Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

National Elk Refuge 

Wyoming 

August 2014 

Prepared by 

National Elk Refuge 

P.O. Box 510 

Jackson, Wyoming 83001 

307 / 733 9212 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

303 / 236 8145 

CITATION 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Comprehensive conservation plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 287 p. 

Summary ......................................................................................... XI
 

Abbreviations ..................................................................................... XVII
 

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

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
 

The Decision to be Made...........................................................................3
 

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

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

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

1.3 National and Regional Mandates ................................................................5
 

1.4 Refuge Contributions to Regional and National Plans ..............................................5
 

Conserving the Future .............................................................................5
 

Partners in Flight.................................................................................6
 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ............................................................6
 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan ...........................................................6
 

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species .........................................6
 

Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan ..................................................................7
 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan ........................................................7
 

Bison and Elk Management Plan .....................................................................8
 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee............................................................8
 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change.............................................................8
 

1.5 Landscape-Scale Conservation ..................................................................9
 

Strategic Habitat Conservation ......................................................................9
 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives .................................................................9
 

1.6 The Planning Process ..........................................................................9
 

Coordination with the Public .......................................................................11
 

State Coordination ..............................................................................11
 

Tribal Coordination ..............................................................................12
 

Teton County Coordination.........................................................................13
 

Results of Scoping ..............................................................................13
 

Selecting an Alternative ..........................................................................13
 

CHAPTER 2—The Refuge.........................................................................15
 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .............................................15
 

Establishment ..................................................................................15
 

Acquisition History ..............................................................................15
 

Management History.............................................................................17
 

2.2 Purposes .....................................................................................21
 

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

2.4 Goals ........................................................................................22
 

Habitat and Wildlife Management Goal ...............................................................22
 

Cultural Resources Goal ..........................................................................22
 

Visitor Services Goal .............................................................................22
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal .................................................22
 

Contents
 
Administration Goal .............................................................................22
 

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

Intact Ecosystem................................................................................22
 

High Scenic Quality ..............................................................................22
 

Undeveloped Habitat.............................................................................23
 

Quality Water Resources ..........................................................................23
 

Variety and Abundance of Wildlife ...................................................................23
 

Abundant Visitor Opportunities .....................................................................24
 

Rich Cultural History .............................................................................25 


2.6 Planning Issues ...............................................................................26
 

Unknown Effects of Climate Change..................................................................26
 

Landscape-Scale Conservation Needs ................................................................26
 

Big Game Management Effects on Wildlife Habitat.......................................................26
 

Invasive Plants Replacing Native Habitat ..............................................................27
 

Flat Creek Enhancement ..........................................................................27
 

Conserving Wide-Ranging Wildlife...................................................................27
 

Managing Habitat for Migratory Birds ................................................................28
 

Wildlife Disease ................................................................................28
 

Insufficient Research, Inventory, and Monitoring .........................................................28
 

Human–Wildlife Conflicts .........................................................................29
 

Hunting Management ............................................................................29
 

Increasing Demand for Environmental Education and Interpretation ...........................................30
 

Operational Efficiency of the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center................................30
 

Management of Other Uses........................................................................30
 

Access .......................................................................................31
 

Public Outreach Opportunities ......................................................................32
 

Miller House Restoration..........................................................................32
 

Lack or Resources to Administer the Refuge ............................................................32
 

Stronger Programs Through Partnerships ..............................................................33
 

Refuge Management Effects on the Jackson Economy ....................................................33
 

Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP .................................................................33
 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources and Description .................................................35
 

3.1 Alternatives Development......................................................................35
 

3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................................36
 

3.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
 

Laws and Regulations ............................................................................36
 

Invasive Species ................................................................................36
 

Bison and Elk Management Plan ....................................................................36
 

Wildlife Disease ................................................................................36
 

Access for Boating ..............................................................................36
 

Research .....................................................................................36
 

Refuge Uses ...................................................................................37
 

Landowner Coordination ..........................................................................37
 

Partnerships ...................................................................................37
 

3.4 Description of Alternatives .....................................................................37
 

3.5 Alternative A (Current Management)—No Action .................................................37
 

Climate Change ................................................................................37
 

Landscape-Scale Conservation......................................................................38
 

Habitat .......................................................................................38
 

Wildlife ......................................................................................39
 

Federally and State-Listed Species...................................................................40
 

Research and Monitoring..........................................................................40
 

IV Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Cultural Resources ..............................................................................40
 

Visitor Services.................................................................................41
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection .....................................................44
 

Administration .................................................................................44
 

3.6 Alternative B (Enhance Public Use and Intensive Resource Management) ...........................46
 

Climate Change ................................................................................46
 

Landscape-Scale Conservation......................................................................47
 

Habitat .......................................................................................47
 

Wildlife ......................................................................................48
 

Federally and State-Listed Species...................................................................48
 

Research and Monitoring..........................................................................48
 

Cultural Resources ..............................................................................48
 

Visitor Services.................................................................................49
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection .....................................................53
 

Administration .................................................................................53
 

3.7 Alternative C (Emphasize Intact Ecosystems and Promote Natural Processes)	 .......................54
 

Climate Change ................................................................................55
 

Landscape-Scale Conservation......................................................................55
 

Habitat .......................................................................................55
 

Wildlife ......................................................................................56
 

Federally and State-Listed Species...................................................................56
 

Research and Monitoring..........................................................................57
 

Cultural Resources ..............................................................................57
 

Visitor Services.................................................................................57
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection .....................................................58
 

Administration .................................................................................58
 

3.8 Alternative D (Promote Natural Habitats and Balance Public Use)—Proposed Action.................59
 

Climate Change ................................................................................59
 

Landscape-Scale Conservation......................................................................59
 

Habitat .......................................................................................59
 

Wildlife ......................................................................................60
 

Federally and State-Listed Species...................................................................60
 

Research and Monitoring..........................................................................60
 

Cultural Resources ..............................................................................60
 

Visitor Services.................................................................................60
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection .....................................................61
 

Administration .................................................................................61
 

3.9 Comparison of Alternatives and Consequences ...................................................61
 

CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment ..............................................................97
 

4.1 Physical Environment..........................................................................97
 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
 

Land Features ..................................................................................98
 

Soils.........................................................................................98
 

Water Resources ..............................................................................100
 

Air Quality ...................................................................................102
 

Visual Resources...............................................................................107
 

4.2 Biological Resources.........................................................................107
 

Plant Communities .............................................................................107
 

Wildlife .....................................................................................115
 

Federally and State-Listed Species..................................................................129
 

4.3 Management Tools ...........................................................................132
 

Irrigation ....................................................................................132
 

Farming .....................................................................................132
 

Contents V 
Fencing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
 

Wildland Fire Management .......................................................................132
 

4.4 Human History and Cultural Resources .........................................................134
 

Indigenous People of Western Wyoming .............................................................134
 

Historical Euro-Americans ........................................................................135
 

Ethnographic Resources .........................................................................135
 

Archaeological Resources in Jackson Hole ............................................................135
 

Cultural Resources on the Refuge...................................................................136
 

4.5 Special Management Areas ...................................................................138
 

Wilderness Review .............................................................................138
 

Important Bird Area.............................................................................138
 

4.6 Visitor Services ..............................................................................138
 

Hunting .....................................................................................139
 

Fishing ......................................................................................140
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ...............................................................141
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation ...........................................................141
 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center ....................................................142
 

Other Uses ...................................................................................142
 

Access ......................................................................................142
 

4.7 Socioeconomic Environment ..................................................................144
 

Population, Ethnicity and Education .................................................................144
 

Regional Employment and Income ..................................................................144
 

Economic Contributions of the Refuge ...............................................................147
 

4.8 Operations ..................................................................................148
 

Funding and Staff ..............................................................................148
 

Facilities.....................................................................................148
 

Elk Refuge Road ...............................................................................149
 

Partnerships ..................................................................................150
 

CHAPTER 5—Refuge Resources and Description ................................................153
 

5.1 Analysis Methods ............................................................................154
 

5.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives.............................................................154
 

Regulatory Effects..............................................................................154
 

Environmental Justice ...........................................................................154
 

Geology and Soils ..............................................................................154
 

Bison and Elk Plan..............................................................................155
 

Migratory Birds................................................................................155
 

Wildland Fire Management .......................................................................155
 

Antler Collecting ...............................................................................156
 

Access for Boating .............................................................................156
 

Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................156
 

5.3 Climate Change Effects .......................................................................157
 

5.4 Air Quality Effects ............................................................................159
 

5.5 Landscape-Scale Conservation Effects .........................................................159
 

5.6 Habitat Effects ...............................................................................160
 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush Shrublands .........................................................161
 

Wetlands ....................................................................................161
 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands ...........................................................162
 

Flat Creek ....................................................................................163
 

Invasive Species ...............................................................................164
 

5.7 Wildlife Effects ..............................................................................164
 

VI Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Migratory Birds................................................................................164
 

Aquatic Species ...............................................................................165
 

Disease Management ...........................................................................166
 

5.8 Federally and State-Listed Species Effects ......................................................167
 

5.9 Research and Monitoring Effects ..............................................................168
 

5.10 Cultural Resources Effects ...................................................................169
 

5.11 Visitor Services Effects ......................................................................170
 

Hunting .....................................................................................170
 

Fishing ......................................................................................171
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ...............................................................172
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation ...........................................................174
 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center ....................................................175
 

North Highway 89 Pathway .......................................................................176
 

North Park ...................................................................................177
 

Special Uses..................................................................................177
 

General Access and Elk Refuge Road ................................................................178
 

Access to the National Forest .....................................................................178
 

Public Outreach................................................................................179
 

5.12 Safety Effects ...............................................................................180
 

5.13 Resource Protection Effects ..................................................................180
 

5.14 Administration Effects .......................................................................181
 

Funding and Staff ..............................................................................181
 

Facilities.....................................................................................183
 

Elk Refuge Road ...............................................................................184
 

Partnerships ..................................................................................186
 

5.15 Socioeconomic Effects ......................................................................189
 

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing ...............................................................190
 

Effects of Refuge Personnel Salary Spending within the Local Economy .......................................190
 

Effects of Refuge Purchases of Goods and Service within the Local Economy ...................................191
 

Effects of Visitor Expenditures .....................................................................192
 

Summary of Economic Effects .....................................................................195
 

CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) ................................197
 

6.1 Management Focus ..........................................................................198
 

6.2 Overview of Goals and Objectives .............................................................198
 

6.3 Climate Change ..............................................................................199
 

Climate Change Objective 1.......................................................................199 


Climate Change Objective 2.......................................................................199 


Climate Change Objective 3.......................................................................199 


6.4 Landscape-Scale Conservation ................................................................200
 

Landscape-Scale Conservation Objective 1 ............................................................200 


Landscape-Scale Conservation Objective 2 ............................................................200 


Landscape-Scale Conservation Objective 3 ............................................................200 


Landscape-Scale Conservation Objective 4 ............................................................201
 

Landscape-Scale Conservation Objective 5 ............................................................201
 

6.5 Habitat and Wildlife Goal .....................................................................201
 

Native Grasslands Objective ......................................................................201
 

Sagebrush Shrublands Objective 1 ..................................................................202
 

Sagebrush Shrublands Objective 2 ..................................................................202
 

Wetlands Objective 1 ...........................................................................202
 

Wetlands Objective 2 ...........................................................................203
 

Contents VII 
Wetlands Objective 3 ...........................................................................203
 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands Objective 1 ..................................................203
 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands Objective 2 ..................................................204
 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands Objective 3 ..................................................204
 

Flat Creek Enhancement Objective 1.................................................................205
 

Flat Creek Enhancement Objective 2.................................................................205
 

Flat Creek Enhancement Objective 3.................................................................206
 

Invasive Species Objective 1 ......................................................................206
 

Invasive Species Objective 2 ......................................................................206
 

Migratory Birds Objective ........................................................................206
 

Aquatic Species Objective ........................................................................208
 

Disease Management Objective 1 ..................................................................208
 

Disease Management Objective 2 ..................................................................208
 

Disease Management Objective 3 ..................................................................209
 

Federally and State-Listed Species Objective 1 .........................................................209
 

Federally and State-Listed Species Objective 2 .........................................................209
 

Research and Monitoring Objective .................................................................209
 

6.6 Cultural Resources Goal ......................................................................210
 

Cultural Resources Objective ......................................................................210
 

6.7 Visitor Services Goal .........................................................................210
 

Hunting Objective 1.............................................................................210
 

Hunting Objective 2.............................................................................214
 

Hunting Objective 3.............................................................................214
 

Hunting Objective 4.............................................................................215
 

Fishing Objective 1 .............................................................................215
 

Fishing Objective 2 .............................................................................215
 

Fishing Objective 3 .............................................................................215
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 1 ......................................................216
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 2 ......................................................216
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 1 ..................................................217
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 2 ..................................................217
 

Visitor Center Objective 1 ........................................................................218
 

Visitor Center Objective 2 ........................................................................218
 

North Park Objective ............................................................................218
 

Other Uses Objective............................................................................219
 

Special Use Permit Objective 1 ....................................................................219
 

Special Use Permit Objective 2 ....................................................................220
 

Public Outreach Objective ........................................................................221
 

6.8 Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal .......................................221
 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 1..............................................................221
 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 2..............................................................221
 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 3..............................................................222
 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 4..............................................................222
 

Resource Protection Objective 1....................................................................222
 

Resource Protection Objective 2....................................................................223
 

6.9 Administration Goal ..........................................................................223
 

Funding and Staff Objective 1 .....................................................................223
 

Funding and Staff Objective 2 .....................................................................223
 

Facilities Objective 1 ............................................................................223
 

Facilities Objective 2 ............................................................................224
 

Elk Refuge Road Objective 1 ......................................................................224
 

Elk Refuge Road Objective 2 ......................................................................224
 

Elk Refuge Road Objective 3 ......................................................................225
 

Partnerships Objective...........................................................................225
 

VIII Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Contents IX 

6.10 Staff .......................................................................................225
 

6.11 Stepdown Management Plans ................................................................226
 

6.12 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................226
 

6.13 Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227
 

GLOSSARY .....................................................................................229
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................279
 

APPENDIXES 

Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policy ........................................................................... 235 


Appendix B 

Preparers and Contributors .......................................................................239
 

Appendix C 

Public Involvement .............................................................................241
 

Appendix D 

Species Lists..................................................................................245
 

Appendix E 

Compatibility Determinations......................................................................265
 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ...................................................2
 

Figure 2. The strategic habitat conservation process .........................................................9
 

Figure 3. Map of the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative in North America. .........................10
 

Figure 4. Process steps for comprehensive planning and associated environmental analysis ..........................11
 

Figure 5. Base map of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ....................................................16
 

Figure 6. Map of land tracts composing the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming .......................................19
 

Figure 7. Map of areas and feedgrounds on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming....................................20
 

Figure 8. Map of waterfowl flyways in North America .......................................................25
 

Figure 9. Map of management units and surface hydrology of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming .....................101
 

Figure 10. Map of plant communities on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming .....................................109
 

Figure 11. Map of irrigated areas on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ........................................133
 

Figure 12. Map of visitor services on the southern end of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ........................211
 

Figure 13. Map of the elk hunting program on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming .................................212
 

Figure 14. Map of the bison hunting program on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ...............................213
 

Figure 15. The adaptive resource management process ....................................................227
 

TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of the comprehensive conservation planning process for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ...........12
 

Table 2. Land acquisition history for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming..........................................17
 

Table 3. Current staff positions at the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ...........................................45
 
TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive conservation plan for the 


National Elk Refuge, Wyoming.........................................................................62
 

Table 5. Average values of selected water quality factors in or near the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming, 1996–2002 ......103
 

Table 6. Water rights owned by the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ............................................104
 

Table 7. Plant community types on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming..........................................107
 

Table 8. Estimates of forage production on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ...................................113
 

Table 9. Noxious weed species on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming..........................................114 


Table 10. Winter elk population objectives and actual population estimates for the Jackson elk herd and wintering areas from 


2011–2013.......................................................................................115
 

Table 11. Small mammals that occur in various habitats on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming .......................123
 

Table 12. State and county population estimates ..........................................................144
 

Table 13. State and county income, unemployment, and poverty statistics.......................................145
 

Table 14. Employment by sector, 2011, in Teton County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming .........................146
 

Table 15. Annual impacts of Refuge Revenue Sharing payments for all alternatives ...............................190
 

Table 16. Annual impacts of salary spending .............................................................190
 

Table 17. Breakdown of current purchases of goods and services .............................................191
 

Table 18. Annual impacts of purchases of goods and services ................................................191
 

Table 19. Estimated annual refuge visitation activity by alternative ............................................192
 

Table 20. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending by alternative ...........................................194
 

Table 21. Current and proposed staff at the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ......................................226
 

Table 22. Stepdown management plans for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming ...................................226
 

X Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Summary
 

Elk 

S Wh / Fguoy HnoT

The National Elk Refuge in northwestern Wyoming is nestled in the valley known as Jackson Hole 

and is one of the oldest national wildlife refuges— 

established in 1912 as a “winter game (elk) reserve.” 

Over the years, its purpose has been broadened to 

include “refuges and breeding grounds for birds, 

other big game animals, the conservation of fish and 

wildlife, and the protection of natural resources and 

conservation of threatened or endangered species.” 

As the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, we 

manage this 24,777-acre national wildlife refuge as 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

We are developing a comprehensive conservation 

plan for the refuge that will provide long-term guidance for management decisions; support achievement 

of the goals needed to accomplish the purposes of the 

National Elk Refuge including the enhancement of 

Flat Creek; and describe our best estimate of future 

needs. We will use the comprehensive conservation 

Our planning team started meeting in August 

2010. The team is primarily staff from the National 

Elk Refuge and the Region 6 Division of Refuge 

Planning, with contributors from other Service divisions, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Teton County, and the National Park Service. We 

invited thirteen tribal councils to participate and 

kept them informed throughout the planning 

process. 

plan, along with the Bison and Elk Management Plan 

(2007), as guidance for managing the National Elk 

Refuge over the next 15 years. 

The Planning Process 
XII Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Red-winged Blackbird 

S Wr / FekaJ BB

Analysis and Public Involvement 

The planning team identified and reviewed current programs, compiled and analyzed relevant data 

from the refuge and surrounding areas, and identified the purposes of the refuge. Public scoping 

started with a notice of intent to prepare a draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and environmental 

assessment, which we published in the Federal Register in October 2010. The planning team prepared a 

mailing list of more than 90 names—private citizens; 

local, regional, and State government representatives 

and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested organizations. We distributed information 

through news releases, issuance of a planning update, 

a project Web page, and a public meeting. The public 

gave us ideas and comments at the meeting, in writing, and through our Web page comment form. 

The planning team used the public comments to 

develop a final list of issues. After scoping, the team 

crafted the draft vision and goals for the refuge that, 

along with the refuge purposes, led to the development of a range of management alternatives to 

address the issues. The planning team evaluated the 

alternatives, and the Service identified one of the 

alternatives as the proposed action for the draft plan. 

Specific objectives in the draft plan describe how we 

would manage the refuge to meet its purposes, 

vision, and goals 

The Decision 

After the public reviews and provides comments 

on the draft plan and environmental assessment, the 

planning team will present this document along with 

a summary of all substantive public comments to our 

Regional Director. The Regional Director will consider the environmental effects of each alternative 

and will choose a preferred alternative for management of the refuge including the enhancement of Flat 

Creek. 

Issues 

The issues for the National Elk Refuge are a compilation of concerns and comments raised by Service 

staff and the public. 

Climate Change and LandscapeScale Conversion 

A broad issue is that the effects of climate change 

are unknown and may affect habitats throughout 

landscape, or geographic area. Furthermore, to successfully and effectively manage habitat and wildlife 

on the refuge, we need to work within a framework of 

conservation efforts throughout the landscape—at 

the level of Jackson Hole and even larger. 

Habitat and Wildlife 

Conserving and restoring native habitat is as 

important to the refuge’s namesake—elk—as it is for 

bison, migratory birds, federally and State-listed 

plants and animals, and many other species. Invasive 

plants are replacing native habitat in some areas, and 

big game and amphibians are at risk of disease in 

some places. Our ability to make informed management decisions for the refuge is sometimes hampered 

by a lack of information about the condition of habitat 

and wildlife, their interactions, and their responses 

to climate, humans, and management activity. 
Summary XIII 

Visitor Services 

The outstanding scenery, natural resources, and 

easily visible herds of elk and bison bring multitudes 

of visitors to Jackson Hole. There is a high and 

increasing public demand for information and experiences on the refuge, as well as the adjacent Grand 

Teton National Park and Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. We have an increasing need for more outreach, education, and interpretation with the public 

to explain our “wildlife first” mission and associated 

management, along with the opportunities a national 

wildlife refuge brings. Hunting and fishing are not 

only compatible public uses, they are important management activities that help us meet elk and bison 

herd objectives and reduce nonnative fish. As refuge 

staff continues to work closely with the other land 

management agencies, managing public access onto 

and through the refuge continues to be a challenge. 

Administration and Partnerships 

With an increasing demand for services, we are 

finding that we lack the staff, facilities, and money to 

safely and effectively meet the demand while carrying out critical habitat and wildlife management. We 

need to set up the interagency visitor center operation to function more efficiently. The refuge could not 

provide many of the visitor services we do without 

Uinta Ground Squirrel 

WS F

our dedicated volunteers and strong partnerships 

with nongovernmental groups as well as other government agencies. 

The Refuge 

The National Elk Refuge was established in 

response to severe elk starvation in Jackson Hole. 

The development of the town of Jackson and settlement of the valley by cattle ranchers substantially 

reduced historical elk winter range and led to massive elk starvation during the winters of 1909 and 

1910. At the request of the State of Wyoming, the 

U.S. Congress first appropriated $20,000 on March 4, 

1911, for “feeding, protecting and removing elk in 

Jackson Hole and vicinity.” 

Habitat 

The refuge lies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which is one of the last remaining nearly 

intact ecosystems in the northern temperate zone. 

The Gros Ventre River is the largest watercourse on 

the refuge and is among the river segments designated as wild and scenic by the Craig Thomas Snake 

Headwaters Legacy Act of 2008. 

Flat Creek and its associated marshlands are 

integral for the natural recruitment of native trout 

for the Snake River watershed. Flat Creek Marsh is 

also an important migratory stopover for waterfowl 

and shorebird species in the Pacific flyway and breeding habitat for trumpeter swans and other 

waterfowl. 

The core population area for the Jackson greater 

sage-grouse (defined by Wyoming Executive Order 

2011–5) overlaps the refuge. 

Wildlife 

The grizzly bear is federally listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act and the greater 

sage-grouse is a candidate for listing; we have documented both species on the refuge. Refuge grassland 

and sagebrush shrubland communities support 

breeding populations of Wyoming species of greatest 

conservation need, including long-billed curlew and 

Brewer’s sparrow. 

The refuge is the terminus of seasonal migrations 

for three celebrated large mammal species. Portions 

of the Jackson elk herd migrate from their summer 
al Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

er on the 

herd duremaining 

a. Prongh of Pined-longest 

range in Yellowstone National Park to wint

refuge. The refuge hosts the Jackson bison 

ing the winter months, one of only three r

free-roaming bison herds in North Americ

horn summer on the refuge and winter sout

dale, Wyoming, making it part of the secon

mammal migration in the Western Hemisphere. 

Flat Creek on the refuge provides a native fishery 

of Snake River cutthroat trout. 

XIV Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Nation

Visitation 

The National Elk Refuge is considered one of the 

“crown jewels” of the Refuge System because of its 

spectacular scenery, closeness to two iconic national 

parks (Grand Teton and Yellowstone), and large charismatic populations of seasonal wildlife—especially 

elk and bison—that people want to stop and watch. 

The most prominent view of the refuge, which is seen 

by several million visitors annually as they drive to 

and from the town of Jackson on U.S. Highway 26/89, 

is the expansive Flat Creek wetland. Flat Creek’s 

proximity to town, its easy access, and the large 

average fish size makes it a popular Wyoming creek 

ne of the 

 on the 

, much of 

iod stanr by the 

und proand nationally recognized fishery. 

The Miller House, built in 1898, was o

early homesteads in the valley. Listed

National Register of Historic Places in 1969

the original house has been restored to per

dards and aesthetics, and it is open for tou

public during the summer. 

Our visitor services staff offers year-ro

grams to incorporate wildlife viewing, photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education into the 

visitor experience. 

Miller House 

S Wr / FekaJ BB

Vision Statement 

Nestled below the majestic Teton Range, 

adjacent to the historic gateway town of 

Jackson, the National Elk Refuge provides crucial big game wintering habitat 

in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Across the refuge’s grassland, wetland, 

woodland, and sagebrush shrubland communities, visitors view wintering elk and 

other wildlife populations that are balanced with their habitats. The public 

enjoys quality hunting and fishing as well 

as year-round interpretative opportunities. Effective outreach and strong public 

and private partnerships ensure understanding and protection of refuge 

resources for future generations. 

Goals 

We are developing a comprehensive conservation 

plan to address management of the refuge. The draft 

plan and environmental assessment gives the public 

a chance to review and comment on our evaluation of 

management alternatives to meet the following refuge goals. 
Summary XV 

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Goals 

Adaptively manage bison, elk, and other wildlife 

populations and habitats as outlined in the Bison and 

Elk Management Plan. Contribute to the conservation of healthy native wildlife populations and their 

habitats. Restore and sustain a native fishery that 

provides quality fishing opportunities. 

Cultural Resources Goal 

Preserve and interpret cultural resources in a 

way that allows visitors to connect to the area’s rich 

history and conservation heritage. 

Visitor Services Goal 

Enable a diverse audience to understand and 

appreciate the refuge’s wildlife conservation role in 

Jackson Hole, while safely enjoying year-round 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection Goal 

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the refuge. 

Administration Goal 

Provide facilities and effectively use and develop 

staff resources, funding, partnerships, and volunteer 

opportunities to maintain the long-term integrity of 

habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge. 

Alternatives 

We developed four alternatives for managing the 

refuge, starting with no action (alternative A). Our 

proposed action to best manage the refuge is alternative D. 

Our propo

and enhan

We wo

ral proce

actions. K

ing some 

developm

Alternative A 

This no-action alternative represents the current 

management of the refuge. 

This provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. Programs would follow 

the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they 

do now. The refuge would not expand current habitat 

and wildlife practices that benefit bison, elk, migratory birds, or other wildlife. 

Alternative B 

The focus would be balanced public use and intensive 

resource management. 

We would limit public use to compatible wildlifedependent uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. Visitors would have more opportunities to experience the refuge through expanded 

wildlife-dependent uses. We would intensively manage habitats and uses to meet the refuge objectives 

for habitat and wildlife populations. 

Alternative C 

The focus would be emphasizing intact ecosystems 

and promoting natural processes. 

We would preserve intact native plant communities, maintain the long-distance ungulate (hoofed 

mammal) migrations, and maintain a full suite of 

large native carnivores. Visitor services would 

emphasize outreach, interpretation, and education 

and would provide more experiences off the refuge. 

Alternative D 

sed action would promote natural habitats 

ce visitor services. 

uld strike a balance between allowing natusses and conducting planned management 

eeping some areas undeveloped and returnareas to a natural state, we would increase 

ent in other areas to enhance visitor services. In many cases, visitor services would emphasize outreach, interpretation, and education. 

Abbreviations
 

Bison and Elk 

Management 

Plan 

B.P. 

CCP 

CFR 

EA 

FTE 

FWS 

GIS 

GPS 

GL 

GS 

Improvement 

Act 

LIDAR 

NPS 

Refuge System 

Region 6 

RRS 

Service 

Trumpeter 

Swan 

Management 

Plan 

U.S. 

U.S.C. 

USDA Forest 

Service 

USGS 

Bison and Elk Management Plan: 

National Elk Refuge, Grand Teton 

National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, 

Jr. Memorial Parkway 

Before present 

Comprehensive conservation plan 

United States Code of Federal Regulations 

Environmental assessment 

Full-time equivalent (position) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geographic Information System 

Global Positioning System 

General Schedule classification and pay 

system for law enforcement officers 

General Schedule classification and pay 

system 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 

Light detection and ranging 

National Park Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the 

Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter 

Swans (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 2012) 

United States 

United States Code 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

United States Geological Survey 
visitor center Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center 

WG Wage Grade classification and pay system 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

A glossary of these and other terms follows chapter 6. 

XVIII Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Chapter 1—Introduction
 

Bison 

WS F

As the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service, we manage the National Elk Refuge in northwestern Wyoming (see figure 1). This 24,777-acre 

national wildlife refuge is nestled in the valley known 

as Jackson Hole and is part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System). The refuge lies centrally in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, a 

mosaic of Federal, State, and private lands totaling 

18 million acres that encompass the largest concentration of wild ungulates (hoofed mammals) and large 

carnivores in the lower 48 States. 

We are developing a comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of the National Elk Refuge. To address 

the long-term management of the refuge, we have 

developed a draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) for the public to review our evaluation of 

management alternatives. 

The draft CCP specifies the necessary actions to 

achieve the purposes and vision of the refuge. Wildlife and habitat are the primary priorities in refuge 

management, and public use (including wildlifedependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as 

long as it is compatible with the purposes of the 

refuge. 

When finalized, the CCP will serve as a working 

guide for management programs and activities 

throughout the National Elk Refuge over the next 15 

years. Although this document contains management 

direction for the refuge, detail will be provided in 

stepdown management plans as part of implementing 

the final CCP. 

This chapter introduces the process for development of the CCP, including descriptions of our 

involvement and that of the State of Wyoming, the 

public, and others. Chapter 1 also describes the con­
2 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
servation issues and the national, regional, State, and 

local plans that affect the refuge. 

The remaining chapters contain the information 

we used and the results of our analysis that are the 

foundation of the draft plan: 

■■	 Chapter 2 describes the refuge purposes 


and vision and the planning issues.
 

■■	 Chapter 3 sets out the alternatives, including the proposed action, for management of 

the refuge. 

■■	 Chapter 4 describes the physical, biological, 

and social environment that the alternatives 

would affect. 

■■	 Chapter 5 explains the expected consequences of carrying out each of the 


alternatives.
 

■■	 Chapter 6 describes objectives and strategies for the proposed action, which represents the draft CCP. 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan 

The purpose of the draft CCP is to describe the 

role that the National Elk Refuge would play in support of the mission of the Refuge System and to provide long-term guidance for managing programs and 

activities. The CCP is needed to help us achieve the 

following: 

■■	 communication with the public and other 

partners in efforts to carry out the mission 

of the Refuge System 

■■	 a clear statement of direction for managing 

the refuge 

■■	 an understanding by neighbors, visitors, 

and government officials of our management 

actions on and around the refuge 

■■	 management actions on the refuge that are 

consistent with the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) 

■■	 management of the refuge that is consistent 

with Federal, State, and county plans 

■■	 a basis for development of budget requests 

for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs 

In addition, the draft CCP and EA incorporates 

an analysis of the Flat Creek enhancement project, a 

large effort to improve the creek’s habitat and the 

fishery it supports, as proposed under alternative D. 

Sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens. 

The Decision to be Made 

The Regional Director for the Mountain-Prairie 

Region of the Service will choose a preferred alternative for management of all refuge programs; this 

alternative will guide completion of the final CCP. 

The management direction in the final CCP will not 

conflict with management approved in the Bison and 

Elk Management Plan. 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge 

System 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal 

Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation, and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is one of the our major programs. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

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

benefit of the American people. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 3 
4 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

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

alarming rate, largely because of unrestricted market hunting. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and fishing groups came together and generated 

the political will for the first significant conservation 

measures taken by the Federal Government. These 

actions included the establishment of the Bureau of 

Fisheries in the 1870s and, in 1904, passage of the 

first Federal wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which 

prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken 

in violation of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt created more than 50 

national wildlife refuges across the Nation. 

Over the next three decades, the United States 

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

birds, establish new refuges, and create a funding 

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

Fish and Wildlife Service was created within the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions including law enforcement, fish 

management, animal damage control, and national 

wildlife refuge management were combined into a 

single organization for the first time. 

Today, we enforce Federal wildlife laws, manage 

migratory bird populations, restore nationally significant fisheries, conserve and restore vital wildlife 

habitat, protect and recover endangered species, and 

help other governments with conservation efforts. In 

addition, we administer a Federal aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to States 

for fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, 

hunter education, and related programs across the 

United States. 

National Wildlife Refuge System
 

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

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

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

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of 

Americans. 

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

Nation’s first national wildlife refuge for the protection of native nesting birds. This was the first time 

the Federal Government had set aside land for wildlife. This small but significant designation was the 

beginning of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres within 560 refuges and more 

than 3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and 

nesting. Today, there is at least one refuge in every 

State including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 

Mission 

The Improvement Act established a clear mission 

for the Refuge System: 

The Improvement Act states that each national 

wildlife refuge (meaning every unit of the Refuge 

System including wetland management districts and 

conservation areas) must be managed to do the 

following: 

■■ fulfill the mission of the Refuge System 

■■ fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge 

■■ consider the needs of fish and wildlife first 

■■	 support the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge 

System 

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

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses 

■■	 retain the authority of refuge managers to 

determine compatible public uses 

■■	 fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP 

for each unit of the Refuge System and fully 

involve the public in preparation of these 

plans 

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, 

the wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the 

Refuge System supports the following principles: 

■■ Wildlife comes first. 

■■	 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness 

are vital concepts in refuge management. 

■■ Habitats must be healthy. 
Conserving the

Next Generation l

implementation te

The implementati

currently underwa

2011). 

Conserving the

comes: articulate t

the Refuge Syste

awareness of conse

Chapter 1—Introduction 5 

■■ Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with active participation from other 

interested parties. Following passage of the 

Improvement Act, the Service immediately began to 

carry out the direction of the new legislation including preparation of CCPs for all national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. Consistent 

with the Improvement Act, the Service prepares 

CCPs in conjunction with public involvement. 

People and the Refuge System 

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes 

to the quality of American lives and is an integral 

part of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild 

places have always given people special opportunities 

to have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Whether through birdwatching, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife recreation contributes millions of dollars to local economies. In particular, money generated from a tax on 

the sale of sporting arms and ammunition and the 

sale of fishing equipment that is authorized by the 

Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, 

respectively, has generated tens of millions of dollars. 

Distributed by us, this money has been used by 

States to manage wildlife and fish populations, 

expand habitat, and provide education for hunters 

across the Nation. Approximately 35 million people 

visited the Refuge System in 2006, mostly to observe 

wildlife in their natural habitats (Caudill and Henderson 2005). Visitors are most often accommodated 

through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Substantial economic benefits are being generated for the 

local communities that surround refuges and wetland 

management districts. Economists report that Refuge System visitors contribute more than $1.7 billion 

annually to local economies. 

1.3 National and Regional 

Mandates 

Refuge System units (national wildlife refuges, 

wetland management districts, and conservation 

areas) are managed to achieve the mission and goals 

of the Refuge System along with the designated purpose of the refuges as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other establishing 

documents. The key concepts and guidance for the 

Refuge System are in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, Title 50 of the 

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the “Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement 

Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Refuge System 

Administration Act by providing (1) a unifying mission for the Refuge System, (2) a new process for 

determining compatible public uses on refuges and 

districts, and (3) a requirement that each refuge and 

district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement 

Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority 

on Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of 

the Interior will make sure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge 

lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed 

to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and the specific 

purposes for which the unit was established. The 

Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor 

the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in 

each national wildlife refuge and wetland management district. 

A detailed description of these and other laws and 

Executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in “Appendix 

A—Key Legislation and Policy.” Service policies for 

planning and day-to-day management of refuges and 

districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and the 

“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” 

1.4 Refuge Contributions to 

Regional and National Plans 

The National Elk Refuge contributes to the conservation efforts outlined in the various State and 

national plans described here. 

Conserving the Future 

 Future: Wildlife Refuges and the 

ays out 24 recommendations that 9 

ams are charged with fulfilling. 

on of these recommendations are 

y and can be followed online (FWS 

 Future will deliver on three outhe important work and future of 

m in a vision document, raise the 

rvation on refuges, and foster new 

leaders for us and the Refuge System as well as for 

the conservation community. 
6 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Partners in Flight 

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 

with the recognition of declining population levels of 

many migratory bird species. The challenge is to 

manage human population growth while maintaining 

functional natural ecosystems in the face of human 

population growth. To meet this challenge, Partners 

in Flight worked to identify priorities for landbird 

species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity 

has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering 

the continental United States. 

In 2001, participants in Wyoming Partners In 

Flight, the State working group of Partners In 

Flight, developed the Wyoming Bird Conservation 

Plan as part of the international Partners In Flight 

effort. Bird species found in Jackson Hole that are 

designated as level 1 (conservation action) and confirmed on the National Elk Refuge follow: Brewer’s 

sparrow, greater sage-grouse, trumpeter swan, longbilled curlew, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and 

Franklin’s gull. 

North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

The North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) provides a contiguous 

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

coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, and pelicans), wading birds (herons and ibises), and marshbirds (certain 

grebes and bitterns). The geographic scope of the 

plan covers 28 countries from Canada to Panama as 

well as islands and near-shore areas of the Atlantic 

and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. As with Partners in Flight and other 

migratory bird plans, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan has a goal to establish conservation action and exchange information and expertise 

with other bird conservation initiatives. The plan also 

calls for establishment of “practical units for planning” for terrestrial habitats; the National Elk Refuge is located within the Intermountain West. 

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan 

Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (FWS and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986) envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl 

populations. Specific plan objectives are to increase 

and restore duck populations to the average levels of 

the 1970s: 62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight 

of 100 million birds (FWS and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986). Recognizing the importance of waterfowl 

and wetlands to North Americans and the need for 

international cooperation to help in the recovery of a 

shared resource, the United States and Canadian 

Governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan is innovative 

because of its international scope and its implementation at the regional level. 

The plan’s success depends on the strength of 

partnerships called joint ventures, which involve 

Federal, State, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and 

individual citizens. Joint ventures are regional, selfdirected partnerships that carry out science-based 

conservation through a wide array of community 

participation. Joint ventures develop implementation 

plans that focus on areas of concern identified in the 

plan. 

The National Elk Refuge lies within the Intermountain West Joint Venture. Throughout the planning process, we considered the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the supporting 

efforts of the Intermountain West Joint Venture, 

which the CCP supports and promotes. 

Recovery Plans for Federally 

Listed, Threatened, or Endangered 

Species 

One species that is federally listed as threatened, 

grizzly bear, and one candidate species, greater sagegrouse, have been documented at the National Elk 

Refuge. To make sure that the conservation of listed 

and candidate species are adequately considered in 

this document, we conducted a biological evaluation 

of their actions per section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

If, during the life of this CCP, listed species are 

discovered on the refuge or new species are listed, 

we will make sure that the refuge takes part in any 

approved recovery plans. We will also conduct an 

Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation on refuge management activities that might affect the listed or 

candidate species. 
Chapter 1—Introduction 7 

Canada Goose Gosling 

S Wh / Fguon HnA

Wyoming State Wildlife Action

Plan 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

adopted the State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy in 2005. The Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) revised the strategy in 

2010 (WGFD 2010a), at which time it became known 

as the Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan. The 

action plan is a broad strategy designed to coordinate 

efforts to maintain the health and diversity of wildlife in Wyoming and to prevent future listings under 

the Endangered Species Act. The Wyoming State 

Wildlife Action Plan is part of a national framework 

of plans that are required by each State to receive 

State Wildlife Grant money, which is a program 

enacted by Congress in 2001 and that we 

administer. 

The 2010 State wildlife action plan identifies 180 

“species of greatest conservation need” in Wyoming: 

56 birds, 46 mammals, 30 fish, 8 amphibians, 21 reptiles, 5 crustaceans, and 14 mollusks. Many of these 

species are nongame species that have received little 

conservation attention in the past and for which species data may be unavailable. The action plan 

describes the modeled distribution and abundance of 

these species and uses a three-tier system to rank 

them according to conservation priority. 

In addition to species of greatest conservation 

need, the Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan identifies five leading conservation challenges in the State: 

(1) rural subdivision and development; (2) energy 

development; (3) invasive species; (4) climate change; 

and (5) the disruption of natural disturbance regimes. 

Additionally, the action plan identifies and makes 

conservation recommendations for 11 terrestrial 

habitat types and 6 aquatic basins in Wyoming in 

terms of the species of greatest conservation need 

that may be found there. Important habitat types in 

Jackson Hole identified in the action plan include wetlands, riparian areas, aspen and deciduous forests, 

foothill shrublands, montane and subalpine forests, 

mountain grasslands, and sagebrush shrublands. 

Important terrestrial species of greatest conservation need found in Jackson Hole are peregrine falcon, long-billed curlew, Lewis’s woodpecker, black 

tern, white-faced ibis, merlin, Caspian tern, harlequin duck, bald eagle, trumpeter swan, big brown 

bat, fringed myotis, little brown myotis, long-eared 

myotis, long-legged myotis, boreal toad, moose, wolverine, Canada lynx, dwarf shrew, and vagrant 

shrew. Important aquatic species of greatest conservation need found in Jackson Hole are bluehead 

sucker, mountain sucker, mountain whitefish, and 

Snake River cutthroat trout. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan 

On March 5, 2010, we concluded that the greater 

sage-grouse warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but listing is precluded by the 

need to take action on other species facing more 

immediate and severe extinction threats. In 2008, we 

adopted the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (WGFD 2008) and provide the framework 

for local working groups to guide management 

efforts directed at halting long-term population 

declines. Our refuge staff takes part in local working 

group meetings, and we consider the recommended 

management practices in the plan when developing 

management practices and plans on the refuge. 

The National Elk Refuge lies within the core 

population area of the Jackson greater sage-grouse 

as designated by the State of Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order 

(2011–5), signed by Governor Dave Freudenthal in 
8 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

August 2010. The State established core population 

areas, in addition to stipulations for development on 

lands within those core areas, to build a statewide 

strategy to conserve the greater sage-grouse across 

Wyoming and to prevent the species from being 

listed for protection under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

Bison and Elk Management Plan 

Approved in 2007, the “Bison and Elk Management Plan: National Elk Refuge, Grand Teton 

National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial 

Parkway” (FWS and NPS 2007a) is referred to 

throughout this document as the Bison and Elk Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide 

managers with goals, objectives, and strategies for 

managing elk and bison on the National Elk Refuge 

and in Grand Teton National Park. Goals and strategies were developed for the following: 

■■ habitat conservation 

■■ sustainable populations 

■■ numbers of elk and bison 

■■ disease management 

In general, the plan moves elk and bison management toward reduced reliance on supplemental feeding and, at some future time, total reliance on natural 

forage. Management actions taken to date have 

focused on disease monitoring, reducing elk and bison 

herd sizes through public hunting, and increasing 

natural, standing winter forage through expanded 

irrigation. Management goals and actions approved 

in the Bison and Elk Management Plan apply to the 

National Elk Refuge, and we refer to them throughout the draft CCP and EA. Because the CCP will 

supplement the Bison and Elk Management Plan, we 

do not repeat the plan’s objectives in the CCP. 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee 

The refuge has been a member of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee since 2002. Members include national wildlife refuge managers, 

national park superintendents, and national forest 

supervisors for units within the ecosystem. A memorandum of understanding provides a vehicle for cooperation and coordination in the management of 

Federal lands in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

The committee’s land managers periodically identify 

resource management issues where coordination 

across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is 

desirable. 

Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change 

We expect that accelerating climate change may 

have profound effects on the Nation’s fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources. While many species will continue to thrive, some may decline and in some 

instances go extinct. Others will survive in the wild 

only through direct and continuous intervention by 

managers. In 2010, we finalized a strategic plan 

(FWS 2010) to address climate change for the next 50 

years. This strategic plan employs three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. In 

addition, the plan acknowledges that no single organization or agency can address climate change without allying itself with others in partnership across 

the Nation and around the world. This plan is an 

integral part of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s 

strategy for addressing climate change as expressed 

in Secretarial Order 3289 (September 14, 2009). 

We use the following guiding principles from this 

strategic plan in responding to climate change: 

■■	 Priority Setting—Continually evaluate priorities and approaches, make difficult 

choices, take calculated risks, and adapt to 

climate change. 

■■	 Partnership—Commit to a new spirit of 

coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with others. 

■■	 Best Science—Reflect scientific excellence, 

professionalism, and integrity in all our 

work. 

■■	 Landscape Conservation—Emphasize the 

conservation of habitats within sustainable 

landscapes, applying our strategic habitat 

conservation framework. 

■■	 Technical Capacity—Assemble and use 

state-of-the-art technical capacity to meet 

the climate change challenge. 

■■	 Global Approach—Be a leader in national 

and international efforts to meet the climate 

change challenge. 
1.5 Landscape-Scale

Conservation 

In the face of escalating challenges such as land 

use conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and 

refuge complex issues that have been amplified by 

accelerating climate change, our ecosystem approach 

of thinking about conservation has evolved to developing a broader vision—strategic habitat conservation. Landscape conservation cooperatives will 

facilitate how we carry out strategic habitat 

conservation. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 9 

Strategic Habitat Conservation 

A cooperative effort between us and the U.S. Geological Survey culminated in a report by the National 

Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 2006). The 

report outlines a unifying adaptive resource management approach for conservation at a landscape scale 

for the entire range of a target species or suite of 

species. This is strategic habitat conservation—a 

way of thinking and doing business by incorporating 

biological goals for target species populations, by 

making strategic decisions about the work needed, 

and by constantly reassessing (figure 2). 

We used this framework as the basis to locate the 

first generation of landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives are conservation-science 

partnerships between us and other Federal agencies, 

States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and others. Designed as fundamental units 

for planning and science, the cooperatives have the 

capacity to help us carry out the elements of strategic 

habitat conservation—biological planning, conservation design and delivery, and monitoring and 

research. Coordinated planning and scientific information strengthens our strategic response to accelerating climate change. 

Figure 2. The strategic habitat conservation process. 

Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives 

Strategic habitat conservation is a means of 

applying adaptive resource management across large 

landscapes. The National Elk Refuge lies within the 

Service’s Great Northern Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative (figure 3). This landscape conservation 

cooperative covers the mountain and transitional 

habitats in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming including the 

upper Green River Basin in southern Wyoming and 

small parts of Colorado and Utah, and parts of the 

Interior Columbia Plateau reaching into Oregon and 

Washington westward to the Cascade Range. The 

Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative also covers the international landscapes of interior British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, and 

covers the entirety of the northern Rocky Mountains 

and midcontinent lowlands of the Interior 

Northwest. 

Figure 3. Map of the Great Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative in North America. 

The landscape conservation cooperative has identified the following priority species: bull trout, grizzly 

bear, Lewis’s woodpecker, trumpeter swan, westslope cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling, wolverine, willow flycatcher, greater sage-grouse, burrowing owl, 

and Columbia spotted frog. Two of these species, 

trumpeter swan and greater sage-grouse, use the 

refuge. 

As the Great Northern Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative continues to develop, an overarching 

priority is to serve as a convening body to bring 

together partners to address existing and future 

issues related to climate change and landscape-scale 

conservation. 

1.6 Planning Process 

The Improvement Act requires us to develop a 

CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The final plan 

for the National Elk Refuge is scheduled for comple­
10 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 3. Map of the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative in North America. 

tion in 2013 and will guide the management of the 

refuge complex for the next 15 years. 

We prepared this draft CCP and EA in compliance with the Improvement Act and part 602 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the 

“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions 

described in the draft CCP and EA meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. 

Additional requirements and guidance are contained in the Refuge System’s planning policy issued 

in 2000. The policy established requirements and 

guidance for refuge and district plans, including 

CCPs and stepdown management plans, to make 

sure that planning efforts follow the Improvement 

Act. The planning policy identified several steps of 

the CCP and environmental analysis process (figure 

4). 

We began the pre-planning process in August 

2010 with the establishment of a planning team comprised primarily of staff from the National Elk Refuge and the Region 6 Division of Refuge Planning. 

Contributors included other Service divisions, the 

WGFD, Teton County, and the National Park Service 

(refer to “Appendix B—List of Preparers and Contributors”). During pre-planning, the team developed 

a mailing list and identified internal issues and the 

unique qualities of the refuge (refer to section “2.5 

Special Values” in chapter 2). The planning team 

identified and reviewed current programs, compiled 

and analyzed relevant data, and identified the purposes of the refuge. 

Public scoping started with a notice of intent to 

prepare the draft CCP and EA that we published in 

the Federal Register on October 22, 2010 (75 Federal 

Register 65370). We distributed information through 

news releases, issuance of the first planning update, 

and a public meeting held January 11, 2011, at Snow 

King Resort in Jackson, Wyoming, from 4 p.m. to 7 

p.m. 

The planning team encouraged public comment 

during the planning process through the development and release of the draft CCP and EA. This CCP 

project complies with public involvement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, and 

the planning team incorporated public input throughout the planning process. During the planning process, the team collected available information about 

the resources of the refuge and surrounding areas. 

This information is summarized in “Chapter 4— 

Affected Environment.” Table 1 lists the specific 
Chapter 1—Introduction 11 

steps in the planning process to date for the preparation of the draft CCP and EA. 

Figure 4. Process steps for comprehensive planning and associated environmental analysis. 

Coordination with the Public
 

We prepared a mailing list of more than 90 names 

during pre-planning. The mailing list has private citizens; local, regional, and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; and 

interested organizations (refer to “Appendix C— 

Public Involvement”). The first planning update was 

distributed through refuge email mailing lists and at 

the public scoping meeting in January 2011. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and 

the CCP process and included an invitation to attend 

the public scoping meeting being held in January. The 

planning update contained information on how to be 

placed on the CCP mailing list, and the planning 

update provided opportunities for submitting 

comments. 

The Service held a public scoping meeting January 11, 2011. Forty people attended the meeting, 

which was an open-house format with stations set up 

around and our staff attending each station to provide information and answer questions. We encouraged attendees to ask questions and offer comments. 

We recorded verbal comments and gave each 

attendee a comment form to submit other thoughts or 

questions in writing. 

Written comments were due February 10, 2011. 

We received more than 230 comments orally and in 

writing during the scoping process. There were letters from eight organizations (Concerned Citizens for 

the Elk, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of Pathways, 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Jackson Hole Public Art Initiative, and The 

Wildlife Society) and four agencies (National Park 

Service, Teton Conservation District, Teton County, 

and WGFD). The planning team considered all of the 

comments throughout the planning process. 

State Coordination 

At the start of the planning process, our Regional 

Director (Region 6) sent a letter to WGFD, inviting 

them to join in the planning process. Two representatives from the WGFD are participating on the planning team. 
Table 1. Summary of the comprehensive conservation planning process for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Date Event Outcome or purpose 

August 4–5, 

2010 Preplanning meeting We discussed the initial planning team list, started the mailing list, and discussed the planning schedule and data needs. 

October 

2010 

22, Notice of intent We published our notice of intent to prepare a CCP in the 

Federal Register. 

December 

10, 2010 Planning team invitations 

The Regional Director invited tribal nations, National Park 

Service, USDA Forest Service, WGFD, and Teton County to 

join the planning team. 

January 

11–12,

 2011 

CCP kickoff 

meeting 

and vision and goals The planning team reviewed the refuge purposes, identified 

refuge qualities and issues, and developed a draft vision 

statement and goals for the refuge. 

March 14, 

2011 Work plan We completed the work plan of planning tasks. 

We sent Planning Update 1 to people and organizations on the 

January 2011 Planning update mailing list. The update described the planning process and 

announced the upcoming public scoping meeting. 

January 11, 

2011 Public scoping meeting 

We held a public meeting in Jackson. The public had an 

opportunity to learn about the CCP process and provide 

comments. 

February 1– 

June 7, 2011 Five planning team conference calls 

The planning team summarized public comments, identified 

issues to be addressed in the planning process, and began 

developing a range of management alternatives for the refuge. 

December 

13–15, 

2011 

Alternatives development meeting The planning team met in Jackson, Wyoming, to discuss 

management alternatives. 

March 19–21, 

2012 

Environmental consequences and 

selection of proposed action workshop 

The planning team met in Jackson to review the environmental 

consequences for the alternatives and select a proposed action 

alternative. 

June 

2012 

19–21, Objectives and strategies work session The planning team began writing objectives and strategies for 

the proposed action alternative. 

September 2012– 

July 2013 Draft plan preparation The planning team prepared the draft CCP and EA. 

December 

2013 Draft plan internal review 

The planning team and other staff reviewed the draft CCP and 

EA and provided comments to help clarify the analyses and 

provide consistency. 

12 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

We sent Planning Update 1 to the offices of the 

U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis and U.S. Senators John Barrasso and Mike Enzi to tell them about 

the planning process and invite them to attend a public scoping meeting and provide comments on issues 

to be addressed during the planning process. In addition, we sent the planning updates to Wyoming Governor Matt Mead; Wyoming State Senators Leland 

Christensen and Dan Dockstader; and Wyoming 

State representatives Keith Gingery, Ruth Petroff, 

and Jim Roscoe. In addition, we made phone calls 

during the scoping period inviting the elected officials to attend the upcoming scoping meeting for the 

CCP; three local elected officials attended the meeting at the Snow King Resort in Jackson, Wyoming, 

on January 11, 2011. 

Tribal Coordination 

Early in the planning process, our Regional 

Director (Region 6) sent a letter to tribes identified 

as possibly having a cultural and historical connection to the area in which the National Elk Refuge is 

located. The letters went to the following tribal councils: Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck, 

Cheyenne and Arapaho, Cheyenne River Sioux, Crow 

Creek Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, North Arapaho, 

Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, 

Santee Sioux, Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock, and 

Standing Rock Sioux. The tribal councils did not submit responses to the Region 6 letter; nevertheless, 
Chapter 1—Introduction 13 

we gave the councils opportunities to comment 

throughout the planning process. 

Flat Creek Marsh 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Teton County Coordination 

At the start of the planning process, our Regional 

Director (Region 6) sent a letter to the Teton County 

Board of Commissioners inviting them to join in the 

planning process. A representative of Teton County 

and the City of Jackson is participating on the planning team. 

Results of Scoping 

We used the comments, collected from scoping 

meetings and correspondence, in the development of 

a final list of issues that are addressed in the draft 

CCP and EA. We decided which alternatives could 

best address these issues. The planning process 

ensures that we resolve or give priority to issues 

with the greatest effect on the refuge resources and 

programs over the life of the final CCP. Chapter 2 

contains the issues we identified, along with a discussion of effects on resources. In addition, we considered suggested changes to current refuge 

management presented by the public and other 

groups. 

Selecting an Alternative 

After the public reviews and provides comments 

on the draft CCP and EA, the planning team will 

present this document along with a summary of all 

substantive public comments to our Regional Director. The Regional Director will consider the environmental effects of each alternative including 

information gathered during the public review. The 

Regional Director will choose a preferred alternative 

for management of the refuge. If the Regional Director finds that no significant impacts would occur, the 

Regional Director’s decision will be disclosed in a 

finding of no significant impact included in the final 

CCP. If the Regional Director finds a significant 

impact would occur, an environmental impact statement would be prepared. If approved, the actions in 

the preferred alternative will compose the final CCP. 

After the planning team prepares the final CCP 

for publication, we will publish a notice of availability 

in the Federal Register, and we will send copies of 

the final CCP or accompanying summary to individuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, we will implement the CCP with help from partner agencies, 

organizations, and the public. 

The CCP will provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; support achievement of the 

goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish 

the purposes of the National Elk Refuge; and 

describe our best estimate of future needs. We will 

use the CCP along with the Bison and Elk Management Plan as guidance for managing the National Elk 

Refuge. 

include “refuges 

other big game ani

wildlife, and the pr

conservation of thr

When the U.S. 

March 4, 1911, for “

elk from the Jac

assigned E.A. Pre

logical Survey, th

investigation of the

was assisted by D

Chapter 2—The Refuge
 

Trumpeter Swans 

Ann Hough / FWS 

This chapter explains the establishment, management history, purposes, and special values of the 

National Elk Refuge in northwestern Wyoming along 

with the proposed vision and goals and a discussion of 

the planning issues. 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition,

and Management History 

The following section describes the refuge’s establishment, acquisition, and management history. 

Establishment 

The National Elk Refuge is one of the oldest refuges in the Refuge System (see figure 5). It was 

established in 1912 as a “winter game (elk) reserve,” 

but over the years, its purpose has been broadened to 

and breeding grounds for birds, 

mals, the conservation of fish and 

otection of natural resources and 

eatened or endangered species.” 

Acquisition History 

Congress appropriated $20,000 on 

feeding, protecting and removing 

kson Hole and vicinity,” it also 

ble, scientist for the Bureau of Bioe task of making a preliminary 

 Jackson Hole elk situation. Preble 

.C. Nowlin (who became the first 

refuge manager) in assessing the Jackson elk herd 

and its needs. 
16 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 5. Base map of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 17 

Preble and Nowlin conducted an evaluation of that 

part of the Snake River Valley known as Jackson 

Hole, which extends from Jackson Lake on the north 

to the mouth of the Hoback River on the south. They 

also evaluated the Buffalo River and Gros Ventre 

River valleys. Preble and Nowlin’s population estimate was 20,000 elk with an estimated winter mortality of 2,000–2,500. Preble concluded his report 

with the statement, “The Biological Survey looks on 

the establishment of one or more winter refuges as 

the best solution of the problem of properly caring for 

the elk in winter.” He recommended winter elk refuges either in the Gros Ventre River valley or in the 

Snake River Valley near the town of Jackson. Residents in Jackson strongly opposed the Gros Ventre 

River valley site but generally supported a location 

near their town. 

On August 10, 1912, the U.S. Congress appropriated $45,000 to buy lands and pay for maintenance of 

a “winter game (elk) reserve” (37 Stat. 293). The first 

tract for the National Elk Refuge was bought in 1914. 

Since that time, we have acquired land primarily 

through purchase with a few tracts obtained through 

exchange, donation, or condemnation. Several noteworthy acquisitions have occurred. In 1927, the Isaac 

Walton League of America donated 1,757 acres, 

which increased the size of the refuge at that time by 

30 percent. The top-priority acquisition listed in our 

1965 refuge master plan was an 80-acre tract that 

occupied a 2.75-mile-long area along the eastern side 

of State Highway 89. We acquired this tract to prevent any commercial or residential development next 

to the refuge that would “block and disfigure” the 

“breathtaking view of the land.” 

By 1950, the refuge had expanded in size to 23,001 

acres. More acquisitions occurred in 1978 and 1986 to 

prevent the completion of the adjacent Teton Highlands and Teton Ranch subdivisions. Land values in 

Teton County, especially next to the refuge, began to 

skyrocket in the 1990s and reached multiple millions 

of dollars per acre by 2007. These exorbitant land 

values have prevented all fee-title land acquisition 

since 1992. Today, the refuge has completely filled its 

approved acquisition boundary and is 24,778 acres in 

size. Table 2 summarizes the history of land acquisition for the refuge, and figure 6 shows locations of the 

land tracts. The refuge is bounded by the town of 

Jackson on the south, the Gros Ventre River on the 

north, Highway 89 on the west, and the BridgerTeton National Forest on the east. Because much of 

the refuge was comprised from homesteads, areas of 

the refuge have retained some of these historical 

names, as shown on figure 7. 

Table 2. Land acquisition history for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Date of 

acquisition Tract number Final acres Means of acquisition 

3/16/1914 9e, 9f, 9g 1,205.25 Purchase 

4/21/1915 1 4,322.27 Primary withdrawal 

10/18/1915 121 360 Purchase 

10/22/1915 118 160 Purchase 

9/26/1927 119, 119a 1,757.38 Donation 

7/20/1936 59 240 Purchase 

7/21/1936 39 802.74 Purchase 

7/23/1936 52 140 Purchase 

7/23/1936 68 796 Purchase 

7/23/1936 30, 30–I 470.13 Purchase 

7/30/1936 7 279.82 Purchase 

7/30/1936 58 240 Purchase 

7/30/1936 61 160 Purchase 

Management History 

The National Elk Refuge was established in 

response to severe elk starvation in Jackson Hole. 

The development of the town of Jackson and settlement of the valley by cattle ranchers substantially 

reduced historical elk winter range and led to massive elk starvation during the winters of 1909 and 

1910. At the request of the State of Wyoming, the 

U.S. Congress first appropriated $20,000 on March 4, 

1911, for “feeding, protecting and removing elk in 

Jackson Hole and vicinity.“ 

Feeding hay to elk wintering in Jackson Hole was 

one of the first management activities to occur on 

what is now the National Elk Refuge. No-feeding 

years have occurred irregularly and infrequently. 
18 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Table 2. Land acquisition history for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Date of 

acquisition Tract number Final acres Means of acquisition 

10/31/1936 54 320 Purchase 

10/31/1936 117 320 Purchase 

11/7/1936 56 320 Purchase 

1/14/1937 24 237.36 Purchase 

4/2/1937 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d 1,471.03 Purchase 

4/13/1937 27, a, a–1, a–2, b, c, e 825.97 Purchase 

4/28/1937 22 400 Purchase 

5/11/1937 25 438.56 Purchase 

5/12/1937 44 143.3 Purchase 

5/17/1937 72 320 Purchase 

5/17/1937 116 160 Purchase 

5/17/1937 53, 53a, 53b 800 Purchase 

5/24/1937 8 320 Purchase 

5/24/1937 40 120.12 Purchase 

6/7/1937 58a 160 Purchase 

6/8/1937 28 640 Purchase 

7/9/1937 34 160 Purchase 

12/27/1937 8a 678.64 Condemnation 

12/271937 113 160 Condemnation 

1/5/1938 11 626.12 Purchase 

6/9/1938 120 0.98 Purchase 

7/25/1938 36 80 Purchase 

11/3/1938 55 230 Purchase 

11/21/1939 31, 31a, 31c 42.38 Donation 

6/11/1940 2 320 Purchase 

11/15/1941 51 220 Purchase 

12/16/1949 206, 206a 2,712.97 Donation 

2/6/1959 42 160 Land exchange 

3/17/1965 122a 460 Land exchange 

2/7/1972 123 80.12 Purchase 

12/20/1974 124, 124a 111.51 Purchase 

8/26/1975 124b 26.07 Purchase 

4/18/1977 132 10.31 Purchase 

11/16/1978 137 11.78 Purchase 

12/14/1978 133, a, b, c, d 245.17 Purchase 

9/6/1979 143 16.97 Purchase 

7/21/1980 128 5.18 Purchase 

2/8/1986 131 5.01 Purchase 

3/28/1986 122b 354.26 Primary withdrawal 

5/2/1986 154 41.03 Purchase 

10/1/1986 130 5 Purchase 

10/22/1986 125 50 Purchase 

8/5/1991 155 20 Purchase 

9/2/1992 124c 10 Purchase 

10/1/1992 156 3.87 Purchase 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 19
 

Figure 6. Map of land tracts composing the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
20 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 7. Map of areas and feedgrounds on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 21 

Since the refuge was established in 1912, there have 

been 9 years when no feeding was provided. The last 

such winter was in 1980–81. The length of the supplemental winter feeding program has ranged from no 

feeding to a maximum of 147 days; elk are fed an 

average of 70 days annually. We have fed hay to elk 

during at least a part of most winters from 1912 to 

1975. In 1975, after several years of testing, we made 

a switch to alfalfa pellets (Smith and Robbins 1984). 

