

II. Planning Process Planning Process

Description of the Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ 19

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

Wildlife and Habitat Management Issues

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants....................................................................................... 20

Riparian Habitats ............................................................................................................................................ 20

Wetlands............................................................................................................................................................ 20

Upland Habitats .............................................................................................................................................. 21

Riverine Habitats ............................................................................................................................................ 21

Weeds .............................................................................................................................................................. 21

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

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

Public Use and Recreation Issues

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

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

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

Hunting ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

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

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

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

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

Camping ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

Boating .............................................................................................................................................................. 23

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

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

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

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

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

Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Administrative Management Issues

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

Minerals ............................................................................................................................................................ 25

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

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

Grazing .............................................................................................................................................................. 25
ii Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

III. Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge and Resource Descriptions

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

Climate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Geological Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Soil Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 29

The Seedskadee Project and Mitigation - Early Proposals .............................................................................. 30

Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir and River Hydrology ...................................................................................... 31

Area Socio-Economics ............................................................................................................................................ 34

Population Growth .................................................................................................................................................. 34

Income ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Economic Development Trends and Pressures .................................................................................................. 35

Changes in Demand for Outdoor Recreation ...................................................................................................... 35

Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses

Water Rights ............................................................................................................................................................ 36

Refuge River Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................................................... 37

Reserved Rights and Privately Owned Mineral Estate.................................................................................... 38

Refuge Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats ............................................................................................................ 40

Riverine ............................................................................................................................................................ 43

Wetlands............................................................................................................................................................ 43

Seedskadee Managed Wetland Units

Hamp Wetland Unit.................................................................................................................................. 46

Hawley, Lower Hawley, and Dunkle Wetland Units ........................................................................... 46

Pal Wetland Units ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Riparian ............................................................................................................................................................ 48

Upland ............................................................................................................................................................... 51

Other Habitat Features .................................................................................................................................. 52

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or Wyoming Plant Species of Special Concern .......................... 53

Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 54

Avian .................................................................................................................................................................. 54

Predator Management and Nest Success ............................................................................................. 58

Mammals ........................................................................................................................................................... 59

Fish .................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Reptiles and Amphibians ............................................................................................................................... 62

Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................................... 62

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species and Other Wildlife Species of Special Concern ................ 63

Cultural Resources Inventory ............................................................................................................................... 67

Prehistoric ........................................................................................................................................................ 69

Historic .............................................................................................................................................................. 70

Lombard Ferry ................................................................................................................................................ 70

Paleontological Resources .............................................................................................................................. 72

Bridger Formation ................................................................................................................................... 72

Green River Formation ........................................................................................................................... 73

Public Use Facilities and Program Inventory .................................................................................................... 74

General Public Use .......................................................................................................................................... 74

Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ....................................................................................................... 75

Wildlife Observation and Photography ........................................................................................................ 75

Hunting ............................................................................................................................................................. 75

Fishing............................................................................................................................................................... 76

Non-Motorized Boating .................................................................................................................................. 76

Commercial Guiding ........................................................................................................................................ 76

Environmental Education/Outreach............................................................................................................. 76

Interpretation .................................................................................................................................................. 77

Non Wildlife-Dependent Recreation .................................................................................................................... 77

Camping ............................................................................................................................................................ 77

Swimming and Power Boating ...................................................................................................................... 77

Off-Road Vehicles ............................................................................................................................................ 77

Administrative Support

Current Facilities ............................................................................................................................................ 78

Current Staffing .............................................................................................................................................. 78

Special Management Areas

Special Legislated Designations ........................................................................................................................... 79
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 iii

IV.Management Direction

Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................ 80

A Wildlife

A1 Goal - Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................................... 82

A1.1 Bald Eagle Objective ................................................................................................................. 82

A1.2 Mountain Plover Objective ....................................................................................................... 83

A1.3 Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid Objective ....................................................................................... 83

A2 Goal - Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................ 84

A2.1 Trumpeter Swan Objective ....................................................................................................... 84

A2.2 Moose and Mule Deer Objective .............................................................................................. 85

A2.3 Sage Grouse Objective .............................................................................................................. 85

A2.4 Migratory Bird Objective .......................................................................................................... 86

A2.5 Other Indigenous Wildlife Species Objective ......................................................................... 86

B Habitat

B1 Goal - Riparian .......................................................................................................................................... 87

B1.1 Restoration Plan Objective ....................................................................................................... 87

B1.2 Forest Protection Objective ..................................................................................................... 88

B1.3 Riparian Regeneration/Planting Objective ............................................................................ 89

B2 Goal - Wetland ........................................................................................................................................... 90

B2.1 Hamp and Hawley Wetland Units Objective ........................................................................ 91

B2.2 Sagebrush Pools and Dunkle Wetland Objective ................................................................. 92

B2.3 Pal Wetland Unit Objective ..................................................................................................... 92

B2.4 Oxbow Channel Wetlands Objective ...................................................................................... 93

B3 Goal - Uplands .......................................................................................................................................... 94

B3.1 Sagebrush/Salt Desert Shrub Habitat Objective ................................................................. 94

B3.2 Upland Tallgrass/Great Basin Wild Rye Objective ............................................................. 95

B4 Goal - Riverine ......................................................................................................................................... 96

B4.1 Riverine Habitat and Fish Objective ..................................................................................... 96

B4.2 Riparian Corridor Restoration Objective.............................................................................. 96

B5 Goal - Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................... 97

B5.1 Control Exotic Plant Populations Objective ......................................................................... 97

C Public Use, Recreation, and Resource Protection

C1 Goal - Wildlife-Dependent Recreation .................................................................................................. 98

C1.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective ................................................................ 98

C1.2 Hunting and Fishing Objective ............................................................................................... 99

C2 Goal - Environmental Education and Interpretation ......................................................................... 100

C2.1 Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective .................................................... 100

C3 Goal - Resource Protection..................................................................................................................... 101

C3.1 Public Use Objective ................................................................................................................. 101

C3.2 Designated Road Objective ..................................................................................................... 101

C3.3 Refuge Information and Regulations Objective ................................................................... 101

C3.4 Livestock Management/Fencing Objective ........................................................................... 103

C3.5 Land Acquisition/Development Objective............................................................................. 103

C3.6 Mineral and Oil Exploration Objective .................................................................................. 103

C4 Goal - Cultural Resource ......................................................................................................................... 104

C4.1 Cultural Resource Protection Objective ................................................................................ 104

C5 Goal - Partnership..................................................................................................................................... 105

C5.1 Partnerships, Volunteers, and Leadership Objective .......................................................... 105

V. Implementation and Monitoring

Funding and Personnel ................................................................................................................................................. 107

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Implementation and Step-down Management Plans ................................. 109

Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................... 111

Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 113

Plan Amendment and Revision ................................................................................................................................... 114

Environmental Action Statement Environmental Action Statement............................................................................................................. 115

Finding of No Significant Impact Finding of No Significant Impact............................................................................................................. 116
iv Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendices Appendices

A. Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................................117

B. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................122

C. RONS and MMS Projects .....................................................................................................................................125

D. Compatibility Determinations ..............................................................................................................................127

E. Legislation and Policies .........................................................................................................................................140

F. Species List of Seedskadee NWR........................................................................................................................144

G. Mailing List .............................................................................................................................................................153

H. Hydrographs of Green River ................................................................................................................................155

I. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................................................157

J. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation Documentation ......................................................................................158

K. Summary of Public Involvement ..........................................................................................................................169

L. Summary of Public Comments .............................................................................................................................172

Figures Figures

1. Historic Peak Flows - Upper Green River ......................................................................................................... 32

Maps

I. Intro Map ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

2. USFWS Ecosystems.............................................................................................................................................. 27

3. Dominant Habitat Types ....................................................................................................................................... 41

4. Habitat Management Units .................................................................................................................................. 44

5. Water Management Map ....................................................................................................................................... 47

6. Special Hunting and Fishing Zones ..................................................................................................................... 61

7. Historical Site Map ................................................................................................................................................ 68

8. Public Use Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 71

9. Refuge Roads ..........................................................................................................................................................102

A. CCP Alternative 2 Roads [Changes from Alternative 1 (Current conditions)]............................................180

B. CCP Alternative 2 Roads [Changes from Draft to Final]................................................................................181

Tables

1.1 Total Acreage ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Winter Flows in cfs Above and Below Fontenelle Reservoir ........................................................................ 33

3.2 Summary of Water Rights Held by the Refuge................................................................................................ 36

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 ........................................................................... 53

3.5 Re-introductions and nesting history of trumpeter swans on Seedskadee NWR....................................... 55

3.6 Nest Success Compared With Trap Effort On Seedskadee NWR (1987-1998) ........................................... 58

3.7 Special Status Wildlife and Fish Species Potentially Occurring on Seedskadee NWR ............................. 63

3.8 Bald Eagle Production on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge.................................................................. 65

3.9 Summary of Surface Geologic Deposits and Paleontological Resources Seedskadee NWR Area ........... 72

3.10 Estimated Annual Visitors to Seedskadee NWR ............................................................................................ 74

3.11 Current Personnel (2000) ..................................................................................................................................... 78

5.1 Staffing Plan ...........................................................................................................................................................106

5.2 RONS Project Summary for Seedskadee NWR (2000) ..................................................................................107

5.3 Reclamation Cooperative Mitigation Projects .................................................................................................108

5.4 Management Plan Status .....................................................................................................................................109

5.5 Status of Step-down Plans ...................................................................................................................................110
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 1

Summary Summary

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is 26,382 acres in size and located within the Green River Basin 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 was 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 1958 specifically authorized acquisition of lands for Seedskadee NWR.

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 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 and Wildlife Coordination Act: “. . . shall be administered by him/her (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 Storage Act (section 8): “In connection with the development of the Colorado River Storage

Project (CRSP) and of the participating projects, the 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 Storage Project or participating projects 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 by such means as are consistent with

primary purposes of said 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 20,000 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 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 lands acquired have been through Section 8 of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act.

All efforts leading to the preparation of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) were 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 provides implementation strategies and recommended staffing and funding.

The Seedskadee CCP will be used to prepare step-down management plans and revise existing plans. It also will

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 reviewed and updated every 15 years.
2 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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

were evaluated for environmental consequences in accordance with the National 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 published in the draft CCP

dated September 2001. The CCP is the preferred alternative.

Vision Statement:

Seedskadee NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and enhance the biological 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 of Americans. 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 wildlife-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 occurred in the area of Seedskadee NWR.

■ Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of migratory and resident wildlife with

emphasis 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,

wading birds, and other wetland-dependent species.

■ 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 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 habitat.

■ 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, uncrowded nature of the area.

■ Educate and inform the public about the Refuge, U.S. Fish & 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 Seedskadee NWR accomplish 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 3

Potential Refuge Expansion

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

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

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

lands available from Reclamation surround the Big Sandy River and adjoin the Refuge.

In the draft CCP (dated September 2001) we identified 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 tributary that joins the Green River inside the Refuge

boundary.

Careful consideration was given to including an analysis in the draft CCP of amending the Refuge 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 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 made to pursue a land transfer, a full public process will ensue complete with public

involvement consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
4 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Summer storm over the

Hawley Wetland Unit.

The Hawley Wetland

Unit provides habitat for

a variety of wildlife

species including mule

deer, moose, Canada

geese, mallards,

Wilson’s phalarope,

yellow-headed blackbirds, and sora rails.

Floating and

fishing are

two popular

activities

enjoyed by

many folks

who visit

Seedskadee

National

Wildlife

Refuge. These

anglers are

departing

from the

Upper Dodge

Bottoms boat

ramp for a

day of fly

fishing.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 5

Trumpeter swans in

flight over Seedskadee

National Wildlife

Refuge. Trumpeter

swans breed and winter

on the Refuge and are

easily observed yearround.

The Green River

and associated

riparian habitats as

viewed from

McCullen Bluff.

The riparian

forested habitat

along the Green

River is very

important to both

migratory birds and

resident wildlife

species like mule

deer and sage

grouse.

A buck pronghorn antelope

traverses the

upland sagebrush habitat.

Pronghorn

antelope are

abundunt on

the Refuge and

are often seen

along the

Refuge auto

tour route.
6 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 7

I.Introduction/Background Introduction/Background

Refuge Overview: History of Establishment, Acquisition and

Management

Seedskadee NWR Overview

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is being developed specifically

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

Seedskadee NWR is located in southwestern Wyoming, 37 miles northwest

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

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 River Basin. Geographically, the Refuge is

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

north boundary of the Refuge is seven miles downstream from Fontenelle

Dam. From here, the Refuge extends 37 miles downstream and ranges 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)

History of Seedskadee NWR Establishment, Acquisition,

and Management

Seedskadee NWR was authorized by the Colorado River Storage Project

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

Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River 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 of wildlife habitat resulting from reservoir construction

in the Colorado River drainage. The Seedskadee Reclamation Act of 1958

specifically authorized acquisition of lands for Seedskadee NWR. Seedskadee

NWR was established on November 30, 1965, through a Memorandum of

Understanding between U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the

Service.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service may 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 only when other means of achieving program 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.
8 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 9

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 Bird Hunting Stamp Act.

T e able 1.1 Total Acreage

T t rac

N . o

A d cquired

D e at

T e s ract Name A s cre

1 1 -5 1 y 1/6/6 U 0 nion Pacific Resources Compan 3,483.7

1 0 5 A /20/7 U 6 S 7,940.7

1 2 9 A /10/9 U 7 S 440.7

1 4 0 1 . /28/7 T 5 homan et al 1,036.0

1 5 1 1 y 1/30/6 H 8 awle 916.4

1 6 2, a-k 1 . 1/26/9 R 7 ock Springs Grazing Assn 3,366.6

1 5 3, a 1 ) 2/13/9 C 4 rosson Ranches (Pal Tract 395.8

1 6 6 1 o 1/26/9 T 8 aliaferr 294.2

1 3 7, a-h 4 . /23/9 U 5 P Land Resources Corp 3,552.1

2 2 -5 7 g /30/6 S 9 tate of Wyomin 719.2

5 1 6 k /13/8 R 0 iverside Livestoc 160.0

2 3 , aec 8 g /25/9 S 4 tate of Wyomin 1,959.2

1 ) 998 U 0 SA Roundout (Reclamation to USFWS 2,117.0

3 9 9 n /30/8 Meandered acres (881.54 acres included i

the USA Roundout)

Total Acres 26,382.23
10 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 extensive wetland development or management

occurred.

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

of the Hamp, Hawley, Lower 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 broodrearing habitat for Canada geese and other waterfowl).

2. To preserve habitat conditions 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

mapped in the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat 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 Project planning. Even now these impacts are not easily

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 Wildlife Service Report.

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 wildlife-dependent public

use opportunities, interpretation and protection of cultural resources, and

interpretive and educational information on the Refuge’s habitat, wildlife,

and cultural resources.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 11

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 & 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 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 this, each Refuge was to prepare 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

recreational uses. The CCP, when completed, will guide the Refuge in

meeting its management objectives and contribute to the mission of the

Refuge system while meeting all legal 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 demonstrate support for management decisions and their rationale by

sound professional judgment, biological initiative, and public involvement.

7. To provide a uniform basis for budget requests for operational,

maintenance, and capital improvement programs.
12 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mission

The U.S. Fish & 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 Service’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 Fish Commission eventually evolved into the “U.S.

Fish & 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 migratory birds, endangered species, certain 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 plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit

of the American people.

The Service carries out these responsibilities through several functional

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

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 contain any planning requirements.

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

interpretation as priority public uses of the System.” These six wildlifedependent 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.

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 105-57).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 13

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

mammal 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 conservation, by providing the public with

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

Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

In addition, individual national wildlife refuges are acquired under 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

threatened species and offers a wide variety of wildlife-dependent 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 providing

migration 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 affect

the species and the entire networks ability 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.
14 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 and Wildlife Coordination Act: “. . . shall be administered by him/her

(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 Storage Act (section 8): “In connection with the

development of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) and of the

participating projects, the 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 Storage Project or participating projects 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 by such means

as are consistent with primary purposes of said 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 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 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 lands acquired have been through Section 8 of the 1956

Colorado River Project Storage Act.

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement

Seedskadee NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and enhance the biological

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 of Americans.

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 wildlife-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.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 15

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 multiple-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 Fish and Wildlife 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 which such areas were 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 receive enhanced consideration over other uses in

planning and management. Furthermore, this Act requires that a CCP be in

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

opportunity for active involvement in plan development 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 Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

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

in that they are closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally

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

Refuge System is managed specifically for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their habitats. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation

is a legitimate 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

management.
16 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 not 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 compatible.

The Service has completed compatibility determinations for Seedskadee

NWR (see Appendix D).

The Refuge Recreation Act, 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, environmental education and interpretation);

emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality and diversity of

fish and wildlife habitat; stressed the importance 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 lands, of existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would

be permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of

comprehensive planning.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 17

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 achieved.

See Chapter 3 for further information on Bureau of Reclamation/U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service partnership history on the Seedskadee Project and

development of Seedskadee NWR.

The Refuge also works with a variety of other organizations and individuals

on natural resource projects including:

■ local law enforcement agencies (general enforcement)

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

management, enforcement, public outreach, public use)

■ Sweetwater County weed 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 management)

■ Local school districts (environmental education)

■ Scout organizations (community and refuge projects)

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

events)

■ Green River Chamber of Commerce

■ 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)

■ Audubon Wyoming
18 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Potential for Refuge Expansion

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

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 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 Seedskadee Project lands owned by Reclamation are to

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

lands available from Reclamation surround the Big Sandy River and adjoin

the Refuge.

In the draft CCP (dated September 2001), we identified 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 tributary that joins the

Green River inside the Refuge boundary. As stated in the 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 only.”

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

amending the Refuge 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 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. 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 19

II. Planning Process Planning Process

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 developing a vision;

3. Gathering information;

4. Analyzing resource relationships;

5. Developing alternatives and assessing their environmental effects;

6. Developing management goals, objectives, and strategies;

7. Identifying a preferred alternative;

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

Draft Plan;

9. Review of comments and effecting necessary and appropriate

changes to the Draft CCP; and,

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

Director, and finally

11. Implementation 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, State agencies, and members of the public

assisted the Service and Reclamation in identifying most of the natural

resource and public use issues. See Appendix K for details.

The following list of planning and environmental assessment issues was

derived from the comments generated during the public process, from

interested jurisdictions, and from the Seedskadee NWR staff.
20 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Planning Issues

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through discussions with

planning team members and key contacts and through the public scoping

process. Comments were received orally at the meetings, 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 Federal and State agencies, local and county

governments, private organizations and individuals, and environmental

groups.

Wildlife and Habitat Management Issues

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants

What measures are taken to protect threatened, endangered, and

candidate species and species of management concern? What measures

are taken to protect and manage indigenous species?

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.

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

NWR have been altered by the construction and operation of Fontenelle

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

occurred and overbank flooding is rare to nonexistent. Water

temperatures have decreased 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. Riparian 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 birds.

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 means to mitigate for loss of wildlife

habitat from dam and reservoir construction within the upper Colorado

River System. The Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned about 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 21

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

successional 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.

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.

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.

Predators and Nuisance Species

How are predators and nuisance species controlled?

In the past, the Refuge has engaged in controlled trapping of nest

predators during the waterfowl nesting season. Beaver have been

removed when significant tree losses occur. There is concern about how,

and to what extent, predators and nuisance species should be controlled.

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 required to manage certain habitats is also a

concern.
22 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Public Use and Recreation Issues

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.

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 with

disabilities.

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.

Hunting

What types of hunting opportunities are provided on the Refuge?

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

conflicting points of view about how hunting is managed. 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

management of game species. There is some interest in the Refuge

providing duck hunting blinds.

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.

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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 23

Sport Fishing

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

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

commercially guided and recreational fishing. There are conflicting

points of view among anglers and fishing guides about how fishing is

regulated.

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 desirable level of River use.

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 NWR, there is demand 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 not camping is a compatible use and should

be permitted.

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 impact wildlife and the area’s solitude.

Visitor Use Level

What is the appropriate visitor use level of the Refuge?

How are visitor use levels determined within the Refuge? There 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 need to minimize wildlife disturbance, to avoid

encroachment on solitude, and by the nature and capacity of visitor

facilities, parking, and amenities.

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 of the basic ecological foundation for the interrelationship

between human activities and the natural system.
24 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 Refuge 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.

Resource Protection and 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.

Cultural Resources

How are cultural resources protected? To what extent are opportunities

pursued to interpret cultural resources for the visiting public?

Potential impacts to cultural resources from facilities development,

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.

Partnerships

To what extent are partnership opportunities pursued with volunteers,

local service groups, organizations, individuals, schools, and other

governmental agencies?

Determining opportunities for Refuge management to “partner” with

local groups, organizations, individuals, schools, 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 25

Administrative Management Issues

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. Other potential lands available for

exchange include the riparian areas between Fontenelle Reservoir and

Big Piney. There are questions about whether there is an interest in

exchanging, acquiring, or disposing of lands within or adjacent to the

Refuge boundary.

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.

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.

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 can the Refuge provide livestock access to

water while maintaining the integrity of the Refuge boundary and

preventing trespass?

Grazing

Is grazing allowed on the Refuge? What 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 wire are concerns.
26 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

III. Refuge and Resource Refuge and Resource

Descriptions Descriptions

 Geographic / Ecosystem Setting

Seedskadee NWR is 26,382 acres in size and located in southwestern

Wyoming along the Green River (Map 1). The entire 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 province—a high elevation Great

Basin shrub dominated habitat.

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to national natural resource

management and has identified 52 ecosystems within the United States. An

effective ecosystem management approach encompasses a landscape level

approach to land management and must recognize and incorporate local,

regional, and system-wide roles. Within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s

ecosystem organization, the Refuge lies within the Upper Colorado River

Ecosystem (Map 2). The Upper Colorado River Ecosystem incorporates the

watersheds, headwaters, tributaries (including the Green River), and

mainstem of the Colorado River in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Browns

Park National 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 wildlife habitat.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 27
28 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 native 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.

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: Promote terrestrial biological diversity and ecosystem stability

through sound land management practices thereby avoiding

fragmentation, degradation and loss of terrestrial habitats.

Climate

The Refuge’s climate is characterized by long, cold winters and short, warm

summers with a growing season of about 90 days. Temperatures typically

range from minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit to 90 degrees Fahrenheit with frost

penetration to 50 inches. Most precipitation 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

annual precipitation is 6.48 inches.

Geological Resources

Beds of limestone, sandstone, and shale, ranging in age from Upper or

Middle Cambrian to Upper Cretaceous, underlie the area. Overlying this are

gently warped Tertiary sediments averaging 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).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 29

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 drained, gravely sandy 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 moderately deep to very shallow, well drained soils

formed on rolling upland plains dissected by rock ravines, short

escarpments, and draws. Elevations are from 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 inches

per year.

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 NWR’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 available to plants. Major 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.
30 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 wildlife

refuge as mitigation for losses of fish and wildlife habitat as a result of

Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge Dams. 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

developments. By 1959, it was determined that a dam and storage reservoir

(Fontenelle), as opposed to the originally proposed diversion structure,

would be necessary to regulate Green River flows and to deliver water 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 Reclamation for project purposes. Prior to dam and reservoir

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 miles. However, even prior to

completion of the dam, the economic feasibility of the original Seedskadee

Project concept 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 demonstrated.

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 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge; 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 community

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 Project was never realized, the motivation and interest in

successful mitigation for habitat loss continued.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 31

Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir and River Hydrology

Today, Reclamation’s Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir purposes include water

storage and regulation of the flows of the Green River for:

1) power generation,

2) municipal 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

Reclamation developed campgrounds (Tailrace, Weeping Rock, and Slate

Creek) are located on the Green River below Fontenelle Dam and just

upstream from Seedskadee NWR. These recreation facilities are now

managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

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 available. In order to accommodate spring inflows, reservoir levels

are dropped through the winter and early spring down to its minimum pool,

93,000 acre-feet, by April 1. This provides a runoff storage capacity of

252,000 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

downstream from the dam. Figure 1 displays some examples of changes 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.
32 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Figure 1 also displays flow data since 1966 and operation of the reservoir.

Since 1966, there 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. Note that for 1972, 1986, and 1997, flows at the City of

Green River exceed the flow release from the reservoir reflecting

downstream contributions from tributaries, notably the Big Sandy River.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 33

In addition to moderating the peaks of high flows 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 periods. Winter release 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 capacity to receive and store spring runoff. By gradually

releasing the remaining storage pool, minimum flows and power production

can be maintained throughout the winter season.

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 only a few days. Winter flow releases

are fairly stable and substantially exceed inflows.

T w able 3.1 Winter Flows in cfs Above and Below

F r ontenelle Reservoir

D , ecember,

J d anuary and

F y ebruary

H h ig

I w nflo

L w o

I w nflo

A e verage

I w nflo

H h ig

R e elease

L w o

R e elease

A e verage

R e elease

Winter

1994-1995

6 4 74 2 2 2 4 4 23. 8 6 9 7 1 9 841.

Winter

1995-1996

8 7 91 2 3 2 5 2 08. 1 4 ,33 1 8 ,13 1,253.

Winter

1996-1997

8 8 10 3 7 0 6 1 38. 1 6 ,32 1 4 ,10 1,208.

Winter

1997-1998

9 7 02 4 6 4 6 9 26. 1 6 ,46 1 1 ,32 1,411.
34 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 California Trail, and numerous cutoffs

and shortcuts, all crossing the Green River and many passing through today’s

Seedskadee NWR.

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 township. Thus, by the end of the 19th

Century, the landownership patterns were set. Privately-owned lands are

primarily lowlands along streams and rivers, town sites, and the Union

Pacific 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 & Wildlife Service, the

Bureau of Reclamation, or the National Park Service. Of the 6,773,340 acres

in Sweetwater County, 1,828,641 acres are privately-owned, 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 power plants have provided significant employment and

growth 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.

Population Growth

In 1950, the populations of the cities closest to Seedskadee NWR were 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 growth. 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

decreased 3 percent while Lincoln County increased 15 percent. Wyoming’s

population in 2000 was 493,782 and is projected by the U.S. Bureau of

Economic Analysis to grow slowly over the next 10 years.

Income

Per capita personal income for Wyoming in 1993 was $15,415, 24th highest in

the nation. However, with a higher percentage of its wage earners working in

relatively higher wage paying production and extractive industries, per

capita personal income for Sweetwater County in 1994 was $20,666.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 35

Economic Development Trends and Pressures

Employment over the past 10 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 were mining (3,668 jobs), retail trade

(3,414), local government (3,320), services (2,629), transportation,

communication, and public utilities (1,447), manufacturing (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.

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 growth in

participation in activities such as day hiking, backpacking, camping, canoeing,

kayaking, rafting, cross-country skiing, bicycling, wildlife observation, and

photography through the next several decades.

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 for statewide and regional population growth, and overall growth

in participation in outdoor recreation, visitation to Seedskadee NWR will

likely increase over the decades ahead.
36 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses

Water Rights

Wyoming water law dates back to territorial days and is based on the

“doctrine of prior appropriation.” Under this doctrine, the first to put the

water to beneficial use has the most senior right. When adequate water

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. Water rights held by the Refuge

are summarized in Table 3.2.

The Refuge staff believes it holds sufficient water rights to implement 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 wetlands and other habitats.

2. Under Contract No. 14-06-400-6193 with Reclamation, 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 refuge requirements.

T e able 3.2 Summary of Water Rights Held by the Refuge

P t ermi

N r umbe

C . ert

N r umbe

N e am F e y low, Storage, Use P y riority

D e at

1 4 2202 1 1 516 H s amp No. 1 4 .54 cf 1/9/191

1 5 2203 1 2 516 H s amp No. 1 4 .67 cf 1/9/191

1 6 2203 1 2 516 H s amp No. 4 4 .04 cf 1/9/191

1 9 3463 2 h 439 R s ood Ditc 1 3 .00 cf 4/28/191

1 8 5906 2 h 018 H s erman Ditc 0 0 .17 of .99 cf 12/9/192

1 9 5907 2 h 0188 O s tterson Ditc 1 0 .18 cf 12/9/192

1 1 5907 2 h 019 O s tterson Ditc 0 0 .19 cf 12/9/192

1 0 5907 2 h 019 O s tterson Ditc 1 0 .35 cf 12/9/192

1 8 5907 2 h 075 O s tterson Ditc 2 0 .27 cf 12/9/192

1 9 5907 2 h 164 O s tterson Ditc 2 0 .65 cf 12/9/192

1 4 6985 2 h 261 T s allman Ditc 1 5 .30 cf 6/13/192

2 r 2364 F e ontenelle Reservoi 1 5 15.00 cfs; FW us 4/26/195

2 s 2365 R s eservoir Outlet, Canal 0 2 .00 cf 7/9/196

2 r 2368 F e ontenelle Reservoi 0 2 .00 cfs; FW us 7/9/196

3 8 576E 3 . 602 S s uperior Enl . 6 13 cf 4/6/191

4 9 006E 3 . 602 S s uperior Enl 1 9 .04 cf 5/19/191

5 0 330E 2 . 440 R s ood Ditch Enl 0 2 .14 cf 4/29/194

5 6 402E 2 e 656 H s amp No. 2 Enlarg 0 5 .56 cf 6/26/194

6 r 629 RES F e ontenelle Reservoi 5 2 ,000 acre-feet storage for FW us 1/22/196

U 1 .W. 47679 H e eadquarters Well No 5 9 0 gpm; domestic us 4/23/197

U 2 .W. 69131 H e eadquarters Well No 3 4 0 gpm; fire protection us 2/14/198
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 37

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) that 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,

according to the court’s interpretation, a person may float on the publicly

owned water, but could not anchor that boat nor 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 established.

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

adjacent Federal property or navigable waters.” In addition, this case stated

“Congress’ 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 congressional power over Federal lands to include the authority to

regulate activities on non-federal public waters in order to protect wildlife

and visitors on the lands” (United States v. Brown, 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 who 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; 8th 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 maintain . . . (2) facilities to

mitigate losses of, and improve conditions for, the propagation of fish and

wildlife.

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 with appropriate departments

within the State of Wyoming to meet Refuge management goals and

objectives.
38 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 Wyoming Highway Department along State

Highway 28, buried telephone and electric lines along Highway 28, and a high

voltage power line through the south end of the Refuge.

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 leases. Currently, 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 Refuge, Farson, and Green River area to protect wildlife values of this

area. However, the BLM lands surrounding the Refuge are completely

leased for oil and gas (BLM Green River RMP, 1997). Minerals are privately

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 within and near the Refuge, the Refuge is experiencing, 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 exercise of such rights will be permitted by a special

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 category includes those minerals that are disposable

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 BLM that a lease should be issued

to prevent the loss of oil 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.

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 Refuge

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.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 39

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 railroad 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 livestock according to Warranty

Deeds with the Rock Springs Grazing Association and Crosson Ranches Inc.

Specific rights are outlined in each Warranty Deed which are located in

Refuge files. The construction of 17 water access lanes has fulfilled most

livestock watering requirements. Crosson Ranches has access to specific

Refuge lands for the purposes of calving and rounding up cattle. Other rights

involve access to various ditches and headgates for the maintenance of

irrigation systems.

Adjacent Land Use: Nearly all adjacent lands are federally-owned and

managed by either the BLM or Reclamation. 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 owns large tracts of land, primarily

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.

Southwestern Wyoming produces approximately 30 percent of the world’s

soda ash and also 90 percent of the United States soda ash. One trona mine is

located immediately downstream of the south border. There is also a large

natural gas processing plant near the north end of the Refuge (Shute Creek -

Exxon plant).
40 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 dominating the overstory (Map 3).

Various agencies and consultants have worked with the Refuge 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 of vegetation maps. For vegetation community

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 and mixed low stature shrublands).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 41
42 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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).

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)

T 7 able 3.3 Vegetation Type and Acreage on Seedskadee NWR, July 1997

( ) Berk 1998)

C y n ategory D n s escription A s cre

W r etland O 4 pen/ponded Wate 17

C 1 attail Dominant 3

B 4 ulrush Dominant 5

S 2 hort Emergents 3

M 9 ixed Tall Emergents 8

P 0 erennial Pepperweed 40

E 5 xisting Managed Wetlands 33

W l 5 etland Subtotal 1 5 ,11

R s iparian G 9 rass/Herbaceou 1,62

B 4 uffaloberry Bush

W 2 illow 32

M 4 ixed Riparian Shrub 1,13

Cottonwood Closed1

/ 5 grass understory 7

C 8 ottonwood Closed/shrub understory 18

Cottonwood Moderate2/ 2 grass understory 34

C 2 ottonwood Moderate/shrub understory 33

Cottonwood Scattered 3/ 1 grass understory 11

C 2 ottonwood Scattered/shrub understory 21

R l 9 iparian Subtotal 4 9 ,34

U t pland S 4 agebrush Dominan 15,87

G 8 reasewood Dominant 21

L 0 ow Stature Shrub 3,12

U l 2 pland Subtotal 1 2 9,21

R l iverine M 4 ain River Channe 1,25

B 0 are Ground/Sand Bars 14

R l 4 iverine Subtotal 1 4 ,39

T R otal Acres Seedskadee NWR4 2 0 6,07
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 43

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 provides habitat for waterfowl, 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).

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 NWR since its

creation. In the 1980s, approximately 300 acres of wetlands were created in

the Hamp, Hawley, Lower Hawley, and Dunkle wetland 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 delivery to the units, drawdown of some 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, mink, and muskrat. Refuge wetland 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).”
44 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 45

Seedskadee NWR 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 filamentous algae, coontails, mare’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.

Vegetation is generally less than 0.5 meter tall.

■ Probable associates in short emergent habitats include spikerush, 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, and abundant invertebrate

foods. When standing water is absent, these sites continue to yield

herbaceous and seed resources; however, invertebrates diminish

somewhat and terrestrial vertebrates may become 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

vegetation types (Table 3.3).
46 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Seedskadee Managed Wetland Units

Hamp Wetland Unit

The Hamp Wetland 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 water 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 wetland unit. Management of individual pools separately is

difficult because of the water delivery system.

Hawley, Lower Hawley, and Dunkle Wetland Units

The Hawley (24 acres), Lower Hawley (147 acres) and Dunkle (36 acres)

wetland units each contain a complex of short emergent, tall emergent, and

open water (Map 5). The vegetative composition of each 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 Hawley Unit first,

followed by Lower Hawley and Dunkle Units. At flows of 1,200 cfs or

greater, adequate water exists to maintain most of the Hawley unit at full

pool. At lower flows, water must be rotated between individual pools to

maintain adequate head pressure. At flows less than 1,200 cfs, adequate

water may not exist to maintain the Lower Hawley 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 water areas in the Lower Hawley 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.

Management of sub-unit pools is difficult because of the water delivery

system. The Hawley Unit provides the best opportunity for managing subunit pools.

Pal Wetland Unit

The Pal Wetland Unit is 73 acres and contains a diverse mix of short

emergent and tall emergent vegetation (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 meadow habitat. Vegetation is comprised of a

mix of short emergent (spikerush and Baltic rush) and tall emergent (cattail

and softstem bulrush) vegetation. Water levels drop in the unit as river

levels drop.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 47
48 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 overstory tree habitat.

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 cottonwood forests are aging and mature trees are in poor health. A

comparison of cottonwood forests above and below Fontenelle Reservoir

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 establish a new age class of cottonwoods. 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 construction of dams on the river, the natural extremes 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

wetlands altering the hydro-periods of palustrine wetlands in the floodplain

(Laubhan 1997).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 49

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 lower 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 unusually high flow flood events have been significantly

reduced. For successful natural cottonwood regeneration, high flows 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 trees, and, absent sediment, 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 ungulates and rodents. 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 beneficial insects is under development; however, its approval 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 variety of methods including mechanical, and chemical.
50 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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, gooseberries, basin big sagebrush, mountain

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 percent areal coverage) with 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 percent 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 as Forest Overstory (closed). These canopied forest habitats

may then be described as grass/forb under or shrub under, according to

the composition of their understory.

■ 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, buffaloberry bush, and silverberry bush vegetation types (Table

3.3).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 51

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

approximation of their condition prior to introduction of livestock.

Special status species utilizing these habitat types include the mountain

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 characterized by short vegetation interspersed with bare ground.

Other wildlife species that rely on this habitat for breeding include: sage

grouse, ferruginous hawk, sage thrasher, sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike,

short- eared 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 flooded. Common grass associates include bottlebrush squirreltail,

Indian ricegrass, needlegrasses, sandberg bluegrass, Junegrass, and

wheatgrasses. Common forb associates include locoweeds, phloxes, lupines,

globemallows, plains prickly pear cactus, and numerous composite species.

The invasion of several nonnative plant species is a serious threat to Refuge

and surrounding upland habitats. Cheatgrass, halogeton, and Russian thistle

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-competes native perennial shrubs and grasses after 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

community is dominated by basin big sagebrush, which typically grows 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 desert paintbrush, milkvetch, penstemons, evening primrose, wild

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.
52 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

The Wyoming Big Sage community is dominated by the Wyoming Big Sage,

which typically grows in dry, well drained, undisturbed sites with relatively

low salinities. Wyoming Big Sage communities may support many of the

woody, grass, and herbaceous associates indicated in the Basin Big Sage

community. Wyoming Big Sage communities are characterized by shrubs 0.5

to 1.0 meter tall with a lower areal coverage, rarely exceeding 75 percent.

Inter-shrub spaces typically support grasses and forbs, although bare soil is

also common. Additional vegetative associates include spiny horsebrush,

littleleaf horsebrush, four-wing saltbush, spreading fleabane, and phlox. The

Wyoming Big Sage community represents the dominant vegetative 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

coverage is typically less than 50 percent and inter-shrub spaces are typically

bare soil. This community typically occurs on dry upland sites with moderate

to highly alkaline soils. Common shrubs include Wyoming big sage, black

sagebrush, and shadscale. Species composition varies on a comparably small

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

community is characterized by widely spaced shrubs 0.5 to 1.0 meter tall,

with a generally low areal coverage 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. Additional associates also include saltgrass, Baltic

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).