Hunting is the primary management tool used to 

control the size of the Jackson elk herd. The first 

hunting season on the National Elk Refuge was in 

1943, but hunting did not become an annual event 

until 1955. 

Members and descendants of a small display herd 

of bison that escaped from Grand Teton National 

Park in the late 1960s discovered the refuge’s winter 

supplemental feeding program in 1980. This source of 

winter nutrition enabled the bison herd size to 

increase almost exponentially to 1,250 animals by the 

fall of 2007. To reduce herd size to objective levels in 

the Bison and Elk Management Plan, bison hunting 

became an annual activity on the refuge in 2007 and 

has been the primary tool used to control the size of 

the Jackson bison herd. 

2.2 Purposes 

Every national wildlife refuge has a purpose for 

which it was established. The purpose is the foundation on which to build all refuge programs—from 

biology and public use to maintenance and facilities. 

No action that we or the public undertake may conflict with this purpose. The refuge purposes are 

found in the legislative acts or executive actions that 

provide the authorities to either transfer or acquire a 

piece of land for a refuge. Over time, an individual 

refuge may contain lands that have been acquired 

under various transfer and acquisition authorities, 

giving the refuge more than one purpose. 

The goals, objectives, and strategies proposed in 

the draft CCP (refer to chapter 6) are intended to 

support the individual purposes for which the 

National Elk Refuge was established: 

■■	 The National Elk Refuge was established in 

1912 as a “winter game (elk) reserve” (37 

Stat. 293, 16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

673). 

■■	 In 1913, the U.S. Congress designated the 

area “a winter elk refuge” (37 Stat. 847). 

■■ In 1921, all lands included in the refuge or 

that might be added in the future were 

reserved and set apart as “refuges and 

breeding grounds for birds” (Executive 

Order 3596), which was affirmed in 1922 

(Executive Order 3741). 

■■ In 1927, the refuge was expanded to provide 

“for the grazing of, and as a refuge for, 

American elk and other big game animals” 

(44 Stat. 1246, 16 U.S.C. 673a). 

These purposes apply to all or most of the lands 

now within the refuge. Several parcels have been 

added to the refuge specifically for the conservation 

of fish and wildlife (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956), 

opportunities for recreational development oriented 

to fish and wildlife, the protection of natural 

resources, and the conservation of threatened or 

endangered species (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 

16 U.S.C. 460k–l). 

2.3 Vision 

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions 

for the future, that describes the essence of what we 

are trying to accomplish at a refuge. The following 

vision for the National Elk Refuge is a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved through 

refuge management throughout the life of the CCP 

and beyond: 

Nestled below the majestic Teton Range, 

adjacent to the historic gateway town of 

Jackson, the National Elk Refuge provides crucial big game wintering habitat 

in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Across the refuge’s grassland, wetland, 

woodland, and sagebrush shrubland communities, visitors view wintering elk and 

other wildlife populations that are balanced with their habitats. The public 

enjoys quality hunting and fishing as well 

as year-round interpretative opportunities. Effective outreach and strong public 

and private partnerships ensure understanding and protection of refuge 

resources for future generations. 
22 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

2.4 Goals 

A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not 

define measurable units. The goals direct efforts 

toward achieving the vision and purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for managing refuge 

resources. We developed five goals for the refuge 

based on the Improvement Act, the purposes of the 

refuge, and information developed during planning. 

Habitat and Wildlife Management Goal 

Adaptively manage bison, elk, and other wildlife 

populations and habitats as outlined in the Bison and 

Elk Management Plan. Contribute to the conservation of healthy native wildlife populations and their 

habitats. Restore and sustain a native fishery that 

provides quality fishing opportunities. 

Cultural Resources Goal 

Preserve and interpret cultural resources in a 

way that allows visitors to connect to the area’s rich 

history and conservation heritage. 

Visitor Services Goal 

Enable a diverse audience to understand and 

appreciate the refuge’s wildlife conservation role in 

Jackson Hole, while safely enjoying year-round 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection Goal 

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the refuge. 

Administration Goal 

Provide facilities and effectively use and develop 

staff resources, funding, partnerships, and volunteer 

opportunities to maintain the long-term integrity of 

habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge. 

2.5 Special Values 

Early in the planning process, our planning team 

and the public identified the outstanding qualities or 

special values of the National Elk Refuge. These special values are characteristics and features of the 

refuge that make it special to the public, valuable for 

wildlife, and worthy of refuge status. It was important to identify and describe the special values of the 

refuge to recognize its worth and to make sure they 

are conserved, protected, and enhanced through the 

planning process. These special values can be unique 

biological resources as well as something as simple as 

a quiet place to see a variety of birds and enjoy 

nature. 

Intact Ecosystem 

The refuge lies in a nearly intact ecosystem. The 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is one of the last 

remaining nearly intact ecosystems in the northern 

temperate zone. As human population pressure and 

development degrade natural systems worldwide, 

large nearly intact areas such as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem sustain some of the last remaining 

populations of large carnivores, support some of the 

longest ungulate migrations in North America, and 

contain some of the largest areas of undeveloped wilderness in the lower 48 States. A contiguous system 

of national park, national wildlife refuge, and national 

forest lands has conserved the relative integrity of 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

High Scenic Quality 

The National Elk Refuge is considered one of the 

“crown jewels” of the Refuge System because of its 

spectacular scenery, closeness to two iconic national 

parks (Grand Teton and Yellowstone), and large charismatic populations of seasonal wildlife—especially 

elk and bison—that people want to stop and watch. 

The refuge, along with vast expanses of undeveloped national forest and national park land surrounding the refuge, offers spectacular scenic views of the 

Teton and Gros Ventre Ranges, the Sleeping Indian 

(Sheep Mountain), Jackson Peak, Cache Peak, Snow 

King Mountain, East Gros Ventre Butte, and the 
 

Chapter 2—The Refuge 23 

Gros Ventre Hills in the northern part of the refuge. 

The refuge’s location along a heavily traveled highway leading to and from the Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks and its vast expanses of 

scenic open space are integral to the visual experiences of visitors. The visual appearance of a landscape is often the first thing to which a viewer 

responds. The most prominent view of the refuge, 

which is seen by several million visitors annually as 

they drive to and from Jackson on U.S. Highway 

26/89, is the expansive Flat Creek wetland. 

Tagging elk is a regular and necessary activity. 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Undeveloped Habitat 

“Habitat” is a species-specific concept that refers 

to the resources necessary to sustain populations of a 

given species or communities of species. Each wildlife organism has particular space, food, water, and 

thermoregulation needs that influence whether that 

species can exist in an area, and these requirements 

define the habitat of that species. 

The National Elk Refuge represents one of the 

last undeveloped low-elevation areas in Jackson Hole. 

The refuge provides important habitat for species 

that depend on limited snow cover, open grasslands, 

sagebrush shrublands, or wetlands. Important refuge 

habitats include (1) winter range for elk, bison, 

moose, and bighorn sheep; (2) breeding habitat for 

grassland birds such as long-billed curlew; (3) wintering and breeding habitat for greater sage-grouse; 

and (4) wetland habitat for trumpeter swans, amphibians, and cutthroat trout. 

Quality Water Resources 

The Gros Ventre River drains approximately 600 

square miles of eastern Jackson Hole and the adjacent Gros Ventre Range to the east. The river is the 

largest watercourse on the refuge and is among the 

river segments designated as wild and scenic by the 

Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 

2008. 

The refuge experiences a relatively natural, 

annual hydro-regime (waterflows occur without substantial human-constructed controls or alterations), 

which promotes healthy aquatic ecosystem processes, 

supports robust populations of aquatic invertebrates 

(animals without a backbone), and sustains native 

Snake River cutthroat trout populations. The diversion of irrigation water from the Gros Ventre River 

into Flat Creek is sustaining higher than normal 

summer flows and is not a “natural, annual hydroregime.” The Gros Ventre River irrigation diversion 

is conveyed through a ditch dug across the glacial 

moraine complex separating the river from Flat 

Creek. The lowermost portion of this ditch failed 

catastrophically in 1932, producing a massive erosion 

event in the moraine material. A deep gully developed, which delivered a large amount of sediment to 

the valley floor and directly to Flat Creek. 

Water-level contours show that ground water 

from higher elevations flows to the southwest 

through the valley toward the Snake River. Data for 

the valley aquifer (permeable rock storing underground water) indicate excellent water quality, supporting use for drinking water supplies, recreation, 

and other commercial uses. 

Variety and Abundance of Wildlife 

The National Elk Refuge harbors a wide variety 

of wildlife. Unlike most national wildlife refuges, it is 

the abundance of big game animals, including the 

refuge’s namesake, rather than birds that makes the 

refuge biologically unique. The refuge habitat is critical to sustain regional populations of these species, 

supporting unparalleled hunting and wildlife-viewing 

opportunities in Jackson Hole. 
 

24 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Federally and State-Listed Species 

The National Elk Refuge is home to Federal and 

State species of concern. The grizzly bear is federally 

listed as threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act and the greater sage-grouse is a candidate for 

listing; we have documented both species on the refuge. We have only incidental grizzly bear use documented on the northern parts of refuge. However, 

recent observations in the southern part of Grand 

Teton National Park bordering the refuge suggest 

that increased grizzly bear activity on the refuge 

may be likely in the near future. Greater sage-grouse 

use the refuge year-round, and successful breeding 

has been documented. 

There is documented use of the refuge by 35 of 

Wyoming’s species of greatest conservation need 

(refer to “Appendix D—Federally and State-Listed 

Plants and Animals”). We have documentation of 

breeding on the refuge for several of these species: 

trumpeter swan, bald eagle, redhead, lesser scaup, 

sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Brewer’s sparrow, 

bobolink, moose, bighorn sheep, and river otter. Refuge grassland and sagebrush shrubland communities 

support breeding populations of Wyoming species of 

greatest conservation need, including long-billed curlew and Brewer’s sparrow. Undoubtedly, other Wyoming-designated species of greatest conservation 

need from certain taxonomic groups, such as bats and 

small mammals, are also present on the refuge, but 

we need more survey work to confirm their presence 

and use of the refuge. 

Mammals 

The refuge is the terminus of seasonal migrations 

for three celebrated large mammal species. Portions 

of the Jackson elk herd migrate up to 60 miles from 

their summer range in Yellowstone National Park to 

winter on the refuge. The refuge hosts the Jackson 

bison herd during the winter months, one of only 

three remaining free-roaming bison herds in North 

America. Pronghorn summer on the refuge and winter south of Pinedale, Wyoming (more than 70 miles 

away), making it part of the second-longest mammal 

migration in the Western Hemisphere. 

Given the abundance of prey and the lack of 

human disturbance, the refuge has become a haven 

for large carnivores. Gray wolves have been active on 

the refuge since 1999 and have denned on the refuge 

in all but 1 year since 2005. Mountain lion activity 

occurs on Miller Butte and on the eastern part of the 

refuge. Black bears occasionally use the refuge, particularly during the fall season. Coyotes occur at high 

densities, particularly in the winter when they scavenge elk carcasses and occasionally kill weak and sick 

elk. 

Migratory Birds 

Parts of the refuge were established to protect 

and provide habitat for migratory birds that cross 

State lines and international borders; these bird species are by law a Federal trust responsibility. The 

refuge contains significant wetland and grassland 

communities that are important to migratory birds, 

and the value of these habitats is enhanced by the 

restricted human access, which prevents disturbance 

during nesting and other critical periods in their life 

cycle. The refuge contains one of the largest wetlands 

in northwestern Wyoming—Flat Creek Marsh— 

which is an important migratory stopover for waterfowl and shorebird species in the Pacific flyway 

(figure 8) and breeding habitat for trumpeter swans 

and other waterfowl. 

Fish 

Flat Creek, a spring-fed stream augmented by 

irrigation, originates north of the town of Jackson, 

runs through town, and ends at the Snake River 

south of town. This stream is integral to Jackson 

Hole and the natural recruitment of native trout for 

the Snake River. No stocking occurs in Flat Creek, 

making natural recruitment the only source of native 

Snake River cutthroat trout. The Gros Ventre River 

contains Snake River cutthroat, rainbow trout, and 

hybridized fish species. 

Amphibians 

The Gros Ventre River, Flat Creek, and Nowlin 

Creek riparian areas with their associated ponds and 

wetlands provide essential habitat for regional 

amphibian populations. Boreal chorus frogs are the 

most widespread species. Columbia spotted frogs are 

locally abundant in the Nowlin Creek drainage in two 

large breeding areas. In addition, boreal toads are 

locally abundant in two main breeding areas in the 

Nowlin Creek and Gros Ventre River drainages. 

Tiger salamanders, although common in the region, 

are thought to be rare on the refuge. 

Abundant Visitor Opportunities 

Visitor surveys conducted by the Jackson Hole 

Chamber of Commerce have consistently documented 

that 80–90 percent of valley tourists identify natural 

resource-based activities as their primary reason for 

visiting Jackson Hole. Hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation are the six priority public uses 

(wildlife-dependent recreational uses) of the Refuge 
 

Chapter 2—The Refuge 25 

System, and we provide opportunities for all of these 

activities on the National Elk Refuge. 

We allow elk and bison hunting on the refuge to 

help meet herd management objectives and to provide recreational opportunities. Depending on which 

area hunters are in, we allow hunters to use a variety 

of weapons including rifles, archery equipment, and 

designated limited-range weapons such muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns with slugs, and handguns. The 

refuge accommodates hunters with disabilities and 

offers a special elk hunt for young people. 

We manage Flat Creek as a trophy class fishery 

for Snake River cutthroat trout. This fish is a unique 

subspecies of cutthroat trout and is the only trout 

native to the area. 

But, it is the spectacle of thousands of elk and 

hundreds of bison wintering on the refuge’s grasslands that most intrigues the public and makes the 

refuge a national icon. Our visitor services staff 

offers year-round programs to incorporate wildlife 

viewing, photography, interpretation, and environmental education into the visitor experience. Thousands of people each year take the opportunity to 

view elk at close range on the refuge while participating in the sleigh ride program. Bison are popular 

with visitors and residents as a symbol of the West, 

and they are central to the culture and traditions of 

many American Indian tribes. Bison can often be 

viewed along the fence north of the Jackson Fish 

Hatchery and in the McBride area before the Flat 

Creek Road is closed seasonally in December. Other 

ungulates such as bighorn sheep can often be easily 

viewed from Elk Refuge Road and are a popular species for winter wildlife viewers. From November to 

May, bighorn sheep can be found on the eastern 

slopes of Miller Butte and in the northern parts of 

the refuge near Curtis Canyon. Moose, pronghorn, 

and mule deer also frequent the refuge. 

Figure 8. Map of waterfowl flyways in North America. 

Rich Cultural History 

In prehistoric times, American Indians living on 

surrounding lands used this high-elevation valley 

primarily during the warm months, and no one tribe 
26 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

occupied Jackson Hole year-round. Traditional uses 

of the lands included hunting and fishing, collection of 

plants and minerals, and ceremonial activities. We 

have recorded eight prehistoric archaeological sites 

on the refuge, which include roasting pits, stone circles, and a bison kill site. Among the artifacts that 

have been discovered are bones from elk and bison, 

numerous flakes, choppers, scrapers, and projectile 

point pieces. Present-day activity includes the ceremonial bison hunt that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

conduct on the refuge. 

The Miller House, built in 1898, was one of the 

early homesteads in the valley. Later, it became one 

of the first land tracts to be bought for the refuge, 

and it was the original office for the refuge. Listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places in 1969, 

much of the original house has been restored to 

period standards and aesthetics, and it is open for 

tour by the public during the summer. 

2.6 Planning Issues 

We identified several key issues following the 

analysis of comments collected from refuge staff and 

the public and a review of the requirements of the 

Improvement Act and the National Environmental 

Policy Act. As described in chapter 1, section 1.6, we 

used a public meeting, news releases, presentations 

to local agencies and organizations, an announcement 

in the Federal Register, and planning updates to 

solicit public input on which issues the CCP should 

address. We considered the substantive comments 

(those that could be addressed within the authority 

and management capabilities of the Service) when 

formulating the alternatives for future management 

of the refuge. These key issues are summarized 

below. 

There

energy de

areas. Th

ment incl

vehicle c

tion rout

invasive 

Unknown Effects of Climate 

Change 

Although climate change is a naturally occurring 

phenomenon and temperature and precipitation 

changes are anticipated, there are many unknowns. 

Consequently, we do not fully understand the potential impacts that climate change may have on terrestrial and aquatic habitats and the associated wildlife 

species. Several scientific studies show that, in the 

past century, the climate has become warmer and 

drier in northern Yellowstone National Park (Balling 

et al. 1992a, 1992b). If this warming trend continues, 

it could have far-reaching effects on the plants and 

animals of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

(Romme and Turner 1991), which includes the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Analysis of precipitation records from 1921 to 

2002 gathered at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station in Jackson, 

Wyoming, showed no significant trends, either 

increasing or decreasing (Smith et al. 2004). 

Although temperature readings from 1931 to 2002 

increased, calculations using the 1949–2001 KeetchByram Drought Index values, which evaluate upper 

level soil moisture content, revealed a “minor decline 

in drought conditions” (Smith et al. 2004). 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Needs 

 is increasing residential, commercial, and 

velopment near the refuge and surrounding 

reats to wildlife associated with developude loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, 

ollision mortality, loss of pronghorn migraes, poaching, and increased infestations of 

plants, including noxious weeds. As towns, 

developments, farms, ranches, and roads spread 

across the region, wildland shrinks and is broken into 

smaller fragments. The land surrounding the refuge 

is mostly comprised of federally managed lands 

(Grand Teton National Park and Bridger-Teton 

National Forest) and the town of Jackson. The town 

of Jackson is already intensively developed, leaving 

little opportunity for further habitat protection in the 

immediate area. The National Elk Refuge, national 

parks, national forests, and State lands in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem preserve continuous 

tracts of important habitat and travel corridors for 

the area’s wildlife and for the enjoyment of people. 

Big Game Management Effects on 

Wildlife Habitat 

Historical evidence suggests that the refuge once 

supported substantial willow, cottonwood, aspen, and 

mountain shrub communities. Because the refuge has 

consistently maintained artificially high numbers of 

elk through supplemental feeding for almost 100 

years, browsing by elk has reduced the spatial extent 

and structural complexity of woody plant communities, particularly on the southern end of the refuge 

(Smith et al. 2004). As a result, habitat for species 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 27 

that depend on these communities, such as beaver 

and breeding birds that nest in dense woody vegetation, has been drastically reduced. Furthermore, 

when the large concentrations of wintering elk and 

bison consume streamside woody vegetation, the 

streambanks become unstable and vulnerable to collapse into the stream, sending substantial amounts of 

sand and silt into the stream. Experiments suggest 

that these plant communities have the capacity to 

recover, but only if ungulate numbers are drastically 

reduced or they are excluded from browsing using 

fencing or other physical barriers. 

Irrigation is a common habitat management tool 

that we use to increase both the quantity and quality 

of forage available to grazing wildlife. We have used 

irrigation to produce forage for many years on the 

National Elk Refuge as a technique to reduce wintering elk reliance on supplemental feeding. However, 

moving the irrigation system requires dragging the 

lines over the ground, and this activity can potentially have negative effects on the nests of birds such 

as the curlew, which is an important ground-nesting 

bird on the refuge as a bird of special concern to the 

State of Wyoming. 

Invasive Plants Replacing Native 

Habitat 

An invasive species is defined as a species that is 

nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and 

whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health (National Invasive Species Council 2008). 

Invasive plant species spread easily, replace native 

habitat, reduce diversity, and cause great expenditure of financial and human resources. Adjacent private lands are often the sources for invasive plants, 

including State-designated noxious weeds. 

Common noxious weeds present on the refuge are 

musk thistle and spotted knapweed. There are many 

other invasive plant species on the refuge including 

the following: 

■■ Bindweed Dalmatian toadflax 

■■ Oxeye daisy 

■■ Scotch thistle 

■■ Black henbane 

■■ Diffuse knapweed 

■■ Perennial pepperweed 

■■ Whitetop 

■■ Bull thistle 

■■ Houndstongue 

■■ Russian knapweed 

■■ Wooly mullein 

■■ Canada thistle 

■■ Marsh sow thistle 

■■ Scentless chamomile 

■■ Yellow toadflax 

■■ Common tansy 

Many invasive plant infestations on the refuge are 

a direct result of abandoned livestock-feeding areas 

and corrals, old homesites, and roadbeds. These species reduce the diversity and number of native plants 

and change habitats, such as replacing a grass community with a forb community. Studies in Montana 

report that bison and deer reduced their use of a 

particular habitat by 70–82 percent when it was 

invaded by leafy spurge. Elk forage in bunchgrass 

sites on the refuge was decreased by 50–90 percent 

after a spotted knapweed invasion (Teton County 

Weed and Pest District 2002). 

Invasive grasses, forbs, and woody species are of 

concern because they diminish the quality and suitability of habitat and reduce its potential to support 

many native wildlife species. Invasive plants also fail 

to protect and hold soil because they generally have a 

shallow root system, leading to increased erosion and 

sedimentation in streams. This in turn affects water 

quality, reduces aquatic habitat, and may lead to 

decreases in fish production. 

Flat Creek Enhancement 

There is a need to improve the condition of Flat 

Creek to increase aquatic habitat for all age classes of 

the Snake River cutthroat trout. This creek is an 

iconic fixture in Jackson Hole for tourists, anglers, 

and the native cutthroat trout. Flat Creek on the refuge provides a walk-in opportunity for anglers to 

experience a trophy fishery of Snake River cutthroat 

trout. However, the refuge reach of Flat Creek has 

experienced direct and indirect alteration to its 

stream form and function from changes in hydrologic 

and sediment inputs, installation of instream structures and treatments, and nearby land management 

activities. With some enhancement work on Flat 

Creek done in 2013, we need to continue this work 

farther down the refuge reach of Flat Creek to 

improve habitat for cutthroat trout (Biota 2013a, b). 

Conserving Wide-Ranging 

Wildlife 

The refuge provides habitat for several wideranging wildlife species including elk, bison, bighorn 
28 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

sheep, pronghorn, moose, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. 

The refuge supports the preservation of the large 

landscapes that these species require. With longdistance mammal migrations imperiled around the 

globe, the refuge’s importance in sustaining these 

phenomena is critical. The success of wolf restoration 

in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem continues to 

be a major issue for many of the citizens of Wyoming. 

The National Elk Refuge provides an excellent location and ideal habitat for seasonal occupation by 

wolves and, in recent years, has hosted a denning 

pack of wolves during the winter, spring, and summer months. These wolves have a large home range 

that contains substantial amounts of nonrefuge Federal, State, and private lands, where they can come 

into conflict with privately owned livestock. 

Managing Habitat for Migratory 

Birds 

Protecting habitat and managing for a wide variety of migratory birds is a priority for the refuge. 

Waterfowl and other waterbirds, grassland songbirds, and riparian-dependent birds are some of the 

highest priority groups. 

Wildlife Disease 

The supplemental feeding program has maintained artificially high densities of elk for almost 100 

years and artificially high densities of bison for more 

than 30 years. Feeding is a strategy designed to support elk population objectives and reduce damage to 

surrounding private lands, but it has unintended 

management and disease consequences. Although 

reduced reliance on supplemental feeding is an objective in the 2007 Bison and Elk Management Plan, 

feeding is often initiated earlier or terminated later 

than is biologically necessary to prevent the elk and 

bison from commingling with livestock on adjacent 

private lands. Feeding is used as a strategy to reduce 

brucellosis transmission from elk and bison to cattle; 

yet artificially concentrating elk and bison on 

feedgrounds also maintains higher brucellosis seroprevalence in elk and bison (Cross et al. 2007, 2010) 

and puts them at risk for other density-dependent 

diseases (Smith 2001). As a result, density-dependent 

ungulate disease is a major concern for the refuge. 

Brucellosis, septicemic pasteurellosis, psoroptic 

mange, necrotic stomatitis, necrotizing pododermatitis (foot rot), and helminth and lungworm parasitism 

have been well documented in the Jackson elk herd. 

Similarly, brucellosis and density-associated parasitism have been well documented in the Jackson bison 

herd. 

Although the population level effects of these diseases have been minimal for elk and bison, their 

prevalence at the refuge suggests that substantial 

population reductions and other negative wildlife 

health effects are possible if more serious ungulate 

diseases were introduced to the refuge. For example, 

chronic wasting disease, bovine tuberculosis, malignant catarrhal fever, and foot-and-mouth disease 

have not been documented in the Jackson elk herd, 

but could have serious negative population effects at 

current elk densities. Likewise, bovine tuberculosis, 

bovine paratuberculosis, malignant catarrhal fever, 

and foot-and-mouth disease could pose significant 

threats to bison populations on the feedgrounds if 

these diseases were introduced. 

During routine monitoring of cutthroat trout in 

2003, tissue samples sent to the WGFD lab tested 

positive for Myxololus cerebralis, the parasite that 

causes whirling disease. Infection levels were low 

and no declines in the cutthroat trout population have 

been documented. 

Amphibian monitoring on the refuge occurs at a 

finer temporal and spatial scale than other amphibian 

monitoring in the region (Patla 2009). As a result, 

amphibian monitoring functions as an early warning 

system for declines in amphibian populations and 

disease outbreaks. These monitoring efforts are particularly important given the detection of chytridiomycosis (chytrid disease) on the refuge. Chytrid 

disease is a fungal skin disease that has been implicated in amphibian population declines worldwide. A 

boreal toad collected on the refuge in 2000 was the 

first documented occurrence of the disease in northwestern Wyoming. Unlike infected amphibian populations in other areas, amphibians in northwestern 

Wyoming have not experienced catastrophic declines. 

However, the effects could be chronic and, therefore, 

continued monitoring is necessary to evaluate the 

effects of the disease on regional populations. 

Insufficient Research, Inventory, 

and Monitoring 

Artificial concentrations of high densities of elk 

and bison, because of supplemental feeding and habitat enhancement, provide unique opportunities to 

evaluate the effects of these management activities 

on vegetation, ungulate habitat use, breeding bird 

populations, and wildlife diseases. 

The refuge facilitates regionally important cooperative research and monitoring including amphibian 
 

Chapter 2—The Refuge 29 

population monitoring, greater sage-grouse habitat 

use and demography, mountain lion research, bighorn 

sheep habitat selection and migration, and invasive 

plant monitoring. Given potential threats associated 

with climate change and invasive species, more 

inventory work is necessary to assess the baseline 

presence and abundance of certain taxonomic groups 

including invertebrates, rodents, bats and owls. 

Members of the public, representatives from nonprofit conservation organizations, and staff from 

other agencies have expressed concern that inventory and monitoring efforts are insufficient to evaluate the effects of current and proposed management 

activities. Principle concerns are related to (1) the 

irrigation system expansion and its effects on hydrology, amphibians, and ground-nesting birds; (2) development of a multi-use pathway next to Highway 89 

and its potential impacts on ungulate migration, 

invasive plant species introduction, and disturbance 

of breeding birds; and (3) the ongoing effects of the 

supplemental feeding program on breeding bird habitat and wildlife diseases. These are valid concerns 

that would require more staff and money to effectively monitor the effects of these management 

activities over time. 

Human–Wildlife Conflicts 

Wildlife that winter on the refuge can cause 

human–wildlife conflicts when they venture off the 

refuge and into the developed Jackson area. Of greatest concern are bison, which are large and sometimes 

bold animals that can exhibit aggressive behavior 

and be a serious threat to human safety and property. Elk have left the refuge in the past: in January 

2006, a radio-collared elk left the refuge and went to 

a livestock feedline. Elk can create conflicts, mostly 

as a traffic hazard as they cross heavily used highways or pathways when moving onto the refuge, 

although they can also cause property damage and 

threaten human safety in certain situations. 

Miller Ranch in the morning. 

BJ Baker / FWS 

Hunting Management 

Although hunting is the primary means of meeting herd objectives, the need was identified to consider the negative visual effect of hunters killing elk 

and seeing dead elk as they are transported off the 

refuge. Some individuals expressed a desire to prohibit hunting on the refuge, and others desire a limited waterfowl hunt for population control of resident 

Canada geese. Some people would like the CCP to 

include monitoring the use of lead shot for waterfowl 

hunting (if it were allowed) and the subsequent 

impacts on bald eagles. However, mandatory State 

regulations already require the use of lead-free 

ammunition.” 
 

30 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Increasing Demand for 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

The refuge cannot meet the high public demand 

for environmental education and interpretation programs with the current staff level. We need more 

interpretative staff and public facilities with adequate program areas. 

Operational Efficiency of the 

Jackson Hole and Greater 

Yellowstone Visitor Center 

During the peak summer season, visitation can 

reach 2,400 people per day, or roughly 3.6 visitors per 

minute, at the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center (visitor center). With only one staff 

member assigned to the facility, staff levels are not 

adequate to maintain, run, and staff the busy visitor 

center. Rather than seasonally increasing Government staff or hiring employees funded through nongovernmental sources to enhance public use 

programs, the refuge solely relies on residential volunteers to provide interpretive and educational services. It is important to have adequate permanent 

refuge staff at the visitor center to guarantee consistent service, to recruit and manage volunteers, and 

to provide interpretive programming. In addition, 

the current building is old and needs to be replaced 

to meet the customer service demand and to be compliant with the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (United States Access Board 2013). 

Previous condition assessments identified many of 

the visitor center’s features as poor or unsafe. 

Management of Other Uses 

There are several other public uses that demand 

extensive time by our refuge staff to coordinate and 

carefully manage to protect refuge resources and 

keep the public safe. 

North Highway 89 Pathway 

The North Highway 89 Pathway provides an 

opportunity for the public to enjoy the beauty of the 

National Elk Refuge and observe much of the wildlife 

that makes Jackson Hole so special. Some of the public would like us to extend the use of the bike path by 

eliminating or modifying the seasonal closure. However, the seasonal closure is part of the agreement 

with Jackson Hole Community Pathways to mitigate 

for wildlife disturbance and is believed to be an 

essential requirement for this activity to be compatible with the refuge purposes. 

Public Use of North Park 

The refuge’s North Park provides a shelter and 

picnic facilities to support wildlife-dependent recreation at the refuge, for use on a first-come, firstserved basis. North Park is a small area on the 

refuge that is so close to town that it appears to be 

part of Jackson. In fact, we have a memorandum of 

understanding with Jackson to maintain the lawn, 

picnic table, and shelter. The memorandum of understanding also allows Jackson to conduct a reservation 

system for private use of the shelter for weddings 

and other events; Jackson charges a fee for the 

reserved use and keeps the fee. However, these uses 

do not support wildlife-dependent recreation, and 

reserving the area may hinder the experience of 

people visiting the refuge for activities such as wildlife observation. 

Special Use Permits 

Because of the refuge’s location in the scenic, 

highly visited Jackson Hole, the staff receives a high 

volume of requests for special uses of the refuge. The 

refuge issues approximately 40 special use permits 

annually. Most of these permits are issued to wildlife 

auto-tour companies, fishing outfitters and guides, 

and commercial filmmakers and photographers. 

The refuge receives an extensive amount of local, 

regional, national, and international media attention, 

especially during the winter season. Media coverage 

includes print, electronic, and video and film venues. 

Because the area is a focus of media attention and 

millions of people visit this area each year, the 

National Elk Refuge has the opportunity to embody 

our mission as an ambassador for the Refuge 

System. 

The refuge staff has an extensive workload to 

properly evaluate, process, and monitor special use 

permits and filming requests. Because of the volume 

of requests the refuge receives for activities such as 

special access and photography in closed areas, discretion must be used to accommodate a request even 

if the activity is compatible. When considering a special use request, the refuge staff must decide not only 

if the single activity can be accommodated, but 

whether or not it is feasible if multiple parties make 

the same request. Furthermore, there is a need to set 

standards for consistent evaluation of the special use 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 31 

requests that we allow and to give groups equal 

opportunities to gain permits. 

Swimming 

At the northeastern corner of the refuge, there is 

a feature known as the Gros Ventre River “jump 

cliff.” Here swimmers jump off of cliff rocks in Grand 

Teton National Park into the Gros Ventre River and 

into the jurisdiction of the refuge. Technically, when 

the diver hits the water, they are trespassing onto 

the refuge and participating in an activity that we 

have not determined as a compatible use of the refuge. A further complication is that the public does not 

clearly understand the boundary between the park 

and the refuge. Swimming is not a wildlife-dependent 

recreational use. 

Access 

The refuge has high demand for various types of 

access as described below. 

General Access 

There is a concern that only hunters and anglers 

are allowed access to the refuge, with birdwatcher 

and other user groups not having equal opportunity 

to use the refuge for other wildlife-dependent purposes such as birding and wildlife observation. The 

need to provide free access to the refuge for other 

user groups was identified. 

Elk Refuge Road 

Elk Refuge Road is the primary access to the refuge and the only legal entrance to the refuge for the 

public. The refuge struggles with management of 

traffic on Elk Refuge Road because of its mixed use 

by pedestrians, vehicles, service trucks, and large 

equipment. Because of the ease of access to the refuge and its proximity to town, local residents use Elk 

Refuge Road extensively for walking, jogging, and 

bicycling. Many pedestrians walk several abreast or 

do not move to the side of the road when vehicles are 

present, causing drivers to move into the oncoming 

lane to pass. 

A regulation panel at the refuge entrance and literature available to the public states that stopping or 

parking a vehicle on Elk Refuge Road is prohibited; 

however, many cars, vans, and trucks park in the 

road when wildlife is present near the roadway 

rather than using the turnouts. In some cases, traffic 

traveling in both directions stop on the road, 

obstructing the free movement of other vehicles and 

creating safety hazards. Furthermore, roadway congestion is a safety concern in bad weather when there 

may be icy road conditions or limited visibility 

because of fog, rain, or snow. 

Access for Boating 

Public comment received during the CCP scoping 

process requested that boat use be allowed on Gros 

Ventre River segment upstream from the town of 

Kelly. The northern boundary of the refuge is the 

Gros Ventre River, and the northeastern corner of 

the refuge is used as a takeout point by boaters floating downstream from Slide Lake. Less frequently, 

boat traffic continues downstream to the town of 

Kelly. However, the refuge and the Grand Teton 

National Park consider this part of the Gros Ventre 

River to be closed to boating. The segment of the 

river from the Jump Rock takeout site to the town of 

Kelly was recently designated as scenic under the 

Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 

2008. The act requires the refuge and the park to 

create a comprehensive river management plan to 

guide the management of each segment designated 

as wild, scenic, or recreational to protect the “outstandingly remarkable values” of the river. 

The proposed use of boating was reviewed during 

development of the Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River Management Plan. The prohibition 

against boating on the portion of the Gros Ventre 

River that serves as the common boundary between 

the refuge and the park will be retained. 

Access to the National Forest 

Because the Bridger-Teton National Forest lies 

adjacent to the refuge, some users want to access the 

forest through the refuge. Open portions of Elk Refuge Road allow the public seasonal access to national 

forest lands, including designated routes to reach the 

forest on foot or by vehicle. Allowing limited access 

to the national forest, either by road or trail, shows 

good cooperation between two Federal agencies and 

extends a convenience to forest users. 

Presently, the refuge allows antler hunters to 

park and camp overnight on Elk Refuge Road on 

April 30 to await the lifting of the national forest closure (for wintering wildlife) where the public enter 

the forest to collect antlers. At 8 a.m. on May 1, refuge staff caravans 100 or more vehicles through the 

refuge to the boundary of the national forest. The 

overnight parking creates some resource damage, 

requires us to increase our law enforcement presence, costs us a significant amount of money to manage, and may be an incompatible use of the refuge. 
32 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Public Outreach Opportunities 

The National Elk Refuge is featured in many 

newspapers, Web sites, and other publications each 

year. These articles are reviewed for accuracy whenever possible; when the media does not directly speak 

to a refuge staff member, or when staff resources are 

insufficient to meet or speak with the media contact, 

erroneous information is common. 

People living in or visiting Jackson Hole are easily 

confused about the differences among Federal land 

management agencies and how their missions and 

public use opportunities can greatly vary. Neighboring Grand Teton National Park and Bridger-Teton 

National Forest are areas with many more non-wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the 

public such as boating, mountain biking, swimming, 

and hiking. Conflicts can arise when a public use is 

denied or restricted on the refuge, especially when 

the same recreational opportunity is allowed under 

another nearby Federal jurisdiction. Consequently, 

the National Elk Refuge can seem excessively 

restrictive without a better understanding of its mission and the prominence of its “wildlife first” guiding 

principle. 

The National Elk Refuge has made it a public outreach goal to continue to write articles, conduct 

interviews, and use other sources to share information about refuge projects or management issues. 

Staff limitations and workloads limit this specific 

type of outreach and have precluded incorporating 

new technologies into information dissemination. The 

visitor services staff bought software to produce 

short video segments, but allocating work time for 

training and production has not yet been a priority. 

Bald Eagle 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Miller House Restoration 

The historic Miller Ranch has three main structures: the house, the barn, and the USDA Forest 

Service cabin. Other than a 2-week rehabilitation 

project in the summer of 2007, no substantial work 

has been completed on any of the structures. The 

upper floor of the barn has outstanding potential for 

use as an interpretive site and location for programs 

and events, but the foundation has experienced substantial settling and cracking. Stabilization and restoration would be necessary before the building could 

be used as a site for interpretive programs. We would 

need to find funding opportunities other than the 

refuge’s base funding to restore the historic structure and prevent further deterioration of the 

structure. 

Lack or Resources to Administer 

the Refuge 

Money and staff are not sufficient to fulfill the 

purposes and meet the goals of the refuge. In addition, visitor numbers and associated demands are 

expected to increase in coming years. Consequently, 

less will get done with a corresponding decline in 

programs, infrastructure, and facilities. The refuge 

has 10.5 permanent full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, a measure indicating the amount of available 

workforce on the refuge, and approximately 0.5 seasonal FTE. Refuge staff needs to identify and set 

priorities for unfunded needs to be able to compete 

effectively for more money within our agency and 

from partners and other sources. Creative partnerships and volunteer assistance, although helpful, are 

not a complete or reliable solution and require sub-
Chapter 2—The Refuge 33 

stantial staff time. With additional resources, we 

could accomplish more of the goals and objectives in 

the CCP. 

Stronger Programs Through 

Partnerships 

The National Elk Refuge has many opportunities 

for partnerships because of the popularity of Jackson 

Hole and the many nongovernmental organizations, 

tourism operators, and interested public in the area. 

Furthermore, there are several governmental agencies—Teton County, National Park Service, and 

USDA Forest Service—that have land management 

responsibilities around the refuge. Maintaining a 

strong partnership network including private landowners, public agencies, and nonprofit organizations 

is integral to accomplishing our mission of conservation. Partners provide financial assistance, technical 

assistance, and help with planning and implementation. Partnerships and management coordination 

with public and private partners is important 

because refuge operations can have substantial 

impacts on surrounding lands. 

The refuge shares the responsibility of managing 

wildlife with the State of Wyoming. Close coordination with WGFD enables refuge programs to complement the State’s wildlife goals and objectives. This is 

especially critical in the management of the migratory elk and bison herds. Collaboration with WGFD 

on harvest goals, permits and licenses, law enforcement, and disease monitoring are important for the 

effective management of these herds. 

To enhance Flat Creek for native cutthroat trout 

(Biota 2013a, b), the refuge is collaborating with several organizations: Jackson Hole Trout Unlimited, 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Snake River 

Fund. 

The town of Jackson shares its boundary with the 

refuge and both are located within Teton County. 

Regular communication with elected officials from 

the town and county helps diffuse ongoing residential 

development and public service expansion pressures. 

Refuge management actions must consider the residential water facilities for the town and a multi-use, 

nonmotorized pathway for Teton County that are 

located on the refuge. 

Winter sleigh ride interpretive tours are conducted through the Grand Teton Association by a 

private concessionaire. The visitor center and sleigh 

rides are integral to wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education 

programs and generate revenue used to enhance 

these programs. 

The refuge has enjoyed a 55-year partnership 

with the Jackson District Boy Scouts. In addition to 

clearing much of the refuge of antlers that are a hazard to refuge vehicles, 75 percent of the proceeds of 

the annual Boy Scouts of America Elk Antler Auction are returned to the refuge for habitat management-related expenses. 

Refuge Management Effects on 

the Jackson Economy 

Employment and nonsalary refuge expenditures 

(maintenance and operations) benefit the local community, county, and State in the form of income, jobs, 

taxes, and personal spending. The refuge plays an 

active, albeit small, role in economic development in 

the local economy. The National Elk Refuge attracts 

many visitors and tourist dollars to the local community of Jackson. The national prominence of the 

refuge and its proximity to Jackson ensures that 

many Jackson Hole visitors either directly or indirectly use the refuge, but actual dollars generated 

from the refuge are minor. However, any changes to 

refuge management are perceived by some people to 

affect the economy of Jackson. 

Issues Outside the Scope of the 

CCP 

Although the public identified elk and bison management as an issue during scoping for the CCP, the 

issue is outside the scope of this CCP process. Managing elk and bison in this area was recently 

addressed in an interagency process following the 

National Environmental Policy Act that had extensive public involvement; the resulting Bison and Elk 

Management Plan was completed in 2007. The plan 

has goals, objectives, and strategies for managing elk 

and bison on the National Elk Refuge and Grand 

Teton National Park. Supplemental winter feeding of 

the elk herd is addressed in the Bison and Elk Management Plan. 

Some people felt the State of Wyoming should 

manage the National Elk Refuge instead of our 

agency. Divestiture of a national wildlife refuge 

requires an act of Congress; therefore, this would be 

outside the scope of the CCP. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives
 

The National Elk Refuge is a good place to watch predators in action, mountain lions and coyotes are just two of them. 

Lori Iverson / FWS 

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the 

management alternatives considered for the National 

Elk Refuge. Alternatives are different approaches to 

management that are designed to achieve the refuge 

purposes, vision, and goals; the mission of the Refuge 

System; and the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. We develop alternatives to address the key 

issues, concerns, and problems identified by during 

public scoping and throughout the development of the 

draft CCP. 

3.1 Alternatives Development 

We developed four alternatives that represent different approaches for permanent protection and reswell it wo

uge and t

the plann

of this ch

and assoc

sequence

Consequ

toration of fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources. We assessed the planning issues identified 

in chapter 2, the existing biological conditions 

described in chapter 4, and external relationships 

affecting the refuge. This information contributed to 

the development of alternatives; as a result, each 

alternative presents different approaches for meeting 

long-term goals. 

We evaluated each alternative according to how 

uld advance the vision and goals of the refhe Refuge System and how it would address 

ing issues. Table 4 in section 3.9 at the end 

apter summarizes the alternatives’ actions 

iated consequences. Details about the cons are in “Chapter 5—Environmental 

ences.” 
36 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

3.2 Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study 

There were no alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

3.3 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives 

There are some consistencies among the four 

alternatives. This section identifies the following key 

elements that will be included regardless of the alternative chosen for the final CCP. 

Laws and Regulations 

We will make sure that management of the refuge 

complies with all Federal laws and regulations that 

provide direction for managing units of the Refuge 

System. 

Invasive Species 

We will work to control invasive species through 

an integrated pest management approach that 

includes biological, cultural, chemical, and mechanical 

treatment methods. The extent and type of treatment varies by alternative. 

Bison and Elk Management Plan 

We will carry out the goals, objectives, and strategies in the “Management Direction” chapter of the 

Bison and Elk Management Plan that are specific to 

the National Elk Refuge. 

For the cultivated, irrigated fields on the refuge, 

we will manage to meet the objectives in the Bison 

and Elk Management Plan for elk and bison grazing 

(pages 130–33). 

In addition, the following elk and bison management actions were covered and analyzed in the Bison 

and Elk Management Plan (page 13): 

■■	 We will work to lower the risk of brucellosis 

transmission to livestock by concentrating 

elk and bison on the refuge and keeping 

them separated from livestock during the 

critical period of potential transmission 

(February–March). 

■■	 We will conduct winter feeding activities in 

ways that may reduce brucellosis transmission within the elk and bison herds. 

■■	 We will continue our herd-health monitoring 

program. 

■■	 We will inform the public about the disease 

status of elk and bison on the refuge and 

recommended handling practices. 

■■	 We will cooperate with WGFD on a monitoring program for chronic wasting disease. 

■■	 We will develop a contingency plan for 

chronic wasting disease. 

■■	 We will immediately euthanize and remove 

animals with suspected chronic wasting 

disease. 

Wildlife Disease 

There will be surveillance, as needed, for key 

wildlife diseases such as botulism and West Nile 

virus. The specific management actions vary by 

alternative. 

Access for Boating 

Boating would be prohibited on all refuge waters. 

Because of the potential wildlife and habitat effects 

and our compliance with the Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River Management Plan, we 

would continue to prohibit hand-propelled boating 

along the Gros Ventre River, Flat Creek, and ponds. 

Motorized boating would be prohibited because of the 

small size and shallow nature of refuge waterbodies. 

Research 

We will conduct research efforts internally (with 

in-house staff) or generate external research (such as 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 37 

through universities) to help us meet the management objectives. The focus of research varies by 

alternative. 

Refuge Uses 

We will continue to prohibit the following public 

uses on the refuge because they are not compatible 

uses: weddings, antler collecting, geocaching, boating, and swimming. 

We will continue to prohibit pets and horses on 

the North Highway 89 Pathway. 

Landowner Coordination 

Our actions will not adversely affect any adjacent 

landowners without a mutual agreement and adequate compensation. 

Partnerships 

We will promote strong and diverse partnerships 

to help us meet objectives and achieve the refuge 

goals. The focus and type of partnerships varies by 

alternative 

3.4 Description of Alternatives 

We considered four alternatives to achieve the 

proposed vision and goals and to address the issues: 

■■	 Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

describes the current, ongoing management 

activities throughout the refuge. This alternative may not be able to meet all the CCP 

goals, but it is provided as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives. 

■■	 Alternative B is a balance of public use with 

intensive resource management. 

■■	 Alternative C has an emphasis on intact 


ecosystems and promoting natural 


processes.
 

■■	 Alternative D, our proposed action, promotes natural habitats and enhances public 

use. This alternative reflects the draft CCP 

and is further described in chapter 6. 

The following sections 3.5–3.8 describe each alternative’s focus and provide details about how the 

alternatives would meet the refuge goals: 

3.5 Alternative A (Current 

Management)—No Action 

This is the no-action alternative, which represents 

the current management of the refuge. This alternative provides the baseline against which to compare 

the other alternatives. It also fulfills the requirement 

in the National Environmental Policy Act that a noaction alternative be addressed in the analysis 

process. 

Our management activity would remain the same. 

The Jackson elk and bison herds and their habitat are 

adaptively managed with an emphasis on improving 

winter and transitional range on refuge lands, while 

at the same time ensuring that the biotic integrity 

and environmental health of the resources are sustained over the long term. A dynamic framework for 

decreasing the need for supplemental feeding on the 

refuge is developed and carried out in close coordination with WGFD and is based on existing conditions, 

trends, new research findings, and other changing 

circumstances. Population management, vegetation 

restoration, ongoing monitoring, and public education 

are integral parts of this framework. 

We would not develop any new management, restoration, or visitor services programs at the refuge. 

Current habitat and wildlife practices benefitting elk, 

bison, migratory birds, and other wildlife would not 

be expanded or changed. Staff would continue monitoring, inventory, and research activities at their current level. Funding and staff levels would remain the 

same with little change in overall trends. Programs 

would follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do now. 

Climate Change 

The refuge would continue baseline monitoring of 

habitat conditions that could potentially be related to 

the effects of climate change. Staff would continue to 

collaborate with the U.S. Geological Survey and 

other partners to obtain climate-related 

information. 
38 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Staff would use information generated by the 

Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative to understand climate change impacts locally. 

Refuge staff is not directing efforts toward inventorying, monitoring, and analyzing climate change 

effects. Activities that apply to climate change would 

be sporadic and opportunistic. 

The refuge would strive to carry out actions in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area climate action plan 

(Fiebig 2011) to become carbon neutral by 2020. We 

are taking steps to reduce the carbon footprint of 

existing facilities: weatherproofing of facilities and 

upgrading furnaces, doors, and windows. We would 

use more webinars and other virtual meeting devices 

to reduce the carbon footprint from travel. 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

The primary objective of landscape-scale conservation is to link existing protected areas, preserve 

wildlife corridors, and protect large, intact, functioning ecosystems while maintaining the rural character of northwestern Wyoming. The refuge is an 

active member of, and would continue to participate 

in, the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, which was formed to allow representatives from 

the National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, 

and our agency to pursue opportunities of mutual 

cooperation and coordination in the management of 

over 14 million acres of Federal lands in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Private land development projects are subject to a 

review and approval process by the Teton County 

Planning Commission. Refuge staff periodically 

would provide comments, as requested, on proposals 

that might negatively affect refuge resources or the 

ability for wildlife to use these resources. 

Habitat 

Our focus would be protection of limited habitat 

resources. 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush 

Shrublands 

The refuge would do minimal management other 

than fire suppression and invasive plant control; 

therefore, there would be little use of motorized 

vehicles in these areas. 

We would maintain the native structure and composition of grassland and sagebrush shrubland communities and protect them from degradation or allow 

them to recover, especially areas used by greater 

sage-grouse and other grassland- and sagebrushdependent species. We would define the desired 

structural and compositional characteristics in a 

habitat management plan and maintain these conditions over time, but our emphasis would be to protect 

the dense, mature sagebrush stands from 

disturbance. 

Wetlands 

To benefit trumpeter swans and other wildlife, we 

would maintain existing artificial ponds and natural 

wetlands. The refuge would continue a low level of 

monitoring and treatment of noxious weeds in 

wetlands. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands Areas 

Woody vegetation in riparian areas would recover 

as existing ungulate populations allow, and we would 

evaluate restoration techniques for riparian areas 

along Flat Creek. The refuge would continue to cooperate with the National Park Service on the Gros 

Ventre River hydrological assessment and would 

continue to evaluate the jackstraw technique to promote willow regeneration. The refuge would manage 

that segment of the Gros Ventre River east of the 

town of Kelly, consistent with the recently completed 

Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River Management Plan. 

Flat Creek Enhancement 

The refuge would monitor 1 mile of construction 

work on Flat Creek (removal of ineffective structures) and associated removal of reed canarygrass 

that was completed in 2013 (FWS 2013). Monitoring 

is a critical aspect of restoration and habitat enhancement projects because it helps project proponents to 

assess project success. 

Invasive Species 

Staff would continue to control new and existing 

invasive plant infestations, including noxious weeds, 

using the integrated pest management strategies of 

biological control, mechanical control, grazing, and 

herbicides with cooperators and partners. 

The refuge would continue to prevent new infestations of noxious weeds, nonnative grasses, and 

aquatic invasive species by preventing the artificial 

transportation of invasive plant seeds and other 

materials onto the refuge through efforts like (1) pub­
Chapter 3—Alternatives 39 

lic education, (2) weed-free-hay rules, and (3) the 

cleaning of all excavation and angling equipment 

before entering the refuge. Invasive plant species 

(some of which are classified as noxious by the State 

of Wyoming) are major contributors to the loss of 

quality wildlife habitat and rangeland, second in 

scope only to land development. 

Examples of invasive plants that are not noxious 

weeds are crested wheatgrass, reed canarygrass, 

meadow foxtail, cheatgrass, and yellow sweet clover. 

Many of the nonnative plant species on the refuge do 

not provide quality elk forage or wildlife habitat. 

Although none of the following aquatic invasive animals and plants are known to occur here, refuge 

habitat potentially could be at risk from species such 

as these: zebra mussel, quagga mussel, Asian carp, 

hydrilla, Asian clam, Eurasian watermilfoil, and 

flowering rush. 

Wildland Fire Management 

For all habitat types at the National Elk Refuge, 

current wildland fire management is to fully suppress all wildfires. Potential benefits are not considered in the management strategy for a wildfire. 

Even though prescribed fire has occurred on the 

refuge in the past, prescribed fires have not been 

conducted since 2003. Therefore, prescribed fire is 

not currently being used as a management tool. 

Wildlife 

The emphasis would be on following the Bison and 

Elk Management Plan and managing for migratory 

birds, aquatic species, and wildlife disease. 

Elk and Bison 

We will manage the elk and bison herds as 

described in the Bison and Elk Management Plan. In 

some cases we developed complementary actions, 

which are more specific, that we describe under the 

habitat sections below. 

Migratory Birds 

To reduce disturbance to breeding bird populations, the refuge would maintain areas closed to public access during the breeding bird season of 

April–August in addition to closures during the 

winter. 

Aquatic Species 

The refuge would continue to work cooperatively 

with WGFD for fisheries management services. 

WGFD would continue to conduct various fisheries 

surveys including presence and absence, abundance, 

spawning, and angler surveys. The surveys would 

focus on the native Snake River cutthroat trout populations present in the Gros Ventre River, Flat Creek, 

and Nowlin Creek; WGFD also would conduct limited 

surveys in some of the artificial ponds on the refuge 

for presence and absence of native and nonnative fish 

species. WGFD would remove nonnative trout from 

these waters during all surveys. Brook trout in Flat 

Creek would be targeted for removal during their fall 

spawning period using electrofishing and fish trapping techniques. WGFD would house all survey data, 

manage for short- and long-term trends, and manage 

harvest regulations in cooperation with the refuge. 

River Otter 

Mike Nordell / FWS 
40 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Disease Management 

The refuge would work cooperatively with WGFD 

and Grand Teton National Park to conduct the disease management actions in the Bison and Elk Management Plan. The refuge would cooperate with 

WGFD to detect sick or dead bighorn sheep, and collected sheep would be tested for disease. We could 

continue to monitor amphibian populations at a level 

sufficient to detect negative effects of chytrid disease 

on amphibian populations. There would be no systematic surveillance to detect diseases in birds, but we 

would do opportunistic testing of sick and dead birds 

should abnormal levels of mortality become 

apparent. 

The refuge would attempt to reduce brucellosis 

transmission from elk and bison to livestock by concentrating elk and bison on the refuge during the 

critical period of potential transmission (February– 

March). Given these constraints, we would conduct 

winter-feeding activities in a way that reduces brucellosis transmission within elk and bison herds. 

We would complete a contingency plan for chronic 

wasting disease. The refuge would continue its herdhealth monitoring program in cooperation with our 

Wildlife Health Office and continue to cooperate with 

WGFD on its monitoring program for chronic wasting disease. The refuge’s current protocol to euthanize and remove animals that exhibit symptoms of 

chronic wasting disease would continue. We would 

continue to haze elk and bison off the refuge after the 

end of supplemental feeding to reduce the amount of 

time elk and bison are exposed to disease. 

Federally and State-Listed 

Species 

The refuge would continue to monitor greater 

sage-grouse, trumpeter swan, and long-billed curlew 

populations as resources allow. Based on this monitoring, the refuge would maintain areas closed to 

public access and limit refuge management activities 

to prevent unnecessary disturbance of species of 

concern. 

Refuge biological staff would continue to participate in the local greater sage-grouse working group 

and coordinate with WGFD on its core area strategy 

for refuge management activities that might affect 

greater sage-grouse habitat. 

Based on the population monitoring information, 

refuge management activities may need to be limited 

in trumpeter swan and long-billed curlew breeding 

areas. In addition, we would share the swan monitoring data with the Greater Yellowstone Trumpeter 

Swan Working Group. When trumpeter swan nests 

were threatened by flooding, eggs would be salvaged, 

hatched in captivity, and cygnets returned to breeding territories. 

Research and Monitoring 

The refuge would design research and monitoring 

to inform resource management objectives related to 

the following: 

■■	 whether we are meeting the objectives of 

the Bison and Elk Management Plan 

■■	 population data for Federal threatened and 

endangered species and State species of 

concern 

■■ modeling and decision-support tools 

■■	 effects of public use and other refuge programs on habitat and wildlife to adaptively 

adjusting management and public use 

programs 

We would still rely on other agency and nonprofit 

partners to conduct some monitoring. 

Cultural Resources 

Staff would continue to document and protect new 

cultural resources as they are discovered. Staff 

would also protect existing known resources from 

vandalism, theft, and destruction. We would maintain 

and preserve sites with historical significance. As 

part of our implementation of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, we would identify cultural 

resources through archaeological surveys and consultation before starting ground-disturbing projects. 

Should archaeological resources be discovered during any construction, work would stop in that location 

until the resources were properly recorded by the 

Service and evaluated. Measures either to avoid further resource impacts or to mitigate the loss or disturbance of the resources would be implemented. 

The refuge would continue to limit access to 

known archaeological sites to avoid loss or disturbance. We would allow public access only under 

supervised visits that have a specific purpose for 

viewing the sites. 

The refuge’s visitor services staff would continue 

to seasonally open the historic Miller Ranch to the 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 41 

public as an interpretive site, relying on a large volunteer workforce as the sole means to staff and run 

the interpretive site. Volunteers would offer programs each summer at the Miller House, especially 

to youth groups. The Miller Barn would not be open 

to the public; the barn requires attention to ensure 

its preservation including foundation stabilization, 

improved drainage, repair of split or loose battens in 

the walls, and possible roof repairs. 

Visitor Services 

In addition to managing the wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses, the refuge would continue to 

administer other uses and refuge access and to provide public outreach. 

Hunting 

The refuge provides elk and bison hunting consistent with the Bison and Elk Management Plan, 

including (1) adaptively modifying elk and bison hunting regulations to achieve herd-size objectives, (2) 

extending accommodations for hunters with disabilities, and (3) offering a special elk hunt for young 

people during the elk season. 

The refuge would continue to allow (1) elk and 

bison retrieval from hunt unit 80 on the BridgerTeton National Forest to Elk Refuge Road south and 

west of the Twin Creek subdivision, (2) allow a ceremonial tribal bison hunt with annual harvest of up to 

five bison, (3) prohibit the hunting of any wildlife species other than elk and bison, and (4) promote voluntary use of lead-free ammunition. In addition, we 

would allow guided hunting under special use permit 

to increase harvest success, which would support the 

herd size objectives. 

Fishing 

The refuge would provide fishing opportunities 

during daylight hours as a compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunity. The current fishing 

access along Highway 89 would be maintained along 

with the parking turnouts on upper Flat Creek. Traditionally, access gates to lower Flat Creek are 

unlocked the night of July 31. A few anglers have 

used these accesses as early as midnight on the 

August 1 opener. 

The Gros Ventre River, upper Flat Creek, lower 

Flat Creek, lower Nowlin Creek, and Sleeping Indian 

Pond would be open to fishing according to season 

dates and regulations set by the WGFD. We would 

keep closed to fishing all other refuge ponds, Flat 

Creek downstream from the old Crawford Bridge 

site, and Nowlin Creek upstream from the posted 

fishing boundary. The refuge would issue special use 

permits for guided fishing on Flat Creek only. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The refuge would maintain access to existing 

turnouts, trails, and other observation sites. The primary viewing turnouts and designated observation 

sites follow: 

■■	 The upper viewing platform on the second 

story of the visitor center. 

■■	 The Burt Raynes Boardwalk and remoteviewing platform on the eastern side of the 

visitor center lawn. 

■■	 A turnout north of the visitor center and the 

Flat Creek Bridge, which has a viewing 

platform and National Elk Refuge sign. The 

turnout is plowed in winter, thus providing 

year-round access to the turnout. 

■■	 A turnout along Highway 89 north of Jackson, which has a kiosk and interpretive 

panel about the purpose of the fence and elk 

“jumps” (refer to “Fencing” in chapter 4, 

section 4.3). The turnout is plowed in winter 

by the Wyoming Department of Transportation, giving travelers on Highway 89 a 

safe place to pull over and view wildlife. 

However, the plowed snow is piled up on the 

northern end of the turnout, blocking access 

to the kiosk and interpretive panel. 

■■	 Approximately 10 turnouts are available on 

Elk Refuge Road. They are plowed during 

winter to encourage vehicles to move off the 

road to view wildlife. 

■■	 The Jackson Hole Community Pathways 

completed the refuge’s North Highway 89 

Pathway in 2011. 

Although no designated auto tour route exists, 

Elk Refuge Road and Flat Creek Road would continue to remain open to the public for wildlife observation and access to national forest lands from May 1 

through November 30. During winter months, 3.5 

miles of Elk Refuge Road (from the refuge entrance 

to the Twin Creek subdivision) would continue to 

remain open (December 1–April 30) to provide access 

to the national forest and wildlife-viewing opportunities. Refuge staff would continue to coordinate with 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest on a winter clo­
42 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

sure of Elk Refuge Road beyond the Twin Creek 

subdivision. Closure of the road to the public beyond 

the subdivision is part of a larger area wildlife closure, which was established to protect and reduce the 

stress of wintering animals and to reduce wildlife 

conflicts with users during the winter. 

Wildlife-touring companies would continue to be 

allowed on the refuge through a special use permit 

that outlines specific conditions for operation, including required safety mitigation. This addresses potential safety issues that could affect visitors or general 

traffic and congestion along the Elk Refuge Road. 

The visitor services staff would continue year-round 

communication with the wildlife-touring companies 

to provide them with current information about management practices, operations, and issues. 

The refuge would continue to support a contracted sleigh ride program to offer a unique opportunity for observing winter wildlife. This program 

would continue to be part of the marketing efforts of 

the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce. 

The refuge would continue its use of a Web-based 

photo-sharing site for refuge photos. This photo collection would help the staff with the many requests 

the refuge gets from publications, Web sites, communication specialists, the media, our regional and 

national Service offices, and other groups for photos 

of various events and scenery. The pictures are 

accompanied by interpretive text, photo credits, and 

information about when the photo was taken. 

Wildlife observation is a popular activity at the visitor 

center. 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

To meet the demand for environmental education 

during the school year, the refuge would continue to 

use funding through nongovernmental partnerships 

to hire seasonal (winter) naturalists. Environmental 

education programs in the spring would be offered 

when possible through the use of volunteers. Spring 

environmental education programs would be limited 

because they occur at the same time as the large volunteer staff is arriving for the season; therefore, staff 

time devoted to public programs would be superseded by checking in and training volunteers and 

other seasonal staff. 

The visitor services staff would continue to rely 

on a large workforce of residential volunteers as the 

means of offering formal and informal interpretation 

during the summer months when visitor center visitation peaks. Volunteers would also continue to provide interpretation during the winter months, 

although residential housing for volunteers is very 

limited during the winter. 

The refuge would engage the public at the visitor 

center and provide climate change brochures offered 

by the Grand Teton Association and literature we 

and the U.S. Department of the Interior produced. 

The refuge would continue to support a contracted interpretive sleigh ride program during the 

winter and would work closely with the contractor to 

provide quality education and interpretation through 

this unique wildlife-viewing opportunity. 

Refuge signs are aging and some are outdated. 

The staff would assess priorities and replace signs as 

funding and staff time allow. 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center 

The refuge would continue to pay for most of the 

annual operational and maintenance costs for the 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center, a multi-agency visitor center. The refuge has one 

employee assigned to work full-time at the visitor 

center, which has high year-round visitation. Each 

partnering agency—Bridger-Teton National Forest, 

Grand Teton Association, Grand Teton National 

Park, and Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce— 

would continue to provide minimal staff at the information desk. 
 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 43 

Other Uses 

The National Elk Refuge is managed as a closed 

refuge, which limits public use except the uses previously described and the following approved uses. We 

would evaluate other uses occurring or proposed on 

the refuge, including wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent uses other than the six priority 

uses, for their appropriateness and compatibility with 

the purposes of the refuge in accordance with our 

policies (Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy and Compatibility Policy). 

North Highway 89 Pathway 

We would allow nonmotorized and pedestrian use 

of the North Highway 89 Pathway with a designated 

seasonal closure from November 1 through April 30 

(based on a variety of data collection methods to 

assess wildlife movement) for protection of wildlife. 

Refuge staff would continue working with Jackson 

Hole Community Pathways and other advocacy 

groups for consistent outreach and messaging on 

pathway use, and we would encourage use of the 

pathway as an alternative transportation route for 

workers and visitors to and from town to the Grand 

Teton National Park. We would continue to prohibit 

pets and horses on the pathway. 

North Park 

The town of Jackson would continue to manage 

North Park under a memorandum of understanding 

with us. Jackson would continue to collect garbage 

and provide lawn care at North Park as well as conduct the fee-reservation system for the group picnic 

shelter. 

Special Use Permits 

We would issue special use permits for appropriate activities such as guided hunting and fishing, 

hunting retrieval services, commercial wildlife-viewing tours, professional photography and videography, 

and research projects. Each permit would have special conditions required to reduce impacts to 

resources and other activities. Before issuing special 

use permits in the greater sage-grouse core area, we 

would make sure to comply with Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011–5 and apply appropriate stipulations. 

In many cases, permittees would be required to 

report use to the refuge at the end of the permit 

period, documenting the number of clients and trips 

onto the refuge. There would be no fees associated 

with special use permits. Staff availability would 

determine, case-by-case, if we would allow special 

access to closed areas of the refuge. 

Commercial photographers would need to obtain 

special use permits to operate on the refuge. The 

special use permits stipulate special conditions such 

as access into areas not open to the public. This 

ensures when the permittee is out shooting, a refuge 

official, contractor, volunteer, or agency partner has 

a way to verify whether a particular activity has 

been authorized if the permittee is not accompanied 

by a staff member. 

The refuge would deny requests for activities that 

are not appropriate and compatible uses of the refuge, such as weddings at Miller House, photographers on feed trucks, and journalists on law 

enforcement ride-alongs. 

The refuge would restrict precedent-setting special access requests that would be cumbersome to the 

refuge. The refuge receives many requests from individuals and user groups to be allowed special access 

to areas and to accompany refuge staff during management operations and other activities that are not 

available to the public. The high visibility of the refuge has the potential for special-exceptions requests 

to become unmanageable. Other similar users groups 

or individuals may want the same exception or opportunity, and refuge staff would have to be able to 

articulate in an equitable and justifiable manner why 

one person or group was allowed to do an activity and 

another was not. Refuge staff would need to carefully 

consider the nature of a request and consider that 

multiple similar requests that could ensue. 

In the past, commercial horseback trail riding has 

been occasionally permitted along a 1-mile section of 

the Gros Ventre River in the northeastern corner of 

the refuge. We have denied requests to conduct this 

non-wildlife-dependent commercial use on other 

parts of the refuge because the benefits it provides in 

support of the refuge goals are minimal. The refuge 

would continue to allow this use as resources to manage the activity allow, including staff to issue and 

review permits, provide law enforcement oversight 

for public safety, and monitor and control new invasive plant infestations. There would be no expansion 

of commercial horseback trail riding. 

Access 

Some people want access to the refuge for refuge 

activities and to access the adjacent Bridger-Teton 

National Forest. 

General Access and Elk Refuge Road 

Elk Refuge Road, Flat Creek Road, and the Curtis Canyon Road would be open to the public for wildlife observation and access to national forest lands 

from May 1 through November 30. During the winter 

months (December 1 through April 30), 3.5 miles of 

the Elk Refuge Road (from the refuge entrance to 

the Twin Creek subdivision) would be open to provide wildlife-viewing opportunities on the refuge and 

one access point to the national forest. 
 

44 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Access to the National Forest 

We would continue to limit access across the refuge to the national forest through three existing locations: Crystal Butte, Dry Hollow, and Sheep Creek. 

Antler collectors have also crossed the refuge and 

private land in recent years to access the national 

forest from the Gros Ventre River “jump cliff” site; 

however, the refuge has not sanctioned crossings at 

this site. The refuge is currently in discussion with 

other adjacent landowners to discuss the future use 

of this access point. The refuge would need to evaluate the use of this site as an access point to the 

Bridger Teton National Forest. 

We would continue to allow overnight parking on 

Elk Refuge Road on April 30 to accommodate antler 

hunters accessing the opening of the national forest 

winter range on May 1. 

Winter users of the Goodwin Lake Ski Cabin on 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest would continue to 

have restricted access across the refuge (only a few 

hundred yards) on a designated trail to reach the 

national forest boundary. Refuge or visitor center 

staff would issue a permit with regulations such as a 

restricted travel route to the cabin, egress from 

national forest property that includes no trespass on 

private property, and dates when the activity is 

allowed. Refuge maintenance staff would plow a 

small parking area with room for two cars near the 

entrance to the Twin Creek subdivision. 

Public Outreach 

The purpose of public outreach is to build an 

understanding of our Service mission, natural elk 

and bison behavior, population fluctuations, and ecological relationships to other species, as well as refuge management practices. 

Because of the refuge’s high-profile location, the 

“flagship refuge” status, and the complexity and controversial nature of many of the management issues, 

the need for regularly occurring public outreach is 

critical. The refuge’s visitor services staff would prepare and send out news releases about visitor opportunities and management activities as staff workload 

allowed. The staff would also prepare and distribute 

articles, as workload allowed, on refuge management 

operations, research, and visitor services for internal 

and external audiences to inform audiences about the 

scope and complexity of refuge activities. We would 

send out news releases, articles, and other refuge 

information via a current email contact list that has 

elected officials, Federal and State partners, nonprofit conservation and partner organizations, key 

community and business leaders, special use permittees, and regional and national contacts in our 

agency. In addition, the visitor services staff would 

keep current the refuge Web site and photo gallery 

and would develop and use other forms of electronic 

media as workload allowed. 

The refuge has seen an increase in the number of 

requests for media interviews and filming for travel 

shows, publications, and documentaries. The refuge 

would continue to conduct media interviews and 

accommodate film crews for local, national, and international audiences as workload allowed. 

Refuge leadership would continue to take an 

ambassadorial and leadership role in the community, 

including extensive involvement in a variety of 

partnerships. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection 

We would continue to emphasize visitor and 

employee safety in all operations on the refuge. Hunting regulations and program design would focus on 

the safety of the refuge user and surrounding community. Safety rules, procedures, job hazard analyses, reporting requirements, and regional safety 

office oversight would help to keep refuge employees 

safe while working to achieve station objectives. Law 

enforcement officers stationed at the refuge would 

continue to promote visitor and employee safety. 

Law enforcement efforts on the refuge protect 

natural and cultural resources, refuge facilities, visitors, and employees. Resource protection programs 

would continue at a basic level and focus on hunting 

and fishing programs, antipoaching activities, boundary and signing activities, and enforcing the prohibition on collecting shed antlers. Present staff size 

would remain minimal, and the refuge would continue to rely on the Teton County Sheriff’s Office, 

National Park Service, WGFD, and the Service’s law 

enforcement officers throughout the year for basic 

law enforcement presence and call response. 

Administration 

To perform our responsibility to administer all 

aspects of the refuge, we rely on our Governmentfunded budget and the associated staff and facilities 

it supports. In addition, our partners often provide 

crucial support. 

Funding and Staff 

We would keep our current staff level of 10.5 FTE 

positions (refer to table 3 for a list of current staff 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 45 

positions). More staff would be hired as money 

became available through the Refuge Operations 

Needs System. 

The refuge would continue to rely on volunteers 

and unpredictable nongovernmental money to hire 

seasonal employees needed to achieve critical refuge 

programs. An additional 12.5 FTEs of volunteer and 

seasonal staff assistance would be used to augment 

the Government-funded 10.5 FTEs of refuge staff. 

The volunteers and temporary, seasonal staff would 

be as follows: 

■■	 one volunteer for the biological program 


fieldwork
 

■■ eight seasonal irrigators 

■■ one seasonal supplemental feed operator 

■■	 twenty volunteers to staff the visitor center 

and Miller House 

■■	 three winter naturalists to offer programs 

and staff the visitor center 

■■	 eight Service law enforcement officers to 

patrol during the May 1 opening of the winter range on the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest for antler collection 

■■	 two seasonal National Park Service law 


enforcement officers for hunting season
 

enforcement
 

Table 3. Current staff positions at the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Government-funded position Full time equivalent 

Wildlife Disease 1 

Deputy refuge manager (GS–485–13) 1 

Outdoor recreation planner (GS–0023–12) 1 

Park ranger (GS–0025–9, visitor center manager and volunteer coordinator) 1 

Wildlife biologist (GS–486–12) 1 

Refuge land management officer (GL2–1801–9) 1 

Office assistant (GS–0303–5) 0.5 

Heavy mobile equipment mechanic (WG3–5803–11) 1 

Maintenance mechanic (WG–4749–9) 1 

Rangeland management specialist (GS–454–9) 1 

Budget analyst (GS–0560–11 , business team) 1 

1 GS=General Schedule classification and pay system.
 

2 GL= General Schedule classification and pay system for law enforcement officers.
 

3 WG= Wage Grade classification and pay system.
 

Facilities 

“Operations and maintenance” consist of maintaining facilities, infrastructure, vehicles, and other 

equipment in good working condition through the use 

of annual and deferred maintenance funds to achieve 

management goals. Priorities would be set for the 

limited maintenance money to meet needs that affect 

key operational and visitor services infrastructure. 

The refuge would continue to provide some form of 

Government housing, which would help us recruit 

highly qualified staff and volunteers that would be 

able to afford our reasonably priced housing. 

Elk Refuge Road 

Elk Refuge Road provides safe, reasonable, uninterrupted access (ingress and egress) for our agency 

staff, the public, and private landowners year-round 

and is a popular winter wildlife-viewing area. Opening parts of the road would allow the public seasonal 

access to national forest lands. 

We would continue to enforce a regulation for no 

stopping or parking on the roadway to prevent 

obstruction to other vehicular traffic using the road. 

Two nearby, heavily visited national parks allow frequent stopping in the road to take photographs or 

view wildlife. Many of the same visitors travel on Elk 

Refuge Road, bringing with them the same habits 

and viewing practices they exhibited in the national 

parks during their same vacation stay. Because visitors to the refuge do not pass through a designated 

entrance kiosk where they make a contact with a 

refuge employee, it is difficult to educate them about 

regulations about not stopping in road. Regulations 

pertaining to parking on the road would continue to 
esidents, deliveries, refuge 

g operations). 

we would continue to plow 

ent 10 turnouts to encourage 

 road to view wildlife. 

 maintain existing partnerurce information needs, proat (both public and private), 

e, education, and outreach. 

de local private landowners, 

 and nongovernmental orgainvolves local conservation 

ting educational events and 

ith local communities for 

d promotes continued grant 

ers seeking money to accomtinue to work with State and 

omplish mutually beneficial 

ngoing collaboration include 

ojects for Flat Creek, docu46 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

be listed at a wayside exhibit kiosk at the entrance to 

the refuge, but few visitors stop to thoroughly read 

through the information before proceeding onto Elk 

Refuge Road. A handout listing regulations, along 

with a map showing the turnouts, would continue to 

be available at the visitor center. 

The county road easement would continue to be 

treated for dust abatement during summer months, 

which creates a bighorn sheep attractant (from the 

salt in the treatment) on and along the roadway. Magnesium chloride (salt)-treated water, used for dust 

abatement during the summer, would remain on the 

road surface throughout the year and serve as an 

attractant that draws bighorn sheep to the road surface during the winter. Large numbers of bighorn 

sheep would continue to gather on the road, creating 

a congested and sometimes fully obstructed roadway. 

The obstructed road is a safety issue, especially for 

through traffic (local r

staff, and refuge feedin

During the winter, 

snow off the road’s curr

vehicles to move off the

Partnerships 

Staff would work to

ships that address reso

tect and enhance habit

and promote public us

Current partners inclu

governmental agencies,

nizations. The refuge 

organizations in suppor

fosters partnerships w

resource protection, an

development with partn

plish mutual goals. 

The refuge would con

county agencies to acc

projects. Examples of o

habitat improvement pr

mentation of habitat conditions through high-resolution aerial photography, invasive plant species 

control, wildlife and disease monitoring, and the 

monitoring and operation of a nonmotorized pathway 

along the western refuge boundary. We would coordinate with WGFD on various projects including 

greater sage-grouse habitat, particularly near occupied leks within core areas delineated by the State of 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order 2011–5. 

The refuge would continue to support and take 

part in multi-agency wildlife work groups such as the 

Jackson Cooperative Elk Studies Group, the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Working Group, and the Jackson Interagency Habitat Initiative (works on winter and transitional range improvements). We would collaborate 

with the Jackson Hole Weed Management Association to manage invasive species on the refuge and 

throughout the ecosystem. 

Coordination with nongovernmental conservation 

organizations would continue to complete refuge 

projects that benefit wildlife such as the program for 

voluntary use of lead-free ammunition, which would 

provide benefits to wildlife beyond the refuge 

boundary. 

The refuge would continue our close partnership 

with the Jackson District Boy Scouts that collect elk 

antlers on the refuge and conduct the Boy Scouts of 

America Elk Antler Auction each year, with most of 

the proceeds coming to the refuge to support our 

programs. 

We would develop partnerships to find solutions 

and educational opportunities to resolve elk and bison 

conflicts on private and public land. 

The refuge would continue to work in partnership 

with the Grand Teton Association to support visitor 

services programs that relate to interpretation, education, research and the operation of the multipartner Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor 

Center. 

3.6 Alternative B (Enhance 

Public Use and Intensive 

Resource Management) 

An important aspect of this alternative would be 

to limit public use to appropriate and compatible 

wildlife-dependent uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation—and shift away from non-wildlife-dependent uses. There would be increased development in some areas of the refuge to address 

increased public use at area-specific intensive use 

locations. Options to experience and observe would 

be enhanced. 

The other emphasis would be to meet habitat and 

wildlife population objectives through intensive management actions. Because of increased public opportunities, refuge staff would focus more on intensive 

refuge-specific monitoring, rather than ecosystem 

monitoring, to gauge the effects of public use on habitat and wildlife. 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 47 

A chuck wagon located at the Miller House provides a 

unique learning opportunity. 

S Wy / Fhacluk McuhC

Climate Change 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, staff would cooperate with the 

Great Northern Land Conservation Cooperative to 

conduct research and monitoring and carry out management as necessary to reduce adverse climate 

change effects on high-priority refuge resources. 

Efforts would focus on bison, elk, and Federal trust 

resources. 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, we would consider partnership 

opportunities to build wildlife crossings for Highway 

89—such as under-road tunnels, overpasses, or 

fences on the west side of the highway—to reduce 

collisions between vehicles and animals. 

Habitat 

The emphasis would be to meet habitat objectives 

through intensive management actions. 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush 

Shrublands 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would develop and 

carry out habitat projects in coordination with the 

local greater sage-grouse working group and WGFD 

to meet desired conditions. Considering greater 

sage-grouse concerns, we would introduce prescribed 

fire to enhance the quantity and quality of forage for 

elk and bison. 

Wetlands 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would improve its 

ability to manage water levels in artificial ponds and 

would manage water levels to enhance habitat for 

trumpeter swans. In natural wetlands, the refuge 

would increase monitoring for and control of invasive 

species and use prescribed fire to enhance the quantity and quality of forage for elk and bison. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands Areas 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would use the efficiencies in the irrigation system to keep more water 

in Flat Creek and improve riparian habitat. We 

would consider expanded techniques for regeneration 

of woody vegetation. In the Gros Ventre River drainage, the refuge would carry out recommendations 

from the hydrologic assessment conducted by the 

National Park Service, as appropriate. 

Flat Creek Enhancement 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. 

Invasive Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, there would be increased monitoring and rapid response for new infestations of 

invasive species, including aquatic plant and animal 

species. Refuge staff would also develop large-scale 

programs for invasive plant eradication where 

possible. 
 

48 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Wildland Fire Management 

Actions would vary depending on the type of 

habitat. 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush Shrublands 

Wildfire suppression same as Alternative A. Prescribed fire would be introduced to enhance the 

quantity and quality of forage for elk and bison, reinvigorate native species, and to reduce hazardous 

fuels. 

Wetlands 

Wildfire suppression same as Alternative A. Prescribed fire would be introduced to enhance the 

quantity and quality of forage for elk and bison, reinvigorate native species, and to reduce hazardous 

fuels. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands Areas 

Wildland fire management in this habitat type 

would be the same as Alternative A. 

Wildlife 

The emphasis would be to meet wildlife population objectives through intensive management 

actions. 

Elk and Bison 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. 

Migratory Birds 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, we would increase monitoring 

to establish baseline information on the migratory 

bird species that occupy the refuge. 

Aquatic Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. 

Disease Management 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would develop a 

comprehensive disease contingency plan in coordination with WGFD and Grand Teton National Park that 

focused on intervention where not constrained by the 

Bison and Elk Management Plan. As part of this process, the refuge would develop alternative strategies 

to dispose of diseased elk and bison carcasses. 

Federally and State-Listed 

Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would increase 

monitoring of other State species of greatest conservation need in coordination with WGFD. Where 

appropriate, the refuge would support the goals of 

recovery plans for federally listed species through 

management activities. 

Staff would initiate intensive management actions 

to enhance trumpeter swan production on the refuge. 

The refuge would enhance swan habitat to meet 

objectives of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan 

for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter 

Swans (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 2012), referred to as the Trumpeter 

Swan Management Plan. We would design these 

enhancements to maximize nesting and breeding 

areas visible to the public. For flooding situations, the 

refuge would (1) consider removing swan eggs and 

returning cygnets (young swans) to breeding sites 

after hatching, (2) use floating nest structures to 

mitigate for the effects of human disturbance and 

flooding, and (3) construct more managed ponds suitable to support nesting swans in appropriate areas. 

Research and Monitoring 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would increase 

research and monitoring of the effects of public use 

and other refuge programs on habitat and wildlife 

and adaptively adjust management and public use 

programs. We would increase all research and monitoring efforts to improve our confidence in the data 

gathered. 

Cultural Resources 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, we would develop an interpretive trail around the Miller Ranch buildings, inviting 

visitors to explore the cultural as well as natural 

aspects of the refuge. We would seek money for per­
Chapter 3—Alternatives 49 

manent or seasonal interpreters to maintain and 

enhance programs at the Miller House. 

Refuge staff would work with partners and our 

agency specialists to address the foundational deterioration and other structural issues at the Miller 

Barn. We would include in planning or rehabilitation 

work done on the barn the use of the structure for 

interpretive programs. The barn repair work would 

include foundation stabilization, improved drainage, 

repair of split or loose battens in the walls, and possible roof repairs. The barn is not open to the public 

now and would need to be inspected for items such as 

floor load capacity, safety, fire codes, and egress. 

Lighting would need to be installed. Refuge staff 

would need to apply for grants or other funding 

sources to pay for the Miller Barn restoration. Historic preservation specialists would have to be contracted to work with refuge staff to make sure 

preservation standards and protocols were met. The 

refuge would rehabilitate the other Miller Ranch 

buildings as needed. 

Visitor Services 

We would limit public use to appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent uses. 

Hunting 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would expand hunting opportunities for young people. This may include 

working with partners to develop a hunter mentoring 

program and moving the existing hunting opportunity for young people to later in the season to provide 

more elk observation opportunities and increase the 

chances for successful harvest. Potential options 

would include designating a weekend in midseason 

for youth-only hunts or adding a weekend after the 

end of the elk season for a youth-only hunt. 

Staff would develop regulations for proper storage 

of bear attractants and bear-deterrent practices 

when hunting on the refuge. We would encourage 

hunters to carry bear spray while on the refuge, and 

we would consider enacting a bear spray carry 

requirement. Staff would develop management tools 

for assessing hunter use—such as hunter checkpoints, hunter success surveys, and improved mandatory reporting of tag use—to better manage hunt 

program opportunities. 

The refuge would consider and create more hunting opportunities. As the need arises, we would analyze and consider developing hunting opportunities 

for species other than elk and bison. Staff would coordinate with WGFD to develop specific refuge-hunting 

opportunities to meet population objectives in the 

Bison and Elk Management Plan. We would also 

work with WGFD to develop an antlered elk hunt on 

the refuge to provide more quality opportunities. 

We would open the currently closed areas on the 

southern and western boundaries of the refuge to 

archery hunters to create more harvest opportunities and add access for archery hunters at the Jackson National Fish Hatchery. The refuge would 

explore the idea of adding access for bison hunters on 

the northern end of the refuge through the Teton 

Valley Highlands subdivision to either hunter 

retrieval road 6 or 7. 

Fishing 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, besides sponsoring Kids’ Fishing Day with the Jackson National Fish Hatchery 

and the WGFD, the refuge would like to start programs that attract more young people to the refuge 

for fishing opportunities, using volunteers or partners as instructors. Programs could include casting 

instruction, a fishing skills clinic, and a mentoring 

program for young anglers. 

We would change the scheduled opening of the 

two access gates to lower Flat Creek, along Highway 

89, to daylight (6 a.m.) on the August 1 season opening, which would be consistent with refuge regulations. This would be a change from the current 

situation; we would no longer open the gates the evening before the fishing season opening. 

The Flat Creek fishery is managed for a native, 

wild and trophy-sized Snake River cutthroat trout 

population. Long-time devotees of Flat Creek report 

a decline in the opportunity to fish for large cutthroats. Recent fish surveys show that nonnative 

trout (brook, brown, and rainbow) account for almost 

half of the trout population of the stream. The typical 

Flat Creek anglers are avid flycasters that have 

adopted catch-and-release principles as their conservation ethic. There is a need for active management 

of this fishery to support the quality of the fishing 

experience. We would do more angler education 

about (1) nonnative trout (competition and hybridization) in the Snake River cutthroat trout fishery and 

(2) the importance of Flat Creek for the recruitment 

of Snake River cutthroat trout to the Snake River 

fishery. 

Flat Creek is a popular fishing destination especially in August, and there are times when overcrowding affects the quality of the fishing 

experience. To control some of the future use of lower 

Flat Creek and make it easier to enforce permit 

requirements, the refuge would set a limit of 10 or 

fewer special use permits for commercial guided fishing. To limit the crowding from guided fishing, per­
50 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

mits would have quotas of two trips, two guides, and 

a maximum of two clients per day. An annual $100 fee 

for each commercial guide permit would provide 

financial support for the fishing program’s administrative expenses, such as for access signage and the 

printing of fishing regulations. In addition, we would 

construct an accessible fishing platform to access 

Flat Creek. 

We would require commercial guides to kill nonnative fish, such as brook, brown, and rainbow trout, 

as a condition of their special use permits. Nonnative 

trout are classified as game species, and we would 

require these fish to be included in an angler’s daily 

possession, consistent with State regulations. 

Staff would improve habitat and waterflow management for increased fishing opportunity, with a 

focus on native fish species. We would also work with 

partners to enhance fisheries management to encourage native species in the Gros Ventre River by using 

fish screens or a similar tool. Fish screens may be 

beneficial; however, we would carefully evaluate the 

need because installation and maintenance of fish 

screens can be very expensive. Fish screens on the 

Gros Ventre River might prevent migration of rainbow trout into the Flat Creek cutthroat population. 

Fisheries habitat improvement and angler opportunity in Flat Creek would be greater than alternative A and similar to alternative A in the Gros Ventre 

River. 

Hunting is one of many wildlife-dependent activities available on the refuge. 

Lori Iverson / FWS 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would develop pathway pulloffs along the North Highway 89 Pathway 

and a more prominent access route, designed for 

accessibility, across the visitor center lawn to the 

existing remote-viewing platform. We would develop 

an accessible boardwalk through already disturbed 

wetland areas near the visitor center with a photo 

blind along the boardwalk for noncommercial photography. Using webcams on the refuge would provide 

wildlife-viewing opportunities such as observation of 

nesting swans. We would develop a wildlife checklist 

for the refuge. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

The refuge’s education and interpretation programs would reflect refuge resource issues. We 

would use the existing North Highway 89 Pathway to 

interpret wetland values or other interpretive messages. The refuge would use public information to 

promote understanding of invasive species control 

and prescribed fire as a management tool. We would 

increase public education about the migratory birds 

using the refuge and the importance of keeping areas 

closed to the public during the bird breeding season. 

To allow the public to view nesting birds without disturbing them, we would use strategies such as webcams on the refuge and an online photo gallery. We 

would seek more money for permanent or seasonal 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 51 

interpreters to improve programs at the visitor center, Miller House, and offsite areas. 

The refuge would develop a self-guided, interpretive tour route on existing refuge roads on the eastern side of the refuge (Elk Refuge Road and Flat 

Creek Road). The route would have interpretive 

turnouts, signs, and possibly an accompanying brochure. We would need to update and replace interpretive signs with panels related to the tour route 

theme. The refuge would develop the tour route in 

three phases: 

1. First phase (winter route)—Develop the 

route from Elk Refuge Road entrance to 

Twin Creek subdivision for approximately 

3.5 miles. 

2. Second phase (summer route)—Develop the 

route from Twin Creek subdivision to the 

McBride area; open May 1–December 1 with 

an interpretive kiosk at the McBride parking area. 

3. Third phase—Increase traffic control signing from the McBride area to the eastern 

parking lot and include the traffic information in the brochure. 

For Elk Refuge Road, the refuge would consider 

(1) developing an interpretive brochure that corresponds with numbered turnouts and has winter and 

summer information or (2) having standalone interpretive panels. We would consider mounting scopes 

at the turnouts to encourage people to get out of their 

vehicles. During busy periods, refuge naturalists 

would be on scene to present the educational component. In addition, we would need to address safety 

mitigation during critical times of the year such as 

during hunting season and when bison moved 

through the refuge. For summer use of the road, the 

refuge would implement a themed interpretive signing program, possibly answering the question 

“Where are all the elk?” 

As a way to provide interpretive information to 

the public, the refuge would add special conditions in 

the special use permits for wildlife tour companies to 

use or mention the tour route. Charging fees would 

help to offset our administrative costs. 

We would continue to assess the number of people 

that regularly watch the refuge video to decide if it 

should be updated. An option would be to produce a 

selection of shorter multimedia presentations that 

would be available to the public on demand rather 

than offering a full-length video. The multimedia presentations could also be housed on the refuge Web 

site or be downloaded by visitors at the visitor center. The video presentations would emphasize the 

role and mission of national wildlife refuges versus 

national parks and national forests, as well as 

describe the role of the refuge in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

We would stabilize and restore Miller Barn as an 

interpretive site where we could hold programs and 

events. 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center 

The designated partners in the Jackson Hole and 

Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center would contribute 

annual funding to help with operations at the visitor 

center and ease the growing financial burden to the 

refuge. We would continually document and evaluate 

the visitor center condition and maintenance issues, 

ensuring that replacement and maintenance cost 

estimates were current. We would rehabilitate the 

existing building, or we would build a new visitor 

center to address the ongoing repairs to the aging 

building, maintenance deficiencies, and lack of compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (United States Access Board 2013). 

A rehabilitated, expanded, or remodeled visitor center or a new visitor center would also address the 

lack of space for interpretive programs and presentations to schools and other groups. 

Other Uses 

We would not develop hiking and biking trails, but 

participants in these activities might use the new 

self-guided, interpretive tour route described earlier. 

We would follow our agency policy that prohibits 

weddings on refuge property, including public use 

areas such as North Park, the Miller House, and the 

visitor center. 

North Highway 89 Pathway 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge staff would apply 

criteria and determine, on a yearly basis, whether 

the pathway can be opened as early as April 15 in 

years when spring arrives unusually early. We would 

use the pathway during the open season as an interpretive programming venue. The refuge would 

explore a variety of data collection methods to assess 

wildlife movement across the pathway at various 

times of the year, especially during the times of year 

when the pathway is closed. Refuge staff would cooperate with Teton County to evaluate pathway 

impacts on wildlife and habitat and adjust use as 

appropriate. 
52 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

North Park 

When the memorandum of understanding with 

the town of Jackson expires in 2015, we would continue the partnership with Jackson to manage North 

Park through a revised memorandum that does away 

with the reservation and fee collection system for 

activities on refuge land. 

Special Use Permits 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, we would charge fees for special use permits for commercial photography and 

filming, wildlife-viewing, and other commercial 

activities including those for access to refuge areas 

closed to the public. There would be a flat fee for all 

commercial special use permits and a general use fee 

related to the amount of time for each specific use. 

Many of the same permittees would also obtain special use permits in neighboring Grand Teton National 

Park, which has a fee system in place for similar 

activities. 

Issuing a permit to a filmmaker would ensure 

that, when the film permittee was out shooting, a refuge official, contractor, volunteer, or agency partner 

could verify whether a particular activity had been 

authorized if the permittee was not accompanied by 

a staff member. Recognition of the National Elk Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System would 

be a requirement of the permit. 

In the past, commercial horseback trail riding has 

been occasionally permitted along a 1-mile section of 

the Gros Ventre River in the northeastern corner of 

the refuge. We have denied requests to conduct this 

non-wildlife-dependent commercial use on other 

parts of the refuge because the benefits it provides in 

support of the refuge goals are minimal. Managing 

this use diverts limited refuge staff and management 

resources away from critical programs. The introduction of invasive plants through horse manure is an 

unnecessary risk for a non-wildlife-dependent commercial use. However, the use of horses is allowed by 

hunters and commercial hunting guides to support 

hunting, a wildlife-dependent use and a vital tool for 

management of elk and bison populations. The refuge 

would phase out this use within 5 years, and there 

would be no expansion of commercial horseback trail 

riding. 

Access 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, with the following changes. 

General Access 

The refuge would analyze and consider more 

hunter access areas and designated parking lots. We 

would consider more bison hunter access on the 

northern end of the refuge though the Teton Valley 

Highlands subdivision—either on the western end of 

the subdivision to hunt retrieval road 6 or on the 

eastern end of the subdivision to hunt retrieval road 

7. In addition, the refuge would consider archery 

hunter access on the western boundary of the refuge 

next to the Jackson National Fish Hatchery. 

Elk Refuge Road 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. 

Access to the National Forest 

We would prohibit the overnight parking, camping, staging, and tailgating on April 30 on the refuge 

associated with antler collection on the adjacent 

Bridger-Teton National Forest. The refuge would 

consider an alternate gate opening time. By having a 

later gate-opening time than other national forest 

access points, refuge staff might be able to reduce or 

eliminate persons interested in staging on Elk Refuge Road. Users that learned other accesses onto the 

national forest would be opening before the refuge 

access might be discouraged from using Elk Refuge 

Road, knowing other antler collectors would be 

reaching the same destinations sooner. 

The refuge would encourage the national forest to 

provide added signing for the egress route to prevent 

trespass on private land at the Twin Creek subdivision by people traveling to and from the Goodwin 

Lake Ski Cabin. We would ask the national forest to 

issue special use permits (rather than the refuge) for 

parking on refuge since the associated activity takes 

place on the national forest and the trespass violations occur by travelers leaving the forest and continuing through private property. 

Public Outreach 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, because of the wide audience 

and interest in the National Elk Refuge, we would 

develop more media and outreach venues available to 

the public. The role of the refuge in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would be emphasized in additional outreach. Program outreach would include the 

following: 

■■	 The refuge would provide more outreach for 

other refuge users to promote education and 

awareness of the refuge hunting program. 

■■	 The refuge needs more angler education 

about the negative effects of nonnative fish 

on the native Snake River cutthroat trout 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 53 

fishery and to encourage angler harvest of 

nonnative trout. 

■■	 Outreach would be necessary to inform local 

justices of the peace, or anyone that has 

authority to perform legal wedding ceremonies, that weddings are not allowed on refuge property. 

■■	 Because we would no longer allow overnight 

parking the night before the winter range 

opening on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the refuge would provide timely outreach to let people know about this change. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, there would be an increased 

law enforcement presence during the hunting season 

as it continued to grow and become more complex. In 

coordination with WGFD, the refuge would develop 

strategies to increase hunter safety. Expanded hunt 

areas have created more situations where hunters 

must use their discretion whether or not a safe shot 

can be taken. Refuge staff and WGFD staff need to 

check such areas and make adjustments to roads 

available to hunters, placement of hunt parking 

areas, and hunt area boundaries, as necessary. Law 

enforcement staff would administratively revoke 

more hunting permits in situations where the hunter 

endangers public safety or knowingly violates refuge 

regulations or State or Federal laws. Furthermore, 

violations could affect a hunter’s ability to get future 

hunting permits or renew a special use permit. 

The refuge would acquire all personal protective 

equipment as necessary for duties performed. Safety 

training would be available as needed. 

Law enforcement staff and patrols would be 

increased: 

■■	 Increased patrols would be needed in April 

to deter refuge trespass and the illegal 

removal of shed elk antlers and other wildlife parts. 

■■	 The increased law enforcement staff would 

develop additional techniques (such as 

remote cameras, tracking devices, and 

motion sensors) to detect the illegal taking 

of wildlife and wildlife parts during known 

peak seasons such as the spring antler season. The staff would continue to expand the 

use of remote surveillance technologies and 

tracking devices. 

■■	 There would be 7-day-per-week coverage by 

law enforcement staff year-round to address 

increased public use. 

■■	 There would be increased enforcement of 

regulations related to Elk Refuge Road. 

Refuge law enforcement would continue to 

enforce the provisions of 50 CFR 27.31(h). 

We would consider designating off-road parking 

at the entrance with a relocated entrance kiosk. 

Administration 

To perform our responsibility to administer all 

aspects of the refuge, we rely on our Governmentfunded budget and the associated staff and facilities 

it supports. In addition, our partners often provide 

crucial support. 

Funding and Staff 

Refuge base funding would increase by approximately $200,000 per year to replace private funding 

generously provided by refuge partners. Volunteers 

would remain a crucial part of the refuge workforce. 

In addition to the existing refuge staff of 10.5 

FTE positions, the following 15 FTE positions would 

be hired as permanent full-time or permanent seasonal refuge employees: 

■■ one permanent full-time biological 


technician
 

■■ one permanent engineering equipment 


operator 

■■ six permanent seasonal irrigators 

■■ two permanent seasonal supplemental feed 

operators 

■■ one permanent full-time environmental education specialist 

■■ three permanent seasonal winter interpretive naturalists 

■■ eight permanent seasonal visitor center 

desk staff members 

■■ one permanent full-time law enforcement 

officer 

■■ one permanent full-time maintenance program supervisor 

Seasonal volunteers would still make important 

contributions by enhancing the mission work of the 

refuge. 
54 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Facilities 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, as money became available, the 

refuge would add up to five family houses and add 

housing to accommodate seasonal staff. This would 

help mitigate the extremely high cost of living. 

Refuge facilities are located in or near Jackson, 

which is near Federal lands that support a variety of 

wildlife. Black bears live in the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest surrounding the town of Jackson and 

occasionally enter the town. Grizzly bears have been 

seen within 5 miles of refuge houses. Bears that 

become habituated to human garbage or other food 

rewards, would be relocated or destroyed. Local 

regulations have been passed to manage household 

garbage storage and disposal to prevent access by 

bears, which can quickly become habituated to this 

food source. The refuge would develop garbage storage and disposal rules for refuge residents that are 

consistent with the spirit of local regulations; these 

regulations would describe proper trash disposal, 

food storage, and use of bird feeders. 

In cooperation with WGFD, the refuge would 

remove the existing, dysfunctional, elk trap corral at 

the northern end of Miller Butte and replace it with a 

prefabricated elk trap. The new prefabricated elk 

trap could be moved to various locations on the refuge to facilitate elk disease sampling, collaring, and 

research. The new elk trap could be disassembled 

and stored when not in use. 

The Calkins House would be relocated or demolished and replaced in a new location when deferred 

maintenance money became available. 

Elk Refuge Road 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, we would work with Teton 

County to modify dust abatement applications on the 

road to reduce the attraction to wildlife, especially 

bighorn sheep. The refuge would properly locate and 

increase the number of turnouts along Elk Refuge 

Road for winter use. Several of the existing 10 turnouts are poorly situated or are too small to accommodate the volume of use the road receives. 

Numbered turnouts would correspond with a winter 

auto tour brochure. We would add new regulatory 

signing to prohibit stopping or parking on or along 

roadway. In addition, we would consider widening the 

road to create more room for all road users. Public 

comments have suggested widening the road to three 

lanes, thereby making a parking lane for wildlife 

watching and more safely accommodating pedestrian 

traffic. The road widening is suggested for 1.5 miles 

along the base of Miller Butte. We would work with 

Teton County to discuss ways to make the road 

safer—widen, lower the speed limit, improve visibility, eliminate blind spots, realign the road at Miller 

House, scrape down berms, and add regulatory signage—and create more room for all road users. 

In winter, the refuge would sand the road and 

clear the ditches of snow for safety purposes. Elk 

Refuge Road in the winter is heavily travelled 

because of the attraction of a highly visible herd of 

bighorn sheep. Some motorists are visitors in rental 

cars who are poorly skilled winter drivers; many of 

them end up in the roadside ditch. This section of 

roadway requires extra maintenance, beyond what 

the county provides, to accommodate visitor use. 

Despite the large number of summer visitors to 

Jackson Hole, the refuge is largely closed to public 

use during summer with the only refuge access for 

the throngs of summer visitors being Elk Refuge 

Road. Contacts with summer visitors along the road 

usually find them lost or confused. For the extremely 

heavy summer visitation, the road would be maintained at a higher standard, have enhanced traffic 

signs, and have speed limit signs installed north of 

the Curtis Canyon Road. 

We would increase enforcement of current 

regulations. 

Partnerships 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, a nonprofit, National Elk Refuge Friends group would be established to help 

support the vision of the refuge. Refuge Friends 

groups have been established throughout the Refuge 

System to help support the mission of the Refuge 

System and individual national wildlife refuges. 

These groups are sanctioned by and receive training 

and support from the National Wildlife Refuge Association, an independent nonprofit organization whose 

mission is to conserve America’s wildlife heritage 

through strategic programs that protect, enhance, 

and expand the Refuge System and the landscapes 

beyond its boundaries that secure its ecological 

integrity. The refuge would need to work closely with 

the Grand Teton Association to distinguish between 

the role of the cooperating association and the 

Friends group. 

The refuge would increase the emphasis of wildlife projects on private lands by encouraging use of 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in Teton 

County. This is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program that provides money and technical expertise to 

private landowners for projects that would benefit 

wildlife. These projects are often conducted on private lands near refuges to provide secondary benefits 

to refuges. 
3.7 Alternative C (Emphasize 

Intact Ecosystems and 

Promote Natural Processes) 

Given the National Elk Refuge is part of the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, one of the largest 

relatively intact ecosystems on the planet, refuge 

management would emphasize those qualities that 

make the ecosystem unique. 

Public use emphasizes interpretation, education, 

and outreach over recreational opportunities that are 

direct experiences. Educational and interpretive programs would include more experiences off the

refuge. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 55 

Climate Change 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, the refuge would focus on building resiliency in the natural systems, mainly on the 

northern end of the refuge, with the full complement 

of historical plant and animal species. Management 

actions would emphasize natural processes, including 

fire, hydrology, and ungulate grazing, that result in 

healthy and diverse native plant communities that 

support a full complement of native wildlife species: 

■■	 Work with adjacent landowners to minimize 

water diversions from the Gros Ventre 

River and maintain natural flow levels. 

■■	 Restore native plant communities in areas 

currently dominated by nonnative species, 

with an emphasis on native species that 

would best match predicted changes in precipitation and temperature. 

■■	 Manage fire regimes that mimic pre-European settlement fire-return intervals. 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, conservation organizations 

would be involved in reducing rural development or 

land use that would adversely affect wildlife and 

other important natural resources. The refuge would 

engage in and support projects that would benefit 

natural ecosystem processes or protect and enhance 

wildlife corridors. These projects might occur on private or public lands. 

Land use outside the refuge impacts refuge 

resources. The refuge would seek to expand the 

approved acquisition boundary to include the Twin 

Creek and Spring Gulch areas, which would provide 

another tool to resolve off-refuge land use that conflicts with refuge resource protection. We would consider land exchanges with other landowners and 

agencies to simplify the refuge’s exterior boundary. 

Habitat 

The focus would be preserving intact native plant 

communities. 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush 

Shrublands 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would emphasize a 

mix of age and structural classes representative of 

historical conditions, reached using prescribed fire 

and managed wildfire, but like alternative A, the 

emphasis would still be to protect existing, mature, 

dense sagebrush stands from fire and other disturbance. We would conduct habitat treatments within 

the greater sage-grouse core area (as defined by 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011–5) in consultation 

with WGFD. 

Smooth Brome 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL
56 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Wetlands 

In artificial ponds, the refuge would manipulate 

water levels to mimic natural processes. In natural 

wetlands, the refuge would maintain and restore 

natural processes: (1) assess the effect of the Gros 

Ventre River irrigation diversion; (2) restore woody 

plant communities as appropriate; (3) restore beaver 

populations; (4) increase monitoring and control of 

invasive species; and (5) use prescribed fire and managed wildfire to mimic natural fire regimes. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands Areas 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would emphasize the 

maintenance and restoration of natural processes. 

This would include water management designed to 

mimic natural flow patterns in Flat Creek and the 

Gros Ventre River, temporary construction of exclosures to support restoration of woody vegetation (but 

removal when restoration is complete), removal of 

historical exclosures, and elimination of the jackstraw willow demonstration project on Flat Creek. In 

addition, we would use prescribed fire and managed 

wildfire to mimic natural fire regimes in willow, cottonwood, and aspen stands. 

Flat Creek Enhancement 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. 

Invasive Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, the refuge would monitor and 

control invasive plants that are not now listed as noxious weeds (such as crested wheatgrass, reed 

canarygrass, meadow foxtail, cheatgrass, and yellow 

sweetclover) and restore native plant communities as 

possible. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Actions would vary depending on type of habitat. 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush Shrublands 

To more represent historical conditions of vegetative structure and age, wildfires would be managed 

for multiple objectives including potential benefits. 

However, like Alternative A, there would still be an 

emphasis to protect mature, dense sagebrush stands 

from wildfires where feasible. Prescribed fire would 

be used for habitat management and hazardous fuels 

reduction in both grasslands and sagebrush uplands. 

Prescribed fire treatments within the sage grouse 

core area (as defined by Wyoming Executive Order 

2011-5) would be conducted in consultation with 

WGFD. 

Wetlands 

Wildland fire (both wildfire and prescribed fire) 

would be used in wetlands to mimic natural processes and reduce hazardous fuels. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands Areas 

Prescribed fire and multiple objective wildfire will 

be used to mimic natural fire regimes and reduce 

hazardous fuels in willow, cottonwood, and aspen 

stands. 

Wildlife 

Important aspects of wildlife management would 

be maintaining long-distance ungulate migrations 

and a full suite of large native carnivores. 

Elk and Bison 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. 

Migratory Birds 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would increase 

monitoring to establish baseline information on bird 

species using the refuge. We would use artificial 

methods, such as water structures, to mimic natural 

processes including natural flood regimes. 

Aquatic Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would work cooperatively with WGFD and water right holders to design 

and install screen devises that would help prevent 

moving nonnative fish species between distinct subdrainages, especially between the Gros Ventre River 

and Flat Creek at the South Park diversion. The refuge would work cooperatively with WGFD to remove 

more nonnative fishes. We would also work with 

WGFD to start abundance surveys and population 

trend analysis for key native fish species (not trout) to 

be used as aquatic habitat health indicators. 

Disease Management 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would develop a 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 57 

disease contingency plan, in coordination with 

WGFD and Grand Teton National Park. The refuge 

would do more monitoring for wildlife disease. 

Federally and State-Listed 

Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would encourage 

maintenance and restoration of native plant communities and vegetative structure and composition that 

supports natural historical conditions. 

Research and Monitoring 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would emphasize 

research on the role of the refuge in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Research would be conducted 

to determine historical natural fire regimes, water 

regimes, and plant community composition and structure to evaluate and refine the refuge objectives. 

Landscape-scale habitat protection research 

would be a high priority. This research would focus 

on the biological, social, and political responses to 

drivers of ecosystem change such as land use, invasive species, and climate change. 

The refuge would evaluate the frequency and 

population status for groups of species for which little 

is known (invertebrates, small mammals, and bats). 

We would increase all research and monitoring 

efforts to improve our confidence in the data. 

Cultural Resources 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Visitor Services 

Our visitor services would emphasize interpretative, educational, and outreach programs. 

Hunting 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would consider and 

create more hunting opportunities. As the need 

arises, we would analyze and consider developing 

hunting opportunities for species other than elk and 

bison. We would open the currently closed areas on 

the southern and western boundaries of the refuge to 

archery hunters to protect critical winter forage for 

availability to elk later in the winter. 

The refuge would require the use of lead-free 

ammunition while hunting on the refuge. Staff would 

develop regulations for proper storage of bear attractants and bear-deterrent practices and would require 

hunters to carry bear spray while hunting on the 

refuge. Staff would develop management tools for 

assessing hunter use—such as hunter checkpoints, 

hunter success surveys, and improved mandatory 

reporting of tag use—to better manage hunt program opportunities. 

We would add access for archery hunters at the 

Jackson National Fish Hatchery. The refuge would 

explore the idea of providing bison hunters access to 

the northern end of the refuge through the Teton 

Valley Highlands subdivision to either hunter 

retrieval road 6 or 7. 

Fishing 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, our management would emphasize healthy and abundant native fish species with an 

active and aggressive program to remove nonnative 

fishes. The refuge would evaluate the effects of nonnative fish species on native fish species and consider 

alternatives for the removal of nonnative fish. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would add webcams 

on the refuge to provide offsite wildlife-viewing 

opportunities. 

The refuge would impose limits on commercial 

wildlife-viewing tours, including the number of tour 

companies and number of vehicles, to reduce road 

congestion and wildlife disturbance. 

We would increase the photos posted to an electronic media source to provide more wildlife-viewing 

opportunities. This photo collection would also help 

the staff with the many requests the refuge gets 

from publications, Web sites, communication specialists, the media, our regional and national Service 

offices, and other groups for photos of various events 

and scenery. The pictures are accompanied by interpretive text, photo credits, and information about 

when the photo was taken. 

The refuge and the sleigh ride contractor would 

no longer promote Elk Refuge Road for viewing bighorn sheep. 
Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B, except the self-guided interpretive tour 

route would have fewer turnouts and signs to reduce 

habitat disturbance; disturbance would be limited to 

areas that include nonnative vegetation. 

The refuge would offer climate change literature 

through various publications offered for sale by the 

Grand Teton Association. These efforts would be 

enhanced by adding literature generated by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior and our agency. 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center 

58 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Other Uses 

Management of other uses would focus on limiting 

resource effects. 

North Highway 89 Pathway 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

North Park 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, the refuge would not renew the 

memorandum of understanding with the town of 

Jackson when it expires in 2015. Refuge staff would 

restore North Park to native habitat. We would 

develop a self-guided interpretive walk through the 

area, explaining the types of plants and wildlife that 

use the area or similar habitat. 

Mountain Bluebird 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Special Use Permits 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. Also, staff would limit the number of special 

use permits for commercial wildlife-viewing tours to 

reduce traffic and other impacts on Elk Refuge Road 

Access 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Public Outreach 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, outreach would emphasize the 

refuge’s role in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, we would consider land 

exchanges with adjacent Federal agencies. 

Administration 

To administer all aspects of the refuge, we rely on 

our Government-funded budget and the associated 

staff and facilities it supports. In addition, our partners often provide crucial support. 

Funding and Staff 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. Also, we would hire three permanent seasonal interpretive naturalists to increase programs 

for the public, primarily at the visitor center. Programs would include (1) describing the needs and 

benefits of reintroducing large native predators to 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, (2) highlighting 

the nonwinter wildlife on the refuge, and (3) emphasizing the ecological functions and interrelationships 

found in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We 

would add 16.5 FTEs in new positions. 

Facilities 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 
We would undertake a co

of a 3-mile reach of Flat

upstream of the confluence

through the Flat Creek enh

project would be designed to i

for native Snake River cutthr

b). The purpose of the projec

Creek to presettlement form, 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 59 

Elk Refuge Road 

The refuge would work with Teton County to 

cease dust abatement on the road because treatment 

contains high salt levels that draw bighorn sheep. 

The refuge would reduce the footprint of Elk Refuge Road and its turnouts to lessen ground disturbance and restore areas to native vegetation. 

Partnerships 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. We would also prioritize partnerships that 

focus on special natural resource values of the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, such as long-distance migrations from there to the Yukon. Partners 

would help research landscape-scale activities and 

projects that might benefit wildlife traveling outside 

of this ecosystem, such as pronghorn or osprey. 

3.8 Alternative D (Promote

Natural Habitats and Balance 

Public Use)—Proposed Action 

We would strike a balance between management 

activity and allowing natural processes and would 

identify priorities for research and monitoring 

between refuge and ecosystem because more public 

use would still require refuge-specific monitoring. 

The proposed action represents balanced public 

use by providing some increase in developed areas 

while allowing other areas to remain undeveloped or 

to return to a natural state. Public use would emphasize outreach, interpretation, and education over 

recreation involving direct experiences. 

Climate Change 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Habitat 

Management would allow and use natural processes to promote natural habitats. 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush 

Shrublands 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Wetlands 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Riparian Woodlands an

Woodlands Areas 

d Aspen 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, the refuge would mimic the 

natural flow systems in Flat Creek and the Gros Ventre River. Artificial structures such as exclosures 

might be used to support efforts to restore native 

plant communities, but we would likely remove them 

on completion of restoration. Staff would remove the 

shelterbelt and associated exclosure in the headquarters management unit. 

Flat Creek Enhancement 

mprehensive restoration 

 Creek, immediately 

 with Nowlin Creek, 

ancement project. The 

mprove aquatic habitat 

oat trout (Biota 2013a, 

t is not to restore Flat 

but to enhance and stabilize the stream to meet the current demand by visitors, including anglers. We would restore channel 

form and function through (1) the removal of inappropriate instream structures and (2) the construction of stable channel morphology. In addition, we 

would remove infestations of reed canarygrass inside 

a 200-foot buffer on both sides of Flat Creek and 

revegetate with these areas with native species. 

Specific goals of the Flat Creek enhancement 

project follow: 

■■	 Assess existing structures, tree revetments 

(streambank support), and other treatments 

for functionality and habitat values. 

■■ Reduce hazards to anglers and wildlife. 

■■	 Remove, rehabilitate, or replace previously 

installed treatments with more suitable 

treatments. 

■■ Improve channel dynamics and function. 
60 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Specify appropriate stream habitat structures based on lessons learned from failed 

structures. 

■■	 Increase spawning, rearing, and juvenile 


habitat for native Snake River cutthroat 


trout.
 

■■	 Construct appropriate stream morphology 

(based on hydrologic regime and sediment 

inputs) by improving stream processes and 

channel stability. 

■■	 Restore sediment transport continuity 


throughout the reach.
 

■■	 Stabilize severe streambank erosion where 

it jeopardizes project success. 

■■	 Maintain conveyance for all expected discharge rates, including bankfull, 10-year, 

50-year, and 100-year flows. 

■■	 Ensure appropriate floodplain connectivity 

at the bankfull discharge and stage. 

■■	 Provide for continued irrigation and diversion activities such that habitat enhancement and channel restoration activities are 

not jeopardized. 

■■	 Improve aesthetics and recreational
 

opportunities.
 

■■	 Map, treat, and control infestations of reed 

canarygrass. 

Invasive Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Wildlife 

As in alternative C, the emphasis would be maintaining ungulate migrations and large native carnivores. An adaptive management approach would be 

used to evaluate hunting seasons on migratory elk. 

Elk and Bison 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. 

Migratory Birds 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Aquatic Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge would work cooperatively with WGFD and water right holders to design 

and install screen devises that would help prevent 

moving nonnative fish species between distinct subdrainages, especially between the Gros Ventre River 

and Flat Creek at the South Park diversion. The refuge would work cooperatively with WGFD to remove 

more nonnative fishes. 

Disease Management 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Federally and State-Listed 

Species 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Research and Monitoring 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Cultural Resources 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Visitor Services 

Balanced public use would mean some increase in 

developed areas while allowing other areas to return 

to a natural state. 
 the same as alter­

 the same as alter­

 the same as alter­

 the same as alterChapter 3—Alternatives 61 

Hunting 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Fishing 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, the refuge would provide accessible opportunities for fishing. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. In addition, the refuge would impose limits 

on commercial wildlife-viewing tours, including the 

number of tour companies and number of vehicles, to 

reduce road congestion and wildlife disturbance. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Other Uses 

Management of other uses would focus on limiting 

resource effects. 

North Highway 89 Pathway 

Management actions would be

native B. 

North Park 

Management actions would be

native C. 

Special Use Permits 

Management actions would be

native C. 

Access 

Management actions would be

native B. 

Public Outreach 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Administration 

To perform our responsibility to administer all 

aspects of the refuge, we rely on our Governmentfunded budget and the associated staff and facilities 

it supports. In addition, our partners often provide 

crucial support. 

Funding and Staff 

Management actions would be the same as alternative C. 

Facilities 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

Elk Refuge Road 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B, except we would not consider widening the 

road. 

The refuge would reduce the footprint of Elk Refuge Road and its turnouts to lessen the ground disturbance and restore disturbed areas to native 

vegetation. 

Partnerships 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B. 

3.9 Comparison of Alternatives 

and Consequences 

Table 4 summarizes all aspects of management of 

the refuge under alternatives A–D. The actions are 

summarized from the above sections 3.5–3.8, and the 

consequences are described in full in chapter 5. 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Climate change—actions 

Conduct baseline monitoring. 

Rely on partners for climate change information, 

and use it to understand 

local impacts. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Cooperate with the Great 

Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative 

to conduct research and 

monitoring. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Focus management on 

natural processes such as 

fire, hydrology, and ungulate 

grazing. 

Same as alternative C. 

Use efficiencies of the new 

irrigation system. 

Make facilities such as insulation, windows, and water 

heaters energy-efficient. 

Carry out management 

where effects are identified, 

focusing on bison, elk, and 

Federal trust species. 

Engage the public at the 

visitor center and provide 

climate change brochures. 

Climate change—environmental consequences 

Data would be obtained 

from other agencies and scientific organizations that 

monitor and predict the 

effects of climate change on 

wildlife, habitat, and ecosystem functions. 

Not collecting long-term climate change data on the 

refuge might result in 

important changes not 

being detected until there 

were adverse effects on refuge wildlife or habitats. 

Energy efficiency actions 

would lower the refuge’s 

carbon footprint, reduce 

costs and make more money 

available for other programs, and have no adverse 

effects on refuge work. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Involvement with the Great 

Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

might provide fine-scale 

information that directly 

applies to the refuge, providing for better planning 

and management. 

More biological staff would 

be needed for the refuge to 

be involved in climate 

change data collection or 

analysis. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

A functioning natural ecosystem would result in 

resiliency, giving wildlife 

and plant communities the 

ability to respond to a disturbance or changing conditions. 

Limited money and staff 

time expended to achieve 

resiliency without the certainty of success. 

Meeting goals of the Bison 

and Elk Management Plan 

and some visitor services 

might be negatively 

affected if more money and 

staff were not added. 

Same as alternative C. 

Improved public understanding of climate change 

effects on natural resources 

would encourage support 

for adaptive resource management and mitigations. 

62 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Landscape-scale conservation—actions 

Collaborate on land protection efforts with partners, 

and support appropriate 

off-refuge land protection 

projects. 

Participate in the Greater 

Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee to coordinate 

management of Federal 

lands in the ecosystem. 

Coordinate with Teton 

County to review private 

land proposals that might 

adversely affect refuge 

resources. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Consider partnerships to 

build wildlife crossings 

over Highway 89. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Support land protection 

including protection of 

wildlife migration corridors. 

Expand the refuge acquisition boundary to the Twin 

Creek and Spring Gulch 

areas to maintain intact 

ecosystems. 

Same as alternative C. 

Landscape-scale conservation—environmental consequences 

Collaboration agencies and Same as alternative A, plus Same as alternative B, plus Same as alternative C. 

organizations would pro­ wildlife crossings could preserving wildlife migravide more resources for reduce collisions between tion corridors would 

habitat protection that ben­ vehicles and animals. increase genetic exchange 

efit refuge habitats and between wildlife populawildlife. tions to improve the longterm survival of various 

Involvement with the wildlife in the ecosystem. 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee would Intact corridors could 

provide information and become avenues for the 

assistance and resolve man­ spread of invasive plants 

agement controversies, and might require 

helping leverage wildlife increased control efforts. 

and habitat improvement on 

and around the refuge and Strategic fee-title acquisipromote public support of tion next to the refuge 

land management agencies. would provide opportunities to restore native plant 

Partnerships would communities and natural 

increase control of invasive hydrology, increase forage, 

plants across the landscape and reduce conflicts 

to keep the natural vegeta­ between wildlife and prition diversity, which bene­ vate landowners. This 

fits many wildlife species would support wildlife popthat rely on native plants ulations that disperse 

for food and cover. throughout the ecosystem 

during nonwinter months. 

However, the cost would be 

high and impractical based 

on current budgets. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 63 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Restrictive easements 

obtained by private nonprofit land trusts could 

complement management 

on the refuge. 

Emphasis on landscapelevel projects would help 

ecosystem resiliency, but 

would divert money and 

staff time away from refuge-specific work. 

Habitat and Wildlife Goal—Adaptively manage bison, elk, and other wildlife populations and habitats as outlined in the Bison 

and Elk Management Plan. Contribute to the conservation of healthy native wildlife populations and their habitats. Restore and 

sustain a native fishery that provides quality fishing opportunities. 

Native grasslands and sagebrush shrublands—actions 

Control noxious weeds. 

Protect sagebrush shrublands and grasslands from 

degradation and allow 

areas to recover. 

Define desired characteristics of grasslands and sagebrush shrublands. 

Suppress all wildfires, do 

not manage for multiple 

objectives. 

Do not use prescribed fire 

as a management tool. 

Same as alternative A, 

except: 

Carry out habitat projects 

with WGFD and the local 

greater sage-grouse working group. 

Introduce prescribed fire to 

enhance the quantity and 

quality of forage for elk and 

bison, reinvigorate native 

species, and to reduce hazardous fuels. 

Same as alternative B, 

except: 

Emphasize vegetation age 

and structure representative of historical conditions. 

Use wildland fire to achieve 

desired conditions. Emphasize protecting mature, 

dense sagebrush stands 

from wildfires when feasible. 

Conduct habitat treatments 

in greater sage-grouse core 

areas in accordance with 

Wyoming Executive Order 

2011–5. 

Same as alternative C. 

Native grasslands and sagebrush shrublands—environmental consequences 

There would be little transport of noxious weed seeds 

because of minimal vehicle 

traffic. 

Declines in open grassland 

and grassland patches in 

sagebrush stands would 

reduce habitat for birds 

that use these areas. 

Increases in older sagebrush stands would benefit 

birds that use these areas 

but have less use by elk and 

bison. 

Same as alternative A, 

except: 

Native species composition 

would be maintained. 

More management would 

increase the risk of invasive 

plant infestation. 

Older sagebrush stands 

would be reduced compared 

to alternative A, so there 

would be less habitat for 

birds that depend on these 

areas, including less wintering habitat for greater 

sage-grouse. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

Effects from fire would be 

the same as alternative B 

except: 

■■ Wildfires managed 

for benefits would 

more mimic natural fire occurrence 

and its effects on 

native species. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Effects from fire would be 

the same as alternative C. 

64 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

There would be increased 

wintering and nesting habitat for greater sage-grouse, 

but a decline in lek sites and 

brood-rearing habitat. 

There would be fewer 

changes to vegetative composition and structure for 

both resource management 

and hazard fuel reduction 

because wildland fire would 

not used to manipulate 

them. 

Young sagebrush and 

grass-dominated sites 

would increase and benefit 

birds that use these areas 

along with elk and bison. 

There would be decreased 

wintering and nesting habitat for greater sage-grouse, 

but an increase in lek sites 

and brood-rearing habitat. 

Costs and staff time would 

be higher than alternative 

A. 

Decadent stands of vegetation would be invigorated 

through the release of 

nutrients back into soil. 

Hazardous fuels would be 

reduced, leading to possible 

less costly and damaging 

wildfires. 

Prescribed fire may cause a 

temporary reduction in air 

quality but duration would 

be short. 

■■

■■

Wildland fire may 

cause a temporary 

reduction in air 

quality, duration is 

expected to be of 

short. 

Wildland fire to 

functioning more 

in its natural role 

could lead to 

reduced fire suppression and treat ­

ment costs. 

Wetlands—actions 

Maintain artificial ponds 

and natural wetlands for 

trumpeter swans and other 

wildlife. 

Continue the low level of 

monitoring and treatment 

of invasive species. 

Conduct limited prescribed 

burns. 

Suppress all wildfires, do 

not manage for multiple 

objectives. 

Do not use prescribed fire 

as a management tool. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Improve water control 

capability in artificial ponds 

to enhance swan habitat. 

Construct managed ponds 

suitable to support nesting 

swans. 

Increase monitoring and 

control for invasive species 

in natural wetlands. 

Introduce prescribed fire to 

enhance the quantity and 

quality of forage for elk and 

bison, reinvigorate native 

species, and to reduce hazardous fuels. 

Manipulate water levels in 

artificial ponds to mimic 

natural water processes. 

Assess the effects of the 

Gros Ventre River diversion on natural wetlands. 

Restore woody plant communities in natural wetlands. 

Restore beaver to natural 

wetlands. 

Increase monitoring and 

control for invasive species 

in natural wetlands. 

Use wildland fire to achieve 

desired conditions. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Fire would be used the 

same as under alternative 

C. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 65 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Wetlands—environmental consequences 

Manipulated water levels in 

artificial ponds would promote trumpeter swan habitat. 

Wetlands with more invasive species would be less 

valuable to native wildlife. 

Lack of prescribed fire 

would result in no change in 

use of these areas by elk 

and bison. 

There would be fewer 

changes to vegetative composition and structure for 

both resource management 

and hazard fuel reduction 

because wildland fire would 

not used to manipulate 

them. 

Improved water control 

structures and more ponds 

would increase habitat 

quality and quantity for 

trumpeter swans (more 

than the other alternatives). Costs and staff time 

would be much higher than 

alternative A and moderately higher than alternative C. 

The rate of spread of noxious weeds would be slower 

and the control of new invasive species would be much 

higher than alternative A 

(with lower long-term costs 

than alternative A). 

Prescribed burning would 

improve forage quality for 

elk and bison in wet meadows. Stands of vegetation 

would be invigorated 

through the release of 

nutrients back into soil. 

Costs and staff time would 

be substantially higher 

than alternative A and 

moderately higher than 

alternative C. 

Hazardous fuels would be 

reduced, leading to possible 

less costly and damaging 

wildfires. 

Prescribed fire would cause 

a temporary reduction in 

air quality but duration 

would be short. 

Resulting water regimes 

would create swan habitat 

similar to alternative A, 

with less habitat than alternative B. 