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 rough-winged swallow. Four anthropogenic features merit

attention: Fences, Roads, Powerlines and Buildings (including bridges).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 53

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.

Several plant surveys by qualified botanists have been conducted to record

the flora of Seedskadee NWR. The Ute ladies’-tresses has been 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.

T e able 3.4 Plant Species which may occur on Seedskadee NWR which are

T g hreatened, Endangered, Candidate or Special Concern in Wyoming

C e e ommon Name L e k atin Name H k eritage Rank

F r ederal and/or

S s tate Status

L n ocated on

R e efug

Ute ladies'-

tresses orchid

Spiranthes diluvialis USFWS

Threatened G2/S1

No record

Rollins' cat-eye Cryptantha rollinsii G d 4/S1 No recor

Wilcox's

woollystar

Eriastrum wilcoxii G d 5/S1S2 No recor

Juniper pricklypear

Opuntia polyacantha

var. juniperina

G d 5T3?Q/S1 No recor

Nelson's

milkvetch

Astragalus

nelsonianus

G d 2/S2 No recor

Dwarf milkweed Asclepias uncialis G d 3?/SH No recor
54 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 year specific habitat(s) are utilized by each species. The matrix is

useful in understanding the wildlife value of each habitat type found on

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge.

Except for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species and Species of

Special Concern, only those species that are residents or frequent visitors to

Seedskadee are discussed in the following text. Many other species, birds in

particular, may infrequently inhabit or migrate through the Refuge. Species

lists for birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and 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.

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

cinnamon 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-winged teal, mallard, northern pintail, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal,

northern shoveler, gadwall, and American wigeon.

The lesser scaup, canvasback, redhead, ruddy duck and bufflehead rely upon

riverine habitats and open ponded water.

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 riverine, wetland/marsh, and grass/forb habitats.

The trumpeter swan uses open ponded water, marsh, and riverine habitats.

Trumpeters use the Refuge for migration, breeding and as wintering habitat.

During winter, the open river water that exists between Fontenelle Dam and

Highway 28 provides good foraging and loafing habitat when 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 range expansion program. A total of 70 cygnets and

adults have been released on Seedskadee NWR 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

four were fledged in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Two pairs successfully

nested on the Refuge for the first time in 2001 producing a total of five

cygnets.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 55

The Service has developed a draft plan for “Enhancing the Rocky Mountain

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 Trumpeter Swan Population.

1

 Areas swans were introduced from:

RRL= Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge;

HSP= Harrim State Park;

WYWS= Wyoming Wetland Society Trumpeter Swan Fund. 2One 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

T f able 3.5 Re-introductions and nesting history of

t R rumpeter swans on Seedskadee NWR

( ) Data from Refuge swan files and Trumpeter Swan Society)

Y r - ea # - Re

i s ntroductions

# s Nest # s Cygnets

H d atched

# s Cygnets

F d ledged

1992 summer RRL1 5 adults

5 cygnets

00 0

1 s 992-93 winter HSP 19 adult

19 cygnets

00 0

1 s 993-94 winter HSP 5 adult

11 cygnets

00 0

1 s 996 WYWS 4 adult

1 s 997 WYWS 2 15 5 juvenile

1 0 14 1 998

1 0 14 4 999

2 0 14 4 000 2

2 0 25 001 3 5

T s 0 otals 70 6 22 91
56 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 available on shore. The great blue heron, white-faced 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 shorebird species utilizing Seedskadee NWR 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 provide roosting habitat.

Raptors consist of several families of hawks and owls. Raptors common 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 wetland, riparian, and upland habitats to forage and nest. The old

growth cottonwood trees are heavily utilized by red-tailed hawks, bald

eagles, American kestrel, 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 upland grasslands.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 57

Neotropical migrants are 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 kingbird, eastern kingbird, western wood-pewee, hermit

thrush, warbling vireo, yellow warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, Wilson’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 brownheaded cowbird use a combination of almost all the habitats found at

Seedskadee NWR. 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.

Woodpeckers are small and medium sized insectivorous birds 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

woodpeckers and the red-naped sapsucker.

Resident and migrant songbirds breed in North America and migrate

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.
58 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Predator Management and Nest Success

Seedskadee NWR has controlled mammalian predators in most wetland

units to enhance nesting success for ground-nesting birds in the past.

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 trumpeter

swans, 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

number of successful nests observed divided by all nests observed. Mayfield

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 apparent success.

1

 No trapping conducted prior to 1987 - data for 1987 represents nest success

prior to implementing a predator management program.

T n able 3.6 Nest Success Compared with Trap Effort on

S ) eedskadee NWR (1987-1998)

N s 7 est Success 1 7 98 1 1 8 9 98 1 9 0 98 1 0 3 99 1 3 8 99 1 8 99

M % ayfield success 5 %4 % 5 7 % 0 5 % 1 3 % 4 25

A % pparent success 1 % 4 6 % 3 8 % 4 7 % 1 5 % 8 50

T 0 otal nest observed 6 29 3 1 9 1 1 5 2 9 38

T 09 rap nights 5 9 ,67 5 2 ,91 5 0 ,29 4 0 ,71 3,10

T 07 otal predators 9 56 36 95 63

Number of trap

nights/predator

captured

0 95 19 48 88 68
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 59

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 150 to 400 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 herds in the lower 48 states.

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).
60 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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, Snake River cutthroat trout, Bonneville cutthroat

trout, kokanee salmon, brown trout, mountain whitefish, mottled sculpin,

white sucker, flannel-mouthed sucker, Utah chub, Bonneville redside shiner,

and speckled dace. Other less common species are listed in Appendix 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 Wyoming 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 mile totaling 15,000 fish (average length of 6 inches).

Cutthroat trout were stocked at a rate of 290 advanced 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

McCullen Bluff sill. Recent research on the Wind River indicates that “frazil

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

electroshocking on the Refuge to determine population levels.

Brown trout were stocked in the Green River on Seedskadee NWR until

1993. After 1993, brown trout stocking was discontinued after it was

determined from electroshocking that natural reproduction was sustaining

the fishery.

Wyoming Game 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.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 61
62 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 moist subsoils, riparian grass/forb, riparian shrub, riparian forest, basin

big sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush communities. 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.

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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 63

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 types which currently or

formerly occurred at Seedskadee NWR. 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

C e l ommon Name S l easonal

O e ccurrence1

S e e cientific Name H e eritage

R k an 2

F e ederal and State

S s tatu 2

D t ate Last

O d bserved3

B S IRD

C M lark's grebe Aechmophorus clarkii G 1 5/S2B,SZN W 8 YGF SSC4 PIF-L WOL199

W R esterm grebe M, S Aechmophorus

occidentalis

W 1 YGF SSC4 PIF-L1 WOL200

A B merican bittern M, P Botaurus lentiginosus G 3 4/S2B,SZN W 0 YGF SSC WOL199

Black-crowned

night-heron

M Nycticorax nycticorax W 0 YGF SSC3 WOL200

S M nowy egret Leucophoyx thula W 0 YGF SSC3 WOL200

W B hite-faced ibis SR, M, P Plegadis chihi G 3 5/S1B,SZN W 1 YGF SSC WOL200

W M hooping crane Grus americana G T 1/S1N C 1 lassified EXTINC WOL199

T R rumpeter swan B, Y Cygnus buccinator G 1 4/S1B,S2N W 1 YGF SSC2 PIF-L WOL200

M B ountain plover M, P Charadrius montanus G d 2/S2B,SZN USFWS Propose

Threatened

WYGF SSC4 PIF-L1

WOL1995

Long-billed

curlew

M, PB Numenius americanus G 1 5/S3B,SZN W 8 YGF SSC3 PIF-L WOL199

W M ilson's phalarope B, Phalaropus tricolor G 1 5/S3B,S3N P 1 IF-L WOL200

C R aspian tern M, S Sterna caspia G 3 5/S1B,SZN W 0 YGF SSC WOL200

F M orster's tern Sterna forsteri G 1 5/S1B,SZN W 6 YGF SSC3 PIF-L WOL198

B B lack tern M, P Chlidonias niger G 1 4/S1B,SZN W 3 YGF SSC3 PIF-L WOL199

B R ald eagle B, Y Haliaeetus leucocephalus G d 4/S2B,S3N USFWS Threatene

(proposed delisting)

WYGF SSC4 PIF-L1

WOL2001

Northern

goshawk

M Accipiter gentilis G 1 5/S23B,S4N W 1 YGF SSC4 PIF-L WOL199

S M wainson's hawk B, Buteo swainsoni P 0 IF-L1 WOL200

F M erruginous hawk B, Buteo regalis W 1 YGF SSC3 PIF-L1 WOL200

M B erlin M, P Falco columbarius G 1 5/S2B,SZN S 4 SC3 PUF-L WOL199

P B eregrine falcon M, P Falco peregrinus

anatrum

G / 4T3/S1B,S2N USFWS Delisted

WYGF SSC3 PIF-L1

WOL2000

S R age grouse B, Y Centrocercus

urophasianus

P 0 IF-L1 WOL200

S R hort-eared owl B, Y Asio flammeus G 1 5/S2S3 P 1 IF-L WOL200

B R urrowing owl PB, Y Athene cunicularia G 4 4/S3B,SZN W 4 YGF SSC WOL199

Lewis'

woodpecker

M Asyndesmus lewis G 1 5/S2B,SZN W 6 YGF SSC3 PIF-L WOL198
64 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Table 3.7 Special Status Wildlife and Fish Species Potentially Occurring on Seedskadee NWR cont'd.

C e l ommon Name S l easonal

O e ccurrence1

S e e cientific Name H e eritage

R k an 2

F e ederal and State

S s tatu 2

D t ate Last

O d bserved3

B . IRDS CONT'D.

Yellow-bellied

cuckoo

M, PB Coccyzus americanus G 2 5/S2B,SZN W 4 YGF SSC WOL199

B M rewer's sparrow B, Spizella breweri G 1 5/S3B,SZN P 1 IF-L WOL200

S M age sparrow B, Amphispiza belli G 1 5/S3B,SZN P 1 IF-L WOL200

F H IS

Colorado

pikeminnow

No record Ptychocheilus lucius G d 1/SX U d SFWS Endangere No recor

H d umpback chub No recor Gila cpha G d 1/SX U d SFWS Endangere No recor

B d onytail chub No recor Gila elegans G d 1/SX U d SFWS Endangere No recor

B R luehead sucker Y Catastomus discobolus G d 4/S2S No recor

Flannelmouth

sucker

YR Catostomus latipinnis G d 3G4/S33 No recor

R d azorback sucker No recor Xyrauchen texanus G d 1/SX U d SFWS Endangere No recor

M S AMMALS

Long-eared

myotis spotted bat

SR, M Myotis evotis G 2 5/S1B,S1?N W 4 YGF SSC BMN199

Townsend's bigeared batNo records Corynorhinus townsendii G 2 4/S1B,S2N W d YGF SSC No recor

P M allid bat SR, Antrozous pallidus G 2 5/S1B,SZ?N W 4 YGF SSC BMN199

P R ygmy rabbit B, Y Brachylagus idahoensis G 3 4/S2 W 1 YGF SSC WOL199

S s wift fox No record Vulpes velox G 3 3/S2S3 W d YGF SSC No recor

Black-footed

ferret

No records Mustela nigripes G d 1/S1 U 8 SFWS Endangere 1976-7

R B iver otter YR, P Lontra canadensis G 1 5/S3 WOL200
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 65

Two federally-listed bird species have been observed on the Refuge. The bald

eagle is a year-round resident and nests annually (Table 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. Approximately 25 eagles

spend the winter on the Refuge each year.

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.

T R able 3.8 Bald Eagle Production on Seedskadee NWR

( ) data from Refuge bald eagle observation file)

Y r s ea # s Nest

A e ctiv 1

# l Successful

N s est

# g of Young

H d atched

# g of Young

F d ledged

11 1 2 2 992

10 0 0 0 993

11 0 0 0 994

13 0 0 0 995

12 0 0 0 996

12 2 4 3 997

12 2 4 4 998

14 2 6 999 2 2

23 3 6 6 000

23 3 7 7 001
66 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

The whooping crane has been observed on the Refuge infrequently during

migration. Whooping cranes have infrequently been observed on the Hawley

wetland unit (1991). The birds are suspect migrants. This population was

recently determined to be extinct by the Service. Thus this Plan will no

longer address this species as a federally listed species.

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 longer exist below Fontenelle 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 Refuge staff continues to monitor for the presence 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 American bittern and black tern are infrequently observed in

migration.

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 small numbers. It breeds in

willow and cottonwood forests along rivers and streams. Populations are in

decline primarily as a result of destruction of their streamside habitat.

The merlin falcon and peregrin falcon are 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 been documented on the

Refuge since the late 1980s. A 1999 survey detected no sign of merlins during

the breeding season. For four consecutive years (1996 to 2000), one peregrine

sighting was recorded in the Tallman, Hay Farm, and Hawley management

units, respectively. Maintenance of migration habitat is important for this

species.

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, black-crowned

night-heron, and Lewis’ woodpecker.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 67

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

resources of these lands over thousands 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 structures (Map 7). Seedskadee NWR’s dune formations 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.
68 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 69

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 mammoth), specifically on extinct species. The Archaic Period

(8000 to 2000 BP) is characterized by a Pan-American broad-based

subsistence strategy. The Archaic Period 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

notched dart points. A greater use of vegetable foods occurred during this

period. Summer occupation in the mountains, winter occupation in the

foothills, and spring and fall movements utilized all available zones. 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 common 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 material was easier to transport (Thompson and Pastor 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.
70 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 Seedskadee area.

Thousands of pioneers crossed the Green River on what is now Seedskadee

NWR. The Oregon and Mormon Trails, which cross the Refuge, have been

designated as National Historic Trails by Congress. Ruts from these 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

homesteads are particularly susceptible to fire. The lack of adequate funding,

existing and anticipated, precludes stabilizing these structures and sites. In

compliance with current Federal legislation, it is necessary to document

them as thoroughly as possible before they deteriorate further from natural

and other causes.

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 8). 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 71
72 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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.

1 mya = million years ago

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 member. Deposits

above the tongue comprise the Main Body of the Bridger Formation and

those below comprise the Whiskey Butte 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 mammals, 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), Echmatemys (emydid- turtle),

Hybemys (emydid -turtle), Trionycid (soft-shelled -turtle) and the crocodilian

taxa Diplocynodon and Crocodylus.

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)

G s c eological Deposits G c eologic

A e g

T f ype of Deposit Environment of

D n eposition

F l ossi

R s esources

P o ale

P l otential

A a re

P t resent

alluvial sediments

(including alluvium

and colluvium)

latest

Holocene

(500-1,000,000

mya)

1

Unconsolidated silts, sands of

valleys and plains, Terrestrialfluvial.

n w one l d o widesprea

B e ridger Formation middl

Eocene--

Bridgerian

(37-58 mya)

Tuffaceous sandstone and

bentonitic mudstone, limestone.

Terrestrial-fluvial, floodplain,

accumulated after drying up of

Lake Gosiute.

vertebrates,

invertebrates,

plants, trace

fossils

h d igh widesprea

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

h N igh T 23

R 111 W
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 73

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 years (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 Green 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

crocodilian skeletons are known from this locality. The remains of small

perching birds, primobucconids, occur primarily as feather impressions.
74 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Public Use Facilities and Program Inventory

The current Refuge road system consists of 77 miles of designated roads within

the Refuge boundary. Twenty miles are classified as administrative roads and

57 miles are classified as open public roads. There are many two-tracks,

trails, and roads created prior to the Refuge’s establishment which are not

official Refuge roads. Closed roads will eventually be restored by seeding

with native vegetation.

One nine mile auto tour route is located on the Refuge. This 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 recommended.

Seasonal closures are imposed. For the protection of habitat, vehicles are

allowed only on established open 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.

General Public Use

The Refuge has 21 road access points (Map 8). 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 summarizes estimated visitor use from 1990 to 2000.

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

percent of those surveyed had Sweetwater County as one of their 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 seven 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 Refuge road access points (Map 8), the

Farson Information Center, Wyoming Game and Fish in Green River, BLM

in Rock Springs, and at the Chambers of Commerce(s) in Rock Springs and

Green River.

T R able 3.10 Estimated Annual Visitors to Seedskadee NWR

1 0 1 99 1 1 2 99 1 2 3 99 1 3 4 99 1 4 5 99 1 5 6 99 1 6 * 99 1 * 8 997 1 8 9 99 1 0 9 99 2 0 00

Total estimated

Visitors

3 4 ,757 4 0 ,26 5 9 ,12 6 7 ,00 8 5 ,32 1 7 0,35 1 0 2,01 1 0 5,00 1 0 3,00 1 0 5,50 16,50

Environmental

Education** 1 4 07 2 2 1 7 5 6 1 2 ,04 6 5 4 6 2 0 5 0 9 7 2 0 7 0 6 8 0 5 40

Anglers 1 5 ,300 1 0 ,62 1 0 ,80 1 0 ,58 3 0 ,00 4 0 ,00 4 0 ,00 4 0 ,50 5 0 ,00 6 0 ,50 6,00

Hunters 4 0 50 7 0 0 8 5 5 1 5 ,52 1 0 ,18 1 5 ,25 1 0 ,92 2 0 ,50 5 0 ,00 6 0 ,50 5,00

Wildlife

Observation

2 5 ,000 1 0 ,72 2 9 ,00 1 0 ,85 3 0 ,50 4 0 ,50 5 0 ,50 5 0 ,00 4 0 ,00 5 0 ,50 6,00

Note: Estimates are taken from Seedskadee NWR Annual Narrative Reports;

*Includes Mormon Trail Sesquicentennial; **Includes on-site environmental education only.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 75

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 judgement of the Service, will not materially

interfere with or detract from, the fulfillment of the Refuge System’s mission

or the purpose of the refuge. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the six

priority general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System which

have been found to be appropriate uses and shall receive priority consideration

in refuge planning and management (Refuge Improvement Act 1997).

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 Refuge’s purpose.

On lands added after 1996, the Service must identify, prior to acquisition,

withdrawal, transfer, reclassification, or donation, which existing wildlifedependent compatible recreational uses the Service will permit.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Visitor estimates indicate that wildlife observation is one of the most popular

public uses 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 Hamp wetland unit. Much of the optimum wildlife

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

individuals wanting to hike and explore off-road areas (Map 8).

Hunting

Hunting seasons usually occur between September 1 and mid- February.

Hunting is permitted for select game 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 Refuge 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. The voluntary avoidance restriction is

currently posted in the Refuge Hunting/Fishing brochure. An annual news

release is produced in the fall notifying the public of this voluntary request.

Compliance with this voluntary avoidance program is currently less than

desired. Winter 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 wintering waterfowl and raptors. Less disturbance helps

swans, waterfowl, and raptors to reduce their overall energy demands.
76 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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. Approximately half 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.

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.

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 occurring in various River sections.

In 1997, the Service, BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service agreed to issue

a single commercial permit for the Green River stretch starting at

Fontenelle Dam and ending at the beginning of Flaming Gorge Reservoir

(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.

Environmental Education/Outreach

Environmental education is usually 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 NWR conducts special programs for International Migratory

Bird Day and National Wildlife Refuge Week.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 77

Interpretation

Four interpretive areas occur on Seedskadee NWR: Lombard Ferry,

Wetlands Overlook, Headquarters Kiosk, and Headquarters visitor area

(Map 8). Current interpretive signs are limited to these areas. The Refuge

Headquarters contains indoor space dedicated to interpretive exhibits.

Interior exhibits include a wall-mounted map, 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 Show.

Non Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

The Refuge staff is concerned with the non wildlife-dependent recreation

activities occurring at the Refuge. 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 power boating, off-road vehicle use, etc.

Camping

It is Service policy that, “Camping will not be permitted when any other

practical alternative is available and only when required to implement 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 Land Management

allows short-term (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.

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

downstream of the Refuge on the Green River.

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” crisscross areas and result in habitat degradation. Eventually, all

non-designated roads will be closed and restored by seeding with native

vegetation. The number 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.
78 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Administrative Support

Current Facilities

Refuge buildings 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 homes (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 months. 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 structures along the Refuge’s perimeter fence; nine-mile mile auto

tour road; one wetland interpretive overlook; the Lombard Ferry Historic

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)

Current Staffing

Seedskadee NWR staffing has always been limited, but has fluctuated

significantly in the last 6 years. In 1993, the Refuge had a permanent staff of

five full-time positions, including a refuge manager, a refuge operations

specialist, two maintenance workers, 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 been restored. Current (2000) staffing includes six

permanent positions (Table 3.11).

The Seedskadee staff also manages Cokeville Meadows NWR, currently

about 8,000 acres, located two hours west near Cokeville, Wyoming. A CCP

will be prepared for Cokeville Meadows NWR under separate cover.

T ) able 3.11 Current Personnel (2000)

F E n T C urrent Position

1 2 Refuge Manager/Project Leader, GS-1

1 1 Assistant Refuge Manager (ROS), GS-1

1 6 Administrative Support Assistant, GS1 1 Biologist, GS-9/1

1 9 Engineering Equipment Operator, WG1 6 Biological Technician, GS6 E Total Current FT
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 79

Special Management Areas

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 System. A draft of the Service “Wilderness Stewardship

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 important to

maintaining the natural and historic nature of the area.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has designated Seedskadee NWR,

and the surrounding BLM lands, as a Globally Important Bird Area (IBA).

To qualify for this designation an area must have significant ongoing efforts

to conserve wild birds and their habitats. ABC’s IBA 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

conservation efforts.
80 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

IV. Management Direction Management Direction

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 objectives are defined by the Service manual:

“as milestones which lead to the fulfillment of unit and system purposes.

Each objective should be a description of desired and, 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.”
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 81

The following is a list of the Refuge’s goals. These are each described in

detail with objectives and strategies in the following sections.

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.
82 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 periods. These activities 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. Even though the population of this species is now considered

extinct by the Service, the Refuge will continue to monitor for this bird and

evaluate opportunities to provide migration or breeding habitat.

No records exist of the Federally-threatened 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 continue monitoring for this species and 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 mature or old-growth timber.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Re-establish cottonwoods at suitable locations by enhancing the

natural regeneration, planting seedlings or conducting pole

plantings. Suitable sites and methods will be determined by current

on-going research.

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.

Bald Eagle © Cindie Brunner
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 83

A1.2 Mountain Plover Objectives: The Refuge staff will investigate

managing part of the 3,120-acre Dry Creek Unit as sagebrush grassland

habitat to provide for the migratory, and possibly nesting, requirements

of 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 5 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%) (Parish 1988, Parish et. al 1993).

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Nesting habitat will be protected from trampling by domestic

livestock and off-road vehicle use by fencing Refuge boundaries and

enforcing Refuge regulations.

2. Review historical records and annually survey existing habitats for

nesting mountain plovers.

3. Conduct vegetative transects in the Dry Creek management unit to

evaluate current habitat conditions relative to the breeding and

migratory needs of the mountain plover.

4. Based on habitat and population assessments, implement

appropriate management strategies to maintain, improve, or create

desired habitat characteristics.

A1.3 Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid Objectives: Protect any populations

of the federally threatened Ute ladies’-tresses orchid found on the

Refuge.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Survey any suitable habitat prior to any ground disturbance

activities. The 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 September). Map any

populations found. This species has not been documented in

southwest Wyoming.
84 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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.

At least 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 control browsing effects on Refuge vegetation.

Hunting is also considered a compatible wildlife-dependent use, thereby

fulfilling a priority public use of the Refuge System. The Service will

continue close coordination with WYG&F to maintain a balance between

watchable wildlife opportunities, hunting opportunities, and healthy habitat

conditions.

Sage grouse use the Refuge for wintering and brood-rearing habitat.

Nationally, this species has been petitioned for the endangered 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 populations.

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 and effects of management actions.

A2.1 Trumpeter Swan Objectives: Maintain habitat to accommodate

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 20 to 40

trumpeter swans.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Manage the Hawley and Hamp wetland impoundments to provide a

mix of tall emergents, submergents, and deep open water habitats

(50:50 water to vegetation ratio).

2. Develop a wintering closed area on the Refuge to minimize

disturbance to wintering swans and other waterfowl 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 Green River channel 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 monitoring to document

numbers and distribution on the Refuge.

Trumpeter Swan © Cindie Brunner
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 85

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 no more than 30 to 40 moose for the River

riparian corridor between the town of Green River and Fontenelle Dam

and 80 to 100 mule deer within the Refuge boundary until vegetation

monitoring suggests otherwise.

Strategies: 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 wintering 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 winter habitat, provide mean sagebrush canopy cover of 15 to

43 percent above snow and mean sagebrush heights of 20 to 56 cm above

snow (Connelly et al. 2000).

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Support research opportunities to evaluate local sage grouse use of

the Refuge (populations and use of Refuge habitats).

2. Assess the current condition of habitats which support sage grouse

by conducting vegetation surveys in sagebrush and riparian habitats.

Support research opportunities to complete habitat evaluations.

3. Coordinate closely with WYG&F on sage grouse management

initiatives.

4. Initiate Refuge surveys to determine the current amount, location,

and timing of sage grouse use.

5. Monitor harvest of sage grouse via field surveys, sign in logs, and

wing barrels.

Mule Deer © Cindie Brunner
86 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 overall

species richness/diversity, document population trends of selected

species over time, and evaluate the effectiveness of habitat management

strategies.

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

time.

2. Predation by skunk, raccoon, fox, and mink has been shown to

adversely impact water bird nesting success in the Refuge. Thus, the

Refuge may continue to engage in specific predator control programs

within wetland management units, especially areas with nesting

predation by skunk, fox, and mink.

3. Partner with Wyoming Audubon and WYG&F to develop a bird

monitoring protocol and develop management plans to benefit bird

conservation efforts.

A2.5 Other Indigenous Wildlife Species Objectives: Ensure the

diversity and abundance of indigenous mammals, reptiles, amphibians,

fish and invertebrates remain intact.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Conduct baseline surveys in each habitat type to determine species

richness/diversity and relative abundance within 8 to 10 years of

completing the CCP. Compare information to historical data to

evaluate changes in species diversity or abundance.

2. Partner with local, State, Federal, private and nongovernment

organizations to enhance and restore big game migration routes

between their summer ranges and ancestral winter ranges.

Specifically support movement studies to assess the feasibility of

restoring free-ranging wildlife herds to their native ranges.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 87

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 poor health compared with upstream forests; have 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 will emphasize maintaining plant structural and species diversity.

Natural regeneration from seedfall, either by creating artificial off-channel

sites or altering flows to create more sites within the historic river channel,

is the preferred solution for long-term replacement of cottonwood stands and

other woody riparian vegetation. Concerted effort will be put into this

potential solution before choosing a widespread planting program. The

program will begin with two to three experimental sites in the Dunkle

Management Unit which have been selected for their relative ease and

reliability of controlled artificial flooding and proximity to cottonwood seed

sources. Monitoring of the success of natural regeneration within the historic

flood channel is also an important 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 be more important as an interim solution if natural regeneration is

ultimately successful. If natural regeneration is unsuccessful, a broader scale

planting program may be critical.

B1.1 Restoration Plan Objectives: Within 4 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 acre cottonwood/willow riparian community.

Strategies: 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.

2. Protect existing cottonwood stands by: a) fencing areas or wrapping

woven wire around individual trees, to reduce damage by beaver,

moose, and mule deer; b) suppressing wildfires; c) adjusting moose,

mule deer, and beaver harvests and; d) conducting mowing/

prescribed burns to reduce wildfire occurrence.
88 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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

floodplain recharge. Provide dense willow understory habitat in parcels

greater than five acres in size to provide breeding habitat for neotropical

migrant birds. Maintain an average live crown vigor of 75 percent in

existing narrow leaf cottonwood stands. Aggressively protect 1,200 acres

of mature cottonwood forested areas from drought, wildfire, and wildlife

damage.

Strategies: 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 increased wildfire protection by increasing vehicle 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.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 89

B1.3 Riparian Regeneration/Planting Objectives: If required, create

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, Hamp, Otterson, Johnson, and Big

Island management units. Initiate a tree and shrub planting program if

necessary, at a minimum of 5 suitable locations within the Refuge.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Work with Reclamation to manage a flow regime, particularly in

years of favorable seed production, suitable for establishment of

narrow-leaf cottonwood and willow species during the critical postseedfall period (July - September). Daily drop in river channel water

levels are not to exceed 4 cm/day during the critical period.

2. Determine the feasibility of using abandoned river channels to

regenerate cottonwoods.

3. Work with Reclamation, USGS, and other interest groups to

determine the flow regime needed to maintain and benefit the

regeneration of cottonwoods and willow trees.

4. Prepare a soil survey in areas with 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

exclosures.

6. Monitor success of plantings 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 improves.
90 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 stimulates invertebrate

activity, thereby making them available to waterfowl and shorebirds. 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 shorebirds and waterfowl.

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 prefer shallow flooded emergent wetlands with

little open water. Opportunities to provide this habitat type exist in portions

of the Pal, Sagebrush, Hamp, Hawley, and Dunkle wetland units.

Breeding habitat consists of areas where courtship and breeding may occur,

suitable nest sites are available, and adequate resources are provided to

sustain birds to fledgling. The Service will strive to manage all wetland units

to meet the diverse needs of 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 much or most of their wetland values and functions. 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 becomes sediment depleted. There 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 weir to divert water into the channel.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 91

B2.1 Hamp and Hawley Wetland Units Objectives: The Hamp, Upper

Hawley, and Lower Hawley wetland units will be managed to provide a

mix of deep and shallow water habitats depending on unit topography.

Management will attempt to maintain a water and cover ratio of

approximately 50:50.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. The Hamp (#1 and #2) head-water gates will be opened in early

spring (usually around April 1), and waters will be allowed 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 flooded

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. Deep water units will remain flooded.

2. Where research shows it to be beneficial, the Refuge may continue to

engage in target specific predator control to minimize the effect of

nest predation on waterfowl and other ground-nesting birds from

mid-March to mid-July according to an approved Predator Control

Plan.

3. Monitor waterfowl use bimonthly during spring and fall migrations

and nesting success every 3 years. Monitor trumpeter swan 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 manipulated 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. Lower the height of three islands constructed in the Hamp Unit to

eradicate pepperweed and encourage growth of emergent

vegetation. Replace water control structures within 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.

11. Set up water quality monitoring program within wetland units and

Green River to detect changes in basic water chemistry parameters.
92 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 migration.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. In early spring (mid-April to mid-June), Sagebrush Pool and Dunkle

wetland units will be drawn down slowly (2 to 3 cm per week) to

concentrate and increase the availability of invertebrates for ducks

and early migrating shorebirds. In fall (between August and

September), Sagebrush Pool and Dunkle wetland units will be slowly

(2-3 cm/week) flooded to a water depth of 18 cm. This will provide

foraging habitat for fall migrating birds. Water levels will be

increased in these units to approximately 45 cm before heavy freeze,

and water will 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,

shallowly disced in the summer, and shallowly flooded in the fall.

Vegetation density in the wetlands will be maintained at less than 50

percent cover.

3. Drawdowns, discing, burning, and mowing 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 wetland

units are too small to support predator-free islands.

7. Set up water quality monitoring program within wetland units and

Green River to detect changes in basic water chemistry parameters.

8. Where research shows it to be beneficial, the Refuge may continue to

engage in target specific predator control to minimize the effect of

nest predation on waterfowl and other ground-nesting birds from

mid-March to mid-July according to an approved Predator Control

Plan.

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 acres in size.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Drawdowns, discing, burning, and mowing 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.

5. Set up water quality monitoring program within wetland units and

Green River to detect changes in basic water chemistry parameters.

6. Where research shows it to be beneficial, the Refuge may continue to

engage in target specific predator control to minimize the effect of

nest predation on waterfowl and other ground-nesting birds from

mid-March to mid-July according to an approved Predator Control

Plan.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 93

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: Strategies:

1. Minimize disturbance to soil surface and utilize existing topography

at every opportunity when constructing water delivery systems and

dikes.

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

WYG&F and other interested public’s.
94 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 Green River around Pinedale south to

approximately Kemmerer. This variety is extremely palatable to wildlife

which may account for the area’s ability to support sage grouse, a declining

species, and large herds of wintering pronghorn. Maintenance 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: Sagebrushdominated (15,000 acres) and Salt Desert Shrub (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 between shrub and perennial grass cover, and for open to

moderate shrub cover (5 to 35 percent) and multiple height classes. Grass

and forb canopy cover should be a minimum of 15 percent.

Strategies: 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 or burned to re-establish a balance between

shrub cover and perennial 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. Suppress fires which threaten stands of tall sagebrush in draws.

These areas provide crucial winter thermal cover for numerous

species.

6. Develop research partnerships to evaluate the effects of grazing on

wildlife and vegetation.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 95

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, pronghorn, and neotropical migratory birds.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Protect grasslands from grazing and trampling by domestic 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 longterm monitoring transects/plots to detect changes in cover and major

species composition.

5. Reseed old fields to native grasses and forbs when the composition of

native grasses and forbs is less than 50 percent.

6. Initiate several small scale (3 to 10 acres) prescribed burns in

decadent stands of greasewood to increase the cover of Great Basin

wild rye (up to 50 acres).
96 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 water areas on the Green River during winter is dependent

upon climate and flow releases from Fontennelle Dam. The Service will work

with Reclamation and WYG&F to provide winter flows 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 health of the riparian corridor. Recommendations 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. Assure 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: Strategies:

1. Establish aquatic vegetation transects to evaluate changes in aquatic

vegetation in relation to River management.

2. Cooperate with WYG&F to monitor 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. Coordinate with USGS to establish standard water quality

monitoring sites at 2 to 3 sites within the Refuge to evaluate changes

in water quality.

8. Establish invertebrate monitoring sites to evaluate changes in

invertebrate abundance relative to changes in River management.

9. Set up water quality monitoring program within wetland units and

Green River to detect changes in basic water chemistry parameters.

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 1,200 cfs from July to October,

and winter (November 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

floodplain.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Work with Reclamation and the WYG&F to evaluate and potentially

modify summer river flows with respect to maintenance and

restoration of the riparian corridor.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 97

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 mechanical methods (mowing) 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

potential for invasion and spread here is unknown.

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: 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 techniques and practices used to control exotic plants.

6. Develop “watch list” of noxious weed species which occur or have the

possibility of occurring 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.
98 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 or the purpose of the Refuge.

Strategies: 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 directional 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 or establish a

motor horsepower limitation on the Green River through the

Refuge.

5. Maintain availability of Refuge lands for miscellaneous occasional

compatible public uses (i.e., horseback riding, picnicking, crosscountry 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 99

C1.2 Hunting and Fishing Objectives: Provide a variety of quality

River fishing opportunities and hunting opportunities on portions of the

Refuge.

Strategies: 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

opportunities/seasons on Refuge lands.

3. Develop a fishing and hunting leaflet to explain special Refuge

regulations and enhance the visitor experience.

4. Modify the existing areas “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 and wintering wildlife. The closed area will likely

center on the Hawley, Hamp, and Pal wetland management units and

include wetland and riverine habitat. Establishment of the new

closed area will be in coordination with the WYG&F and with

participation of the general public. Barring the establishment of a

closed area on Riverine habitat, the Refuge would explore closure of

the waterfowl season on December 1 to reduce disturbance to

wintering wildlife.

5. Conduct law enforcement patrols to ensure visitors comply with

refuge regulations and provide a quality experience for law abiding

visitors.

6. Monitor and manage permitted guided use of the Refuge, in

accordance with the Recreation Fee Pilot Program. Finalize the

draft “Commercial Guide Plan” for the Refuge. Reduce the number

of commercial outfitting permits to four or less in accordance with

the Commercial Guide Plan. Sections of the River may be closed to

commercial guiding in the future to avoid over-crowding.

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.
100 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 will provide a high-quality environmental education

and interpretive program for visitors of all abilities to enhance their

appreciation and understanding of wildlife and people’s role in the

environment.

Strategies: 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 arid west.

2. Develop and maintain interpretive panels at a minimum of five

pullouts along the auto tour route (Map 8). 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 8).

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

square feet) at Seedskadee NWR and explore partnering

opportunities for operating the facility. The facility would include an

activity room, interpretive display area, kitchen, rest rooms, and

office (Map 8).

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 8

10. Develop and maintain interpretive panels at 5 significant cultural/

historical sites.

11. Partner with Wyoming Audubon to assist with environmental

education and interpretation programs and explore the opportunity

to locate and Audubon Center at the Refuge.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 101

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: 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

Lombard Ferry interpretive site.

3. Monitor River use activities and recreation numbers via remote

video to evaluate what type of uses are occurring and locations of

uses. Data collected by these means will be used in conjunction with

other resource data to analyze impacts to Refuge resources.

4. Develop a Public Use and Sign Plan for the Refuge.

5. Visitor use limits and seasonal closures may 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

provides for compatible wildlife recreation opportunities.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Reduce fragmentation, damage to habitat types, and disturbance to

wildlife by closing select roads which enter sensitive areas. 49.2 miles

of designated roads will remain open for 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 9).

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).

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: 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 2 years.

3. Improve directional and 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 8).

5. Provide at least one full time or three collateral law enforcement

officers to ensure protection of Refuge resources and public safety.
102 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 103

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 coordination with WYG&F to

minimize impacts of fencing to wildlife.

Strategies: Strategies:

1. Manage livestock access/watering lanes to minimize conflicts

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. Segments of Refuge lands, which are not currently fenced, 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 lands from RSGA to the Refuge.

C3.5 Land Acquisition/ Development Objectives: Protect and acquire

lands which support the purposes of the Refuge or mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.

Strategies: 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 8).

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

management of selected species (i.e., threatened and endangered

species), to simplify boundary management, or for mitigation

purposes. Such areas may include upstream riverine riparian areas,

especially 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.

3. Conduct a formal review of Refuge lands to determine if portions of

the Refuge are eligible for designation as “wilderness.”

C3.6 Mineral and Oil Exploration Objectives: Minimize impacts/

threats to the Refuge associated with the development of future rightsof-ways (ROWs) and from mining and gas exploration.

Strategies: 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-by-case

basis. A right-of-way through the Refuge would be denied if feasible

alternative routes were available. If no alternative route were

available. ROWs would be approved or denied based upon their

impacts to wildlife and habitat. Compatibility Determinations must

accompany any ROW determination.
104 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

C4. Cultural Resource Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and

prehistoric cultural sites and objects associated with Refuge lands.

C4.1 Cultural Resource Protection Objectives: Continue

inventorying of Refuge lands for cultural resources and provide quality

interpretation and protection of significant sites.

Strategies: 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 effects 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 8).

5. Update the Refuge historical brochure as new information becomes

available.

6. Maintain the character of the historic viewshed of the Oregon/

Mormon National Historic Trails by minimizing visual impacts during

Refuge development.

7. Identify sites for additional protection and interpretation.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 105

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: Strategies:

1. Encourage the development of a local “Friends” group to support

Refuge goals and assist in future fund raising and cooperative

ventures. Potential groups to approach include the Good Sam’s Club,

Audubon groups, Trout unlimited, and local school and universities.

2. Encourage the development of a cooperative study between

USFWS, BLM, and Reclamation to determine the eligibility and

suitability of 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 with RV hookups.

6. Annually 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 with 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 the 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

Service to assist with wildfire suppression activities.

12. Continue coordination with the American Bird Conservancy (ABC)

to publicize the Refuge’s designation 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.

13. Participate in the Intermountain West Joint Venture of the North

American Waterfowl Management Plan and Wyoming Partners in

Flight Program.

14. Partner with Wyoming Audubon to provide opportunities for

Audubon volunteers to assist with bird monitoring programs.

Explore the opportunity for locating an Audubon Council at the

Refuge.
106 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

V. Implementation and Implementation and

Monitoring Monitoring

Funding and Personnel

Staffing Needed to Implement This Plan: Table 5.1 shows current staff and

proposed additional staffing needed to fully implement this plan. If all

positions were filled, the Refuge would be able to carry out all 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 over the 15-year life of this Plan. Seedskadee NWR is

currently responsible for management of Cokeville Meadows NWR (7,677

acres) which remains an unfunded Refuge.

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan: 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 Seedskadee NWR was $2,271,000. These

needs would need to be met under this plan. A summary 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

T n able 5.1 Staffing Plan

C l d urrent Personnel P d ersonnel Needed

Refuge Manager (Project Leader) GS-12 Refuge Manager (Project Leader) GS-12

Assistant Refuge Manager (ROS) GS-11 Assistant Refuge Manager (ROS) GS-11

A 7 dministrative Support Assistant GS-06 Administrative Assistant GS-0

E 1 cologist GS-06 Ecologist GS-1

Biological Technician (Wildlife) GS-06 Biological Technician (Wildlife) GS-07

Engineering Equipment Operator WG-09 Engineering Equipment Operator WG-10

N 1 ew Position Public Use Specialist GS-09/1

N 9 ew Position Maintenance Mechanic WG-0

New Position Biological Technician GS-5 (Seasonal)
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 107

The System also uses another database, the Refuge Operating Needs System

(RONS). Table 5.2 reflects the Service’s (Refuge’s) proposed projects, in

priority order, as detailed in the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS).

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 Regions for Refuge funding increases. Completed

RONS data sheets for the proposed projects can be found in Appendix C of

this document.

T ) able 5.2 RONS Project Summary for Seedskadee NWR (2000)

P n roject Description

( ) in priority order)

B ) ase Increase (B)

# ) of Year Funds (1-4)

H ) ire Personnel (P)

P d rojected

C t os

Enhance public education and outreach activities B 0 /P $139,00

Control and eradicate noxious weeds B 0 /P $78,00

Maintain public use and refuge facilities B 0 /P $125,00

Improve water level management to enhance wetland impoundments 1 0 $49,00

Improve trumpeter swan management and augmentation program 1 0 -2 $38,00

Improve directional and interpretive signing to enhance visitor

experiences and protect habitat

1 0 $36,00

Enhance refuge brochures and public information 1 0 $29,00

Enhance volunteer and temporary hire housing facility 1 0 $65,00

Implement riparian restoration efforts B 0 $54,00

Provide education outreach displays and protect historic trails 1 0 $40,00

T L OTA $ 0 653,000
108 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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

Project. Funding is generally available for this mitigation work and it is

anticipated that these projects will be completed on or about the schedule

proposed below. None of these “projects” represent increases to the Refuge’s

base funding.

* (Reclamation funding through 2003 - work likely to extend well beyond 2003)

T s able 5.3 Reclamation Cooperative Mitigation Projects

P n roject Description

W e ork Schedule

( ) FY

H s abitat Development Projects

Enhance Pal Unit wetlands 2001-2003

Restore oxbow/other wetlands 2002-2005

Enhance dickes and water control in Hawley Unit 2002-2003

Control pepperweed/restore infested areas 1999-2010

Restore riparian areas 1999-2010*

Rip, seed and restore non-designated roads 2000-2010

Reclaim gravel barrow pit 2006

Enhance volunteer housing by adding air conditioning,

propane heat, mudroom, and screen porch

2002

P s ublic 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 auto tour route 2003-2004

Construct a Lombard Interpretive Trail completed

Construct interpretive trail near headquarters 2002-2005

Revise and reprint refuge brochures 1999-2003

Construct environmental education facility 2001-2003

Construct accessible rest room and associated parking lot

facility at Upper Dodge Bottoms boat ramp

2005

Finish fencing of "roundout" parcels transferred from

Reclamation in 1997/98

2003

Install gates at administrative roads throughout the

Refuge to reduce off-road travel

2002

Cultural resource inventory; document historic sites complete
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 109

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 years and details Refuge development (infrastructure, habitat,

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. Stepdown management plans describe the specific management actions to be

followed, “stepping down” from the general goals, objectives, and strategies.

T s able 5.4 Management Plan Status

P n t la D t ate Last

R d evised

A n e ction R e evis

Refuge Master Plan

(Development Plan 1987)

7 P /87 R 1 eplaced by the CC 200

Station Plan

(with goals and objectives)

8 P /89 R 1 eplaced by the CC 200

R 5 efuge Development Plan 1 P 2/9 R 1 eplaced by the CC 200
110 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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 preparation of new step-down plans or substantial

changes to existing step-down plans typically will require further compliance

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 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 plans 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.

T s able 5.5 Status of Step-down Plans

S n t tep-down Plan D t ate Last

R d evised

O e e bjective R e evis

B 1 eaver Trapping Plan 3 t /8 Review and incorporate into Habita

Management Plan

2004

C w ultural Resource Plan n e e C 6 omplet 200

F 3 ire Management Plan 5 e /8 R 2 eview and revis 200

F 1 ishing Plan with Commercial Guide Sub-plan 3 e /8 R 3 eview and revis 200

G 2 rassland Management Plan 5 t /8 Review and incorporate into Habita

Management Plan

2005

H w abitat Management Plan n e e C 6 omplet 200

H 6 unting Plan 8/8

1990 amended

R 3 eview and revise 200

I 8 ntegrated Pest Management Plan 1 t /9 Review and incorporate into Habita

Management Plan

2003

P 1 redator/Furbearer Management Plan 4 e /9 R 3 eview and revis 200

P w ublic Use/Sign Plan n e e C 4 omplet 200

S 8 afety Plan 7 w /9 R 2 evie 200

W 8 ater Management Plan 1 t /9 Review and incorporate into Habita

Management Plan

2006

W 1 ildlife Inventory Plan 8 e /9 R 4 eview and revis 200

C w ommercial Guide Plan n 0 e D 3 raft complete 200 200
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 111

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 will 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 contributed 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 conducted habitat and biological

surveys, constructed brochure boxes, graded roads, repaired fence, entered

data into computers, completed environmental education programs,

conducted general maintenance, completed numerous wood working

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 completion of

Refuge projects. Many 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

efforts.

Seedskadee NWR has partnered with the Bureau of Reclamation, the

Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Natural Resource

Conservation Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and private

individuals to produce The Green River and Bear River Focus Area Plans of

the Intermountain West Joint Venture. This plan supports projects that

benefit wetland and riparian habitats. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife

(PFW) Program is another example. Through this program, Seedskadee

NWR provides technical assistance to private landowners interested in

improving habitat on their property.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) recently partnered with Seedskadee

NWR to designate the Refuge as a “Nationally” Important Bird Area (IBA)

with the potential of becoming a “Global” 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 support, and potentially increased funding. Seedskadee has already

been listed as an IBA in Wyoming. The National Audubon State Office if

Wyoming has recently established partnerships with the Refuge to complete

projects aimed at protecting and enhancing habitats for birds.
112 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

The Big Sandy Working Group is a group of land managers and private

individuals 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 of the Green River in Wyoming. These partnerships

benefit wildlife and fisheries and their habitats in the Green River Basin.

Many new partnership opportunities await Seedskadee NWR. The Partners

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 extent, a more active role in the

future is anticipated.

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 Wyoming). More outreach in the local communities 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 environmental education as

well 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 community support organization to assist the Refuge in

carrying out its goals and objectives. The Environmental Education center

could provide the catalyst for such a group.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 113

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 management, to results expected from objectives.

Where information gaps exist, a concerted effort will be made to obtain

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. Monitoring will be done to evaluate the effects of public

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 levels and commercial use of the river by permitted 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 management 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 Report” for Seedskadee NWR. A list of projects, 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

development, are detailed in this CCP. Some actions necessary for habitat

mitigation (i.e., riparian restoration) are still in the developmental stages and

therefore specific mitigation actions are not included here but will be part of

later specific 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.
114 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Plan Amendment and Revision

The Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge CCP is a dynamic plan. While 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 5 years, and

monitored continuously to ensure the developed management actions

support 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) database. It may also be reviewed during routine inspections or programmatic 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 115

Environmental Action Statement Environmental Action Statement

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Region 6

Denver, Colorado

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources,

I have established the following administrative record and have determined that the action of implementing the

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is found not to have significant

environmental effects as determined by the attached Finding of No Significant Impact and the Environmental

Assessment as found in the Draft CCP.
116 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 117

Appendix A. Glossary Appendix A. Glossary

Acre-foot: The amount of water required to cover an acre of

land to the depth of 1 foot.

Active nest: Birds initiated nest building but may not have

progressed further.

Adaptive resource management: Management viewed as an

adaptive process involving an array of potential

management actions, set of models representing effects

of actions, measures of uncertainty, and objective

junctions to evaluate actions.

Alkaline: The opposite of acid; having a high pH value.

Alluvial: Relating to river and stream deposits.

Arroyo: A step-sided, flat-bottomed gully cut through

cohesive sediment deposits in arid regions.

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

Blinds: Structures made of artificial or natural materials that

provide visual camouflage for hunters or wildlife viewers

and photographers.

BMN: Refuge bat mist netting records

BP: Before present

Browse: Tender parts of shrubs, woodvines, and trees that

are eaten as food by animals. Browsing is distinct from

grazing because it refers to eating woody material,

whereas grazing is usually restricted to non-woody

plants such as grasses.

Candidate species: Animal or plant species that are being

considered for Federal designation as either threatened

or endangered.

Carrying capacity: The level of visitor use that can be

sustained without degrading visitor experience as well

as minimizing wildlife disturbance.

CCP: Comprehensive Conservation Plan (See Comprehensive

Conservation Plan)

CFS: An abbreviation for water flow measured in cubic feet

per second. A measure of streamflow volume. One cubic

foot is 7.98 gallons. A flow of 1 cfs produces 448.8 gallons

per minute.

Compatible use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent

recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife

refuge that, in the sound professional judgement of the

refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or

detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife

Refuge System mission or the major purposes of the

affected national wildlife refuge.

Conservation: Management of natural resources to provide

maximum benefit over a sustained period of time.

Conservation includes preservation and forms of wise

use, including reducing waste, balanced multiple use,

and recycling.

Comprehensive conservation plan (CCP): The CCP is a

document that describes the desired future condition of

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and

management direction for the refuge manager to

accomplish the purpose of the refuge, contribute to the

mission of the System, and to meet other relevant

mandates.

COE: Corps of Engineers

Core: A specimen of rock, soil, or sediment that has been

extracted by drilling.

CRSP: Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956.

Cultural resource: Evidence of human occupation or activity

that is important in the history, architecture,

archaeology or culture of a community or region.

Dense: A term used to describe the density of vegetation in a

given area and indicates the physical difficulty an animal

would experience while traveling through the habitat.

Desert pavement: A thin layer of coarse particles left on the

surface of unconsolidated sediment after finer particles

have been carried away by wind.

Downcutting: Reduction in sediment and streambed

materials causing an erosive deepening of the active

river channel.

Drawdown: Lowering water levels within a reservoir.

Emergent: Vegetation that is rooted below the water’s

surface but grows above the surface of the water.

Extirpation: The loss or removal of a species from one or

more specific areas but not all areas.

Endangered species (E): Any species whose populations have

been reduced to the point that it is at risk of becoming

extinct over much or all of its range in the near future.

Evapotranspiration: The combined water loss from a biotic

community or ecosystem into the atmosphere caused by

evaporation of water from the soil plus the transpiration

of plants.

Fauna: All the animals of a particular region or a particular

area.

Fee-title: Acquiring total, unrestricted ownership of a parcel

of land.

Flora: All the plants in a particular region or a particular

area.

Forage: Food for animals, especially that obtained by grazing

or browsing. Also, to look for food.

FTE: Full-time employee

Game species: Huntable wildlife

Geographic Information System (GIS): Through the use of

computer technology, GIS allows the input, storage,

analysis, and display of a variety of physically locatable

data, i.e., data which is known to exist at some specific

place or area on the ground.
118 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

gpm: Gallons per minute

Habitat: The place where an animal or plant normally lives or

grows, usually characterized either by physical features

or by dominant plants.

Herbaceous: Resembling an herb, a green, leafy plant that

does not produce persistent woody tissue. Herbaceous

plants form the lowest layer of vegetation in most plant

communities.

HSP: Harriman State Park

High succession: Relatively complex, stable communities

composed of populations of many different species of

plants, animals, birds, insects, and microorganisms.

Usually highly stable in that populations of member

species tend to replace themselves over time and are

resilient to distress.

Horsepower: Traditional unit for measuring the ability of an

engine to do work in the foot-pound-second system, now

usually replaced by the watt.

Interpret: Signs and structures that provide information on

the natural environment and cultural resources for the

convenience, education, and enjoyment of the visiting

public.

Invertebrate: An animal without a backbone or internal body

skeleton.

IPM: Integrated pest management

Kilowatt: One thousand watts. One kilowatt is approximately

1.34 horsepower.

Kiosk: A structure used to provide public information.

Loam: A general term for a soil mixture containing sand, silt,

and clay in nearly equal parts.

Macrophyte: A large plant, as opposed to small and

microscopic plants such as algae.

Maintenance Management System (MMS): The MMS is a

national database which contains the unified

maintenance needs of each refuge.

Marsh: Lowland that is occasionally covered by water. A

marsh differs from a swamp in that it is dominated by

rushes, reeds, cattails, and sedges with few, if any woody

plants. It differs from a bog in having soil rather than

peat as its base.

Migratory corridor: Route by which migratory birds move

from one place to another.

Mitigation: Avoiding or minimizing impacts by limiting the

degree or magnitude of the action and its

implementation. Also, rectifying the impact by repairing,

rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment and

reducing or eliminating the impact through preservation

and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

Monoculture: A method of farming in which one type of crop

is grown on a large area over a number of years, or a

plantation devoted to one species of trees. Monoculture

results in the reduction in the diversity of associated

animal species, including beneficial insect predators; it

increases pest and disease.

Morphology: Study of the structure and form of an organism.

Multiple-use: Principle of managing public land such as a

national forest so that it is used simultaneously for a

variety of purposes such as timbering, mining, recreation,

grazing, wildlife preservation, and soil and water

conservation.

Neotropical migrants: Birds that migrate north in the

summer and winter in South or Central America.

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

Nongame species: Non-huntable wildlife

Noxious weeds: A plant species that is undesirable or causes

conflicts with native species.

NWI: National Wetlands Inventory

NWPCP: National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan

NWRS: National Wildlife Refuge System

Open ponded water: Wetland classification that indicates all

ponds and lakes that are entirely free of permanent

vegetation.

Overstory: Uppermost layer of vegetation in a forest, formed

by the leaves and the branches of the highest trees. The

overstory contributes to the entire canopy.

Patchy: A term that describes the dispersion of vegetation

within a given area and the relative level of difficulty

that an animal traveling through the area would

experience. See dense.

PIF: Partners in Flight

Prescribed burning: Controlled application of fire to wildland

fuels, either their natural or modified state, under such

conditions as to allow the fire to be confined to a

predetermined area while producing the intensity of

heat and rate of spread required to achieve planned

management objectives.

Priority public use: See wildlife-dependent recreational use.

Provinces: Natural regions that share similar climate, soils,

topography, and vegetation.

Raptors: A bird of prey, such as an eagle or hawk.

reclamation: A general term for the filling, grading, and

reseeding or replanting of land that has been disturbed.

Reclamation: United States Bureau of Reclamation

Refuge Administration Act: National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS): The RONS is a

national database which contains the unified operational

needs of each refuge.

Relief: A general reference to the degree of variation in

elevation between parts of a landscape.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 119

Resident migrants/songbirds: Birds that migrate generally

between elevations, but remain within the same general

area such as the Tropic of Cancer.

Riparian: A term pertaining to features or land use along the

banks of a stream or river.

RMIS: A collection of databases containing information on

the resources, needs, activities, and accomplishments of

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

RONS: See Refuge Operating Needs System

ROW: Right-of-way

RRL: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Sandy loam: Any loam that contains at least 70 percent sand

and less than 15 percent clay particles.

SCORP: State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

Service: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

SOP: Standard operating procedure

Sound professional judgement: A finding, determination, or

decision that is consistent with the principles of sound

fish and wildlife management and administration,

available science and resources, and adherence to the

requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge

Improvement Act and other applicable laws.

sp.: Species

spp.: Subspecies

Species of Special Concern: Plants and animals are

considered “species of special concern” if they are

vulnerable to extirpation at the global or state level due

to: 1) inherent rarity (restricted geographic range, small

population size, low population density, or specialized

habitat requirements), and 2) significant loss of habitat,

or sensitivity to human-caused mortality or habitat

disturbances.

Step-down management plans: Step-down management plans

deal with specific management subjects such as habitat,

public use, and safety. Step-down management describe

the management strategies and implementation

schedules.

Story: A layer of vegetation within an area.

Structural diversity: Variations in the physical

characteristics of an environment that create a variety

of habitats within a community, increasing the diversity

of species that can live there.

Substrate: Surface or medium that serves as a base for

something. Substrate refers to the nutrient medium for

an organism, or to a physical structure on which it

grows.

Sustained yield: A level of harvest of a renewable resource

per year (or any other time period) that can be

continued without jeopardizing the ability of the

ecosystem to be fully renewed, and thus to continue to

provide an undiminished level of harvest each year long

into the future.

Terrestrial: Of or relating to the land rather than water; the

opposite of aquatic. Terrestrial organisms live or grow

on land.

Threatened species: A species that is not currently in danger

of extinction but is likely to be in the foreseeable future.

The status is determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

Trona: soda ash

Turbidity: A lack of clarity in a fluid, usually caused by

turbulent flow picking up large quantities of particulate.

Two-track road: Unsurfaced road

Understory: The lowest layer of trees in a forest; the layer

between the overstory tree layer and the shrub layer.

Uneconomic remnants: These are lands outside the Refuge

boundary purchased from private parties as parts of

larger parcels within the boundary.

Ungulate: Describing hoofed animals that usually graze, such

as horses, deer, or cows.

Upland: Area where water usually does not collect or flow on

an extended basis. The opposite of wetlands.

Upland game: Animal species, especially game animals such

as bighorn sheep, living in mountainous areas.

Vertebrate: Distinguished by possession of cartilagineous or

bony, axial endoskeleton that forms a brain case and a

vertebral column supporting the nerve cord.

Viewshed: A landscape unit seen from a key viewing area.

Weed: Any plant growing where it is not wanted, usually a

wild plant that grows without much cultivation or care

and may be invasive in cultivated areas.

Wetlands: Areas of land that are covered with water for at

least part of the year, have characteristically hydric soils,

and have one of a number of distinctive vegetation types:

swamps marshes, salt marshes (and other coastal

wetlands), and bogs. Wetlands have important functions

including purifying the water that recharges the

aquifers, providing food and habitat for many different

species, and providing temporary stopover sites for

migrating waterfowl and other waterbirds.

WFS: Refuge Waterfowl Surveys

Wildlife-dependent recreational use: A use of a refuge

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, or environmental education and

interpretation. These uses are the six priority general

public uses of the Refuge System as established in the

Refuge Administration Act.

WOL: Refuge Wildlife Observation Log

WYG&F: Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WYWS: Wyoming Wetland Society Trumpeter Swan Fund
120 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

GLOSSARY - SPECIAL STATUS DEFINITIONS: Definitions for Tables 3.4 and 3.7. TUS DEFINITIONS

Species conservation status (Heritage Ranks, Federal and State status) cited from Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

(WYNDD). 2001. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

PIF Ranks cited from Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley. 2000. Wyoming DRAFT Bird Conservation

Plan. Wyoming Partners in Flight, Lander, WY.

Heritage Ranks

WYNDD uses a standardized ranking system developed by The Nature Conservancy’s Natural Heritage Network to assess

the global and statewide conservation status of each plant and animal species, subspecies, and variety. Each taxon is ranked

on a scale of 1-5, from highest conservation concern to lowest. Codes are as follows:

G Global rank: Rank refers to the rangewide status of a species. G

T Trinomial rank: Rank refers to the rangewide status of a subspecies or variety. T

S State rank: Rank refers to the status of the taxon (species or subspecies) in Wyoming. State ranks differ from state to S

state.

1 Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (often known from 5 or fewer extant occurrences or very few remaining 1

individuals) or because some factor of a species’ life history makes it vulnerable to extinction.

2 Imperiled because of rarity (often known from 6 to 20 occurrences) or because of factors demonstrably making a species 2

vulnerable to extinction.

3 Rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (usually known from 21 to 100 occurrences). 3

4 Apparently secure, although the species may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. 4

5 Demonstrably secure, although the species may be rare in parts of its range, specially at the periphery. 5

H Known only from historical records. 1950 is the cutoff for plants; 1970 is the cutoff date for animals. H

X Believed to be extinct. X

A Accidental or vagrant: A taxon that is not known to regularly breed in the state or which appears very infrequently A

(typically refers to birds and bats).

B Breeding rank: A state rank modifier indicating the status of a migratory species during the breeding season (used B

mostly for migratory birds and bats)

N Nonbreeding rank: A state rank modifier indicating the status of a migratory species during the non-breeding season Nonbreeding rank

(used mostly for migratory birds and bats)

ZN or ZB Taxa that are not of significant concern in Wyoming during breeding (ZB) or non-breeding (ZN) seasons. Such ZN or ZB

taxa often are not encountered in the same locations from year-to-year.

U Possibly in peril, but status uncertain; more information is needed. U

Q Questions exist regarding the taxonomic validity of a species, subspecies, or variety. Q

? Questions exist regarding the assigned G, T, or S rank of a taxon. ?

Federal Status

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) is directed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to identify and protect

Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species. USFWS revised its candidate system in 1996, eliminating the old

categories of C2 and 3C. The following categories are now being used to rank listed and candidate species:

Endangered Defined in the ESA as a species, subspecies, or variety in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant Endangered

portion of its range.

Threatened Defined in the ESA as a Threatened species, subspecies, or variety likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

E/SA Treated as endangered due to similarity of appearance with a listed species. E/SA

Proposed Taxa formally proposed for listing as Proposed Endangered or Threatened (a proposal has been published in the

Federal Register, but not a final rule).

Candidate (formerly C1): Taxa for which substantial biological information exists on file to support a proposal to list as Candidate

Endangered or Threatened, but no proposal has yet been published in the Federal Register.

State Status

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WYG&F) has developed a matrix of habitat and population variables to

determine the conservation priority of all native, breeding bird and mammal species in the state. Six classes of Species of

Special Concern (SSC) are recognized, of which classes 1, 2, and 3 are considered to be high priorities for conservation

attention.

These classes can be defined as follows:

SSC1 Includes species with on-going significant loss of habitat and with populations that are greatly restricted or declining SSC1

(extirpation appears possible).

SSC2 Species in which (1) habitat is restricted or vulnerable (but no recent or significant loss has occurred) and SSC2

populations are greatly restricted or declining; or (2) species with on-going significant loss of habitat and populations

that are declining or restricted in numbers and distribution (but extirpation is not imminent).

SSC3 Species in which (1) habitat is not restricted, but populations are greatly restricted or declining (extirpation appears SSC3

possible); or (2) habitat is restricted or vulnerable (but no recent or significant loss has occurred) and populations are

declining or restricted in numbers or distribution (but extirpation is not imminent); or (3) significant habitat loss is

on-going but the species is widely distributed and population trends are thought to be stable.

SSC4 Species of Special Concern but are not a high priority for conservation attention. SSC4
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 121

Partners In Flight (PIF)

Partner’s In Flight (PIF) was formed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in 1990 to develop Bird Conservation

Plans in each state to keep common birds common and reverse the downward trends of declining species. Priority species

were ranked using 7 criteria, which include relative abundance, breeding distribution, non-breeding distribution, threats on

the breeding grounds, threats on non-breeding grounds, population trend, and area of importance.

Priority species are defined as follows:

Level 1 (Conservation Action) Species needs conservation action. Includes species of which Wyoming has a high percentage (Conservation Action)

of and responsibility for the breeding population, monitoring, and the need for additional knowledge through

research into basic natural history, distribution, etc.

Level 2 (Monitoring) (Monitoring) The action and focus for the species is monitoring. Includes species of which Wyoming has a high (Monitoring) 

percentage of and responsibility for the breeding population, species whose stability may be unknown, species that

are peripheral for breeding in the habitat or state, or additional knowledge may be needed.
122 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix B. Bibliography Appendix B. Bibliography

Literature Cited

Auble, G. T. and M. L. Scott. 1998. Preliminary Results from

Comparison of Cottonwood Communities Upstream and

Downstream of Fontenelle Dam on Green River, WY.

Unpublished

Bartels, W. S. 1991. Early middle Eocene (Bridger A), lower

vertebrates from the southern Green River Basin,

Wyoming. [Abst] Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v.

11, p. 16A.

Berk, D. 1998. Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

Vegetation Inventory, Technical Memorandum No. 8260-

98-01, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation.

Bitterroot Consultants. 1996. Draft Feasibility for Riparian

Restoration at Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge,

Corvallis, MT. 30p.

Bureau Of Land Management. 1997. Green River Resource

Management Plan and ROD. Rock Springs, WY

Colorado River Storage Project Act. 1956. 43 U.S.C. 620

§620g. Recreational and fish and wildlife facilities.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E.

Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin

28(4): 967-985.

Constanza, Robert, R. d’Agre, R. deGroot, S. Faber, M.

Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limberg, S. Naeem, R. O’Neil, J.

Paruelo, R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997.

The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural

capital. Nature. Vol. 387.

Federal Register. Vol 35. No. 102 Public Land Order 4834,

Wyoming, Withdrawal for Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge.

Frison, G. C. 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains.

Academic Press, New York, New York, USA.

Frison, G. C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains.

Second Edition, Academic Press, New York, New York,

USA.

Grande, L. 1984. Paleontology of the Green River Formation,

with a review of the fish fauna. Geological Survey of

Wyoming Bulletin. 63:1-133.

Gunnell, G. F. and W. S. Bartels. 1994. Early Bridgerian

(middle Eocene) vertebrate paleontology and paleoecology of

the southern Green River Basin, Wyoming. Contributions

to Geology, University of Wyoming, 30: 57-69

Laubhan, M. 1997. Report on Green River Refuges.

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Internal Report.

Leidy, J. L. 1871. On the fossil vertebrates of the early

Tertiary Formations of Wyoming. Report of the U. S.

Geological Survey of the Territories. 4:353-372.

_____. 1869. Notice of some extinct vertebrates from

Wyoming and Dakota. Academy Natural Sciences,

Philadelphia, Proceedings, v. 21, p. 63-67.

MacGinitie, H. D. 1969. The Eocene Green River Flora of

northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah.

University of California. Geological Sciences. 83:140 p.

Matthew, W. D. 1909. The Carnivora and Insectivora of the

Bridger Basin, middle Eocene: Memoirs America

Museum Natural History. 9: 289-567.

Miller, J. C. and M. Kornfeld. 1996. Salvage Excavations of

48SW4141 Dodge Bottom Interpretive Road

Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Technical Report No. 13

Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, Wyoming.

Parrish, T. L. 1988. Mountain Plover habitat selection in the

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. M.S. thesis. University

of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 60 pages.

Parrish, T. L., S. H. Anderson, and W. F. Oelklaus. 1993.

Mountain Plover habitat selection in the Powder River

Basin, Wyoming. Prairie Naturalist 25:219-226.

Pioneer Environmental Services. 1997. Seedskadee National

Wildlife Refuge Wildlife - Habitat Matrix and Species

Accounts. Logan, UT. 567pp.

Roehler, H. W. 1993. Eocene climates, depositional

environments, and geography, Greater Green River

Basin, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. U.S. Geological

Survey Professional Paper 1506-F, 14 p.

_____. 1992c. Correlation, composition, areal distribution and

thickness of Eocene stratigraphic units, Greater Green

River Basin, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. U.S.

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1506-E, 49 p.

Ryan, T. 1998. USBR. Personal Communication with Bear

West, Salt Lake City, UT.

Sullivan, R. 1980. A stratigraphic evaluation of the Eocene

rocks of southwestern Wyoming: Geological Survey of

Wyoming Report of Investigations 20. 50 p.

Taylor, D. T. 1996. Summer Visitors in Sweetwater County

Wyoming. University of Wyoming. Cooperative

Extension Service.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997. Public Law 105-57. 16 U.S.C. 668dd.

The White House Executive Order 12996- Management and

General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge

System, 1996.

Thompson, K. W. and J. V. Pastor. May 1995. People of the

Sage: 10,000 Years of Occupation in Southwest

Wyoming. Cultural Resource Management Report No.

67. Archeological Services, Western Wyoming

Community College.

USDI, BLM. 1992. Green River Resource Area Resource

Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Rock Springs Bureau of Land Management,

Rock Springs, WY.

USDI, BOR. 1959. Seedskadee Project Wyoming Definite

Plan Report, Appendix B Water Supply Plan

Formulation. Region 4, Salt Lake City, Utah.

USDI, USFWS. 1982. National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge Manual. Washington D.C.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 123

USDI, USFWS. 1989-1996. Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge Annual Narrative Reports. National Wildlife

Refuge System. Unpublished.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries

and Wildlife. 1958. A report on fish and wildlife

resources in relation to the plan for the Seedskadee

Project Green River, WY. Southwest Region

Albuquerque, NM. 37 pp with Appendix A (6 pp).

U.S. Forest Service. 1989. An Analysis of the Outdoor

Recreation and Wilderness Situation in the United

States: 1989-2040.

United States v. Hells Canyon Guide Service; United States

District Court, District of Oregon; Civil No. 79-743; 5-6;

1979.

United States v. Brown; 552 F.2d 822; 8th Cir. 1977.

United States v. Armstrong; No. 99-1190; 8th Cir. 1999.

West, R. M. 1976. Paleontology and geology of the Bridger

Formation, southern Green River Basin, southwestern

Wyoming. Part 1. History of field work and geological

setting. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in

Biology and Geology. 7:1-12.

Literature References (not cited in text)

Auble, G. T., M. L. Scott, and J. Friedman. 1997. Notes on

Impacts of Fontenelle Dam on Cottonwood

Regeneration at Seedskadee NWR. Unpublished.

Bailey, R. G. 1978. Description of the Ecoregions of the

United States. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain

Region. Ogden, UT. 77pp.

Bean, M. J. 1983. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law.

Praeger Publishers. New York, New York, USA.

Blackstone, D. L., Jr. 1980. Tectonic map of the Overthrust

Belt, Western Wyoming, Southeastern Idaho and

northeastern Utah showing current oil and gas drilling

and development. The Geological Survey of Wyoming

Map Series 8, Scale 1:316,800.

Bradley, W. H. 1964. Geology of Green River Formation and

associated rocks in southwestern Wyoming and adjacent

parts of Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 496-A, p. A1-A86.

Buchanan, T. and M. Kamby. 1990. University of Wyoming

Department of Geography and Recreation, 1990

Wyoming DRAFT State Comprehensive Outdoor

Recreation Plan (SCORP), Department of Commerce.

Buchheim, H. P. and R. C. Surdam. 1977. Fossil catfish and

the depositional environment of the Green River

Formation. Wyoming. Geology. 5:196-198.

Buchheim, H. P. 1981. Paleoenvironments and fossil fishes of

the Laney Member, Green River Formation, Wyoming.

Pages 415-452 in J. Gray, A. J. Boucot, and W. B. N.

Berry, editors. Communities of the Past. Stroudsburg.

Pennsylvania, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., USA.

De Voto, B. A. 1947. Across the wide Missouri. Houghton

Mifflin, Boston, 451 p.

DeBruin, R. H. and C. Boyd. 1991. Oil and gas map of

Wyoming. The Geological Survey of Wyoming, Map

Series 35, scale 1:500,000.

Dover, J. H., and J. W. M’Gonigle. 1993. Geologic Map of the

Evanston 30Ex 60E Quadrangle, Uinta and Sweetwater

Counties, Wyoming. U. S. Geological Survey.

Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-2168, scale

1:100,000.

Fremont, J. C. 1845. The exploring expedition to the Rocky

Mountains in the year 1842 and to Oregon and North

California in the years 1843-44. Senate Executive

Document 174, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, 693 p.

Friedman, J. M., M. L. Scott, and G. T. Auble. 1997. Water

Management and Cottonwood Forest Dynamics Along

Prairie Streams. Pages 49-71 in Knopf, F. L., and F. B.

Samson, eds., Ecology and Conservation of Great Plains

Vertebrates. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.

Gilmer, D. R., J. C. Case, L. A. Coombs, and L. L. Larsen.

1991. Landslide map of the Ogden 1E x 2E Quadrangle.

The Geological Survey of Wyoming, Open File Report

91-2M, scale 1:250,000.

Grande, L. 1994. Studies of paleoenvironments and historical

biogeography in the Fossil Butte and Laney members of

the Green River Formation. Contributions to Geology,

University of Wyoming. 30:14-32.

Harris, R. E., W.D . Hausel, and J. E. Meyer. 1985. Metallic

and industrial minerals map of Wyoming. The Geological

Survey of Wyoming, Map Series 14, scale 1:500,000.

Hickman, B. J. 1983. A cultural resource investigation of the

Farson-Fontenelle Road in Sweetwater County,

Wyoming. Office of the Wyoming State Archaeologist,

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Project No. WY78-82. Hwy Project No. WHD (SCP-7876). 133 pp.

Howe, J., E. McMahon, and L. Propst. 1997. Balancing

Nature and commerce in gateway communities. Island

Press. Washington D. C. 153 pp.

Intermountain West Joint Venture Implementation Plan.

1995. A component of the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan. 24pp + appendices.

Lazerwitz, D. J. 1994. Bones of Contention: The regulation of

paleontological resources on the federal public lands.

Indiana Law Journal. 69:601-636.

Leidy, J. L. 1870. Notice of remains of fishes in the Bridger

Tertiary Formation of Wyoming. Philadelphia

Department of Geology, Academy of Natural Sciences,

Proceedings. 25: 97-99.

Miller, J. C. and M. Kornfeld. 1996. Salvage excavations of

48SW4141 Dodge Bottom Interpretive Road

Sweetwater County, WY. Department of Anthropology,

University of Wyoming. Technical Report No. 13. 49 pp.

Oakleaf B., A. O. Cerovski, and B. Luce. 1996. Nongame bird

and mammal plan. Wyoming Game and Fish

Department. 177pp.

Osborn, H. F. 1931. Cope: Master Naturalist. Princeton

University Press, Princeton, N.J.,USA. 740 p.

Osborn, H. F., W. B. Scott, and R. F. Speir. 1878.

Paleontological report of the Princeton Scientific

Expedition 1877. Contributions Museum Archaeology,

Princeton College, NJ, USA. 107 p.
124 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Osborn, H. F. 1913. Joseph Leidy: National Academy

Biographical Memoirs. 7:339-396.

Roberts, S. 1989. Wyoming Geomaps. Education Series 1, 41 p.

Roehler, H. W. 1991. Revised stratigraphic nomenclature for

the Wasatch and Green River Formations in Geology of

the Eocene Wasatch, Green River, and Bridger

(Washakie) Formations, Green River Basin, Wyoming,

Utah, and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional

Paper 1506-B, 38 p.

Scott, W. B. 1939. Some memories of a paleontologist.

Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. . 336 p.

Scott, M. L., M. A. Wondzell, and G. T. Auble. 1993.

Hydrograph Characteristics Relevant to the

Establishment and Growth of Western Riparian

Vegetation. Pages 237-246 in H. J. Morel-Seytoux ed.,

Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual American

Geophysical Union Hydrology Days. Hydrology Days

Publications, Altherton, CA.

Soil Conservation Service. 1957. Seedskadee Project

Wyoming Soil Survey Report. Casper, WY. 118 pp.

State of Wyoming, Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

1994. Loss of trout in side channels of the Green River

below Fontanelle Dam during February, 1994. WYG&F

Administrative Report.

State of Wyoming, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,

Nongame Bird and Mammal Plan. October 1996.

USDI, BLM. 1985. Draft resource management plan/

environmental impact statement for the Kemmerer

Resource Area oil, Kemmerer, Wyoming. Prepared by

BLM Kemmerer Resources Area, Kemmerer, Wyoming,

217 p.

USDI, BLM. 1986. Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National

Historic Trails Management Plan. 65pp.