The rate of spread of noxious weeds would be slower 

and the control of new invasive species would be much 

higher than alternative A 

(with lower long-term costs 

than alternative A). 

Wildland fire may improve 

forage quality for elk and 

bison in wet meadows more 

than alternative A but less 

than alternative B. Costs 

and staff time would be 

higher than alternative A 

and less than alternative B. 

Wildfires managed for benefits would more mimic natural fire occurrence and its 

effects on native species. 

Wildland fire may cause a 

temporary reduction in air 

quality, duration is 

expected to be of short. 

Wildland fire to functioning 

more in its natural role 

could lead to reduced fire 

suppression and treatment 

costs. 

Beaver ponds (refer to 

riparian woodlands and 

aspen woodlands) would 

increase open water in wet 

meadows and more longterm diversity. 

Same as alternative B plus: 

Fire effects would be the 

same as under alternative 

C. 

Riparian woodlands and aspen woodlands—actions 

Allow natural revegetation Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternatives B and 

as ungulate populations plus: C. 

allow. Use water through irrigation efficiencies to improve Use temporary exclosures 

Evaluate restoration tech­ riparian habitat. to support restoration 

niques along Flat Creek. work. 

66 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Cooperate with the Consider expanded willow Eliminate the jackstraw 

National Park Service on regeneration techniques. willow regeneration projGros Ventre River hydro­ ect. 

logical assessment. Carry out recommendations from the Gros Ventre Remove the shelterbelt and 

Evaluate the jackstraw River hydrologic assess­ exclosure in the headquartechnique to promote wil­ ment. ters management unit. 

low regeneration. 

Fire actions same as under 

Explain to the public why 

this exclosure is not needed 

Suppress all wildfires, do alternative A. but in other areas they are 

not manage for multiple needed. 

objectives. 

Mimic natural flow systems 

Do not use prescribed fire in Flat Creek and the Gros 

as a management tool. Ventre River. 

Riparian woodlands and aspen woodlands—environmental consequences 

With high levels of elk and 

bison browsing, the loss of 

woody plant community 

structure and change in 

some areas to grass-dominated communities would 

continue. 

Elk and bison densities 

would be slightly less than 

currently. 

Some cottonwood regeneration could occur in the Gros 

Ventre River riparian area. 

Costs and staff time would 

be slightly less than alternative B and substantially 

less than alternative C. 

Water diversion by private 

users would continue. 

Water levels and flow rates 

in Flat Creek and the Gros 

Ventre River would be similar to current conditions. 

Stream morphology would 

be similar to current conditions. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Small-scale exclosures and 

jackstraw techniques to 

restore willow and cottonwood would restore only 

slightly more area than 

alternative A and much less 

area than alternative C. 

Costs and staff time would 

be slightly higher than 

alternative A and substantially less than alternative 

C. 

Fire effects same as under 

alternative A. 

If prescribed fire were 

allowed: 

Use would reduce hazardous fuels leading to reduced 

potential of costly and damaging wildfires. 

Use may assist in the restoration of riparian areas. 

Prescribed burning causes 

willows, aspen, and to a 

lesser extent cottonwood to 

re-sprout. Without exclosures, areas that have been 

prescribed burn are subject 

to heavy browsing by elk 

and bison. 

Economic costs to private 

water users would be substantially higher than 

alternatives A and B. 

Allowing wildland fire to 

function more in its natural 

role could lead to reduced 

fire suppression and treatment costs 

The use of wildland fire 

would assist in the restoration of riparian areas. Fire 

causes willows, aspen, and 

to a lesser extent cottonwood to re-sprout. Without 

exclosures, areas that have 

been burned are subject to 

heavy browsing by elk and 

bison. 

Wildland fire may cause a 

temporary reduction in air 

quality. This reduction of 

air quality would generally 

be of longer duration and 

extent than grasslands, 

sagebrush, and wetland 

habitat types. Even though 

fuels within riparian habitat tend to be larger and 

burn for longer periods of 

time, smoke impacts are 

not anticipated to cause 

negative impact to the public. 

Same as alternatives B and 

C. 

Fire effects would be the 

same as under alternative 

C. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 67 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

There would be fewer Prescribed fire would cause 

changes to vegetative com­ a temporary reduction in 

position and structure for air quality. This would 

both resource management generally be of longer duraand hazard fuel reduction tion and extent than grassbecause wildland fire would lands, sagebrush, and 

not used to manipulate wetland habitat types Even 

them. Not using prescribed though fuels within riparfire would lead to no change ian habitat tend to be 

in use by elk and bison. larger and burn for longer 

periods of time, smoke 

impacts are not anticipated 

to cause negative impact to 

the public. 

Flat Creek enhancement—actions 

Monitor 1 mile of construc­ Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus: 

tion work on Flat Creek and 

removal of reed Carry out the Flat Creek 

canarygrass that was com­ enhancement project to 

pleted in 2013. restore channel form and 

function over 3 stream 

miles through removal of 

inappropriate instream 

structures and construction 

of stable channel morphology. 

Remove reed canarygrass 

infestations along the creek 

and revegetate with native 

species. 

Flat Creek enhancement—environmental consequences 

Based on monitoring Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus: 

results, we would use adaptive management strategies The Flat Creek enhanceas needed to increase eco­ ment project would reduce 

logical benefits and better sediment inputs to the 

achieve objectives. watershed, improve stream 

processes, and increase 

habitat for all age classes of 

Snake River cutthroat 

trout. 

Stable streambanks would 

be vegetated with native 

species. 

Invasive species—actions 

Use integrated pest man­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative C. 

agement (biological control, 

mechanical control, grazing, Increase monitoring and Monitor and remove invaand herbicides). rapid response for new 

infestations. 

sive plants that are not 

listed as noxious weeds. 

68 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Prevent transportation of 

invasive plant seeds onto 

the refuge through public 

education, weed-free-hay 

rules, and equipment cleaning. 

Continue limited monitoring. 

Develop large-scale invasive plant eradication programs. 

Invasive species—environmental consequences 

Native plant communities 

would be protected and new 

infestations of invasive species prevented. 

Control work would contain 

an infestation, but it could 

not address large infestations. 

There would be a moderate 

increase in distribution and 

density of weed species in 

wetlands but less risk of 

new infestations because of 

limited vehicle traffic. 

Unlikely to make early 

detection of aquatic invasive species like zebra mussel because of limited 

monitoring. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Locating and treating new 

infestations would be the 

best and most cost-effective 

way to fight the spread of 

invasive plants. 

Large-scale eradication 

would be more effective 

over the long term, but it 

would be more expensive 

and put more herbicide into 

the environment in the 

short term. 

Costs would increase in the 

short term over alternative 

A but be lower in the long 

term. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Dealing with additional 

invasive species would be 

expensive and take many 

years of effort to carry out. 

Costs would be higher. 

Same as alternative C. 

Elk and bison—actions and environmental consequences 

We will carry out the refuge-specific management actions from the Bison and Elk Management Plan, where the 

effects of the actions were analyzed and described. We also developed complementary, specific actions, described in 

the habitats below. 

Migratory birds—actions 

Maintain areas closed to 

public access during the 

bird breeding season. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Increase monitoring to 

establish baseline information on bird species using 

the refuge. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

Increase monitoring to 

establish baseline information on bird species using 

the refuge. 

Use water control structures to mimic natural processes such as typical 

periods of high and low 

water. 

Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 69 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Migratory birds—environmental consequences 

Overall diversity of migra­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternative B. 

tory birds would be rela­ plus: 

tively low. Diversity of migratory 

birds would be slightly Improved habitat quality 

Birds that depend on old, higher than alternative A. would result in the highest 

dense, sagebrush stands diversity of migratory 

would have more habitat. Birds that depend on open birds. 

grasslands and young sageBirds that depend on open brush would benefit from Birds using wet meadows 

grasslands and young sage­ more use of fire to create would have nesting cover 

brush would have less habi­ habitat. intermediate between 

tat. alternatives A and B. 

There would be less nesting 

There would be no change cover for migratory birds in Increased diversity of wetin habitat for wetland- wet meadows. land communities on southdependent birds. ern end of the refuge would 

Costs and staff time for increase habitat for shrubBirds that depend on wil­ monitoring would be much nesting birds compared to 

low, cottonwood, and aspen higher than alternative A. alternatives A and B. 

stands would have less habitat. Birds dependent on riparian woodlands and aspen 

woodlands and woodlands 

would have 500 –1,000 

acres more of willow, 100 

acres more of cottonwood, 

and 1,000 acres more of 

aspen. 

Costs and staff time for 

monitoring would be higher 

than alternative A and similar to alternative B. 

Aquatic species—actions 

Work with WGFD for fish­ Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, Same as alternative A, plus: 

eries services including plus: 

abundance, spawning, and Work with WGFD and 

harvest surveys. Focus sur­ Work with WGFD and water right holders to 

veys on Snake River cut­ water right holders to install fish screens to keep 

throat trout. install fish screens to keep nonnative fishes from movnonnative fishes from mov­ ing between the Gros VenTarget nonnative brook ing between the Gros Ven­ tre River and Flat Creek at 

trout in Flat Creek for tre River and Flat Creek at the South Park diversion. 

removal. the South Park diversion. 

Work with WGFD to Work with WGFD to 

remove more nonnative remove more nonnative 

fishes. fishes. 

Work with WGFD to do 

abundance surveys and 

population trend analysis 

for key native fish species. 

70 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Aquatic species—environmental consequences 

Basic knowledge of native 

trout populations would 

allow for effective fishery 

and harvest management. 

Working with WGFD would 

reduce refuge costs and 

ensure alignment with 

WGFD objectives and regulations. 

Native trout would have 

less competition from nonnative species for food and 

habitat resources if removal 

efforts could substantially 

reduce nonnative trout populations. 

Counting the nonnative 

trout removed would provide data for long-term population trends. 

Some anglers view nonnative trout removals as less 

fishing opportunity and a 

waste of money. 

Amphibian habitat quantity, quality, and distribution would be the same. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

New artificial ponds would 

result in a net increase in 

amphibian habitat compared to alternative A. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

Screens would decrease the 

introduction of nonnative 

trout into Flat Creek. 

Screens would have a high 

initial cost and would likely 

increase maintenance costs 

for the refuge, WGFD, and 

water rights holders. 

Increased removal of nonnative trout would benefit 

native fish and invertebrates. More removal would 

increase WGFD costs and 

further reduce fishing 

opportunities. 

Information about unharvested species could lead to 

enhanced aquatic habitat. A 

new program would 

increase WGFD staff costs, 

do little to improve the 

native trout fishery, and 

might be viewed as being 

too expensive. 

More beaver ponds would 

increase amphibian habitat 

more than alternative A 

and comparable to alternative B. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Screens would decrease the 

introduction of nonnative 

trout into Flat Creek. 

Screens would have a high 

initial cost would likely 

increase maintenance costs 

for the refuge, WGFD, and 

water rights holders. 

Increased removal of nonnative trout would benefit 

native fish and invertebrates. More removal would 

increase WGFD costs and 

further reduce fishing 

opportunities. 

Disease management—actions 

Carry out disease manage­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternative C. 

ment actions in the Bison plus: 

and Elk Management Plan. Develop a comprehensive 

disease contingency plan. Develop a disease continMonitor amphibian popula­ gency plan with WGFD and 

tions for chytrid disease. Grand Teton National Park. 

Do more monitoring for disCoordinate with WGFD to ease. 

detect sick bighorn sheep. 

Concentrate elk and bison 

on the refuge during February and March to reduce 

transmission of brucellosis. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 71 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Complete a contingency 

plan for chronic wasting 

disease and cooperate with 

WGFD on monitoring for 

the disease. 

Disease management—environmental consequences 

There would be less risk of 

brucellosis transmission 

from elk and bison to cattle 

because the feeding process 

reduces the likelihood of 

mixing the wild and domestic herds. 

High herd densities of elk 

and bison on the southern 

end of the refuge would 

increase their disease risk. 

Monitoring of diseases 

would be insufficient to 

detect early outbreaks, 

including in bird populations. 

Monitoring would allow 

early detection of disease in 

amphibian and bighorn 

sheep populations. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

The risk of density-dependent disease in elk and 

bison herds would be the 

lowest of the alternatives. 

The contingency plan would 

result in more monitoring 

and the refuge having a 

better ability to respond to 

disease outbreaks. 

Cost and staff time would 

be higher than alterative A. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

No intervention for native 

disease outbreaks might 

result in negative effects on 

populations and negative 

public relations for letting 

animals die. 

In spite of more monitoring, the lack of response to 

all disease outbreaks would 

not reduce the effects of 

disease on wildlife populations. 

Cost and staff time would 

be higher than alternative 

A and less than alternative 

B. 

Same as alternative C. 

Federally and State-listed species—actions 

Monitor greater sagegrouse, trumpeter swan, 

and long-billed curlew populations. 

Maintain areas closed to 

public access to prevent disturbance of species of concern. 

Coordinate with WGFD 

and the local greater sagegrouse working group on 

greater sage-grouse core 

area strategy for refuge 

activities. 

Based on monitoring, possibly limit management activities in trumpeter swan and 

long-billed curlew breeding 

areas. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

With WGFD, increase monitoring of other State species of greatest 

conservation need. 

Support recovery plan 

goals for federally listed 

species where not in conflict 

with the Bison and Elk 

Management Plan. 

Enhance swan habitat to 

meet population objectives 

of the Trumpeter Swan 

Management Plan and 

increase nesting in areas 

visible to the public. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

Maintain and restore native 

plant communities with 

vegetative structure and 

composition that supports 

natural historical conditions. 

Same as alternative C. 

72 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Limit refuge activities as to 

prevent unnecessary disturbance of threatened and 

endangered species. 

Federally and State-listed species—environmental consequences 

Detection of population Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternative C. 

changes for only greater plus: 

sage-grouse, trumpeter Detection of status changes 

swan, and long-billed cur­ in more Wyoming species of Detection of status changes 

lew would be likely. conservation need would be in more Wyoming species of 

likely. Monitoring costs and conservation need would be 

Greater sage-grouse win­ staff time would be sub­ likely. Monitoring costs and 

tering and nesting habitat stantially higher than alter­ staff time would be subwould increase over time native A. stantially higher than 

but lek and brood rearing alternative A. 

habitat would decline. This Decreased mature sagealternative would have the brush stands would reduce Less burning would protect 

greatest potential to sup­ greater sage-grouse winter dense, mature sagebrush 

port greater sage-grouse. habitat. This alternative stands and result in greater 

would have the lowest sage-grouse wintering habTrumpeter swan productiv­ potential to benefit greater itat comparable to alternaity would be similar to cur­ sage-grouse. tive A. 

rent. 

Wetland improvements and Trumpeter swan productivegg rescue would result in ity would be slightly lower 

the highest productivity of than alternative A and subtrumpeter swan and likeli­ stantially lower than alterhood of meeting nesting native B. 

objectives. 

Research and monitoring—actions 

Monitor whether we are Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternative B. 

meeting the objectives of plus: 

the Bison and Elk Manage­ Increase monitoring of pubment Plan. lic use and other refuge Emphasize the role of the 

programs on habitat and refuge in the Greater YelRely on other agency and wildlife. lowstone Ecosystem and 

nonprofit partners to con­ determine natural product some monitoring. Increase all research and cesses. 

monitoring efforts to 

Gather population data for improve confidence in data. Focus research on landFederal threatened and scape-scale habitat protecendangered species and tion. 

State species of concern. 

Increase all research and 

Develop modeling and deci­ monitoring efforts to 

sion-support tools. improve confidence in data. 

Determine the effects of Evaluate population status 

public use and other refuge for species about which litprograms on habitat and tle is known, such as inverwildlife. tebrates and small 

mammals. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 73 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Research and monitoring—environmental consequences 

Get data about only the Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative B. 

highest biological priorities. 

More information would be More data would be availMarginal confidence levels available about the effects able about the refuge 

in data would provide lim­ of public use on wildlife and within the ecosystem. 

ited information. habitats. 

Cost and staff time would 

Researchers and marked Increased confidence in be higher than alternative 

animals would be a short- data might result in better A and comparable to alterduration detraction from management decisions. native B. 

quality wildlife observation. 

Cost and staff time would 

be higher than alternative 

A. 

With more activity, 

researchers and marked 

animals would have a 

greater effect than alternative A on visitors during 

wildlife observation. 

Cultural Resources Goal—Preserve and interpret cultural resources in a way that allows visitors to connect to the area’s rich 

history and conservation heritage. 

Cultural resources—actions 

Protect cultural resources. Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

Develop a walking interIdentify cultural resources pretive trail around Miller 

through archaeological sur­ Ranch. 

veys before ground disturbance. Work with partners to stabilize structural problems 

Prohibit public access to on the Miller Barn and use 

known archaeological sites. it for interpretation. 

Open the historic Miller Restore other Miller Ranch 

Ranch seasonally to the buildings as needed. 

public for interpretation 

and rely solely on volun­ Seek money for interpretteers to staff and run it. ers at Miller House. 

Cultural resources—environmental consequences 

Cultural resources would Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

be protected from vandal­ Visitors could learn about 

ism and theft. the historic value of the 

Miller Ranch when walking 

Preconstruction resource the interpretive trail. 

inventories and assessments would protect any Construction of the trail 

archaeological resources and installation of signs 

and reduce the probability would disturb some soil and 

of a costly work stoppage. vegetation. 

74 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Limiting access to known 

archaeological sites would 

reduce site disturbance and 

loss of artifacts. 

The public could visit and 

learn about the historic 

Miller Ranch in summer. 

Reduced hours due to lack 

of staff would reduce visitor 

opportunities as well as 

revenue from items sold by 

the Grand Teton Association. The Miller Barn would 

continue to deteriorate 

without money for restoration. 

Use of the trail might put 

visitors nearer closed areas 

and result in trespass that 

disturbs waterfowl. 

The historic Miller Barn 

would be restored in cooperation with partners and 

retain its historical value as 

well as providing another 

interpretive facility. 

Visitors to Miller Ranch 

would receive enhanced 

programs provided by permanent or seasonal interpreters. 

Visitor Services Goal—Enable a diverse audience to understand and appreciate the refuge’s wildlife conservation role in Jackson Hole, while safely enjoying year-round opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Hunting—actions 

Provide elk and bison hunting consistent with the 

Bison and Elk Management 

Plan. 

Adaptively revise elk and 

bison hunting regulations to 

achieve herd size objectives. 

Accommodate hunters with 

disabilities and offer a special elk hunt for young people. 

Promote voluntary use of 

lead-free ammunition. 

Allow game retrieval from 

the national forest through 

the refuge. 

Allow a ceremonial tribal 

hunt of bison (up to five 

bison per year). 

Prohibit hunting of any 

wildlife other than elk and 

bison. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Expand hunting opportunities for young people, and 

develop a hunter mentoring 

program. 

Consider adding a committed refuge hunting opportunity and a bull elk hunt. 

Pursue access for bison 

hunters to the northern end 

of the refuge through the 

Teton Valley Highlands 

subdivision. 

Develop regulations for 

storage of bear attractants 

and bear-deterrent practices and encourage carry 

of bear spray. 

Conduct hunter checkpoints, surveys, and mandatory reporting of tag use to 

better manage hunting. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

Open the closed area on the 

southern and western end 

of the refuge to archery 

hunting. Add archery 

hunter access at the Jackson National Fish Hatchery. 

Create bison hunter access 

to the northern end of the 

refuge through the Teton 

Valley Highlands subdivision. 

Require the use of leadfree ammunition. 

Develop regulations for 

storage of bear attractants 

and bear-deterrent practices and require carry of 

bear spray. 

Conduct hunter checkpoints, surveys, and mandatory reporting of tag use 

to better manage hunting. 

Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 75 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Allow guided hunting under Consider hunting of species Consider hunting of species 

special use permit to other than elk and bison to other than elk and bison to 

increase harvest success to address management address management 

support herd size objec­ needs. needs. 

tives. 

Hunting—environmental consequences 

There would be insufficient 

harvest to meet objectives 

of the Bison and Elk Management Plan. 

Easier retrieval would 

encourage more hunting. 

Scavenging birds would be 

at risk of lead poisoning, 

because more than 60% of 

hunters would not use leadfree ammunition. 

Hunters with disabilities 

and young hunters would 

take advantage of special 

programs. 

American Indians would 

continue their ceremonial 

hunt. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

More opportunities could 

increase the number of 

nonlocal hunters. 

Opening closed areas would 

keep elk from building up 

in areas where they would 

be less susceptible to harvest. 

More access for bison hunters could increase harvest 

and help meet herd objectives. Subdivision residents 

might not support 

increased traffic. 

More elk and bison use in 

improved habitat would 

increase hunter opportunity and the likelihood of 

meeting elk and bison population objectives. 

More young people would 

be attracted to better hunting during mid-season of 

the regular hunt. Adult 

hunters might have less 

opportunity at this time. 

Nonhunters might be alienated because of more visible harvest in opened areas 

near Jackson, a bull elk 

harvest, and a predator 

harvest. Elk-viewing 

opportunities might 

decrease along Highway 89. 

Requiring bear spray could 

provide a safer environment for hunters, communities, and bears but would 

increase cost to hunters. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

More opportunities could 

increase the number of 

nonlocal hunters. 

Opening closed areas would 

keep elk from building up 

in areas where they would 

be less susceptible to harvest. 

More access for bison hunters could increase harvest 

and help meet herd objectives. Subdivision residents 

might not support 

increased traffic. 

Elk and bison use, intermediate between alternatives 

A and B, in improved habitat would increase hunter 

opportunity and the likelihood of meeting elk and 

bison population objectives. 

Nonhunters might be alienated because of more visible harvest in opened areas 

near Jackson, a bull elk 

harvest, and a predator 

harvest. Elk-viewing 

opportunities might 

decrease along Highway 89. 

Requiring bear spray could 

provide a safer environment for hunters, communities, and bears but would 

increase cost to hunters. 

Requiring lead-free ammunition would protect scavenging birds from lead 

poisoning but would 

increase cost to hunters. 

Same as alternative B. 

76 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

There would be better data There would be better data 

for managing hunts and for managing hunts and 

increasing harvest. increasing harvest. 

Outreach about hunting Outreach about hunting 

would educate the public on would educate the public on 

the need and purpose for the need and purpose for 

this recreational activity. this recreational activity. 

There would be higher There would be higher 

equipment costs and more equipment costs and more 

labor needed. labor needed. 

Fishing—actions 

Provide fishing during daylight hours. 

Maintain fishing access 

along Highway 89 and parking turnouts on upper Flat 

Creek. 

According to seasons and 

regulations set by WGFD, 

open these areas to fishing: 

Gros Ventre River, upper 

Flat Creek, and Sleeping 

Indian Pond. 

Close these areas to fishing: 

all other refuge ponds, Flat 

Creek downstream from 

the old Crawford Bridge 

site, and Nowlin Creek 

upstream from the posted 

fishing boundary. 

Issue special use permits 

for guided fishing on Flat 

Creek only. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Sponsor Kids’ Fishing Day 

with Jackson National Fish 

Hatchery and WGFD. 

Develop a fishing program 

for young people including 

a mentoring program. 

Open gates to lower Flat 

Creek at daylight on opening day to maintain the 

daylight-only fishing 

restriction. 

Construct accessible fishing 

platform on Flat Creek. 

Allow guided fishing under 

special use permit on lower 

Flat Creek only. 

Increase habitat and waterflow management for 

increased fishing opportunity for native fishes. 

Enhance fisheries with fish 

screens to help native species in Gros Ventre River. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Provide more support for 

native fish species. 

Do aggressive removal of 

nonnative fishes. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Provide accessible opportunities for fishing. 

Fishing—environmental consequences 

Stream morphology, fisheries habitat, access, and 

angler opportunity would 

be similar to current conditions. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

More young people would 

be exposed to fishing, and 

these programs would take 

more staff time. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 77 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Areas closed to fishing Opening the Flat Creek Because of riparian area Because of riparian area 

would protect waterfowl access gates at daylight on improvement, the fisheries improvement, the fisheries 

breeding areas, specifically August 1 would be consis­ habitat quantity and qual­ habitat quality and quantity 

trumpeter swan nest sites. tent with refuge regula­ ity and angler opportunity and angler opportunity 

tions. would be the highest among would be higher in Flat 

the alternatives in the Gros Creek than alternatives A 

More people would be able Ventre River. In Flat and C. In the Gros Ventre 

to reach Flat Creek to fish Creek, these effects would River, these effects would 

off an accessible platform. be similar to alternative A be similar to alternative A 

and lower than alternative 

Charging a fee and restrict­ C. 

ing the number of permits 

for guided fishing would 

strengthen the enforceability of permits and reduce 

crowding. Fees might 

impact the outfitters. 

Fish screens on the Gros 

Ventre River might prevent 

migration of rainbow trout 

into the Flat Creek cutthroat population. 

Fisheries habitat improvement and angler opportunity in Flat Creek would be 

greater than alternative A 

and similar to alternative A 

in the Gros Ventre River. 

Wildlife observation and photography—actions 

Maintain access to turn- Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternative B, plus: 

outs, trails, and other Develop trail pulloffs along plus: 

observation sites including the North Highway 89 Set limits for commercial 

these primary sites: Pathway. Set limits for commercial wildlife-viewing companies. 

wildlife-viewing companies. 

■■ visitor center Develop a prominent accesviewing platform sible access route from the Use webcams for wildlife-

■■ Burt Raynes visitor center to the exist- viewing opportunities 

Boardwalk and ing remote-viewing plat­ including watching swans 

remote-viewing form.
 nesting. 

platform
 

■■ turnout north of 
 Develop an accessible Expand the photo gallery 

the visitor center boardwalk with a photo on the refuge Web site. 

■■ elk jump turnout blind through disturbed 

on Highway 89 wetlands near the visitor 

■■ North Highway 89 center. 

Pathway 

Use webcams for wildlifeOpen Elk Refuge Road and viewing opportunities such 

Flat Creek Road May 1– as watching swans nesting. 

November 30. Develop a wildlife checklist. 

78 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Open 3.5 miles of Elk Refuge Road for winter wildlife observation December 

1–April 30. 

Allow wildlife-touring companies to operate through 

special use permit. 

Continue contracted sleigh 

rides. 

Use Web-based photo-sharing sites for refuge photos. 

Wildlife observation and photography—environmental consequences 

Local and nonlocal visitors 

would use existing facilities 

to observe wildlife and take 

photos. 

Effects on wildlife would be 

minimal because visitor use 

would be limited to areas 

that are already disturbed. 

User conflicts on the narrow North Highway 89 

Pathway could continue. 

Use of the remote-viewing 

platform would be low, 

because visitors would continue to be hesitate about 

crossing the visitor center 

lawn to access the platform. 

People unable to visit the 

refuge could still enjoy 

views of the scenery and 

wildlife through a refuge 

photo gallery. 

Visitors would have opportunities for wildlife-viewing 

on commercial tours. Permit stipulations would 

ensure safe operations and 

reduce effects to wildlife. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

With new trail pulloffs 

along the North Highway 

89 Pathway, there would be 

fewer conflicts among 

users. 

More visitors would use the 

viewing platform at the visitor center via the new path 

across the lawn. Construction could temporarily 

affect wetlands and soil. 

Use of the path might disturb nesting geese on the 

lawn: 

The new boardwalk would 

enhance the visitor experience with a longer walk for 

observation, and photographers could use a photo 

blind. Construction and 

maintenance would disturb 

wildlife for short periods. 

Cost would be substantial. 

Webcams would let people 

enjoy the refuge without 

having to be onsite. There 

would be minor soil effects 

for installation and maintenance. Technical support 

for webcam malfunctions 

may not be available. 

Same as alternative A, 

plus: 

Limiting tour companies 

would reduce traffic congestion and wildlife disturbance. 

Enforcing limited tour 

companies would increase 

costs. Demand for tours 

would not be met. There 

could be reduced income for 

some tour companies. 

Web cams would let people 

enjoy the refuge without 

having to be onsite. There 

would be minor soil effects 

for installation and maintenance. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Limiting tour companies 

would reduce traffic congestion and wildlife disturbance. 

Enforcing limited tour companies would increase costs. 

Demand for tours would not 

be met. There could be 

reduced income for some 

tour companies. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 79 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Contracted sleigh rides 

would provide unique viewing opportunities while 

reducing stress to wintering wildlife, particularly 

elk: 

■■	 Some of the money 

would return to 

the refuge and be 

used to hire winter 

naturalists who 

would provide 

school and other 

programs. 

■■	 Increased visitation would contribute to the local 

sales tax revenue. 

■■	 The public and 

media would get 

refuge photos from 

a Web site, reducing staff time on 

requests. 

Environmental education and interpretation—actions 

Provide education programs with nongovernment-funded winter-season 

naturalists to meet demand 

during the school year. 

Offer spring and summer 

programs with local or residential volunteers when 

possible. 

Continue contracted sleigh 

rides. 

Assess and replace as 

needed aging and outdated 

refuge signs. 

Continue contracted sleigh 

rides. 

Use the North Highway 89 

Pathway to interpret wetland values and other messages. 

Develop a self-guided, 

interpretive tour route on 

Elk Refuge Road. 

Assess visitor preferences 

and update the current refuge video or produce 

shorter videos. 

Stabilize and restore Miller 

Barn for use as an interpretive site. 

Offer improved programs 

at the visitor center, Miller 

House, and offsite areas 

with more permanent or 

seasonal interpreters. 

Same as alternative B, 

except: 

Reduce turnouts and signs 

along the interpretive tour 

route. 

Limit disturbance to areas 

with nonnative vegetation. 

Same as alternative B. 

80 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Promote understanding of 

invasive species control and 

prescribed fire as a management tool. 

Increase public education 

about refuge’s migratory 

bird use and why areas are 

closed during breeding. 

Environmental education and interpretation—environmental consequences 

Nonmotorized use of North Visitors could learn about Same as alternative B, Same as alternative B. 

Highway 89 Pathway would the refuge resources except: 

increase opportunities for through interpretation at 

environmental education pulloffs along the North Disturbance would be limand interpretation. Highway 89 Pathway and 

along the Elk Refuge Road 

ited to areas that include 

nonnative vegetation. 

Seasonal naturalists, as interpretive tour route. 

many as unpredictable 

amounts of private money Visitor center videos would 

would fund, would provide engage visitors and explain 

programs in schools. the different roles of 

national wildlife refuges, 

Volunteers, as available, national parks, and national 

would provide service to forests and describe the 

visitors at the visitor center Greater Yellowstone Ecoand present education and system. 

interpretation programs. 

People would learn more 

Using volunteers is not a about the refuge through 

stable workforce because of contacts with an increased 

the small local population to permanent staff. 

draw from, lack of housing 

for nonlocal volunteers, and Costs would be higher for 

need for continual training more staff and interpretive 

of new people that work materials. 

limited hours. 

Contracted sleigh rides 

would provide unique learning opportunities and 

reduce stress to wintering 

wildlife, particularly elk. 

Visitor center—actions 

Pay most operational and Use partner contributions Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

maintenance costs for the to help with visitor center 

multi-agency visitor center operations. 

and staff with one full-time 

visitor center manager. Document and evaluate the 

building condition and 

Partner agencies provide maintenance issues. 

minimal staff at the information desk. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 81 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Rehabilitate, expand, 

remodel, or replace the 

existing building or build a 

new visitor center. 

Visitor center—environmental consequences 

The visitor center would A fully operational visitor Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

remain open but might have center would be adequately 

reduced hours because of staffed and maintained. 

lack of money and staff. 

A new visitor center would 

Reduced hours would limit enhance the flow of visitors 

public services and lower in the center, provide inforrevenue at Grand Teton mation and interpretation, 

Association’s sales outlet. and address safety issues 

and accessibility deficienVisitors would not have cies. 

opportunities to learn about 

the refuge because the visitor center manager would 

not have time to develop 

adequate programs. 

North Highway 89 Pathway—actions 

Allow nonmotorized and Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

pedestrian use. 

Use during the open season 

Prohibit pets and horses. for resource interpretation. 

Continue to close the pathway seasonally from Work with county to evaluNovember 1 through April ate pathway effects on habi30. tat and wildlife, adjust 

seasonal use as needed. 

Apply criteria and determine yearly whether to 

open the pathway as early 

as April 15 when spring 

arrives unusually early. 

North Highway 89 Pathway—environmental consequences 

Public would have opportu­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

nities for wildlife observation and photography. People on the pathway 

would have access to an 

Prohibiting pets and horses interpretive experience. 

would limit disturbance to 

wildlife, particularly nest­ There would be added staff 

ing waterfowl and other time and costs for signage 

birds adjacent to pathway. and facilities. 

The seasonal closure would Data on wildlife movement 

protect elk migration corri­ across the pathway would 

dors and prevent distur­ help the refuge adjust use 

bance to wintering elk and as needed to protect wildother wildlife. life and keep people safe. 

82 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Regulations would be 

enforced by Teton County 

with a substantial public 

outreach effort by staff. 

North Park—actions 

Continue the partnership Continue the partnership Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative B. 

with Jackson to manage with Jackson to manage 

North Park under the cur­ North Park and revise the Let the memorandum 

rent memorandum of memorandum of under­ expire in 2015 and do not 

understanding, including standing to do away with renew it. 

reservations and fee collec­ the reservation and fee coltion. lection system for the picnic 

shelter. 

Restore native habitat and 

provide an interpretive 

nature walk. 

North Park—environmental consequences 

The reservation and fee collection system for the picnic 

shelter would not comply 

with agency policy. 

Weddings would be common and could reduce parking for refuge visitors. 

There would no longer be a 

reservation system, which 

would comply with policy. 

Some of the public might be 

unhappy about not being 

able to reserve the picnic 

shelter. 

Jackson would lose revenue 

from the refuge picnic shelter but that might be offset 

by more reservations 

within the town limits. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Interpretation in a more 

natural setting would add 

to visitors’ experiences. 

More native habitat would 

increase the habitat value 

for most breeding birds, 

except Canada geese. 

There would be initial costs 

to restore North Park to 

native habitat. 

Same as alternative B. 

Special uses—actions 

Issue special use permits 

for guided hunting and fishing, hunting retrieval services, commercial 

wildlife-viewing tours, professional photography and 

videography, and research. 

Include special conditions in 

special use permits to 

reduce effects on the 

resources and other activities. Decide on an individual 

basis if access would be 

allowed in closed areas. 

Deny requests to hold weddings at the Miller House. 

Prohibit precedent-setting 

special access requests that 

would be difficult to manage. 

Same as alternative A, 

except: 

Charge fees when issuing 

special use permits for 

commercial uses. 

Consider issuing special 

use permits to wildlife tour 

companies. 

Do not allow weddings on 

the refuge. 

Restrict or eliminate competitive events. 

Phase out commercial 

horseback trail riding 

within 5 years. Control 

invasives for 5 years after 

use has been phased out or 

until they are eradicated. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Limit the number of special 

use permits for wildlifeviewing tours to reduce 

traffic and other impacts on 

Elk Refuge Road. 

Same as alternative C. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 83 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Allow commercial horseback trail rides along 1 mile 

segment of the Gros Ventre 

River as resources allow. 

Prohibit additional commercial horseback trail 

rides. 

Annually monitor commercial horseback riding trail 

and adjacent Gros Ventre 

River for invasive plant 

species. Treat new infestations before they expand 

and become a seed source 

that can be transported 

downstream on the refuge 

along the Gros Ventre 

River. 

Special uses—environmental consequences 

More activities that the refuge could not otherwise 

provide increase outreach 

about the refuge. 

Many commercial film companies would have access as 

staff time allowed. 

Research would collect and 

share information beneficial 

to the refuge. 

No weddings would happen 

at Miller House to comply 

with agency policy. Some 

public might be upset. 

There would be consistency 

in consideration of requesters of special use permits. 

Permit requirements would 

ensure uses have very little 

effect on other refuge 

resources and activities. 

Monitoring for and controlling new invasive plant 

infestations should prevent 

expansion on the refuge or 

Grand Teton National Park 

along Gros Ventre River. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Fee collection would offset 

administrative costs of special use permits and be consistent with other land 

management agencies. 

Wildlife tour companies 

under permit to provide 

interpretation could 

increase public understanding of refuge purposes and 

management. 

No weddings would happen 

on the refuge to comply 

with agency policy. Some 

public might be upset. 

Eliminating commercial 

horseback riding will prevent one possible source of 

invasive plant introduction 

along the Gros Ventre 

River. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Limiting commercial operators would help reduce traffic congestion and reduce 

wildlife disturbance on Elk 

Refuge Road. 

Fewer tours might not be 

able to meet public demand. 

Tour companies not 

selected for special use permits might have negative 

economic impacts. 

Same as alternative C. 

84 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Soil erosion along commercial horseback riding trail 

would be minimal. 

General access and Elk Refuge Road—actions 

From May 1 to November Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

30, keep open to the public 

Elk Refuge Road, Flat Consider more hunter 

Creek Road, and the Curtis access and designated 

Canyon Road. parking lots for bison 

hunter access on the northFrom December 1 to April ern end of the refuge and 

30, keep open to the public archery hunter access on 

the southern 3.5 miles of the western boundary of 

Elk Refuge Road. the refuge. 

General access and Elk Refuge Road—environmental consequences 

Wildlife, especially elk and Bison harvest may increase Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

bison, would be protected if additional hunter access 

from human disturbance can be established on the 

during the critical winter northern end of the refuge. 

season. 

Elk harvest would likely 

Wildlife-viewing and pho­ increase because nonhunttography opportunities ing sanctuaries on the 

would be available along the western edge of the refuge 

southern end of the refuge. would be eliminated. 

Access to the national forest—actions 

Continue to allow overnight Same as alternative A, Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

parking on Elk Refuge except: 

Road on April 30 for access 

to antler collection on the Prohibit overnight parking 

national forest. and camping associated 

with antler collection on the 

Limit access to the national national forest: 

forest to Crystal Butte, Dry 

Hollow, and Sheep Creek. ■■ On May 1, consider 

opening the access 

Review access to the gate later in the 

national forest from the day than other 

“jump cliff” site and coordi­ national forest 

nate any actions with adja­ access gates. 

cent landowners. ■■ Encourage the 

national forest to 

Allow winter users limited sign an egress 

access on a trail to the route to prevent 

national forest’s Goodwin trespass in the 

Lake Ski Cabin. Issue spe­ Twin Creek subdicial use permits for access vision for users of 

to reach the trail and plow a Goodwin Lake Ski 

parking area. Cabin on national 

forest land. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 85 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

■■ Ask the national 

forest to issue special use permits 

for parking on the 

refuge for users of 

the Goodwin Lake 

Ski Cabin on 

national forest 

land. 

Access to the national forest—environmental consequences 

Limited access would pro­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

vide customer service while 

protecting resources, which There would be less tresdemonstrates interagency pass on private property by 

cooperation. skiers using the egress 

route when leaving the 

Minor wildlife disturbance, national forest cabin. 

mainly of elk, would occur 

from people passing Permit administration 

through the refuge to the would shift to the national 

national forest cabin. forest, where the activity 

primarily occurs, and 

Staff would take time away reduce the refuge staff 

from refuge duties to issue workload. 

permits for an unrelated 

refuge activity. Staff duties 

and costs would increase in 

late April to manage the 

May 1 event. 

Closing “jump cliff” access 

to the national forest would 

decrease use in this area. 

Public outreach—actions 

Distribute news releases 

and articles about visitor 

opportunities, refuge management, and research. 

Maintain an email contact 

list of elected officials, partners, key community and 

business leaders, and 

agency contacts. 

Keep the refuge Web site 

current. 

Conduct media interviews. 

Use refuge leadership in an 

ambassadorial role in the 

community. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Use more electronic media. 

Provide outreach on managing for migratory birds, 

wildlife disease, hunting, 

fishing, and changes that 

restrict or eliminate overnight parking, weddings, 

and competitive events. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Provide outreach about the 

refuge’s role in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Same as alternative B. 

86 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Provide outreach about refuge programs including 

management of elk and 

bison and refuge management practices. 

Public outreach—environmental consequences 

A wide variety of internal 

and external audiences 

would be current on visitor 

opportunities and management activities. 

The public would understand elk and bison behavior, population fluctuations, 

and relationships to other 

species. 

Refuge users and critics 

would better understand 

use of the hunting program 

for management of wildlife 

populations and as a Refuge 

System priority use. 

Educating anglers to harvest nonnative trout would 

help agency efforts to 

improve the native trout 

fisheries. 

A leadership role in the 

community and with partners would require staff 

time. 

There would be limited outreach information because 

of insufficient staff and reliance on seasonal staff and 

volunteers. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

More people would be 

reached by using social 

media. 

People would learn about 

migratory birds and the 

importance of area closures 

during nesting. 

Antler collectors on the 

national forest would 

understand the change in 

refuge restrictions on overnight parking. 

People with authority to 

perform weddings would be 

aware that the refuge is not 

available. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

The public would better 

understand coordination 

between land managers in 

the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem. 

Same as alternative B. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal—Provide for the safety, security, and protection of visitors, 

employees, natural and cultural resources, and facilities throughout the refuge. 

Visitor and employee safety—actions 

Emphasize employee and 

visitor safety. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Increase law enforcement 

during hunting season. 

Develop strategies with 

WGFD to increase hunter 

safety. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 87 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Revoke hunting permits 

when violations occur. 

Provide personal protective 

equipment and safety training for refuge staff. 

Consider designating offroad parking at the 

entrance with a relocated 

entrance kiosk. 

Visitor and employee safety—environmental consequences 

Safety programs would Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

have positive effects on visi- More enforcement of regutors and employees. lations and coordination 

with WGFD during hunting 

season would keep a good 

safety record. 

More enforcement staff 

would increase costs. 

Resource protection—actions 

Law enforcement staff pro­ Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative C. 

tects natural and cultural Increase law enforcement 

resources, refuge facilities, patrols in April. Consider land exchanges 

visitors, and employees. 

Develop methods to detect 

with adjacent Federal 

agencies. 

With few law enforcement illegal taking of wildlife 

employees at the refuge, and wildlife parts. 

rely on the Teton County 

Sheriff’s Office, National Increase staff and develop 

Park Service, WGFD, and shift coverage for high visitemporarily detailed law tor use seasons. 

enforcement staff from 

within our agency. Increase enforcement of 

regulations related to the 

Elk Refuge Road. 

Resource protection—environmental consequences 

Most major wildlife More backcountry and Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative C. 

resource violations would boundary patrol efforts in 

be prevented. April would deter refuge 

trespass and illegal 

Land exchanges would simplify the refuge’s external 

Backcountry violations removal of shed elk antlers boundaries. Hunters would 

would likely be missed and and other wildlife parts. be able to better undercould result in loss of stand their location and 

resources, because law More staff might increase comply with refuge-specific 

enforcement staff would be hunter and angler use data regulations. Exchanges 

insufficient to expand patrol that could be used to guide would be costly and timeoperations into these areas. future management. 

Increased staff, equipment, 

and patrol activity would 

have a higher cost. 

consuming. 

88 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

As visitor services 

expanded, the ability to 

protect the refuge 

resources would decline. 

Administration Goal—Provide facilities and effectively use and develop staff resources, funding, partnerships, and volunteer 

opportunities to maintain the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge. 

Funding and staff—actions 

Keep current funding and Increase refuge base fund­ Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative C. 

staff of 10.5 FTE positions. ing by $200,000 to replace 

private contributions. 

Add 1.5 FTEs including: 

Rely on nongovernmental Add 15 FTE positions: ■■ three permanent 

partnership money to hire seasonal interpre12 seasonal employees as ■■ five permanent tive naturalists 

irrigators, feed operators, full-time employand naturalists. ees (biological 

technician, rangeRely on 20 volunteers for land specialist, 

visitor services and 1 volun­ environmental 

teer for biology fieldwork. education specialist, law enforceUse two National Park Ser­ ment officer, and 

vice employees for hunting maintenance 

law enforcement patrol. supervisor) 

■■ nineteen permaUse eight law enforcement nent seasonal 

staff members of our employees (irrigaagency on detail to the ref­ tors, feed operauge to manage the opening tors, naturalists, 

of antler collection on the and visitor center 

national forest. staff) 

Hire more staff if money is Continue to rely on volunavailable. teers to enhance work. 

Funding and staff—environmental consequences 

Current funding and staff Added staff would increase Same as alternative B, plus: Same as alternative C. 

would be insufficient to con­ management capabilities: 

duct programs and achieve More environmental educarefuge goals. ■■ More field data 

and staff expertise 

tion and interpretation 

would be presented on and 

■■ Refuge objectives would help man­ off the refuge, year-round, 

could be achieved age elk and bison with a focus on ecosystem 

only through herds. functions. 

money from pri­ ■■ Native plant plots 

vate organizations would provide a More people would underand the efforts of long-term seed stand refuge programs and 

volunteers. Use of source for learn about refuge wildlife 

volunteers and management. in the ecosystem in addition 

seasonal employ­ to elk and bison. 

ees would increase 

the supervisory 

workload for permanent staff. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 89 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

■■ Unpredictable ■■ Efficient irrigation 

funding could would increase 

reduce the hiring forage production 

of seasonal law and reduce the 

enforcement offi­ need for supplecers, which could mental feeding. 

result in a scaled­ ■■ Public safety and 

back hunting pro- wildlife protection 

gram. This would would increase 

reduce the harvest during hunting 

of elk and bison season. 

making it difficult ■■ Visitor services 

to balance habitat would have strong 

and herd sizes. programs that 

■■ The value of long- provide education 

term monitoring and benefits to the 

efforts could be public year-round. 

severely reduced if 

there were not Private money would 

enough staff or enhance refuge managevolunteers to con­ ment. 

tinue data collection. This could 

negatively affect 

our ability to make 

management decisions based on 

sound science. 

Working with partners providing private money would 

get citizens to support refuge management. 

Facilities—actions 

Maintain key operational 

and visitor services infrastructure and other facilities as funding allows. 

Provide housing for staff 

and volunteers as available. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Add up to five family 

houses and more seasonal 

housing. 

Develop bear regulations 

(food and trash handling) 

for resident employees and 

volunteers. 

Demolish and replace existing elk trap with a prefabricated elk trap that can be 

assembled anywhere. 

Relocate or demolish and 

replace in a new location 

the Calkins House when 

money is available. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

90 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Facilities—environmental consequences 

The public would get information and services at functioning, maintained refuge 

buildings. 

Maintained and restored 

historical buildings would 

retain their value and 

potential as interpretive 

sites. 

Employees housed on the 

refuge would help us retain 

qualified staff, increase 

security, provide wildlife 

observations, and ensure 

access to equipment. These 

employees would shop in 

Jackson, adding to the 

town’s revenue. 

Bears might be attracted to 

refuge houses and become 

habituated. The bears could 

cause personal or property 

damage, which would 

require the removal or 

destruction of the bears. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Highly qualified staff could 

be recruited because 

affordable housing would 

be available. Houses would 

reduce open space and 

might be perceived negatively by surrounding residents. 

Food handling regulations 

would prevent bears from 

becoming habituated to 

human food rewards. 

High-powered rifles would 

be used in the removed 

Calkins House area for elk 

and bison hunting; 

increased harvest could 

help meet herd size objectives. The incidental observation of wildlife and law 

enforcement violations by 

employees living in the 

house would be eliminated. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

Elk Refuge Road—actions 

Provide access for staff, the Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternative B. 

public, and private land­ plus: 

owners year-round. Add new signing to prohibit 

stopping or parking on or Reduce the number of turnProvide seasonal access to along the road, and add outs. 

the national forest. interpretive signing. 

Work with Teton County to 

Enforce a no-stopping regu­ Develop a self-guided, stop dust abatement. 

lation to prevent road interpretive tour route on 

obstruction to other vehicu­ Elk Refuge Road and Flat 

lar traffic. Creek Road. 

Teton County provides dust Maintain the road at a high 

abatement during summer standard in summer during 

months. heavy visitation. Enhance 

traffic signs and install 

Plow snow out of turnouts speed limit signs north of 

to encourage vehicles to the Curtis Canyon Road. 

move off the road to view 

wildlife. Work with Teton County to 

modify dust abatement. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 91 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Improve and increase the 

number of turnouts for winter use. Increase winter 

road maintenance. 

Work with Teton County on 

ways to create more room 

for all road users. 

Increase enforcement of 

current regulations. 

Elk Refuge Road—environmental consequences 

There could be more traffic Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative A, Same as alternative B. 

incidents and spread of plus: 

invasive plants from Enforcing no roadside 

increased visitor and tour parking would prevent cre­ Reducing the number of 

vehicles. ation of unwanted parking 

areas and associated disturnouts would decrease 

soil disturbance, reduce the 

Enforcing the no-stopping turbance to vegetation. risk of spreading invasive 

in the roadway regulation plants, and reduce the cost 

could relieve the traffic con­ Visitors would learn about and need for snowplowing. 

gestion. refuge wildlife and management on the interpretive Visitors would not have a 

Turnouts would not have tour route. safe alternative for parking 

enough capacity to accom­ and wildlife viewing with 

modate all visitors and Road maintenance would fewer turnouts. 

might not be located in the improve human safety. 

best viewing locations. 

More turnouts would proEnding dust abatement 

would keep bighorn sheep 

Trailhead parking would vide safe areas for dispersed away from the 

spill onto the road during improved wildlife viewing. road: 

hunting season, which could Turnouts and widening the 

give the perception of favor­ road would disturb native ■■	 Human–wildlife 

itism to hunters and plant communities and cre­ conflicts would be 

increase conflict between ate habitat loss. There reduced. 

wildlife observers and would be increased risk of ■■	 Visitors would 

hunters. invasive plant infestations 

from the soil disturbance 

have less opportunity for wildlife 

Dust abatement treatments and importation of fill mate­ viewing overall, 

(salt-based) would attract rial. but viewing bigbighorn sheep to the road: 

Increased interpretation, 

horn sheep would 

be in their natural 

■■	 There would be road maintenance, and dispersed 

better wildlife enforcement would cost population. 

viewing. more and require staff ■■	 Fewer visitors 

■■	 People would more time. might use the 

likely want to stop road, reducing 

in the road. congestion and the 

■■	 There could be need for turnouts. 

more conflicts ■■	 Less demand for 

between wildlife tour companies 

and people and might affect their 

vehicles. revenue. 

92 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

■■	 There would be 

more risk of disease transmission 

between bighorn 

sheep individuals 

and with livestock. 

(Also refer to the earlier 

“Access to the National 

Forest” that addresses a 

specific use of Elk Refuge 

Road.) 

Partnerships—actions 

Work with State and county 

governments on project 

such as the nonmotorized 

North Highway 89 Pathway, Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, 

and management of greater 

sage-grouse core areas. 

Participate in the Jackson 

Cooperative Elk Study 

Group, Greater SageGrouse Working Group, and 

Jackson Interagency Habitat Initiative. 

Collaborate with the Jackson Hole Weed Management Association. 

Work with organizations on 

projects such as the irrigation expansion project and 

voluntary use of lead-free 

ammunition. 

Collaborate with the Jackson District Boy Scouts for 

antler collection and sale. 

Develop partnerships to 

resolve elk and bison conflicts on private and public 

land with help from WGFD. 

Continue our partnership 

with the Grand Teton Association. 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

Develop a Friends group. 

Emphasize private land 

projects through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

program. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Emphasize partnerships 

that focus on special ecosystem values and landscape-scale projects. 

Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 93 
 

Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

Partnerships—environmental consequences 

Effective partnerships 

would provide resources to 

address issues: 

■■ Ecosystem conservation could 

improve water 

quality on the 

refuge. 

■■ Coordination 

would benefit wildlife that cross 

boundaries. 

■■ Agencies and 

organizations 

would address specific issues like 

lead poisoning and 

needs such as invasive plant control. 

■■ The public would 

know about refuge 

topics and opportunities through 

the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 

Teton County, and 

other 

organizations. 

■■ Jackson District 

Boy Scouts would 

help with antler 

pick up and manage an antler auction that would 

provide revenue 

for elk habitat 

projects. 

Partnerships would support 

refuge funding for services: 

Same as alternative A, plus: 

The public would become 

more aware of and be able 

to participate in wildlife 

conservation through the 

new Friends group, which 

would provide volunteers or 

money for biological and 

visitor services programs. 

Private landowner projects 

could benefit refuge habitat 

and wildlife populations. 

Same as alternative B, plus: 

Ecosystem-wide research 

would help Jackson Hole 

land managers better 

understand and manage 

resources. 

Landscape-scale activities 

would divert staff efforts 

away from refuge issues 

and could reduce progress 

on resolving refuge-specific 

issues. 

Same as alternative B. 

94 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Table 4. Summary of the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (enhance public use and (emphasize intact (promote natural habitats (current management)— intensive resource ecosystems and promote and balance public use)— no action management) natural processes) proposed action 

■■

■■

Visitors would get 

information and 

services at the 

partnership-operated Jackson Hole 

and Greater Yellowstone Visitor 

Center. 

Visitors could take 

part in refuge 

opportunities 

through the Grand 

Teton Association’s sleigh ride 

program and operation of Miller 

House. 

Socioeconomic impacts 

Management and visitation Annually generate 4 addi- Annually generate 5 addi- Annually generate an addiactivities annually generate tional jobs, $207,200 more tional jobs, $262,900 more tional 6 jobs, $314,900 in 

an estimated 31 jobs, in labor income, and in labor income, and labor income, and $490,700 

$1,356,100 in labor income, $328,200 more in value $413,800 more in value in value added. 

and $2,032,500 in value added. added. 

added in the local economy. 

Cumulative impacts 

There would be no cumula­ Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

tive impacts, with the following precautions: 

■■ Ban activities 

where federally 

listed species 

occur. 

■■ Regulate activities 

to lessen impacts 

to species. 

■■ Monitor goal 

achievement and 

unforeseen conditions and apply 

adaptive resource 

management. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 95 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment
 

Bighorn Sheep 

Ann Hough / FWS 

This chapter describes the characteristics and 

resources of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming, 

under these topic headings: 

4.1 Physical Environment 

4.2 Biological Resources 

4.3 Management Tools 

4.4 Human History and Cultural Resources 

4.5 Special Management Areas 

4.6 Visitor Services 

4.7 Socioeconomic Environment 

4.8 Operations 

4.1 Physical Environment 

Within Teton County, Wyoming, the town of Jack

son borders the refuge on the south, and the town of 

mately 5

along wit

efeller, J

National 

the Great

The f

physical e

­ mentatio

Kelly lies near its northern boundary. Lands to the 

south and west are mostly privately owned. East of 

the refuge are lands administered by Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, including the nearby Gros Ventre 

Wilderness. 

The National Elk Refuge is 6 miles at its widest 

point and 10 miles from southwest to northeast, with 

elevation ranging from 6,200 to 7,200 feet. The northern half of the refuge consists of steep rolling hills. 

The southern half is glacial washout material, with 

one resistant formation (Miller Butte) rising approxi00 feet above the valley floor. The refuge, 

h Grand Teton National Park, John D. Rockr. Memorial Parkway, and Yellowstone 

Park, is part of a larger area referred to as 

er Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

ollowing sections describe aspects of the 

nvironment that may be affected by implen of the CCP: 
 

98 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

■■ climate 

■■ land features 

■■ soils 

■■ water resources 

■■ air quality 

■■ visual resources 

Climate 

The valley known as Jackson Hole is characterized by long, cold winters with deep snow accumulations and short, cool summers. Prevailing winds in 

the valley come from the southwest but strong winds 

are relatively rare. 

Temperature 

January is the coldest month with an average 

daily maximum temperature of 24 °F and an average 

daily minimum temperature of 1 °F at low elevations. 

Temperature extremes vary from summer highs of 

92–98 °F to winter lows of –40 to –52 °F. 

Precipitation 

Precipitation levels are relatively steady throughout the year, with a total average annual accumulation of 15.2 inches in Jackson Hole. Average monthly 

precipitation levels range between 1 and 2 inches, 

with May and December being wettest and July and 

February driest. Jackson Hole averages 90 inches of 

snowfall per year, accounting for 60 percent of annual 

precipitation. Snow pack depth of 6–18 inches in 

southern parts of the refuge and 48 inches in the 

northern half are common. Maximum snow depth is 

reached between March 15 and April 1 (Martner 

1977). 

Climate Change 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring Federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

effects as part of long-range planning endeavors. The 

U.S. Department of Energy’s report, Carbon Sequestration Research and Development (1999), concluded 

that ecosystem protection is important to carbon 

sequestration and might reduce or prevent loss of 

carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The report 

defines carbon sequestration as “the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be 

emitted to or remain in the atmosphere” (1999). 

The increase of carbon dioxide within the earth’s 

atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in 

surface temperature, commonly referred to as global 

warming. Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in 

carbon sequestration. Large, naturally occurring 

communities of plants and animals that occupy major 

habitats—grassland, forest, wetland, tundra, and 

desert—are effective both in preventing carbon 

emission and in acting as biological scrubbers of 

atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

Carbon sequestration constitutes the primary, 

climate-related effect to be considered in planning. 

One of our activities in particular—prescribed fire— 

releases carbon dioxide directly to the atmosphere 

from the biomass consumed during combustion. However, there is no net loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly germinates to replace the burned-up 

biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air 

(Dai et al. 2006). 

Several scientific studies report that, in the past 

century, the climate is becoming warmer and drier in 

northern Yellowstone National Park (Balling et al. 

1992a, 1992b). If this warming trend continues, it 

could have far-reaching effects on the plants and animals of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Romme 

and Turner 1991). 

Analysis of precipitation records from 1921 to 

2002 gathered by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station in Jackson, 

Wyoming, showed no significant trends, either 

increasing or decreasing (Smith et al. 2004). 

Although temperature readings from 1931 to 2002 

increased, there was a “minor decline in drought conditions,” per calculations using the 1949–2001 

Keetch-Byram Drought Index values that evaluate 

upper-level, soil moisture content (Smith et al., p. 98). 

Land Features 

The National Elk Refuge is centrally located in 

Jackson Hole in northwestern Wyoming. The refuge 

ranges from 6,200 to 7,400 feet above sea level and is 

bordered by the town of Jackson to the south, private 

ranchlands and subdivisions to the west, Grand 

Teton National Park to the north, and national forest 

lands of the Gros Ventre Mountains to the east. Topographic, hydrologic, and soil features interact to 

influence the species composition of plant communities on the refuge. The refuge comprises seven main 

topographic zones: 

■■ Gros Ventre Hills 

■■ foothills of the Gros Ventre Mountains 

■■ Miller Butte 

■■ Poverty Flats alluvial plain 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 99 

■■ Flat Creek Marsh 

■■ Flat Creek riparian zone 

■■ Gros Ventre River riparian zone 

The northern third of the refuge is dominated by 

the Gros Ventre Hills. These relatively steep, rolling, 

sedimentary formations range in elevation from 

6,300 to 7,200 feet. The Gros Ventre Hills support 

native wheatgrass and needlegrass communities on 

south aspects, with mixed communities of mountain 

snowberry, rose, and sagebrush in sheltered draws 

with deeper soils. North aspects support aspen and 

some mixed-conifer stands of Douglas-fir lodgepole 

pine and limber pine. Scattered stands of Rocky 

Mountain juniper grow on some rocky slopes. Lower 

elevation draws are dominated by mountain big sagebrush, threetip sagebrush, and grassland communities. Similar vegetative features are found on 

foothills of the Gros Ventre mountains on the eastern 

border of the refuge and on Miller Butte, a 1,300-acre 

formation on the southern end of the refuge that rises 

500 feet above the valley floor. 

A gently sloping alluvial plain, called Poverty 

Flats by early homesteaders because if its poor agricultural potential, is the principal topographic feature in the east-central portion of the refuge. This 

area consists of shallow soils that overlay glacially 

deposited cobble. Before Euro-American settlement, 

the alluvial plain was likely covered by mountain big 

sagebrush and dry native grassland. Currently, the 

area is a mixture of native dry grassland, crested 

wheatgrass, and nonnative cultivated grassland, with 

only small pockets of mountain big sagebrush limited 

to areas of deeper soil and snow accumulation. 

Approximately 2,700 wetland acres form the 

southwestern corner of the refuge. Flat Creek, Nowlin Creek, Twin Creek, and ground water originating 

from porous carbonate rocks to the east of the refuge 

feed the wetlands (Galbraith et al. 1998). In addition 

to these natural sources, the Flat Creek Marsh typically receives irrigation diversion water from the 

Gros Ventre River from May through July via the 

Boyle Ditch, which serves private water users downstream of the refuge. There is an elevation gradient 

to the wetlands of the Flat Creek Marsh that affects 

soil moisture and plant communities. The highest 

elevations next to the alluvial plain host wet meadow 

plant communities of Kentucky bluegrass, tufted 

hairgrass, meadow foxtail, and timothy grasses. Midelevation wetlands are dominated by shrubby cinquefoil, rushes, sedge species, and several species of 

willow. However, willows growing in these areas are 

mostly less than 1.5 feet in height and do not form a 

significant portion of the canopy cover due to browsing by elk and bison (Anderson 2002, Smith et al. 

2004). The lowest elevation areas in the wetland consist of open water and cattail–bulrush marsh. 

The riparian zones of the Gros Ventre River and 

the portion of Flat Creek that flows over the alluvial 

plain are characterized by braided stream channels 

and cottonwood woodland plant communities. The 

Gros Ventre River bordering Grand Teton National 

Park and the easternmost portion of Flat Creek on 

the refuge support multi-aged communities of narroweaf cottonwood with shrub understories of chokecherry, serviceberry, rose, gooseberry, and Bebb, 

greenleaf and sandbar willows. Where Flat Creek 

flows over the western portion of the alluvial plain, 

only sparse, mature narrowleaf cottonwoods exist. 

The lack of regenerating aspen and other understory 

shrubs in this area has been attributed to browsing 

and rubbing damage from elk and bison (Smith et al. 

2004). 

(Note: The above description is paraphrased from 

Smith et al. 2004.) 

Elk 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Soils 

More than 20 different soil types are found on the 

National Elk Refuge (Young 1982). Soils at lower 

elevations are alluvial (transported by stream or 

river), generally sandy loam or loam, and are shallow 

and permeable. Soils at higher elevations are also 
loamy, with considerable areas of gravelly soils and 

cobblestone on south-facing slopes and ridges. 

Greyback gravelly loam—a deep, somewhat 

excessively drained soil—occurs in irrigated areas of 

the refuge. About 20 percent of the irrigated area 

has a cobbly loam surface layer but is otherwise similar to Greyback gravelly loam. Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water capacity is low. 

Roots penetrate to a depth of 60 inches or more. On 

0- to 3-percent slopes, the surface runoff is slow, and 

the erosion hazard is slight. On 3- to 6-percent slopes, 

the surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard 

is moderate. 

Irrigation 

100 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Lori Iverson / FWS 

Water Resources 

This section describes the hydrology, water quality, and water rights on the refuge. 

Hydrology 

Surface hydrologic features on the refuge include 

the Gros Ventre River, Cache Creek, Flat Creek, 

Nowlin Creek, and several other small creeks and 

springs (figure 9). The Gros Ventre River flows westerly and forms the northern boundary of the refuge. 

Flat Creek flows east to west and nearly bisects the 

refuge. Water from Cache Creek reaches the refuge 

by way of an underground diversion that surfaces 

into a cistern located near the refuge headquarters. 