USDI, BLM. 1979. Kemmerer Resource Area oil and gas

leasing environmental assessment record. Prepared by

BLM Kemmerer Resources Area, Kemmerer, Wyoming.

USDI, BLM. 1991. Amoco Production Company Moxa Arch

Natural Gas Production Project Environmental

Assessment and Decision Record (WY-047-EA-91-47).

Prepared by BLM Kemmerer Resources Area,

Kemmerer, Wyoming, 122 p.

USDI, BLM. 1992. Supplemental Environmental Assessment

to Amoco Production Company Moxa Arch Natural Gas

Production Project (WY-047 -EA-92-114). prepared by

BLM Kemmerer Resources Area, Kemmerer, Wyoming,

62 p.

USDI, BOR. 1972. Seedskadee Project Wyoming Definite

Plan Report. Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City

Utah. 58 pp.

USDI, USFWS. 1995. Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge,

Refuge Development Plan.

USDI, USFWS. 1996-1997. Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge Annual Predator Management Report.

Unpublished.

USDI, USFWS. 1993. Land Acquisition - Decision Document

for 1,800 acres expansion.

USDI, USFWS. 1996. Seedskadee NWR Refuge Expansion -

Preliminary Project Proposal. Includes discussion of

transfer of 1,346 lands from USBR to the Service.

USDI, USFWS. 1996. Refuges and Wildlife, Report

regarding Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Public

Use Minimum Requirements Evaluation.

USDI, USFWS. 1992. Final Biological Opinion of Flaming

Gorge Dam.

USDI, 1966. Memorandum of Agreement Between the

USBR and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

concerning the establishment of a compatible common

boundary between the SNWR and adjoining Farm Units

on the Seedskadee Project, WY. Contract N4-06-400-

4402.

University of Wyoming, 1996. Recreation on BLM Lands in

Southwest Wyoming Per Unit Economic Values for

Outdoor Recreation Big Game Hunting in Southwest

Wyoming, Wyoming Mineral Tax Revenue from

Southwest Wyoming, Southwest Wyoming PaymentsIn-Lieu of Payments (PILT), Economic Impacts Per

Unit of Economic Activity. College of Agriculture

Cooperative Extension Service, Department of

Agricultural Economics, Laramie, WY, USA.

Wyoming Geological Survey. 1973. Geology of Sweetwater

County. County Resource Series 2- Sweetwater County,

Wyoming. Scale 1:500,000.

Literature cited in Appendix L

Beck, G. 1999. Perennial Pepperweed and Hoary Cress in

Colorado. Pages 19-24 in. Proceedings: National

Symposium on Tall Whitetop -1999. Alamosa, Colorado.

47 pp.

Madson, C. 2001. What does the future hold for our wildlife?

A Quiet Crisis. Wyoming Wildlife (September). 38 pp.

Renz, M.J. and J.M. DiTomaso. 1999. Seasonal Carbohydrate

Translocation Patterns of Perennial Pepperweed

(Lepidium latifolium) and Implications for Control in

California. Pages 31-36 in Proceedings: National

Symposium on Tall Whitetop - 1999. Alamosa, Colorado.

47 pp.

USDI, BLM. 1996. Green River Resource Area Resource

Management Plan and Final Environemental Impact

Statement. Volume 1 of 2. 602 pp.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 125

R s ONS Projects

R S ON

N . o

G r oal or

O e bjective

P n n roject Description C n onstruction

F g unding

F t irs

Y r ea

N d ee

R g ecurring

A l nnua

N d ee

F * TE

0 , 0001 A1, A2.1, A2.4

A2.5, B2.1, B2.2,

B2.3

Improve water level management to enhance

wetland impoundments

$49,000

0 , 0002 C1.1, C1.2, C2.1

C3.1, C3.2, C3.3,

C4.1

Improve directional and interpretive signing to

enhance visitor experience and protect habitats

$36,000

0 1 0003 C d 2.1, C3.1, C4. Provide education outreach displays an

protect historic trails

$40,000

9 1 7002 A d 2.1, B4. Improve trumpeter swan management an

augmentation program

$38,000

9 1 7006 B y 5. Control and eradicate noxious weeds b

utilizing sustainable methods

$ 0 78,000 $ 5 40,00 .

9 , 7014 A2.4, A2.5, B1.1

B1.2, B1.3, B2.4,

B4.2

Implement riparian restoration efforts $ 0 54,000 $50,00

9 , 8008 C1.1, C2.1, C3.1

C3.3, C5.1

Enhance public education and outreach

activities

$ 0 139,000 $ 0 74,00 1.

9 , 8009 C1, C1.1, C1.2

C3.1, C2.1, C4.1

Maintain public use and Refuge facilities on

Seedskadee and Cokeville Meadows NWRs

$ 0 125,000 $ 0 60,00 1.

9 , 9003 C1.1, C1.2, C2.1

C3.1, C4.1

Enhance Refuge brochures and public

information

$29,000

9 5 9005 C g Enhance volunteer and temporary hire housin

facility

$65,000

0 , 1001 C1, C1.1, C1.2

C2, C3

E 0 nhance auto-tour roads $155,00

0 1 1002 C w 1.1, C3.1, C4. Design and install intrepretive display at ne

refuge visitor/education center

$140,000

Totals $ 0 948,000 $ 5 224,00 2.

* FTE = Full Time Equivalency

Appendix C. RONS and MMS Projects Appendix C. RONS and MMS Projects

The following two tables show the top 10 RONS projects and the top 19 MMS projects associated with the CCP. The “Goal or

Objective” column on the tables link back to the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies section in the CCP. For further information

on these projects, please contact the Refuge Manager.
126 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

M s MS Projects

M S M

N . e o G n oal or Objective D n t escription C t os

0 5 0001 A k 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 1980 auto car tractor truc $140,000

0 5 0002 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace deteriorating 1991 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup truck $40,000

0 5 0003 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace over-used 1991 4x4 Chevy extended cab truck $40,000

0 5 0004 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace worn-out 1981 International 6-yard dump truck $120,000

0 5 0005 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace deteriorated 4x2 Dodge pickup truck $40,000

0 1 0006 A2.1, B1.1, C1.1, C2.1, C3. Replace worn-out John Deere 850 tractor/crawler $230,000

0 5 0007 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 1981 John Deere 550 tractor/crawler (dozer) $150,000

0 5 0008 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace deteriorating 1980 Case front-end loader $165,000

0 2 0009 C1.1, C1.2, C2.1, C3. Replace worn-out 1979 road grader with 12 foot blade $200,000

0 1 0010 A2.1, A2.4, A2.5, B2. Replace water control structure at Pool 5 of the Hawley Weltand

Impoundment

$15,000

0 1 0011 A2.1, A2.4, A2.5, B2. Rehabilitate 8,000 feet of Hamp 2-C dike to improve wetland

management

$320,000

0 1 0012 C1.1, C2.1, C4. Restore 1922 Dodge suspension bridge remaining support structure $25,000

0 2 0014 A2.1, B2.1, C1.1, C2.1, C3. Replace outdated and worn-out 80 hp 1969 John Deere tractor $200,000

0 5 0015 A s 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace six hand-held radioe $18,000

9 3 5008 C Paint interior and exterior of shop building $20,000

9 1 7001 C3, C5. Rehabilitate residence lawns, windows, windbreaks, and cooling $70,000

9 5 9004 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace worn-out all terrain vehicles (ATVs) $18,000

0 5 1001 A r 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 4x4 Chevy Blaze $38,000

0 5 1002 A n 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 4x4 Chevy Suburba $45,000

0 5 1003 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace Dodge Ram 4x4 V8-3800 magnum fire truck $65,000

0 5 1004 A k 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 1999 4x4 Silverado pickup truc $40,000

0 5 1005 A k 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 1999 4x4 Silverado pickup truc $40,000

0 5 1006 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 1999 4x4 Chevy extended cab pickup with portable fuel tank $45,000

0 5 1007 A1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 1999 4x4 Ford SUP chassis 162 super-duty maintenance truck

- diesel

$50,000

0 5 1008 A k 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 2000 12 cubic yard dump truc $118,000

0 5 1009 A k 1-A2; B1-B4; C1-C Replace 2000 Chevy flatbed 4x4 truc $40,000
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 127

Purpose(s) for which Established: Each refuge within the

National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is managed to

fulfill the mission of the 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

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 wildlife-dependent activities.

The two pieces of enabling legislation are:

1. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: “. . . shall be

administered by him/her (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 Storage Act (section 8): “In connection

with the development of the Colorado River Storage

Project (CRSP) and of the participating projects, the

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 Storage Project or participating

projects 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 by such means as are consistent with

primary purposes of said 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

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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 fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and

their habitats within the

United States for the

benefit of present and

future generations of

Americans.”

Appendix D. Compatibility Appendix D. Compatibility

Determinations Determinations

Station Name: Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

(NWR): Established November 30, 1965.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Seedskadee

NWR, located in Sweetwater County in southwestern

Wyoming, was authorized under the provisions of Section 8

of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956,

Public Law 485 of the 84th Congress, 2nd Session. Section 8 of

the Act specifically authorizes and directs the Secretary of

the Interior to plan, develop, and maintain facilities for

recreation and fish and wildlife conservation in connection

with the BOR’s Colorado River Storage Project and to

purchase lands and withdraw public lands for these purposes.

The Refuge is intended to restore prime waterfowl and

wildlife habitat lost through the construction of Fontenelle

and Flaming Gorge Reservoirs.

The Director approved acquisition of Seedskadee NWR on

June 11, 1958. It was established November 30, 1965, with

the purchase of the first tract of private land.

This goose, designed by J.N.

“Ding” Darling, has become

the symbol of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.
128 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Description of Proposed Use: Wildlife Observation,

Wildlife Photography, Environmental Interpretation

and Environmental Education

The Refuge strives to provide opportunities that support

wildlife-dependent recreation, education, and outreach to the

public. Approximately 6,000 visitors come to Seedskadee

National Wildlife Refuge annually for wildlife/wildland

observation, photography, and interpretation/education. The

majority of the use is focused on the auto-tour route located

near the Refuge headquarters, the auto-tour route near

Upper Dodge Bottoms, Lombard Ferry interpretive site, and

visitors completing scenic floats on the Green River.

Interpretation and environmental education services are

provided when staff are available and include talks or guided

tours for school groups, scouts, 4-H clubs, and special interest

groups. The public is invited to a variety of special events

sponsored by the Refuge including Take A Kid Fishing Day,

International Migratory Bird Day, National Wildlife Refuge

Week, etc.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes to continue

with the above uses and add the following to improve wildlife

viewing, interpretation, and access for visitors:

■ Build an Education/Visitor Center Building adjacent to

the Headquarters to expand the visitor center displays,

group presentation area, and wildlife viewing

opportunities.

■ Develop an interpretive trail at the Lombard Ferry

Historical Site to further interpret this site.

■ Develop an interpretive trail near the headquarters to

interpret historical sites and wildlife habitat areas.

■ Assist schools by conducting limited Refuge

environmental education programs.

■ Develop new Refuge brochures and update old

brochures to meet new Service standards.

■ Develop a River interpretive boat trail brochure.

■ Develop interpretive panels at a minimum of five

pullouts along the auto tour routes.

■ Develop teacher workshops to help teachers educate

students about the Refuge’s natural resources.

■ Improve four existing boat ramps located on the Refuge

and work with cooperators to establish boat ramps offRefuge.

■ Continue participation in “special community events”

like the Green River Annual Fly Swap, Take a Kid

Fishing Day, etc.

■ Improve auto pullouts along Refuge roads which offer

optimum wildlife viewing opportunities.

■ Provide the Refuge General Public Use Brochure at 15

primary Refuge entrances - the brochure will provide a

map showing designated roads and list all Refuge

regulations.

■ Develop a road marker system to facilitate navigation on

Refuge roads and reduce off-road travel.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, resources are stretched to continue the existing

wildlife-dependent recreation. An outdoor recreation planner

is required to meet the Refuge’s current demands. The

additional items to be added from the Comprehensive

Conservation Plan are tied to funding requests in the form of

the attached RONS and MMS projects (Appendix C).

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in areas of the Refuge

frequented by visitors. A majority of the use that occurs on

the Refuge occurs along the 15 mile auto-tour route, the 8

mile loop road at Upper Dodge Bottoms, the 18 mile East

River Road, and on the first 15 miles of Green River which

flows through the Refuge. The remaining areas receive

minimal use and disturbance. Primary wildlife species

disturbed by vehicles, floaters, and hikers are pronghorn

antelope, moose, mule deer, raptors, sage grouse, waterfowl,

trumpeter swans, and rabbits.

Construction of interpretive facilities, a new education center,

and improved roads will result in the loss of a small portion of

wildlife habitat. The improved roads may increase both the

amount of traffic and vehicle speeds which may result in

increased wildlife mortality. It is anticipated that all uses will

increase, particularly if better access and interpretation are

offered.

Justification: Justification:

Based upon biological impacts presented above and in the

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and

environmental education within Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the

purposes for which this Refuge was established. By limiting

areas open to public use and closing non-designated Refuge

roads, these impacts can be lessened. Monitoring of activities

and their impacts and limiting the location and time of year for

wildlife-dependent visits will maintain use at an acceptable

level.

Although human activities have been shown to disturb wildlife

and habitat, the stipulations presented below and in the CCP

should reduce impacts to a minimal level. One of the secondary

goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to provide

opportunities for the public to develop an understanding and

appreciation for wildlife when a use is found compatible. The

four uses are identified as priority public uses in the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and will

help meet that goal at Seedskadee NWR with only minimal

conflicts with the wildlife conservation mission of the Refuge

System.

Determination: Determination: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Determination:

Interpretation, and Environmental Education are compatible.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ During peak concentrations of migratory waterbirds or

during critical wintering periods, areas may be closed

and access restricted to minimize wildlife disturbance

and provide resting areas.

✓ Monitor use, regulate access, and maintain necessary

facilities to prevent habitat degradation in high public

use areas.

✓ Monitor levels of use and corresponding effects on wildlife.

✓ Implement additional educational and interpretive

programs that discuss wildlife disturbance.

✓ Vehicles will be restricted to designated Refuge roads

and the speed limit will be 25 miles per hour.

✓ Road construction will focus on improving existing

roads. No new roads will be constructed.

✓ Enforce Refuge regulations.

✓ Improve signing and availability of Refuge information

brochures.

✓ River use, specifically boating, may be restricted in the

future to a daily limit on numbers of launches for noncommercial users.

✓ Recreationists will be asked to provide a voluntary 1/4

mile buffer zone to trumpeter swans.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 129

Description of Proposed Use:

Commercial Outfitters (Fishing, Scenic Floats)

Currently six commercial outfitters are issued Special Use

Permits to conduct commercially guided sport fishing and

scenic tours on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge. These

activities are permitted on the Green River from the north

boundary of the Refuge to the Six Mile Hill Boat Ramp

(Otterson Ramp). All commercial guiding activities must be

in compliance with the Special Conditions issued with the

Special Use Permits (5 RM 17.3) and information found in the

“Operating Plan: Commercial Outfitting for Sport Fishing on

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge.” An annual fee is

charged for each special use permit through the User Fee

Demonstration program. Funds generated from these

permits are used to help pay for implementation of the

program, including improvement of Refuge infrastructure for

wildlife and people. In 1999, seven outfitters conducted 304

trips on the Refuge between April 1 and October 31.

The CCP proposes to continue with the proposed use.

Development of the following may minimize visitor impacts

on resources and ensure a quality recreational experience for

the visiting public:

■ Improve law enforcement coverage associated with this

use.

■ Monitor impacts of use to Refuge resources and “visitor

experience.”

■ Further reduce numbers of outfitters to four or less in

accordance with Draft Commercial Outfitting Plan.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Current resources are stretched to maintain the existing

commercial outfitter permit operation. If additional staff

support were available, this program could be better

managed and effective law enforcement implemented to

monitor compliance. The additional items to be added from

the CCP are tied to funding requests in the form of the

attached RONS projects (Appendix C). Funding of the

RONS projects would accomplish the goals of the CCP and

improve the existing program.

Anticipated Impacts of the use: Anticipated Impacts of the use:

Commercial outfitting for sport fishing will result in

increased public use of the Refuge. This results both from

individual guided trips and from national advertising

associated with the commercial businesses. Cumulative

impacts of this increased use have correlating effects on

wildlife, habitat, and the fisheries resource. This includes

more disturbance to wildlife, vegetation trampling, potential

introduction and spread of exotic aquatic and terrestrial

plants, potential transmission of diseases including whirling

disease, problems associated with disposal of human waste,

and deposition of lead sinkers and fishing line. These impacts,

however, apply to all angling activity, both commercial and

non-commercial. Special conditions of the Special Use

Permits are designed to minimize these impacts. In addition,

limiting numbers of commercial outfitters will also minimize

these impacts.

Permitting commercial outfitting on the Refuge results in

some negative feelings within the local community. Some

residents feel strongly that there is no place for commercial

guiding on the Refuge. Comments from local residents also

express concern about having to compete for a limited public

resource with a commercial guide who is making a profit on

those same resources. As a result, to some degree,

permitting commercial guiding on the Refuge negatively

impacts the Refuge’s relationship with the local community.

Regulating the numbers of outfitters and guides helps

mitigate these impacts somewhat.

Commercial outfitting creates additional wear and tear on

Refuge roads, boat ramps, and other facilities. Time spent

administering the program diverts staff time from other

activities and programs.

To a limited degree, permitting regulated commercial guiding

on the Refuge may increase public awareness of Seedskadee

Refuge and the Refuge System, helping to build support for

the Service’s mission. However, this is highly dependent on

an individual guide’s efforts in educating their clients.

Justification: Justification:

Fishing is a popular wildlife-dependent public use of the

Refuge. Commercially-guided sport fishing, in compliance

with the Special Conditions of the Special Use Permit and

the “Operating Plan: Commercial Outfitting for Sport

Fishing on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge,” has no

more impacts on wildlife than other recreational anglers.

Guided trips allow visitors from various parts of the country

to enjoy Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge and its

associated resources. In addition, it provides an additional

opportunity for community members with disabilities to

utilize the Refuge.

Determination: Determination:

Commercial Outfitting for Sport Fishing and Scenic Tours

are compatible when conducted within guidelines stipulated

in the “Operating Plan: Commercial Outfitting for Sport

Fishing on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge,” and if

additional staff funding is provided to administer and

monitor the program. The addition of an outdoor recreation

planner would greatly facilitate the administration of this

program.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Based on fisheries data, public comments, impacts to

wildlife and habitat, and Refuge goals, the Refuge can

support a maximum of four outfitters for commercial

guiding on the Refuge (see “Operating Plan: Commercial

Outfitting for Sport Fishing on Seedskadee National

Wildlife Refuge”). The Refuge currently has six

outfitters that have established commercial guiding use

on the Refuge. Through voluntary attrition, over a

period of unspecified years, the number of Special Use

Permits will be reduced to four or less. Permits are nontransferrable and will be retired as outfitters stop

guiding on the Refuge.

✓ Commercial guiding for sport fishing is highly regulated

on the Refuge. Use is limited to between April 1 and

October 31 to minimize impacts to wildlife. In addition,

numbers of trips per day for each outfitter is limited to

minimize impacts to wildlife and to the general public.

Outfitters and their guides must be in compliance with

all Special Conditions on the Special Use Permit. For

specific details regarding the special conditions, please

contact the refuge manager.

✓ User fees have been established as part of the Entrance

and Recreation User Fee Demonstration Program.

These fees are used to cover the majority of the

expenses the Refuge incurs for running the commercial

outfitting for sport fishing program. Collection of these

fees is instrumental to this program to prevent diversion

of station funds from other programs.
130 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Description of Proposed Use: Fishing

A secondary use of the Refuge is public sport fishing

according to State Regulations. Year-round bank, wade, and

boat fishing is allowed. Visitors participating in this use at

the Refuge are estimated at 6,000 per year. Available

facilities include four boat ramps, registration boxes, several

instream habitat improvement projects, and parking areas.

In addition, Fontenelle Dam operations are coordinated with

the State Fish and Wildlife Agency to optimize conditions for

sport fisheries.

Approximately half of the 36-mile-long Refuge has been

designated as trophy trout waters (northern section of the

Refuge). Anglers in the trophy trout section of the River are

restricted to artificial flies and lures and may only keep one

trout over 20 inches. General State regulations for trout

apply to the southern half the Refuge. Game fish include

rainbow, brown, and cutthroat trout, and white fish (native

species).

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes to continue

with the above uses and add the following to improve fishing

opportunities and access for visitors:

■ Improve the four existing boat ramps and associated

parking areas.

■ Provide additional interpretative signs to inform the

public about Refuge resources.

■ Work with adjacent landowners to add additional boat

ramps off Refuge lands.

■ Develop a new fishing/hunting brochure.

■ Add a rest room facility at the Dodge Bottoms boat ramp.

■ Install a sill at Big Island to restore an historic river

oxbow and improve riparian and fish habitat.

■ Work with Wyoming Game and Fish Department to

establish a wakeless zone through the Refuge.

■ Improve vehicle pullouts throughout the Refuge.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the

existing recreational fishing.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance to

wildlife. Cumulative impacts of this increased use have

correlating effects on wildlife, habitat, and the fisheries

resource. This includes more disturbance to wildlife,

vegetation trampling, potential introduction and spread of

exotic aquatic and terrestrial plants, potential transmission

of diseases including whirling disease, problems associated

with disposal of human waste, and deposition of lead sinkers

and fishing line. Birds or mammals feeding or resting on or

near the River may be disturbed by boats or anglers fishing

from the bank. The current visitor use is often low enough

that disturbance by anglers have minimal impacts to most

wildlife species. Over the past couple of years, the reputation

of the Refuge’s trophy trout waters has spread and

subsequently the amount of angling pressure has increased.

There are now days when cumulative boat/foot traffic may be

having negative impacts to some wildlife.

Travel on non-designated roads and the creation of additional

two-tracks continues to be a problem.

During the critical late fall and winter months, impacts may

be occurring to wintering birds, especially trumpeter swans.

Boating associated with fishing may be especially

detrimental to over-water or riverine nesting species such as

grebes, herons, eagles, and mergansers. Development of

seasonal closed areas may be warranted in the future if

visitor use increases.

Justification: Justification:

Based upon biological impacts described above and in the

Environmental Assessment, it is determined that

recreational fishing within Seedskadee NWR will not

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for

which the Refuge was established.

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is to provide opportunities for public fishing when

compatible, and it is identified as a priority public use in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Current recreational fishing at Seedskadee NWR will

support this goal with only minimal conflicts with the wildlife

conservation mission of the Refuge System.

Determination: Determination:

Recreational fishing is compatible.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Monitor existing use to ensure that facilities are

adequate and disturbance to wildlife continues to be

minimal.

✓ Work with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to

limit boat use to non-motorized or wakeless power

devices (no jet skis, powering boating, etc.).

✓ Only the riverine sections of the Refuge will be open to

fishing (no wetland impoundments, ditches or marshes

will be open to fishing).

✓ Parking lot, road, and related access facilities will be

maintained as necessary to prevent erosion or habitat

damage.

✓ Promote use of non-toxic sinkers, split shot, and lures.

✓ During peak concentrations of migratory waterbirds or

for the protection of special wildlife species/habitats,

areas may be closed and access limited to minimize any

wildlife disturbances.

✓ The Refuge may have to limit numbers of boats per day

in the future to prevent wildlife disturbance and

maintain a quality fishing experience for anglers.

Cutthroat Trout © Cindie Brunner
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 131

Description of Proposed Use: Recreational Hunting

Seedskadee NWR is open to hunting of mourning dove, sage

grouse, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, moose, waterfowl,

cottontail rabbit, skunk, red fox, and raccoon. Hunting

seasons start around September 1 and continue through

February. Visitation for these activities is estimated at 3,000.

Species are hunted according to State and Federal laws.

Currently, two closed areas exist on the Refuge.

Approximately 800 acres are closed to migratory bird

hunting below Highway 28. A second area of approximately

800 acres is closed to all hunting and protects Refuge

buildings and primary wetland impoundments. When these

backwater closed areas freeze over in fall or early winter,

there are no open-water areas remaining which are closed to

hunting on the Refuge.

Hunting of mourning dove, cottontail rabbit, skunk, fox, and

raccoon is minimal. Waterfowl, grouse, and big game hunts

comprise the greatest hunting pressure (approximately 2,950

hunters). Hunting pressure is often concentrated around the

opening of each hunt season, but a steady hunt pressure

continues throughout the seasons.

The CCP proposes to continue most of the above uses and

add or change the following to improve the hunting

experience and better protect Refuge resources:

■ Develop a hunting/fishing brochure.

■ Modify the existing closed hunting areas to better

accommodate wildlife needs and improve hunting

opportunities. A separate public process will be initiated

to develop new closed area boundaries.

■ Update the Hunting Stepdown Management Plan to

address changes in National Wildlife Refuge policy and

CCP goals and objectives.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the

existing recreational hunting. Additional law enforcement

support is necessary to ensure compliance with Refuge

regulations.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Hunters disturb non-target species and harvest target

species. Recreational hunting will remove individual animals

from the wildlife populations ensuring that carrying capacity

(especially for big game species) is not exceeded (possibly

impacting other species habitat). The areas closed to various

hunting activities do provide some sanctuary for target and

non-target species. Once wetland impoundments which are

closed to hunting freeze up, no sanctuary areas are available

for waterfowl and swans, and consequently disturbance to

these species increases.

Travel on non-designated roads and the creation of additional

two-tracks (illegal off-road travel) continues to be a problem.

Justification: Justification:

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool that is used

to manage deer, antelope, moose, and, where necessary and

justified, predator populations. This is necessary to ensure

that populations above the carrying capacity are controlled

to reduce impacts to habitat and other wildlife that also

depend upon that habitat. Hunting of predators such as

skunk, raccoon, and red fox has, in the past, benefitted

ground-nesting species such as waterfowl, geese, swans,

grouse, cranes, etc. In addition, raccoon and red fox are

nonnative in Wyoming and considered as exotic species.

Some wildlife disturbance will occur during the hunting

seasons. Proper zoning, regulations, and Refuge seasons will

be designated to minimize any negative impact to wildlife

populations using the Refuge.

Based upon biological impacts presented in the CCP and in

the Environmental Assessment, it is determined that

recreational hunting within Seedskadee NWR will not

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for

which this Refuge was established.

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is to provide opportunities for public hunting when it

is found to be compatible, and it is identified as a priority

public use in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997.

Determination: Determination: Recreational hunting is compatible. Determination: 

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Only non-toxic shot is permitted on the Refuge when

hunting with a shot gun. This restriction minimizes the

exposure of waterfowl and other wildlife to lead.

✓ Hunting must be in accordance with Federal and State

regulations.

✓ Hunting on Seedskadee NWR will take place in a

manner that will minimize disturbance to migrating

waterbirds.

✓ Hunting will be evaluated to provide a safe hunt (reduce

conflicts between hunt seasons).

✓ The Refuge deer, antelope and moose hunts will be

coordinated with the Wyoming Game and Fish

Department to determine the number of permits to

manage the populations.

✓ Monitor all hunting uses to assure they do not interfere

with and are compatible with other wildlife-dependent

recreational activities.

✓ During critical wintering periods for waterbirds or for

the protection of special wildlife species/habitats, areas

may be closed and access limited to minimize any wildlife

disturbances.

✓ Refuge areas closed to hunting must be re-evaluated to

ensure adequate habitat for migrating, feeding, and

resting waterfowl and other wildlife is available. A

closed area inclusive of some portion of the main stem of

the Green River must be created to ensure compatibility

of the hunting program.

✓ Dog training on the Refuge will not be allowed. Dogs

must be confined or leashed except when participating in

a legal hunt for sage grouse, cottontail rabbits and

migratory game birds.
132 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Description of Proposed Use: Camping

Camping is not currently permitted on the Refuge except for

a limited number of special groups (i.e. scouts) which are

conducting projects to enhance Refuge habitat (i.e. trash

pickup, protecting trees, etc.). Historically, camping occurred

on lands which were eventually acquired (or transferred) to

Seedskadee NWR. Some demand occurs for camping on the

Refuge from visitors wishing to conduct multiple day floats

through the Refuge. Currently, three BLM/ BOR developed

campgrounds are located approximately five miles north of

the Refuge boundary. The BLM lands surrounding the

Refuge also offer camping opportunities.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Development of specific campgrounds would require

additional funding to build, maintain, and monitor. Currently,

resources are stretched to maintain existing Refuge facilities

and conduct law enforcement of existing public uses.

Resources are not available to accommodate this use.

Camping is not required to participate in the six priority

public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife

photography, environmental education and interpretation).

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Camping is a high impact activity which often results in the

degradation of Refuge habitat. Camping in itself will disturb

and disperse wildlife. Human activity, generators, loud

motors, music, and dogs associated with camping disturb

wildlife and detract from the outdoor experience for other

Refuge users. Fires and firewood collection damage habitat

and pose serious resource threats. Use of detergent, soap,

and toothpaste in or near rivers harms fish and other aquatic

life. Human waste creates unsanitary conditions and litter.

Campers often leave garbage, trash, and other undesirable

items. Illegal removal of natural objects (plants, antlers, live

animals, etc.) and cultural objects may result from camper

visits. Creation of “improvements” (lean-tos, tables, chairs,

game poles, etc.) and alternation of the site (trenching) are

also byproducts of camping.

Camping results in inappropriate uses, tramples vegetation

(particularly herbaceous and shrub layers), and devalues

wildlife habitats. Camping can degrade land, water, and

wildlife by simplifying plant communities, increasing

mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife and distributing

refuse (Boyle and Samson 1985). In addition, camping

induced soil disturbance may provide conditions that favor

weed infestations. Camping in riparian areas may also result

in increased runoff into streams due in part to exposed soil

and reduction in vegetation (Green 1998). Camping also

requires additional law enforcement efforts that may have to

be directed at a wide range of violations from those listed

above to domestic disturbance/assaults.

Justification: Justification:

Camping is not required to support the priority public uses

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,

environmental education and interpretation). Developed

campgrounds are available five miles north of the Refuge and

the surrounding BLM lands provide primitive camping

opportunities. In addition, numerous hotel accommodations

are available 45 minutes away in Green River and 30 minutes

away in Farson, Wyoming.

Determination: Determination:

Camping is not a compatible use unless conducted under a

special use permit for the exclusive purpose of completing a

civic project to enhance Refuge habitat.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Any camping permitted under a special use permit will

not exceed one nights stay on Refuge lands and group

size will not exceed 12 individuals.

✓ Within any given year only three special use permits will

be issued for camping in order to minimize impacts to

wildlife and habitat.

✓ Groups permitted to camp on Refuge lands for the

purpose of completing specific projects must adhere to

all conditions specified in the special use permit and

Refuge regulations.

✓ Refuge management will identify campsite locations. All

solid waste must be removed from Refuge lands.

✓ Special use permits for camping will be issued based on

the project proposed and cannot be reserved more than

four months in advance.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 133

Description of Proposed Use:

Horseback Riding, Picnicking

Picnicking is often associated with many of the wildlifedependent recreational uses such as hunting, fishing, hiking,

wildlife observation, boating, and wildlife photography.

Horseback riding is rarely observed on the Refuge and is

most often affiliated with hunting or the removal of trespass

cattle and sheep. Horses may travel anywhere on the Refuge

which is open to public foot access. Numerous locked gates,

fences, and cattle guards make the Refuge difficult to ride

through. The CCP does not propose any additional

improvements beyond maintaining the existing use.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the

existing recreational picnicking and horseback riding.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Picnicking and horseback riding may cause disturbance to

wildlife and increase litter problems. Horses brought in from

outside the local area may introduce noxious weeds not

currently on the Refuge via fecal material. Present levels of

these activities do not appear to be a problem. Limiting of

areas open to public use at specific times of the year can limit

impacts. Monitoring of activities and their impacts and

limiting the location and time of year for wildlife-dependent

visits will maintain use at an acceptable level.

Justification: Justification:

Picnicking and horseback riding do not appear to create any

special problems and are most often associated with other

wildlife-dependent uses such as hunting, fishing, or wildlife

viewing.

Determination: Determination:

Picnicking and horseback riding are compatible.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Visitors must comply with Refuge regulations.

✓ Monitor levels of use and effects on wildlife.

✓ Monitor use, regulate access, and maintain necessary

facilities to prevent habitat degradation in high public

use areas.

✓ During critical wintering periods for waterbirds or for

the protection of special wildlife species/habitats, areas

may be closed and access limited to minimize any wildlife

disturbances.

Description of Proposed Use:

Cross-country skiing, Snowshoeing

Occasionally, winter visitors engage in cross-country skiing

and snowshoeing activities (less then 10 visitors/year

estimated). Often these uses are conducted in association

with other wildlife-dependent recreational uses such as

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and hunting.

These activities are permitted in any areas open to foot

travel. The Refuge staff does not groom or maintain any

winter trails. The CCP does not propose any additional

improvements beyond maintaining the existing use.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the

existing recreational cross-country skiing and snowshoeing

uses.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing may cause

disturbance to wildlife during critical winter periods. Present

levels of these activities do not appear to be a problem.

Limiting areas open to public use at specific times of the year

can reduce impacts. Monitoring activities and their impacts

and limiting the location and time of year for wildlifedependent visits will maintain use at an acceptable level.

Justification: Justification:

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing do not appear to

create any special problems and are most often associated

with other wildlife-dependent uses such as hunting, wildlife

viewing, and wildlife photography.

Determination: Determination:

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are compatible.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Monitor these uses to assure they do not interfere with,

and are compatible with, other wildlife-dependent

recreational activities.

✓ Monitor existing use to ensure that disturbance to

wildlife continues to be minimal during the critical

winter months.

✓ During peak concentrations of wintering waterbirds

(especially trumpeter swans) or for protection of special

wildlife species/habitat, areas may be closed and access

limited to minimize any wildlife disturbance.
134 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Description of Proposed Use: Off-road vehicles

(motorized dirt bikes, all-terrain-vehicles, snowmobiles)

Off-road vehicles which are not licensed by the State for

highway travel are not permitted on Refuge lands (50 CFR

27.31). Vehicles licensed for highway travel are allowed on

designated Refuge roads. Travel off any designated Refuge

road is prohibited.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Support of off-road vehicle use would require additional

funding for law enforcement and would cause extensive

damage to wildlife habitats. Currently, resources are

stretched to maintain existing Refuge facilities and conduct

law enforcement of existing public uses. Resources are not

available to accommodate off-road vehicle use. The use of offroad vehicles is not required to participate in the six priority

public uses.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Motorized off-road vehicles are disturbing to wildlife and

impact vegetation and soils when used off of designated

roads. Loud motors detract from the quality of other forms of

Refuge recreation. Studies indicate snowmobile disturbance

increases the home range sizes of winter ungulates and

increases deer metabolism (Moen et al. 1982, Dorrance et al.

1975). Snowmobile trails provide access to habitats for

species such as coyotes and bobcat that otherwise may not

use certain winter habitats. Snowmobile use hinders the

solitude of the Refuge for winter visitors and may reduce air

quality.

Illegal off-road use continues to occur, despite attempts to

close non-designated roads and two-track spur roads. Many

signs have been removed or destroyed and fences cut by offroad violators.

Justification: Justification:

Use of off-road vehicles is not necessary to support the

priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,

wildlife photography, environmental education and

interpretation). In fact, these types of vehicles often degrade

other recreationists experiences. Surrounding BLM, BOR,

and USFS lands provide numerous opportunities to recreate

with these types of vehicles.

Determination: Determination:

Off-road vehicle use (dirt bikes, all-terrain-vehicles,

snowmobiles) is not a compatible Refuge use.

Description of Proposed Use:

Hiking and Cycling

Hiking is a popular activity which is often associated with

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and hunting.

Hiking occurs along roads, trails and throughout various

habitats of the Refuge. Bicycles are considered vehicles and

are restricted to designated Refuge roads. Off-road cycling is

not permitted. Cycling is most affiliated with wildlife

observation.

Approximately 500 visitors engage in these activities

annually. The CCP proposes to continue with the above uses

and add the following to improve hiking opportunities:

■ Develop a short trail at the Lombard Ferry Historical

Site.

■ Develop an interpretive hiking trail near the Refuge

Headquarters.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, sufficient resources are available to continue the

existing levels of hiking, and cycling.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

These activities, when conducted responsibly, may create

minor and temporary disturbances to wildlife. At the current

level of use, these activities are not expected to materially

interfere with Refuge purposes. Limiting of areas open to

public use at specific times of the year can reduce impacts.

Monitoring of activities and their impacts and limiting the

location and time of year for wildlife-dependent visits will

maintain use at an acceptable level.

Justification: Justification:

Hiking and cycling do not appear to create any special

problems and are most often associated with other wildlifedependent uses such as hunting, wildlife viewing and wildlife

photography.

Determination: Determination:

Hiking and cycling are compatible uses.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Cycling is restricted to designated Refuge roads which

are open to vehicle traffic. Bicycles are considered

vehicles on the Refuge.

✓ Hiking may occur anywhere on the Refuge open to

visitor use (public entry). During certain times of the

year, the Refuge may exclude public entry into portions

of the Refuge to protect habitat or reduce disturbance to

sensitive wildlife species.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 135

Description of Proposed Use:

Providing Livestock Access to Water

As part of the purchase of lands from the Rock Springs

Grazing Association (RSGA), the Service is required by a

Warranty Deed (10/26/1996) to provide access to water for

livestock. The way in which livestock are afforded access to

water shall be jointly determined by RSGA and the

Seedskadee NWR Manager. Watering opportunities which

occur on Refuge lands (outside current water gaps) will be

permitted via a special use permit.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, resources are available to continue this use.