In addition to natural watercourses, there are many 

miles of irrigation ditches. Three wells and an 

enclosed water storage reservoir are used by the 

town of Jackson. 

Water-level contours show that ground water 

flows from high areas southwest through the valley 

toward the Snake River. Data for the alluvial valley 

aquifer indicate excellent water quality, supporting 

use for drinking water, recreation, and other commercial uses. Much of the aquifer has high permeability and substantial interconnection to the rivers and 

lakes, making it vulnerable to contamination from 

facilities, visitor use, and transportation corridors in 

the recharge areas (parts of the aquifer where water 

moves downward toward the water table). 

Gros Ventre River 

The Gros Ventre River, which drains approximately 600 square miles of eastern Jackson Hole and 

the mountains farther east, is the largest watercourse on the refuge. The relatively wide river channel is heavily braided in areas where geologic 

materials are of low erosional resistance, as is the 

case on the refuge. The many gravel bars in the river 

channel have little or no vegetative cover because of 

annual flooding and erosion. 

Flat Creek 

Flat Creek originates in the Gros Ventre Range 

east of the refuge and drains approximately 120 

square miles. The Flat Creek drainage is a broad valley setting with expansive wetlands. The wide valley 

floor has gentle elevation relief and is made of materials deposited from river and lake processes. The 

natural stable stream channels are slightly 

entrenched, meandering, riffle-pool beds. Flows vary 

seasonally because of runoff, input of irrigation water 

diverted from the Gros Ventre River, diversions by 

irrigators, and losses from infiltration. The porous 

nature of refuge soils through which a section of Flat 

Creek flows causes high infiltration losses and results 

in a seasonally dry channel bed in this area. Nowlin 

Creek is a small spring-fed tributary of Flat Creek. 

From the southeastern part of the refuge, the creek 

flows westerly through four constructed impoundments to its confluence with Flat Creek. 

Flat Creek has experienced direct and indirect 

alteration to its stream form and function from 

changes in hydrological and sediment inputs, installation of instream structures and treatments, and 

nearby land management activities. These structures 

from the 1980s are failing and, in some cases, are 

negatively affecting the stream and associated habitats. In cooperation with WGFD (project lead), the 

refuge is planning restoration and enhancement of 

the creek. After completing a categorical exclusion 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 101
 

Figure 9. Map of management units and surface hydrology of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
102 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

(FWS 2013) under the National Environmental Policy 

Act, in October 2013 the refuge restored 1 mile of 

Flat Creek, as follows: 

■■ removed 39 deteriorating instream 

structures 

■■ removed 347 feet of riprap 

■■ enhanced 23 riffle and 25 pool habitat units 

■■ removed 300 square feet of reed 

canarygrass 

■■ installed 4,184 square feet of woody and sod 

vegetation 

■■ created 19,000 feet of floodplain 

Springs, Ponds, and Other Water Features 

Smaller water features include Twin Creek and 

Holland Spring near the southeastern boundary, 

Romney and Peterson Springs in the western part, 

and other miscellaneous springs, like Pierre’s Ponds, 

Sleeping Indian Pond, and Bill’s Bayou, throughout 

the refuge. 

Water Quality 

Surface water quality in Teton County is believed 

to be high but can be adversely affected by both point 

source pollution (such as a gasoline station along Flat 

Creek) and nonpoint source pollution (such as overland runoff of fecal matter from winter concentrations of livestock). Urban development has little or no 

potential for influencing surface water quality on the 

refuge. Lower Cache Creek, however, flows through 

Jackson, and a diversion from this watercourse (the 

Cache Creek pipeline) enters the refuge where we 

use it for irrigation. This section could be affected by 

urban runoff, potentially affecting downstream 

water quality (Jackson and Teton County, Wyoming 

1994). 

There is no information about water quality in 

Cache Creek near the refuge. However, two ongoing 

studies on sections of the creek flowing through Jackson, closer to its confluence with Flat Creek, found 

that petroleum hydrocarbons from vehicles and 

sodium (probably from compounds used by local road 

departments for ice melting) are entering Flat Creek, 

along with city storm water. A similar situation may 

be occurring on Cache Creek. Zinc, the only heavy 

metal found in storm water samples, is also flowing 

into Flat Creek from the town, but we do not know 

its source (R. Norton, personal communication, as 

cited in FWS 1998). Hydrocarbon input might be 

reduced by using storm water retention cisterns. 

Another possible nonpoint source of pollution 

affecting refuge water quality, although not documented as a problem, is the large amount of fecal 

material produced by wintering elk and bison. We 

suspect that the high concentration of waterfowl in 

the Nowlin Marsh area is contributing to decreased 

water quality in the lower section of Flat Creek on 

the refuge. 

The Teton County Conservation District has conducted water quality sampling on several sites within 

the refuge (refer to table 5). Nitrates are of particular concern. Although data from 1996 to 2002 showed 

nitrate levels consistently below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water standards (10 parts per million), detected levels in 1997 

and in 2002 were higher than expected for typical 

western Wyoming waters (R. Stottlemeyer, personal 

communication, 2003; Stottlemeyer et al. 2003). Irrigation, fertilization, and elk and bison fecal material 

could be contributing to the elevated nitrate concentrations, but we need further study. 

In 2002, the Teton County Conservation District 

implemented source tracking of fecal coliforms. 

Results from DNA analysis showed that 34 percent 

of the coliforms come from rodents, 13 percent from 

bison, 13 percent from elk, 13 percent from unknown 

sources, 7 percent from canines, and 7 percent from 

birds. Farming practices such as disking, seeding, 

sprinkler and drip irrigation, herbicide and fertilizer 

application, and crop harvesting may affect water 

quality and quantity. 

We consider ground water resources to be high 

quality on the refuge as a whole and not subject to 

septic-related pollution concerns except perhaps 

around the Twin Creek subdivision and other inholdings. Residential and commercial development in 

Jackson and elsewhere in Teton County may cause 

local reductions in ground water quality (Jackson and 

Teton County, Wyoming 1994). Although Jackson and 

surrounding areas use centralized wastewater treatment facilities, the perceived major threat to ground 

water supplies elsewhere in Teton County is pollution 

from individual septic systems (Jackson and Teton 

County, Wyoming 1994). 

Water Rights 

Table 6 displays the refuge’s water rights. 

Air Quality 

In general, the air quality of Jackson Hole is high. 

Airborne pollutants generated by industrial activities pose no significant threats to air quality in the 

valley. However, Jackson Hole is a high-elevation valley surrounded by mountains and is particularly susceptible to air quality problems associated with 

temperature inversions. During periods of high 
­

­

­

­

­

Table 5. Average values of selected water quality factors in or near the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming, 1996– 

2002. 

ol 1 Nowlin Creek Flat Creek contr Flat Creek 1 2 3 Flat Creek 2 4 

Values (number of samples (number of (number of (number of Standard 

tested) samples tested) samples tested) samples tested) 

Temperature 

(degrees Fahren

heit, °F) 

42.2 °F (8) 45.3 °F (10) 46.5 °F (4) 46.2 °F (11) 68 °F 

Dissolved oxygen 

(milligrams per 

liter, mg per L) 

11.2 mg per L (7) 10.5 mg per L (9) 9.51 mg per L (4) 9.8 mg per L (10) — 

Turbidity (nephelo

metric turbidity 

unit, NTU) 

0 NTU (3) 1.1 NTU (4) 1.4 NTU (4) 26.8 NTU (4) — 

Acidity or alkalin

ity, pH (units) 8.29 units (8) 8 units (10) 8.05 units (4) 8.14 units (11) 6.5–9 units 

Nitrate as N (mg 

per L) 

less than 0.1 mg per L 

(6) 0.14 mg per L (7) less than 0.1 mg per L (5) 

less than 0.1 mg 

per L (7) 10 mg per L 

April 2000 sample 

Fecal coliform (coli

form per 100 millili

ters, col per 100 ml) 

3 col per 100 ml 53 col per 100 ml 55 col per 100 ml 60 col per 100 ml 200 col/100 ml 

Escherichia (E.) 

coli (col per 100 ml) 1 col per 100 ml 45 col per 100 ml 49 col per 100 ml 29 col per 100 ml 126 col/100 ml 

1 Near the boundary of the refuge with the Bridger-Teton National Forest.
 

2 North of the Jackson National Fish Hatchery.
 

3 Below the third pond, next to the barn and corral.
 

4 Outside the refuge’s southwestern boundary, below the Dairy Queen, and subject to many outside influences (such as a major 


highway and gas station). 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 103 

atmospheric pressure, dense cold air is trapped near 

the valley floor by upper layers of warmer air. Air 

quality in the southern part of the valley next to 

Jackson might decline as a result of pollutants 

trapped in the lower atmosphere during inversions. 

These pollutants include carbon monoxide generated 

mostly by automobile emissions, dust particles, and 

wood smoke. This pattern may persist for several 

days at a time, but pollutant concentrations are dispersed when weather patterns change, especially 

when accompanied with winds. 

Air quality on the refuge, although not measured 

or monitored, is considered good to excellent, with 

low concentrations of pollutants throughout the year. 

However, the lower elevations and southern part of 

the refuge may have periods of reduced air quality 

from winter temperature inversions and concentrations of airborne pollutants generated by Jackson. 

Current refuge management practices do not 

decrease air quality to any measurable degree. 

Vehicular use of unpaved refuge roads during dry 

summer and autumn periods generates dust but 

would likely have only a negligible lowering of overall 

refuge air quality. 

Fire management activities which result in the 

discharge of pollutants (carbon monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter (PM), and other pollutants from fires 

are subject to and must comply with all applicable 

Federal, State, and local air pollution control requirements as specified in Section 118 of the Clean Air 

Act, as amended, 1990. Air quality is regulated by 

the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ). The State requires that a permit be 

issued by the DEQ prior to initiating a prescribed 

fire. 

The area is currently designated as “Attainment” 

for the Criteria Pollutants (Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2), Particulate Matter 10 (PM10), Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5), and Lead (Pb) by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA 2013). The management of smoke is incorporated into the planning of 

prescribed fires, and to the extent possible, in suppression of wildfires. Sensitive areas will be identified and precautions taken to safeguard visitors and 

local residents. 
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Table 6. Water rights owned by the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Priority 

date 

Water right 

number1 

Structure name or 

type Source 

Flow rate3 

cfs gpm 

Use Acres 

irrigated 

06/10/1883 TP 10329 Holland No. 1 Ditch South Twin Creek 2.28 — Irrigation, 

stock 160 

06/01/1887 TP 10173 Carnes Ditch Flat Creek 2 — Irrigation 140 

05/15/1888 TP 10306 Robert E. Miller Cache Creek 

Pipeline 2.28 — Irrigation 160 

05/15/1888 TP 10307 Grace G. Miller Cache Creek 

Pipeline 2.6 — Irrigation 182 

12/31/1888 TP 10317 Territorial ditch South Twin Creek 1.07 — Irrigation 75 

12/31/1888 TP 10318 Territorial ditch South Twin Creek 0.02 — Irrigation 2 

05/08/1899 2106 Dewey Ditch Flat Creek 1 — Irrigation 70 

02/01/1894 642 Robert E. Miller Flat Creek (Cache 

Creek Pipeline) 1.94 — Irrigation 160 

05/28/1894 732 Swamp Ditch Swamp Creek 2.07 — Irrigation 145 

05/28/1894 732 Swamp Ditch Swamp Creek 1 — Irrigation 70 

02/07/1896 1175 Petersen Ditch Flat Creek 2.91 — Irrigation 204 

02/07/1896 1175 Petersen Ditch Flat Creek 2 — Irrigation 140 

02/07/1896 1176 Longfellow Ditch Flat Creek 3.18 — Irrigation 223 

02/07/1896 1176 Longfellow Ditch Flat Creek 1.14 — Irrigation 80 

06/05/1896 1230 Crawford Ditch South Twin Creek 

(Holland Creek) 2.28 — Irrigation 160 

08/11/1896 1301 Sheep Creek Ditch Sheep Creek 0.24 — Irrigation 17 

05/08/1897 1478 M.C. Ditch Flat Creek 1.9 — Irrigation 133 

06/26/1897 1517 Lanigan Ditch Flat Creek 1.28 — Irrigation 90 

01/23/1900 2446 Adle Ditch Flat Creek 1.42 — Irrigation 100 

04/24/1900 2587 Pettigrew Ditch Spring Creek (Gros 

Ventre River) 2.84 — Irrigation 199 

06/18/1900 2667 Hanrow Ditch Warm (Seebolm) 

Springs 0.86 — Irrigation 60 

06/18/1900 2668 Romeo Ditch Gros Ventre River 0.32 — Irrigation 22.48 

Valdez and Uncle 

02/25/1901 3036 Paulina Ditch Mike Springs 0.35 — Irrigation 25 

(Swamp Creek) 

04/22/1901 3129 Wood Ditch Flat Creek 0.42 — Irrigation 30 

04/22/1901 3129 Wood Ditch Flat Creek 1.38 — Irrigation 97 

10/11/1901 717E M.C. Ditch Enlargement Flat Creek 0.92 — Irrigation 65 

11/06/1901 3534 Elk Ditch Swamp Creek 1 — Irrigation 70 

01/17/1902 3680 Sunnyside Ditch White Springs 

(Flat Creek) 1.71 — Irrigation 120 

01/17/1902 3681 Botcher Spring Ditch Botcher Springs 

(Flat Creek) 0.5 — Irrigation 35 

05/26/1902 839E Romeo Ditch 

Enlargement Gros Ventre River 1.633 — Irrigation 114.46 

07/28/1902 886E 

Pettigrew Ditch 

Enlargement and Cherry 

Flats Ditch 

Gros Ventre River 1.57 — Irrigation, 

domestic 110 

11/10/1903 5636 Maggie M. Ditch Flat Creek 1.42 — Irrigation 100 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 105 

Table 6. Water rights owned by the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Priority 

date 

Water right 

number1 

Structure name or 

type Source 

Flow rate3 

cfs gpm 

Use Acres 

irrigated 

07/18/1904 6133 Spencer Ditch Flat Creek 1.08 — Irrigation 76 

Irrigation, 

09/07/1905 6847 Ben Goe Ditch Flat Creek 1.71 — stock, domes­ 120 

tic 

04/14/1906 1519E Crawford Ditch 

Enlargement South Twin Creek 0.34 — Irrigation 24 

04/28/1906 1534E Crawford Ditch 

Enlargement No. 2 South Twin Creek 0.12 — Irrigation 9 

09/07/1906 1612E Adle Ditch Enlargement Flat Creek 4.2 — Irrigation 294.25 

04/23/1907 1712E Longfellow Ditch 

Enlargement Flat Creek 0.86 — Irrigation 60 

07/19/1907 1743E Glidden Ditch 

Enlargement No. 2 Gros Ventre River 0.62 — Irrigation 44 

07/24/1908 8619 Lost Springs Ditch Flat Creek 4.35 — Irrigation 305 

07/24/1908 8619 Lost Springs Ditch Flat Creek 2.21 — Irrigation, 

domestic 155 

10/30/1908 2146E M.C. Ditch Enlargement Flat Creek 0.71 — Irrigation 50 

10/30/1908 2146E M.C. Ditch Enlargement Flat Creek 0.47 — Irrigation 33 

05/02/1909 9892 Harry R. Robinson Ditch Flat Creek 4.2 — Irrigation 294 

12/07/1909 2137E Ben Goe Ditch 

Enlargement Flat Creek 0.57 — Irrigation 40 

05/20/1910 9900 McInelly Ditch Flat Creek 2.28 — Irrigation, 

domestic 160 

06/10/1910 2374E Lost Springs Ditch 

Enlargement Flat Creek 1.71 — Irrigation 120 

06/10/1910 2374E Lost Springs Ditch 

Enlargement Flat Creek 2.28 — Irrigation, 

domestic 160 

06/20/1910 9990 Sam’s Ditch Sam’s Springs 

(Flat Creek) 0.07 — Irrigation, 

domestic 5 

06/02/1911 10924 Ratcliff Ditch Flat Creek 3.43 — Irrigation, 

domestic 240 

06/02/1911 10924 Ratcliff Ditch Flat Creek 3.85 — Irrigation 270 

06/02/1911 10924 Ratcliff Ditch Flat Creek 4.43 — Irrigation 310 

01/06/1912 11137 Garton Springs Ditch Garton Springs 

(Flat Creek) 0.14 — Irrigation, 

domestic 10 

Romney Ponds 

Lori Iverson / FWS 
­

Table 6. Water rights owned by the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Priority Water right Structure name or Source date number1 type 

Flow rate3 

Use Acres 

irrigated cfs gpm 

04/11/1912 11291 Edith A. Ferrin South 

Twin Creek Ditch South Twin Creek 0.57 — Irrigation, 

domestic 40 

12/23/1912 11635 Scott and McBride Ditch Flat Creek 3.71 — Irrigation, 

domestic 260 

12/23/1912 11635 Scott and McBride Ditch Flat Creek 3.15 — Irrigation, 

domestic 221 

06/11/1913 11884 Pecos Ditch Flat Creek 1.46 — Irrigation, 

domestic 102.6 

07/13/1914 12549 Pasture Ditch Flat Creek 0.21 — Irrigation, 

domestic 15 

01/13/1915 3106E Pecos Ditch Enlargement Flat Creek 0.57 — Irrigation, 

domestic 40 

01/26/1915 13001 Pederson Spring Ditch Springs (Gros 

Ventre River) 0.5 — Irrigation 35 

02/04/1915 3124E McInelly Ditch 

Enlargement Flat Creek 1.5 — Irrigation 105 

04/24/1917 3772E McInelly Ditch 

Enlargement Flat Creek 2.16 — Irrigation 150 

12/24/1917 3867E Adle Ditch Enlargement Flat Creek 0.57 — Irrigation 40 

12/24/1917 3867E Adle Ditch Enlargement Flat Creek 0.49 — Irrigation 34 

03/10/1927 17277 Haight Ditch Flat Creek 1.29 — Irrigation, 

domestic 90 

12/06/1927 17319 Three Springs Ditch2 Sheep Creek — — Irrigation, 

domestic 7 

09/17/1934 18537 Shortcut Ditch2 Sheep Creek — — Irrigation, 

stock 360 

11/10/1937 5084E Sheep Creek Ditch 

Enlargement2 Sheep Creek — Irrigation 277.7 

05/13/1977 6643E Hanrow Ditch Enlarge

ment No. 2 

Warm (Seebolm) 

Springs 1.23 — Irrigation 86 

02/20/1990 9637R Pierre Reservoir No. 1 Spring Creek — — Wildlife — 

03/13/1990 9588R Pierre Reservoir No. 2 Spring Creek — — Wildlife — 

03/13/1990 10030R Romney No. 1 Reservoir Gros Ventre River — — Fish, wildlife — 

03/13/1990 10031R Romney No. 2 Reservoir Gros Ventre River — — Fish, wildlife — 

03/13/1990 10032R Romney No. 3 Reservoir Gros Ventre River — — Fish, wildlife — 

03/30/1993 7090E Romeo Ditch 

Enlargement No. 2 Gros Ventre River 24.4 — Fish, wildlife, 

reservoir — 

03/30/1993 7091E Romey Springs Ditch 

Enlargement Gros Ventre River 8.56 — Fish, wildlife, 

reservoir — 

01/13/1994 10054R Elk Park Pond Reservoir Elk Park Drain — — Fish 0 

11/14/2000 UW 130740 Sled No. 1 Well Ground water — 25 Domestic — 

02/07/2005 UW 165547 Miller/Shop Well No. 1 Ground water — 23 Miscellaneous — 

12/11/2009 UW 191934 Shop Well Ground water — 30 Miscellaneous — 

1UW=underground well; TP=territorial proof number for rights established before statehood.
 

2Supplemental supply.
 

3cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute.
 

106 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 107 

Visual Resources
 

The quality of visual resources is an important 

part of the recreational experience (USDA Forest 

Service 1982). The visual appearance of a landscape 

is often the first thing to which a viewer responds. 

The National Elk Refuge, the Grand Teton 

National Park, and the vast expanses of undeveloped 

national forest land surrounding the refuge offer 

spectacular scenic views of the Gros Ventre and 

Teton Ranges, Cache Peak, East Gros Ventre Butte, 

Jackson Peak, Sleeping Indian (Sheep Mountain), 

Snow King Mountain, and the Gros Ventre Hills in 

the northern part of the refuge. The Gros Ventre 

River along the northern refuge boundary supports a 

cottonwood-dominated riparian zone. 

The most prominent view of the refuge, which is 

seen by several million visitors annually as they 

drive to and from Jackson on U.S. Highway 26/89, is 

the expansive Flat Creek Marsh. During winter, 

thousands of elk make the refuge an important visual 

and ecological resource for the region. Although 

bison are fed in areas that are not visible to the pub

lic, the public can see bison along the fence north of 

the Jackson National Fish Hatchery and in the 

McBride area before Flat Creek Road is closed in 

December. As the bison herd grows, bison are more 

frequently seen in the southern sections of the 

refuge. 

Some refuge features that may detract from the 

visual quality of the refuge, include the following: 

■■	 an 8-foot fence that runs for approximately 

8 miles along the southern and western 

boundaries of the refuge keeps elk and bison 

from entering the town or migrating to the 

cattle ranches in Spring Gulch and reduces 

vehicle–wildlife accidents from animals on 

the highway. 

■■	 a power line that parallels Highway 89 


north of Jackson for about 2 miles
 

■■ feed trucks and feed sheds 

■■	 Jackson National Fish Hatchery, Elk Ref

uge Road, and refuge housing 

­

­

4.2 Biological Resources 

This section describes the biological resources 

that may be affected by the implementation of the 

CCP. Unless otherwise noted, most of the informa

tion is from our unpublished data located in files at 

Nativ

ties on th

­

the refuge headquarters. Descriptions of these topics 

follow: 

■■ plant communities 

■■ wildlife 

■■ federally and State-listed species 

Plant Communities 

We classified 33 plant community types on the 

National Elk Refuge, 23 of which are dominated by 

native plants and 10 by nonnative grass species (see 

figure 10). Homesteaders or refuge staff planted nonnative grass plant communities to support hay production or pasture for livestock or elk. Smooth brome, 

intermediate wheatgrass, meadow brome, and Russian wildrye are common examples of these plant 

communities on the refuge. While some of these communities have adapted to natural conditions where 

adequate soil moisture exists, most are perpetuated 

by irrigation activities. 

For this analysis, we classified vegetative communities on the refuge into one of six general categories: native grasslands, sagebrush shrublands, 

wetlands (marshlands, wet meadows, and open 

water), riparian woodlands and aspen woodlands, 

conifer forests, and cultivated fields (refer to table 7). 

Appendix E lists the plant species that occur on the 

refuge. 

Cultivat

 Total 

Table 7. Plant community types on the National Elk 

Refuge, Wyoming. 

Habitat	 Acres 

Native grasslands	 8,092 

Sagebrush shrublands 8,010 

Wetlands 

Marshlands (630 acres)
 

Wet meadows (1,720 acres) 


Open water (326 acres) 2,676
 

Riparian woodlands and 3,227 

aspen woodlands 

Conifer forests 160 

ed fields	 2,400

24,565 

Native Grasslands 

e grasslands are important plant communie refuge because they provide winter forage 

for elk and bison, which are primarily grazers. 
Native grasslands occur where there is sufficient precipitation to grow grasses but not trees or where 

drought, frequent fires, grazing by large mammals, 

or human disturbance have prevented trees or 

shrubs from becoming established. Native grasslands, including some bluegrass, wheatgrass, and 

needlegrass species, cover approximately 8,092 acres. 

Except for localized areas, native grasslands are in 

good condition, especially in the northern part of the 

refuge (Eric Cole, biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Jackson, Wyoming, personal communication, 

2002). 

Most native grassland habitats are dominated by 

native perennial bunchgrass species with native 

woody species such as broom snakeweed and green 

rabbitbrush. There is little invasion by tap-rooted 

forbs between grass plants. Soil between grasses is 

not eroding on most native grasslands on the refuge. 

Other plant species commonly found in native grasslands include rushes, smooth brome, brome snakeweed, yellow salsify, Junegrass, green rabbitbrush, 

fringed sage, and alfalfa. We consider these communities, while heavily used by elk and bison, to be 

largely representative of historical dry, native grassland plant communities and self-sustaining if new 

infestations of invasive plant species are controlled. 

In the southern half of the refuge, the Poverty Flats 

grasslands receive heavy use by elk and Miller Butte 

receives moderate to heavy use. On the southern end 

of the refuge, there is little residual growth on 

bunchgrasses from the previous year of ungulate 

grazing during the grass dormant season. This 

removal can increase the production of some perennial bunchgrass plants, although standing dead plant 

material has been shown to be beneficial to plant 

health by some authors (Briske 1991, Sauer 1978). 

The grasslands on the northern end of the refuge 

receive much less use by elk and bison because of 

deeper snow and hunting disturbance. 

The largest continuous segment of native grasslands is in the center of the refuge: (1) northeast of 

the Nowlin Creek marshlands; and (2) northwest, 

west, and east of Flat Creek Road. This area is being 

invaded by crested wheatgrass, a nonnative grass 

that we once planted on the refuge. 

108 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

A wetlant at Miller Ranch. 

BJ Baker / FWS 

Sagebrush Shrublands 

Sagebrush shrublands encompass approximately 

8,010 acres and are scattered throughout the refuge, 

with the largest concentrations in the east-central 

and northeastern parts. Sagebrush shrublands are 

generally tall, dense, and comprised of native species 

in the northern half of the refuge, with some small 

areas in the McBride and Peterson management 

units having shorter, lower density sagebrush (Eric 

Cole, biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Wyoming, personal communication, 2002). In 

general, sagebrush stands closer to feedgrounds are 

shorter and less dense. In the southern half of the 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 109
 

Figure 10. Map of plant communities on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
Wetlands 

110 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

refuge, sagebrush stands are in poor condition 

because of overbrowsing by elk and bison and 

mechanical damage by bison, elk, and feed equipment. Good-condition sagebrush shrubland communities in a late stage of succession have a relatively high 

diversity and cover of herbaceous plants. It is possible that late-seral sagebrush shrublands on the refuge are overrepresented because of a history of full 

fire suppression (the benefits of fire were not considered as part of the suppression strategy). 

Sagebrush shrublands usually receive more precipitation (or grow on sites with more soil moisture) 

than grasslands, but less than forested areas. Limited areas of basin big sagebrush have extremely tall 

sagebrush plants (in excess of 9 feet tall), but most 

sagebrush communities on the refuge are dense, 

mature stands of mountain big sagebrush less than 3 

feet tall. Communities are made up of shrubs and 

short trees and are fairly open, and there is a diversity of native perennial grasses and native forbs 

growing between sagebrush plants. Common species 

in this vegetative grouping are big and three-tipped 

sagebrush, bluegrass species, snowberry, wild rose, 

and smooth brome. Douglas rabbitbrush is found 

throughout the refuge, but occurs as a subdominant. 

Other plant species commonly found in sagebrush 

shrubland communities on the refuge are needlegrass, wheatgrass, snakeweed, and rubber 

rabbitbrush. 

There is conflicting information on the fire-return 

interval and likely historical density of sagebrush 

stands in the western United States. Knight (1994) 

suggested that, on a regional scale, the overall grassland and sagebrush shrubland landscape may be 

remarkably similar today compared to pre-European 

settlement. Periodic fires produced patches of grassland and young sagebrush intermixed with dense 

older stands, and presettlement fire intervals were 

likely every 20–25 years (Tisdale and Hironaka 

1981). Therefore, full fire suppression on the refuge 

has resulted in larger stands of dense, older sagebrush than pre-European conditions. However, more 

recent work by Bukowski and Baker (2013) suggests 

that the historical fire-return interval in mountain 

big sagebrush stands was 137–217 years. Therefore, 

fire suppression in existing old, dense, tall sagebrush 

stands on the refuge might be an appropriate management strategy to protect a rare plant community 

that is important to greater sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-dependent species. 

Most sagebrush plant communities on the refuge 

fall within the greater sage-grouse core area as 

defined by Wyoming Executive Order 2011–5. The 

core area encompasses all areas on refuge north of 

Flat Creek, slopes east of the Chambers management 

unit, and the bench above the Jackson National Fish 

Hatchery (WGFD 2011). 

The National Elk Refuge contains approximately 

2,676 acres of wetlands, including marshlands, wet 

meadows, and open water (see figure 10). Wetlands 

function as a natural sponge that stores and 

recharges ground water supplies. Wetlands moderate 

streamflow by releasing water to streams (especially 

important during drought), and they reduce flood 

damage by slowing and storing floodwater. Wetland 

plants protect streambanks against erosion because 

the roots hold soil in place and the plants break up 

the flow of stream or river currents. Wetlands 

improve water quality by filtering sediment, pollutants, and excess nutrients from surface runoff. As 

one of the most biologically productive ecosystems in 

the world, the nutrient-rich environment of wetlands 

provides food and habitat for a variety of wildlife. 

Wetlands on the refuge are some of the most 

diverse and important in Jackson Hole because of 

their water-regulating functions, visual qualities, and 

importance to wildlife, especially resident and migratory birds. Most wetlands receive moderate to heavy 

winter use by elk but vegetation generally recovers 

its dense and tall condition and largely native species 

composition during the growing season. Bison rarely 

used wetlands in the past but recently have begun to 

graze wet areas next to the Poverty Flats 

feedground and wet meadows near the Jackson 

National Fish Hatchery. 

Marshlands 

Marshlands are low-lying and concave or occur on 

gentle slopes with seepage. They are inundated frequently or continually with water but are most often 

persistently saturated. Marshes are characterized by 

emergent, soft-stemmed vegetation (such as bulrush, 

cattail, rush, and sedge) that is adapted to living in 

shallow water or in moisture-saturated soils. Springinundated sites, which dry by fall, are also included in 

this category. 

Marshland communities occur on approximately 

630 acres of the refuge and are dominated by bulrush, cattail, and sedge species (Eric Cole, biologist, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Wyoming, 

personal communication, 2002). These stands develop 

to full stature each year dependent on water availability. In marshland habitats, considerable residual 

material remains under the bases of growing plants 

from the previous years’ herbaceous growth, except 

in areas that have been burned. There are few invasive plant infestations in refuge marshlands. 

Wet Meadows 

Wet meadow habitats occur on approximately 

1,720 acres on the refuge and are comprised of 

shrubby cinquefoil, sedges, and grasses such as fox­
 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 111 

tail barley, timothy, Kentucky bluegrass, tufted hairgrass, and common horsetail. Approximately 1,450 of 

the 1,720 acres contain willow plants less than 1.5 

feet tall, indicating that mature willow stands have 

been converted to other plant communities because 

of decades of heavy elk browsing (Smith et al. 2004). 

Large numbers of elk on the refuge prevent these 

suppressed willow plants from growing out of the 

browse zone. However, the root systems of these willow plants remain intact and continue to produce 

suckers. This suggests that these areas could still 

support tall, dense willow communities if they were 

protected from ungulate browsing. 

Wet meadow communities are dominated by 

nearly 100-percent cover of native sedge species and 

water-tolerant grasses. In some wet meadow habitats, shrubby cinquefoil is a major component of the 

cover. There is often little residual cover because of 

heavy grazing by elk. The amount of residual cover in 

wet meadow communities varies from year to year 

depending on the depth of snow cover and grazing 

pressure. There is little invasion from noxious weed 

species; however, invasive species, such as Kentucky 

bluegrass, fowl bluegrass, and clover are present in 

wet meadow habitats. 

Open Water 

Open water accounts for 326 acres on the refuge 

and consists of stream and river channels and sites 

where standing water persists through most years, 

including pools and ponds. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands 

Riparian areas and aspen woodland communities 

occur on approximately 3,227 acres of the refuge. 

These habitat types have been declining in condition 

and acreage throughout refuge history. Riparian 

woodlands and aspen woodlands are particularly 

important as wildlife habitat and have been affected 

by elk and bison browsing. 

Riparian wood¬land habitat consists of approximately 300 acres of willow habitat and about 1,090 

acres of cottonwood communities. Riparian woodlands occur along the Gros Ventre River and Flat 

Creek. Decades of winter browsing by elk have 

reduced these willows to remnant plants less than 18 

inches high. There are 1,450 acres of suppressed willow plants in what are now wet meadow communities, 

but were once willow habitat. Elk browsing in cottonwood communities has removed understory, and 

cottonwood trees are not regenerating. Cottonwood 

stands close to the McBride feedground experience 

higher snag density and higher down woody debris 

cover. Cole (2002a, 2002b) did not find a difference in 

the number of woody plant species in stands closer to 

feedgrounds as compared to stands farther away, but 

total woody cover increased with increasing distance 

from feedgrounds (Smith et al. 2004). 

Aspen woodland habitat consists of approximately 

1,850 acres of aspen-dominated communities on hillsides, usually some distance from water. Aspendominated woodlands are scattered on the Gros 

Ventre Hills throughout the northern part of the 

refuge and on the eastern edge of the refuge in the 

south, next to the Gros Ventre Wilderness. Many 

aspen stands are characterized by mature trees, with 

little if any aspen understory. Aspen stands in the 

northern hills of the refuge appear to be declining 

slowly, but some aspen communities escape browsing, 

and stand replacement is occurring periodically. 

Aspen recruitment is prevented by heavy elk browsing on aspen suckers that prevents most suckers from 

growing out of the browse zone. 

Many aspen stems are approximately 120 years 

old, which is approaching the maximum lifespan of 

150 years. Most of these stands will eventually convert to sagebrush shrubland habitat, primarily in the 

form of snowberry and rose stands. A few stands 

may convert to native grassland habitat, depending 

on their location and the understory condition. Findings by Keigley et al. (2009) suggest that limitedscale regeneration of aspen has occurred on the 

northernmost parts of the refuge since 2005. Possible 

but untested explanations of this phenomenon include 

changes in elk distribution because of wolf predation, 

changes in elk migration routes associated with 

changes in elk summering areas, reduction in the 

number of moose occupying the refuge, or some combination of these factors. Cottonwood and aspen saplings grow inside exclosures (fenced areas) on the 

upper section of Flat Creek, indicating that these 

trees can replace themselves if ungulates are totally 

excluded. 

Riparian woodlands and aspen woodlands include 

stands of quaking aspen, narrowleaf cottonwood, and 

willows. Mountain big sagebrush, bluegrasses, brome 

species, Douglas-fir, pinegrass, rose species, sedges, 

and snowberry in some areas may be codominants 

(those species that influence the kinds of other species that may exist in an ecological community). 

Engelmann spruce trees are scattered throughout 

the woodland stands but are subdominant. Other 

plant species common in riparian woodlands and 

aspen woodlands are bearberry honeysuckle, bitterbrush, buffaloberry, chokecherry, horsetail, mountain 

timothy, muhly, needlegrass, rush species, serviceberry, wheatgrass species, and yellow salsify. 

Dobkin et al. (2002) state that willow, cottonwood, 

and aspen stands on the refuge have been modified 

by overbrowsing by ungulates; this is based on historical photographs, written records, and an under­
112 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

standing of the ecology of these communities. Dieni 

et al. (2000) and Smith et al. (2004) also note the 

growing experimental evidence that ungulate browsing is the cause of declines in aspen and cottonwood 

communities. Dobkin et al. (2002) also found that willow sites on the refuge were “mostly poorly functioning or nonfunctioning ecologically.” They concluded 

that although willow habitat is influenced by flooding, 

hydrologic conditions, ungulate use levels, fire frequencies, and precipitation patterns, the decline of 

willows on the refuge appears to be mostly related to 

heavy browsing (28- to 55-percent removal of annual 

growth). The decline of willows along Flat Creek in 

the southern part of the refuge has exceeded 95 percent (Smith et al. 2004). Shrubby cinquefoil, a less 

palatable woody species, is abundant in this prior 

range of willows and has probably increased as willows declined. In contrast, willows in the northern 

end of the National Elk Refuge are moderately 

browsed, and only some willow plants reach their full 

height potential. Growth of new willow stems out of 

the browse zone is sporadic, and there is some space 

between most willow clumps. 

Riparian area restoration would be designed to 

modify bank and streambed structure and would not 

address ungulate browsing of willows or facilitate 

their recovery (Biota 2013a, b; FWS 2013). 

Conifer Forests 

Conifer forests on the refuge cover 160 acres and 

consist of Douglas-fir, juniper, lodgepole pine, wheatgrasses, and other plant species. Conifer forests 

occur mostly on the extreme eastern edge of the refuge in the north and in the south on hillsides next to 

Bridger-Teton National Forest and on the northern 

slopes of the Gros Ventre Hills. Elk use the refuge 

forests and the adjacent national forest land for cover 

and shelter from winter storms, and they graze on 

palatable understory shrubs and grasses. Bison 

rarely use conifer stands. 

Regeneration of young conifer trees appears sufficient to replace existing stands, but subdominant 

species in these communities that are much more 

palatable to elk, such as serviceberry and chokecherry, are heavily browsed and are not regenerating. Other plant species common in conifer forests on 

the refuge are bluegrass species, buffaloberry, pinegrass, mountain boxwood, and snowberry. 

Cultivated Fields 

Cultivated fields, which we plant specifically to 

augment native forage that is available for elk in the 

winter, are used extensively by elk and bison. The 

refuge chooses cultivated plant species based on their 

palatability, persistence, ability to compete with 

weeds, low probability that they will invade native 

grasslands, and their ability to stand up after a heavy 

snowfall. Only part of the approximately 2,400 acres 

available for cultivation would likely be cultivated in 

any particular year. Most cultivated fields on the refuge are irrigated using the K-line irrigation system 

that was installed in 2010, with limited flood irrigation in the Ben Goe and Pedersen management units. 

Ten plant community types are in the cultivated 

fields in the southern and central parts of the refuge. 

Dominant plant species include alfalfa, intermediate 

wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, Russian wild rye, 

smooth brome, and meadow brome. Smooth brome, 

the most common species, provides moderate-quality 

standing forage but is undesirable because of its 

inability to remain erect in heavy snow. Smooth 

brome also requires irrigation in drought years and 

may spread to suitable sites in other cultivated fields 

and native grassland habitats. Experiments with 

other plant species are continuing in an effort to find 

palatable grass species that will meet refuge forage 

production objectives and to assess the practicality of 

restoring native species to some areas. 

Forage Production 

Forage production is an estimate of the amount of 

food available to elk and bison produced in a given 

growing season. This includes (1) annual growth of 

trees and shrubs that is less than 8 feet from the 

ground, and (2) herbaceous vegetation such as 

grasses, forbs (nonwoody broad-leaved plants), and 

weeds, which are a subcategory of forbs. Annual forage production mostly depends on the species composition of the plant community, precipitation, the 

amount of water available for irrigation, the number 

of staff members available for irrigation activities, 

and infestation by insect herbivores such as grasshoppers. The time of year that precipitation occurs is 

also important; rain in the spring and early summer 

increases forage production more than later in the 

year. 

Table 8 shows estimates of forage production 

between 1998 and 2012. Not all annual forage production on the refuge is available to, or used by, wintering elk. Factors such as topography, location, snow 

accumulation and condition, species preference and 

palatability, growth form of vegetation, hunting pressure, and other factors work in concert to influence 

forage availability and elk use. Higher annual forage 

production often results in shorter supplemental feed 

seasons, but snow conditions and the number of elk 

and bison occupying the refuge also influence the 

length of the feeding season. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 113 

Table 8. Estimates of forage production on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Type of forage and amount in tons 

Year Grass Forb Woody Weed Total Herbaceous 

1998 17,655 1,849 1,344 170 21,018 19,647 

1999 13,904 1,924 3,120 0 18,948 15,850 

2000 9,879 1,304 2,189 116 13,488 11,299 

2001 7,641 1,353 2,230 65 11,289 9,059 

2002 7,980 1,323 4,571 228 14,102 9,531 

2003 5,185 1,307 3,923 218 10,633 6,710 

2004 16,324 2,927 5,153 345 24,749 19,597 

2005 15,881 2,011 3,998 98 21,988 17,990 

2006 12,757 2,523 3,505 187 18,972 15,468 

2007 10,019 2,310 2,861 45 15,235 12,374 

2008 13,087 3,272 4,009 57 20,425 16,414 

2009 15,100 2,524 3,809 11 21,444 17,635 

2010 11,374 2,241 2,335 37 15,987 13,653 

2011 15,677 3,226 2,445 4 21,352 18,907 

2012 9,873 1,800 1,844 7 13,524 11,677 

Annual average 12,156 2,126 3,156 106 17,544 14,387 

Source: National Elk Refuge, Wyoming, 1998–2012. 

Cottonwood 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Invasive Plants 

Invasive plant infestations cover about 1,100 acres 

of the refuge. Invasive plant species (some of which 

are classified as noxious weeds by the State of Wyoming) are major contributors to the loss of quality 

wildlife habitat and rangeland, second in scope only 

to land development. Invasive species are nonnative 

plants that thrive in early succession plant community conditions where their lack of native controls 

(such as wildlife and insect grazers, fungal infections, 

and disease agents) allow them to outcompete native 

species in colonizing disturbed soil sites. After successful site colonization, invasive plants aggressively 

spread into surrounding plant communities, outcompeting native and crop plants by crowding them out, 

changing environmental conditions such as water 

availability and fire regime, and depositing chemicals 

into the surrounding soil that prevent other plants 

from successfully growing in those areas. The result 

is large and expanding single-species stands of vegetation that provide little or no benefit to native wildlife and insects. 

Many invasive plant infestations on the refuge are 

a direct result of abandoned livestock feeding areas 

and corrals, old homesites, and roadbeds. At least 19 

species of invasive plants are present (table 9). 
­

­

­

­

­

Table 9. Noxious weed species on the National Elk 

Refuge, Wyoming. 

Range of 

Scientific name Common name infestation 

acreage 

Cardaria draba Whitetop 5–30 

Carduus nutans Musk thistle 35–125 

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knap

weed 25–120 

Centaurea 

repens 

Russian knap

weed <1 

Centaurent diffusa Diffuse knap

weed <1 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 0.1–15 

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle <0.5–10 

Convolvulus 

arvensis Bindweed <0.1 

Cynoglossum 

officinale Houndstongue 0.2–2 

Hyoscyanus 

niger Black henbane <0.2 

Lepidium latifolium Perennial pep

perweed 0.1 

Leucanthemum 

vulgare Oxeye daisy <0.1 

Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax 0.2–2 

Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax <1 

Matricaria perforata Scentless chamo

mile <0.2 

Onopordum 

acanthium Scotch thistle 0.1–1 

Sonchus arvense Marsh sowthistle 5–20 

Tanacetum vul­ Common tansy <0.5 

gare 

Verbascum thap­ Wooly mullein 1–15 

sus 

 

114 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Invasive species reduce the diversity and number 

of native plants and change habitats, such as replacing a grass community with a forb community. Invasive plants do not provide quality winter forage for 

elk and other big game and often modify habitat of 

native wildlife and insects. Studies in Montana show 

that bison and deer reduced their use of a particular 

habitat by 70–82 percent when it was invaded by 

leafy spurge. Elk forage in bunchgrass sites 

decreased by 50–90 percent after a spotted knapweed invasion (Teton County Weed and Pest District 

2002). Invasive plants also fail to protect and hold soil 

because they generally have a shallow root system, 

leading to increased erosion and sedimentation in 

streams. This, in turn, affects water quality and 

decreases fish production. 

Crested wheatgrass covers approximately 650 

acres. While this nonnative plant is palatable to elk 

and bison in the spring, it has little nutritional value 

to wildlife as winter forage. Its spread is a concern 

because the refuge is a winter range for ungulates. 

Although grassland condition in crested wheatgrass 

areas is good in terms of relative forage production, 

minimal erosion, and vigorous grass growth, the 

cover in these areas of native grass species has been 

reduced by 50–90 percent and replaced by crested 

wheatgrass (Eric Cole, biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Wyoming, personal communication, 2002). Therefore, the invasion of crested 

wheatgrass has the potential to modify the condition 

of native grassland habitats on the refuge. 

Cheatgrass has invaded an estimated 250 acres of 

native grasslands on the refuge. This annual grass is 

a prolific seed producer and cures out early in the 

summer, producing sharp, pointed seeds that can 

injure the eyes and mouths of grazing animals. 

Cheatgrass may provide forage for elk and bison in 

the spring during greenup, but has little nutritional 

value as winter forage. It is considered a serious 

problem because the dry grass is highly flammable, 

and after a fire cheatgrass spreads quickly. In the 

past, cheatgrass was not considered a problem in 

Jackson Hole because the climate was too wet; the 

recent drought, however, has allowed cheatgrass to 

expand rapidly. 

The refuge and Grand Teton National Park both 

use biological, cultural, chemical, and mechanical 

means to control invasive plants. Invasive plants on 

the refuge have not substantially affected forage conditions, but spotted knapweed and musk thistle invasions in the park are considered serious (S. Haynes, 

biologist, Grand Teton National Park, Moose, Wyoming, personal communication, 2002). 

Control work can be effective at containing an 

infestation to existing areas, but it generally is not at 

the level required to eradicate large infestations. 

Control operations are expensive, requiring designated staff, equipment, and chemicals. By its very 

nature, control is never complete because an infestation is never eradicated, and any lapse in vigilance 

allows the infestation to spread into surrounding 

areas. Yearly control operations are less expensive 

than large-scale eradication programs but, over the 

long term, can be much more expensive. Herbicides 

are the most effective means of control on invasive 

plants, but some people are suspicious of their use 

and concerned about their effects on the 

environment. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 115 

Wildlife 

Descriptions of habitat and occurrence follow for 

wildlife at the refuge—mammals, birds, reptiles and 

amphibians, and fishes. 

Mammals 

Forty-eight native species of mammals inhabit the 

refuge: 

■■	 Elk, bison, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and 

mule deer are the varied large ungulates 

(hoofed mammals) common on the refuge. 

■■	 Carnivores include coyote, gray wolf, mountain lion, and black bear. 

■■	 Small mammals are abundant in Jackson 


Hole.
 

■■	 Large rodents that occur in Jackson Hole 

are yellow-bellied marmots, porcupines, and 

beavers. 

■■	 Midsize predators inhabiting the refuge 

include badger, bobcat, long-tailed weasel, 

ermine, mink, and bobcat. Raccoon, skunk, 

and red fox are uncommon, perhaps because 

of competition with the coyote. 

Elk

Elk are the most abundant large mammal species 

occupying the National Elk Refuge, and their conservation is the reason the refuge was established. The 

creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 and the 

National Elk Refuge in 1912 was crucial in terms of 

protecting elk and their winter ranges in Jackson 

Hole. The creation of Grand Teton National Park in 

1929, as well as its expansion in 1950, consolidated 

and protected elk summer ranges in Jackson Hole. 

Supplemental feeding of elk wintering on the refuge was started in 1912 to mitigate the loss of natural winter range and prevent elk from eating 

livestock forage on private land next to the refuge. 

By the 1930s, the feeding program had success¬fully 

stabilized the elk population. Elk were fed baled hay 

during at least part of most winters from 1912 to 

1975. In 1975, after several years of testing, a switch 

was made to alfalfa pellets (Smith and Robbins 1984). 

“No-feeding years” have occurred irregularly and 

infrequently. Since the refuge was established in 

1912, there have been nine years when no supplemental feed was provided for elk; the last such winter 

was in 1980–81. 

Biologists from the refuge and WGFD evaluate 

several factors to figure out whether feeding is 

needed, and if so, when it should begin and end. The 

feeding start date primarily depends on the amount 

of standing forage that is accessible to elk, which is 

influenced by (1) the amount of forage produced the 

previous growing seasons, (2) elk and bison numbers, 

(3) the timing of migration, (4) winter temperatures, 

and (5) snow conditions. Feeding typically ends 

within 1 week of the first day that snow has completely melted on the southern end of the refuge. 

These conditions correspond with new grass growth 

or sufficient residual forage from the previous growing seasons being exposed by melting snow. Since 

1912, the period of supplemental feeding has ranged 

from “no feeding” to a maximum of 147 days, with an 

average of 70 days annually. 

The 2013 winter population estimate for the Jackson elk herd was 11,051 animals (D. Brimeyer, biologist, WGFD, Jackson, Wyoming, personal 

communication, 2013). This is very close to the State’s 

population objective of 11,000 for the herd size. 

Although the Jackson elk herd as a whole is near 

objective, the winter distribution of these elk is 

weighted heavily toward feedgrounds, and subobjectives for the population have not been met. Table 10 

portrays population objectives and actual population 

estimates from 2011 to 2013 for the Jackson elk herd 

Table 10. Winter elk population objectives and actual population estimates for the Jackson elk herd and 

wintering areas from 2011–2013. 

Winter range Number of elk 

area Herd objective 2011 2012 2013 Average 

National Elk Ref 5,000 7,746 7,360 6,285 7,130 uge on feed 

Gros Ventre 3,500 2,775 3,265 2,982 3,007 drainage 

Other winter 2,500 982 894 1,784 1,220 range 

Total 11,000 11,503 11,519 11,051 11,357 

­
116 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

and for segments of the population based on where 

elk spend the winter. The challenge to managers in 

meeting these objectives is to reduce the number of 

elk wintering on the refuge while increasing the use 

of native winter range. 

Depending on spring conditions, elk begin leaving 

the refuge in late March and early April, and almost 

all elk have left the refuge for calving and summer 

ranges by mid-May. Historically, it was common for 

100–200 elk to summer on the northern portion of the 

refuge, but currently almost no elk exhibit this 

behavior. The decline in summer resident elk on the 

refuge could be linked to hazing activities by refuge 

staff, the relatively recent presence of denning 

wolves on the refuge, changes in refuge hunting seasons, or some combination of these factors. The refuge focus for elk management is to reduce the 

duration of time that elk spend on the refuge to conserve winter forage, minimize the need for winter 

feeding, and reduce disease risk. Therefore, the 

decline in summering elk is viewed as a positive 

development by refuge managers. 

Elk summer in five distinct areas: (1) southern 

Yellowstone National Park; (2) Teton Wilderness; (3) 

Bridger-Teton National Forest south of Teton Wilderness; (4) Grand Teton National Park north of Beaver Creek; and (5) Wilson to Beaver Creek, which 

comprises both private and Grand Teton National 

Park lands. Refuge staff have collared cow elk on the 

feedgrounds since 1978. The proportion of elk that 

migrate long distances from Yellowstone National 

Park appears to have declined over time, while the 

proportion of elk that migrate relatively short distances (Wilson to Beaver Creek) has increased dramatically. The shift appears to be a long-term 

population response, rather than individual elk 

switching summer ranges, but the causes of this shift 

remain unclear. We are examining data associated 

with this phenomenon and hope to publish these 

results by 2014. Changes in elk use of summer range 

are important to managers because long-distance 

migration by mammals is imperiled globally, plus it 

will be difficult to reach the refuge population objective of 5,000 elk with a growing segment of shortdistance migrants. Another factor is that the 

Yellowstone National Park and Teton Wilderness 

segments are economically important to hunting 

guides and outfitters. 

Monitoring focuses on evaluating the management 

strategies designed to meet the objectives of the 

Bison and Elk Management Plan. The primary tasks 

of the refuge’s biological staff are to monitor the following: (1) elk and bison populations; (2) forage production relative to irrigation and other habitat 

enhancement projects; and (3) variables that determine start and end dates of the supplemental feeding 

program. 

The refuge accomplishments below correspond 

with the elk management topics in the Bison and Elk 

Management Plan: 

Habitat Goals 

■■	 In 2007, the refuge reseeded 100 acres of 

agricultural fields to increase production of 

nutritious, palatable natural standing win

ter forage. 

■■	 From 2007 through 2012, refuge staff annu

ally treated approximately 1,000 acres of 

grasslands with a harrow (a farm implement 

used to break up and even plowed ground) 

to break up accumulations of elk and bison 

manure and to promote grass production. 

■■	 In 2010, we installed a new $5.2 million irri

gation system to substantially expand and 

improve irrigation capacity to increase win

ter forage. Water use was reduced and irri

gated acres increased from approximately 

900 acres to 3,300 acres annually. 

Population Goals 

■■	 The refuge set up a new South Unit elk hunt 

on the refuge. 

■■	 The staff developed the online Refuge Hunt

ing Permit Application System to encourage 

broader participation in the refuge elk hunt

ing program. 

■■	 In 2007–12, we provided recommendations 

and participated in the annual process for 

setting the elk season and harvest objec

tives with WGFD and Grand Teton National 

Park. 

Information and Outreach Goals 

■■	 In 2007, refuge staff developed the Sleigh 

Ride Tour Interpretive Manual for the 

sleigh ride concessionaire to cover key mes

sages of the Bison and Elk Management 

Plan and the Refuge System. Annually, 

20,000 to 25,000 people take this tour. 

■■	 In 2007, we started an interpretive training 

program for the sleigh ride concessionaire’s 

staff to ensure accurate delivery of key mes

sages from the Bison and Elk Management 

Plan. We conduct this training annually. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 117 

FWS	 

■■	 Since 2007, the refuge has presented programs to key community and conservation 

organizations that included explanations of 

management activities and strategies to 

achieve the goals outlined in the Bison and 

Elk Management Plan. Organizations and 

individuals include Grand Teton Association 

Board of Directors; Jackson Hole Historical 

Society; Jackson Hole Rotary; The Nature 

Conservancy; Teton County Commissioners; 

Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association; Yellowstone Business Partnership; and 

local, State, and Federal elected officials. 

■■	 Since 2007, we have implemented new visitor programs to highlight refuge management activities and the above topics. 

Programs include roving naturalist, daily 

visitor center program, wildlife caravans, 

and teacher seminars on refuge 

management. 

■■	 Staff conduct school programs designed to 

build a foundational understanding about 

refuge management and basic elk and bison 

ecology for hundreds of school-age children. 

■■	 Refuge staff discuss refuge management 

goals and practices in news releases and 

articles that we send to an email contact list 

of several hundred people, including elected 

officials, media, and local nonprofit 

organizations. 

Sleigh ride tours enhance the information and outreach goals of the refuge. 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Supplemental Feeding Program 

■■	 With WGFD, the refuge developed criteria 

to coordinate the seasonal start of the supplemental feeding program. We have successfully used this criteria since the 2008 

feeding season (refuge files). The refuge and 

our cooperators are collecting remote sensing and elk nutritional data to develop criteria to determine the seasonal end of the 

supplemental feeding program. 

Disease Prevention 

■■	 Beginning in 2007, we annually coordinate 

with WGFD each winter to vaccinate elk for 

brucellosis. 

■■	 The refuge provided money from 2007 

through 2013 to WGFD for hiring technicians to collect samples for chronic wasting 

disease on the refuge and vicinity from 

hunter-harvested elk during the hunting 

season. Most years, testing has been at the 

level of 95-percent confidence of detecting 

chronic wasting disease at 1-percent 

prevalence. 

■■	 Since 2008, as a standard operating procedure, permanent refuge employees carry a 

firearm in the tractor during supplemental 

feeding. They are instructed to immediately 

shoot any elk that exhibit suspected symptoms of chronic wasting disease. We make 
118 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

sure that all elk collected are tested for the 

disease. Employees receive training in identifying the symptoms of chronic wasting 

disease and must pass a firearms proficiency 

test. 

■■	 In 2009, with the Wildlife Health Office in 

Bozeman, Montana (Tom Roffe), the refuge 

started a long-term project to monitor the 

health of elk and bison herds. The purpose 

of the project is to identify the presence and 

prevalence of all diseases in these herds. 

Also, part of the monitoring project is looking at whether management actions cause 

environmental conditions that increase the 

presence or prevalence of diseases. All elk 

collected for this project are tested for 

chronic wasting disease. From 2009–2013, 

145 elk were collected and tested for a variety of diseases. 

■■	 In 2008, the refuge established the Chronic 

Wasting Disease Working Group, comprised 

of land and wildlife management agencies 

that have influence on the Jackson elk herd: 

Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand 

Teton National Park, National Elk Refuge, 

WGFD, and Yellowstone National Park. The 

purpose of this group is to share information. When possible, we leverage efforts to 

detect the presence of the disease and 

reduce the risk of environmental contamination by chronic wasting disease. 

■■	 One of the outcomes from the Chronic Wasting Disease Working Group is a consensus 

about the importance of increased surveillance for the disease. The Grand Teton 

National Park, WGFD, and the refuge will 

all pursue money for more technicians to 

increase samples from hunter-harvested 

elk. The coordination of this effort and 

potential sharing of these technicians 

between agencies was the topic for the 

working group meeting in March 2009. 

■■	 The WGFD has provided free testing for 

chronic wasting disease to the refuge and 

Grand Teton National Park hunters. We 

anticipate that increased public awareness, 

combined with the ability for hunters to test 

their harvested elk, will increase the sample 

size for testing for chronic wasting disease 

on the refuge and the Grand Teton National 

Park. 

Planning 

■■	 Since November 2012, the refuge has been 

developing an adaptive resource management plan for the Bison and Elk Management Plan. 

Bison 

The Jackson bison herd is of special importance as 

one of the last remnants of the extensive wild herds 

that once roamed much of North America. As bison 

continue to inhabit the landscape of what remains of 

the western frontier, a part of the unique American 

experience is preserved for future generations. This 

section describes (1) bison on the refuge, (2) bison in 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and (3) Jackson 

Hole Wildlife Park. 

Bison on the Refuge 

The free-ranging bison established fairly welldefined movement patterns in Grand Teton National 

Park, spending summers in area of The Potholes, 

Signal Mountain, and the Snake River bottoms and 

wintering in the Snake River bottoms and farther 

south (see the “Jackson Hole Bison Herd Seasonal 

Ranges” map on page 150 of the environmental 

impact statement for the Bison and Elk Management 

Plan [FWS and NPS 2007b]). During the early 1970s, 

the bison wintered in the river bottoms north of the 

community of Moose and in the Kelly Hayfields vicinity, east of Blacktail Butte. Since the winter of 1975– 

76, however, most of the herd has wintered on the 

National Elk Refuge (except during the mild winter 

of 1976–77). 

Our agency has jurisdiction over wildlife including bison on the refuge (16 U.S.C. 668dd) and the 

National Park Service has jurisdiction over wildlife 

in Grand Teton National Park (16 U.S.C. 1). In 2002, 

WGFD and the Wyoming Livestock Board defined 

two “wild bison” management areas, one for the 

Absaroka herd and the other for the Jackson herd. 

The State has jurisdiction over bison from the Jackson wild bison herd in “all lands in Lincoln, Sublette 

and Teton Counties west of the Continental Divide, 

excluding Grand Teton National Park, Yellowstone 

National Park and the National Elk Refuge. 

Bison are counted annually on the refuge in the 

winter and in the park in the summer. As of February 2006, the herd numbered 948. Between 1969 and 

1985, the refuge did little to manage bison. We documented the size of the herd and its sex and age composition on an opportunistic basis. A study was 

initiated in 1997 to find out more about bison demography, reproduction, and effects of brucellosis on the 

population. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 119 

Soon after the bison began wintering on the 

National Elk Refuge, they discovered the supplemental feed put out for the elk. Although the staff tried to 

haze bison away from the elk feeding areas, our 

efforts were largely unsuccessful. Consequently, the 

refuge staff resorted to liberally feeding bison to 

keep them away from elk feed lines and to reduce 

conflicts. We are concerned about bison wintering on 

the refuge because of (1) increased consumption of 

supplemental feed and the associated cost; (2) conflicts with the elk-feeding program and management 

guidelines for the refuge; (3) human safety concerns 

near the refuge visitor center, along Elk Refuge 

Road, and in the town of Jackson when bison 

approached the refuge’s southern entrance; and (4) 

property damage such as broken fences and signs. 

Since discovering the elk feed lines on the refuge in 

1980, the bison herd has greatly increased in size. We 

culled 16 bison and conducted a special permit hunt 

(taking 19 bison) in an effort to reduce the herd. However, litigation brought hunting to an end on the 

National Elk Refuge. We had not done any herd 

reductions on the refuge since 1990, and the bison 

population continued to grow at a rapid rate, increasing annually by approximately 10–14 percent. 

In the 1970s and 1980s, bison on private land or 

animals that were a threat to human safety or property were shot. In 1989, the Wyoming Legislature 

authorized a reduction season for wild bison. To slow 

population growth, WGFD reinitiated hunting in 

1998, outside the National Elk Refuge and the Grand 

Teton National Park, where bison could legally be 

hunted. Few bison have been killed, however, because 

the animals are mainly distributed within the refuge 

and park lands. The annual number of bison harvested ranged from a low of 4 in 1998 to a high of 47 

in 2002. 

Bison hunting was initiated under the environmental impact statement for the Bison and Elk Management Plan (FWS and NPS 2007b) in 2007. From 

2007 to 2013, hunters harvested an average of 204 

bison per year. This harvest level has been enough to 

prevent further growth of the Jackson bison herd, 

but sustained reduction in the population to the 

objective of 500 bison has not been achieved. As of 

winter 2013, there were approximately 850 bison in 

the Jackson herd. 

The refuge accomplishments below correspond 

with the bison management topics in the Bison and 

Elk Management Plan: 

Habitat Goals 

Same as under “Elk” above. 

Population Goals 

■■	 In 2007, we started an annual, public, bison 

hunting season to reduce the population. 

The season length was increased several 

times to maximize harvest. We offered a 

145-day season in 2012–13, from August 15 

through January 6. Annual harvest is 

strongly linked to weather conditions and 

has varied from a high of 266 to a low of 139. 

■■	 In 2008, we developed the first memorandum of agreement with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to conduct a ceremonial bison 

event on the refuge. The tribes have harvested an average of five bison annually 

through this agreement. 

■■	 The bison winter population has been 

reduced from approximately 1,250 in 2007 

to approximately 850 in 2013. 

Information and Outreach Goals 

Same as under “Elk” above. 

Disease Prevention 

■■	 The refuge denied WGFD’s request to 

administer the brucellosis vaccination to 

700 bison using syringe darts during the 

winter of 2007–8. The effective retrieval of 

used syringes from bison using this 

untested approach was in question. Large 

numbers of unretrieved syringes littering 

the refuge would pose a safety hazard to 

refuge employees, hunters, and other wildlife. The WGFD decided the delivery system 

needed further refinement and did not make 

a similar subsequent request. 

■■	 In 2009, with the Wildlife Health Office in 

Bozeman, Montana (Tom Roffe), the refuge 

started a long-term project to monitor the 

health of elk and bison herds (same as under 

“Elk” above). 

Same as under “Elk” above. 

Planning 

Bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

The American bison is native to Jackson Hole 

(Ferris 1940, Fryxell 1928, Hall and Kelson 1959, 

Long 1965, Love 1972, McDonald 1981, Skinner and 

Kaisen 1947, Wright et al. 1976). Prehistoric bison 

remains have been found throughout the valley, along 

the Gros Ventre River, on the western slope of the 
120 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Gros Ventre Range, on the National Elk Refuge, and 

along the Snake River south of Jackson (Ferris 1940, 

Fryxell 1928, Love 1972). Historically, bison likely 

lived in the northern areas of Jackson Hole as well, 

especially in summer. Areas where bison remains 

have been found represent key ungulate wintering 

areas, where most bison mortality would be expected 

to occur. 