Additional staffing is needed to would provide for better

monitoring of this activity.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Sheep trailing within Sweetwater County generally occurs

between April 1 and May 15. The Service provides direct

guidance via a special use permit to RSGA permittees as to

where they can water sheep on Refuge lands. Approximately

7 to 10 sheep bands (200 to 2,000 sheep/band) trail along the

Refuge boundary. During the trailing period, short duration

trampling and grazing of vegetation occurs. Any wildlife in

the area, especially ground-nesting birds would be

temporarily and/or permanently disturbed or displaced. Nest

trampling can occur. Vegetation, primarily grasses/forbs, will

be consumed and damage to shrubs may occur from

trampling. Long-term changes to vegetation may happen

because trailing occurs in the same areas each year.

Justification: Justification:

The Service is obligated to provide this activity as indicated

in the Warranty Deed signed 10/26/1996. It is a legal

requirement for the Refuge to provide RSGA livestock

members access to water for livestock. Access to water may

occur directly on Refuge lands or the Refuge may provide

off-Refuge watering sites.

Determination: Determination:

This activity is not considered a compatible use of the

Refuge. Provided that all stipulations are followed by all

cooperators of the RSGA in the annual special use permit,

impacts can be minimized.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Herders may not camp on Seedskadee NWR.

✓ Herders will immediately exit Seedskadee NWR after

watering sheep.

✓ Herders will keep sheep moving across Seedskadee

NWR except when sheep are watering at specified sites.

Grazing is not permitted.

✓ Herders will water sheep at specific watering sites

indicated on maps supplied by the Refuge Manager to

avoid cottonwood groves and riparian shrub (willow)

areas.

✓ Operators will be fully accountable for the actions of

their herders. RSGA will be fully accountable for the

actions of its operators.

✓ Use of vehicles off designated roads is prohibited. All

Refuge regulations apply to all operators, herders, and

the RSGA.

✓ All gates will be locked and/or closed immediately after

livestock enter or exit the Refuge.

Description of Proposed Use: Research

Research is completed on refuges to address specific refuge

management problems or provide information to assist with

regional/national research questions (i.e. research on specific

species like sage grouse, trumpeter swans, pepperweed,

etc.). Research results often have a direct benefit for

management activities. Current research conducted on

Seedskadee NWR involves invasive species, riparian

restoration, and public use. It is anticipated that various

research projects will continue on the Refuge over the next

15 years to address a variety of local and national issues.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Currently, resources are stretched to continue the existing

research projects. Often staff are required to assist with

research projects in some capacity and a balance between

research demands and other duties must be maintained.

Additional assistance with invasive species research is

needed.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

Depending on the type of research projects, disturbances

may occur to wildlife and/or wildlife habitat. Prior to

permitting any research projects, the Service will fully

explore potential impacts to Refuge resources relative to the

value of information gathered for refuge or national

interests. Research projects will be strictly monitored and

are required to comply with Refuge regulations and special

stipulations dictated by special use permits.

Justification: Justification:

Research often results in a better understanding of the

natural resources studied and often assists in solving

resource management issues. The knowledge gained by

research should outweigh disturbances to wildlife and

habitat. Efforts will be made to minimize all potential

disturbances. Researchers must obtain a special use permit

from the refuge manager which will outline conditions

required to comply with refuge management.

Determination: Determination:

Research conducted at Seedskadee NWR is found to be

compatible with the purposes of the Refuge provided all

permit conditions are followed.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ All researchers must be issued special use permits by

the refuge manager to conduct research on the Refuge.

✓ Researchers must comply with all Refuge regulations

unless authorized otherwise by the refuge manager in

the conditions of the special use permit.

✓ All data collected by the researcher also becomes

property of the Refuge. Copies of any reports,

summaries, and data regarding the research must be

provided to the Refuge.

✓ Researchers are responsible for coordinating with

various agencies to gain specific permits to complete

their projects. Authorized projects will be in compliance

with all local, State, and Federal laws.
136 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Description of Proposed Use: Construction of

Environmental Education and Visitor Center

Seedskadee NWR plans to construct a 6,000 square foot

building for the purpose of providing an interpretative

center and environmental education training area. The

building would be located between the Refuge Headquarters

and housing residence #5. The proposed building is one story.

The entire building would be fully accessible to people with

disabilities. The main floor of the facility would contain

interpretive displays, rest rooms, and an office. The

basement level would contain a kitchen, rest room, and a

large open room which would be used to conduct

environmental education programs or Refuge/community

meetings. Construction of this building would improve the

Service’s ability to conduct public outreach and

environmental education on Seedskadee NWR.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Funding for the construction of this project will be supplied

by the Bureau of Reclamation. Current staff is available to

administer the construction and completion of this project.

Additional funding will be required in future Refuge budgets

to maintain the facility (heat, electricity, phone, etc.) and

create/maintain/update interpretive displays. An additional

staff position (outdoor recreation specialist) will also be

required to coordinate outreach and education programs.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

The area impacted by the construction of the building would

be less then one acre and has been previously disturbed. The

area has been cleared previously for cultural resources and

Section 7.

Visiting public which formerly visited the headquarters office

will be directed to the new visitor/education building.

Creation of the new building may attract more tourists and

environmental education groups to the Refuge and,

therefore, increase the potential public use and awareness of

the Refuge.

Costs of maintaining the new building (electricity, phone,

heat) and providing adequate staff will increase the overall

funding needs of the Refuge.

Disturbance to wildlife may increase if public use increases.

Monitoring activities and their impacts and limiting the

location and time of year for wildlife-dependent visits will

maintain use at an acceptable level.

Water use for domestic purposes may increase slightly with

addition of more visitors.

Justification: Justification:

The current office/visitor center cannot accommodate current

school groups, does not provide adequate office space for

Refuge employees, and limits display of interpretive

materials. The addition of the new facility will provide an

area for the Refuge staff to conduct slide presentations and

environmental education programs. Transfer of interpretive

displays from the current headquarters to the new building

will provide areas for additional office space. The new facility

will contain one office and also provide an area to expand the

current interpretative displays which are very limited. The

new building will also provide the public a place to conduct

meetings regarding environmental issues.

Determination: Determination:

Construction of the new visitor and education building will

support several of the secondary goals of the National

Wildlife Refuge System which are to provide for wildlife

observation, interpretation, and environmental education.

Based on biological impacts described above, it is determined

that the construction of this building will not materially

interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the

Refuge was established.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Service will comply with all building codes.

✓ During construction, efforts will be made to minimize

disturbance to the immediate construction area. All

disturbed areas around the building will be landscaped

with native vegetation.

✓ All features of the building must be fully accessible to

people with disabilities.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 137

Description of Proposed Use:

Construction of an 800 foot interpretive trail at the

Lombard Ferry Historical Site

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge plans to build an 800

foot asphalt trail at the Lombard Ferry site adjacent to State

Highway 28. The trail and two additional interpretive signs

will be designed to match an existing handicapped-accessible

interpretive walkway. The trail will follow an already

disturbed pathway that parallels the Green River to a replica

of a ferry used by early settlers to cross the River. The

completed trail will provide Refuge visitors with an overview

of the Refuge and an insight into the significance of the area

as a River crossing by pioneers using several historical trails

that traverse the Refuge. This site currently receives a

relatively high volume of public use, including many people

passing through that otherwise may not stop to visit the

Refuge. Completion of the trail will enhance the Refuge’s

ability to conduct public outreach for these and other visitors.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Funding of this project will come from several partnered

sources. A private family with historic ties to the area is

donating funds for purchase of new interpretive signs and

benches. Funding for the construction of the trail will be

supplied by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Land

Management is purchasing and producing the interpretive

signs and bases, assisting with planning and construction

details, and will maintain the asphalt trail as needed. Finally,

Refuge staff will complete project planning, administer all

phases of construction, complete naturalization of the area

when completed, and monitor the site.

Anticipated impacts of the use: Anticipated impacts of the use:

■ Some short-term disturbance could occur to wildlife

during construction.

■ The area that would be impacted by the construction of

the trail is already a disturbed site, devoid of vegetation.

Revegetation of the site at the conclusion of the project

will make the site more visually aesthetic.

■ A cultural resources survey has already been completed,

and the area has been cleared for construction.

■ Construction of a new trail will focus public use in a

limited area, reducing impacts to contiguous habitat.

■ Disturbance to wildlife could increase if public use

increases. However, due to the steady rate of visitation

in the warmer months and the proximity of the site to

State Highway 28, it is expected that any additional

impacts would be minimal.

Determination: Determination:

Construction of this trail is compatible with Refuge and

Refuge System purposes. It will support several of the

secondary goals of the Refuge System including providing

opportunities for wildlife observation, interpretation, and

environmental education. The construction of this trail will

not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for

which the Refuge was established.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ During construction, efforts will be made to minimize

disturbance to the immediate construction area. The

entire trail area, including all disturbed sites, will be

landscaped/naturalized with native vegetation.

✓ All features of the trail must be fully accessible to people

with disabilities.

✓ Use of the trail and surrounding associated area will be

monitored by Refuge staff after its completion to ensure

the integrity of the site is maintained.
138 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Description of Proposed Use: Beaver Trapping

The Refuge staff proposes to continue to allow trapping of

beaver, Castor canadensis, on Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge. Changes in the hydrology of the Green River since

the completion of the Fontenelle Dam in 1964 has had a

significant impact on recruitment of cottonwood and willow

trees. Cottonwood and willow trees that dominate the

riparian forest no longer regenerate to the degree necessary

to maintain a healthy forest. This forest zone is critical,

however, to a large variety of migrating and nesting birds

and resident wildlife. Due to the very high and expanding

beaver population, many areas of the Refuge have experienced

extensive damage to mature and seedling cottonwood and

willow trees by beaver. Girdling or cutting down mature

cottonwoods generally results in the tree’s death. To alleviate

this situation, beaver will be trapped and removed from the

Refuge to minimize damage to trees and reduce beaver

numbers to meet their carrying capacity of the Refuge.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Current Refuge resources are stretched and additional

funding and staff are necessary to ensure this program is

consistently applied to achieve Refuge objectives. Funding

RONS projects in Appendix C would accomplish the goals of

the CCP and improve the existing program.

Anticipated impacts on Service lands, waters or interests: Anticipated impacts on Service lands, waters or interests:

Reduction of beaver numbers will have a direct, positive

effect on the preservation of mature and seedling cottonwood

and willow trees. This is critically important for the Refuge

given the extremely low recruitment rate of new trees.

These trees provide habitat for nesting and migrating bird

species. They are important perching and roosting sites for

wintering raptors, including bald and golden eagles. Several

heron rookeries, which are dependent on mature

cottonwoods, are also located on the Refuge. Resident

wildlife species also benefit from these riparian forests,

which provide significant food and shelter for species such as

moose, mule deer, sage grouse, and many other species.

The digging of bank dens by beaver, in some cases, damages

water control structures, levees, irrigation ditches, or

wetland management units. Beaver also routinely block or

obstruct water control structures. A reduction in beaver

numbers will reduce damages they cause to these facilities,

saving significant amounts of staff time throughout the year

on repairs.

Beaver trapping is supported by the Wyoming Game and

Fish Department. It will provide an opportunity for a local

resident to trap.

Justification: Justification:

Changes in the hydrology of the Green River since the

completion of the Fontenelle Dam in 1964 has had a

significant impact on recruitment of cottonwood and willow

trees. Cottonwood and willow trees that dominate the

riparian forest no longer regenerate to the degree necessary

to maintain a healthy forest. This forest zone is critical,

however, to a large variety of migrating and nesting birds

and resident wildlife. Due to the very high and expanding

beaver population, many areas of the Refuge have

experienced extensive damage to mature and seedling

cottonwood and willow trees by beaver. Girdling or cutting

down mature cottonwoods generally results in the tree’s

death. To alleviate this situation, beaver must be trapped and

removed from the Refuge to minimize damage to trees and

reduce beaver numbers to meet their carrying capacity of the

Refuge.

In the past, some mature cottonwood trees have been

protected by wrapping the tree bases with wire. While

individual cottonwood groves are wrapped annually by

volunteer groups, this alternative is still not practical on a

large scale, primarily due to the labor needs and the large

numbers of trees that need protection. Hiring a professional

trapper is a cost efficient, fast, and low-profile way to reduce

beaver population levels on the Refuge.

The following excerpt is taken from Beaver: Water

Resources and Riparian Habitat Manager by Olsen and

Hubert, 1994: “Unlimited beaver populations can be

detrimental to riparian habitats. Likewise, removing

beavers completely from an area can eliminate a natural

component of an ecosystem that is important to many

species of animals and plants. Management cannot embrace

total protection or reduction of beaver populations, but

(rather) discretionary management that promotes adequate

harvest where conflict occurs or protection where habitat

enhancement is needed . . . .”

Determination: Determination:

Beaver trapping conducted under a special use permit for

management purposes is considered a compatible use.

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

✓ Trapping is only permitted via a special use permit

issued by the refuge manager. Permittee must adhere to

all special conditions listed in the special use permit (see

special use permit for a full list of stipulations).

✓ Trapping will be done in compliance with Wyoming

Game and Fish Department regulations.

✓ Permittee will provide a report, in writing, on the

number, age, and sex of beaver taken and numbers of

trap nights. Permittee will also provide a map (Refuge

travel map) marking the locations of dens, food caches,

trap sets, and where beaver were taken. Report and

maps will be provided to the Refuge office within one

month of the completion of trapping.

✓ Only beaver may be trapped. Any non-target animals

that are still alive will be released immediately and a

record of species and their condition will be provided to

the Refuge office. All non-target animals killed will be

turned over to the Refuge for proper disposition. Traps

may not be set in any areas where evidence of river

otter use exists.

✓ Failure to comply with any terms of the special use

permit or other Refuge regulations may result in

revocation of the permit.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 139

Description of Proposed Use:

Commercial Shuttle Service

The Refuge proposes to issue special use permits for the

purpose of allowing commercial shuttle services on

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge. The shuttle service is

used primarily by boaters needing assistance moving their

vehicle from a launch site to a take-out site. Shuttle services

will be permitted only on designated roads on the Refuge. All

commercial shuttle service activities must be in compliance

with general Refuge regulations and the Special Conditions

issued with the Special Use Permit.

Availability of resources: vailability of resources:

Current resources are stretched to maintain the existing

commercial permit operations. If additional staff support

were available, this program could be better managed and

effective law enforcement implemented to monitor

compliance. The additional items to be added from the CCP

are tied to funding requests in the form of the attached

RONS projects (Appendix C). Funding of the RONS projects

would accomplish the goals of the CCP and improve the

existing program.

Anticipated impacts on Service lands, waters or interests: Anticipated impacts on Service lands, waters or interests:

Commercial shuttles may result in increased use of the

Refuge. Shuttle services provide a useful and needed public

service for visitors. A permitted shuttle service could reduce

wear and tear to Refuge roads and other resources due to

familiarity with Refuge regulations. In addition, personnel

conducting shuttles may disperse information about Refuge

regulations to visitors thereby decreasing the numbers of

violations of Refuge regulations and reducing impacts to

resources.

Commercial shuttle services may create additional wear and

tear on Refuge roads, boat ramps, and other facilities and

will also be deriving a profit from using these facilities. A fee

for the Special Use Permit will help mitigate these impacts.

Time spent administering the program diverts staff time

from other activities and programs.

Justification: Justification:

Commercial shuttle services provide a valuable service to

many people who float the Green River on Seedskadee

National Wildlife Refuge. Allowing commercial shuttle

services under a Special Use Permit will provide the Refuge

with a means to monitor this activity and ensure compliance

with Refuge regulations. This may also provide the Refuge

with an opportunity to provide additional information about

the Refuge to clients of the shuttle service.

Determination: Determination:

Commercial shuttle services are compatible when conducted

under the stipulations of a special use permit and if

additional staff funding is provided to administer and

monitor the program. The addition of an outdoor recreation

planner would greatly facilitate the administration of this

program.

The following stipulations are required to ensure

compatibility: compatibility:

✓ Permittee and employees must be in compliance with all

Special Conditions listed on the Special Use Permit. For

specific details, refer to the Special Use Permit.

✓ User fees have been established as part of the Entrance

and Recreation User Fee Demonstration Program.

These fees are used to cover the majority of the

expenses the Refuge incurs for running the commercial

outfitting for sport fishing program. Collection of these

fees is instrumental to this program to prevent diversion

of station funds from other programs.

✓ Permits are not transferrable and renewed annually.

✓ Permittee must comply with all Refuge regulations.

Literature Cited: Literature Cited

Boyle, S.A. and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of onconsumptive

recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:110-

116.

Dorrance, M.J., P. J. Savage, and D.E. Huff. 1975. Effects of

snowmobiles on white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage.

39:563-569.

Green, D. M. 1998. Recreational impacts on erosion and

runoff in a central Arizona riparian area. J. Soil and

Water Conserv. Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 38-42.

Moen, A. N., S. Whittemore, and B. Buxton. 1982. Effects of

disturbance by snowmobiles on heart rate of captive

white-tailed deer. N. Y. Fish and Game J. Vol. 29, No. 2,

pp.176-183.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
140 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix E. Legislation and Appendix E. Legislation and

Policies Legal Parameters Policies Legal Parameters

And Policy Direction

Following is a list of the most pertinent statutes establishing

legal parameters and policy direction for the National

Wildlife Refuge System. At the end of the list are those

statutes and mandates that pertain to Reclamation’s role in

upper Colorado River management and Refuge

development.

For some laws that provide special guidance or have strong

implications relevant to the Service and the refuges,

summaries are offered below. Many of the summaries have

been taken from The Evolution of National Wildlife Law by

Michael J. Bean.

Summary of Congressional Acts, Treaties, and other Legal

Acts Relating to Administration of the National Wildlife

Refuge System.

1. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997. The Act establishes that the conservation of

fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats is the mission of

the NWRS and sets forth the policies and procedures

through which the System and individual refuge are to

be managed in order to fulfill that mission for the longterm benefit of the American people. The Act requires

that public use of a refuge may be allowed only where

the use is compatible with the mission of the System and

purpose of the individual refuge, and sets forth a

standard by which the Secretary shall determine

whether such uses are compatible. It establishes as the

policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent

recreation, when it is compatible, is a legitimate and

appropriate public use of the Refuge System, through

which the American public can develop appreciation for

fish and wildlife. It establishes compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses as the priority general

public use of the Refuge System. Finally, it also requires

the Secretary to prepare comprehensive conservation

plans for each refuge.

2. Executive Order 12996, 3/25/96, Management and

General Public Use of the NWRS. In this Executive

Order, the President defined the mission of the NWRS

and identified four guiding principals and issued ten

directives to the Secretary of Interior on how the

System should be managed in the future. The Executive

Order identified opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreation, habitat protection, partnerships

with sportsmen, other conservation interests and public

involvement as guiding principals of the Refuge System.

In particular, the President identified “compatible

wildlife-dependent recreation activities involving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

and environmental education and interpretation as

priority general public uses of the Refuge System.”

3. Recreational Fisheries...Executive Order.

4. Lacey Act of 1900, as amended (16 U.S.C. 701).

5. Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431).

6. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1978 (40 Stat. 755).

7. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929), as amended (16

U.S.C. 715-715s). “Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r) — The Act of

February 18, 1929, (45 Stat. 1222) established a

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for

acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds.

The Commission consists of the Secretary of the Interior

(as chairman), the Secretaries of Transportation and

Agriculture, two members of the Senate and two of the

House of Representatives, and an ex-officio member

from each State in which acquisition is being considered.

The Commission, through its chairman, is directed to

report by the first Monday in December of each year to

Congress on its activities. The Secretary of the Interior

is authorized to cooperate with local authorities in

wildlife conservation and as to conduct investigations, to

publish documents related to North American birds, and

to maintain and develop refuges. The Act provides for

cooperation with States in enforcement. It established

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental or gift of

areas approved by the Commission for migratory birds.

Public Law 94-215, approved February 17, 1976, (90

Stat. 190) included in acquisition authority under the Act

the purchase or rental of a partial interest in land or

waters.

Public Law 95-552, approved October 30, 1978, (92 Stat.

2071) required that the Secretary of the Interior consult

with the appropriate units of local government and with

the Governor of the State concerned, or the appropriate

State agency, before recommending an area for purchase

or rental under the provisions of the Act. This provision

was subsequently amended by P.L. 98-200, approved

December 2, 1983 (97 Stat. 1378); P.L. 98-548, approved

October 26, 1984 (98 Stat. 2774); and P.L. 99-645,

approved November 10, 1986 (100 Stat. 3584) to require

that either the Governor or the State agency approve

each proposed acquisition.

Public Law 95-616, approved November 8, 1978, (92

Stat. 3110) authorized acquisition of areas for purposes

other than inviolate sanctuary.”

8. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended

(16 U.S.C. 661-666). This Act was “the first major

Federal wildlife statute to employ the strategy of

compelling consideration of wildlife impacts. The act

authorized ‘investigations to determine the effects of

domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting

substances on wildlife, encouraged the development of a

program for the maintenance of an adequate supply of

wildlife on the public domain’ and other Federally owned

lands, and called for state and Federal cooperation in

developing a nationwide program of wildlife

conservation and rehabilitation.”

9. Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461).

10. Convention of Nature Protection and Wildlife

Preservation in the Western Hemisphere 1940 (56 Stat.

1354).

11. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C.

742-742).
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 141

12. Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (Public Law 87-

714,76 Sta. 653; 16 U.S.C. 460k) September 28, 1962.

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior “to

administer areas of the System ‘for public recreation

when in his judgment public recreation can be an

appropriate incidental or secondary use; provided, that

such public recreation use shall be permitted only to the

extent that it is practicable and not inconsistent with the

primary objectives for which each particular area is

established.’ Recreational uses ‘not directly related to

the primary purposes and functions of the individual

areas’ of the System may also be permitted, but only on

an express determination by the Secretary that they

‘will not interfere with the primary purposes’ of the

refuges and that funds are available for their

development, operation, and maintenance.” This

legislation is the basis for establishment of the refuge

allowable use compatibility process. A compatibility

process not only invokes consistency with refuge

purposes, but also National Wildlife Refuge System

goals in NWRS Improvement Act 1997.

13. Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 715s), as

amended (P.L. 95-469, approved 10-17-78). This Act

provides “that the net receipt from the sale or other

disposition of animals, timber, bay, grass, or other

products of the soil, minerals, shells, sand, or gravel,

from other privileges, or from leases for public

accommodations or facilities in connection with the

operation and management’...of areas of the National

Wildlife Refuge System shall be paid into a special fund.

The monies from the fund are then to be used to make

payments for public schools and roads to the counties in

which refuges having such revenue producing activities

are located.”

14. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 460L-4 to 460L-11), and as amended

through 1987.

15. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee). This Act, derived from

sections 4 and 5 of Public Law 89-669, “consolidated

‘game ranges’, ‘wildlife ranges’, ‘wildlife management

areas’, ‘waterfowl production areas’, and ‘wildlife

refuges’, into a single ‘National Wildlife Refuge System.’

It placed restrictions on the transfer, exchange, or other

disposal of lands within the System; clarified the

Secretary’s authority to accept donations of money to be

used for land acquisition; and, most importantly,

authorized the Secretary, under regulations, to ‘permit

the use of any area within the System for any purpose,

including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, public

recreation and accommodations, and access whenever he

determines that such uses are compatible with the major

purposes for which such areas were established.”

16. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.

470).

17. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).

18. Environmental Education Act of 1975 (20 U.S.C. 1531-

1536).

19. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 87

Stat. 884) P.L. 93-205). The Endangered Species Act as

amended by Public Law 97-304, The Endangered

Species Act Amendments of 1982, dated February 1983.

The 1973 Act “builds its program of protection on three

fundamental units. These include two classifications of

species—those that are ‘endangered’ and those that are

threatened’—and a third classification of geographic

areas denominated critical habitats.’”

This Act: (1) Authorizes the determination and listing of

species as endangered and threatened, and the ranges in

which such conditions exist; (2) Prohibits unauthorized

taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered

species; (3) Provides authority to acquire land for the

conservation of listed species, using land and water

conservation funds; (4) Authorizes establishment of

cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states that

establish and maintain active and adequate programs for

endangered and threatened wildlife; and, (5) Authorizes

the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for

violating the Act or regulations.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires

Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized,

funded, or carried out by them does not jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species or modify their

critical habitat.

20. Floodplain Management Executive Order of 1977

(Executive Order 11988, dated May 24, 1977).

21. Wetlands Preservation Executive Order of 1977

(Executive Order 11990, dated May 24, 1977).

22. The Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (P.L.

96-95, 93 Sta. 721, dated October 1979) (16 U.S.C. 470aa -

47011).

23. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-366,

dated September 29, 1980). (“Nongame Act”) (16 U.S.C.

2901-2911; 94 Stat. 1322).

24. Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559, 701-

706, 1305, 3105, 3344, 4301, 5362, 7521; 60 Stat. 237), as

amended (P.L. 79-404, as amended).

25. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d;

54 Stat. as amended).

26. Canadian United States Migratory Bird Treaty

(Convention Between the United States and Great

Britain for Canada for the Protection of Migratory

Birds. (39 Stat. 1702; TS 628), as amended.

27. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857-1857f; 69 Stat. 322), as

amended.

28. Cooperative Research and Training Units Act(16U.S.C.

753a-753b, 74 Stat. 733, as amended. P.L. 86-686).

29. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-

777k, 64 Stat. 430).

30. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-

669i; 50 Stat. 917), as amended.

31. Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (7

U.S.C. 136-136y; 86 Stat. 975), as amended.
142 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

32. Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.

1701-1771, 1714-1716 for land acquisitions and other

U.S.C. sections; 90 Stat. 2743). Public Law 94-579,

October 1976.

33. Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a 825r; 41 Stat. 1063),

as amended.

34. Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of

1949 (40 U.S.C., 471-535, and other U.S.C. sections; 63

Stat. 378), as amended.

35. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251-1265, 1281-1292, 1311-1328, 1341-

1345, 1361-1376, and other U.S.C. titles; 86 Stat. 816), as

amended.

36. Federal Water Project Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 4601-

12-4601-21; 79 Stat. 213), as amended P.L. 89-72,

approved July 1985.

37. Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.

7421; 92 Stat. 3110) P.L. 95-616, November 1978.

38. Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d, 825s and

various sections of title 33 and 43 U.S.C.; 58 Stat 887), as

amended and supplemented.

39. Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552; 88 Stat. 1561.

40. Refuge Trespass Act (18 U.S.C. 41; Stat 686).

41. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 30

Stat. 1151, as amended and supplemented.

42. Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife

Conservation Purposes Act of May 1948, (16 U.S.C.

667b-667d; 62 Stat. 240), as amended.

43. Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C., 1962-1962a-3;

79 Stat. 244), as amended.

44. Waterfowl Depredations Prevention Act (7 U.S.C. 442-

445; 70 Stat. 492), as amended.

45. Clean Water Act of 1972, Section 404. Under this Act,

permits are required to be obtained for discharges of

dredged and fill materials into all waters, including

wetlands. Implementation of the 404 program involves

three other Federal agencies in addition to limited state

involvement. The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the

Service review permit applications and provide

comments and recommendations on whether permits

should be issued by the Corps. The EPA has veto

authority over permits involving disposal sites if impacts

are considered unacceptable, and also develops criteria

for discharges and state assumption of the 404 program.

Due to a national lawsuit, Section 404 regulations were

changed in 1984, and now apply to tributaries of

navigable waters, isolated wetlands, and waters where

interstate commerce is involved. With the new

regulations, all washes, drainage, and tributaries of

navigable waters, including ephemeral and perennial

streams, are included under the 404 program in Arizona.

46. The Flood Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill). Revised.

47. Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act.

(U.S.C. 718d(b)-c).

48. Mining Act of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et. Seq.)

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the

so-called “hardrock” minerals such as gold and silver, on

public lands.

49. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181

et. Seq.)

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for

development of deposits of coal, oil, gas and other

hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and

sodium, Section 185 of this title contains provisions

relating to granting rights-of-way over Federal lands for

pipelines. (Additional requirements for refuges are

found at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(2).)

50. Federal Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 1976 In section

16, the Act provides that nothing in the Mining Act, the

Mineral Leasing Act, or the Mineral Leasing Act for

Acquired Lands authorizes the mining of coal on refuges.

51. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands as amended

(30 U.S.C. 351 et. seq.) Authorizes and governs mineral

leasing on acquired lands.

52. Wyoming State Statute 23-1-105, Migratory Bird

Refuges Gives consent of state to acquisition of land

(20,000 acres) by United States in the Seedskadee area

for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a

migratory bird refuge. If ceases to be used as a

migratory bird refuge, the land reverts back to the

State. Provides for the owner of any land acquired under

this section to reserve all oil, gas, coal, or other minerals

as well as the right to enter the land for exploration,

development and production of oil, gas, coal, or other

minerals.

53. Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998: To

amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote

volunteer programs and community partnerships for the

benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other

purposes. October 5, 1998
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 143

Bureau of Reclamation Mandates. Bureau of Reclamation Mandates

1. Colorado River Storage Project Act, Section 8 (43

U.S.C. 620-620o, except certain sections classified to the

Colorado River Basin Project Act; 70 Stat. 105), as

amended. This Act authorized the Secretary of the

Interior to construct a variety of dams, power plants,

reservoirs, and related works. This Act also authorized

and directed the Secretary, in connection with the

development of the Colorado River Storage Project and

participating projects, to investigate, plan, construct,

and operate facilities to mitigate losses of, and improve

conditions for, fish and wildlife and public recreational

facilities. This Act provided authority to acquire lands

and to lease or convey lands and facilities to state and

other agencies.

2. Colorado River Basin Project Act, Sept. 30, 1968, Public

Law 90-537, 82 Stat. 885.

3. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, June 24,

1974, Public Law 93-320, 88 Stat. 266.

4. Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 388, 43 U.S.C. 391.

5. Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, approved by

Congress, December 21, 1928, c 42 § 13, 45 Stat. 1064.

6. Conservation of Wildlife, Fish and Game, March 10,

1934, 48 Stat. 401.

7. Coordination of Recreation Programs, Public Law 88-29,

May 28, 1963, 77 Stat. 49.

8. The Seedskadee Reclamation Act of 1958, August 28,

1958, 72 Stat. 963.
144 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix F. Species List of . Species List of

Seedskadee NWR

Birds

Loons

Common Loon Gavia immer

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

Pelicans

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Great Egret Ardea alba

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Ibises and Spoonbills

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

New World Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Ross’ Goose Chen rossii

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Gadwall Anas strepera

American Wigeon Anas americana

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata

Northern Pintail Anas acuta

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Redhead Aythya americana

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Osprey, Kites, Hawks, and Eagles

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Falcons and Caracaras

American Kestrel Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Gallinaceous Birds

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Rails

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus

American Coot Fulica americana

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Whooping Crane Grus americana

Plovers

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus

Stilts and Avocets

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Sandpipers and Phalaropes

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, and Terns

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

California Gull Larus californicus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

Black Tern Chlidonias niger

Pigeons and Doves

Rock Dove Introduced Columba livia

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 145

Cuckoos and Anis

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Typical Owls

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus

Nightjars

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

Swifts

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis

Hummingbirds

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope

Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Tyrant Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus

Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

Cordilleran Flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Shrikes

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Vireos

Plumbeous Vireo Vireo plumbeus

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Common Raven Corvus corax

Larks

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Swallows

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

 Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Titmice and Chickadees

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla

Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli

Nuthatches

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Creepers

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Wrens

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Old World Warblers

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea

Thrushes

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Veery Catharus fuscescens

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Mimic Thrushes

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

Starlings

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Wagtails and Pipits

American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens

Waxwings

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Wood Warblers

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Virginia’s Warbler Vermivora virginiae

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens
146 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Tanagers

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Sparrows and Towhees

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

Fox Sparrow Passerelia iliaca

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

McCown’s Longspur Calcarius mccownii

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

Dickcissel Spiza americana

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Western Meadowlark Surnella neglecta

Yellow-headed Blackbird

 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula

Finches

Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis

Black Rosy-Finch Leucosticte atrata

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Mammals

Cinereus or Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Merriam’s Shrew Sorex merriami

Dusky or Montane Shrew Sorex monticolus

Common Water Shrew Sorex palustris

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans

Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus

Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus

Yellow-bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris

Uinta Ground Squirrel Spermophilus armatus

Wyoming Ground Squirrel Spermophilus elegans

Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

 Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

White-tailed Prairie-dog Cynomys leucurus

Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus

Great Basin Pocket Mouse Perognathus parvus

Ord’s Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii

American Beaver Castor canadensis

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster

Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea

Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus

Montane Vole Microtus montanus

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus

Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Coyote Canis latrans

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Black Bear Ursus americanus

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor

Ermine Mustela erminea

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

American Mink Mustela vison

American Badger Taxidea taxus

Northern River Otter Lontra canadensis

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Bobcat Lyns rufus

Wapiti or Elk Cervus elaphus

Mule or Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus

Moose Alces alces

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 147

Reptiles and Amphibians

Reptiles

Many-lined Skink Eumeces multivirgatus

Northern Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus

Northern Plateau Lizard Sceloporus undulatus

Eastern Short-Horned Lizard Phrynosoma douglassi

Eastern Yellowbelly Racer Coluber constrictor

Great Basin Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucas

Wandering Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans

Western Plains Garter Snake

 Thamnophis radix subspeci. haydenies

Amphibians

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Great Basin Spadefoot Scaphiopus intermontanus

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens

Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata

Fish

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Snake River Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki

Bonnieville Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki utah

Kokanee Salmon Oncorhynchus nerki

Brown Trout Salmo trutta

Lake Trout Salvelinus namaychus

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Mountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhychus

Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis

Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus

Common Carp Cyprinnus carpio

Utah Chub Gila atraria

Roundtail Chub Gila robusta

Bonneville Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus

Fathead Minnow Pimphales promelas

Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus
148 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Vascular plant species of Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, Sweetwater County, Wyoming

Last Update – 1/04/2001, Following Dorn 1992.

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FAMILY TYPE

TREES

*Populus angustifolia James. Narrowleaf cottonwood SALICACEAE NP

SHRUBS

*Artemisia frigida Willd. Fringed sagebrush ASTERACEAE NP

*Artemisia nova A. Nels. Black sagebrush ASTERACEAE NP

*Artemisia spinescens Eaton Bud sagebrush ASTERACEAE NP

*Artemisia tridentata Nutt. Big Sagebrush ASTERACEAE NP

*Atriplex confertifolia (Torrey & Frem.) Wats. Shadscale CHENOPODIACEAE NP

*Atriplex gardneri (Moq.) Dietr. Gardner saltbush (former Nuttall) CHENOPODIACEAE NP

Betula occidentalis Hook. Water birch BETULACEAE NP

Chrysothamnus linifolius Greene Green/Douglas rabbitbrush ASTERACEAE NP

*Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Pallas ex Pursh) Britt. Gray/Rubber rabbitbrush ASTERACEAE NP

*Cornus sericea L. (former = C. stolonifera) Red-osier dogwood CORNACEAE NP

*Elaeagnus commutata Bernh. Ex Rydb. Silverberry/wolf willow ELAEAGNACEAE ?

Elaeagnus angustifolia L. Russian olive ELAEACEACEAE IP

Eriogonum brevicaule Nutt. Umbrella plant POLYGONACEAE ??

*Grayia spinosa (Hook.) Moq. Spiny hop-sage CHENOPODIACEAE NP

Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) Britt. & Rusby Snakeweed ASTERACEAE NP

*Leptodactylon pungens (Torrey) Nutt. Granite prickly gilia POLEMONIACEAE NP

Lycium barbarum L. Matrimony vine SOLANACEAE IP

Opuntia Spp? Prickly pear cactus CACTACEAE NP

*Pediocactus simpsonii (Engelm.) Britt. & Rose Pincushion cactus CACTACEAE NP

*Rhus trilobata Nutt. Skunkbush/fragrant sumac ANACARDIACEAE NP

*Ribes aureum Pursh Wax currant, golden currant GROSSULARIACEAE NP 1

*Ribes oxyacanthoides L. var. setosum Lindl. Dorn Missouri/Redshoot gooseberry GROSSULARIACEAE NP

*Rosa woodsii Lindl. Woods’ rose ROSACEAE NP

*Salix bebbiana Sarg. Bebb willow SALICACEAE NP

*Salix exigua Nutt. Coyote willow SALICACEAE NP

Salix lasiandra Benth. var. caudate (Nutt.) Sudw. Whiplash willow SALICACEAE NP

*Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torr. Black greasewood CHENOPODIACEAE NP

*Sheperdia argentea (Pursh) Nutt. Silver buffaloberry ELAEAGNACEAE NP

Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. Salt cedar TAMARICACEAE IP

*Tetradymia canescens DC. Gray horsebrush ASTERACEAE NP

*Tetradymia spinosa H.&A. Cottonthorn horsebrush ASTERACEAE NP

FORBS

Abronia fragrans Nutt.ex Hook. Snowball sand verbena NYCTAGINACEAE ? 2

Abronia micrantha Torrey Sandpuffs NYCTAGINACEAE ?A

* Acroptilon repens L. = Centaurea repens (L.) De Candolle Russian knapweed ASTERACEAE IP

Agoseris glauca (Pursh) Raf. Pale agoseris ASTERACEAE ?P

*Allium textile Nels. & Macbr. Wild onion LILIACEAE NP

Antennaria parvifolia Nutt. Littleleaf pussytoes ASTERACEAE ?P

*Arabis holboellii Hornem. Holboell rockcress BRASSICACEAE ?B-P

*Arenaria hookeri Nutt. Hooker sandwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE ?

*Artemisia dracunculus L. Tarragon sagewort ASTERACEAE NP

*Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. Louisiana wormwood/sagewort ASTERACEAE NP

*Asclepias speciosa Torrey Showy milkweed ASCLEPIADACEAE NP 3

*Aster chilensis Nees refer to A. ascendens Lindl. Pacific aster ASTERACEAE ?