We do not know how many bison once lived in 

Jackson Hole. At least one reference exists, however, 

for an observation of “a large herd of buffalo in the 

valley” in June 1833 (Ferris 1940). The near extinction of the American bison occurred throughout the 

19th century. By the 1820s, bison were confined 

almost exclusively to lands west of the Mississippi 

River. Many of these herds began to decline after 

1830, as market hunting for hides accelerated, and 

prolonged drought in the 1840s further reduced bison 

numbers. After the Civil War, competition from 

domestic cattle and the greatly intensified market 

hunting for “buffalo” robes and tongues decimated 

the Great Plains herds. Tourists on railroad-shooting 

excursions killed thousands more. A final contributing factor was the introduction of cattle-borne contagious diseases, which reached epidemic proportions 

in 1881 and 1882. The combination of cattle, hunting, 

and epidemic disease all but eradicated the once 

immense western herds. By 1890, only about 300 

bison remained in the United States (Malone et al. 

1976). 

Bison were mainly extirpated from the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem, including Jackson Hole, by 

the mid-1880s (Trenholm and Carley 1964). A small 

herd continued to live in Yellowstone National Park 

(Bailey 1930, as cited in Long 1965; Wright 1984). 

While private herds existed throughout the United 

States, by 1902 no more than 23 individual bison 

remained of the thousands that had occupied the Yellowstone area since prehistoric times (Callenbach 

1996). A small group of 8–12 free-ranging bison, 

whose origin is unknown, persisted in west-central 

Wyoming’s Red Desert until the mid-1950s (Love, 

personal communication, as cited in NPS and FWS 

1996). 

Moose 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Jackson Hole Wildlife Park 

Except for three Yellowstone National Park bison 

that wandered south into Jackson Hole in 1945 

(Simon, no date), bison were absent from Jackson 

Hole from at least 1840 until 1948. That year, 20 animals (3 bulls, 12 cows, and 5 calves) from Yellowstone 

National Park were reintroduced to the 1,500-acre 

Jackson Hole Wildlife Park near the community of 

Moran. This was a private, nonprofit enterprise sponsored by the New York Zoological Society, the Jackson Hole Preserve, Inc., and the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission (Simon, no date). Jackson Hole 

Wildlife Park served as an exhibit of important large 

mammals as well as a biological field station for the 

Rocky Mountain area. The 20 bison were considered 

the property of Wyoming. 

In 1950, the expansion of Grand Teton National 

Park took in the Jackson Hole Wildlife Park, and 

management of the bison shifted to the National Park 

Service. By 1963, the National Park Service coordinated most management actions with WGFD: winter 

feeding, capturing bison that escaped the confines of 

the wildlife park (which occurred several times annually), and routine brucellosis testing and vaccination. 

The national park kept a population of 15–30 bison in 

a large enclosure until 1963 when brucellosis was 

discovered in the herd. Several months later, the 13 

adults were destroyed to rid the herd of the disease. 

The national park kept four yearlings that had been 

vaccinated against brucellosis as calves and five new 

calves, which had also been vaccinated. In 1964, 12 

certified brucellosis-free bison (6 adult males and 6 

adult females) from Theodore Roosevelt National 

Park were added to the Moran bison population, 

bringing the total number of animals to 21. These 

bison represented the latest in a long line of introductions from several herds (Shelley and Anderson 

1989). In 1968, the population was down to 11 adults, 

all of which tested negative for brucellosis, and 4 or 5 

calves. Later that year, the entire herd escaped the 

confines of the park. In 1969, the National Park Service eventually allowed the herd to range freely, par­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 121 

tially because of recommendations contained in a 

report commissioned by the Secretary of the Interior 

on wildlife management in the national parks (Leopold et al. 1963). 

Bighorn Sheep 

Historically, bighorn sheep on the refuge were 

primarily winter residents that migrated from the 

Gros Ventre Range. From November to May, they 

occurred on the eastern slopes of Miller Butte and in 

the eastern parts of the refuge near Curtis Canyon. 

In recent years, small numbers of sheep have been 

observed on Miller Butte year-round, although peak 

numbers occur in winter, with most still migrating to 

the Gros Ventre Range. As many as 98 bighorn sheep 

were observed during on Miller Butte in 2012, and 62 

sheep were observed in winter 2013. 

Pronghorn 

As many as 60 pronghorn have summered on the 

refuge in recent years. Occasionally, up to 34 pronghorn have wintered on the refuge, but survival for 

overwintering pronghorn is typically poor due to 

severe winter conditions and predation by coyotes. 

In the past, as many as 450 pronghorn summered 

in Jackson Hole (including the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, Grand Teton National Park, and 

National Elk Refuge). Although the population 

declined to approximately 175 in the early 2000s, 

recent surveys suggest there are approximately 400 

pronghorn in Jackson Hole. Most pronghorn migrate 

south out of the valley, through the Gros Ventre 

Range, to winter range in the Green River Basin, 

which is about 100 miles one way. 

Mule Deer 

In spring through fall, a small number of mule 

deer can be found on the northern part of the refuge 

in the Gros Ventre Hills and along the Gros Ventre 

River. These deer may leave this area at the beginning of elk hunting season in October. Mule deer on 

the refuge winter primarily on Miller Butte, but 

their numbers have greatly declined since the refuge 

closed an old feed shed that allowed deer access to 

alfalfa pellets. No deer were seen on Miller Butte 

during the winters of 2001–2, 2002–3, 2003–4, or 

2004–5; eight were seen in the winter of 2005–6. 

Mule deer in Jackson Hole belong to the deer herd 

in Sublette County (southeast of Teton County), 

whose estimated population averaged 24,528 from 

2007 through 2011, with an estimate of 21,969 for 

2012 (WGFD 2013). The Sublette deer herd ranges 

from the Wind River Range north to the Gros Ventre 

Range, west to the Wyoming Range, southwest to 

the Green River Basin, and southeast to the Little 

Colorado Desert. A small proportion of these deer 

come into Jackson Hole, and they are not counted 

separately from the Sublette herd as a whole. Some 

mule deer winter in Jackson Hole and can often be 

seen in Jackson and on East Gros Ventre Butte. 

Moose 

The Jackson moose herd was an estimated 500 

animals in 2012, with an average of 1,085 moose from 

2007 through 2011 (WGFD 2013). Moose range covers 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand Teton 

National Park, and National Elk Refuge; however, 

only 3–14 moose winter on the refuge each year. In 

the past 20–30 years, moose used riparian habitat 

along the Gros Ventre River on the refuge during the 

winter. Both moose and elk browse on willow, aspen, 

and other woody shrubs. Bison do not typically 

browse on woody vegetation (except near 

feedgrounds), but they rub against trees and seek 

shelter in riparian areas. The decrease in woody vegetation because of large numbers of elk on the refuge 

likely has had a negative effect on moose on the refuge over the long term. 

Gray Wolf 

Gray wolves were deliberately exterminated from 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by the 1930s and 

were placed on the Federal endangered species list in 

1973. After years of scientific research and public 

debate, 66 gray wolves from Canada were reintroduced into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (31 

wolves) and central Idaho (35 wolves) in 1995 and 

1996 (FWS et al. 2003). They were classified as a nonessential, experimental population in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act. This means that 

the species is treated either as proposed for listing in 

a national forest or as threatened in a national park 

or a national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 17). This nonessential, experimental population designation allows 

more flexibility to Federal, State, and tribal agencies, 

and private citizens in managing the wolf population. 

The wolf expanded rapidly under these protections, 

the population exceeded recovery goals, and wolves 

in Wyoming were removed from the Endangered 

Species list in 2012. 

The gray wolf now falls under the management 

authority of WGFD, and the 2012 Wyoming Gray 

Wolf Population Monitoring and Management Annual 

Report provides recent information on wolf population trends in Wyoming (WGFD et al. 2013). In northwestern Wyoming, the wolf is considered a trophy 

game species with a limited-quota hunting season. 

No wolf hunting is allowed on the National Elk Refuge, Yellowstone National Park, or Grand Teton 

National Park, but wolves that den in these protected 

areas are subject to harvest when they venture onto 

surrounding national forest, State, and private lands. 

Because of changes in protected status, the wideranging nature of the species, and potential effects of 
122 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

wolves on elk numbers and distribution, the refuge 

cooperatively monitors wolf populations with WGFD 

and Grand Teton National Park. Wolves have been 

active on the refuge since 1999, and the first wolves 

denned on the refuge in 2005. The Pinnacle Peak 

pack has consistently denned and produced pups on 

the refuge from 2008 to 2012, and preliminary monitoring suggests that they denned on the refuge in 

2013. Members of the pack are commonly observed 

by refuge visitors on the southern end of the refuge 

during the winter. 

Studies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

documented that elk compose more than 85 percent 

of wolf kills during the winter (FWS et al. 2003; Jaffe 

2001, Mech et al. 2001.). However, preliminary evidence suggests that winter elk mortality has not 

increased since wolves began using the refuge in 

1999. This indicates that wolf activity on the refuge 

has resulted in compensatory rather than additive 

mortality in elk—this means that wolves have mostly 

been killing elk on the refuge that would have died 

anyway. 

Coyote 

Coyotes are plentiful in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, including the refuge. Several family 

groups live year-round on the refuge, but the number 

increases to nearly 100 as transient coyotes follow the 

elk herds to the refuge in the winter (F. Camenzind, 

biologist, Jackson Hole Alliance, Jackson, Wyoming, 

personal communication, 2003). 

Coyotes are opportunistic predators that readily 

feed on carrion, but they also catch a variety of small 

mammals from mice, squirrels, and rabbits to fawns 

and calves. In addition, coyotes will feed on insects 

and fruit. In winter, elk and occasionally bison carrion on the refuge are an important part of the coyote 

diet. In spring, coyotes may take elk calves during 

the calves’ first month of life. Coyotes rarely have the 

opportunity to kill bison calves because of the presence of the herd and protective mothers. 

Mountain Lion 

Mountain lions (also known as “cougars” or 

“pumas”) occur throughout the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, including the refuge. A mountain lion and 

her three kittens were seen frequenting a cave on 

Miller Butte for 2 months during the winter of 1999. 

She was a skilled elk and deer hunter and provided a 

great wildlife-watching opportunity. 

Mountain lions feed mainly on ungulates, primarily deer, throughout much of their distribution, but 

they can take elk, moose, and bighorn sheep. Where 

elk are abundant, they can become a large part of the 

mountain lion diet (Ruth 2004). Mountain lions have 

also been known to feed opportunistically on wild 

horses, beavers, porcupines, raccoons, and hares, 

indicating one of the most varied diets of any predator in the Western Hemisphere (Hansen 1992). 

Mountain lions prey mostly on a combination of 

deer and elk in Jackson Hole, relying more on elk 

than in other areas of the country because of the 

large elk herd (Moody, personal communication, 

2002; Quigley et al. 2005). The Teton Cougar Project 

began in January 2001 and is focusing field investigations on mountain lion predation (the Wildlife Conservation Society originally operated the project, 

which is now operated by Craighead Beringia South). 

Information collected shows that elk made up 

approximately 80 percent of 86 mountain lion kills 

from 2000 to 2004 (Quigley et al. 2005). 

Black Bear 

Black bears rarely occur on the refuge but are 

common in the Bridger-Teton National Forest and 

Grand Teton National Park. While black bear numbers are unknown, their population is considered 

stable. Inhabiting forested areas, they feed on nutritious, succulent vegetation and on grubs, fish, newborn ungulates, and carrion. Elk and bison carrion 

may occasionally provide valuable protein. Black 

bears are known to successfully prey on elk calves. 

Smith and Anderson (1996) reported that, from 1990 

to 1992, 22 of 145 radio-collared calves died before 

July 15; black bears were responsible for 11 of these 

mortalities. During the late 1990s, black bears were 

responsible for 16 of 42 calf deaths (B.L. Smith, personal communication, 2003). In a north-central Idaho 

study, black bears killed 38 of 53 marked calves, or 72 

percent (Schlegel 1976). Bison calves are not usually 

vulnerable to black bears because bison cows can 

adequately defend their young. 

Small Mammals 

Small mammals in Jackson Hole are abundant. 

Suitable habitat is the most important factor influencing the distribution and abundance of small mammal populations. Many small mammals occupy a wide 

variety of habitats, while others have specific needs 

that limit their distribution (refer to table 11). In general, most species prefer more mesic (neither wet nor 

dry) environments, and edge habitats generally support more species than interior habitats. 

Small mammals depend on grasses for forage, as 

well as for cover from predators. Riparian areas and 

aspen typically support a greater abundance of small 

mammals and a greater diversity of species, although 

many of these species can be found in other habitats. 

Browsing by elk and bison has greatly altered some 

small mammal habitats on the refuge, which likely 

has changed the type of species found in affected 

areas. A small mammal study conducted on the refuge in the summers of 2000 and 2001 identified four 

species inhabiting cultivated fields—deer mice, voles, 
Table 11. Small mammals that occur in various habitats on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming.. 

Habitat Common mammals 

Native grasslands 

and cultivated fields 

Deer mouse 

Desert cottontail 

Long-tailed vole 

Merriam’s shrew 

Northern pocket gopher 

Sagebrush vole 

Uinta ground squirrel 

Wyoming ground squirrel Yellow pine 

chipmunk 

Sagebrush 

shrublands 

Deer mouse 

Desert cottontail 

Dusky shrew 

Heather vole 

Least chipmunk 

Long-tailed vole 

Masked shrew 

Meadow vole 

Merriam’s shrew 

Mon¬tane vole 

Mountain (Nuttall’s) cottontail 

Northern pocket gopher 

Sagebrush vole 

Uinta ground squirrel Wyoming 

ground squirrel 

Yellow pine chipmunk 

Deer mouse Montane vole 

Desert cottontail Mountain cottontail Uinta ground squirrel (aspen) 

Dusky shrew Muskrat Vagrant shrew 

Riparian Golden-mantled ground Northern flying squirrel Water shrew 

woodlands and squirrel Northern pocket gopher Water vole 

aspen woodlands Heather vole Red squirrel Western jumping mouse 

Long-tailed vole Snowshoe hare Wyoming ground squirrel 

Masked shrew Southern red-backed vole Yellow pine chipmunk 

Meadow vole Uinta chipmunk 

Source: Based on the University of Wyoming, Geographic Information Science Center, Species Atlas, 2003. 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 123 

Pronghorn 

Ann Hough / FWS 

shrews, and short-tailed weasels (L. Swanekamp, 

master’s student, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, personal communication, 2002). 

Overgrazing by large numbers of elk and bison 

can limit the numbers of rodents that can survive in 

grassland and sagebrush shrubland habitats. Irrigation, especially flood irrigation, designed to increase 

elk forage, can have a negative effect on small mammals by flooding burrows. The effects of K-line sprinkler irrigation on small mammal communities are 

unknown, but flooding effects of the K-line system on 

small mammal populations are likely to be far less 

than with flood irrigation. The number of flood-irrigated acres has been greatly reduced under the new 

system, which could benefit some small mammal species and their predators. 
124 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Large Rodents 

Large rodent species that occur in Jackson Hole 

are yellow-bellied marmot, porcupine, and beaver. 

Elk and bison probably do not affect marmots, but 

the decline of woody vegetation on the refuge 

because of browsing by elk and bison has likely 

reduced the amount of habitat available for porcupines and beavers: 

■■	 Marmots occupy rocky slopes of upper elevations, living in burrows in open areas and 

eating a variety of green vegetation. 

■■	 Porcupines occur in upland shrublands, 

riparian woodlands, and aspen woodlands. 

Porcupines feed on leaves, twigs, and green 

plants during the summer. In the winter, 

they subsist by chewing through the rough 

outer bark of trees to feed on the inner 

bark. 

■■	 Beavers are common in the Gros Ventre 

River area and in associated ponds on the 

northern end of the refuge. Historically, 

beavers occurred on the southern end of the 

refuge, but as willow habitat along Flat 

Creek declined in acreage and height, the 

beavers disappeared (Smith et al. 2004). 

Beavers inhabit rivers, streams, marshes, 

lakes, and ponds and use the adjacent 

woody, riparian areas. They feed on green 

plants and the bark of certain trees and 

shrubs, such as aspen, cottonwood, and 

willow. 

Midsize Predators 

Other predators inhabiting the refuge include 

badger, bobcat, long-tailed weasel, ermine, mink, raccoons, red fox, and skunk. The presence of large 

predators and high densities of coyotes appears to 

limit the abundance of midsize predators. These species prey on small mammals, and a few may opportunistically feed on elk or bison carrion, but they do not 

depend on it as a food source. Bobcats may take an 

occasional elk calf, but calf-mortality studies show 

that this is not a substantial cause of mortality 

(Smith and Anderson 1996). Mink are not known to 

feed on bison or elk carrion. There have only been 

incidental observations of raccoons and skunks, and 

the absence of these animals potentially reduces nest 

predation on breeding birds. Red fox have increased 

in abundance in the past decade, but still occur at 

relatively low densities compared to surrounding 

areas. 

Birds 

Approximately 175 species of birds have been 

observed on the National Elk Refuge. This section 

describes neotropical migratory birds, grouse, waterbirds, and predatory and scavenger birds on the 

refuge. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds, which breed in 

North America and spend their winters in the tropics, have been experiencing population declines 

throughout their range (Terborgh 1989, USGS 1999). 

Habitat fragmentation by development, changes in 

plant communities associated with invasive plant species and ungulate herbivory, and destruction of winter range are among the factors believed to be 

responsible for these declines (Dobkin 1994, Dobkin 

and Wilcox 1986, George and Dobkin 2002, Martin 

and Finch 1995). 

Many species of neotropical migratory birds are 

declining in North America because of an inability to 

raise young successfully rather than from mortality 

of adult birds (Herkert et al. 1993). Loss of habitat 

has long been suspected as contributing to nest failure and low survival of young birds, but habitat fragmentation plays an important role (Kaufmann 1996). 

In fragmented landscapes, neotropical species suffer 

high rates of nest predation by mammals and birds 

and high rates of nest parasitism by brown-headed 

cowbirds. Researchers have shown that habitat size, 

shape, and the amount and type of edge can all affect 

breeding success. Edge habitats support a larger 

variety and higher density of predators (Lompart et 

al. 1997). 

Nest Predation and Parasitism 

Potential nest predators, such as crows, magpies, 

and ravens and foxes, raccoons, and skunks are 

attracted to habitat edges, often preying on eggs and 

young birds in narrow strips of riparian habitat and 

near edges of larger forests (Wilcove 1985, Yahner 

1988). In some forests, this edge-enhanced nest predation has been documented to extend more than 300 

feet into the interior of the forest patch (Wilcove 

1985). Martin (1988, 1993) found that nest predation 

can account for, on average, 80 percent of nesting failures, and Donovan et al. (1997) established that 

where habitats are fragmented, predators gain 

greater access to nests at forest edges. 

Brown-headed cowbirds are common in Jackson 

Hole, and cowbird parasitism can reduce productivity 

for many neotropical migratory bird species. Cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, often 

removing a host egg before laying one of their own. 

Cowbird chicks hatch earlier and grow faster than 

host chicks, which results in the cowbird young 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 125 

receiving most of the food and parental care from the 

foster parents. Female brown-headed cowbirds prefer edge habitats and can lay up to 77 eggs in a single 

season (Jackson and Roby 1992). Edge-tolerant songbird species can often recognize cowbird eggs and 

remove them from the nest, or they may abandon 

parasitized nests. These edge-tolerant species are 

often permanent residents or short-distance 

migrants and can nest several times in a season. This 

increases their chances of raising a successful brood, 

since cowbirds rarely parasitize late-season nests 

(Ehrlich et al. 1988). In contrast, interior-forest 

birds, which are usually long-distance migrants and 

only nest once or twice a year, often fail to raise any 

young of their own when forced to nest in edge habitats because they have not evolved behaviors to cope 

with nest parasitism. As a result, interior-forest species such as the veery and the American redstart 

disappear from small patches of forest habitat, and 

edge-tolerant species such as the American robin and 

house wren greatly increase (Herkert et al. 1993). 

Habitat Size 

On the refuge, small or narrow patches of riparian 

woodland and aspen woodland habitats often comprise sparse mature trees and lack of shrubs and 

small trees in the understory because of overbrowsing by ungulates. However, even if these patches are 

protected in some manner resulting in dense stands 

of small trees and shrubs, neotropical migratory 

birds may not benefit because of the size and shape of 

the individual patches for the reasons discussed 

above. To benefit tree- and shrub-nesting migratory 

birds, protection of stands from ungulate browsing 

should be limited to those stands that are large 

enough to support breeding populations of these 

species. 

An example of a narrow habitat patch would be 

the cottonwood community along upper Flat Creek. 

This long riparian strip may always be too narrow to 

provide interior habitat for neotropical migratory 

birds that require interior-forest conditions for successful nesting. Some species of birds may avoid such 

areas and not attempt to nest, while others may 

make unsuccessful nesting attempts. For those birds 

that attempt nesting but fail to fledge young because 

of high predation and parasitism rates, this area may 

become (or possibly has always been) a “population 

sink.” Nevertheless, small or narrow tracts of riparian woodland and aspen woodland habitats are still 

valuable to a variety of birds as stop¬over sites during migration and have other beneficial effects such 

as preventing streambank erosion and improving fish 

habitat. 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush Shrublands 

Grassland and sagebrush shrubland plant communities provide important breeding habitat 

between May and mid-July for some neotropical 

migrant species, and these cover types are abundant 

on the refuge. Typical bird species that nest in sagebrush shrublands are Brewer’s sparrows, sage sparrows, and sage thrashers. Many sagebrush bird 

species are declining as habitat throughout the West 

is converted to farmland and development. As riparian area and aspen habitats on the refuge are converted to sagebrush habitat because of heavy elk and 

bison browsing, more sagebrush shrubland habitat 

will become available to bird species that depend on 

that habitat. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands 

In the arid West, riparian woodland and aspen 

woodland habitats with a shrub understory (1) support the most species-rich communities of breeding 

birds (Dobkin and Wilcox 1986; Knopf et al. 1988; 

Mitton and Grant 1996; Saab et al. 1995; Tewksbury 

et al. 2002), (2) provide important migration habitat 

for migratory landbirds (Dobkin 1994), and (3) are 

centers for biological diversity (Brussard et al. 1998). 

These habitats are crucial for breeding habitat and 

migration stopovers for 80 percent of migratory bird 

species (Krueper 1992), because they are used extensively for feeding, nesting, shelter, and travel corridors. The open canopies allow sunlight to reach the 

ground, producing a rich understory of shrub and 

herbaceous species offering structural diversity. The 

layered structure of these woodlands provides many 

niches for birds. Cavity nesters use snags for nest 

sites, while predatory birds perch on dead trees to 

scan for prey. Neotropical birds nest at different levels, and they feed on the diversity of insects found in 

woodlands. 

The ecological health of a woody plant community 

can be directly measured by bird species composition, their relative abundance, and breeding success 

(Dobkin et al. 2002). Riparian woodlands and aspen 

woodlands shelter many bird species that have relatively narrow needs for breeding habitat. These species may occur chiefly or exclusively in willow, aspen, 

and cottonwood communities. In the southern part of 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, ecologically 

intact riparian woodlands or aspen woodlands can 

have 76 species of birds closely associated with it 

during the nesting season, and 23 species (neotropical 

migrants) will be common and relatively abundant 

(Dobkin et al. 2002). 

Cattle and wildlife grazing and browsing, especially in arid systems, can greatly affect the quality 

of riparian habitat for neotropical migrants (Ammon 

and Stacey 1997, Roath and Krueger 1982, Saab et al. 
126 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

1995, Taylor 1986). Upland aspen has been declining 

in Jackson Hole for the last several decades (Loope 

and Gruell 1973), as well as throughout the West 

(Kay 1998). Fire suppression is a major factor in the 

reduction of aspen (Kay 1998, Loope and Gruell 1973, 

White et al. 1998). On the refuge, ungulate browsing 

has greatly accelerated this decline (Anderson 2002, 

Dieni et al. 2000). 

The mixture of riparian and upland aspen habitats found on the refuge is important to a variety of 

species. Anderson (2002) observed 25 bird species in 

riparian woodland habitats and 54 species in upland 

aspen habitat in Jackson Hole. Riparian woodlands 

and aspen woodlands that lack recruitment, such as 

those found on the refuge, are structurally simplified 

and support a less diverse community of bird species. 

Birds found in this simplified habitat generally have 

habitat needs that can be met in a wide variety of 

habitat types. Trabold and Smith (2001) found that 

European starlings on the National Elk Refuge overwhelmingly dominate the cottonwood riparian habitat along Flat Creek. This is typical of highly 

fragmented cottonwood habitat with low numbers of 

bird species (Gutzwiller and Anderson 1987). Many 

native cavity nesters cannot successfully compete 

with the highly aggressive starling. Aspen stands on 

the refuge also have low abundances of native bird 

species that are typically found in aspen, such as rednaped sapsucker and MacGillivray’s warbler (Anderson and Anderson 2001). Some widespread habitat 

specialists are completely absent including broadtailed hummingbird, calliope hummingbird, rufous 

hummingbird, veery, Swainson’s thrush, orangecrowned warbler, black-headed grosbeak, fox sparrow, and song sparrow (Dieni and Anderson 1997). 

The decline of woody vegetation on the refuge and 

the resultant decline in neotropical migrants is 

attributed to 100 years of heavy browsing by elk and 

almost 40 years of browsing by bison. Anderson 

(2002) conducted a study in and around Jackson Hole 

specifically to determine the effect, if any, that supplementally fed elk were having on landbird distribution in willow and upland aspen habitats. Anderson’s 

(2002) results are summarized below: 

■■	 Willow habitats that are heavily browsed by 

elk are characterized by (1) lower willow 

volume, (2) lower willow shrub diameter, (3) 

fewer willow habitat bird specialists, (4) 

fewer species that nest in willow, and (5) 

fewer aerially foraging species. 

■■	 Riparian areas closest to feedgrounds 

receive the heaviest elk use and experience 

the greatest loss in bird species that depend 

on riparian habitat, such as willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, fox sparrow, and song sparrow. Species 

of birds that are abundant near feedgrounds 

include those that typically nest in grass

lands or sagebrush shrublands, such as 

Savannah sparrow, vesper sparrow, west

ern meadowlark, and Brewer’s blackbird. 

■■	 Nest predators, such as common ravens and 

black-billed magpies, were also more com

mon near feedgrounds, possibly because of 

the greater availability of elk carcasses. 

These nest predators may accelerate the 

decline of neotropical migrants. 

■■	 Aspen woodland habitats that were browsed 

heavily by elk were characterized by (1) less 

understory volume of vegetation, (2) lower 

densities of nonsapling live and dead trees, 

(3) greater proportions of dead aspen trees 

(nonsapling), (4) more regeneration of suck

ers less than 1.6 feet, (5) less recruitment to 

overstory, (6) a lower density of aspen sap

lings, (7) a lower proportion of the stands 

with saplings, (8) higher rates of sucker 

browsing, (9) a lower proportion of suckers, 

(10) more damage to bark, (11) a higher den

sity of dead trees, and (12) a higher propor

tion of the stands with dead aspen trees. 

■■	 Aspen woodland habitats heavily browsed 

by elk were also characterized by (1) fewer 

species of birds that nest and feed in the 

understory, (2) fewer species of birds that 

nest and feed in forest canopies, (3) fewer 

ground-nesting species, and (4) a greater 

abundance of cavity-nesting birds, probably 

because of the higher rates of aspen decay 

and mortality. 

­

­

­

Bohemian Waxwing 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

­

­

­

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 127 

■■	 Aspen stands on the refuge that received 

high elk use (stands with the longest duration of high elk densities) had a substantially 

lower diversity of birds, and birds were less 

abundant as compared to aspen stands with 

low elk use. When aspen stands are converted to sagebrush shrubland habitat by 

high elk use, there is an exchange of approximately 20–40 bird species for 3–5 bird species that are generally more common than 

those found in aspen stands. 

■■	 Recruitment of willow and aspen was 

extremely rare both on the refuge and near 

the WGFD Gros Ventre feedgrounds. 

Smith et al (2004) corroborated Anderson’s finding through an analysis of historical refuge photographs and experimental monitoring of fenced areas 

where elk and bison were excluded. They estimated 

that 95 percent of potential willow habitat had been 

lost on the southern end of the refuge due to browsing by elk and bison and that most willow, aspen, and 

cottonwood stands on the southern end of the refuge 

had insufficient regeneration to perpetuate 

themselves. 

Cultivated Fields 

Neotropical migrant species that can be found in 

the cultivated fields on the refuge include Brewer’s 

sparrow, Savannah sparrow, vesper sparrow, and 

western meadowlark (Dieni 2011). These species also 

occur in native grasslands. 

Ruffed Grouse 

Ruffed grouse are generally widespread and common, occurring in deciduous and mixed woodlands. 

Conifer forests may be used for shelter, while deciduous habitats are primarily used for food. Because elk 

browse on the woody vegetation that ruffed grouse 

rely on for their winter diet, changes in woody vegetation can affect ruffed grouse populations on the 

refuge. 

Sharp-tailed Grouse

 Sharp-tailed grouse were eliminated from the 

refuge by the mid-20th century due to loss of willow 

and aspen habitat (Smith et al. 2004). However, as of 

2001, small numbers of sharp-tailed grouse have 

returned to Jackson Hole, and the birds are occasionally observed in the Flat Creek area and the northern end of the refuge during the winter. Breeding 

has been confirmed for at least one location in Grand 

Teton National Park, which is the likely source of 

these grouse on the refuge. Given the dependence of 

this species on tall, dense deciduous shrub and aspen 

communities and the lack of this habitat on the refuge, it is unlikely that a breeding population of 

sharp-tailed grouse will become established on the 

refuge. 

Waterbirds 

Species of waterfowl, shorebirds, rails, and cranes 

that use the refuge are diverse and in most cases 

have habitat linked to aquatic or wetland features. 

They are vulnerable to predators because of their 

location on the ground, and they must rely on dense 

vegetation for camouflage or water levels high 

enough to impede nest raiders. 

Several species of waterfowl—trumpeter swan, 

Canada goose, mallard, green-winged teal, gadwall, 

American wigeon, common goldeneye, Barrow’s goldeneye, and common merganser—are year-round residents on refuge wetlands. However, most waterfowl 

and shorebird species in Jackson Hole are seasonal 

migrants. Rocky Mountain Canada geese nest on 

wetlands throughout Jackson Hole, and fall populations on the refuge number 300–500, with about 100 

overwintering. Duck populations range from 200 to 

500 annually, with gadwall, mallard, ring-necked 

duck, green-winged teal, cinnamon teal, and Barrow’s goldeneye the largest contributors. Peak numbers of waterfowl in the fall are close to 3,000, and 

about 200–300 birds overwinter on the refuge. 

Common shorebird and rail species that breed on 

the refuge include killdeer, long-billed curlew, willet, 

spotted sandpiper, Wilson’s phalarope, and sora. 

These species occupy a wide range of plant communities from dry grasslands, in the case of the longbilled curlew, to dense cattail–bulrush marsh in the 

case of the sora rail. 

The greater sandhill crane nests in small numbers 

in Jackson Hole, and fall concentrations of more than 

150 birds have been observed on the refuge. 

Predatory and Scavenger Birds 

Jackson Hole has many resident species of predatory birds including the following: 

■■ golden eagle 

■■ bald eagle 

■■ peregrine falcon 

■■ prairie falcon 

■■ northern harrier 

■■ red-tailed hawk 

■■ Swainson’s hawk 

■■ American kestrel 

■■ rough-legged hawk 

■■ great horned owl 

■■ short-eared owl 

Eagles and hawks are all predators, but their preferred prey varies widely. Small hawks typically feed 

on insects, while the larger hawks feed on birds and 
128 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

small mammals. Eagles may take prey as large as 

foxes. Falcons often specialize on birds but may also 

take rodents and insects. Some of these raptors feed 

opportunistically on carrion, especially in winter. 

Black-billed magpies and common ravens are 

omnivores that eat a wide variety of insects, rodents, 

lizards, and frogs, as well as eggs and hatchlings of 

other birds. They often feed as scavengers on carrion 

and human garbage. Elk carrion is an important 

source of food in the winter for bird scavengers on 

the refuge. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Only 11 reptile and amphibian species are present 

in Jackson Hole because of the high altitude and its 

associated cool climate. Most species are observed 

throughout the valley floor and foothill regions, especially on the floodplains of the Buffalo Fork of the 

Snake River, main stem of the Snake River, and Gros 

Ventre River. Some reptiles and amphibians inhabit 

the mountains up to 10,000 feet in elevation. 

Several reptile species are rare, with apparently 

restricted distributions, including the northern sagebrush lizard, gopher snake, and valley garter snake. 

The northern sagebrush lizard is found at elevations 

up to 8,300 feet and is commonly associated with 

thermal areas in Yellowstone National Park (NPS 

1998), but has not been found on the refuge. The rubber boa often inhabits riparian zones and could be 

adversely affected by soil compaction or vegetation 

loss. 

Amphibian species that are vulnerable to population decline in Jack Hole are the boreal toad and the 

northern leopard frog. The boreal toad is thought to 

have declined in abundance in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and the northern leopard frog, 

documented to breed in Grand Teton National Park, 

is now extremely rare or absent (Koch and Peterson 

1995) and has never been documented on the refuge. 

Both of these species inhabit a wide range of aquatic 

habitats including ponds, wetlands, streamsides, 

riparian zones, forests, and meadows. The boreal 

toad and northern leopard frog could be affected by 

water pollution, chemical herbicides, pesticides, or 

wetland and streambank disturbances and diseases. 

Amphibian surveys conducted in 2000–2003 documented the occurrence of five species of amphibians: 

blotched tiger salamander, boreal chorus frog, boreal 

toad, Columbia spotted frog, and the nonnative bullfrog (Patla and Peterson 2004). Recent surveys conducted in the Flat Creek and Gros Ventre River 

drainages on the refuge have documented breeding 

sites for four amphibians (blotched tiger salamander, 

boreal chorus frog, boreal toad, and Columbia spotted frog) and the occurrence of the wandering garter 

snake (Patla 1998, 2000): 

■■	 Tiger salamanders are rare on the refuge, 

although they are quite common in BridgerTeton National Forest. 

■■	 The most widespread amphibian on the refuge is the boreal chorus frog, which occurs 

in the Flat Creek and Gros Ventre River 

drainages at multiple sites, but their breeding populations are unexpectedly small and 

scattered (Patla 2000). 

■■	 Boreal toads are widespread on the refuge, 

with breeding populations in the Flat Creek 

and Gros Ventre River drainages (Patla 

1998, 2000, 2004b). Although boreal toad 

populations remain high, recent tadpole dieoffs in Grand Teton National Park suggest 

that continued monitoring is warranted 

(Patla 2012). 

■■	 There are few Columbia spotted frogs in the 

Flat Creek drainage, including a significant 

breeding site on Nowlin Creek, where they 

produced record high numbers of egg 

masses in 2012 (Patla 2012). These frogs are 

widespread in the Gros Ventre River 

drainage. 

Concentrated numbers of elk and bison can affect 

amphibians and their habitat by decreasing water 

quality, increasing streambank erosion, altering 

marsh and riparian vegetation, and possibly transporting chytrid fungus on their hoofs. Conversion 

from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation could 

reduce the amount of standing water available for 

amphibians. 

The most significant and disturbing result of the 

amphibian surveys was the discovery in 2000 of 

amphibians on the refuge killed by chytridiomycosis 

(chytrid disease). This was the first time this disease 

had been documented in northwestern Wyoming, and 

boreal toads are particularly susceptible. Chytrid 

disease is caused by an aquatic fungus that has been 

associated with mass die-offs and population declines 

in many areas and may be contributing to the continuing and potentially escalating amphibian declines 

throughout the United State and the world (Patla 

2000). A veterinarian with the U.S. Geological Survey has stated, “The diagnosis of chytridiomycosis 

has potentially dire implications for all species of 

frogs and toads in the National Elk Refuge and, possibly, western Wyoming” (Earl Green, personal communication, as quoted in Patla 2000). 

Live amphibians on the refuge were tested for the 

presence of chytrid fungus on their skin; in 2003, 66 

percent of the sampled amphibians tested positive for 

the fungus and in 2004, 71 percent (Patla 2004a, 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 129 

2004b). However, skin tests on live animals may not 

accurately determine whether the amphibian is actually infected. As of the end of summer 2004, chytrid 

disease had not reduced the toad populations at the 

two main breeding sites on the refuge, and no indicators of a population decline on the refuge (such as 

mass mortality events or failed reproduction) have 

been observed (Patla 2004b). Since the discovery of 

chytrid disease on the refuge, chytrid fungus has 

been found in several locations in the Grand Teton 

and Yellowstone National Parks and one location in 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest. 

Fishes 

The fish community in Jackson Hole is typical of 

cold waters. Eighteen species are present: 

■■ mountain whitefish 

■■ Snake River cutthroat trout (the only native 

trout in the area) 

■■ three introduced trout species and one 

hybrid 

■■ redside shiner 

■■ several species of chub, dace, and sucker 

Elk and bison can potentially affect fish habitat by 

reducing water quality, eroding streambanks, and 

suffocating spawning beds. Heavy browsing of riparian vegetation by elk and bison may raise water temperatures by removing shady vegetation. However, 

most fish populations in Jackson Hole are doing well, 

and these effects have been relatively minor or 

nonexistent. 

Federally and State-Listed 

Species 

There are several designated plant and animal 

species that we give special consideration: federally 

listed species, Federal candidate species, and Statelisted species. Appendix D shows the federally and 

State-listed plant and animal species that have been 

documented to occur on the refuge. The following 

sections explain the different designations, followed 

by descriptions of the listed species that occur on the 

refuge. 

Federally Listed Species 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires 

Federal agencies to carry out conservation (recovery) 

programs for listed species and to ensure that agency 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or adversely change or 

destroy their critical habitat. Section 7(a) of the act 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions 

with respect to any species that is listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is being designated. Further, regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provision of the act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to make 

sure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species listed as endangered or threatened, or to 

destroy or adversely change its critical habitat. 

Federal Candidate Species 

Candidate species are plants and animals for 

which we have sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered 

or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, 

but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by higher priority listing activities. A candidate species status is reviewed 

annually. 

The Endangered Species Act gives no statutory 

protection to candidate species, and “take” as identified in the act does not apply to these species. However, we encourage the formation of partnerships to 

conserve these species because they are, by definition, species that may warrant future protection 

under the act. Furthermore, our policy requires that 

candidate species be treated as “proposed for listing” 

for purposes of intra-Service section 7 conference 

procedures (FWS 1998). 

State-Listed Species 

The WGFD has a State wildlife action plan (2010a) 

that identifies 180 species of greatest conservation 

need. These are species for which we may or may not 

have sufficient data to determine population trends, 

abundance, distribution, needs, and management 

actions. The designation as a species of greatest conservation need can be derived from threats to a 

known population or habitat or a lack of sufficient 

information to adequately assess a species’ status. 

These species do not receive the same degree of protection as endangered or threatened species, 

although decreasing numbers or loss of habitat makes 

them of concern to Federal land management 

agencies. 

Grizzly Bear 

In the lower 48 States, grizzly bear was listed as 

threatened in 1975. In the 1980s, a recovery plan was 

developed, and in recent years their numbers have 
130 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

increased to the point that delisting is expected in 

the near future. 

Grizzly bears widely use the northern two-thirds 

of Grand Teton National Park, but can occur throughout the park and surrounding areas. Previously, grizzly bears had not been observed on the refuge since 

1994, but a sow and three cubs were observed feeding on a bison gut pile in August 2013. We anticipate 

increased use of the refuge by grizzly bears. 

Grizzly bears are omnivores that feed on nutritious succulent vegetation, grubs, insects, fish, newborn ungulates, and carrion. By mid-May grizzly 

bears begin preying on newborn elk calves (Gunther 

and Renkin 1990, Singer et al. 1997). Grizzly bears 

dominate other scavengers at carcasses (Servheen 

and Knight 1990), but many carcasses are consumed 

before being found by a bear (Green 1994). Individual 

bears are most likely to get their largest meals from 

adult moose and elk that are prey and from adult 

female bison that are scavenged (Mattson 1997). 

In Yellowstone National Park from March 

through May, ungulate carrion (mostly elk and bison) 

is an important food source (Mattson 1997). This is 

not the case in Grand Teton National Park. Elk and 

bison in the Jackson herds have a low winter mortality rate because of the supplemental feeding program 

on the National Elk Refuge and in the Gros Ventre 

Range. Grizzly bears in Grand Teton National Park 

do not appear to depend as heavily on meat in the 

early spring compared to grizzlies that live to the 

north in Yellowstone National Park. 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle was delisted from federally threatened status in July 2007 but is protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703) and the 

Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668). It is also a 

priority 2 species of special concern for Wyoming. 

Most nesting territories in Jackson Hole are along 

major rivers or lakes within 3 miles of their inlets or 

outlets, or along thermally influenced streams or 

lakes. Historically, two bald eagle nesting territories 

have occurred on the refuge but no territories are 

active currently. 

During the fall, as many as 100 bald eagles have 

been seen at one time in the cottonwood trees within 

the elk and bison hunting areas on the refuge 

(National Elk Refuge wildlife observation records). 

These eagles feed on the gut piles left by hunters. 

Typically, 5–20 bald eagles may be active on the refuge during the winter, and these birds feed primarily 

on the carcasses of elk that die during the winter. 

Bald eagle winter habitat is generally associated 

with areas of open water, where fish or waterfowl 

congregate (Swenson et al. 1986), or ungulate winter 

range where eagles scavenge on carcasses of large 

mammals. Nearby food, suitable perches, and security from human activities are important habitat 

components for both nest and roost sites. 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

On March 5, 2010, our agency found that the 

greater sage-grouse warrants protection under the 

Endangered Species Act, but listing the species 

under the act was precluded by the need to address 

other listing actions of a higher priority. Therefore, 

the greater sage-grouse is a candidate species (75 

Federal Register 13910). The northern portion of the 

refuge contains significant wintering habitat for 

greater sage-grouse, and much of the north end of 

the refuge falls within the State of Wyoming’s core 

area policy for greater sage-grouse protection (Wyoming Executive Order 2011–5), more specifically, the 

Jackson core population area. 

Greater sage-grouse that occupy the refuge are 

part of the Jackson Hole greater sage-grouse population, which is isolated from larger populations in the 

Green River Basin. The refuge collaborates with 

WGFD, Grand Teton National Park, and the Upper 

Snake River Basin Sage-Grouse Working Group to 

monitor population trends in this population by conducting lek counts each spring. The refuge hosts the 

North Gap lek and the Simpson lek, which are 2 of 

the 13 known, occupied breeding sites for the Jackson 

Hole greater sage-grouse population. Although 

grouse use of the Simpson lek has been minimal in 

recent years, maximum numbers of males observed 

on the North Gap lek were 18 in 2012 and 8 in 2013. 

The northern end of the refuge contains valuable 

nesting and wintering habitat for the Jackson Hole 

greater sage-grouse population. Greater sage-grouse 

nest only in sagebrush shrubland habitat, using 

bunchgrasses and sagebrush plants as cover 

(Kaufman 1996). Other important habitats include 

meadows and grasslands close to sagebrush shrubland habitat. In Jackson Hole, Garton et al. (2011) 

estimated that the greater sage-grouse population is 

declining by 2.2 percent annually and is at risk of 

elimination. Factors that may be contributing to this 

local decline are loss of habitat to human development, prescribed burning and wildfire on winter 

range, birds killed by collisions with aircraft at the 

Jackson Hole airport, and browsing and grazing by 

livestock and large numbers of elk and bison. Holloran and Anderson (2004) indicated winter habitat 

was likely a limiting factor for this population based 

on the research conducted from 1999 to 2003. In general, wintering habitat consists of sagebrush plant 

communities that are tall enough to remain uncovered by snow. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 131 

Greater Sage-grouse 

S Wr / Fenreom KoT

Trumpeter Swan 

The 2010 Wyoming State Action Plan classifies 

the trumpeter swan as a species of greatest conservation need, which is a species that warrants 

increased management attention and consideration in 

conservation planning in Wyoming. The USDA Forest Service classified the swan as a sensitive species 

in its Regions 2 and 4. The refuge manages swan 

habitat to meet objectives of the Trumpeter Swan 

Management Plan (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 2012). 

The trumpeter swan population on the refuge is 

part of the core tri-State area flock. The tri-State 

area refers to the entire State of Idaho and the portions of Montana and Wyoming within the Pacific 

flyway. The core tri-State area refers to the 

following: 

■■	 Idaho: Island Park region, Teton River 

drainage and Teton basin, Henrys and 

South Forks of the Snake River, and Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge 

■■	 Montana: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Centennial Valley, Hebgen Lake, 

and Madison River and tributaries 

■■	 Wyoming: Yellowstone National Park, 

Grand Teton National Park, and the Snake 

River drainage including Jackson Hole 

south to Alpine 

Trumpeter swans were likely eliminated from 

Jackson Hole during the late 1800s, but swans were 

reintroduced to the refuge in 1938 from Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Montana. Since 

that time, a persistent breeding population has been 

established, although nesting activity seems to fluctuate based on weather conditions. The refuge provides the largest wetland habitat for nesting 

trumpeter swans in the Snake River drainage of 

Wyoming. In general, dry warm spring conditions 

are most favorable for trumpeter swan productivity. 

Most trumpeter swan nesting occurs in Flat 

Creek Marsh southwest of Miller Butte, with occasional nesting activity in the Pierre’s Pond and Romney Pond complexes on the northern end of the 

refuge. In addition, there may be as many as 200 

trumpeter swans on the refuge during fall migration, 

and 50 trumpeter swans may winter on the refuge. 

During the first two weeks in November, hundreds of 

swans congregate on Flat Creek Marsh before freezeup when most swans disperse to other wintering 

sites. Fall staging behavior may play an important 

role in swan social structure offering an opportunity 

for immature swans to initiate pair bonds. Average 

trumpeter swan production in recent decades is 3 

nesting pairs, 7.3 cygnets hatched, and 6.3 cygnets 

fledged per year (Cole 2011b). From 2002 to 2012, 

swan pairs on the refuge produced 66 mature young, 

which composed 43 percent of the total swan production in the Snake River core area of Wyoming 

(WGFD unpublished data). 

Long-Billed Curlew 

The long-billed curlew is the largest North American shorebird and is listed as a species of concern by 

the State of Wyoming. The high levels of concern are 

due to the loss of the eastern third of the curlews 

historical breeding range, apparent population 

declines, and loss of shortgrass habitat that the birds 

use to nest (Fellows and Jones 2009). Because they 

breed in short dry grasslands common in the refuge’s 

irrigation project area, we are concerned that irrigation activities could disturb nests of this species. As a 

result, the refuge staff surveys the irrigation project 

area to identify breeding pairs and potential nest 

sites each spring. Irrigation activities are delayed 

around potential curlew nest locations until August 

when the birds fledge. Typically, we identify two to 

five potential breeding territories for long-billed curlew in the irrigation project areas each season. 

Plants 

No federally listed plant species occur on the refuge. However, the State of Wyoming has given special status to 13 plant species that occur on the refuge 

(refer to appendix D). 

No federally listed plant species occur on the refuge. However, the University of Wyoming’s Wyoming 
 

 

132 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database maintains lists of Wyo

ming plant species of concern. Inclusion is derived 

from four main factors contributing to the rarity of 

species: (1) restricted geographic range; (2) small 

population size; (3) highly specific habitat require

ments; and (4) significant loss of habitat or heavy 

exploitation. These lists, which have no status under 

State legislation, are sometimes cited in development 

of sensitive species lists by Federal land management 

agencies and include 12 plant species that occur on 

the refuge (refer to appendix D). 

­

­

4.3 Management Tools 

Irrigation and farming are important manage

ment tools that the refuge uses to provide forage for 

­

elk and bison. 

Irrigation 

Irrigation is a common habitat management tool 

that we use to increase both the quantity and quality 

of forage available to elk and bison (see figure 11). We 

have used irrigation to produce forage for many 

years on the National Elk Refuge as a technique to 

reduce the reliance of wintering elk on supplemental 

feeding. Water available for irrigation depends more 

on snowpack than precipitation over the growing 

season. 

In 2010, we upgraded our irrigation capacity by 

installing a state-of-the-art sprinkler system that 

has more than 50 miles of underground water-delivery pipe and an extensive aboveground moveable 

pipe and sprinkler pod system called K-line. This new 

system can irrigate approximately 4,300 acres each 

year. This increased irrigation capacity will help us 

increase winter forage while decreasing water use. 

The irrigated acres have increased from approximately 900 acres that were flood-irrigated to 3,300 

acres annually. The aboveground sprinkler system 

(170 units) is moved daily to specific locations using 

4×4 utility vehicles. In most areas, the K-line irrigation replaces flood irrigation; however, some flood 

irrigation is still used in the Ben Goe and Pedersen 

management units. The refuge needs to retain the 

ability to irrigate with side-roll systems; when new 

areas are cultivated and planted, the use of K-lines is 

impractical because dragging hoses over disturbed 

soil with utility vehicles is not conducive to grass 

establishment. 

Historically, of the water diverted annually for 

flood irrigation, only an estimated 5–10 percent actually reached its destination (John Kremer, personal 

communication, as cited in FWS 1998). This loss was 

due in part to the porosity of refuge soils and to the 

state of disrepair of ditches and headgates. This, as 

well as annual precipitation, staff, other refuge activities, and access to and availability of water affected 

how many acres we irrigated using the old system. 

Farming 

The refuge conducts farming practices such as 

disking, seeding, sprinkler and drip irrigation, herbi

cide and fertilizer application, and crop harvesting. 

The refuge annually drags about 3,000 acres using a 

blanket harrow to break up and help decompose 

deposited elk and bison fecal matter and to aerate the 

soil. 

Fencing 

An 8-foot-tall big game fence is located along the 

western boundary of the refuge and is designed to 

keep elk and bison off Highway 89. Elk “jumps” are 

one-way openings in the fence that allow migrating 

elk to enter the refuge from the west but prevent 

them from traveling back west onto the highway. 

Seven earthen elk “jump” ramps are located on the 

west side of the fence, with a corresponding opening 

in the fence. Migrating elk can walk up the ramps to 

a height of 5–6 feet to the fence opening and jump 

down onto the refuge. Since there is no ramp on the 

east side of the fence, the abrupt height difference 

prevents the elk from getting back through the fence 

opening, which keeps them off the highway. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Historically wildfires were frequent and widespread but did not burn large expanses of the landscape except under extreme drought conditions 

(Gruell 1980). The last stand replacement fire to burn 

across the National Elk Refuge occurred in 1879. 

Much of the surrounding forests also burned at the 

same time (Smith et al 2004). During most of the 20th 

century, the National Elk Refuge, along with other 

federal land management agencies in the area, suppressed wildfires with the intent to keep wildfires 

small. During the latter stages of 20th century and 

into the 21st century, federal wildland fire policy has 

evolved to allowing the opportunity for wildfires to 

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 133
 

Figure 11. Map of irrigated areas on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
bison represent po

the Shoshone belie

trated in the physi

temporary tribes 

with bison. Emigr

tribes, and gradual 

ited the amount of 

bison herds west 

greatly diminished 

by Euro-American 

Another princip

in the spring, when 

were either eaten f

or smoking. Next 

were elk. As the

resources when e

game on the Plains

134 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

be managed for benefits. Current wildfire manage

ment at the National Elk Refuge is to suppress all 

wildfires. 

Prescribed fire is not currently used by the ref

uge. Once this CCP is completed, a revised Fire Man

agement Plan (FMP) that is based on the goals and 

objectives of the CCP is required to be completed. 

­

­

­

4.4 Human History and Cultural 

Resources 

­

The human history of the National Elk Refuge 

starts with the indigenous, or native, people that 

lived in the area. The arrival of Euro-Americans had 

a major effect on not only the indigenous people, but 

also on the environment. The remains of sites, struc

tures, or objects used by these peoples in the past are 

cultural resources, which reflect and preserve the 

area’s history and increase our understanding of 

human interactions and development over time. 

Indigenous People of Western 

Wyoming 

The most prominent groups that occupied the 

eastern Idaho and western Wyoming area before 

settlement by Euro-Americans were the Bannock, 

Eastern Shoshone, and Northern Shoshone tribes. 

Other American Indian tribal groups have some historical or continued association with lands now 

within the National Elk Refuge: Assiniboine, Athabascans, Comanche, Crow, Gros Ventre, Kiowa, Kootenai, Nez Perce, Salish, Teton Sioux, and Umatilla. 

In addition, the Arapaho, Blackfeet, Cheyenne, and 

other Siouan groups and people of the Plains made 

excursions into the region for hunting, warfare, and 

trade (Walker 2005). 

The Bannock are related to the Northern Paiute 

and are Uto Aztecan speakers who migrated from 

Oregon into the Snake River Plains. There they lived 

in peaceful cooperation among the Shoshone speakers 

who had arrived from the Plains. The merged Bannock and Northern Shoshone developed a single 

amalgamated culture that exhibited strong Plains 

Indian influences. 

The Bannock and Shoshone–occupied areas are 

designated as eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. 

This area, the upper Snake River Plains, received 

higher rainfall, providing adequate grasses and forage for bison to exist. Bison were by far the greatest 

food resource, providing an endless supply of food, 

clothing and shelter materials, and weapon and tool 

products. Bison were also viewed as an earthly link 

to the spiritual world. For many tribes even today, 

wer and strength. For example, 

ve that spiritual power is concencal form of the bison. Many conmaintain a spiritual connection 

ation, continuing warfare among 

loss of forage after the 1840s limbison taken for food supplies. The 

of the Continental Divide were 

and decimated by 1850, primarily 

immigrants. 

al food was fish, which were taken 

other food supplies were low, and 

resh or preserved by sun-drying 

in importance to bison and fish 

 tribes began to compete for 

migrations diminished the major 

, they turned to the mountains. 

The mountains still provided game for subsistence, 

whether it was elk, bighorn sheep, moose, or deer. In 

addition, berries were still found along the riverbanks, and roots could still be dug in the surrounding 

hills. Native plants were also important to the prehistoric inhabitants of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Today, modern tribes still collect and use these 

plants for ceremonial and traditional purposes. 

The Shoshone entered into a treaty with the 

United States on July 2, 1863, that set apart for the 

Shoshone Tribe a reservation of 44,672,000 acres 

located in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. 

However, the Treaty of Fort Bridger of 1868 pared 

this down to less than 2.8 million acres, and the 

treaty established both the Fort Hall Reservation 

(Shoshone–Bannock) in Idaho and the Wind River 

Reservation in (Eastern Shoshone and Northern 

Arapaho) Wyoming. The Bannock and Shoshone 

experienced extreme hardship subsequent to the 

treaties and later agreements that separated them 

from their aboriginal territories. Prohibitions on offreservation hunting, meager rationing, and diseases 

adversely affected the tribal populations and social 

health. 

By the end of the 1800s, tribal land bases were 

greatly diminished, and tribal rights to hunt were 

curtailed. In Ward v. Race Horse (1896), tribal hunting beyond the boundaries of the reservations was 

curtailed because the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned 

that this provision was temporary, and when Wyoming was admitted into the Union, it did so on an 

equal footing with all other States without lands 

within the State being encumbered. 

After additional treaties, congressional acts, 

Executive orders, and agreements, the Bannock and 

Shoshone now occupy the Fort Hall Reservation in 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 135 

eastern Idaho and the Duck Valley Reservation in 

southwestern Idaho. The Eastern Shoshone are on 

the Wind River Reservation in west-central Wyoming. At least 15 other American Indian tribal 

groups have some historical or continued association 

with lands now within the National Elk Refuge 

(Walker 2005). 

Historical Euro-Americans 

John Colter, a member of the Lewis and Clark 

expedition and later an explorer and trader for the 

Manuel Fur Company, might have visited Jackson 

Hole in 1807. Other trappers and traders from the 

Missouri Fur Company trapped the rivers and 

streams of Jackson Hole in 1810–11 (Daugherty 1999). 

During the 1820s and 1830s, Jackson Hole served as 

a crossroads of the fur trade in the northern Rocky 

Mountains. 

Except for a few prospectors searching for gold, 

Jackson Hole was virtually deserted by Euro-Americans from the 1840s to the 1880s. However, three 

military surveys passed through the valley in the 

1860s and early 1870s. These military surveys were 

followed by the Hayden surveys (1872, 1877, and 

1878), sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, and 

explored the Jackson Hole and Yellowstone country. 

It was during the 1872 Hayden survey that William 

H. Jackson took the first photographs of the Teton 

Range. 

In 1884, the first permanent settlers arrived and 

built cabins along Flat Creek inside the boundaries of 

the present-day National Elk Refuge. By 1900, 638 

people resided in Jackson Hole (Daugherty 1999). The 

first homesteaders planted crops and raised cattle on 

small family ranches throughout the valley. Long cold 

winters with deep snows, poor soils, and dry conditions that required digging irrigation ditches to 

water crops made homesteading in Jackson Hole a 

difficult endeavor. By 1900, many of the original settlers had already left the valley (Daugherty 1999). In 

1912, when the U.S. Government allocated money to 

buy up homesteads to set aside land for the National 

Elk Refuge, many homesteaders willingly sold their 

property and moved into town. In other parts of the 

valley, cattle ranching continued and expanded 

through the 1930s (Daugherty 1999) and remained 

the mainstay of the economy into the 1960s (Charture Institute 2003a). 

Before Euro-American settlement, some 

researchers believe that most elk migrated out of 

Jackson Hole in the winter. However, homesteaders 

gradually forced elk off traditional winter ranges 

both inside and outside the valley (Anderson 1958, 

Craighead 1952, Cromley 2000), and then these settlers cut and stacked elk winter forage in Jackson 

Hole to feed domestic livestock. Even before the 

Jackson Hole environment was changed by the 

arrival of homesteaders, early hunters and settlers 

noted that winters of unusually heavy snow caused 

thousands of elk to starve to death. This situation 

ultimately led to the establishment of the National 

Elk Refuge in 1912. 

Bison played no role in early settlers’ lives 

because bison had been eliminated from Jackson Hole 

by the 1840s. By 1900, less than 1,000 bison existed 

in the entire United States. Bison were reintroduced 

into Jackson Hole in 1948. 

Ethnographic Resources 

An ethnographic resource study (a scientific 

description of specific human cultures) is being conducted that pertains to past treaties and traditional 

cultural activities that occurred within the Grand 

Teton National Park, Yellowstone National Park, and 

National Elk Refuge (Walker 2005). The final report 

could influence future cultural resource surveys and 

management on the refuge, and it could yield more 

information on how tribes used the refuge and parks. 

Archaeological Resources in 

Jackson Hole 

Limited but documented archaeological evidence 

indicates that American Indians have used Jackson 

Hole for at least 11,000 years. Shifting climate patterns and the resulting change in plant and animal 

communities, along with drought and fire, determined how and when the valley was used. From 

11,000 before present (B.P.) to around 5,800 B.P., 

American Indians occupied Jackson Hole sporadically to hunt and to obtain obsidian and other lithic 

(stone) material for tools. These people lived a 

hunter-gatherer lifestyle and traveled in small 

groups. Primarily gathering plants for food, medicine, and manufacturing materials, these prehistoric 

peoples also hunted mule deer, bison, elk, and bighorn 

sheep. Although bone does not preserve well, particularly in shallow soils, bison remains are present in 

13 archaeological sites in Jackson Hole and elk 

remains in 8 locations (Cannon et al. 2001). 

Evidence of permanent settlements by American 

Indians has not been found in Jackson Hole. In the 

northern part of Jackson Hole, most evidence indicates that large base camps were established along 

the shores of Jackson Lake, where a band of individu­
136 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

als lived during the spring and early summer 

(Wright 1984). As the weather improved, the band 

would disperse into family groups and move into the 

canyons and higher alpine meadows, following the 

emergence of edible plant species. After using the 

resources of the higher mountains, the entire band 

would move into areas such as Idaho to spend the 

winter. Many tools, fire hearths, and roasting pits 

dating after 5,800 B.P. have been found, particularly 

around Jackson Lake. 

The peoples of southern Jackson Hole entered the 

valley from the Gros Ventre River drainage after 

wintering in the Green River, Wind River, or Big 

Horn basins of northwestern Wyoming. They followed the ripening plants south into the Gros Ventre 

Range and by the following winter had moved into 

the more mild intermountain basins east of Jackson 

Hole (Daugherty 1999). 

Interior of the historic Miller House. 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Cultural Resources on the Refuge 

About 20 percent of the refuge has been inventoried for cultural resources. There are 28 known cultural resources on the National Elk Refuge: 8 

prehistoric sites and 20 historic sites. Six sites are 

eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Based on cultural resource 

inventories on surrounding lands, we expect that 

more historic and prehistoric resources are on the 

refuge. Although a comprehensive survey of the refuge would be the best method to identify and evaluate any unrecorded resources, additional survey is 

generally done on a project-by-project basis under 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

This act, in concert with other historic preservation 

laws and regulations, requires that we consider the 

effects our undertakings have on historic properties 

(cultural resources that are eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places) and that we conduct consultation to identify, evaluate, and manage the significant resources. 

The refuge has not been evaluated for the potential for the following: 

■■	 Cultural landscapes—geographical areas 

that are significant because of their distinctive combination of cultural and natural 

features 

■■	 Traditional cultural properties—places 

associated with historical beliefs, customs, 

or practices of a living community 

The diverse topography, wildlife, and habitats on 

the refuge along with the rich cultural history of the 

region provide an excellent combination for the existence of both cultural landscapes and traditional cultural properties. 

Prehistoric Sites 

Eight prehistoric archaeological sites have been 

recorded, which include roasting pits, stone circles, 

and a bison kill site. Tipi rings begin to appear in the 

archaeological record after 5,000 B.P., and a few tipi 

rings can be found on the refuge. Among the artifacts that have been discovered are bones from elk 

and bison, numerous flakes, choppers, scrappers, and 

projectile point pieces. 

Historic Sites 

The historic sites are primarily ditches and associated water control structures, artifacts and foundations associated with homesteads, and the remains of 

a local schoolhouse. 

The historic Miller Ranch was one of the early 

homesteads in Jackson Hole and has three main 

structures: the Miller House, the Miller Barn, and a 

cabin. Miller House is a log home built in 1898, and 

was one of the first houses in Jackson Hole. Miller 

House and the surrounding land was the first property that the Federal Government bought to become 

part of the National Elk Refuge, and Miller House 

served as the original office and home for the first 

refuge manager. 

In 1969, Miller House and the cabin were placed 

on the National Register of Historic Places. The 

National Register nomination was amended in 2001 

to include the Miller Barn. These buildings are the 

only historic structural resources recorded on the 

refuge and listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places (48 TE903). 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 137 

Although the exterior of Miller House looks much 

as it did during its period of historical significance, 

the interior has undergone at least three major construction events: 

■■	 In 1969, modifications made the house more 

comfortable and energy efficient for its use 

as a Government employee home. 

■■	 Miller House eventually fell into disrepair 

and, in the 1970s, the decision was made to 

destroy the house by having the local fire 

department burn it. Fortunately, the 

attempt to burn the structure was unsuccessful. Although the house was damaged 

from the attempted razing, it was later 

decided to restore and preserve the house. 

With help from the Grand Teton Association 

and other partners, the refuge restored the 

house to period standards and aesthetics, by 

removing or replacing contemporary fixtures and decorating the building with early 

1900s décor and antique furniture. In the 

1980s and 1990s, refuge staff occupied 

Miller House. 