*Astragalus agrestis Dougl.ex G. Don Purple/Field milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus argophyllus Nutt. Silver-leafed Milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus canadensis L. Canada/Short-toothed milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus chamaeleuce Gray Milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P 4

*Astragalus convallarius Greene (diversifolius, Dorn) Lesser Rushy milkvetch/Timber poisonvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus geyeri Gray Geyer’s Milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus pubentissimus T&G. Green River milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus purshii Dougl. Ex. Hook. Wooly pod milkvetch/Purshes locoweed FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus spatulatus Sheld. Draba/Tufted milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Astragalus tenellus Pursh. Loose flower milkvetch FABIACEAE ?P

*Calochortus nuttallii T&G Nuttall’s mariposa lily LILIACEAE NP

Camissonia minor (A. Nels.) Raven Evening primrose family ONAGRACEAE ?

*Camissonia scapoidea (T.&G.) Raven Naked stemmed evening primrose ONAGRACEAE ?

Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. Hoary cress BRASSICACEAE IP

*Cardaria pubescens (Meyer) Jarmol. Longstalk whitetop BRASSICACEAE IP

*Carduus nutans L. Musk thistle ASTERACEAE IA-B

*Castilleja augustifolia (Nutt.) G. Don (former chromosa A. Nels.) Desert paintbrush SCROPHULARIACEAE NP

*Centaurea muculosa Lam. Spotted knapweed ASTERACEAE IB-P

*Chenopodium glaucum L. Oakleaf goosefoot CHENOPODIACEAE ?A

Chenopodium leptophyllum (Moq.) Nutt. ex Wats. Slimleaf goosefoot CHENOPODIACEAE ?A

*Cicuta maculata (in Dorn) [old? Douglasii (DC.) Coult. & Rose] Water hemlock APIACEAE NP

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Canada thistle ASTERACEAE IP 5

*Cirsium foliosum (Hook.) DC. [C. scariosum Nutt.] Elk thistle ASTERACEAE NP

*Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore Bull thistle ASTERACEAE IB
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 149

*Cleome lutea Hook. Yellow beeplant CAPPARACEAE NA

Comandra sp. [C. umellata (L.)?? ] Bastard Toadflax SANTALACEAE ??

Convolvulus arvensis L. Field bindweed CONVOLVULACEAE IP

*Cordylanthus ramosus Nutt. Ex Benth. Bushy birdbeak SCROPHULARIACEAE ??

*Crepis runcinata (James) T.&G. Dandelion hawksbeard ASTERACEAE ?P

*Cryptantha flavoculata (A. Nels.) Payson Roughseed cryptantha BORAGINACEAE NB-P

*Cryptantha sericea (Gray) Payson Cryptantha BORAGINACEAE NB-P

*Cymopterus acaulis (Pursh) Raf. Biscuit root APIACEAE NP

*Cymopterus longipes Wats. Biscuit root APIACEAE NP

*Descurainia pinnata (Walt.) Britt Pinnate tansy-mustard BRASSICACEAE NA

*Descurainia sophia (L.)Webb ex Prantl Flixweed tansy-mustard BRASSICACEAE IA

*Erigeron glabellus Nutt. Smooth fleabane ASTERACEAE ??

*Erigeron pumilus Nutt. Low fleabane ASTERACEAE ??

*Eriogonum cernuum Nutt. Nodding eriogonum POLYGONACEAE ?A-B

*Eriogonum ovalifolium Nutt. Cushion eriogonum POLYGONACEAE ??

Euphorbia brachycera Engelm. var. robusta (Engelm.) DornRocky Mountain spurge EUPHORBIACEAE ?P

Euphorbia glyptosperma Engelm. Ridgeseed spurge EUPHORBIACEAE ?A

*Gaura coccinea Nutt. ex Pursh Scarlet gaura ONAGRACEAE NP

*Gilia leptomeriaGray Gilia POLEMONIACEAE NA

Glaux maritima L. Sea-milkwort PRIMULACEAE ??

*Glycyrrhiza lepidota Pursh American licorice FABACEAE NP

*Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal Curlycup gumweed ASTERACEAE NB-P

Gypsophila paniculata L. Babysbreath CARYOPHYLLACEAE IP

*Halimolobos virgata (Nutt.) Schulz Halimolobos BRASSICACEAE ??

*Halogeton glomeratus (Bieb.) Meyer Common halogeton CHENOPODIACEAE IA

*Haplopappus acaulis (Nutt.) Gray Stemless goldenweed ASTERACEAE ?P

*Haplopappus lanceolatus (Hook.) T.&G. Lanceleaf goldenweed ASTERACEAE ?P 6

*Haplopappus nuttallii T. & G. [Former Machaeranthera grindelioides Nutt. Shinners] Nuttall goldenweed ASTERACEAE ??

*Helenium autumnale L. Common sneezeweed ASTERACEAE ?P

*Hippuris vulgaris L. Common marestail HIPPURIDACEAE NP

*Hymenopappus filifolius Hook. Fineleaf hymenopappus ASTERACEAE ?P

*Hyoscyamus niger L. Black henbane SOLANACEAE IA-B 7

*Ipomopsis congesta (Hook.) Grant [former = Gilia congesta Hook.] Common ball-head gilia POLEMONIACEAE ??

*Iris missouriensis Nutt. Rocky Mountain iris IRIDACEAE NP

*Iva axillaries Pursh Poverty weed ASTERACEAE NP

Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. Kochia CHENOPODIACEAE IA

Lactuca serriola L. Prickly lettuce ASTERACEAE ?NA-B

Lappula occidentalis (S. Wats.) Greene Western sticktight BORAGINACEAE NA

*Lepidium latifolium L. Tall whitetop, pepperweed BRASSICACEAE IP

Lepidium perfoliatum L. Clasping pepperweed BRASSICACEAE IA

*Lepodactylon pungens (Torr.) Nutt. Lepodactylon POLEMONIACEAE ??

*Lesquerella alpina (Nutt.) Wats. Bladderpod BRASSICACEAE ??

*Lesquerella ludoviciana (Nutt.) Wats. Bladderpod BRASSICACEAE ??

*Lithospermum incisum Lehm. Narrow-leaf gromwell BORAGINACEAE NP 8

*Lupinus argenteus Pursh. [= L. caudatus} Silvery lupine FABIACEAE NP

*Lupinus pusillus Pursh. Rusty lupine FABIACEAE NA

*Lygodesmia grandiflora (Nutt.) T.& G. Skeletonweed ASTERACEAE ?P

*Machaeranthera canescens (Pursh) Gray Purple aster ASTERACEAE ?P 9

*Maianthemum stellatum (L.) Link Starry solomon plume LILIACEAE N?

*Malcolmia africana (L.) R.Br. Malcolmia BRASSICACEAE ?A

*Medicago sativa L. Alfalfa FABIACEAE IP

*Melilotus albus Medic. White sweet-clover FABACEAE IA-B

*Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pallas Yellow sweet-clover FABACEAE IA-B

*Mentha arvensis L. Field mint LAMIACEAE NP

*Mirabilis linearis (Pursh) Heimerl Narrowleaf umbrella wort NYTAGINACEAE ?P

Monolepis nuttalliana (Schultes) Greene Poverty-weed CHENOPODIACEAE NA

*Nama densum Lemmon Leafy/Matted nama HYDROPHYLLACEAE ?A

*Oenothera caespitosa Nutt. Tufted evening primrose ONAGRACEAE N? 10*Oenothera hookeri T. & G.?? Hooker evening primrose ONAGRACEAE N? 11*Oenothera pallida Lindl. Hairycalyx evening primrose ONAGRACEAE N?

Oenothera villosa Thunb. Evening-primrose ONAGRACEAE NB

*Orobanche fasciculate Nutt. Tufted broomrape OROBANCHACEAE N?

*Oxytropis deflexa (Pallas) DC. Drop-pod locoweed FABIACEAE NP

*Oxytropis riparia Litv. River oxytrope FABIACEAE NP

*Oxytropis sericea Nutt. ex T. & G. Silky crazyweed FABIACEAE NP

*Penstemon arenicola A. Nels. Sand penstemon; beardtongue SCROPHULARIACEAE NP

Penstemon eriantherus Pursh Crested penstemon SCROPHULARIACEAE NP

*Penstemon fremontii T. & G. ex Gray Fremont penstemon SCROPHULARIACEAE NP

*Phlox hoodii Richardson Hood’s phlox POLEMONIACEAE NP

*Physaria acutifolia Rydb. Twinpod/Bladderpod BRASSICACEAE NP

*Physostegia parviflora Nutt. Ex Gray False dragonhead LAMIACEAE ??

*Plantago eriopoda Torr. Saline/Redwood plaintain PLANTAGINACEAE NP

*Plantago major L. Broadleaf plantain PLANTAGINACEAE IP

*Polygonum aviculare L. Prostrate knotweed POLYGONACEAE IA

*Potentilla anserina L. Common silverweed ROSACEAE NP

*Potentilla hippiana Lehm. Wooly potentilla ROSACEAE NP 12*Psoralidium lanceolatum (Pursh) Rydb Lemon scurf pea FABIACEAE ?P

*Ranunculus cymbalaria Pursh Marsh/Seaside buttercup RANUNCULACEAE NP

Rorippa curvipes Greene Cress BRASSICACEAE ??

*Rorippa sinuate (Nutt.) A.S. Hitch. Spreading yellow cress BRASSICACEAE ??
150 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

*Rumex crispus L. Curly dock POLYGONACEAE NP

*Rumex hymenosepalus Torrey Dock POLYGONACEAE ??

*Rumex maritimus L. [var. fueginus (Phil) Dusen] Dock POLYGONACEAE ??

*Salicornia rubra A. Nels. Rocky Mountain glasswort CHENOPODIACEAE 13Salsola iberica Sennen Russian thistle CHENOPODIACEAE IA 14*Schoenocrambe linifolia (Nutt.) Greene Plains/Basin mustard BRASSICACEAE ?P

*Senecio hydrophilus Nutt. Groundsel ASTERACEAE NP

*Sisyrinchium spp. Blue-eyed grass IRIDACEAE NP

*Solanum rostratum Dun. Buffalobur SOLANACEAE NA

*Solidago missouriensis Nutt. Missouri goldenrod ASTERACEAE NP

*Sonchus arvensis L.ssp. uliginosus (Bieb.) Nyman Marsh sow-thistle ASTERACEAE IP

*Sonchus asper L. Hill Spiny sowthistle ASTERACEAE IA

*Sphaeralcea coccinea (Nutt.) Rydb. Scarlet globemallow MALVACEAE NP

*Sphaeromeria argentea Nutt. False sagebrush ASTERACEAE ?P

*Sphaerophysa salsula (Pall.) DC. Swainsonpea FABIACEAE IP

*Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers Common dandelion ASTERACEAE IP

*Tiquilia nuttallii(Hook.) Richardson Tiquilia BORAGINACEAE ?A

*Townsendia incana Nutt. Hoary townsendia ASTERACEAE ??

*Trifolium andinum Nutt. Nuttal clover FABACEAE ??

Triglochin maritimum L. var. elatum (Nutt) Gray Maritime arrowgrass JUNCAGINACEAE NP

*Typha latifolia L. Common cattail TYPHACEAE NP

Valeriana edulis Nutt. ex T. & G. Edible valeriana VALERIANACEAE ?P

Verbena bracteata Lag. & Rodr. Prostrate vervain VERBENACEAE ?A-P

*Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. Water Speedwell SCROPHULARIACEAE ??

Vicia americana American vetch FABACEAE ?P

*Xanthium strumarium L. Common cocklebur ASTERACEAE NA

FERN ALLIES

*Equisetum laevigatum A. Br. Smooth scouringrush/horsetail EQUISETACEAE NP

GRASSES

*Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. Crested wheatgrass POACEAE IP

*Agropyron spicatum (Pursh) Scribn. & Sm.= Elymus spicatus (Pursh) Gould Bluebunch wheatgrass POACEAE NP

*Agropyron trachycaulum x Hordeum jubatum hybrid

*Agrostis stolonifera L. Redtop, Bentgrass POACEAE IP

Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. Shortawn foxtail POACEAE NP

Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret Creeping foxtail (Garrison is a cultivar) POACEAE IP

*Alopecurus pratensis L. Meadow foxtail POACEAE IP

*Beckmannia syzigachne (Steudel) Fern. American sloughgrass POACEAE NA

*Bromus inermis Leyss. Smooth brome POACEAE IP

Bromus tectorum L. Cheatgrass brome POACEAE IA 15*Calamagrostis stricta (Timm) Koeler Northern reedgrass POACEAE NP

*Deschampsia cespitosa (L.) Beauv. Tufted hairgrass POACEAE NP

*Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene Inland saltgrass POACEAE NP

*Elymus cinereus Scribn. & Merr. Great Basin wildrye POACEAE NP

* Elymus hispidus (Opiz) Melderis = Agropyron intermedium (Host.)Beauv. Intermediate wheatgrass POACEAE IP

*Elymus repens (L.) Gould =Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Quackgrass POACEAE IP

Elymus smithii (Rydb.) Gould= Agropyron smithii Rydb. Western wheatgrass POACEAE NP 16E lymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners var. andinus (Scribn. & Sm.) Dorn = Agropyron subsecundum.

Bearded wheatgrass POACEAE ?P

Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners var. trachycaulus = Agropyron trachycaulum (Link) Malte

Slender wheatgrass POACEAE ?P

*Festuca pratensis Huds. = F. elatior L. Meadow fescue POACEAE IP

*Hilaria jamesii (Torr.) Benth Galleta POACEAE ??

*Hordeum jubatum L. Foxtail barley POACEAE NP

Muhlenbergia asperifolia (Nees & Mey. Ex Trin) Parodi Scratchgrass POACEAE NP

*Muhlenbergia richardsonis (Trin.) Rydb. Mat Muhly POACEAE NP

*Oryzopsis hymenoides (R. & S.) Riker ex Piper Indian ricegrass POACEAE NP

Phalaris arundinacea L. Reed canarygrass POACEAE IP

Phleum pratense L. Timothy POACEAE IP

Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steudel Common Reed POACEAE IP

Poa juncifolia Scribn. Alkali bluegrass POACEAE NP

Poa nevadensis Vasey ex Scribn. Nevada bluegrass POACEAE NP

Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass POACEAE IP

*Sitanion hystrix (Nutt.) J.G. Smith Bottlebrush squirreltail POACEAE *Spartina

gracilis Trin. Alkali cordgrass POACEAE

*Sporobolus airoides (Torrey) Torrey Alkali sacaton POACEAE NP

*Stipa comata Trin. & Rupr. Needle and thread grass POACEAE NP

SEDGES

*Carex douglasii Boott Douglas sedge CYPERACEAE

*Carex lanuginose Michx. Wooly sedge CYPERACEAE

*Carex nebrascensis Dewey Nebraska sedge CYPERACEAE

*Carex praegracilis Boott Silver sedge CYPERACEAE

*Carex rostrata Stokes Beaked sedge CYPERACEAE

*Carex simulata Mack. Short-beaked sedge CYPERACEAE

*Eleocharis palustris (L.) R.&S. Common spikerush CYPERACEAE NP

*Scirpus acutus Muhl. ex Bigelow Tule bulrush CYPERACEAE NP

*Scirpus pungens Vahl. Common threesquare CYPERACEAE NP
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 151

RUSHES

Juncus balticus Willd. Wiregrass JUNCACEAE NP

WEED SPECIMENS IN HERBARIUM – NOT FOUND ON REFUGE (YET)

*Euphorbia esula L. Leafy spurge EUPHORBIACEAE IP

*Centaurea solstitialis L. Yellow starthistle ASTERACEAE IP

*Hypericum perforatum L. St. John’s-wort HYPERICACEAE IP

*Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife LYTHRACEAE IP

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

<Plant Type Codes: I = Introduced; N = Native; A = Annual; B = Biennial; P = Perennial

* Denotes plant specimen in herbarium.

NOTES:

1

*Ribes oxyacanthoides L. var. setosum Lindl. Dorn Missouri/Redshoot gooseberry

Ribes setosum specimen in herbarium. Dorn lists Ribes oxyacanthoides L. var. setosum Lindl. Dorn.

2

Abronia micrantha Torrey Sandpuffs

Tripterocalyx micranthus listed in “Plants of Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge”

Dorn 92 – T. Micranthus not listed. A. micrantha is listed.

Uinta Basin Flora listed “T. Micranthus (Torr.) Hook. [T. pedunculatus (Jones) Stand.; Abronia micrantha Torr.]”

3 Aster chilensis –

Specimum in herbarium A. chilensis. Uinta Basin Flora. Lists chilensis but spp. Referable to ascendens (Lindl.) Cronq.

4 *Astragalus convallarius Greene Lesser Rushy milkvetch/Timber poisonvetch

Uinta Basin Flora. Reports A. diversifolius Gray is misapplied. No spp. for convallarius Greene in Dorn 92, only diversifolius var.

diversifolius listed in the Green River Basin.

5

*Cirsium foliosum (Hook.) DC. Elk thistle

Dorn 92 – C. foliosum recorded in Yellowstone Park, Sheridan. C. scariosum Nutt. Recorded in nw,nwc,nec,cw,c.

Weeds of West – Lists C. foliosum in picture but references C. scariosum in index.

6

*Haplopappus nuttallii T. & G. Nuttall goldenweed

Machaeranthera grindelioides Nutt. Shinners specimen in herbarium. Uinta Basin Flora – lists M. grindelioides (Haplopappus nuttallii

T. & G.). In Dorn’s index lists M. grindelioides = H. nuttallii

7

* Ipomopsis congesta (Hook.) Grant Common ball-head gilia

Gilia congesta specimen in herbarium. Uinta Basin Flora lists Gilia congesta Hook. [Ipomopsis congesta (Hook.) V. Grant]as common

widespread desert shrub, sagebrush and pinyon-juniper communities.

8

*Lupinus argenteus Pursh.[= L. caudatus} Silvery lupine

*Lupinus caudatus Kell. Tailcup lupine

9

*Maianthemum stellatum (L.) Link Starry solomon plume

Dorn 92 - Smilacina = Maianthemum; Old name: Smilacina stellata

10*Oenothera hookeri T. & G. Hooker evening primrose

Uinta Basin Flora – O. elata H.B.K. [O. hookeri T. & G. var. angustifolia Gates]

Dorn 92 – No index listing for O. elata or hookeri. Is this maybe O. laciniata or villosa?

11*Oenothera pallida Lindl. Hairycalyx evening primrose

Oenothera trichocalyx specimen in herbarium. Dorn lists O. pallida with trichocalyx as a variety. Uinta Basin Flora lists O. pallida

Lindl. Pale e. (O. trichocalyz Nutt. ex T. & G.)

12* Psoralidium lanceolatum (Pursh) Rydb Lemon scurf pea

Psoralea lanceolata Pursh in herbarium. Dorn 92 lists Psoralea changed to Pedimelum or Psoralidium. And lanceolata to lanceolatum.

Uinta Basin Flora agrees.

13Salsola iberica Sennen Russian thistle

Name from Weeds of the West, Russian thistle synonyms include S. kali L. and S. pesitfer A. Nels. Dorn 92 lists two Salisola spp. – S.

australis R. Br. and S. collina Palles.

14*Schoenocrambe linifolia (Nutt.) Greene Plains/Basin mustard

Uinta Basin Flora = [Sisymbrium linifolium (Nutt.) Nutt. in T. & G.]

Dorn 92 does not list Sisymbrium linifolium.

15*Calamagrostis stricta (Timm) Koeler Northern reedgrass

Calamagrostis neglecta (Ehrh.) Gaertn. in herbarium and in Hitchcock 2nd ed.

Dorn 92 – C. neglecta not listed

Uinta Basin Flora “C. stricta (Timm) Koeler Northern r. [C. inexpansa Gray; C. neglecta (ehrh.) Gaertn.]

16E lymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners var. andinus (Scribn. & Sm.) Dorn Bearded Wheatgrass

Agropyron subsecundum in herbarium as Bearded wheatgrass . Dorn 92 – A. subsecundum is now Elymus trachycaulus with Slender

wheatgrass as var. trachycaulus and Bearded Wheatgrass as var. andinus.
152 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Plants removed from list because of possible misidentification or unknown species. Plants removed from list because of possible misidentification or unknown species

A. Arabis perennans Wats. Rockcress

Dorn 92 – Records only in Albany county.

B. Salix eriocephala Michauz var. watsonii (Bebb) Dorn Yellow willow SALICACEAE

Dorn 92 – Salix eriocephala Michx. Records for Black Hills; E, nec only. No variety for eriocephala

C. Dracocephalum nuttallii False dragonhead LAMIACEAE

D.nuttallii not listed in Dorn or Uinta Basin Flora

D. Epilobium spp. Willow-herb ONAGRACEAE

Unknown species

E. Erigeron controversus Fleabane; wild daisy ASTERACEAE

E. controversus not listed in Dorn or Uinta Basin Flora

F. Lathyrus sp. Pea-vine FABACEAE

Unknown spp.

G. *Plantago tweedyi Tweedy plaintain PLANTAGINACEAE

Dorn 92 – “moist places in mountains” nw,cw,c,sc

H. *Agropyron caninum POACEAE

Dorn 92 – not listed.

Hitchcock - “This is the species [A. subsecundum] which has generally been called by American botanists A. caninum (L.)

Beauv.; that is a European species, differing in having 3-nerved glumes.

Uinta Basin Flora – Recognized as a diverse complex in which several species have similarities and intergradation including

A. caninum by Cronquist and others (1977). Also “A. trachycaulum (Link) Malte Slender w. [A canium L. ssp. Majis (Vasey) C. L. Hichc.

Literature cited: Literature cited:

Dorn R. D. 1992 Vascular plants of Wyoming, 2nd edition. Mountain West Publishing. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 340pp.

Goodrich, S. and E. Neese. 1986. Uinta Basin Flora. USDA Forest Service – Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. 320pp.

Hartman, R. L. and C. H. Refsdal. 1995. Status report on the general floristic inventory of southwest Wyoming and adjacent northeast

Utah. Rocky Mountain Herbarium. University of Wyoming , Laramie.

Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the grasses of the United States, 2nd edition, Volume 1 & 2. Dover publications, Inc. New York.

USDA, NRCS. 1999. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants). National Plant data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490.

USA.

Whitson, T. D., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R. Parker. 1996. Weeds of the West, 5th Edition.

Pioneer of Jackson Hole, Jackson, Wyoming. 630pp.

List was complied from

· Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge herbarium list,

· Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge herbarium,

· “Plants of Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge”,

· “Survey for (Spiranthes diluvialis) Ute Ladies’-Tresses on the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge”, P.E. Kung,

· Bitterroot Consultants, 1996, Riparian Revegetation Suitability Study Plant Species List – Appendix A.

· “Field guide to selected grasses and shruhb of Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge”, by Barbara J. Scott 1986
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 153

State Agencies

■ Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield,

IL

■ Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Bill Long, Jackson, WY

Ron Lockwood, Kemmerer, WY

Duane Kerr, Green River, WY

Tom Christiansen, Green River, WY

Steve DeCecco, Green River, WY

Mark Fowden, Cheyenne, WY

Neil Hymas, Cokeville, WY

Lucy Diggins, Green River, WY

Susan Patla, Jackson, WY

Robert Keith, Green River, WY

Ron Remmick, Green River, WY

Superior, WY

Casper, WY

Pinedale, WY

■ State Historic Preservation Office, Laramie, WY

■ State Historic Preservation Office, Cheyenne, WY

■ Utah Division of Wildlife, Vernal, UT

■ Colorado Division of Wildlife, Maybell, CO

Tribes

■ Shoshone Business Council, Fort Washakie, WY

■ Arapaho Business Committee, Fort Washakie, WY

■ Uintah & Ouray Tribal Bus. Council, Ft. Duchesne, UT

City/County/Local Governments

■ City of Green River, City Hall, Green River, WY

■ City of Pinedale, Pinedale, WY

■ City of Kemmerer, Kemmerer, WY

■ City of Rock Springs, Rock Springs, WY

■ County Commission, Lincoln County, Kemmerer, WY

■ Board of County Commissioners, Sweetwater County,

Carl Maldonado, Ted Ware, John Pallesen

■ Dist Mgr, Eden Valley Irrigation Dist, Farson, WY

■ Green River Chamber of Commerce, Green River, WY

■ Green River Police Dept., Greg Gillen, Green River, WY

■ Lincoln County, Randy Wilson, Kemmerer, WY

■ Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce, Dave Hanks, Rock

Springs, WY

■ Town of Cokeville, Cokeville, WY

■ Town of Labarge, Labarge, WY

■ Sweetwater County Fire Warden, Denny Washam, Rock

Springs WY

■ Sweetwater County Planner, Green River, WY

■ Uinta County Commissioners, W. Robert Stoddard,

Evanston, WY

Libraries

■ Cokeville Branch Library, Cokeville, WY

■ Lincoln County Library, Kemmerer, WY

■ Rock Springs Library, Rock Springs, WY

■ Sublette County Library, Pinedale, WY

■ Sweetwater County Library, Green River, WY

■ White Mountain Library, Rock Springs, WY

Newspapers/Radio

■ Casper Star Tribune, Dave Boyd, Casper, WY

■ Casper Star Tribune, Jeff Gearino, Green River, WY

■ Green River Star, Keith Jantz, Green River, WY

■ Kemmerer Gazette, Don Kiminski, Kemmerer, WY

■ Pinedale Roundup, Janet Montgomery, Pinedale, WY

■ Rocket-Miner, Greg Little, Rock Springs, WY

■ Sublette Examiner, Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale, WY

Appendix G. Mailing List Appendix G. Mailing List

Federal Officials

■ U.S. Congress Woman Representative, Barbara Cubin,

Washington, D.C. and Rock Springs, WY

■ U.S. Senator Craig Thomas, Washington, D.C. and Rock

Springs, WY

■ U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, Washington, D.C. and Jackson, WY

Federal Agencies

■ Bureau of Land Management

Andy Tenney, Rock Springs, WY

Dave Vesterby, Rock Springs, WY

Renee Dana, Rock Springs, WY

Lorraine Keith, Rock Springs, WY

Jeff Rawson, Kemmerer, WY

Priscilla Mecham, Pinedale, WY

■ Bureau of Reclamation

Provo Area Office, Provo, UT

Environmental Resources Group, Salt Lake City, UT

Fontenelle Dam, Gary Butterfield, Fontenelle, WY

■ Fossil Butte National Monument, Dave McGinnis,

Kemmerer, WY

■ National Resource Conservation Service, Farson, WY

■ U.S. Corps of Engineers, Cheyenne, WY

■ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wes Wilson,

Denver, CO

■ U.S. Forest Service

Don Duff , Salt Lake City, UT

Bert Kaluza, Vernal, UT

Bonnie Jacques, Ogden, UT

Steve Sams, Manila, UT

Kemmerer, WY

Jackson, WY

Green River, WY

■ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Lee Carlson, Golden, CO; Mike Long, Cheyenne, WY;

Shannon Heath, Helena, MT; Salt Lake City, UT;

Lander, WY; Grand Island ES, Grand Island, NE; Ouray

NWR, Vernal, UT; Browns Park NWR, Maybell, CO;

National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY; Portland, OR;

Sherwood, OR; Sacramento, CA; Albuquerque, NM;

Fort Snelling, MN; Atlanta, GA; Hadley, MA; Anchorage,

AK; Juneau, AK; Arlington, VA; Shepherdstown, WV;

Lakewood, CO; Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR, CO;

Crescent Lake NWR, NE; Lost Trail NWR, MT;

Rainwater Basin WMD, NE; Arapaho NWR, CO;

Arrowwood NWR, ND; Sand Lake NWR, SD; Waubay

NWR, SD; Medicine Lake NWR, MT

■ U.S. Geological Survey

Mike Scott and Greg Auble, Fort Collins, CO

BRD, Rick Schroeder, Ft. Collins, CO

State Officials

■ Governor Jim Geringer

■ State Senate Dist. 14, Mark Harris

■ State Senate Dist. 12, Rae Job

■ State Rep. House Dist. 39, Chris Boswell

■ State Rep. House Dist. 18, John L. Eyre

■ State Rep. House Dist. 16, Larry Levitt

■ State Rep. House Dist. 48, George ‘Bud’ Nelson

■ State Rep. House Dist. 17, Fred Parady

■ State Rep. House Dist. 60, Bill Thompson
154 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Businesses

■ Bear West Consulting, Salt Lake City, UT

■ BHE Environmental, Cincinnati, OH

■ Creative Fishing Adventures, Jim Willians, Manila, UT

■ Crosson Ranch Inc, John Crosson, Green River, WY

■ Flaming Gorge Lodge, Rock Springs, WY

■ Fontenelle Services, Kemmerer, WY

■ Four Seasons Fly Fishers, Murray, UT

■ Good Sam’s Club, Al Shedden, Rock Springs, WY

■ Great Outdoor Shop, Rex Poulson, Pinedale, WY

■ Highland Desert Flies, Bennie Johnson, Green River,

WY

■ Horne Engineering Services, Bel Air, MD

■ Landmark Design, Jan Striefel, Salt Lake City, UT

■ OCI Wyoming, IJ Rogers, Green River, WY

■ Park City Fly Shop, Chris Kunkle, Park City, UT

■ Sweet Dreams Inn, George and Tree, Green River, WY

■ Sweetwater County TV, Paula Wannacott, Rock Springs,

WY

■ Sweetwater County Weed and Pest, Farson, WY

■ Solitary Angler, Van Beacham, Kemmerer, WY

■ Wind River Sporting Goods, Jack Ely, Green River, WY

Organizations

■ Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA

■ Federation of Flyfishers, Larry Watson, Bozeman, MT

■ Cheyenne High Plains Audubon Society, Cheyenne, WY

■ Audubon Society, Gretchen Muller, Washington, D.C.

■ Big Sandy Group, Farson, WY

■ Central Wyoming Outfitters Assoc, Chris Peterson,

Casper, WY

■ Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

■ Friends of WY Deserts, Meridith Taylor, Dubois, WY

■ KRA Corporation, Paul E. Wilson, Bethesda, MD

■ National Trappers Assoc. Inc., New Martinsville, WV

■ National Wildlife Refuge Assoc., Colorado Springs, CO

■ North American Pronghorn Foundation, Casper, WY;

Rawlins, WY

■ People For The USA, Randy Shipman, Rock Springs,

WY

■ Rock Springs Grazing Assoc, Rock Springs, WY

■ States West Water Resources Corp., Patrick Tyrrell,

Cheyenne, WY

■ Sweetwater County Wildlife Assoc, Dick Randall, Rock

Springs, WY

■ Trout Unlimited, Joe McGurrin, Arlington, VA

■ The Nature Conservancy, Ben Pierce, Lander, WY; John

Humke, Boulder, CO

■ The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

■ The Wildlife Society, CMPS, Len Carpenter, Fort

Collins, CO

■ Water for Wildlife Foundation, Lander, WY

■ Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. and

Pratt, KS

■ Wyoming Ducks Unlimited, Barry Floyd, Casper, WY

■ Wyoming Native Plant Society, Phillip White, Laramie,

WY

■ Wyoming Trout Unlimited, Kathy Buckner, Jackson, WY

■ Wyoming Outdoors Council, Dan Heilig, Lander, WY

■ Wyoming Outfitters Assoc, Jane Chelberg, Cody , WY

■ Wyoming Resource Council, John McGee, Cody, WY

■ Wyoming Sportsmen’s Assoc , John Burd, Casper, WY

■ Wyoming Stock Growers Assoc, Cheyenne, WY

■ Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Kim Floyd, Cheyenne, WY;

Dan Chu, Cheyenne, WY

■ Wyoming Woolgrowers Assoc, Casper, WY

Schools/Universities

■ Northwestern University, Prof. Paul Friesema,

Evanston, IL

■ Western WY Community College, Green River, WY

■ Western WY Community College, Rock Springs, WY

■ Colorado State University, Dept. of Fishery and Wildlife

Biology, Ken Wilson, Ft. Collins, CO

■ Utah State University, Rich Etchberger, Vernal, UT

■ University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology,

Laramie, WY

Individuals

Brian Allan

Sandra Banks

Bob Barwick

Mary Beery

Eric Berg

Dale Blakley

Ed Boese

Ron Boudan

Tom Brehim

Tim Buman

Lamont Clark

Craig Crompton

Bill Cummings

Keith Dana

Bob Doak

Terry Dockter

Fred Eales

Mike Ebert

John Faccio

John Freeman

Ray Frink

Nick Gillio

Brian Halpain

Doug Hamel

Chris Harbin

Joseph Harris Sr.

Howard Hart

Don Hartman

Jimmy Helmick

John Howard

Lyn Howe

Carlos Johnsen

Polly Karshner

Dave Kawvlok

Brad Keys

Joe Laird

Donald Lilley

Allison Lyon

John McDonnell

Larry Means

Pat Mehle

Darrel Melvin

Tim Merchant

Jim Metzer

Steve Mines

Robert Moore

Moe Morrow

Frederick Muller, M.D.

Patrick Newell

Mitch Nielson

Randy Nielson

Dan and Kristina Parson

Bruce Peterson

Vance Peterson

Vernon Phinney

Norm Piner

Kevin Quitberg

Ken Reed

Ted Remus

Pat Robbins

David Roose

Ed Sabourin

Matt Salitrik

Tara Salitrik

Dan Schmill

Dr. Ruth Shea

Les Skinneer

George Slonebraker

Dr. David Sowada

Bill Taliaferro

Thoman Ranch

Brad Thoren

Kathleen Tucker

Kent Vessels

Bill Weeks

Carl Williams

H. Ray Williams

Bruce Woodward

Robert Yonts

JoAnn Zakatruk
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 155

Appendix H. Hydrographs of Green River Appendix H. Hydrographs of Green River
156 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 157

Appendix I. List of Preparers Appendix I. List of Preparers

The Planning Team for the Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge CCP included the following individuals.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Refuge Staff

■ Seedskadee NWR Manager Carol Damberg and

former Manager Anne Marie LaRosa

Region 6 Regional Office

■ Michael Spratt, Chief, Division of Refuge Planning,

R6

■ Ty Berry, former Chief , Technical Services, Refuges

and Wildlife, R6

■ Jaymee Fojtik, GIS Specialist, Division of Refuge

Planning, R6

■ Sean Fields, GIS Specialist, Division of Refuge

Planning, R6

■ Shannon Heath, Outdoor Recreation Planner, EVS,

R6

■ Mary Jennings, Wyoming Field Office, Ecological

Services, USFWS

■ Wayne King, Regional Biologist, Refuges and

Wildlife, R6

■ Barbara Shupe, Editor, Division of Refuge Planning,

R6

■ Carol Taylor, former Chief, Branch of Land

Acquisition and Refuge Planning, Division of Realty

■ Bernardo Garza, Refuge Planner, Division of Refuge

Planning, R6

■ Cheryl Williss, Chief, Division of Water Resources,

R6

Bear West Consulting Team

■ Dennis Earhart, Bear West Team Manager

■ Emilie Charles, Bear West

■ Jan Striefel, Landmark Design

■ Bob Nagel, AGRC

■ Scott Evans and William Adair, Pioneer

Bureau of Reclamation

■ Darrel Welch, Resource Management and Planning,

Technical Service Center, Denver, CO

■ Fred Liljegren, Resource Management and

Planning, Upper Colorado Regional Office Salt Lake

City, UT

■ Al Simpson, Provo Area Office, UT

Bureau of Land Management

Rock Springs District, WY

■ Renee Dana

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Green River, WY

■ Mark Fowden

■ Ron Remmick

Written by: ritten by: Primary authors are Carol Damberg, current ritten by: 

refuge manager, and Anne Marie LaRosa, former refuge

manager of Seedskadee NWR; and Dennis Earhart and

Emilie Charles of Bear West Company.

The Refuge Planners assisting the Refuge staff in development

of this Draft CCP are Bernardo Garza, current Refuge

Planner, and Carol Taylor, former Chief of the branch of Land

Acquisition and Refuge Planning.

In addition to members of the planning team, the following

individuals provided valuable assistance in preparing this

Plan: members of the Refuge staff including Edward

Rodriguez, Doug Damberg, Gene Smith, Suzanne

Beauchaine Halvorson, Lamont Glass, Adam Halvorson,

Lorraine Keith, Tom Koerner, and Karl Stanford; Lou

Ballard and Rhoda Lewis, USFWS Region 6; Greg Auble,

Murray Laubhan and Mike Scott of the Biological Resources

Division of the USGS; Mike Pucherelli, Manager of the

Remote Sensing and Geographic Information for USBR at

the Technical Service Center in Denver, CO; Leigh

Fredrickson of Gaylord Memorial Laboratory; Rob Keith of

the WYG&F; Andy Tienney and Dave Vesterby of the Rock

Springs District (BLM); and Gustav F. Winterfeld, Ph.D. who

provided assistance with the paleontological resource review.

Draft CCP Maps were prepared by: Jaymee Fojtik, GIS

Specialist, Division of Refuge Planning, USFWS, R6 and Bob

Nagel of Utah Automated Geographic Resource Center.

Final CCP Maps were prepared by: Sean Fields, GIS

Specialist.

Draft Document (or portions of the document) were

reviewed by Refuge staff and Ken McDermond, Patty

Stevens, Michael Spratt, Bridget McCann, Linda Coe, Ty

Berry, Wayne King, Rhoda Lewis, Bernardo Garza, Barbara

Shupe, USFWS; Rick Schroeder, Liz Bellantoni, USGS; Dale

Henry, National Wildlife Refuge Association; BLM, Rock

Springs District; Darrel Welch, USBR, Upper Colorado

Regional Office., Ron Remmick, Robert Keith, WYGF.
158 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix J. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation

Documentation
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 159
160 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 161
162 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 163
164 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 165
166 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 167
168 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 169

Appendix K. Summary of Appendix K. Summary of

Public Involvement Public Involvement

Development of the final Seedskadee NWR Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (and its associated Environmental

Assessment included in the draft CCP/EA) was guided by

the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish and Wildlife

Service Manual, the Service’s Final Comprehensive

Conservation Planning Policy, and the National Environmental

Policy Act. The involvement of the public, other Federal,

State and Native American Tribal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations, in accordance with Service

guidelines and NEPA recommendations, is viewed by the

Service as vital and was sought throughout the planning

process. A time line of the different kinds of meetings, public

outreach efforts, and events significant to the development of

this management document follows.