■■	 Through a grant with the Community Foundation of Jackson Hole and the use of a specialized volunteer crew, a 2-week 

rehabilitation project in summer 2007 

brought portions of the original house interior closer in feel to the historic period it 

represents. 

When refuge employees vacated Miller House in 

April 2005, refuge managers decided that converting 

parts of the house to an interpretive site would be an 

adaptive use related to the goals of the refuge and 

would offer unique education opportunities. We 

opened Miller House to the public 2 months later, and 

the house is open for tour by the public during the 

summer. Eighteen other historic sites on the refuge 

include ditches and associated water-control structures, artifacts and foundations associated with 

homesteads, and the remains of a local schoolhouse. 

The volunteers who staff the house provide information and interpretive programming. In addition, the 

Grand Teton Association runs a seasonal sales outlet 

and bookstore in Miller House that provides merchandise with a historical theme. In 2013, the Miller 

House had 3,762 visitors, which is a 19-percent 

increase from 2012 and a 245-percent increase from 

2007. The refuge contracted with the University of 

Wyoming’s American Studies program to develop an 

initial interpretive and restoration plan for Miller 

House and the related buildings on the refuge. 

Miller Barn is not open to the public. The barn is 

in fair overall condition, but it requires attention to 

History demonstrations are given at the chuckwagon located at the Miller House. 

Chuck Mulcahy / FWS 
ensure its preservation including foundation stabili

zation, improved drainage, repair of split or loose 

battens in the walls, and possible roof repairs. Subse

quent to the needed rehabilitation, Miller Barn would 

expand the interpretive opportunities by having 

another restored building on site that the public 

could view and that could be an alternate site for 

holding programs indoors when needed. The upper 

floor of the barn has outstanding potential for use as 

an interpretive site and a location for programs and 

events. 

A USDA Forest Service cabin is the third build

ing on the Miller Ranch property listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The cabin, not 

open to the public now, would need substantial reha

bilitation before it could be opened to the public 

including cleaning the interior, replacing plaster and 

floor boards, repairing windows and doors, and 

installing lights. 

­

­

­

­

4.5 Special Management 

Areas 

We manage areas with official designations to 

retain the special features that led to their designa

tion. There is no existing or potential wilderness on 

the refuge, as described under “Wilderness Review” 

below. 

Although the 

visitors with some 

educational and sc

not meet the criter

we are not recom

the Wilderness Sy

N

e

s

138 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Wilderness Review 

A wilderness review is the process we use to 

decide whether to recommend lands or waters to the 

U.S. Congress for designation as wilderness; the 

CCP process requires us to conduct this review. 

Lands or waters that meet the minimum criteria for 

wilderness would be identified in a CCP and further 

evaluated to figure out whether they merit recom

mendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. To 

be designated as wilderness, land must meet certain 

criteria as outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964: 

■■	 generally appears to have been affected pri

marily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work substantially 

unnoticeable 

■■	 has outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation 

■■	 has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition 

■■	 may also contain ecological, geological, or 

other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value 

The refuge is next to the town of Jackson and is 

bordered by a major highway (89). In addition, private land next to the refuge has been developed for 

housing and other recreational purposes. The refuge 

has been altered by roads, ditches, and structures. 

Other development activity includes the refuge irrigating grasslands to provide more forage for wintering elk. 

ational Elk Refuge does provide 

opportunities for solitude and has 

nic value, overall the refuge does 

ia for wilderness designation and 

mending any areas for inclusion in 

tem. 

Important Bird Area 

The Flat Creek Marsh and Wetland Complex on 

the National Elk Refuge is recognized as an impor

tant bird area by the Audubon Society. Flat Creek 

Marsh is the largest wetland in northwestern Wyo

ming and the largest calcareous fen in the State. The 

area provides important breeding habitat for Wyo

ming species of greatest conservation need such as 

trumpeter swan, redhead, lesser scaup, sandhill 

crane, and bobolink and is a critical migratory stop

over for dozens of other bird species. 

­

­

­

­

4.6 Visitor Services 

We manage areas with official designations to 

retain the special features that led to their designa

tion. There is no existing or potential wilderness on 

the refuge, as described under “Wilderness Review” 

below. 

■■	 oversees a large elk and bison hunting pro

gram and fishing program 

■■	 maintains and operates an interagency visi

tor center and exhibits that had more than 

320,000 visitors in 2010 

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 139 

■■	 maintains and operates a historic home and 

site that receives seasonal visitation of more 

than 3,000 people per year 

■■	 coordinates a contracted sleigh ride program in the winter that averages 22,000 riders per year 

■■	 organizes annual antler collection and sale 

that generates money for refuge habitat 

projects 

■■	 issues approximately 40 special use permits 

annually for a variety of activities 

■■	 serves an ambassador and leader in the 

community, including extensive involvement 

in a variety of partnerships 

■■	 hosts dignitaries traveling as guests with 

the U.S. State Department 

■■ organizes special events 

■■	 maintains and updates the refuge Web site 

and social media sites 

■■	 maintains and expands the refuge’s online 

photo gallery 

■■	 responds to extensive media and environmental education requests 

■■	 writes about 10 articles per year about refuge management and public use operations 

for internal and external audiences 

■■	 prepares and sends out approximately 25 

news releases per year 

■■	 manages and operates nine budget accounts 

including both Government and nongovernmental money 

■■	 recruits, trains, equips, and manages a volunteer program that logged more than 

19,000 hours by individuals and volunteer 

groups in 2013 

■■	 provides training to seasonal and volunteer 

staffs 

■■ collects fees 

■■ develops and manages publications 

Hunting 

Hunting is both a wildlife management tool and a 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity at the 

refuge. The refuge’s Web site contains a link that 

educates the public on the Service’s position of allowing hunting as a recreational activity. A seasonal 

display in the visitor center also offers information on 

the need and purpose for hunting on refuges. 

Two large and significant hunting programs are 

conducted annually for elk and bison, each with their 

own seasons, regulations, and licensing system. The 

goal of these hunts is twofold: (1) to reduce elk and 

bison populations and achieve herd size objectives as 

specified in the Bison and Elk Management Plan; and 

(2) provide for wildlife-dependent priority public uses 

as legislated in the Improvement Act. 

Jackson Hole is a popular destination for both 

resident and nonresident hunters. The refuge manages the hunts in cooperation with WGFD, and special permits are required. The refuge allows 

permitted elk and bison hunters to access areas of 

the refuge not open to the general public. In addition, 

the refuge has accommodations for hunters with disabilities. Depending on the hunt area, we allow hunters to use a variety of weapons: (1) rifles; (2) archery 

equipment; and (3) designated limited-range weapons 

such muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns with slugs, and 

handguns. 

The best available data suggest that between 20 

and 40 percent of refuge hunters use lead-free ammunition. Research confirms the negative effect that 

lead ammunition has on scavenging bird populations 

such as bald eagles and ravens. The large harvest of 

elk and bison on the refuge and the resultant boon of 

gut piles has altered the migration patterns in bald 

eagles and potentially other raptors, placing a large 

number of these scavengers at risk of ingesting lead 

from bullets in gut piles. 

Elk 

Hunting is the primary management tool used to 

control the size of the Jackson elk herd. Hunting is 

the herd’s main cause of mortality. The first hunting 

season on the National Elk Refuge was in 1943, but 

hunting did not become an annual event until 1955. 

Refuge hunters apply for and receive refuge-specific 

permits online through a WGFD Web site. We have 

historically designated the first weekend of the season, usually in October, for young hunters (ages of 14 

to 17). Bulls may be taken during the first week; the 

rest of the season is restricted to cow and calf hunting. From 1997 to 2001, WGFD issued an average of 

2,116 hunting permits, with an average of 312 elk 
140 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

killed each season. In 2004, WGFD issued 1,806 permits, and 179 elk were killed. 

Hunting on the refuge and the elk reduction program in Grand Teton National Park, along with harvest in Bridger-Teton National Forest and on 

non-Federal lands, take place from mid-October to 

mid-December. These methods are used to bring 

total elk numbers as close as possible to the WGFD 

herd objective of 11,000. From 1998 to 2002 about 

2,300 to 3,300 elk were harvested annually from the 

Jackson elk herd, resulting in removal of approximately 16 percent of the prehunt Jackson elk herd 

population each year. Hunter harvest accounted for 

nearly 90 percent of adult mortality in the Jackson 

elk herd during the 1990s (Smith 2000). The 2005 

harvest of 1,776 elk removed about 14 percent of the 

estimated 13,000 elk in the herd. Over the last 20 

years, harvest in the park has contributed about 25 

percent to the total harvest, and harvest on the refuge has contributed about 10 percent. The remaining 

65 percent of the harvest takes place mainly in the 

national forest (Teton Wilderness and the Gros Ventre River drainage). 

Some wildlife managers believe that, in the past, 

the eastern migratory segment of the herd (those elk 

that migrate east of Grand Teton National Park during the fall) were overharvested, largely because of 

increased road and other access on national forest 

lands. At the same time, western migratory segments were believed to have grown, decreasing hunting opportunities as more elk migrated through 

protected park areas. Concerted attempts to 

increase numbers in the eastern segments and to 

reduce numbers in the western segments by regulating hunting seasons and harvest strategies since the 

late 1980s have met with some success. Nevertheless, 

the elk reduction program in the park and hunting on 

the refuge can affect hunting opportunities and numbers of elk outside these areas. Consequently, refuge 

and park staffs work closely with WGFD in developing annual hunting quotas and regulations, so management of the entire herd is based on a holistic 

framework that includes all land and wildlife management responsibilities. 

Bison 

Bison hunting first occurred on the refuge in 1989 

and ended in 1990, with 39 bison taken during these 

two seasons. Hunting resumed in 2007 and continues 

to be popular on the refuge, attracting nonlocal, 

including out-of-state, hunters. The refuge provides 

one of the few opportunities in the Nation where 

hunters can pursue wild, unconfined bison in a fair 

chase hunt that could be eligible for a Boone and 

Crocket record. Since 2007, the total annual bison 

harvest in Jackson Hole has ranged from a high of 

266 to a low of 139. Most bison cows are harvested on 

the refuge, usually after deep snows move them from 

the protection of the Grand Teton National Park onto 

the refuge. Hunting at current levels on the refuge 

and the national forest has been sufficient to halt the 

exponential growth of the Jackson bison herd. However, Grand Teton National Park is closed to bison 

hunting, and this has become a safe zone that bison 

use to avoid harvest. As a result, the bison herd is 

still about 70 percent above the 500 population 

objective. 

Presently, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes enjoy a 

ceremonial bison hunt on the refuge. 

Fishing is popular on the refuge. 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

Fishing 

The refuge provides fishing opportunities during 

daylight hours as a compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunity from April 1 through October 31, with fly-fishing being the preferred technique. 

We allow carefully regulated fishing on the refuge to 

the extent that it does not conflict with objectives of 

the refuge and the State of Wyoming. The Gros Ventre River, Flat Creek, lower Nowlin Creek and Sleeping Indian Pond are open to fishing according to 

season dates and regulations set by WGFD. All other 

refuge ponds—Flat Creek downstream from the old 

Crawford Bridge site, and Nowlin Creek upstream 

from the posted fishing boundary—are closed to fishing. The fishing program is popular with local and 

visiting anglers, attracting about 4,500 anglers each 

season. Traffic to refuge waters supports local fishing tackle shops and fishing outfitters. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 141 

Refuge waters support a wild population of Snake 

River cutthroat trout, a unique variety of cutthroat 

species and the only trout native to the area. The refuge promotes quality fishing for wild native fish. The 

Flat Creek fishery is managed for a native, wild, and 

trophy-sized Snake River cutthroat trout population. 

Long-time devotees of Flat Creek report a decline in 

the opportunity to fish for large cutthroats. Furthermore, recent fish surveys show that nonnative trout 

(brook, brown, and rainbow) account for almost half 

of the trout population of the stream. 

Lower Flat Creek opens to fishing on August 1 

and is the most popular fishing water on the refuge. 

The section from the Jackson National Fish Hatchery 

to the old Crawford Bridge boundary is the most 

heavily fished area. This piece of stream is renowned 

for holding trophy-sized Snake River cutthroat trout. 

Locally, cutthroats over 20 inches in length are recognized as trophy-sized, and this part of stream 

annually produces fish in the 22- to 24-inch range. 

The stream is crowded with anglers from opening 

day through August, and then use tapers off until the 

October 31 closing. 

In 2011, the refuge received two verbal comments 

from anglers about guided fishing trips on lower Flat 

Creek. Both parties believed that guided trips were 

unnecessary and undesirable and contributed to 

streamside crowding. The refuge issued nine permits 

for guided fishing in 2011, which accounted for an 

estimated 135 people (guides and clients) using the 

streamside on lower Flat Creek. Refuge law enforcement contacted three additional guided trips, without 

refuge permits, that included groups of seven, five, 

and three individuals. Given that less than 10 percent 

of the lower Flat Creek anglers are checked by refuge law enforcement staff, we do not know the extent 

of the illegal, unpermitted, guided fishing activity. 

Generally, it seems as if the refuge permit requirement is disrespected. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography 

In 2001, the refuge had 780,299 visitors participate in onsite interpretation and nature observation. 

Visitation included 24,664 sleigh riders, 304,987 stops 

at the visitor center, and 439,148 visitors using observational facilities such as auto turnouts. In 2013, 14 

wildlife-viewing companies under special use permit 

made 604 trips with 2,540 clients, as documented in 

the special use reports required of the permittees at 

the end of the season. 

Sleigh rides are a well-established activity and 

have been part of the refuge wildlife observation and 

outreach program for close to 50 years. During the 

2011–12 winter season, ridership reached 20,705. The 

unique wildlife-viewing opportunity raises awareness of the refuge, receives national as well as international attention, and is frequently listed in 

travel-related articles, Web sites, and publications as 

a top attraction in Jackson Hole during the winter. 

Sleigh drivers are knowledgeable of wildlife viewing 

etiquette and are experienced in recognizing actions 

that cause stress to animals. The sleigh ride contract 

stipulates that the refuge receives a percentage of 

revenue generated by the sleigh ride operation; we 

use this money to hire a seasonal winter naturalist. 

A 2002 survey of refuge sleigh ride visitors found 

that elk viewing was the most frequent local and 

nonlocal visitor activity, followed by sightseeing, 

snow skiing, and pleasure driving (Loomis and 

Caughlan 2004). The survey also asked about the 

overall importance of activities in terms of deciding 

to take recreation trips to Jackson Hole. The numbers reflect the average importance of an activity and 

its relative importance in terms of attracting people 

to Jackson Hole. Viewing the mountains was rated as 

the most important activity by local and nonlocal refuge visitors, followed by viewing elk, other wildlife, 

and bison (Loomis and Caughlan 2004). 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Public programming, such as daily talks at the 

visitor center and special events for families, is 

offered year-round. The North Highway 89 Pathway 

gives the refuge staff an area for guided walks to 

interpret wetland values. Refuge staff does extensive 

training and communication with the sleigh ride contractor and staff to make sure the operation offers a 

quality interpretive experience, expresses the mission of the refuge, and does not create conflicts with 

wintering wildlife. 

However, the refuge does not have staff to meet 

the high public demand for environmental education 

and interpretation programs. The refuge uses nongovernmental money to hire winter naturalists or 

uses volunteers to meet the demand for environmental education and interpretive programs during the 

school year. During the summer months when visitor 

center visitation peaks, the refuge relies on a large 

residential volunteer workforce as the primary 

means to offer formal and informal interpretation. 

Room for program attendees at the visitor center 

is extremely limited during winter or times of 

inclement weather. Further, it lacks sufficient accommodations for persons with physical disabilities and 
142 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

does not meet the requirements of the Architectural 

Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (United States 

Access Board 2013). 

Jackson Hole and Greater 

Yellowstone Visitor Center 

The Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center, on the southern end of the refuge, plays a 

critical role in Jackson’s tourism-based economy, 

serving approximately 300,000 people each year and 

providing a wide range of visitor services. The visitor 

center is often the first place that people stop at for 

information during their visit to the Jackson area, 

and many hotels and businesses, including the chamber of commerce, encourage people to go the visitor 

center to get information. Displays in the visitor center give an overview of the role of Federal lands and 

State wildlife agency partners. The information is 

shared in presentations, talks to key groups, and in 

news releases when possible. 

The visitor center building is more than 40 years 

old and has several maintenance deficiencies, including some that affect visitor safety, and the building 

does not meet requirements of the Architectural 

Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (United States 

Access Board 2013). The visitor center does not have 

space to hold programs for the large number of visitors that we see during peak visitation or for visiting 

youth and school groups. 

The visitor center is an interagency facility, 

staffed and supported by area agencies and organizations—Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand Teton 

Association, Grand Teton National Park, Jackson 

Hole Chamber of Commerce, and National Elk Refuge. Operation of the visitor center helps the partner 

agencies distribute information and permits vital to 

their organizations. 

While directly quantifying the economic impacts 

of the visitor center is difficult because of a number of 

factors, the importance of the Center itself, as well as 

the value of the service and information provided to 

visitors by Refuge staff, should not be overlooked or 

discounted. 

Other Uses 

Areas such as North Highway 89 Pathway and 

North Park have special considerations and management. Also, we manage several commercial and noncommercial activities on the refuge under special use 

permit. 

North Highway 89 Pathway 

We constructed a multi-use pathway on the eastern side of the refuge that opened to the public on 

May 1, 2011. The North Highway 89 Pathway runs 

adjacent to the refuge fence from Jackson to the Gros 

Ventre Junction and passes through several types of 

habitat. We do not allow pets on the pathway. Further, the refuge closes the pathway seasonally 

(between November 1 and April 30) to reduce the 

effects on migrating and wintering wildlife. 

North Park 

The town of Jackson manages North Park 

(located on the refuge) as a public park under a memorandum of understanding with the refuge. North 

Park is mowed, weeded, and otherwise maintained, 

similar to the way Jackson maintains its public parks. 

Currently, the Teton County Parks and Recreation 

Department uses an online system and collects fees 

for reserving North Park for activities such as weddings; however, reservations and fee collection are 

not in compliance with our agency policy. 

Special Uses 

The refuge issues about 40 special use permits per 

year, which the visitor services staff administers. 

The refuge allows several restricted public use activities under special use permit, providing services we 

could not otherwise offer to the public because of 

limited funding and staff. Refuge staff assesses each 

activity for which a special use permit is required 

and develops specific special conditions for that particular activity. Common special uses follow: 

■■ guided wildlife-viewing tours 

■■ guided hunting trips 

■■ guided fishing trips 

■■ elk and bison retrieval services 

■■ commercial photography and filming 

■■ Shoshone–Bannock Tribes ceremonial hunt 

■■	 antler collection (refer to “Partnerships” in 

section 4.8 below) 

■■ grazing 

■■ research 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 143 

Wildlife Viewing 

In 2011, 11 wildlife-viewing companies applied for 

special use permits to conduct tours on Elk Refuge 

Road. In addition, the refuge coordinates the winter 

sleigh ride contract. The refuge receives a percentage of the revenue generated by the sleigh ride 

operation. This money is collected and deposited into 

an account administered through the Grand Teton 

Association and is a source of nongovernmental 

money that we use to hire a seasonal winter 

naturalist. 

Guided Hunting, Guided Fishing, and Retrieval 

Services 

Game retrieval businesses have operated on the 

refuge for decades and provide a convenient service 

to hunters. Starting in 2008, two companies operating under special use permit provided guided hunts 

for elk and bison. In 2010, the refuge issued two permits to operators who each provided guided hunting 

and game retrieval services to hunters. 

Commercial Photography and Filming 

We require all photographers, videographers, and 

media to obtain a special use permit. Some requesters want access to areas of the refuge not open to the 

public. Permits specify what areas are allowed for 

access including stipulations for use of the areas. 

The National Elk Refuge accommodates a large 

number of commercial photographers and film companies each year, especially during the winter. In 

addition, the refuge receives an extensive amount of 

local, regional, national, and international media 

attention. Media coverage includes print, electronic, 

and video and film venues. Responding to media 

requests has become an increasing part of the visitor 

service program’s winter duties. 

Because the refuge is a focus of media attention 

and millions of people visit this area each year, we 

have the opportunity to be an ambassador for the 

Refuge System and the mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Weddings 

A substantial number of people request to hold a 

wedding ceremony at the visitor center, at North 

Park, at Miller House, or on a sleigh ride. Many of the 

couples do not request permission to marry on the 

refuge, but rather show up with a justice of the peace 

or other official to conduct the ceremony. 

Weddings in the visitor center can detract from 

other visitors’ experience because the long, linear 

design of the building makes it difficult for groups to 

stand out of the way of people walking through the 

building, looking at the exhibits, or enjoying the 

views or wildlife-viewing opportunities. Depending 

on the size of the wedding party, a wedding at the 

visitor center can result in a loss of available parking 

spaces for visitors using the center to learn about the 

area and get visitor service information. 

Occasionally, people hold weddings on the visitor 

center lawn or under a shelter area on the North 

Park lawn without prior consent from the refuge or 

visitor center staff. The visiting public does not recognize the park as refuge property, and there is no 

notice that prohibits weddings on the park’s lawn. 

Consequently, weddings frequently take place on the 

site. Again, this limits other visitors’ opportunities to 

use these areas for other purposes. 

Some of our seasonal employees live in Miller 

House during both the winter and summer seasons. 

Weddings at this location would have a significant 

adverse effect on these employees. In addition, no 

public rest rooms are available at Miller House. 

Private sleigh rental to hold a wedding ceremony 

provides an economic benefit for the contractor and 

reduces effects on other refuge activities and users. 

Access 

Many visitors are interested in accessing the refuge to enjoy what it offers. Other people want to 

travel through the refuge to access private land or 

other Federal land. 

General Access and Elk Refuge Road 

Elk Refuge Road, which stems north of the east– 

west Broadway Street in Jackson, is the primary 

access to the refuge and the only legal entrance to 

the refuge for the public. Teton County has a perpetual easement for the operation, maintenance, and 

improvement of Elk Refuge Road from Broadway 

Avenue to the north side of the Twin Creek subdivision. The purpose of the easement is to provide the 

public and private landowners of property east of the 

refuge with ingress and egress across part of the 

southeast corner of the refuge. Because of the ease of 

access to the refuge and its proximity to town, local 

residents use Elk Refuge Road extensively for walking, jogging, and bicycling. 

Access for Boating 

The northern boundary of the refuge is the north 

shore of the Gros Ventre River, which places the Gros 

Ventre River on the refuge. Boaters floating down 

the Gros Ventre from Slide Lake are required to exit 

the river at the “jump cliff” site immediately on 

entering the refuge. This long-standing closure of the 

Gros Ventre River on the refuge has been in place 
28.2 percent). Ove

County, Wyoming,

holds at least a Ba

percent of the pop

holds at least a B

Census Bureau, 20

In 2011, 81 per

County, Idaho, self

panic or Latino ori

the Teton County,

these figures were

averages (83.6 perc

Wyoming). Meanw

Idaho, residents (c

Idaho) and 15.4 per

residents (compare

r

a

1

h

144 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

because of the potential disturbance to wildlife and 

because this is not a wildlife-dependent activity. 

The refuge segment of the Gros Ventre River 

upstream from the town of Kelly was recently designated as scenic under the Craig Thomas Snake River 

Headwaters Legacy Act of 2008. This act requires 

the refuge and the Grand Teton National Park to create a comprehensive river management plan to guide 

the management of each segment designated as wild, 

scenic, or recreational for a 15-year period. This public process has been completed and the plan has been 

completed and signed by these agencies. 

Access to the National Forest 

Winter users of the Goodwin Lake Ski Cabin on 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest have limited 

access across the refuge to reach the national forest 

boundary. The refuge plows a parking area for three 

cars and allows people to cross refuge lands to get to 

national forest lands. Our visitor services staff issues 

special use permits for this access. 

4.7 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

­

­

­

­

Jackson is the primary destination for visitor 

activities in Jackson Hole, and Jackson serves as the 

gateway community to the National Elk Refuge, 

Grand Teton National Park, Bridger-Teton National 

Forest, and Yellowstone National Park. Natural and 

scenic resource issues have a direct and profound 

effect on the economic well-being of Jackson Hole. 

Most of the economic activity related to the Ref

uge is located within the two-county area of Teton 

County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming; there

fore, these counties comprise the local economic 

region for this analysis. The Refuge is also a partner 

in the establishment and daily operations of the Jack

son Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center 

(Visitor Center) located just minutes from the Ref

uge entrance. 

Population, Ethnicity and 

Education 

Table 12 compares population estimates and 

trends for Teton County, Idaho, and Teton County, 

Wyoming. In 2012, Teton County, Idaho, and Teton 

County, Wyoming, accounted for 0.6 percent and 3.8 

percent of the Idaho and Wyoming populations, 

respectively. From 2000 to 2012, the population 

growth rate for Teton County, Idaho, was 67.6 percent, far outpacing that of the state as a whole (23.3 

percent). The growth rate in Teton County, Wyoming, population was slightly higher than that of 

Wyoming (18.8 percent to 16.7 percent). 

The percentage of the Teton County, Idaho, population aged 25 or older with at least a Bachelor’s 

degree is higher than both the state and national 

averages (33.2 percent compared to 24.6 percent and 

 half of the population of Teton 

(52.7 percent) aged 25 or older 

chelor’s degree, while only 24.2 

ulation of the state of Wyoming 

chelor’s degree (United States 

2a). 

cent of the population of Teton 

-identified as white, not of Hisgin, compared to 81.6 percent of 

 Wyoming, population. Both of 

lower than the respective state 

ent for Idaho and 85.5 percent for 

ile, 17.2 percent of Teton County, 

ompared to 11.5 for the state of 

cent of Teton County, Wyoming, 

d to 9.4 percent for the state of 

Wyoming) self-identified as of Hispanic or Latino 

origin (United States Census Bureau, 2012a). 

Table 12. State and county population estimates. 

Residents Persons per square Percent population Percent bachelor’s 

(2012)2 mile (2012)2 change (2000-2012)2 degree or higher1 

Idaho 1,595,728 19.1 23.3 24.6 

Teton County 10,052 22.3 67.6 33.2 

Wyoming 576,412 5.9 16.7 24.2 

Teton County 21,675 5.1 18.8 52.7 

Source: 1(United States Census Bureau, 2012a) 2(United States Census Bureau, 2012b). 

Regional Employment and Income 

Table 13 shows the median household income, poverty, and unemployment rates for the two-county 

study area and corresponding states. As of 2011, 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 145 

median household income for Teton County, Idaho, 

was higher than that for Idaho ($52,444 compared to 

$46,890). The household median income of residents 

of Teton County, Wyoming, far exceeded that of the 

state as a whole ($73,627 compared to $56,380) 

(United States Census Bureau, 2012a). In 2011, nonlabor income constituted 53.1 percent of total personal income for Teton County, Wyoming, compared 

to 35.7 percent for Teton County, Idaho, and the 

national average of 34.1 percent (Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, 2012a). 

In 2011, the percent of the population in Teton 

County, Idaho, living below the poverty line was 

lower than both the state and national figures (7.2 

percent compared to 14.3 percent and 15.9 percent, 

respectively). Similarly, the percent of the population 

of Teton County, Wyoming, living below the poverty 

line was below that of Wyoming (7.6 percent compared to 10.1 percent, respectively). From 2000 to 

2011, Teton County, Idaho, experienced a 4.4 percent 

increase in its unemployment rate, compared to a 1.3 

percent increase for the state as a whole. The unemployment rate of Teton County, Wyoming, increased 

slightly by 0.6 percent over the same time period, 

though the unemployment rate of the state of Wyoming declined by 0.2 percent (United States Census 

Bureau, 2012a). This is likely due to the high concentration of service-related employment within these 

two counties. 

Table 14 shows percent employment by sector for 

the two-county area. The combined two-county area 

had a total employment of more than 31,400 individuals in 2011. Farm employment accounted for nearly 2 

percent of the workforce. The highest percentage of 

total employment was found in the accommodation 

and food service sectors (21.1 percent of non-farm 

employment). The real estate rental and leasing and 

government and government enterprises sectors had 

Table 13. State and county income, unemployment, and poverty statistics. 

Median household Percentage of individu- Percentage unemincome (2011) als below poverty (2011) ployed (2011) Change in percent 

unemployed (2000-2011) 

Idaho $46,890 14.3 5.1 1.3 

Teton County $52,444 7.2 6.8 4.4 

Wyoming $56,380 10.1 3.3 -0.2 

Teton County $73,627 7.6 2.9 0.6 

Source: (United States Census Bureau 2010a) 

Local Boy Scouts collect antlers on the refuge every year for an auction that also benefits elk refuge management. 

Mike Pfi el / FWS 
146 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

the second and third largest percentage of total nonfarm employment (11.5 percent and 9.6 percent, 

respectively). Forestry, fishing and related activities 

accounted for less and 1 percent of non-farm employment (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2012b). 

Table 14. Employment by sector, 2011, in Teton 

County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming. 

Percent Industry 2011 of Total 

Total employment 31,459 

Wage and salary employment 20,600 65.5 

Proprietors employment 10,859 34.5 

Farm proprietors employment 370 1.2 

Nonfarm proprietors employment 10,489 33.3 

Farm employment 612 1.9 

Private nonfarm employment 27,826 88.5 

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 

Mining 

32 

63 

0.1 

0.2 

Utilities * 0 

Construction 2,706 8.6 

Manufacturing 435 1.4 

Wholesale trade 79 0.3 

Retail trade 2,401 7.6 

Transportation and warehousing 461 1.5 

Information 431 1.4 

Finance and insurance 1,963 6.2 

Real estate and rental and leasing 

Professional, scientific, and 

technical services 

3,608 

1,902 

11.5 

6 

Management of companies and 

enterprises 56 0.2 

Administrative and 

waste management services 1,465 4.7 

Educational services 415 1.3 

Health care and social assistance 1,155 3.7 

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1,456 4.6 

Accommodation and food services 6,640 21.1 

Other services, 

except public administration 1,423 4.5 

Government and 

government enterprises 3,021 9.6 

Federal, civilian 462 1.5 

Military 160 0.5 

State and local 2,399 7.6 

Source: (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2012b) 

* Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, 

but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. 

Agriculture 

In 2007, there were 299 farms in Teton County, 

Idaho, which reflects a decrease of 3 farms since 

2002. Acreage of cropland also fell over this time 

period from 91,979 acres to 85,149 acres (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2007). Agricultural sales 

for Teton County, Idaho, in 2007 totaled $33 million 

which represents an increase in sales from the 2002 

figure of $24.1 million. Ranking 26th statewide in 

total agricultural sales in 2007, the top selling products of Teton County, Idaho, were vegetables, melons, 

potatoes, and sweet potatoes ($16.2 million), cattle 

and calves ($3.4 million), and nursery, greenhouse, 

floriculture, and sod ($2.8 million) (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2007). 

From 2002 to 2007, the total number of farms in 

Teton County, Wyoming, increased from 110 to 180, 

but the county experienced an overall decrease in 

total farmland, from 57,089 acres to 52,930 acres 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007). During the 

same time period, the market value of agricultural 

products sold increased by 24 percent, from $7.4 million to $9.2 million. Cattle and calf sales totaled $5.3 

million in 2007, accounting for more than half of total 

agricultural sales. Other top selling agricultural 

products within the county were, grains, oilseeds, 

dry beans, and dry peas sales worth $747,000 (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2007). 

Recreation and Tourism 

Angling, hunting and wildlife viewing are popular 

recreational activities across Wyoming and Idaho 

and within the two-county area. According to our 

2011 report, Nation Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation, approximately 

838,000 and 775,000 residents and nonresidents participated in wildlife-associated activities in Idaho and 

Wyoming, respectively (FWS 2012). All visitors to 

the Refuge that engage in wildlife watching are considered away-from-home participants. In Idaho, residents and nonresidents spent over 3.2 million days 

hunting and over 5.5 million days fishing, with residents of the state accounting for 61 percent of hunting days and 86 percent of angling days. In Wyoming, 

residents and nonresidents spent over 1.7 million 

days hunting and over 5.3 million days fishing. Residents of the state accounted for 64 percent of hunting 

days and 38 percent of angling days. 

For the purpose of the National Survey, wildlife 

watching is categorized into (1) away-from-home 

(activities taking place at least 1 mile from home) and 

(2) around-the-home (activities taking place within 1 

mile from home. In 2011, residents and nonresidents 

in Idaho spent a total of 3.8 million days watching 

wildlife away from home, with residents accounting 
 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 147 

for 86 percent of wildlife watching days. In Wyoming, 

residents and nonresidents spent 3.1 million days 

watching wildlife away from home and residents 

accounted for 36 percent of wildlife watching days. 

Across both states, in-state spending associated 

with these activities totaled $5.5 million (2011 dollars), with $3 million spent on trip-related expenditures, $2 million spent on equipment and $526 

thousand spent on other items (FWS 2012). 

Important to the economies of both counties, 

travel- and tourism-related employment accounted 

for 46.8 percent of total private employment in Teton 

County, Wyoming, in 2011, and 15.6 percent of total 

private employment in Teton County, Idaho. The economic sectors comprising this category include retail 

trade, passenger transportation, arts, entertainment 

and recreation, and accommodations and food. Of 

these sectors, accommodations and food services jobs 

accounted for 35.4 percent of total private employment in Teton County, Wyoming, and 11.2 percent of 

private employment in Teton County, Idaho. 

Although a large portion of the employment in these 

counties is in these travel and tourism sectors, average annual wages in travel and tourism sectors were 

substantially lower than mean wages across all private sectors (United States Census Bureau, 2013). 

Among the major tourist attractions for Teton 

County, Idaho, are downhill and Nordic skiing, snowboarding, and snowmobiling, as well as the Teton 

Valley Great Snow Fest, which takes place in the city 

of Driggs. Teton County, Idaho, also hosts a summer 

festival, which includes a hot air balloon rally, craft 

fair, antique show, rodeo, and parade. Additional 

attractions include fly fishing, golfing, horseback riding, mountain biking, and river sports (Teton Valley 

Chamber of Commerce, 2013). 

The tourism industry in Teton County, Wyoming, 

benefits from the county’s natural amenities, which 

offer year-round activities for visitors. In addition to 

two local ski areas, winter activities include snowmobiling, Nordic skiing, snowshoeing, dog sledding, 

wildlife tours, and scenic flights. Popular summer 

opportunities include hiking, camping, whitewater 

rafting, golfing, horseback riding, mountain biking, 

scenic tours, and wildlife tours. Noteworthy summer 

festivals include the Jackson Hole Art Fair, Grand 

Teton Music Festival, and the Teton County Fair 

(Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, 2013). 

Economic Contributions of the 

Refuge 

The refuge contributes to the local economy in 

several ways: 

■■	 Refuge employees rely and spend money on 

local services in their personal lives. 

■■	 We locally buy many supplies and services 

to manage the refuge. 

■■	 The visitors that the refuge brings to Jackson Hole spend money in the area. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Employment 

Refuge employees reside and spend their salaries 

on daily living expenses in the local area, thereby 

generating impacts within the local economy. Household consumption expenditures consist of payments 

by individuals or households to industries for goods 

and services used for personal consumption. 

Current annual salaries total approximately 

$1,021,000. It is estimated that salary spending by 

refuge personnel generate the annual secondary 

effects of 3 jobs, $120,300 in labor income, and 

$225,200 in value added in the local economy. 

Antler Sales 

Since the late 1950s, the Jackson District Boy 

Scouts have picked up elk antlers on the refuge each 

spring under a special use permit, and then the 

Scouts sell the antlers. Approximately 75 percent of 

the proceeds from the auction go to the refuge for elk 

management. The amount received in 2012 was 

$90,469 for 7,398 pounds of antlers. The 10-year average is 8,369 pounds of antlers yielding $76,941. 

Visitor Spending 

Spending associated with recreational visits to 

national wildlife refuges generates substantial economic activity. The Service report, Banking on 

Nature: The Economic Benefits of National Wildlife 

Refuge Visitation to Local Communities, estimated 

the impact of national wildlife refuges on their local 

economies (Carver and Caudill, 2013). More than 46.5 

million people visited the national wildlife refuges in 

fiscal year 2011, which generated $2.4 billion of sales 

in regional economies. Accounting for both the direct 

and secondary effects, spending by national wildlife 

refuge visitors generated over 35,000 jobs and $792.7 

million in employment income (Carver and Caudill, 

2013). Additionally, spending on refuge recreation 

generated approximately $342.9 million in tax revenue at the local, county, State and Federal levels 

(Carver and Caudill, 2013). 
148 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

4.8 Operations 

Operations involve the administrative, or logisti

cal, aspects of managing the refuge: money, staff, 

■■	 one

fee

■■	 eig

enf ­

facilities, and partners. 

Funding and Staff 

In 2008, the Service conducted a nationwide staff 

analysis for all national wildlife refuges. At that time, the 

refuge had 10 permanent FTE positions, but the analysis 

found that a minimum of 18 permanent FTE positions was 

necessary to conduct the programs—a 45-percent staff 

deficit. The current staff level of 10.5 FTE positions is 

insufficient to achieve the refuge goals. To address this 

need for staff, we rely on 12.5 FTEs of volunteers and seasonal staff, counting on uncertain nongovernmental money, 

to conduct refuge programs. A list of the additional, nonpermanent assistance follows: 

■■	 one volunteer for biological program 


fieldwork
 

■■ eight seasonal irrigators 

 seasonal operator for supplemental 

ding 

ht detailed (from other refuges) law 

orcement officers to patrol during the 

May 1 national forest opening for antler 

collection 

■■	 two seasonal National Park Service law 

enforcement officers for hunting season 

enforcement 

■■	 twenty volunteers to staff the visitor center 

and Miller House 

■■ three winter naturalists 

Jackson, Wyoming 

Lori Iverson / FWS 

Facilities 

We rely on facilities such as the visitor center, 

maintenance buildings, and refuge housing to give 

the public and our staff a safe, inviting place to visit 

and to work, respectively. Other infrastructure, such 

as pathways and roads, let visitors have on-the-
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 149 

ground experiences in the refuge and help our staff 

efficiently carry out management activities. 

Visitor Buildings 

Several refuge buildings are more than 50 years 

old and qualify for protection under the National Historic Preservation Act. The continued maintenance, 

use, and staffing of these buildings preserves their 

historic value while providing the public with a connection to refuge history. 

The refuge has two primary visitor services facilities: Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor 

Center and Miller House. The maintenance and use 

of these facilities are vital in achieving refuge goals 

for environmental education and interpretation. 

At the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center, each partner agency is required to 

provide only minimal staff at the information desk. 

The refuge staff manages and maintains the facility; 

only one partner in the visitor center helps with the 

operations or maintenance costs with short-term 

funding. However, in accordance with the Grand 

Teton Association’s establishing mission and guidelines, the nonprofit organization returns a portion of 

sales projects to the refuge for educational and interpretive programs. Routine operational costs, including heating and cooling, cleaning, electricity, gas, 

phone and Internet service, snow removal, and supplies were about $80,000 in 2011. The collaborative 

partnership approach to funding the operation of the 

visitor center enables the refuge to provide important visitor services to more people than it could 

under current budget levels. The visitor center manager is a refuge employee, benefitting the other partner agencies at no cost to their organizations. The 

manager has the following duties: 

■■	 compiling and disseminating a weekly 

schedule for approximately 30 people that 

work at the center 

■■	 training employees and volunteers on all 


aspects of information desk services
 

■■	 presenting education and interpretation
 

programs
 

■■	 managing the center budget and ordering 

supplies (such as trash bags, light bulbs, 

office supplies for the information desk, rest 

room supplies, paper products, and maps) 

■■	 taking care of routine maintenance and 


other center issues
 

■■ serving as the refuge volunteer coordinator 

for the region’s largest volunteer program 

Refuge Housing 

Government housing is available for rent on the 

refuge for approximately six families and up to eight 

seasonal employees. Sharing a seasonal housing unit 

may limit or deter some employees or volunteers. All 

refuge housing suitable for permanent staff is occupied. Seasonal irrigators are housed in refuge travel 

trailers as part of their compensation package. 

Parking sites for recreational vehicles and trailers 

with water, sewer, and electrical hookups are available to accommodate about 25 volunteers that can 

provide their own recreational travel trailers. We 

provide these sites free to volunteers that work a 

minimum of 20 hours per week per person. 

Elk Refuge Road 

Elk Refuge Road, Flat Creek Road, and the Curtis Canyon Road are open to the public for wildlife 

observation and access to the national forest from 

May 1 through November 30. During winter, 3.5 

miles of Elk Refuge Road are open to provide access 

to private property (and minor access to the national 

forest), as well as to provide wildlife-viewing opportunities such as for bighorn sheep. 

Elk Refuge Road provides safe, reasonable, uninterrupted access (ingress and egress) for the refuge 

staff, the public, and private owners year-round. The 

road has 10 turnouts that are plowed by refuge staff 

during winter to encourage vehicles to move off the 

road to view wildlife. There is a no-stopping regulation for people driving on Elk Refuge Road. 

Teton County has an easement on Elk Refuge 

Road, retaining the responsibility for general maintenance and improvements to the road. Traffic on the 

road has no limits for the number of vehicles allowed, 

including people conducting commercial operations 

on the roadway. Magnesium chloride (salt)-treated 

water, applied by Teton County for dust abatement 

during the summer, remains on the road surface 

throughout the year. 

The refuge has authority to control parking along 

a 30-foot right-of-way on either side of Elk Refuge 

Road. We maintain parking space for several vehicles 

at a marked trailhead at our boundary with the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest. 
150 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Partnerships 

The National Elk Refuge has a history of fostering partnerships that help accomplish the refuge 

programs. We have entered into various projects and 

activities with many partners including conservation 

organizations, private companies and businesses, 

other Federal agencies, State agencies, universities, 

local schools, and county and city governments. The 

refuge also has an active volunteer program, primarily for visitor services. The refuge could not begin to 

meet the needs of the thousands of refuge visitors 

without these volunteers. 

Partnerships are essential for operating the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center. 

Information about wildlife and the different missions 

and uses of the various Federal lands in Jackson Hole 

enhances the public’s understanding about the purpose of the refuge. In addition, the visitor center 

provides an important service to the public by providing information about area accommodations, services, and available recreational activities. 

Partners have assisted in wildlife and habitat 

management, visitor services, land protection, law 

enforcement, and community outreach. Several of 

these relationships have developed into formalized 

partnerships with written agreements or memoranda of understanding, while others remain more 

informal. The following describes some of our ongoing partnerships: 

■■	 Bridger-Teton National Forest and Grand 

Teton National Park 

■■ Craighead-Beringia South 

■■ Grand Teton Association 

■■	 Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 


Committee
 

■■ Jackson District Boy Scouts 

■■	 Jackson Hole Weed Management 


Association
 

■■ Teton County 

■■ Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Bridger-Teton National Forest and Grand 

Teton National Park 

Cooperative agreements between the refuge, the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest, and the Grand Teton 

National Park provide important wildfire suppression capability that the refuge does not have. Fire is 

a natural ecosystem process, but wildfires 

(unplanned) can be destructive to agency facilities 

and sometimes obstruct wildlife management efforts. 

For example, a wildfire in September that would 

remove most of the refuge forage intended for use by 

wintering elk and bison would be counterproductive 

to the refuge’s management strategy. This partnership helps prevent damage to wildlife habitat, refuge 

structures, and adjacent private lands. 

Craighead-Beringia South 

The discovery of elevated blood-lead levels in 

scavenging birds on the refuge and Grand Teton 

National Park is a good example of positive involvement by a nongovernmental organization. CraigheadBeringia South—a private, nonprofit, wildlife 

research organization—not only conducted the 

research that identified the blood-lead level problem, 

but they also obtained private money to help correct 

the problem. As a result of their involvement, a program for voluntary use of lead-free ammunition was 

established for Federal lands in Jackson Hole and is 

showing positive results in reducing lead exposure to 

specific wildlife populations. 

Grand Teton Association 

The Grand Teton Association has shown exceptional leadership and remarkable assistance in supporting the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center. In 2011, the association completed the 

purchase of the visitor center building, which they 

promptly donated to the refuge, a gift valued at $1 

million. This facility serves more than 300,000 visitors annually and is a tremendous asset to Jackson’s 

tourist-based economy. Financial support from the 

association has been invaluable in providing temporary staff to run the visitor center when key positions are vacant. We use proceeds from the visitor 

center sales outlet that is run by the Grand Teton 

Association to support environmental education, 

interpretation, and wildlife research programs. 

The Grand Teton Association coordinates with a 

private concessionaire to conduct winter sleigh ride 

tours that serve 20,000 to 25,000 refuge visitors each 

year. The refuge does not have the resources to provide this program to the public, and the sleigh rides 

are only made possible through our partnership with 

the Grand Teton Association and the private sleigh 

ride contractor. 

The visitor center and sleigh rides are integral to 

wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation 

on the refuge and generate revenue used to provide 

these programs. 
Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 151 

The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee is a coalition of all Federal land management 

agencies within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

The refuge has been a member of the committee 

since 2002. Members include national wildlife refuge 

managers, national park superintendents, and 

national forest supervisors for their units within the 

ecosystem. A memorandum of understanding provides a vehicle for mutual cooperation and coordination in the management of these Federal lands. The 

committee periodically identifies resource management issues where coordination across the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem is desirable. By leveraging 

financial and management efforts, these Federal land 

managers can best address ecosystem-wide threats 

and opportunities. 

Jackson District Boy Scouts 

The refuge has enjoyed a 55-year partnership 

with the Jackson District Boy Scouts. Hundreds of 

Scouts have earned badges of achievement while conducting outdoor activities on the refuge. 

The most popular activity for the Scouts is helping 

the refuge with the collection of shed elk antlers each 

spring, which they do under special use permit. This 

program reduces damage to feeding equipment, prevents trespassing and antler poaching, and stops 

unnecessary disturbance to the elk herds. These antlers pose a hazard to refuge equipment because they 

can puncture vehicle tires and damage track assemblies, especially during the supplemental winter feeding operations and spring programs like harrowing 

and irrigating. The antlers can become obscured by 

snow and dried grasses, making them impossible to 

see and avoid by vehicle and equipment operators. 

The antlers are sorted, bundled, weighed, tagged, 

and sold at the Boy Scouts of America Elk Antler 

Auction in the Jackson town square on the Saturday 

before Memorial Day weekend each year. About 120 

bidders from 28 States, representing local buyers, 

western export houses, and regional crafts people, 

usually attend. The 10-year average is 8,369 pounds 

of antlers yielding $76,941. The Scouts donate 75 percent of the proceeds from the auction to the refuge. 

We use this money primarily for habitat projects like 

the operation of the irrigation system to provide 

more forage for wintering elk. In the past, we have 

used the proceeds to acquire equipment to improve 

habitat and pay for seasonal irrigators. 

Jackson Hole Weed Management 

Association 

Invasive plants like spotted knapweed and cheatgrass reduce natural vegetation diversity and are a 

problem throughout Jackson Hole. Our participation 

and cooperation with the Jackson Hole Weed Management Association has resulted in a partnership to 

address this landscape problem on and off the refuge. 

These partners have given us technical and plant 

control assistance for eradication efforts on the refuge. In addition, control efforts for invasive plants in 

Jackson Hole, especially next to the refuge, help prevent new infestations on the refuge. 

Teton County 

Our coordination of the North Highway 89 Pathway with Teton County has expanded public opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation on the refuge. The refuge works with 

Teton County and other private, nonprofit organizations to inform the public of use restrictions on the 

pathway that are necessary for compatibility. This 

has helped reduce conflicts with wildlife and has 

reduced violations. Public compliance with these 

restrictions helps ensure that use of the pathway 

remains a compatible use and that the pathway is 

open to the public in the future. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Cost sharing with partner organizations for projects of mutual interest and benefit is a common 

approach to leveraging limited refuge money. An 

example of cost sharing is our cooperation with 

WGFD to monitor chronic wasting disease on the 

refuge and in Jackson Hole. The refuge has contributed money to help defray the cost of seasonal technicians who collect samples from hunter-harvested 

deer and elk. The WGFD supervises these technicians, coordinates the sampling schedule, analyzes 

the samples, and writes the annual report. This costsharing partnership enables a disease detection program on the refuge that is vital to both agencies and 

likely could not be conducted at a high level of confidence without this collaboration. 

Chapter 5—Environmental 

Consequences 

Visitors learn about wildlife through environmental education programs on the refuge. 

Lori Iverson / FWS 

This chapter provides an analysis of the potential 

effects on the environment associated with the implementation of management alternatives for the refuge. 

We assessed the expected, potential environmental 

consequences of carrying out each of the alternatives 

on the physical, biological, cultural resource, and 

socioeconomic environment of the refuge. 

Management actions are prescribed in the alternatives as the means for achieving the vision and 

goals for the refuge, while responding to issues 

raised by our managers, the public, and governmental partners. Because management would differ for 

each alternative, the environmental and social effects 

would likely differ as well. This chapter has the following sections: 

5.1 Analysis Methods 

5.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives 

5.3 Climate Change Effects 

5.4 Air Quality Effects 

5.5 Landscape-Scale Conservation Effects 

5.6 Habitat Effects 

5.7 Wildlife Effects 

5.8 Federally and State-Listed Species Effects 

5.9 Research and Monitoring Effects 

5.10 Cultural Resources Effects 

5.11 Visitor Services Effects 

5.12 Safety Effects 

5.13 Resource Protection Effects 

5.14 Administration Effects 

5.15 Socioeconomic Impacts 

Table 4 at the end of “Chapter 3—Alternatives” 

summarizes the alternatives’ actions and the associated consequences described below. 
154 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

5.1 Analysis Methods 

The determination of effects is evaluated at sev

eral levels including whether the effects are adverse 

or beneficial and whether the effects are direct, indi

rect, or cumulative with other independent actions. 

In addition, we used the duration of effects in the 

evaluation of environmental consequences. 

■■	 Direct effects are those where the effect on 

the resource is immediate and the direct 

result of a specific action or activity. Exam

ples of a direct effect are the effect of trail 

construction on vegetation along the trail 

and the effect of hunting on wildlife. 

■■	 Indirect, or secondary, effects are those 

induced by implementation actions but that 

occur later in time or farther removed from 

the place of action through a series of inter

connected effects. Examples include the 

effects on downstream water quality from 

an upstream surface disturbance and the 

effect that recreational use along a trail may 

have on nearby plant communities. 

■■	 A cumulative effect is defined as “the 

impact on the environment which results 

from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and rea

sonably foreseeable future action regardless 

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions” (40 

CFR 1508.7). 

Impacts are often described in terms of their con

text, intensity, and duration. The duration of effects 

is either short term or long term. Short-term effects 

would persist for a period of 3–5 years and would 

consist primarily of temporary disturbance from 

habitat restoration or facility construction and subse

quent revegetation efforts. Long-term effects would 

last more than 5 years after project initiation and 

may outlast the 15-year lifespan of the CCP. Many 

long-term effects consist of long-term benefit to wild

life habitat resulting from management actions. 

■■	 Car

(go

low 

■■	 Ma

5.2 Effects Common to All 

Alternatives 

The following potential effects would be similar 

for each of the four alternatives: 

compared with the 

We are committ

the public have equ

wildlife resources, 

tion that would en

fully in activities a

t

rying out the management direction 

als, objectives, and strategies) would folthe refuge’s best management practices. 

nagement activities and programs would 

avoid and reduce adverse effects on federally threatened and endangered species. 

■■	 The refuge staff, contractors, researchers, 

and other consultants would acquire all 

applicable permits, such as those for future 

construction activities. 

The sections below describe in more detail other 

effects, including cumulative impacts, expected to be 

similar for each alternative. 

Regulatory Effects 

As described in chapter 1, we must follow Federal 

laws, administrative orders, and policies in the development and implementation of our management 

actions and programs. Among such mandates are the 

Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Clean Water Act of 1977, and compliance with Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands and Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management. The 

implementation of any of the alternatives described 

in this draft CCP and EA would not lead to a violation of these or other mandates (refer to appendix A). 

Environmental Justice 

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 

12898—Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations, no actions being considered in this draft 

CCP and EA would disproportionately place any 

adverse environmental, economic, social, or health 

effects on minority or low-income populations when 

public. 

ed to ensuring that all members of 

al access to the Nation’s fish and 

as well as equal access to informaable them to take part meaningnd policy shaping. 

Geology and Soils 

All alternatives would positively affect soil forma

ion processes on the refuge. Some disturbance to 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 155 

surface soils and topography would occur at locations 

selected for (1) administrative, maintenance, and visitor facilities, (2) removal and eradication of invasive 

plant species, and (3) restoration of native habitat. 

Bison and Elk Plan 

The Bison and Elk Management Plan was 

approved in April 2007 and would continue to serve 

as the guiding document for the management of elk 

and bison on the refuge. The implementation of any of 

the alternatives described in this draft CCP and EA 

would not supersede the goals and objectives in the 

Bison and Elk Management Plan. 

Elk and bison management on the refuge has the 

potential to directly and indirectly affect threatened 

and endangered species and other species of concern. 

Indirect effects include (1) disturbance caused by 

shooting and hazing elk and bison, (2) the alteration 

of habitat used or potentially used by threatened or 

endangered plants or wildlife, (3) the introduction of 

disease agents into the environment through vaccination of elk and bison, and (4) changes in numbers and 

distribution of elk and bison, which serve as live prey 

or carrion for threatened or endangered animals. 

By supporting the Bison and Elk Management 

Plan’s population level objectives for elk and bison, 

the refuge produces greenhouse gases in excess of 

the benefits of the actions described above. Diesel 

equipment contributes to greenhouse gasses. More 

animals congregate on the refuge’s enhanced habitat 

(because of deliberate management) than would naturally occur. 

Migratory Birds 

Operation of the K-line irrigation system entails 

dragging irrigation hoses using off-road vehicles. 

These activities have the potential to destroy 

ground-nesting bird nests and would likely decrease 

nest success for various species; the species most 

likely to be negatively affected are Savannah sparrow, vesper sparrow, horned lark, western meadowlark, and long-billed curlew (Dieni 2011). The refuge 

did surveys in 2011 to find long-billed curlew nest 

sites and to delay irrigation in these areas until the 

end of nesting. These techniques would be used to 

mitigate the negative effects of irrigation activities 

on ground-nesting birds, but there would be financial 

costs associated with the monitoring. 

Irrigation activities would likely change the composition and structure of refuge grasslands over time 

(FWS and NPS 2007a). Nesting activity by species 

associated with shortgrasses would potentially 

decline, while nesting activity by species associated 

with taller, denser grasses might increase within the 

irrigation project area. 

Seasonal closures would limit human disturbance 

of breeding birds under all alternatives, improving 

habitat and nesting success for migratory birds 

(Blumstein et al. 2005, Henson and Grant 1991, 

Tremblay and Ellison 1979). 

Wildland Fire Management 

The use of wildland fire as a tool for hazard fuel 

reduction and ecosystem management has been well 

documented by various land management organizations. Wildland fire provides many benefits that cannot be duplicated by other management techniques. 

Fire causes an immediate release of nutrients and 

warming of the soil that stimulates grass and forb 

growth. Fire also stimulates re-sprouting and suckering in many deciduous woody species (such as willow, aspens, and cottonwoods). Some plant species, 

such as lodgepole pine, are also depended on fire for 

seedling establishment. Fire can also be used to create a barrier to protect highly valued areas such as 

private property or administrative sites. 

As previously mentioned, fire can stimulate suckering and re-sprouting in deciduous plant species. 

However, this new growth of woody vegetation is 

highly sought after for browsing by large ungulates. 

This is a concern at National Elk Refuge. Unless 

large ungulates can be excluded from an area after a 

fire, this browsing can further degrade the habitat. 

Air quality is sometimes affected by wildland fire. 

Smoke from wildland fire contains many chemicals 

including particulate matter, water vapor, and carbon 

dioxide just to name a few. Smoke is known to cause 

adverse health effects in humans especially those 

susceptible to asthma and other respiratory illnesses. 

Wildland fire managers have many techniques that 

can be used to help minimize the impacts from 

smoke. Fire managers work closely with the National 

Weather Service and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality to determine the best conditions 

for prescribed fire implementation and, to the extent 

possible, management of wildfires to minimize the 

impact of smoke emissions on the public. 

As with other refuge lands, the potential invasion 

of a recently burned areas to be invaded by nonendemic vegetation is a concern. The best practice is 

to continue to work with neighboring landowners to 

prevent invasions in the area. An aggressive monitoring program of recently burned areas will also 

allow refuge staff to identify any new infestations 

while they are small and much easier to control. 
156 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Finally, keeping equipment clean and cleaning equipment before moving to new areas, especially if having 

just been in an area known to contain non-endemic 

vegetation, will help prevent the spread of non-native 

vegetation 

Antler Collecting 

Prohibiting the collection of antlers adheres to our 

agency policy of not collecting or removing items, 

including wildlife part, from national wildlife refuges. If antler collecting was allowed, the refuge 

would likely see increases in trespass into areas 

closed for the protection of wintering wildlife, resulting in substantial impacts to elk at critical times of 

the year. Prohibiting antler collection also protects 

wildlife habitat. However, the refuge, in a long-standing partnership with the Jackson District Boy 

Scouts, allows the Scouts to help us by picking up 

shed elk antlers that pose a hazard to refuge equipment. Most of the proceeds from an auction of antlers 

held by the Scouts are returned to the refuge and 

used primarily for habitat projects benefitting elk. 

Access for Boating 

Boating on the Gros Ventre River segment bounding the refuge was evaluated during development of 

the Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River 

Management Plan. The potential wildlife and habitat 

effects of hand-propelled boating along this scenic 

river segment were reviewed and determined to be 

unacceptable. Disturbance from boating would affect 

the following: 

■■	 grizzly bears, which are known to use riparian habitat along the Gros Ventre River 

■■	 elk, moose, and bison that use riparian habitat and adjacent uplands in the summer for 

calving 

■■	 moose, mule deer, and small numbers of elk 

and bison that winter within the river 

corridor 

■■	 bison and elk movement between the Grand 

Teton National Park and the refuge during 

spring and fall migrations 

■■	 bald eagles and osprey that nest or hunt 


along the river
 

The Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive 

River Management Plan did not recommend changing the existing prohibition against nonmotorized 

boating because of the effects listed above, which 

would also occur along the segment of the Gros Ventre River located downstream from the town of Kelly. 

The refuge staff evaluated nonmotorized boating 

for Flat Creek and ponds (impoundments). The wildlife disturbance to waterbodies and adjacent areas 

would be significant. There would likely be adverse 

effects on the following: 

■■	 trumpeter swans that nest in the lower 


reach of Flat Creek
 

■■	 up to 200 trumpeter swans that stage on 

and use the refuge as a resting site during 

fall migration 

■■	 elk and bison during early spring when disturbance would burn their diminished 

energy reserves 

■■	 nesting, migrating, and wintering 


waterfowl
 

Nonmotorized boating on Flat Creek would also 

result in significant conflicts with the existing wildlife-dependent fishing program. Motorized boating 

was considered impractical due to the small size and 

shallow nature of refuge waterbodies. Furthermore, 

no boats reduces the potential introduction of aquatic 

invasive species. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of 

the actions for an alternative when added to past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Cumulative impacts can be the result of individually 

minor effects, which can become significant when 

accumulated over time. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations that carry out the National 

Environmental Policy Act requires mitigation measures when the environmental analysis process 

detects possible significant impacts on habitat, wildlife, or the human environment. 

We do not expect or intend any of the activities 

proposed for the CCP to produce significant levels of 

cumulative environmental impacts that would 

require mitigation. Nevertheless, the final CCP 

would contain the following measures to preclude 

significant environmental impacts from occurring: 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 157 

Climate change is the preeminent issue for con

servation in future decades. Over the next two 

 

■■	 We would protect federally listed species 

from intentional or unintended impacts by 

banning activities where these species

occur. 

■■	 We would regulate all proposed activities to 

lessen potential impacts to wildlife, fish, and 

plant species, especially during sensitive 

reproductive cycles. 

■■	 We would establish monitoring protocols to 

determine goal achievement levels and pos

sible unforeseen impacts to resources and 

for application of adaptive resource manage

ment to make sure wildlife and habitat 

resources as well as the human environment 

are preserved. 

■■	 We could revise and amend the CCP after 5 

years of implementation to apply adaptive 

resource management for correcting unfore

seen impacts that occurred during the first 

years of the plan. 

­

­

­

Willows 

S Wl / Fledroe NkiM

5.3 Climate Change Effects 

­

decades, a warming of about 0.36 °F per decade is 

projected globally. Warming is expected to continue 

for centuries, even if greenhouse gas emissions were 

stabilized, because of substantial time lags in the 

feedback loop of climatic processes (Christensen et al. 

2007). 

Consequent with the projected warming, the 

atmospheric moisture transport and convergence is 

projected to increase, resulting in a widespread 

increase in annual precipitation over most of the continent except the southern and southwestern parts of 

the United States (Christensen et al. 2007). This 

increased precipitation is more likely to occur in winter and spring months, rather than summer (Christensen et al. 2007). It is also considered likely that 

extreme weather (heat waves and flooding) would 

become more frequent. Increases in annual precipitation might be partially offset by increases in evaporation. Moisture availability, rather than just 

precipitation, is a critical resource for plants and 

animals. 

Current trends in climate change are expected to 

affect high-mountain ecotypes and lower elevation, 

snowmelt-dependent watersheds, such as those found 

near the refuge, more acutely than some other landscape ecotypes. The effects of climate change would 

extend beyond the boundaries of any single refuge 

and would, therefore, need large-scale, landscapelevel solutions that extend beyond the refuge boundary. Such solutions include supporting intact, 

interconnected landscapes, restoring fragmented or 

degraded habitats, and preserving and restoring ecological processes. The collective goal is to protect and 

improve resilience in ecological systems and communities, so that, even as climate conditions change, the 

natural landscape would continue to support its full 

range of native biodiversity and ecological 

processes. 

Resiliency in ecological system is dependent on 

several factors. Diversity is important for maximizing the options by which a system can respond to 

disturbance. Embracing ecological variability, such 

as droughts and floods, is also key. For example, 

eliminating periodic fire from forests can actually 

reduce resiliency and make them more vulnerable to 

catastrophic wildfires. Expecting the unexpected 

and recognizing that the understanding of systems, 

thresholds, and driving variables is often imperfect 

are also important to managing resiliency in systems 

and creating long-term sustainability (Gunderson 

2000, Holling 1973, Walker and Salt 2006). 
158 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Alternative A 

The refuge does not have the capacity or expertise to conduct climate change research, monitoring, 

or modeling. Fortunately, the refuge is located in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem where other land 

management agencies and scientific research organizations have a great deal of interest in monitoring 

and predicting the impacts of climate change on wildlife, habitat, and ecosystem functions. As ecosystemspecific climate change information becomes 

available, it would provide a scientific foundation for 

making management changes to benefit fish and 

wildlife and their habitats. Obtaining valuable climate change information would continue to be a tremendous help to a refuge with limited money and 

staff. This approach would save staff time and money 

and continue to allow staff to focus on refuge-specific 

activities. 