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 initial comments were mailed out

to known interested parties. On June 6, 1996, press releases

announcing the open houses were mailed to the appropriate

media outlets such as KMER Radio, KRKK Radio, KUGR

Radio, KSIT Radio, KUWR Radio, Sweetwater County TV,

the Green River Star, the Casper Star Tribune, Rocket Miner,

Kemmerer Gazette, 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 comments were

registered. The open house was held concurrently 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 pm at the Sweetwater

County Library in Green River, Wyoming. Eight people

attended.

On June 25, 1996, questionnaires and comment sheets were

mailed out to all in 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 pm to 9:00 pm at the Farson Community Hall.

Four people attended.

On July 17, 1996, the refuge manager met with the

Sweetwater County Commissioners at the Courthouse. On

September 3 and 4, 1996, the staffs of the Refuges located

along the Green River drainage met to develop draft visions,

goals, and objectives for their Refuges. On September 16,

1996, a press release announcing the final two open houses

was mailed to the appropriate media outlets.

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

White Mountain Library was held from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm;

six people attended.

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

County Commissioners followed by an open house from 5:00

pm to 7:00 pm 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 were then submitted to the Service’s regional office for

review and comments.

“Focus Group” meetings at Sweetwater County Library in

Green River were held on January 9, 1997, from 7:00 pm to

9:00 pm 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 Refuge

headquarters to identify potential alternative components for

consideration in preparation of a CCP and EA for the

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

Service and Consulting Team personnel. Invitations to

participate in the workshop were sent to selected resource

specialists with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies involved

or interested in resource management within or adjacent to

the Refuge. The list included personnel from the Service,

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Geological

Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and the Wyoming

Game and Fish Department. Those who accepted the

invitation to participate were provided a notebook prior to

the meeting containing the meeting’s purpose, a meeting

agenda, background on the planning process including the

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.
170 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Based on discussions in the workshop and subsequent

discussion with Seedskadee NWR staff, the issues considered

significant for the EA were identified by Refuge staff for

analysis. Based on the issues, the Refuge staff developed

alternatives to address the issues and the goals. The issues,

as they were identified during the scoping process, are

described in Chapter 2.

Between May 1997 and April 1999, Bear West Consulting,

the company funded by Reclamation to prepare the CCP/EA,

prepared and published the first draft CCP/EA for

Seedskadee NWR. This document was circulated in the

Service’s Regional Office to obtain preliminary comments

prior to releasing the document to the public. In October

1998, the refuge manager and assistant refuge manager

departed Seedskadee NWR and the CCP/EA process halted

while a new refuge manager was hired.

In May 1999, the new refuge manager arrived and began the

long process of familiarization with the Refuge and the

different components of the draft CCP/EA. In July 1999, the

Planning Team Leader (and Chief of the Branch of Refuge

Planning) met with the new refuge manager to renew the

CCP/EA process.

In September 1999, the Seedskadee NWR CCP’s Planning

Team Leader departed the Planning Branch causing the CCP

process to be placed temporarily on hold. In December 1999,

a new Planning Team Leader was assigned to continue

assisting the refuge manager in the CCP/EA process.

From January 2000 through January 2001, the preliminary

draft CCP/EA was revised, trimmed down, and revamped

according to comments received from the public, Regional

Office personnel, the final guidelines and expectations set

forth in the Service’s final Planning Policy. Also playing a

role was a new understanding of the complex issues

surrounding the management of Seedskadee NWR.

From March through May 2001, an Internal Review draft

CCP/EA for Seedskadee NWR was circulated among the

Planning Team members and their agencies for a review

period. From the comments generated during this period, the

draft CCP/EA was modified and sent for printing and

eventual disbursement to the public for comments.

From late October through early December 2001, the Service

mailed out and solicited comments from the public during a

public review period of the Draft Seedskadee NWR CCP/

EA. The Notice of Availability was posted in the Federal

Register on October 31, 2001. On that same day, a news

release was sent out announcing the release of draft CCP/

EA, the duration and details of the public comment period,

and the dates for the upcoming open houses.

On November 4, 2001, Seedskadee NWR’s refuge manager

participated in a radio interview with local station KUGR

(4:00 pm) which was aired throughout the day on November

15 and 16, 2001. The topic of the interview was to bring the

draft CCP/EA to the attention of the neighbors of the

Refuge and ensure that the three most controversial issues

proposed in draft CCP - roads, camping, and commercial

guided fishing, were known to the public.

On November 9, 2001, Refuge staff held an Open House at

the White Mountain Library in Rock Springs. On November

12, 2001, the Refuge staff posted a news release in the

Casper Star Tribune with the general description of proposed

actions in the Draft CCP, the history behind the development

of this management document, and an announcement that

the Draft CCP was available for review. On that same

afternoon and evening, the Refuge staff held an Open House

at the Lincoln Count Library in Kemmerer.

On Nov. 13, 2001, a copy of the Casper Star Tribune news

article appeared in the Rock Springs’ Rocket Miner.

On February 7 and 19, 2002, personnel of the Refuge met

with WYG&F in Green River, Wyoming to clarify certain

elements of the draft CCP/EA - primarily the proposed road

changes and proposed changes to the Refuge’s closed area.

These meetings were attended by Duane Kerr, Tom

Christianson, Steve DeCecco, Robb Keith, Bill Rudd, Susan

Patla, Bob Oakleaf, Steve Tessman, Reg Rothwell, and Joe

Bohne of the WYG&F.

From January through March 2002, Seedskadee NWR’s

refuge manager reviewed and prepared an answer to public

comments; found in Appendix L. Concurrently, the refuge

manager and Regional Office personnel revised and updated

the draft CCP/EA into a draft final document. Also, at this

time, the Refuge staff conducted two meetings at Refuge

headquarters with local citizens and volunteers to review

proposed road changes.

On May 1 and 2, 2002, Seedskadee NWR’s refuge manager

and Division of Planning personnel held briefings with the

Service’s directorate on the draft Final CCP for Seedskadee

NWR, and obtained concurrence to proceed with a final

review of the CCP for the Refuge.

June 2002, final internal review (including State of Wyoming

and Tribes) of Final CCP for Seedskadee NWR.

July-August 2002: Expected timing for the preparation of the

final CCP (and FONSI) for Regional Director’s signature and

shipping to printer.

September 2002: Expected distribution of final CCP for

Seedskadee NWR.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 171

Planning Participants

All individuals that provided comments, oral or written, are

listed below. Column 2 identifies the forum in which the

commentators participated or submitted comments. The

forum in which the commentators participated are identified

in column 2 in the following manner:

1. Project Initiation Meeting (SNWR1)

2. Planning Group Meeting (SNWR2)

3. Alternatives Development Workshop (ALT)

4. Commercial Use/Access Meeting (CU)

5. Comment Form (C)

 Comment

Name 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 Mgmt, 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, SNWR

■ 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)
172 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix L. Public Comments

Planning Issues

Issues and concerns that were included in the Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) were identified

through discussions with planning team members, key

contacts, and through the public scoping process which began

in 1996. Comments were received orally at the meetings, via

e-mail messages and in writing, both before, during, and

after the scoping, and during the public comment period

phases of the CCP process. The final 30-day comment period

on the Draft CCP ended December 1, 2001.

The following issues, concerns, and comments are a

compilation and summary of those expressed during the

Draft CCP comment period. Comments were provided by the

public, other Federal and State agencies, local and county

governments, private organizations, and individuals

concerned about the natural resources of Seedskadee NWR.

The section is organized by topics. Within each topic category

the issues, comments, concerns, or questions are summarized.

Individuals or groups that submitted comments are

referenced at the end of this section. Some editorial

comments were addressed by changes within the CCP

document and are not addressed below.

Cokeville Meadows NWR

Comment: What about Cokeville Meadows NWR? Why is it

not included in this plan?

Response: Cokeville Meadows NWR will have a separate

Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) document

prepared. The CCP for Cokeville Meadows NWR is not

planned to start until 2014. Refuge planning started at

Cokeville Meadows NWR before the actual establishment of

the Refuge. Refuge establishing documentation identified the

approved refuge boundary, refuge purpose(s), goals, and

general management direction. These initial planning

documents and the development of a Conceptual

Management Plan (CMP) will guide management at

Cokeville Meadows NWR until the Refuge CCP is completed.

The CMP will identify refuge purpose(s), interim goals, and

pre-existing compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses

that the Service will allow to continue on a interim basis.

Refuges functioning under CMP’s also will develop stepdown management plans, as appropriate.

Future Land Acquisition

Comment: Concern was expressed about the acquisition of

any additional lands to Seedskadee NWR, especially

surrounding the Big Sandy River area. If the Refuge

acquired lands, it may impact critical water access for over 22

BLM permittees. The Big Sandy Working Group has

developed a draft grazing plan to address problems

associated with the Big Sandy River. In addition, fences

would cause wildlife problems and there are numerous

Wyoming State school sections that may be affected.

Response: As stated in the CCP, additional land acquisitions

centering around the Big Sandy River would require a

separate public involvement process. The Service actively

participates in the Big Sandy Working Group and is aware

of the issues and progress associated with the Big Sandy

Working Group grazing management plans. Even though

these lands are currently owned by the Department of the

Interior; Bureau of Reclamation, any future land

acquisition actions would fully involve the public via a

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

Grazing, access, fencing, and other issues would be addressed

during this NEPA process.

Habitat Management

Comments were provided that supported the Refuge’s

initiate for “preserving, restoring, and enhancing” the

ecological diversity and abundance of migratory and resident

wildlife with emphasis on native species.

Comments were provided that supported the Refuge’s

objective of preserving, restoring, and enhancing 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.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 173

River Management/Rock Sills/Water Rights/Water

Quality

Comment: Concern was expressed that rock sills placed in

the river are unstable and may be dangerous to visitors

because of the deep water pockets which are created

downstream of the structures and the shifting of rocks

associated with the structures. A suggestion was made that

irrigation of riparian areas via ditches is more effective.

Concern was expressed that the Refuge’s use of water rights

may impose undue hardships or delays for private water

users who apply for water rights from the river.

Response: The primary purpose of constructing a rock sill

across the Green River is to restore water flows into river

oxbows. As a result of Fontenelle Dam and the regulation of

river flows, many of the river oxbows are only flooded

seasonally (spring). Restoring the flows into oxbows yearround improves growing conditions for riparian vegetation

by elevating water tables which in turn increases the

availability of water to riparian vegetation. In addition,

restored oxbows create excellent habitat for a variety of

aquatic, wetland, and riparian-dependent wildlife/fish

species. The creation of deep holes below sill structures are

extremely beneficial to the fisheries providing critical

summer and winter habitat. Sills are constructed to allow

the passage of boats. The Refuge continues to monitor sill

structures and conduct maintenance on sills which have

shifted as a result of river flows or ice action. Most of the sills

are very stable and require minimal maintenance. Irrigation

of oxbow habitats via irrigation ditches is not practical and

would not achieve the management objectives achieved with

rock sills. The Refuge staff is unaware of any hardships

created to downstream water users as result of the Refuge

using their water rights. Most of the water used by the Refuge

is returned to the river after passing through oxbows or

wetlands. Some water will be lost to evaporation.

Comment: A comment was received which requested

additional quantitative baseline data prior to constructing

additional rock sills in the Green River (for example the

proposed Big Island Sill).

Response: The Service agrees that adequate quantitative

information is needed prior to proceeding with any rock sill

or wetland project. Specific quantitative data for each

proposal were not provided in the CCP because the full

analysis of each project has not been completed. Detailed

quantitative data would be submitted to the U.S. Corps of

Engineers (USCOE) in order to acquire an appropriate

permit for a project. The proposed Big Island Sill project is

currently being evaluated and detailed data has been

collected and will be evaluated by the Service to determine if

the project would meet objectives. A quantitative data

analysis would eventually be submitted to the USCOE if the

project is approved by the Service.

Comment: The issue of salinity was not addressed in the

document. There is concern that the wetland impoundments

are causing problems for the cottonwood trees because of the

increased concentrations of salty waters.

Response: The Service agrees that water quality monitoring

should be conducted in the Green River and within Refuge

wetland impoundments. Modifications to include

monitoring were added to the CCP’s “River and Wetland

Objectives.” From 1986 to 1994, water conductivity was

monitored annually in the Green River and within the

Refuge impoundments. Conductivity values are good

indicators of salinity levels. Measurements were taken before

diversion to the developed wetlands, within the developed

wetlands, and downstream of the outflow from the developed

wetlands. The data indicated that water diversion increased

conductivity slightly within the developed wetlands, but not

beyond a safe and acceptable level. Most levels remained well

below 600 micromhos per centimeter (umhos/cm). The data

also indicated that outflow from the developed wetlands had

no adverse effect on the conductivity of the Green River. The

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) sampled water quality and

invertebrates at four sites on the Green River within the

Refuge Boundary in 2000. Water test results at all stations

indicated a healthy water system. Conductivity values

ranged from 336 to 494 umhos/cm. A USGS reference site

(best case scenario) for the area tested at 345 umhos/cm.

Salinity was not identified during a recent review of

scientific literature as a factor contributing to the mortality

of cottonwoods along western river systems.
174 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Fencing/Livestock Management/Water Gaps

Comment: Concerns were expressed about how new fences

would be constructed relative to wildlife passage needs.

Response: The comment group provided an internet site and

informational contact for guidance. The Service appreciates

this guidance and will utilize it for future fencing projects.

The Service will coordinate with WYG&F regarding fence

construction and maintenance to ensure fences are wildlife

friendly.

Website: www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/clearinghouse/fences.html

http://www.sdvc.uwyo.edu Informational contact: Jackson

Hole Wildlife Foundation (307-739-0968) for fencing

pamphlet.

Comment: Concern was expressed that fences built for

antelope standards may not be effective to keep cattle out in

high stress point areas.

Response: The Service will continue to work with WYG&F to

make boundary fences wildlife friendly, especially for

antelope. The Service recognizes that cattle and sheep will

occasionally jump fences given the right scenario and

conditions. Livestock generally enter Refuge lands via cut

fences, open gates, or water gaps. The Service is committed to

maintaining the boundary fence to reduce livestock trespass

and will continue to work with grazing permittees to reduce

trespass occurrences and remove livestock as quickly as

possible.

Comment: There were concerns about the use of grazing as a

future management tool.

Response: Research demonstrates that livestock grazing can

be effective in management of various habitats to improve

conditions, for example reducing weed populations. As

indicated in the CCP, the Service would only use grazing

practices which are strictly controlled for the benefit of

improving Refuge habitats. Other land management

techniques will be considered in choosing the appropriate

and most effective method to manage various habitats. The

Service has recently conducted limited livestock grazing to

evaluate its potential in the control of weeds. The Service will

continue to explore grazing as a management tool.

Comment: The Refuge was encouraged to partner with other

land management agencies and livestock permittees to

reduce livestock trespass.

Response: The Refuge will continue to partner with other

Federal/State land management agencies and livestock

permittees to reduce livestock trespass. Livestock trespass

has decreased over the past several years due to

improvements to Refuge fencing and water gap structures.

Comment: Concern was expressed about the availability of

clean water in water gaps for livestock and about the control

of public use in water gaps.

Response: There are 17 water gaps located within the Refuge

which provide livestock access to water. The construction of

water gaps is complete and general maintenance is

conducted as needed to keep water gaps functioning. Water

gaps were designed to allow water to flow through them.

Water gaps provide free flowing water which is of adequate

quality for wildlife or livestock. The CCP proposes to further

evaluate how the public utilizes water gaps for recreation

and also design parking areas to minimize disturbance to

watering livestock. The Service will maintain signs in water

gaps informing visitors of the purpose of water gaps.

Fire Management

Comment: Concerns were expressed that the elimination of

livestock grazing leads to increased fuels and therefore

greater fire potential. Concern was expressed that in the

past 2 to 3 years there have been more fires on the Refuge

then in the past 100 years.

Response: In the past 2 years, there have been three natural

wildfires (lightening strikes) and one man-made wildfire on

the Refuge. Because of the severe drought conditions, the

number and intensity of fires has increased throughout the

west regardless if lands were grazed by livestock. Many areas

which were consistently grazed for many years (BLM and

USFS lands) also burned in the last 2 years because of the

severe drought. Grazing will reduce understory fine fire fuels

and could help decrease the intensity of some fires. Grazing,

however, can also reduce the overall quality of habitat for

some wildlife species depending on how it is managed.

Grazing of Refuge habitats for management purposes (i.e.

fire fuel reduction) may be utilized in the future. Annual

grazing to significantly reduce understory riparian

vegetation conflicts with Refuge management objectives.

Grazing reduces the amount and density of vegetation

available for wildlife to use for forage, nesting, and cover.

During multi-year droughts it is especially important to

protect forage and cover on Refuge lands because

surrounding lands may only provide minimal forage due to

the combination of drought stress and livestock grazing. The

Service will continue to explore grazing as a management

tool in riparian and upland habitats, as appropriate.

Weed Management

Comment: Concern was expressed about the extent of

perennial pepperweed on the Refuge. Some individuals

believe that intensive early spring grazing by sheep or goats

is the best method to control this species.

Response: The Service is working extensively with the

University of Wyoming and Sweetwater County Weed and

Pest to address weed issues on the Refuge. Livestock grazing

is a tool which is being evaluated along with chemical and

mechanical controls in various combinations. Grazing,

under certain conditions, can biologically suppress

perennial pepperweed if native vegetation is available to

recolonize the area. Current research, in other states, has had

mixed results about the effectiveness of grazing. Perennial

pepperweed reproduces by seed and also by creeping

underground stems. Grazing will suppress the above ground

biomass but will not kill the below ground tubers. Grazing

also results in the consumption of native grasses, forbs, and

shrubs, in addition to the target weed species, which may not

be acceptable for reaching Refuge objectives. The Service will

continue to evaluate grazing as a potential control technique.

The most effective control is currently chemical control in

combination with mowing (Beck 1999, Renz and DiTomzao

1999). Over the past 6 years the Service, in coordination with

Sweetwater County Weed and Pest, has significantly reduced

the weed population on several thousand acres using a

combination of mowing, burning, and chemicals. The CCP

states that the Refuge will continue to evaluate various

control methods and partner with various agencies to

improve weed management methods. New technology (Burch

Wetblade Mower), currently being tested on the Refuge by the

University of Wyoming, is showing great potential.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 175

Wildlife Management

Big Game

Comment: A recommendation was made to work in

partnership with other groups and agencies to restore

historical migration routes of elk, where feasible.

Response: The Refuge added a strategy under the objective

for “Other Indigenous Wildlife Species” which indicates the

Refuge will support efforts to enhance or restore historic

migration routes for migratory big game species like

antelope, mule deer, and elk. Very few elk have been observed

in the vicinity of the Refuge since it was established in 1965.

The restoration of some historical elk migration routes may

not be feasible due to the extensive amounts of fence, road,

and urban home construction throughout their migratory

route(s).

Predator Management

Comment: Statements were received that predator trapping

is ineffective as evidence by increasing numbers of predators

(skunks, raccoons, foxes, etc.). In the past, the Refuge

allowed harvest of predator species. Arguments were made

that hunters need reasonable access to permit harvest of

species and that closing roads has created a predator

problem on the Refuge.

Response: The Service is aware that populations of red fox,

raccoon, and striped skunk exist on the Refuge, especially

near riparian and wetland habitat types. The Service is also

aware of the impacts predators have on a variety of wildlife

species. The Service has allowed hunting of skunk, raccoon,

and red fox in accordance with State and Refuge

Regulations. Trapping of these species has been permitted

under special authorization by the Refuge. The Service

strictly regulates trapping operations to ensure visitor safety

and to reduce the take of other non-target wildlife species.

The trapping program used by the Refuge has been effective

in reducing predator numbers as evidenced by the increase in

waterfowl nest success in areas where trapping has occurred

(see CCP Section on Predator Management and Nest

Success). The Service objective has been to reduce predator

numbers to levels which permit the Service to meet other

wildlife objectives (i.e. production of ducks, geese, swans,

etc). Hunters who wish to pursue predator species have full

access to all portions of the Refuge except in areas designated

as, “closed to all hunting.” Reasonable access by roads was

provided and access by foot was permitted throughout the

Refuge. Reducing the fragmentation of Refuge habitats by

roads will improve conditions for wildlife by improving the

quality of habitat. Roads create easy travel corridors for

predators and may actually increase predation in some

habitats by facilitating access. The Service disagrees that

reducing road access will result in a direct increase in

predator populations. The Refuge is unaware of any studies

which shows a direct correlation between road densities and

the success of predator hunters.

Comment: Allowing hunting and control of some native

species (such as predators of ground-nesting birds and

beaver) for the limited benefit of other species works against

the underlying ideals of the Refuge System.

Response: Collectively, the National Wildlife Refuge System

mission, goals, and the specific Refuge purpose(s) define our

duty for the administration and management of any unit of

the System (see CCP Introduction & Background). The

Refuge purpose(s) forms the foundation for developing goals

and objectives for units during CCP preparation, and

provide the basis for determining the appropriateness and

compatibility of existing and proposed uses on Refuges.

Refuge studies indicate that managing predator populations

can significantly benefit ground-nesting birds (see CCP

Section on Predator Management and Nest Success).

Trapping and hunting have been used as management tools

extensively throughout the Refuge System to manage lands

and wildlife populations. In the past, Seedskadee NWR has

had approved predator and beaver trapping management

plans compatible with Refuge purposes. These plans were

developed to assist the Refuge in meeting objectives for

production of ground-nesting birds (waterfowl, geese, swans,

rails, etc.) and restoration of riparian habitats. In certain

specific cases, management of predator and beaver

populations may not conflict with the purpose of the Refuge

or the mission of the Refuge System. Conversely, these

management actions have responded to past range

expansions by certain predator species and to changes in

river flows that have reduced natural cottonwood

regeneration. Non-lethal methods of controlling predators

and beaver populations have been explored and used in the

past on the Refuge. If justified by nest success studies, the

Refuge staff may continue to explore and utilize various

non-lethal techniques in the future, as appropriate.

Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E)

Comment: The CCP states that monitoring for T&E species

would occur on a regular basis - regular should be defined.

Surveys for Utes ladies tresses should occur no farther than

5 years apart, instead of 5 to 10 years.

Response: Specific objectives are stated for each T&E species

which may occur on the Refuge. Strategies for each objective

specifically indicate the monitoring frequency and habitat

protection efforts proposed by the Service (Management

Direction Chapter). The Utes ladies tresses is a species which

has never been documented on the Refuge or within western

Wyoming. The Service disagrees that surveying for this

species is required every 5 years. If major changes occur in

river flow management, additional and more frequent

surveys may be warranted.
176 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Swan Management

Comment: There was objection to creating a wintering closed

area or seasonal closure for trumpeter swans and wintering

waterfowl. There was a request to justify this need for a

closure given the Refuge has met its current objective of 20

to 40 wintering swans and there is no current closure.

Response: The trumpeter swan is a species of special concern

for the USFWS and also for the State of Wyoming (State).

The Refuge has been identified by the USFWS and the State

as a breeding and wintering area for Trumpeter Swans. The

current wintering objective of 20 to 40 swans has been

sustained on the Refuge/Green River for the past several

years. The actual wintering carrying capacity for trumpeter

swans and waterfowl has not been determined for the Refuge

and additional birds may be supported within the Refuge.

The number of wintering swans on the Green River will vary

depending on the severity of the winter and availability of

forage.

The basis for establishing a new closed area (in lieu of the

existing one) is not specific to trumpeter swans. The intent of

creating a new closed area is to provide an area of low

disturbance where swans, waterfowl, and other wildlife may

feed and rest during the energy demanding winter months.

There are currently two types of closed areas on the Refuge

(Map 6). The current . Refuge “closed area system”

encompasses wetland impoundments which are generally

drained or frozen by mid-October and therefore provide no

resting or feeding habitat for wintering water birds. The

open-water river habitat becomes the primary area where

waterfowl and swans can rest and feed during the winter.

There are no sections of the river which are encompassed by

the current closed areas.

The CCP proposes to explore the potential establishment of a

new closed area via a separate public process. This could

establish a closed area to include a segment of the river

which, in most years, would remain partially open or

contain significant pockets of open water. This process would

attempt to address the need for the Refuge to provide a

sanctuary area to provide open water, forage, and low

disturbance through winter months for a variety of wintering

wildlife species.

Justification for the change in closed areas is to provide a

quality habitat area which is low in disturbance for

wintering wildlife, especially water birds and raptors. The

Refuge has acquired preliminary data which indicates birds

using the river during winter months are very sensitive to

disturbance from vehicles and people. Waterfowl and raptors

often flush from the river corridor at the first site of a vehicle.

Creating a new closed area system, which encompasses a

portion of the river, would create a secure area which

provides feeding and resting areas that are currently

lacking. General observations from Refuge staff, local

hunters, and anglers indicate an increase in hunting and

fishing pressure on the Refuge. Given the general trend in

recreational use of the Refuge and within the State (WYGF

2001 - A Quiet Crisis), it is reasonable to assume that

hunting and angling pressure will continue to increase.

Proactive measures to secure and protect habitat and wildlife

during critical periods of the year is justifiable within the

context of the Refuge and the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

Comment: A comment was received which indicated that a

major objective of the swan restoration program (Trumpeter

Swam Implementation Plan) is to establish a predominately

migratory rather then sedentary flock of swans. Because the

river may freeze up more in low flow years or very cold years, it

may not be biologically appropriate to encourage larger

concentrations of swans or waterfowl to winter within the Refuge.

Response: The primary purpose of the Refuge and the NWRS

is to provide for the needs of wildlife. The Refuge’s goal is not

to short-stop the migration of swans or any other waterfowl.

Eventually, waterfowl and swans need to winter at some

location. Seedskadee NWR provides one such quality

location. Seedskadee NWR is a natural site for the Service

and State to target as a wintering area for swans and other

waterfowl. Providing wintering habitat for some water birds

is biologically appropriate, regardless of the number of

waterfowl and swans utilizing the Refuge. Continued

monitoring of wintering populations in coordination with

the Wyoming Game & Fish will determine if population

levels reach unacceptable levels before or after a new closed

area is established. If established, a closed area on the Refuge

could be changed or re-opened in the future.

The amount of ice forming on the River will vary between

years depending on winter temperatures and the amount of

water released by Fontenelle Dam. Based on information

gathered by the Refuge via conversations with various longtime residents, the River usually does not freeze above the

Refuge headquarters, unless river flows are extremely low.

Comment: Concern was expressed that Seedskadee is

lacking substantial agricultural food resources nearby for

maintaining wintering swan populations.

Response: The Refuge does not feel this is biologically

important to birds wintering within the Refuge. The Green

River provides aquatic forage, which explains why the River

has been identified by swans and waterfowl as an acceptable

wintering location. If forage were not available, the birds

would likely not remain on the Refuge.

Comment: At the Flyway level, production and migration are

the most important functions sustained by the refuge for

migratory waterfowl. Managing portions of the refuge as

winter terminus may benefit a handful of cold-tolerant

species such as goldeneyes, mergansers, mallards, geese, and

some trumpeter swans. However, dependable winter habitat

is also available to these species down range.

Response: At a flyway level, the Service agrees that migration

is the most important function sustained by the Refuge for

migratory waterfowl. Production of waterfowl at the Refuge

does not significantly contribute to the Flyway population,

but may be very important relative to State and local

populations. The ability to winter larger populations of

waterfowl may be possible with a change in the current

closed area system. Providing areas where waterfowl can rest

and feed may improve hunting opportunities by encouraging

birds to remain in the area over the hunt season. Presently,

hunting pressure throughout the hunt season is so intense

and widespread that only limited numbers of waterfowl

remain in the area.

Production of trumpeter swans on the Refuge is important at

the Flyway and State level. Providing wintering habitat on

the Refuge for swans is a goal of the Refuge and Service. The

amount of dependable winter habitat for trumpeter swans

located further south of the Refuge is still being evaluated. If

there is an abundance of suitable wintering habitat south of

Flaming Gorge Reservoir, then such areas need to be identified

and protected to expand the overall winter distribution of swans.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 177

Roads/Access

Comment: Why is the Service closing roads on the Refuge?

What is the reason behind each road closure?

Response: The decisions regarding opening and closing

roads on Seedskadee NWR are driven by the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System as directed by Congress

and by the specific purposes of Seedskadee NWR. All 540+

national wildlife refuges in the System, including

Seedskadee NWR, are managed first and foremost for

protection of wildlife species and their habitats. Human uses

are secondary to wildlife and habitat management objectives.

Human uses are only allowed when they are compatible

with, and don’t interfere with, wildlife and habitat

management objectives. More details regarding the mission

of the System and Seedskadee NWR can be found in the

Introduction/Background sections of this CCP document.

Vehicle use is one of the largest contributors to wildlife

disturbance and habitat damage on Seedskadee NWR. Most

of the existing roads on the Refuge are concentrated in or

adjacent to the same areas that wildlife are dependent on,

such as the river and associated riparian zone. Disturbance

from vehicles in these areas is especially extreme during the

fall and winter because hunting seasons are open, Refuge

marshes that are closed to hunting are frozen and do not

provide a sanctuary area for many migratory birds, and

energy demands are the highest for wildlife. Because of the

degree of disturbance to wildlife from vehicle use, the road

system that has evolved over time on land tracts that are now

part of Seedskadee NWR is in direct conflict with the mission

and purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge System. In

addition, many members of the general public strive to find

locations on the Refuge where they can hunt, fish, observe

wildlife, or otherwise enjoy Refuge resources without

disturbance from vehicles. The Refuge does recognize,

however, that responsible and controlled vehicle use is a

reasonable and legitimate way to access the Refuge to enjoy

the variety of activities that are allowed on the Refuge.

To minimize wildlife disturbance and habitat damage, yet

still provide access for the public to Refuge resources,

various road system alternatives were formulated for the

draft CCP. While for some these represent a change from

some of the traditional vehicle routes and access points on

the Refuge, we believe it still affords the public, including

disabled people, with the ability to enjoy most of the same

traditional Refuge uses, albeit sometimes in different

locations. The entire Refuge remains open to foot travel.

Under the Refuge’s preferred road alternative, the vast

majority of the Green River is less than a half mile from any

road via foot, with only a few exceptions. Under the preferred

alternative, the farthest anyone would have to walk from a

designated road to reach the Green River is about one mile.

Refuge staff consulted with the National Center on

Accessibility while developing road alternatives to ensure all

proposals were consistent with the Americans with

Disabilities Act guidelines.

General criteria that were used to develop a Refuge road

system that met the needs described above include the

following: (1) remove some roads from the rivers edge to

reduce disturbance to wildlife (for example, waterfowl will

flush when they see a vehicle); (2) if roads are immediately

adjacent to both sides of the river, remove a road from at

least one side of the river to minimize disturbance to wildlife;

(3) create larger blocks of wildlife habitat associated with the

riparian zone that do not have roads transecting them; (4)

create areas for members of the public to enjoy Refuge

resources without disturbance from vehicles; (5) provide a

road system that is easy to understand and follow by the

public (the current matrix of roads, particularly south of

Highway 28, is confusing to follow); (6) provide a road

system that is safe for the public (some roads follow the edge

of cliffs or are in very soft soils vehicles can get stuck in); (7)

provide a road system that is not subject to excessive erosion

(for example, erosive roads along the river’s edge that slough

into the river and force vehicles to create new tracks over

standing vegetation) or extreme rutting in wet conditions; (8)

provide a road system that minimizes the opportunity for

off-road violations (repeated off-road violations every year

require additional staff time to monitor, repair, and patrol);

(9) reduce the potential to introduce weed seeds into new

areas on the refuge; (10) and reduce the likelihood of

wildfires resulting from vehicles or other human activities.

Because of existing roads and other improvements on

Seedskadee NWR north of Highway 28, there were fewer

opportunities to alter roads in this region. However, much of

the area south of Highway 28 does not have improvements

and provides a unique opportunity to enhance the area to

benefit wildlife through road management. Changes in the

preferred alternative from the draft to the final CCP were the

result of constructive, specific comments from the public.

In 1996, the Refuge completed and made available a ‘Travel

Map’ that identified roads open for vehicle use. However, this

was never fully implemented on the ground by posting all the

closed roads. In addition, many signs that were posted were

stolen or vandalized. As a result, there has been some

confusion regarding the number of roads closed through the

CCP process. Many roads that have been used since 1996

have technically not been open to vehicle travel. The Refuge

will update this Travel Map and post all closed roads as soon

as possible after the final CCP is published.

The following table is a summary of the road closures that

will take place when the CCP is finalized. A brief summary

of the reasons for each closure is included. The summary

includes roads closed during the 1996 administrative

closures that were never posted in the field but will be posted

when the CCP is finalized. Please refer to Map A to identify

roads being discussed.
178 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Table: Road Closures and Justifications

R d oa

N r umbe

A n ctio J n ustification

1 e Close access road in the Refug

on the north side of the Green

River from the Refuge boundary

to McCullen Bluff.

1) Roads currently exist on both sides of the river increasing disturbance to

wildlife.

2) An alternative BLM road exists that parallels the Refuge's north boundary

fence that provides reasonable foot access within 1⁄4 mile of the river.

3) There is access to this area south of the river from the Dodge Bottoms road.

4) Closure will provide a block of relatively undisturbed habitat. Much of the

road is immediately adjacent to the river or the riparian zone which results in

significant disturbance to wildlife.

5) Provides an area where visitors can enjoy Refuge resources without vehicle

disturbance.

2 m Seasonal road closure fro

November 15th to March 15th of

approximately 5 miles of road on

the east side of the river starting

approximately 1 mile north of

Highway 28.

1) Much of the road is immediately adjacent to the river or the riparian zone

which results in significant vehicle disturbance to wildlife. The seasonal closure

would eliminate vehicle disturbance to wildlife during critical wintering period

when all other sanctuary areas (marshes) are frozen and no other sanctuary

areas exist on or off the Refuge.

2) Big game hunts, including the late season doe deer hunt, are concluded by

mid-November.

3) Impacts to anglers during this period would be minimal.

4) This provides a seasonal block of relatively undisturbed habitat.

5) Area remains open to foot traffic.

3 s Close existing road that loop

through the riparian forest.

However, allow vehicle access on

the north side to the ‘gravel pit'

and one-way (non-loop) access on

the south side to the confluence

of the Big Sandy and the Green

Rivers.

1) Eliminate loop road to lessen disturbance to wildlife on the river and in a

significant riparian habitat block.

2) Much of the loop road is in poor condition due to the soils and is therefore

prone to continual widening and degradation, particularly in wet weather.

3) Reduces likelihood of continued off-road vehicle violations and resulting

habitat damage in the area.

4) Access to the confluence area can also be obtained by following a BLM road

on the east side of the Big Sandy or from the west side of the Green River from

the Refuge Auto Tour Route.

5) Provides block of relatively undisturbed habitat.

6) Area remains open to foot traffic.

7) Provides an area where visitors can enjoy Refuge resources without vehicle

disturbance.

4 d 1) Open up new road in uplan

area that follows the historic

Oregon Trail from approximately

one mile above the 6-mile hill

boat ramp northerly

approximately 3 miles to the

Dunkle Ranch area.

2) Close all roads between the

Dunkle Ranch area south to the

junction with the new road on

the Oregon Trail.

3) Close 2 additional spur roads

that drive through wash north of

6-mile boat ramp.

1) New road will maintain a through route for vehicles and an opportunity to

travel on parts of the historic trail.

2) Closure of roads will reduce disturbance to wildlife in wetland units and on

the Green River.

3) Closure of roads will reduce erosion along the Green River and damage to

vegetation as road sloughs into the river.

4) Roads to be closed are very susceptible to vehicle damage due to soil types.

Vehicles often get stuck when road is wet, especially in the vicinity of Shute

Creek.

5) Provides block of relatively undisturbed habitat.

6) Area remains open to foot traffic.

7) Provides an area where visitors can enjoy Refuge resources without vehicle

disturbance.

5 e 1) Road will terminate at th

river bend 1⁄2 mile downstream of

Johnson Ranch.

2) Burned over (2000) area in

vicinity of Telephone Island will

remain closed to vehicles.

3) Spur roads will be closed.

1) Closure of road to Johnson Ranch will reduce erosion along the Green River

and damage to vegetation as road sloughs into the river.

2) Continued closure of Telephone Island area will allow the area to continue to

recover from wildfire and may provide cottonwood regeneration research site.

3) Closure of Telephone Island area will provide large block of relatively

undisturbed habitat.

4) Closures to Johnson Ranch and Telephone Island area will reduce disturbance

to wildlife on the Green River.

5) Spur road closures will reduce damage to vegetation and reduce disturbance

to wildlife.

6) Area remains open to foot traffic.

7) Provides an area where visitors can enjoy Refuge resources without vehicle

disturbance.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 179

R d oa

N r umbe

A n ctio J n ustification

6 m The road will remain open fro

6-mile hill boat ramp south to

Palmer crossing (about 3/4 mile).

The road from County Highway

4 (Big Island Bridge road) north

to Shell Ranch (about 1.5 miles)

will remain open. All roads

between these two roads will be

closed.

1) Current roads are in extremely poor condition and difficult for the public to

follow.

2) Provides a large block of habitat not disturbed by vehicles in conjunction

with habitat on the east side of the river.

3) Area remains open to foot traffic.

4) Provides an area where visitors can enjoy Refuge resources without vehicle

disturbance.

7 s 1) Open the road that travel

from County Road 8 (OCI road)

north along the river through the

south boundary of Refuge that is

currently closed at the Refuge

boundary.

2) Close western north-south

through road but leave parallel

road open.

3) Close all spur loop roads on

the west side of Big Island that

travel to and follow the rivers

edge.

1) Re-establishes public access and through route from County Road 8 north to

County Road 4.

2) Eliminates one of two parallel roads to minimize habitat disturbance.

3) Spur road closures will reduce damage to vegetation and reduce disturbance

to wildlife.

4)Area remains open to foot traffic.

Comment: There was support for the Refuge mandate to

“provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent

recreation while maintaining the primitive, uncrowded

nature of the area.”

Comment: There was support for the Refuge objective to

“provide a variety of quality river fishing opportunities and

hunting opportunities on portions of the Refuge.”

Comment: Concern was expressed that senior citizens are

fenced out of favorite fishing and camping areas.

Response: The purpose of the fencing is to keep livestock off

the Refuge. The only way the Refuge could keep livestock

from grazing and trampling Refuge habitat was to fence its

boundary. The preferred alternative maintains 28 Refuge

access points and over approximately 50 miles of roads that

are open to the public. Camping is not permitted on the

Refuge regardless of visitor age (see justification CCP

Appendix D Compatibility Determination for Camping).

Fences were not erected to exclude visitors from fishing

areas. The entire River is open to fishing through the Refuge.

Visitors may access fishing locations by designated roads,

foot, or boat. Individuals who are unable to walk long

distances may fish at locations which are closer to

designated Refuge roads. The primary purpose of the Refuge

is to provide quality habitat for wildlife, and where

compatible, provide for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,

wildlife photography, and environmental education and

interpretation experiences. The Refuge cannot accommodate

the special requests of every user group/individual which

uses the Refuge and still meet Refuge objectives for wildlife.

Providing a road to every favorite fishing spot is not

practical nor compatible with the purposes of the Refuge.

However, the Service is very aware of the special needs of

individuals who are physically challenged and will continue

to explore potential opportunities to provide opportunities

for these individuals.

Comment: To be a good guardian, the Refuge needs to

consider all aspects of management, including the people.

Response: Seedskadee provides a wide variety of recreational

opportunities for visitors and will seek to provide quality

opportunities in the future which remain compatible with the

needs of wildlife. Visitors recreating on any national wildlife

refuge must remember that the Refuge System is the only

national network of public lands dedicated to fish, wildlife,

and plant conservation. The Mission of the Refuge System is

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the

conservation, management, and where appropriate,

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

habitats within the United State for the benefit of present and

future generations of Americans. Providing recreational

opportunities is also a primary focus of Refuges but only

when they are compatible with the needs of wildlife. The

management of recreational uses and visitor access is

necessary not only to protect wildlife and habitat but also to

provide a variety of quality recreational experiences.

Comment: The Service has closed off the refuge to a majority

of the public (bank fisherman) and the Refuge wants only

commercial guides and birders. Concern was expressed that

the Refuge receives money from allowing commercial guides

and birders on the Refuge.

Response: The preferred alternative proposed a reduction in

the amount of commercial guide use. The Refuge does not

benefit economically from allowing commercial guiding or

birders. The local communities benefit economically from

visitors which require hotel accommodations, fishing

supplies, gas, food, etc. The Refuge continues to permit some

commercial guiding to provide opportunities for visitors who

prefer to fish the Refuge with a guide. The commercial guides

also provide potential recreational opportunities for people

with disabilities. In the preferred alternative, the Refuge

acknowledges the need to regulate commercial guide use

relative to the needs of wildlife and other visitor uses.
180 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 181
182 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Comment: What good is re-seeding two-track roads? Several

roads have been closed but the refuge has not attempted to

re-vegetate these two-tracks - Why not?

Response: Re-seeding or re-vegetating two-track roads will

improve habitats by converting bare ground to desirable

native vegetation and will also improve the visual aesthetics

of the area by reducing obvious land scars. Although twotrack roads are two strips of bare ground, the cumulative

acreage of area which is stripped of vegetation by a two-track

road is significant. Future restoration of closed roads will

enhance wildlife habitat quality by reducing fragmentation,

providing additional cover, increasing forage, reducing the

potential for weed infestations, and decreasing predator

travel corridors.

Some closed two-track roads will be allowed to naturally revegetate over time. Many roads, that have been closed have

already started the process of re-vegetating naturally. Other

two-track roads which are closed may be ripped and seeded.

The Refuge must receive a cultural resource clearance on

every road section it plans to rip and seed because of the

numerous historical trails which traverse the Refuge. A

cultural resource survey was recently completed on the

Refuge (2000) to indicate which roads are considered

contributing segments to historical trails. The cultural

resource survey will enable the Refuge to pursue future road

restoration efforts and avoid important trail segments. The

future ripping and re-seeding of some roads will be

completed over many years as time and money permit.

Simple elimination of traffic on some roads will facilitate

and may enable full re-vegetation.

Comment: Refuge gates and fences have been cut or

removed at traditional well-worn two-track roads. More

specifically a road located in the southern portion of the

Refuge was gated and locked. The Refuge should not have

closed this road and instead put in a cattle guard or at least

erect a sign indicating the road is a dead end road. More local

input should have been received on road closures.

Response: The Refuge has decided to open the Road

referenced in this comment letter based on public input.

Within the next couple of years, a cattle guard will be

installed and the gate will be removed to improve access. In

the interim, a sign will be posted to inform the public of

current conditions and future proposed changes. The Refuge

will post “No Outlet” or “Dead End Road in X miles” at all

other roads which dead end within the Refuge.

Specific constructive public comments were received

regarding the proposed preferred road system (Draft CCP

Alternative 2). As a result of these comments, some roads

proposed for closure were re-opened and other roads

modified to better accommodate wildlife and public access

needs (See Map B). See Map 9 for the final road system

which will be implemented on the Refuge.

Comment: Will additional roads be improved?

Response: The CCP plans to improve a segment of the loop

road between Upper and Lower Dodge Bottoms. Additional

gravel will be added to this segment to stabilize the road.

There are several roads which have already been improved

and are depicted on the Refuge roads map as “auto tour” or

“improved.” The Refuge staff plans to maintain only the

improved roads and the auto tour route. Additional road

base and mag water treatments may be applied to improved

roads to reduce maintenance requirements. Improved roads

will be graded several times a year as needed. The two-track

roads depicted as “non-maintenance roads” will remain as

is, except for minor maintenance when absolutely necessary.

Comment: Concern was expressed that too many roads will

remain open on the Refuge in relation to the size of the

Refuge.

Response: The CCP designated 49 miles of roads as open for

public travel. The Refuge is seeking to find a balance between

recreational vehicle access demands, wildlife requirements,

and the need to provide the public with areas where vehicles

are not allowed, e.g., areas only open to foot travel. Reducing

roads in certain portions of the Refuge will create areas

which are less disturbed by vehicles, less fragmented, and

visually more aesthetic. The Refuge recognizes that some

visitors enjoy going into areas where vehicles are not

allowed. Areas where roads are reduced and disturbance is

decreased may improve the quality of a visitors hunting or

fishing experience or increase opportunities for wildlife

observation/photography. Fewer roads in a area directly

benefit wildlife by reducing human disturbance and habitat

fragmentation. The CCP provides a road plan based on

current use levels, wildlife needs, and recreational demands.

In the future, additional roads may be closed to protect

habitat or opened to provide for certain recreational

opportunities.

Comment: Why has access been restricted in livestock access

lanes (water gaps)? Why can’t drift boats be launched from

certain water gaps?

Response: The purpose of a water gap is to provide livestock,

which graze adjacent lands, access to water. Many of the

water gaps fulfill a legal agreement between the Refuge and

the Rock Springs Grazing Association. The physical design

of a water gap is not conducive to launching boats from

trailers because of the rock structures which were placed in

the River. The strategic placement of large rocks in a Ushape formation prevents cattle trespass onto Refuge lands

and, since their completion in 2001, create a barrier that

prevents launching of boats. While some water gaps were

used for boat launches before 2000, the intention of the

Refuge was to close the water gaps to boat launching after all

of the formal boat ramps were completed. All Refuge boat

ramps were completed in 2000 and the water gaps have been

closed to launching boats. Launching boats from trailers is

now permitted only at the four designated boat launches on

the Refuge.

Visitors may still use livestock access lanes to access the

River for some recreation. However, water gaps are subject to

all Refuge regulations. They cannot be used to exercise dogs,

camp, or picnic, in order to reduce livestock and visitor use

conflicts. The Refuge seeks to balance the use in water gaps

between visitors and ranchers needs. Frequent problems

occurring in water gaps involve dogs off-leash near livestock,

camping, and parking vehicles in areas that block livestock

access to water. The Refuge requests visitors to park vehicles

near water gap fences to reduce physical barriers between

livestock and water. Future plans are to designate parking

areas near water gaps which will better facilitate use of water

gaps by visitors and livestock.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 183

Disabilities

Comment: Road closures are the single most discriminating

act against the handicapped in America today. What actions

will be taken in the future for access for handicap? Concern

was expressed that citizens with disabilities are

discriminated against. Closure of roads limits older peoples

ability to use lands set-aside as “public use.”

Response: The current facilities which are fully accessible

include the Refuge office, the new Refuge visitor and

education center, and the Lombard Ferry Trail. An

additional interpretative trail and outdoor rest room is

proposed in the CCP. Both would be fully accessible. In the

CCP, the Refuge staff also proposes to work with local

community members to explore the potential development of

special recreational opportunities for people with disabilities

(i.e. special hunts, fishing events, etc.) and provide public use

plans which will incorporate the needs of people with

disabilities. Refuge staff consulted with the National Center

on Accessibility while developing road alternatives to ensure

all proposals were consistent with the Americans with

Disabilities Act guidelines.

The Refuge recognizes the needs of people with disabilities,

but cannot provide opportunities for every user group in all

locations. The proposed road plan provides reasonable access

to Refuge resources and activities for people with disabilities.

However, it does represent a change from accessing all the

same locations by road that people may be used to. National

wildlife refuge lands are set-aside to provide for the needs of

“wildlife first” and where compatible, provide for public

recreational uses. Seedskadee provides for a variety of

recreational uses but recognizes the need to manage uses to

maintain quality habitat for wildlife and provide for a

quality visitor experience. The Refuge is seeking to find a

balance between the needs of wildlife and demands from

different recreational users. The roads that will be closed as

a result of this Plan will close access to some areas for

visitors who are dependent on vehicles for traveling.

However, these same activities can still be done on the

Refuge, albeit in different locations. For all roads to remain

open to allow access for persons with disabilities is not

practical or compatible with Refuge resource objectives. Over

49 miles of roads will remain open in the CCP road plan.

Recreation

Camping

Comment: An individual commented that it was not fair to

close all traditional camping sites along the river from below

Fontenelle to the city of Green River. The result of

eliminating campground sites on the Refuge has resulted in

undue resource stress and competition in the existing

livestock water access lanes or on adjacent BLM lands. The

overall ecosystem involving lands outside of the Refuge is

being adversely affected by this action.

Response: Camping is only restricted on Refuge lands which

begin 7 miles south of Fontenelle Dam and extend 37 miles

to the southern tip of Big Island. Three developed

campgrounds are located between Fontenelle Dam and the

north Refuge boundary. Primitive camping is permitted on

all BLM lands surrounding the Refuge. Camping is not

permitted within livestock water access lanes (water gaps) on

the Refuge. The Service will continue to monitor water access

lanes and improve signing to reduce conflicts between user

groups. The Refuge has not been approached by the BLM

regarding the increased impacts to the surrounding BLM

landscape as a result of the Refuge prohibition of camping. If

adverse impacts have been documented by the BLM, then

future monitoring and communication by both agencies is

encouraged to reduce future impacts.

Comment: A comment was received that camping is no

longer allowed, something which has been enjoyed for

generations - the commentor would like us to rethink the

camping policy.

Response: See below response regarding the national policy

on determining appropriate uses on Refuges.
184 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Comment: A request was made for the Refuge to reconsider

having a campground or a boat-in campsite on the Refuge

using a permit or pilot fee system. Camping on surrounding

BLM lands is not practical because it is not accessible or

convenient for the users. Because the Refuge is so long, the

visitor cannot fully enjoy the fishing and wildlife

opportunities without being rushed to be out of the areas by

night time. An argument could be made that people floating

the river are observing wildlife and/or fishing and these

activities are wildlife-dependent. Impact analysis should

consider what effects encouraging camping on BLM and

private land will have to these lands.

Response: National Policy provides Refuge Managers with

procedures for determining when uses other than the six

priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and

environmental education and interpretation) are

appropriate or not appropriate on a unit of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. Service policy requires a screening

process or “appropriate use” test, which is a decision process

refuge managers use to systematically decide which uses are

appropriate on a Refuge. Some recreational activities, while

enjoyable and wholesome, are not dependent on the presence

of fish and wildlife, nor dependent on the expectation of

encountering fish and wildlife. Camping is a use which is

enjoyable but not dependent on the presence of fish and

wildlife. Camping is an activity which is often disruptive or

harmful to fish, wildlife or plants, and may interfere with the

use and enjoyment of a refuge by others engaged in wildlifedependent recreation. In addition, camping is a use which

would require additional budget and staff to administer,

would not be easy to control, is not consistent with refuge

goals and objectives, and is a use which can be

accommodated on other nearby public lands. Camping is

more appropriately conducted within designated BLM

campgrounds located just north of the Refuge or on adjacent

BLM lands, which are lands not specifically dedicated for

wildlife conservation. For additional justification see

Appendix D of the CCP - Compatibility Determinations.

The Refuge currently manages one fee program. This

requires extensive staff time to administer. Another fee

program is not feasible and not desirable for permitting a

use which is not considered appropriate or compatible with

the purpose, mission, or goals of the Refuge. Camping on

BLM lands surrounding the Refuge may or may not be

convenient or assessable depending on the visitor. The

proximity of the Refuge to camp sites and lodging facilities

provides visitors with easy and reasonable day trips to the

Refuge. A day float on the Refuge is considered a compatible

use on the Refuge because it facilitates several wildlifedependent uses such as fishing and wildlife observation. A

visitor to the Refuge does not have to float the river to enjoy

wildlife, hunt, and/or fish. However, floating the River

provides a visitor with a different type of fishing, hunting, or

observation experience. A visitor does not have to float

consecutive days and camp on the Refuge to enjoy fishing,

hunting, or wildlife observation opportunities. The Refuge

recognizes that camping may increase on BLM lands in the

future as a result of increased visitation to the Refuge and

the Green River area. If additional impacts occur on BLM

lands as a result of future demands, the Refuge and BLM

should work together to reduce such impacts.

Fishing

Comment: A comment was made that fishing was much

better historically.

Response: The Wyoming Game and Fish (WYG&F) is the

agency responsible for managing the fisheries in

coordination with the Refuge. Concerns about the Green

River fisheries should be directed to the WYG&F. The Refuge

has worked in cooperation with the WYG&F to improve the

fisheries via in-stream improvements, stocking programs,

and changes in regulations. Unpublished data (WYG&F)

from anglers and electro-shocking indicates that fishing has

improved over the past 10 to 15 years.

Commercial River Guide Permits

Comment: To not allow a river guide to transfer his/her

permit or to obtain any more than a one-year “special use

permit” seems unfair. How might this restriction on

outfitting affect adjacent property values? Why are

commercial outfitters restricted on use and not the general

public?

Response: The Refuge has drafted a “Commercial Outfitting

For Sport Fishing Plan” which outlines the rational for the

current restrictions. The legal restrictions regarding transfer

of permits is a nationwide policy. The issuance of a one-year

permit is to facilitate Refuge regulation and control of

activities by commercial outfitters. Many citizens would like

to see all commercial river permits denied while others

would like to see more permits issued. The number of

outfitters currently permitted by the Refuge is based on a

variety of factors including impacts to wildlife and habitat,

demand for non-commercial (guided) fishing, and fishery

habitat and populations. Most importantly, Refuge staff

must evaluate the impacts of all fishing and other

recreational uses on wildlife and habitat to ensure Refuge

objectives are met. The Green River is a narrow corridor

which provides tremendous wildlife habitat and recreational

opportunities. Excessive use of the River by unlimited users

could easily diminish the wildlife values and the

recreational experience. The Refuge is not aware that

restrictions on commercial outfitting would negatively affect

adjacent landowner property values. Based on land values

along the Upper Green River, the protection of the fishery

and wildlife resources would likely increase land values.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 185

Hunting

Comment: Concern was expressed about the potential for

closing the waterfowl season on the Refuge on December 1 if

other practical alternatives could not be implemented.

Response: The intent of the Refuge is to eventually provide

an area of very low disturbance for wintering wildlife. The

preferred method of achieving this objective would be to

evaluate the existing closed area system and make changes

to this system to better accommodate the needs of wintering

wildlife. The Refuge has the authority to restrict the species

of wildlife hunted on the Refuge and to modify season dates.

Closing the waterfowl hunt season on December 1 would only

partially meet the Refuge’s objective to provide a low

disturbance area because other recreational users, besides

duck hunters, also create disturbance. The mention of the

early season closure was to make the public aware that this

is a plausible action if no other alternative is feasible. The

potential modification of the current Refuge closed area

system may be a better solution and is the preferred direction

the Service would seek to meet Refuge objectives.

Comment: To reduce disturbance to wintering trumpeter

swans, it was suggested that the Refuge educate hunters and

provide buffer areas around swans.

Response: The Service currently requests visitors to

maintain a distance of > 400 yards from trumpeter swans to

reduce disturbance. This voluntary request is written in

Refuge brochures. The effectiveness of this voluntary

distance restriction is questionable based on observations by

Refuge officers and staff. The Refuge staff has also posted

signs throughout the Refuge informing visitors that

trumpeter swans occur on the Refuge. The CCP calls for the

Service to provide additional informational signs to increase

public awareness, knowledge, and appreciation for this

species. Providing additional signs and information may

help facilitate the protection of this species.

Comment: A comment was made that hunters are not the

only users that disturb swans.

Response: The Service agrees. However, waterfowl hunters

are likely the primary disturbance factor during the late

winter months when fishing and wildlife viewing pressures

diminish.

Comment: Proposing additional restrictions on hunting and

fishing are unjustifiable. The principal impetus of the

restrictions is to eliminate disturbance to wintering swans.

Neither the EA nor the CCP provide a biological foundation

to justify the need for expanded restrictions. The objective

for the wintering swans (20 to 40 swans) on the Refuge has

been achieved and sustained, and does not require additional

restrictions. Commentor supports the concept of moving the

closed areas around.

Response: This comment was in reference to the CCP’s

proposal to explore the modification of the current closed

area system to accommodate the needs of wintering wildlife.

The future creation of a new closed area in lieu of the

existing closed area as proposed in the CCP is to better

accommodate the needs of all wintering wildlife. Trumpeter

swans would be just one of the benefactors, along with

numerous other water birds, raptors, and other species. The

current closed area system does not include any River

habitat which is the primary habitat used by wintering birds

when backwater wetlands are drained and frozen. The

Service has gathered preliminary data which indicates that

disturbance is very high for birds on the River between

October 1 to January 15 (duck hunt season/fishing). General

observations from local hunters and Refuge staff also

indicate that hunting and fishing pressure are increasing on

the Refuge. This is somewhat corroborated by the recent

Wyoming Game and Fish publication “Wildlife in Crisis”

that says “between 1995-1999 non-resident fish licences

increased 64 percent and between 1996-1999 non-resident

small game licences increased 63 percent.” Seedskadee’s

proximity to Utah and Colorado has made it a destination

location for many out-of-state anglers and hunters. Changes

in the existing closed area system may improve hunting

opportunities if existing areas are opened to hunting and the

new closed zones (which would include river areas) entice

more birds to remain in the area throughout the winter hunt

period. The future establishment of a new closed area system

would also better meet the needs of wintering wildlife. The

objective of wintering 20 to 40 trumpeter swans was

established on the Refuge’s historical winter count data. The

actual number of wintering swans which may be sustained

has not been determined and the Refuge may be able to

support more swans than the stated objective. Future

monitoring and research are required to determine the

desirable wintering carrying capacity for swans and

waterfowl. In the interim, the current swan use levels of 20 to

40 were selected because the Refuge has been able to sustain

these populations over the past 4 years. Currently, the

Service is not necessarily discussing further use restrictions,

but rather a modification to existing restrictions to improve

conditions for wintering wildlife and recreationists. These

future changes are proposed based on preliminary

disturbance data and the increase in winter recreational

activities.
186 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Comment: Concern was expressed that the restrictions for

hunting grouse, snipe, rail, and dove proposed in alternative

3 are in direct conflict with Congressional direction

regarding the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act (NWRSIA).

Response: The NWRSIA supports hunting where compatible

with the purpose of the Refuge and mission of the Service.

The Act does not say that all hunting opportunities will be

supported on all Refuges. The Service supports hunting of

abundant species which are important to the local hunting

public or assist in management of Refuge resources (habitats

and populations). Hunting of mule deer, moose, antelope,

and waterfowl are important towards meeting population

and habitat management objectives either locally or

nationally. Populations of all these big game species are

abundant and can sustain current hunting pressures.

Cottontail rabbit hunting is a popular local pursuit which is

sustainable. Cottontail rabbits are not a species in decline.

Hunting of racoon, skunk, and fox has been conducted as a

means to reduce predators which negatively impact

numerous other species. These species are also very

abundant. Alternative 3 suggested the elimination of hunting

for snipe, rail, dove, and sage grouse because hunting of these

species is not necessary to manage Refuge habitats or

maintain certain desired population levels. Hunting of these

species is currently allowed to provide recreational hunting.

Hunting of sage grouse continues to be a popular sport, but

current concerns over declining populations and decreasing

habitat make the closure of a sage grouse season very

justifiable on a national wildlife refuge. Sage grouse are a

species of concern for the Federal Government and State. The

same argument can be made for mourning dove hunting.

Mourning dove populations are in decline. The take of these

species is not necessary to improve habitats or to manage

populations. The population status of snipe and rail are

basically unknown locally, and little information is

available nationally. Identification of these species is

different and there is concern other marsh birds may be

harvested by accident. There are no local biological data

which support why the Refuge should permit take of these

species. Refuge Officers have contacted zero snipe or rail

hunters on the Refuge in the past 3 years. Eliminating

hunting of grouse, snipe, rail, and dove on the Refuge would,

therefore, not have a negative impact on local hunting

opportunities. Opportunities for hunting grouse, snipe, rail,

and dove would still be available on surrounding public

lands. Many refuges do not permit the take of these species.

Comment: Native wildlife and their habitats should take

precedent over recreational opportunities. Therefore,

hunting of waterfowl should be completely eliminated.

Response: Hunting is recognized as one of the priority public

uses on national wildlife refuges when it is found to be

compatible with the purpose(s) of the Refuge. The National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the

Service to consider hunting as a priority public use if that

use is compatible with the purpose of the Refuge. The Service

has determined that the hunting of waterfowl, big game, and

some upland game species is compatible with the purposes of

the Refuge and Refuge System. Continental waterfowl

populations are generally healthy and can sustain a certain

level of recreational hunting. The Service recognizes that

hunting of waterfowl on Seedskadee NWR provides an

important recreational opportunity for many local

waterfowl hunters. Future hunting and recreational use

plans will strive to provide adequate protection within the

Refuge to provide for the needs of waterfowl and still provide

quality hunting opportunities.

Comment: The EA does not specifically address prairie dog

shooting. The EA must specifically state that no prairie dog

shooting will be allowed in Seedskadee NWR (SNWR).

Response: The EA states which species are currently open for

hunting. It is not necessary to list all species which are

closed to hunting. Prairie dog hunting is not allowed on

SNWR and the CCP does not propose to change hunting with

regards to this species.

Priority Public Uses

Comment: The Congressional finding that “hunting, fishing,

and other priority wildlife-dependent uses are generally

compatible uses of national wildlife refuges” was not

acknowledged in the document.

Response: On pages 13 and 84 of the draft CCP these uses are

fully acknowledged. Some additional text was added on page

84 of the draft.

Comment: A request was made for the Service to

acknowledge Congressional direction for the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA), which

found that hunting, fishing, and other priority, wildlifedependent uses are generally compatible uses of the national

wildlife refuges.

Response: The NWRSIA indicates these uses have been

found to be appropriate uses of Refuges and shall receive

priority consideration in Refuge planning and management.

These six appropriate uses will be allowed on any Refuge

where they are found to be compatible with the purpose and

mission of the Refuge and Refuge System.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 187

Public Use Figures

Comment: Public use figures are not statistically verifiable;

how were numbers derived? The CCP stated that only 36.3

percent of all visitors are anglers - gross underestimate.

Future numbers must be based on sound scientific

methodology. Many visitors partake in more then one

activity - how is it accounted for?

Response: The Service agrees that the numbers reflected in

the Public Use estimates may be inaccurate. Data was

gathered from historical annual narrative reports and recent

numbers were derived from general observations and local

use trends. There is no “scientific method” currently used to

estimate numbers. The Service has improved its public use

reporting forms to try and account for visitors which partake

in multiple activities but the “science” is still being

developed. In the near future, the Service would like to install

traffic counters and other monitoring devices to provide a

more accurate reflection of public use. The comments

received regarding public use figures were very helpful and

will be considered when deriving future public use estimates.

Public Facilities

Comment: A suggestion was made to provide rest rooms at

the Highway 28 Lombard Site, at all boat ramps, and

possibly other key locations.

Comment: Why provide a toilet at Upper Dodge Bottoms

versus Lombard Ferry? A toilet should be installed at the

Lombard Ferry Site because of the interpretative area and

proximity to Highway 28. Suggest a single vault toilet.

Response: The Service will consider the installation of a rest

room at the Highway 28 Lombard Site because of its

proximity to Highway 28. This site is one of the most

frequently visited sites on the Refuge. The number of rest

rooms on the Refuge will remain limited to reduce

maintenance needs and to maintain the primitive nature of

the area. Additional signing and brochure information will

direct visitors to indoor facilities and may request that

visitors utilize indoor facilities or practice the “leave-notrace” philosophy.

Cultural Resources

Comment: Concern was expressed because the plan did not

mention all the cultural resource sites which would be

protected or restored. What are the plans for the Big Island

Bridge and does the Refuge own the bridge?

Response: The Refuge plans to develop a step-down

management plan which would detail the location of

historical sites on the Refuge and what future protection and

restoration measures would be taken to preserve these

features. The primary emphasis for all sites on the Refuge is

to protect structures from fire and vandalism. Additional

measures may involve interpretation of sites, stabilization,

general protection, or restoration. The Refuge will continue

to partner with interested parties to protect and restore

important cultural resources. The Big Island Bridge and the

associated right-of-way are owned by the Refuge. The

immediate future plans are to maintain the structure and

stabilize the walkway by repairing broken boards. The bridge

is closed to vehicle traffic but open to pedestrian traffic.

Water Jurisdication

Comment: Concern was expressed about the Service’s ability

to regulate all uses upon the surface waters of the Green

River; believe this is in conflict with State Water Law. There

was disagreement with the Service’s interpretation

regarding its authority to regulate public uses upon the

waters of the Green River. Authority to regulate boating,

floating, hunting, or fishing on the waters of the Green River

properly rests with the State. The case laws referenced (in

the CCP) have not been applied in Wyoming. Issues

regarding jurisdiction on national wildlife refuges are

currently before the U.S. 10th Circuit Court.

Comment: What authority do we have to restrict the number

of users and access on and near the River?

Response: There are many uses by the public of the Green

River within the boundaries of Seedskadee National Wildlife

Refuge. These include boating, floating, hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, and others. The actual and potential

impacts from these activities on Refuge lands can have

major ramifications on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s

ability to manage Refuge lands as Congress directs. We

stand by our previous statements in the CCP on Refuge

River Jurisdiction. Future court decisions may help further

clarify this complex issue. However, we again wish to

emphasize that the Refuge’s first priority is to work with

appropriate departments within the State of Wyoming to

meet Refuge management goals and objectives.

Comment: Concern was expressed that the Service would

“establish with USBR” a “prescriptive flow regime for the

Green River through the Refuge.” All water uses within the

Refuge must be consistent with and accomplished under

Wyoming Water Law and valid permits for the Seedskadee

Project.

Response: The Service has funded several riparian and

riverine studies which indicate that developing a prescriptive

flow regime on the Green River may greatly enhance habitat

for wildlife and fish. The Service will continue to explore this

concept as additional data is gathered and will eventually

conduct future meetings to discuss concepts with regulatory

agencies and interested parties. The Service recognizes that

any future proposals would need approval and support from

Wyoming State Engineer’s office, Bureau of Reclamation,

Wyoming Game and Fish and other vested interest groups.

Comment: The discussion of the area’s history does not

mention use of the Green River for transportation of furs and

goods by canoe, raft, barge, or other conveyances, or for

floating timber and ties. Such commerce and transportation

have relevance to the actual navigability of the River and

should be discussed.

Response: Historically, the Green River was almost

undoubtedly used for the transportation of a variety of goods

that may have included items such as furs and timbers. Any

reference material pertinent to this issue that readers can

share with the Refuge would be a welcome addition to the

Refuge’s library and historic files. In all practicality, this

type of historic commerce would be a reflection of past

navigability of the Green River. In the legal sense, the

Supreme Court of Wyoming concluded in a 1961 decision

(Platte River Boating Supreme Court Decision) that there

are no navigable water bodies in the State.
188 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

CCP Planning

Comment: All of the Service’s policies for implementing the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

(NWRSIA) have not been adopted in final form. These

policies will serve as the principal guidance for CCP’s and

other Refuge management activities. There was a question

whether the Seedskadee CCP should be released for public

review prior to the completion and adoption of these policies.

Response: The National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act (NWRSIA) states that the “Secretary shall

prepare a CCP within 15 years after the date of enactment of

the NWRSIA of 1997. Upon completion of a CCP for a

refuge, the Secretary shall manage the refuge in a manner

consistent with the plan and shall revise the plan at any time

if the Secretary determines that conditions that affect the

refuge or planning unit have changed significantly.” The

recently developed CCP does not conflict with current draft

policies. If future policy changes occur, the CCP would be

amended to reflect those changes. The most important policy

has been completed, which is the CCP Planning Policy.

Within the CCP Planning Policy it specifically states that

the Service will use the best available information to

complete the CCP document at the time it is produced.

Comment: Concern was expressed that the CCP review

period was too short.

Response: The Refuge Planning Policy (Fish and Wildlife

Service Manual Part 602 Chapters 1, 3, and 4) requires a

minimum of a 30-day review period for the public draft CCP.

If an extension of the review time were requested the Service

would have extended the review period. An extension of time

was not requested and therefore the period of review

remained at 30-days. Thirty days is the standard review

period provided for most CCP’s.

Wilderness Designation

Comment: There was a question if any sections of the Refuge

could be designated as Wilderness because the River is

hydrologically altered, the Refuge is very narrow, and there

are many visual impacts due to roads and oil and gas wells.

Response: An area of Wilderness is defined to mean an area

of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character

and influence, without permanent improvements or human

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve

its natural conditions and which; 1) generally appears to

have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 2) has

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and

unconfined type of recreation; 3) has at least 5,000 acres of

land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition and 4)

may also contain ecological, geological or other features of

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value (16 U.S.C.

1131). The Service must complete an evaluation to make a

final determination. There are tracts which may be suitable,

despite recent impacts.

Wild & Scenic River Designation

Comment: A comment was received that the Green River

running through the Refuge had already been evaluated for

potential designation as a Wild & Scenic River in the Green

River Resource Area Management Plan (GRRAMP) (BLM

1996).

Response: The GRRAMP only evaluated sections of the

Green River for which the BLM had jurisdiction (2.85 miles

total). The section evaluated by the BLM was determined as

eligible, but was not considered suitable, for designation

because of the lack of their jurisdiction. The GRRAMP

indicated the BLM would be willing to participate in future

cooperative studies with the BOR, USFWS, and other

landowners to determine the eligibility and suitability of the

Green River (Green River Area Management Plan Volume 2

of 2 1996 pg. 568-69).

Funding

Comment: It is unclear how future funding tables in section

5.1 will support management strategies like browse transects

and funding for big game flights.

Response: Projects within Table 5.1 which support a seasonal

biological technician and a full- time ecologist would

facilitate collection of browse transect data and provide staff

to direct the Refuge biological monitoring programs. Aerial

flight funds could be provided from writing grants or from

base funding. Additional funding may also be available

from the Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) program (Table

5.2). The RONS projects database is constantly changing

and is upgraded annually to reflect the most recent needs of

the Refuge.
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 189

Enabling Legislation

Comment: In defining the purpose of Seedskadee NWR, the

CCP cites a provision of the Colorado River Storage Project

Act (CRSPA), which authorizes acquisition of facilities to

mitigate losses of wildlife. It should be clarified whether

there is a specific connection between the purpose of

Seedskadee NWR and habitats that were impacted by

Fontenelle Reservoir, or whether the Refuge was created to

generically mitigate habitat impacted within the Colorado

River Basin?

Response: Public Law 85-797 from August 28, 1958,

specifically authorized the Secretary of the Interior to

acquire lands for the U.S. in the Seedskadee Reclamation

Project. The CRSPA specifically authorized the Seedskadee

Project which was considered a “participating Project.”

Section 8 of the CRSPA (1956) states: “In connection with the

development of the Colorado River Storage project and of the

participating projects, the Secretary is authorized and

directed to investigate, plan, construct, operate, and

maintain: 1) public recreational facilities on lands

withdrawn or acquired for the development of said project or

of said participating projects, 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

by such means as are consistent with primary purposes of

said projects; and 2) facilities to mitigate losses of, and

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

The Seedskadee Project Definite Plan Report 1959 - Page 9

states: “The Seedskadee project will provide for the storage

and regulation of the flows of the Green River and use of the

water for irrigation, fish and wildlife, and recreational

purposes . . . . The remaining 32,000 acre-feet of the project

water supply will be provided for the potential Seedskadee

National Wildlife Refuge that will be developed and operated

by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the benefit of wildlife.

Recreational facilities and measures for the preservation of

fish also will be provided in connection with the project . . . .

Features of the Seedskadee project will include the

Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir along with basic recreational

facilities on the Green River, the Seedskadee National

Wildlife Refuge, . . . .”

The purpose of Seedskadee Refuge is directly linked to

Fontenelle Reservoir as the Reservoir and the Refuge were

both established as a result of the Seedskadee Project. Based

on conversations with the BOR, Seedskadee NWR was also to

be mitigation for other projects associated with the CRSPA,

which included Flaming Gorge Reservoir.

Refuge Purpose

Comment: What was the original purpose of the Refuge -

waterfowl?

Response: The purpose of the Refuge has not changed since it

was established in 1965 and was defined by the enabling

legislation (see Refuge Purpose Section). The early master

plan for the Refuge (1967) had a greater emphasis on the

development of wetlands throughout the Refuge which was

dependent on the full development of the Seedskadee

Irrigation Project. The Seedskadee Irrigation Project was

never completed because it was not economically or

logistically feasible to implement, and subsequently, the

early Refuge Management Plan (1967) was not fully

implemented. For example, the Dry Creek Upland unit was

originally supposed to receive irrigation return water,

transforming the habitat from upland to wetland. This

project was never completed because the Seedskadee

irrigation project was never completed. The management of

the Refuge has always focused on protection of habitat types

for native species, including upland and wetland species.

There have been changes to habitat management programs

on the Refuge because of changes in the Seedskadee Project

and also because of Congressional modifications in Refuge

legislation, which guide management for all Refuges. This

legislation has directed Refuges to evaluate habitats relative

to local, regional, and national landscape needs. Healthy

riparian and wetland habitats have become rare in Wyoming

and their protection is now a priority. Quality upland

sagebrush steppe habitat is also a unique habitat which is

beginning to show signs of trouble. The current habitat

objectives focus on preserving, restoring, and enhancing the

Green River riparian corridor and associated uplands as

habitat for migratory birds and other indigenous wildlife.

Existing wetland habitats will be maintained and enhanced

in the future, benefitting waterfowl and a variety of other

wetland-dependent species.
190 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

List of Public Comments - Draft CCP Seedskadee: December 2001

Written

Gary L. Mines : Green River, WY - A

David R. Hanks: Farson, WY - B

Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Gregg Arthur, Deputy Director, Cheyenne, WY - C

Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Loyd Dorsey, Field Representative, Jackson, WY - D

Wyoming State Engineers Office, Patrick Tyrrell, State Engineer, Cheyenne, WY - F

Audubon Wyoming, Vicki Spencer, Vice President, WY - G

Jack Krmpotich, Rock Springs, WY - H

Biodiversity Associates, Angie Young, Laramie, WY - I

Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, Bobbie K. Framk, Executive Director, Cheyenne, WY - J

Big Sandy Conservation District Board of Supervisors, - J

USFWS, John Esperance, Regional Planner, USFWS Denver, CO- K

Bill Weeks, J. Milk?, Randy Pui??, Rock Springs, WY - L

Dave Nelson, Green River, WY - M

Kathleen Tucker, Rock Springs, WY - N

Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs, WY - O

W & M Thoman Ranches, LLC, Green River, WY - P

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C - Q

Flaming Gorge People For The USA, Rock Springs, WY - R

Wyoming Outdoor Council, Lander, WY - S

USFWS, Migratory Bird Office, Suzanne Fellows, Denver, CO - T

Audubon Wyoming, Alison Lyon, Wyoming - U

W. R. Frint, Green River, WY - V

USFWS, Ecological Services, Mike Long, Cheyenne, WY -W

Joseph Perry, Green River, WY - X

Jim Metziner, Green River, WY - Y

Humane Society of America, Elizabeth Stallman, Washington, D.C. - Z

Larry Means, Lander, WY - AA

Brad Cheese, Wyoming - BB

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Matthew Bilodeau, Cheyenne, WY, CC

Wildlife Management Institue, Len H. Carpenter, Fort Collins, CO DD

Highland Desert Flies, Bennie and Connie Johnson, Green River, WY EE

John McCleary, USFWS, Seedskadee NWR, Green River, WY FF

Doug Damberg, USFWS, Seedskadee NWR, Green River, WY GG

Newspaper Editorial

Sharon Harsha - E

Verbal

Howard Hart, Green River, WY - FF

Robert Keith, Green River, WY - GG
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 700

Green River, WY 82935-0700

307 / 875 2187

email: seedskadee@fws.gov

http://seedskadee.fws.gov

For Relay Service Connection

TTY/Voice: 711

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning

For Refuge Information

1 800 / 344 WILD

September 2002

Sage Grouse, © Tom Koerner