The collection of ecosystem-wide climate change 

data may not show the more subtle, refuge-specific 

changes. By not collecting long-term climate change 

data on the refuge, we may not detect important 

changes until serious adverse impacts have occurred 

to wildlife or their habitats. Furthermore, we may 

lose the window of opportunity to address or prepare 

for unforeseen changes without advance notice. 

As climate change information for the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem became available, it would 

provide an opportunity for the refuge to respond to 

the our agency’s strategic plan for responding to 

accelerating climate change. This plan, “Rising to the 

Urgent Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to 

Accelerating Climate Change” (FWS 2010) outlines 

three categories of response: adaptation, mitigation, 

and engagement. Climate change science would continue to advance and, in the future, provide fine-scale 

information that would enable the refuge to make 

science-based adjustments to management to help 

reduce the impacts of climate change on fish and 

wildlife and their habitats. Adaptation would be our 

primary focus in responding to climate change. 

The refuge is implementing 14 climate change 

mitigations that have been identified in the “Sustainability Across Boundaries: the Greater Yellowstone 

Area Climate Action Plan” (Fiebig 2011), which the 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee sponsored. These efforts would help reduce our carbon 

footprint and move the refuge toward our agency 

goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2020. These mitigation actions fall into three categories: (1) vehicle 

efficiency; (2) building efficiency; and (3) reduced 

energy consumption. 

■■	 The refuge would accomplish vehicle efficiency through the gradual replacement of 

low mile-per-gallon vehicles with more efficient vehicles and the use of re-refined oil. 

Changing driver habits such as not letting 

vehicles idle and choosing to use energy-efficient vehicles when available would continue 

to be part of staff training. These changes 

would have positive effects on lowering our 

carbon footprint and reducing costs and 

have no adverse effects on completing refuge work. 

■■	 We would improve energy efficiency for refuge buildings through the gradual addition 

of insulation and the replacement of inefficient windows, water heaters, and furnaces. 

Construction of new buildings would meet 

high standards for energy efficiency. Over 

time, these building improvements would 

reduce maintenance and operation costs, 

thus making more money available for refuge activities. 

■■	 The recent irrigation system expansion quadruples the refuge irrigation capacity while 

reducing water consumption and fuel consumption. Previously, approximately 500 

acres were sprinkler-irrigated using pressure generated by fuel-powered pumps. The 

new irrigation system is pressured by gravity, which eliminates pumping fuel that 

some years had cost up to $5,000 per week, 

or $20,000 per year. This system would continue to substantially increase irrigation 

capacity, reduce our carbon footprint 

through reduced fuel consumption, and 

eliminate maintenance time and costs. 

As refuge staff continued to engage the public at 

the visitor center, there would be improved public 

understanding of climate change effects on natural 

resources that would encourage support for the refuge in changing management to mitigate the effects 

of climate change on refuge natural resources. 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, our 

involvement and cooperation with the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative might provide opportunities for the refuge to be part of 

ongoing climate change research. By including the 

refuge as a study site for data collection, the research 

might provide fine-scale information that directly 

applies to the refuge. This information would likely 

apply more to refuge management and planning than 

regional climate change information, thus providing 

specific information that can improve planning and 

management of the refuge. 
Coordinating Com

resource managem

management assi

actions for wildlife

around the refuge.

gial relationships t

of controversial cha

tive land managem

and reducing land 

help promote publ

agencies including 

Invasive plants

cheatgrass reduce 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 159 

Refuge staff would be involved to some degree 

with research conducted on the refuge if only to 

evaluate techniques and potential conflicts with refuge programs and policies. This would redirect limited staff time away from meeting other objectives; 

this would have an adverse effect on operations and 

existing programs. We would need more biological 

staff to collect or analyze data for climate change. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, we 

would use specific management practices such as 

replacing cheatgrass monocultures with native plant 

communities to reestablish healthy, natural ecosys

tem functions and natural wildlife and plant commu

nities on the refuge and surrounding lands. The 

resulting ecosystem resiliency would benefit wildlife 

and plant communities by enabling them to better 

respond to disturbances or changing conditions by 

resisting damage and recovering quickly. 

Creating and maintaining resilient ecosystems 

would divert focus away from meeting the refuge 

goals—limited staff and finances would be used to 

achieve long-term ecosystem resiliency without the 

certainty of success. Our ability to meet the objec

tives of the Bison and Elk Management Plan and 

some visitor services programs would suffer if ade

quate money and staff were not added. 

­

­

­

­

5.4 Air Quality Effects 

Effects on air quality would not significantly 

affect the refuge or the Jackson Hole environment. 

and tools

efit refu

collabora

ects that 

For exa

refuge, is

that attr

WGFD is

the Flat 

Alternative A 

Effects on air quality would be negligible. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Same as alternative A. In addition, effects from 

prescribed burning would temporarily reduce air 

quality by diminishing visibility and by releasing 

natural compounds through combustion. 

3.5 Landscape-Scale

Conservation Effects 

One of the greatest threats to wildlife today is 

residential development and human population 

growth. Much of this growth is happening in rural 

areas. Land development has three main effects on 

wildlife: (1) direct habitat loss; (2) increased risk of 

mortality by increasing the frequency and lethality of 

human–wildlife conflicts; and (3) displacement and 

avoidance of developed areas by wildlife, which 

decreases available habitat and serves to isolate 

populations. Isolated populations are less resilient to 

changes in environment because of genetic inbreeding that decreases genetic diversity and produces 

genetic abnormalities that are often detrimental to 

individuals and populations. Isolated populations are 

also less resilient to disease, overhunting, or catastrophic events like floods and fire. 

As habitat fragmentation continues to create barriers to animal movement, habitat connectivity grows 

increasingly vital in promoting the long-term survival of species. Continued connectivity between 

large areas of habitat is critical to the survival of 

many species of concern, especially those species that 

travel great distances and have large home ranges 

such as grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, and Canada lynx. 

Alternatives A and B 

Collaboration with land management agencies and 

nonprofit organizations can provide more resources 

 for habitat protection projects, which benge habitats and wildlife populations. This 

tion combines resources to complete projare beyond the capacity of just the refuge. 

mple, Flat Creek, which flows through the 

 a nationally known cutthroat trout fishery 

acts anglers from around the country. 

 interested in maintaining and improving 

Creek fishery. Our cooperation with WGFD 

to update the bank protection and stabilization on the 

refuge would contribute to a healthy cutthroat trout 

fishery throughout the Flat Creek system. A healthy 

cutthroat trout fishery would be a benefit to the refuge and would enable the continuation of a quality 

catch-and-release fishing program on the refuge. 

Our involvement with the Greater Yellowstone 

mittee would continue to provide 

ent information and technical and 

stance, which would leverage 

 and habitat improvement on and 

 It would also continue our collehat enable the effective resolution 

llenges that cross the administraent boundaries. Sharing resources 

management controversies would 

ic support of land management 

the refuge. 

 such as spotted knapweed and 

natural vegetation diversity and 
160 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

are considered problems throughout Jackson Hole. 

Our participation and cooperation with the Jackson 

Hole Weed Management Association has resulted in 

a partnership to address this landscape problem on 

and off the refuge. This landscape effort would continue to help protect and enhance native plant communities and preserve plant diversity on the refuge 

for the benefit many wildlife species. It would also 

contribute to landscape resiliency, which would 

enable plants and wildlife to better withstand and 

adapt to climate change. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, empha

sizing area-wide, off-refuge, land protection efforts 

that develop or preserve wildlife migration corridors 

would enhance genetic exchange between discrete 

wildlife populations, improving the long-term sur

vival of various wildlife populations in the ecosystem. 

Landscape protection efforts such as “Path of the 

Pronghorn” (FWS, NPS, and USDA Forest Service 

2008) provide positive benefits to wildlife populations 

across the landscape. 

Migration corridors can provide a route for inva

sive plants and animals to enter and infest the ref

uge, decreasing species diversity and landscape 

resilience. Increased refuge monitoring would be 

necessary for early detection of invasive species. 

Once detected, a rapid response would be necessary 

to control and eradicate infestations to prevent estab

lishment of problem plants and the loss of species 

diversity. Migration corridors might increase the 

long-term genetic health for wildlife but also increase 

the likelihood of new diseases reaching the refuge. 

Increased disease monitoring to account for 

increased risk of disease transmission would be 

necessary. 

Land use protection through a willing-seller Fed

eral acquisition program would contribute to landscape-scale conservation. Easements or fee 

acquisition in strategically selected areas could miti

gate the surrounding land uses that negatively affect 

the refuge and wildlife populations. However, we are 

limited in acquiring land interest (fee or easement) to 

within the refuge acquisition boundary, and nearly 

all lands within this boundary have been protected. 

The expansion of the refuge acquisition boundary is a 

public process that requires public input. 

Fee-title acquisition to protect land next to the 

refuge would provide more forage and reduce con

flicts between wildlife and existing homes and ranch 

operations. However, the cost to buy land and remove 

existing homes and structures would be exorbitant 

and impractical. 

Land protection using land-use easements on 

undeveloped acreage would be expensive but is a 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

more realistic approach than fee purchase. These 

easements could be as selective as identifying the 

timing of cattle presence to avoid brucellosis trans

mission or broader to restrict future development. 

Easements obtained and held by private nonprofit 

land trusts could also be effective in complementing 

management efforts on the refuge. 

Emphasis on landscape-level projects would help 

keep the ecosystem resilient to climate change, but 

would divert limited refuge money and staff time 

away from projects that directly benefit the refuge. 

­

A view of the refuge from Snow King Resort in Jackson, 

Wyoming. 

WS F

5.6 Habitat Effects 

This section describes the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to the following: 

■■ native grasslands and sagebrush shrublands 

■■ wetlands 

■■ riparian woodlands and aspen woodlands 

■■ invasive species 

­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 161 

Native Grasslands and Sagebrush 

Shrublands 

The effects of each alternative on grasslands and 

sagebrush shrublands are described below. 

Alternative A 

The most extensive native grassland and sagebrush shrubland plant communities exist in the Gros 

Ventre Hills on the northern end of the refuge, and 

therefore the impacts of the alternatives primarily 

affect this area. Lack of any management other than 

full fire suppression and invasive plant control would 

reduce motorized vehicles in native plant communities and minimize the transport of noxious weed 

seeds from other locations (Von Der Lippe and 

Kowarik 2007). 

 Habitat for bird species dependent on open grassland or grassland patches within sagebrush stands 

would decline, and habitat for bird species dependent 

on older, dense sagebrush stands would increase 

(Knick et al. 2005). Wintering and nesting habitat for 

greater sage-grouse would increase over time, but 

potential lek sites and brood-rearing habitat would 

decline. 

Continued full fire suppression and lack of prescribed fire would result in an increase in the age and 

density of sagebrush stands, which would decrease 

elk and bison use of these areas over time (Cook 

2002, Grover and Thompson 1986, Smith et al. 2004). 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. However, while 

native species composition would be maintained, the 

extent of older, dense sagebrush stands would be 

reduced compared to alternative A, and the extent of 

young sagebrush stands and grass-dominated sites 

would increase. More management could increase the 

transport of noxious weed seeds. The costs and staff 

time associated with prescribed burning and controlling invasive plants would be substantially higher 

than alternative A. 

There would be a reduction in the extent and distribution of tall, mature sagebrush stands, which 

would reduce the amount of wintering habitat for 

greater sage-grouse. 

We would still protect native grassland and sagebrush shrubland communities from degradation, but 

we would place greater emphasis on managing these 

plant communities to improve habitat quality for elk 

and bison. An increase in the size and distribution of 

grass- and young sagebrush-dominated areas would 

increase elk and bison use of the northern end of the 

refuge. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, 

increased use of prescribed fire and managed use of 

wildfire would be necessary to achieve desired conditions, although the frequency and extent of burning 

would likely be less than under alternative B. There 

would be an intermediate risk of invasive plant invasion. The costs and staff time for fire management, 

monitoring, and weed control would be substantially 

higher than alternative A but slightly less than alternative B. 

The effects on greater sage-grouse habitat and 

elk and bison distribution could be greater than 

alternative B. However, the core area policy for 

greater sage-grouse is to mitigate activities in the 

core area; therefore, adverse effects on greater sagegrouse should be avoided. 

Wetlands 

The effects of each alternative on wetlands are 

described below. 

Alternative A 

The infrequent manipulation of water levels in 

artificial ponds would continue to promote foraging 

and nesting habitat for trumpeter swans. 

With our current level of noxious weed control, 

there would be a moderate increase in the distribution and density of some weed species, particularly 

Canada thistle, in wet meadow habitat. Invasive 

plant species that are not State-listed as noxious 

weeds would continue to increase in distribution and 

density in wet meadows. Lack of prescribed fire in 

wetland plant communities would result in similar 

use by elk and bison of wet meadow habitat to that of 

recent years. This use would continue to be high 

(Cole and Ketchum 2010), but would be lower than 

alternative B. Costs and staff time associated with 

planning, carrying out, and monitoring prescribed 

burns would be substantially lower than alternatives 

B–D. 

Alternatives B and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, there 

would be increased capability to improve swan habitat and potentially increase habitat quantity with 

new ponds (more than the other alternatives). The 

costs of improving water control structures and 

building new ponds would be much higher compared 

to alternatives A and C. 
162 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

The costs of monitoring invasive plant and aquatic 

animal species would increase compared to alternative A in the short term, but the likelihood of identifying and controlling infestations before they became 

a major ecological problem would be much greater 

than under alternative A. Therefore, the long-term 

costs of invasive species control would likely be substantially lower than alternative A. 

Prescribed burning would improve forage quality 

in wet meadow plant communities to a much greater 

extent than alternative A and modestly more than 

alternative C, resulting in higher elk and bison use of 

wet meadows on the southern end of the refuge. 

Costs and staff time associated with planning, implementing, and monitoring the effects of prescribed 

burns would be substantially greater than alternative A and modestly greater than alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Water regimes that mimic natural flow conditions 

would likely result in swan habitat similar to alternative A, with more limited swan habitat than alternative B. Costs and staff time associated with 

improving water control structures on existing artificial ponds would be greater than alternative A but, 

because no new ponds would be created, costs would 

be lower than alternative B. 

The costs of monitoring invasive plant and aquatic 

animal species would increase compared to alternative A in the short term, but the likelihood of identifying and controlling infestations before they become 

a major ecological problem is much greater than 

under alternative A. Therefore, the long-term costs 

of invasive species control would likely be substantially lower than alternative A. 

The scale and extent of prescribed burns would be 

lower than alternative B, resulting in a modest 

improvement in forage quality for elk and bison in 

wet meadow habitats compared to alternative A but 

to a lesser extent than for alternative B. Costs of 

planning, implementing, and monitoring the effects of 

prescribed burns would be greater than alternative 

A but less than alternative B. 

As willow communities were restored (refer to 

“Riparian Woodlands and Aspen Woodlands—Alternative C” below), beaver presence could be reestablished and beaver ponds would increase the amount 

and distribution of small open water areas in wet 

meadow plant communities on the southern end of 

the refuge compared to alternative A and B. Succession at the beaver ponds would produce mudflat conditions that would support regeneration of willows 

from seed (Cooper et al. 2006), which over the long 

term would generate new willow stands intermixed 

with wet meadow habitat and would contribute to the 

increased diversity of wetland plant communities. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands 

The effects of each alternative on riparian woodlands and aspen woodlands are described below. 

Alternative A 

Browsing intensity by bison, elk, and moose, the 

location of woody plant communities, and the relative 

palatability of the plant species, dictates the potential 

structure of woody plant communities on the refuge 

(Smith et al. 2004). Loss of woody plant community 

structure and, in some cases, a complete change from 

shrub and woodland communities to grass-dominated communities would continue. Without restoration of willow and cottonwood along Flat Creek, 

riparian communities would continue to deteriorate. 

Regeneration of cottonwoods would be possible in 

parts of the Gros Ventre River riparian area, but 

more palatable species such as willow, chokecherry, 

serviceberry, and silverberry would be heavily 

browsed and potentially disappear from Gros Ventre 

River riparian areas over time. (Keigley et al. 2009). 

There would be continued loss of the extent, density, 

and height of willow and cottonwood communities. 

Elk and bison density would be slightly less than current conditions, and distribution would be similar to 

current conditions (Cole and Ketchum 2010). Costs 

and staff time to carry out woody vegetation recovery strategies would be slightly lower than alternative B and much lower than alternative C. 

Retention of irrigation water in the Flat Creek 

system through efficiency of the refuge irrigation 

system was discussed in “Bison and Elk Grazing 

Impacts” in the Bison and Elk Management Plan 

(FWS and NPS 2007a). These conditions would be 

true for each alternative. 

Riparian flow regimes would be similar to current 

conditions. Diversion of water by private users from 

the Gros Ventre River to the lower Flat Creek at a 

level of up to 140 cubic feet per second would continue 

to occur from May to August in most years (Shields 

1983). Stream morphology would be similar to current conditions. 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, 

because the refuge would likely use only small-scale 

experimental exclosures and jackstraw techniques, 

the structure and composition of riparian woody 

plant communities would be similar to alternative A. 

Costs and staff time for small-scale restoration of 

woody riparian communities would be slightly higher 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 163 

than alternative A and much lower than alternative 

C. 

The refuge would implement recommendations 

from the Gros Ventre River Hydrologic Assessment 

as appropriate, but these recommendations and their 

effects on riparian habitat are unknown at this time. 

Economic impacts to private irrigators might be possible, but given the uncertainty about the Gros Ventre River Hydrologic Assessment, those impacts are 

uncertain. 

Comprehensive fisheries habitat improvement 

projects on lower Flat Creek would entail substantially higher costs and staff resources than alternatives A and C. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, given 

the current condition of willow and cottonwood communities on the southern end of the refuge, fenced 

exclosures would be necessary to restore riparian 

willow and cottonwood communities. The Bison and 

Elk Management Plan prescribed the use of 500- to 

1,000-acre willow exclosures and a 100-acre cottonwood exclosure to restore riparian plant communities 

along Flat Creek. Data from current small-scale 

experimental exclosures on the refuge suggest that 

fenced areas would have to be in place at least 10 

years for willow and cottonwood to regain sufficient 

structure to resist browsing pressure from elk and 

bison. If exclosures are subsequently removed at the 

500 bison and 5,000 elk population levels, these communities would only temporarily be able to withstand 

browsing pressure. Perpetual rotation of exclosures 

on a 15-year cycle would make sure that some riparian habitat would be available as elk and bison habitat, while also ensuring that willow and cottonwood 

plant communities would be restored on the southern 

end of the refuge. However, exclosure construction 

would be costly, requiring considerable staff 

resources to check fence integrity and to rotate 

fenced areas compared to alternatives A and B. 

Nonessential exclosures and woody vegetation 

restoration techniques that do not support restoration to pre-European settlement conditions would be 

removed. For example, jackstraw structures along 

lower Flat Creek would be removed because there is 

no historical evidence that large woody debris 

existed in this part of the creek (Galbraith et al. 1998, 

Smith et al. 2004), and the shelterbelt exclosure in 

the Headquarters management unit would be 

removed, because it supports trees and shrubs that 

would not have existed at that site. Staff time associated with removal of these structures would be substantial, and public education efforts would be 

required to inform the public about the apparent 

contradiction in management activity (constructing 

exclosures in some areas and removing woody vegetation in others). 

In general, mimicking natural flow regimes in the 

Gros Ventre River and Flat Creek drainages would 

result in high water levels during spring runoff 

(May–July) and low water levels from late fall to 

early spring. The existing flow regime in Flat Creek 

and the Gros Ventre River conforms to this pattern, 

but irrigation diversion by the refuge and private 

water users reduces flows below natural levels in 

upper Flat Creek and in the Gros Ventre River and 

increases water levels in the lower part of Flat 

Creek. In extreme cases, this results in the complete 

dewatering of parts of the Gros Ventre River during 

late summer and early fall. If more water stayed in 

the stream channels, stream morphology would more 

closely resemble pre-European conditions, and opportunities for cottonwood and willow regeneration 

would be enhanced. Implementation would be contingent on the cooperation of private water users to 

mimic natural flow regimes, which would entail substantially higher economic costs for these users compared to alternatives A and B. 

Alternative D 

Same effects as alternatives B and C. 

Flat Creek 

The effects of the alternative actions on Flat 

Creek are described below. 

Alternatives A, B, and C 

Based on the results of monitoring, we would use 

adaptive management strategies to adjust project 

components as needed to increase ecological benefits 

and better achieve objectives. 

Alternative D 

The Flat Creek enhancement project would 

reduce sediment inputs to the watershed, improve 

stream processes, and increase habitat for all age 

classes of Snake River cutthroat trout. Stable 

streambanks would be vegetated with native 

species. 

Invasive Species 

The effects of each alternative on invasive species 

are described below. 
164 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Alternative A 

The refuge staff’s use of integrated pest manage

ment strategies would continue to protect native 

plant communities and prevent new infestations. Pre

venting new infestations is the best and most cost 

effective way to fight the spread of invasive weeds, 

but prevention strategies can be inconvenient and 

incur cost to refuge users, and the demands of 

increased vigilance and public education require 

increased staff time. Operations that control invasive 

plants protect native plant communities by prevent

ing the spread of existing infestations. 

With our current level of noxious weed control in 

wetlands, there would be a moderate increase in the 

distribution and density of some weed species, par

ticularly Canada thistle, in wet meadow habitat. 

Invasive plant species that are not State-listed as 

noxious weeds (such as meadow foxtail, timothy, and 

reed canarygrass) would continue to increase in dis

tribution and density in wet meadows. Because there 

would be little management and vehicle traffic in 

these areas, the risk of invasive plant infestation 

would be minimal under alternative A compared to 

the other alternatives. Monitoring and control costs 

would also be minimal under alternative A compared 

to the other alternatives. 

With limited monitoring for aquatic invasive spe

cies, we would be unlikely to make early detection for 

control of zebra mussel, quagga mussel, Asian carp, 

hydrilla, Asian clam, and Eurasian watermilfoil 

(WGFD 2010b). 

­

­

­

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, more 

monitoring and rapid response for new infestations, 

including aquatic plant and animal species, would 

increase the likelihood of identifying and controlling 

infestations before they became a major ecological 

problem. 

The large-scale eradication programs would be 

potentially much less expensive in the long term with 

less risk of an expanding infestation than if doing 

more limited control work. Large-scale eradication 

operations potentially put a greater quantity of herbicide into the environment during the short-term 

effort but likely put much less herbicide into the environment than long-term, never-ending control work. 

The goal of eradication operations is to eliminate the 

infestation, resulting in reduced effort in the future, 

which would be focused on monitoring and spot treatment as necessary. 

The costs of monitoring invasive plant and aquatic 

animal species would increase compared to alternative A in the short term, but the long-term costs of 

invasive species control would likely be substantially 

lower than alternative A. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, the 

monitoring and control of invasive plants that are not 

listed as noxious weeds would help restore native 

plant communities, but complete success in control of 

“naturalized” invasive species would be difficult to 

achieve. There would be higher costs in labor, equip

ment, chemicals, and seed to carry out what would be 

a long-term effect. 

­

5.7 Wildlife Effects 

This section describes the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to the following: 

■■ migratory birds 

■■ aquatic species 

■■ disease management 

Migratory Birds 

The effects of each alternative on migratory birds 

are described below. 

Alternative A 

The overall diversity of migratory bird species 

would be relatively low. 

The current management in grassland and sagebrush shrubland communities would increase the size 

and distribution of older, dense, tall sagebrush 

patches. This would increase the available habitat for 

migratory birds that depend on these conditions and, 

at the same time, decrease the habitat quantity and 

quality for migratory birds that depend on younger 

sagebrush stands and open grasslands (Knick et al. 

2005). Habitat quality for ground-nesting bird species that depend on shortgrasses would decline. 

Wetland habitat for migratory birds would not 

change. 

With the continued loss of willow, cottonwood, and 

aspen stands, the habitat quantity and quality for 

migratory birds that depend on understory shrubs 

and midcanopy woodland habitats would continue to 

decline (Smith et al. 2004). 

­

­

­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 165 

Yellow-headed Blackbirds 

Steve Koob / FWS 

Alternatives B and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

resulting diversity of migratory bird species would 

be slightly higher than alternative A. 

Migratory birds that depend on open grasslands 

and young sagebrush would benefit from management that used more fire to create these conditions. 

There would be less herbaceous nesting cover for 

migratory birds that use wet meadows. In addition, 

migratory birds that use riparian areas would have 

little change in habitat, because the willow and cottonwood restoration would occur on a very small 

scale. 

Costs and staff time for monitoring bird populations would be substantially higher than alternative 

A. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, habitat 

quality for migratory bird species would be 

improved, and alternative C would likely result in the 

highest diversity of migratory bird species. 

For migratory birds that use grasslands and 

sagebrush shrublands, the habitat age distribution 

and density would be intermediate between alternatives A and B. 

For migratory birds that use wet meadows, there 

would be an intermediate amount of herbaceous nesting cover in wet meadow areas between alternatives 

A and B. An increased diversity of wetland plant 

communities on the southern end of the refuge would 

increase habitat for shrub-nesting birds compared to 

alternatives A and B (Medin and Clary 1990). 

For migratory birds that depend on riparian 

areas and woodlands, there would be 500–1,000 acres 

more of tall willow-dominated areas, 100 acres more 

of restored cottonwood woodlands, and 1,000 acres 

more of restored aspen. 

Cost and staff time for bird monitoring would be 

higher than alternative A and comparable to alternative B. 

Aquatic Species 

The effects of each alternative on aquatic species 

are described below. 

Alternative A 

Current monitoring and management strategies 

would continue to yield a basic knowledge of native 

trout populations and their long-term trend in refuge 

waters. These strategies would allow for effective 

fishery and harvest management. 

Working cooperatively with WGFD would continue to greatly reduce refuge costs for fisheries 

management and ensures good alignment with 

WGFD management objectives and fishing regulations. It also takes advantage of the superior fisheries 

management knowledge and experience of WGFD in 

managing resident fish populations. 

Nonnative trout removal would continue to benefit 

native trout through the reduction of competition for 

food and habitat resources and release some of the 

predation pressure. Counting the nonnative trout 

removed would provide data for long-term population 

trends. Although removal of nonnative trout species 

would create positive effects for native trout, other 

native fish, and invertebrates, some anglers view 

these removals as a loss of fishing opportunity and a 

waste of limited resource management money. The 

current level of nonnative trout removal might not be 

enough to substantially reduce populations and might 
166 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

not even be able to stop the increased brook trout 

population that Flat Creek has experienced in recent 

years. However, these activities certainly have negative effects and slow that population growth. 

Given the lack of willow growth in riparian areas, 

beaver would continue to be absent. As a result, 

there would be no new beaver ponds in wetland 

habitats. 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

construction of new artificial ponds to create wetland 

habitat and the rehabilitation of water control structures would increase the amount and quality of 

amphibian habitat compared to alternative A and 

would be comparable to alternative C. Increased 

habitat quality and quantity would increase the likelihood of stable to increasing amphibian populations 

(Ficetola and Bernardi 2004, Marsh and Trenham 

2001). 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

screens at irrigation diversions would substantially 

decrease the introduction of nonnative trout into Flat 

Creek’s trophy cutthroat trout fishery. Increased 

removal of nonnative trout would benefit native trout, 

other native fish, and invertebrates by substantially 

reducing the abundance of nonnative trout, especially 

brook trout. Screen installation would have a substantial initial cost, and the screens would likely 

increase maintenance costs for the refuge, WGFD, 

and water rights holders to clear debris jams. 

Information on the population trend and age 

structure of an unharvested species or suite of species could lead to enhanced aquatic habitat over the 

long term. However, a new program would increase 

WGFD staff costs, would do little to improve the 

native trout fishery, and might be viewed by anglers 

as being an expensive and trivial monitoring 

program. 

Reestablishing beaver populations on the southern end of the refuge would be contingent on restoration of surrounding willow communities as a beaver 

food source (refer to riparian woodlands and aspen 

woodlands effects above). More beaver ponds would 

increase the amount and distribution of small openwater areas in wet meadow plant communities on the 

southern end of the refuge compared to alternatives 

A and B, and the net effect would be more amphibian 

habitat than alternative A (Cunningham et al. 2007) 

and comparable amphibian habitat to alternative B. 

Alternative D
 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

screens at irrigation diversions would substantially 

decrease the introduction of nonnative trout into Flat 

Creek’s trophy cutthroat trout fishery. Increased 

removal of nonnative trout would benefit native trout, 

other native fish, and invertebrates by substantially 

reducing the abundance of nonnative trout, especially 

brook trout. Screen installation would have a substantial initial cost, and the screens would likely 

increase maintenance costs for the refuge, WGFD, 

and water rights holders to clear debris jams. 

Increased removal of nonnative trout would benefit native trout, other native fish, and invertebrates 

by substantially reducing the abundance of nonnative 

trout, especially brook trout. More removal activities 

would increase WGFD staff costs and further reduce 

opportunities for anglers to fish for nonnative trout. 

Reestablishing beaver populations on the southern end of the refuge would be contingent on restoration of surrounding willow communities as a beaver 

food source (refer to riparian woodlands and aspen 

woodlands effects above). More beaver ponds would 

increase the amount and distribution of small openwater areas in wet meadow plant communities on the 

southern end of the refuge compared to alternatives 

A and B, and the net effect would be more amphibian 

habitat than alternative A (Cunningham et al. 2007) 

and comparable amphibian habitat to alternative B. 

Disease Management 

The effects of each alternative on wildlife disease 

and its management are described below. 

Alternative A 

By concentrating elk and bison herds in February 

and March, there would be less risk of brucellosis 

transmission from elk and bison to cattle because the 

current feeding regime limits commingling of elk and 

bison with domestic livestock. However, this alternative would have the highest densities of elk and bison 

on the southern end of the refuge, which would 

increase the herds’ risk of density-dependent 

diseases. 

Because the refuge would do only minimal disease 

monitoring, we would likely be unable to detect diseases in the early stages of an outbreak, particularly 

in populations of birds, which would reduce our ability to carry out an effective management response 

(Mörner et al. 2002, Stallknecht 2007). 

WGFD monitoring of bighorn sheep and refuge 

monitoring of amphibians would help us in early 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 167 

spond before there 

tion effects. 

ic wasting disease 

imize the effects of 

blished in the Jack

s potentially could 

wasting disease and 

over the long term. 

to detect 1-percent 

nt confidence annu

The refuge would maintain the current distribu

tion and timing of areas closed to the public to reduce 

disturbance to species of concern and maximize habi

tat effectiveness (Frame et al. 2007, Henson and 

Grant 1991, Mallord et al. 2007, Redmond and Jenni 

 

detection of diseases and to re

were subsequent negative popula

A contingency plan for chron

would identify strategies to min

the disease should it become esta ­

son elk herd. These strategie

reduce the prevalence of chronic 

its effects on the elk population 

Monitoring would be sufficient 

disease prevalence with 95-perce ­

ally. The long-term incubation period of this disease 

suggests that chronic wasting disease has not been 

present in the Jackson elk herd historically. Early 

identification of the disease in the population might 

trigger a more aggressive management response, 

which also could reduce disease prevalence and population effects over the long term. 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, habitat 

management would result in the lowest elk and bison 

densities on the southern end of the refuge and the 

lowest risk of density-dependent disease. 

Implementation of the comprehensive disease contingency plan would likely intensify disease monitoring efforts and result in management responses to 

disease outbreaks. There would be more early detection of diseases compared to alternative A. Management in response to disease outbreaks would have a 

greater potential to reduce the effects of diseases on 

wildlife populations compared to alternative A 

(Fenichel and Horan 2007, Lloyd-Smith et al. 2005). 

However, increased monitoring and management 

would require substantially more money and staff 

time than alternative A. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

interagency disease contingency plan allowing native 

diseases to run their course with minimal intervention might result in population reductions in some 

instances, which could result in negative reactions 

from the public (Decker et al. 2006). 

Disease monitoring efforts would be more intense 

than alternative A, but lack of disease management 

for native diseases would result in moderately higher 

cost and staff time than alternative A and moderately lower staff time and costs than alternative B. 

Therefore, our response to disease outbreaks would 

have less chance of reducing the effects of diseases on 

wildlife populations compared to alternative B. 

5.8 Federally and State-Listed 

Species Effects 

­

­

1986). In addition, staff would conduct refuge management activities in a manner to reduce disturbance 

to species of concern (Major 1990). 

Alternative A 

Monitoring would be sufficient to detect major 

population changes for refuge populations of grizzly 

bear, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, trumpeter 

swan, and long-billed curlew. The ability to detect 

status and trends for the other Wyoming species of 

greatest conservation need (Keinath et al. 2010, 

WGFD 2010a) and for sensitive plants would be 

minimal. 

We do not predict any significant changes in refuge populations of bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, 

trumpeter swan, and long-billed curlew, but we do 

anticipate that grizzly bear use of the refuge will 

increase based on the trends in current range expansion of this species. Current baseline information is 

insufficient to predict future population trends for all 

other Wyoming species of greatest conservation need 

that occupy the refuge. 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. However, alternative B would have the highest probability of meeting 

the nesting pair objectives of the Trumpeter Swan 

Management Plan (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 2012). Wetland improvements 

would enhance trumpeter swan habitat. Rescuing 

eggs and installing floating nest platforms would 

increase nest success. These strategies would help 

meet the population objectives for the Snake River 

core area (the Snake River basin in Wyoming but 

outside of Yellowstone National Park) of 18 nesting 

pairs and 60 total adults and subadults. 

This alternative is more likely than alternatives 

A,C, and D to result in a decline in greater sagegrouse populations. Because of the emphasis on using 

habitat treatments on the northern end of the refuge 

to promote elk and bison use of these areas, there 

would be a net loss of mature sagebrush habitat and 

a possible decline in greater sage-grouse 

populations. 
fidence in measuri

Some monitori

tioning system (GP

Ketchum 2010), fo

2011a), irrigation 

birds (Dieni 2011, 

monitoring in elk (

ity data that effec

sions. However, m

only marginal lev

insufficient money 

managers to pred

actions and emerg

effects, invasive s

other than elk and 

be compromised. 

168 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Staff coordination with WGFD to do more monitoring would provide information about the status 

and trends of the Wyoming species of greatest conservation need on the refuge. Costs and staff time 

would be substantially higher than alternative A and 

comparable to alternative C. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative A. However, water 

management of wetlands that mimics natural flow 

regimes would result in slightly lower habitat quality 

for trumpeter swans and the potential for slightly 

lower swan productivity than alternative A and mod

erately lower swan productivity than alternative B. 

The likelihood of meeting swan breeding pair objec

tives in the Trumpeter Swan Management Plan (Sub

committee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 

2012) would be lowest under alternatives C and D. 

Recent research suggests that the fire-return 

interval in mountain big sagebrush stands is substan

tially less frequent than previously indicated 

(Bukowski and Baker 2013) and that high-density, 

tall sagebrush stands may be a rare ecological type 

on the landscape compared to the time of pre-Euro

pean settlement. Therefore, protection of dense, tall 

sagebrush stands from wildfire and lack of pre

scribed fire in these areas is an appropriate manage

ment strategy to mimic historical conditions and to 

preserve key wintering habitat for the greater sagegrouse (Holloran and Anderson 2004). Subsequently, 

effects on greater sage-grouse habitat and popula

tions would be comparable to alternative A. 

Increased monitoring would provide information 

about the status and trends of the Wyoming species 

of greatest conservation need on the refuge. Conse

quently, costs and staff time would be substantially 

higher than alternative A and comparable to alterna

tive B. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Tagging wolves is part of the research and monitoring 

program. 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

5.9 Research and Monitoring 

Effects 

The effects of each alternative for research and 

monitoring are described below. 

Alternative A 

The refuge would get data on only the highest 

biological priorities because of limited money and 

staff and heavy reliance on volunteers and 

cooperators. 

Data collection to support model development and 

decision support tools is sufficient only to address the 

highest priority decisions such as feeding-initiation 

protocols and elk harvest strategies. Funding and 

staff to support these activities assures only moderate confidence in the models and decision-support 

tools. 

Data collection to determine the effects of public 

use on habitat and wildlife is sufficient only to measure effects on the highest priority activities such as 

the effects of human disturbance on elk habitat use. 

Funding and staff levels assures only moderate conng these effects. 

ng projects—such as global posiS) collar studies for elk (Cole and 

rage production monitoring (Cole 

effects on plant communities and 

Dieni and Cole 2011), and disease 

Henningsen 2011)—provide qualtively guides management deciost monitoring projects result in 

els of data confidence because of 

and staff. Therefore, the ability of 

ict the outcome of management 

ing threats—such as public use 

pecies effects, disease in wildlife 

bison, and fisheries effects—would 

Activities by researchers and animals marked 

with collars might have short-duration negative 

effects on visitors that observe and photograph wildlife (Bergman 2005, Mech and Barber 2002). 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 169 

Alternatives B and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, we 

would find out more about the effects of public use on 

wildlife and habitats. 

Prioritizing key information needs, developing 

study designs to answer questions of interest, and 

ensuring adequate resources to conduct research and 

monitoring would ensure data quality necessary to 

adequately inform management decisions (Legg and 

Nagy 2006, Lenth 2001, Osenberg et al. 1994, Stockwell 2002). This would improve local decisionmaking 

compared to alternative A. 

Cost and staff time for biological monitoring and 

research would be substantially higher than alternative A. 

Activities by researchers and animals marked 

with collars might have short-duration negative 

effects on visitors that observe and photograph wildlife (Bergman 2005, Mech and Barber 2002). This 

would increase substantially compared to alternative 

A, with negative effects on visitors observing 

wildlife. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, the ref

uge would get more data about the role of the refuge 

within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the 

effects of natural processes on plant communities and 

wildlife populations. This would improve data quality 

and likely improve decisionmaking at regional or 

larger scales (Carpenter et al. 2006), but would 

detract from research and monitoring that would 

inform decisionmaking at the refuge level. 

Cost and staff time for biological monitoring and 

research would be substantially higher than alterna

tive A and comparable to alternative B. 

­

­

5.10 Cultural Resources Effects 

The effects of the alternatives on cultural 

resources are described below. 

might in

disturba

Reha

the inte

restored

and coul

indoors 

overall, 

ensure it

Alternative A 

The refuge staff would make sure that known cultural resources were protected from vandalism and 

theft. 

Because stopping construction can be expensive, 

preconstruction cultural resource inventories and 

assessments would reduce the probability of work 

stoppage to make sure any archaeological resources 

were protected. 

By limiting public access and providing only 

supervised visits, the refuge would reduce disturbance or loss of artifacts at known archaeological 

sites. 

Keeping the Miller Ranch open to the public during summer months would give the public an opportunity to visit a historic site and learn about refuge 

history and homesteading in Jackson Hole. However, 

if an adequate number of volunteers to staff and run 

the Miller House were not maintained, the Service 

would have to substantially reduce the hours of operation or close the house to public viewing, resulting in 

the loss of a valuable community historic and cultural 

resource. The Grand Teton Association and refuge 

would lose money from the sale of the turn-of-thecentury items sold in the Miller House bookstore if it 

were closed. In addition, allowing the continued deterioration of the Miller Barn could result in the loss of 

a valuable community and State cultural resource. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, with a 

new interpretive trail near the Miller Ranch buildings, visitors could take leisurely walks while learning about the historic value of the ranch. If the trail 

was made accessible to persons of all physical abilities, a more substantial trail would be needed and 

would disturb more soil and vegetation. In addition, 

there would be some disturbance from installing 

signs that directed visitors to the various buildings. 

Visitors allowed to walk unescorted around the 

Miller Ranch buildings might not respect the adjacent closed areas. A substantial number of visitors 

currently leave Elk Refuge Road and walk down to a 

series of nearby ponds that are in a marked closed 

area. Putting visitors closer to these closed areas 

crease the amount of trespass, resulting in 

nce to waterfowl and other animals. 

bilitation of the Miller Barn would expand 

rpretive opportunities by having another 

 building on site that the public could view 

d be an alternate site for holding programs 

when needed. The barn is in fair condition 

but several aspects require attention to 

s preservation including foundation stabilization, improved drainage, repair of split or loose 

battens in the walls, and possible roof repairs. The 

refuge budget would not likely be able to accommodate a rehabilitation project of this scale. Working 

with partners to rehabilitate the barn would give us 

more chance of success by stretching funding and 

sharing resources. 

A USDA Forest Service cabin is the third building on the Miller Ranch property that is not open to 

the public now and would need substantial rehabilitation before it could be opened to the public. 
170 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

If money were available for permanent or sea

sonal interpreters to maintain and enhance programs 

at the Miller House, Miller Barn, and USDA Forest 

Service cabin, the refuge could provide consistent 

opportunities for the public to experience cultural 

resources on the refuge. 

­

5.11 Visitor Services Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to the following: 

■■ hunting 

■■ fishing 

■■ wildlife observation and photography 

■■ environmental education and interpretation 

■■ Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visi

tor Center 

■■ other uses 

■■ access 

■■ public outreach 

encourag

The 

ammunit

manage

resulted 

levels in

efforts 

this prog

Hunti

­

Hunting 

The effects of each alternative on hunting are 

described below. 

Alternative A 

Both historically and presently, harvest has been 

insufficient to meet the herd objectives in the Bison 

and Elk Management Plan. Contributing factors 

include season structure, hunting effort, available 

licenses and permits, timing of elk migration, and 

access on the refuge and on surrounding land jurisdictions. The decline in elk and bison use of grasslands and sagebrush shrublands on the northern end 

of the refuge would also contribute to the decreased 

likelihood of meeting population objectives for elk 

and bison and decreased hunter opportunity. 

Current monitoring and analysis of elk GPS collar 

data will provide information and inform management recommendations to adaptively modify elk 

hunting seasons to better achieve elk population 

objectives. The adaptive management process to 

reduce reliance on supplemental feeding is an interagency effort that is currently underway. This process might also result in modifications to the elk and 

bison hunting seasons that would allow us to meet elk 

and bison population objectives over the life of the 

CCP. 

Elk harvest on adjacent Hunt Area 80 on national 

forest land is an important component of meeting 

herd objectives, and allowing retrieval of harvested 

elk through the refuge makes hunting in Hunt Area 

80 much easier than it otherwise would be, which 

es more hunters to hunt there. 

program for voluntary use of lead-free 

ion, promoted by the refuge and area land 

ment agencies and conservation partners, has 

in up to a 47-percent reduction in blood-lead 

 ravens. Hunter education and information 

would continue to promote participation in 

ram and increase these positive results. 

ng opportunities for hunters with disabilities and for young people are popular; however, 

changing elk migration patterns would continue to 

negatively affect young hunters, often resulting in no 

available elk on the refuge during their special hunt 

held early in the season. 

Accommodating the annual American Indian ceremonial bison hunt would continue to support tribal 

cultural tradition and provide access to culturally 

important historic lands. 

Alternatives B and D 

Effects would be the same as alternative A. In 

addition, more opportunities for hunting could create 

hunter interest, attract more refuge hunters, and 

increase the pool of nonlocal hunters over time. 

Opening closed areas on the southern end of the refuge to archery hunting could provide for greater 

harvest opportunity by denying elk access to safe 

zones while, at the same time, protecting crucial winter forage. More hunter access points for bison hunters could increase harvest and help achieve herd size 

objectives, but the extra traffic might not be well 

received by residents of the Teton Valley Highlands 

subdivision. 

Increased quality of wet meadows, and subsequent higher elk and bison use, would increase 

hunter opportunity, harvest rates, and the likelihood 

of meeting the population objectives for elk and bison 

compared to alternative A. In addition, more grassand sagebrush-dominated areas would increase elk 

and bison use of the northern end of the refuge and 

increase hunter opportunity for a greater likelihood 

of achieving population objectives for elk and bison 

compared to alternative A. 

Expanded youth-mentoring programs could 

attract and keep more young hunters and would support programs such as the Department of the Interior’s “Connecting Youth with Nature” initiative. 

Adjusting the hunt season for young people would 

give young hunters better opportunities for viewing 

and harvesting elk. However, scheduling this season 

for the middle of the existing hunting season would 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 171 

decrease the hunting opportunity for adult hunters 

and potentially reduce the elk harvest for the 

season. 

We may alienate some nonhunters with the more 

visible archery harvest in currently closed areas, a 

bull harvest that includes a trophy value, or the harvest of predatory species such as mountain lion or 

wolf. In addition, opening the closed areas could 

negatively affect wildlife-viewing opportunities along 

Highway 89 and Elk Refuge Road during the hunting 

season. Disturbance of elk by hunters next to roads 

and to Jackson would move elk to other areas and 

limit viewing opportunities. 

Regulations on proper storage of bear attractants 

and bear-deterrent practices could provide a safer 

environment for refuge hunters, neighboring communities, and bears but could also cause inconvenience and higher costs for hunters. 

Gaining information from hunters would help the 

staff improve management of the hunt program, but 

collecting data might inconvenience and alienate 

hunters. 

Outreach on the Service’s position of allowing 

hunting on refuges would educate the public on the 

need and purpose for this recreational activity. 

There would be higher equipment costs and more 

labor and personnel needed to develop and manage 

the added programs. 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as alternative A. In 

addition, more opportunities for hunting could create 

hunter interest, attract more refuge hunters, and 

increase the pool of nonlocal hunters over time. 

Opening closed areas on the southern end of the refuge for archery hunting could provide for greater 

harvest opportunity by denying elk access to safe 

zones while, at the same time, protecting crucial winter forage. More hunter access points for bison hunters could increase harvest and help achieve herd size 

objectives, but the extra traffic might not be well 

received by residents of the Teton Valley Highlands 

subdivision. 

We might alienate some nonhunters with the more 

visible archery harvest in currently closed areas, a 

bull harvest that includes a trophy value, or the harvest of predatory species such as mountain lion or 

wolf. In addition, opening the closed areas could 

negatively affect wildlife-viewing opportunities along 

Highway 89 and Elk Refuge Road during the hunting 

season. Disturbance of elk by hunters next to roads 

and to Jackson would move elk to other areas and 

limit viewing opportunities. 

Elk and bison use of wetland plant communities 

and effects on hunter opportunity, harvest level, and 

populations would be intermediate between alternatives A and B. As the bison herd grew and distribution changed because of hunting practices, bison 

might be more frequently seen in the southern sections of the refuge. 

Lead-free ammunition requirements would protect scavenging birds from being poisoned by lead 

contained in the elk and bison gut piles and would 

help to further reduce blood-lead levels in these 

birds. Hunters would incur higher costs from the 

more expensive lead-free ammunition, and this 

requirement might alienate some hunters. 

Bear-deterrent regulations and practices could 

provide a safer environment for refuge hunters, 

neighboring communities, and bears but could also 

cause inconvenience and higher costs for hunters. 

Gaining information from hunters would help the 

staff improve management of the hunt program, but 

collecting data might inconvenience and alienate 

hunters. 

Outreach on the Service’s position of allowing 

hunting on refuges would educate the public on the 

need and purpose for this recreational activity. 

There would be higher equipment costs and more 

labor and personnel needed to develop and manage 

the added programs. 

Fishing 

The effects of each alternative on fishing are 

described below. 

Alternative A 

Stream morphology, fisheries habitat, access, and 

angler opportunity would be similar to current conditions. The fishing program would continue to offer 

anglers access to quality trout waters while protecting waterfowl nesting areas from human 

disturbance. 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, fisheries habitat improvement and angler opportunity in 

Flat Creek would be greater than alternative A in 

Flat Creek but similar to alternative A in the Gros 

Ventre River. Failure to devote adequate resources 

to the refuge fisheries might result in a serious 

decline in the native Snake River cutthroat trout 

population. 

Offering more fishing opportunities for young 

people would perpetuate this traditional use of the 

refuge but would also need more time from staff and 

partners. 
172 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

The change to morning access, not the night 

before, to lower Flat Creek on opening day would be 

consistent with a refuge regulation allowing access 

during daylight hours only. However, this would deny 

a few anglers the opportunity for an early start to 

fish during predawn hours on opening day. 

More people would be able to access Flat Creek to 

fish by using an accessible platform. 

With limits set in the permits for fishing outfitters, the refuge would restrict group size and reduce 

crowding. Adding use limits to guiding permits and 

allowing guided trips to access the Gros Ventre 

River could reduce streamside crowding on lower 

Flat Creek. The refuge would keep fee revenue from 

fishing outfitter permits and use it for access maintenance, signing, regulation brochures, and other 

aspects of the fishing program. Use limits and fees 

might have a financial impact on permitted fishing 

outfitters. 

The design and installation of fish screens or barriers would require time, effort and money by the 

Service, WGFD and partners. Continued suppression 

of the rainbow trout population in the Gros Ventre 

River would support the native cutthroat trout. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, 

because of riparian area improvement, the fisheries 

habitat quantity and quality and angler opportunity 

would be the highest among the alternatives in the 

Gros Ventre River. In Flat Creek, these effects would 

be similar to alternative A. 

Alternative D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, 

because of riparian area improvement, the fisheries 

habitat quality and quantity and angler opportunity 

would be higher in Flat Creek than alternatives A 

and C. In the Gros Ventre River, these effects would 

be similar to alternative A and lower than alternative 

C. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography 

The effects of each alternative wildlife observation and photography are described below. 

Alternative A 

Wildlife viewing is an important activity by both 

local and nonlocal refuge visitors that would continue 

to support the mission of the Refuge System. Visitors 

would continue to have opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography at existing trails, 

observation sites, and the visitor center. Visitors 

might stay longer at the visitor center and enhance 

their refuge experience with the easily accessible 

wildlife-viewing opportunities offered. However, use 

of the remote-viewing platform is low because visitors are reluctant to cross the lawn or are not aware 

of the platform. By encouraging visitors to use areas 

that are already disturbed, such as turnouts, wildlife 

would be affected less. 

Allowing commercial operations, with required 

safety and wildlife-viewing practices, would provide 

a service to the public that allows visitors to safely 

enjoy the refuge and provide a financial benefit to 

local companies. All traffic on Elk Refuge Road is 

currently unlimited in regard to the number of vehicles allowed, including the number of commercial 

tour companies that are allowed to operate on the 

refuge through a special use permit. Because special 

use permits have contact information, the refuge 

staff would be able to contact permittees if they were 

not following permit stipulations. 

Sleigh rides would increase refuge visitation and 

continue to provide a unique winter wildlife-viewing 

opportunity that raised awareness of the refuge and 

received national as well as international attention. 

Because the refuge does not have the resources to 

offer sleigh rides, this opportunity would continue to 

be contracted to local companies, which would help 

the local economy. Contracted sleigh rides would 

reduce stress to wintering wildlife, particularly elk, 

by including stipulations in special use permits that 

require contractors to follow acceptable viewing 

practices. The increased visitation would contribute 

to the local sales tax revenue. 

The refuge would continue to receive a percentage 

of the revenue generated by the sleigh ride operation, 

which provides money for winter naturalists. This 

seasonal staff would continue to be the only means to 

respond to a large number of program requests from 

schools and other groups. The winter naturalists 

would also help the refuge in offering a range of programs and events at the visitor center that could not 

be provided with the refuge’s current budget and 

permanent, visitor services staff. 

The public—individuals, organizations, and the 

media—would have access to refuge photos posted 

by visitors, photographers, and refuge staff on the 

Web-based photo-sharing site, reducing staff time to 

address individual requests. A Web-based photo gallery would be a contemporary way to share images, 

allowing users to view and download photos. A photo 

gallery would also help media looking to promote the 

Jackson area, resulting in benefits to the local 

economy. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 173 

There are opportunities for wildlife observation on the refuge for all age groups. 

Lori Iverson / FWS 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

narrow North Highway 89 Pathway would have pulloffs that would allow visitors to conveniently and 

safely stop and view wildlife and scenery. Conflicts 

among visitors, cyclists, runners, or other users 

would be reduced. 

More visitors would be able to observe birds and 

other animals by using a designated route through 

the visitor center lawn to the existing remote-viewing platform behind the visitor center. Construction 

of the path would temporarily affect wetlands and 

soil in the immediate area and might disturb nesting 

geese using the lawn in spring and early summer. 

Developing a boardwalk through already-disturbed wetlands near the visitor center would 

increase wildlife-viewing opportunities. The visitor 

experience would be greatly enhanced by having a 

longer route that allows people to walk through wetland habitat rather than just viewing it from the 

platform. In addition to a variety of bird species, deer 

and moose use the wetlands in the winter. Construction of the boardwalk might temporarily disturb 

wildlife, and there would be seasonal disturbance of 

wildlife when people used the boardwalk. There 

would be a substantial cost for the boardwalk, but 

this type of project might be appealing to local interest groups and the cost might be offset by partners. 

The photo blind would increase wildlife photography 

opportunities; there would be fewer construction 

effects if the blind were installed during initial construction of the boardwalk. Additional maintenance 

time would be needed in the winter for snow removal 

if the boardwalk was open year-round. 

Webcams at key sites would reach a wider audience because they would allow viewing experiences 

for people that are unable to visit the refuge. The 

installation and maintenance of webcams could have 

minor soil effects. No information technology support 

would be available at the refuge for repairs to the 

equipment or system. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, 

increased visitation and the number of people 

requesting wildlife tours, especially during the winter season when abundant wildlife is visible, could 

lead to increased traffic and congestion on Elk Refuge Road. This could reduce the quality of the wildlife-viewing experience and cause possible economic 

impacts to tour operators. Limiting the number of 

commercial operators could mitigate these issues and 

reduce wildlife disturbance. Limiting the number of 

available permits could have negative economic 

impacts on tour companies not selected to receive 

special use permits. The demand for commercial 

tours on the refuge could exceed the capacity of the 

limited number of permittees. There would be higher 

law enforcement costs to ensure compliance. 

Webcams would reach a wider audience because 

they allow viewing experiences for people that are 

unable to visit the refuge. The installation and maintenance of webcams could have minor soil effects. No 

information technology support would be available at 

the refuge for repairs to the equipment or system. 

A photo gallery on the refuge’s Web site would 

provide a contemporary way to share images, allowing users to view and download photos. Easily accessible photos would reduce staff time to address 

individual requests. A photo gallery would also help 

media looking to promote the Jackson area, resulting 

in benefits to the local economy. 
174 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Alternative D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, 

increased visitation and the number of people 

requesting wildlife tours, especially during the winter season when abundant wildlife is visible, could 

lead to increased traffic and congestion on Elk Refuge Road. This could reduce the quality of the wildlife-viewing experience and cause possible economic 

impacts to tour operators. Limiting the number of 

commercial operators could mitigate these issues and 

reduce wildlife disturbance. Limiting the number of 

available permits could have negative economic 

impacts on tour companies not selected to receive 

special use permits. The demand for commercial 

tours onto the refuge could exceed the capacity of 

what the limited number of permittees could provide. 

There would be higher law enforcement costs to 

ensure compliance. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

The effects of each alternative on environmental 

education and interpretation are described below. 

Alternative A 

By allowing nonmotorized use of the North Highway 89 Pathway, we would increase opportunities for 

environmental education and interpretation during 

the season the pathway is open. 

By using nongovernmental money to hire seasonal 

naturalists, the refuge could hire needed staff to provide environmental education for schools and other 

groups and conduct a wide range of programs and 

events at the visitor center that we could not provide 

with our current funding and staff. The nongovernmental hiring process would also help the refuge to 

quickly fill vacancies, rather than increasing the 

workload of staff during an extended vacancy that is 

common with the Government hiring process. However, nongovernmental money would continue to be 

based on bookstore sales and sleigh ride proceeds, 

which are unpredictable from year to year. Many factors can negatively affect the amount of revenue generated annually such as the national economy, a 

Government shutdown, a natural disaster, and equipment failure. Therefore, the refuge staff could not do 

any long-term planning for environmental education 

or interpretive programs because there would not be 

a reliable estimate for nongovernmental money that 

might be available. Seasonal positions through a nongovernment funding source are less desirable than 

Government seasonal positions because the employees do not get benefits or contribute toward years of 

service if the employee is seeking eventual permanent status with the Federal Government. 

Using a volunteer workforce to meet the demand 

for environmental education and interpretive programs during the school year would not be a reliable 

and stable staff source. Jackson has a relatively small 

population and is located in an isolated area, so it 

would be difficult to recruit volunteers from local 

communities. Many of the refuge volunteers provide 

their own housing in the form of recreational vehicles, motor homes, or other mobile residences. 

Because of the snow and cold temperatures common 

during Jackson’s long winters, this type of living situation would not be practical. The refuge has limited 

housing to offer to residential volunteers, and the 

high cost of living and rental market shortages in the 

Jackson area preclude most from finding or paying 

for offsite housing. Furthermore, trends at the refuge show that volunteers working in unpaid positions 

are more likely to leave their positions because of 

unplanned situations, family matters, heath issues, 

unexpected weather, or other changes. Requests for 

educational field trips in the spring may not be 

accommodated because volunteers are not available 

until later in the season. 

The refuge relies solely on a volunteer staff to 

staff the information desk at the interagency visitor 

center. When volunteers were available beyond the 

minimum needed to staff the desk, volunteers would 

also provide formal and interpretive programs. However, because of the turnover in volunteers, the number of volunteers needed to cover basic operations, 

and the variety of work shifts and days off, the refuge would not be able to provide training to develop 

the skills of these volunteers. 

Service money to cover costs for a volunteer program has been reduced and, in 2011–2014, eliminated. 

The refuge’s base funding has had to cover the 

expenses for items and services such as uniforms, 

utilities, phone and Internet service, laundry facilities, and recognition items to run the volunteer program. Because of the large number of volunteers 

needed to provide basic services, the current volunteer program may not be sustainable if money 

becomes even more limited, meaning a reduction or 

elimination of services and programming. 

Contracted sleigh rides would provide unique 

learning opportunities while reducing stress to wintering wildlife, particularly elk. 

Alternatives B and D 

Using the North Highway 89 Pathway for interpretation would increase opportunities to interpret 

wetland values in an already disturbed area. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 175 

A self-guided interpretive tour route would provide more interpretive opportunities to increase public knowledge and awareness of the refuge purposes 

and the Refuge System mission. This would also 

provide another free opportunity for visitors to the 

refuge. Commercial sleigh rides require a fee. Refuge 

staff would need time to develop and maintain the 

route as well as needing money for interpretive materials such as signs or brochures or both. An interpretive route might increase traffic on Elk Refuge Road 

and create conflicts with hunters or other users. 

The winter opportunities already attract a substantial number of visitors to Elk Refuge Road, 

which has created the need to enhance road and traffic safety and education and interpretation programs. 

Brochures associated with numbered turnouts or 

interpretive panels (some equipped with spotting 

scopes) would attract visitors to the turnouts, minimizing the number of vehicles parked in the roadway. 

This scenario would create an opportunity to educate 

the public about wintering wildlife, the National Elk 

Refuge, and our agency. 

Replacing a longer length video with shorter 

video segments on various topics would respond to 

visitors’ needs and preferences as well as allow the 

refuge staff to update segments with substantially 

less cost and staff time. Shorter segments stored on 

the refuge’s Web site would let viewers to watch 

them at a more convenient time, thus increasing 

viewership. Replacing the video would help us to 

emphasize the role of refuges versus national parks 

and national forests and differentiate our agency missions. The refuge would continue to offer visitors to 

the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor 

Center a wide range of information and services, but 

many visitors do not sit in the theater to watch an 

entire film. While a well-produced video could be an 

effective and popular outreach tool, it would be an 

expensive and labor-intensive project. An updated 

video could enhance the information in the visitor 

center. However, the visitor center only has a small 

theater in which to show a longer length film, and 

seating and acoustics are inadequate. Because traditional-length videos take a substantial amount of 

time to produce, they are not easily updated to reflect 

changes in management practices, wildlife species or 

numbers, or new issues or developments. Furthermore, longer videos are not the prevalent method for 

people to get information, as this is a somewhat outdated approach. Studies clearly indicate that people 

now prefer shorter video, film, smart phone, and tablet applications that they can view at their convenience or docking stations to download needed 

information such as for self-guided tours. 

Environmental education and interpretive programs could include the following: 

■■	 Promoting understanding of invasive species control and prescribed fire as a management tool. 

■■	 Increasing public education about migratory 

bird use of the refuge and reasons for closing areas during bird breeding. 

■■	 Offering improved programs at the visitor 

center, Miller House, and offsite areas with 

more permanent or seasonal interpreters. 

■■	 Emphasizing the role of national wildlife 

refuges versus national parks and national 

forests and differentiating our agency 

missions. 

■■	 Discussing the complexities of management 

on the refuge, including describing the supplemental feeding program and the goals of 

the Bison and Elk Management Plan. 

A reliable source of money to hire permanent and 

seasonal interpreters could attract people trained 

and experienced in the fields of environmental education and interpretation to improve the quality of the 

programs. People looking for or developing permanent careers with the Federal Government are more 

apt to apply for Government positions than nongovernmental positions that do not offer grade increases, 

benefits, and insurance. This would increase the 

applicant pool and help us mentor and develop future 

career employees in our agency. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, disturbance would be limited to areas that include nonnative vegetation. 

Jackson Hole and Greater 

Yellowstone Visitor Center 

The effects of each alternative on the visitor center are described below. 

Alternative A 

The refuge would be unable to provide educational and interpretive programs along with the 

tasks of keeping the visitor center open. The daily 

demands on the visitor center would continue to grow 

as (1) new visitation records were set during both 

winter and summer, (2) the visitation season was 
176 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

extended through local aggressive marketing efforts 

by the tourism industry, and (3) the building ages. 

Peak visitation would reach 3.6 visitors per minute 

during the summer season, intensifying the operational workload of the visitor center manager and 

leaving no time for planning and scheduling environmental education programs, guest speakers, special 

events, or interpretive programs. 

If no money was received from visitor center partners for operational expenses and routine supplies, 

the refuge might need to reduce hours or look at 

alternative ways to offset costs, such as a singleagency facility. Reducing the hours would decrease 

services for the visiting public. This could have financial impacts on the local economy. A 2010 survey 

noted that out of 100 people who stopped at four Wyoming visitor centers, one-quarter, or 26 people, 

stayed longer and stayed at least 1 additional day in 

Wyoming. Although the visitor center was not one of 

the centers in the survey, the statistics show the 

effect a visitor center operation can have on the local 

economy. Reduced visitor center hours might also 

decrease revenue from sales at the Grand Teton 

Association’s retail outlet. Because the refuge would 

receive a portion of the sales revenue, decreased visitor center hours would also decrease the amount of 

money we could receive, which is an important source 

of money for seasonal staff and other support for educational, interpretive, and research programs. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Sharing the financial burden among the agencies 

for operating the center and purchasing supplies 

would make it more equitable than having the refuge 

cover all or most of the annual costs. Partners would 

continue to gain substantial financial benefit from 

helping staff the interagency center and using it as 

their primary visitor services contact location, rather 

than providing and staffing their own centers. 

A new or renovated visitor center would address 

the current building’s safety and maintenance issues 

and accessibility deficiencies and lack of space adequate for requested programs. Furthermore, a new 

visitor center would enhance the flow of visitors as 

they came into the center, distinguishing between 

the types of services and agency-specific information 

available at the facility and increasing staff efficiency. 

It could be designed to meet accessibility standards 

that are deficient in the current facility. 

North Highway 89 Pathway 

The effects of each alternative for the North 

Highway 89 Pathway are described below. 

Alternative A 

By allowing nonmotorized and pedestrian use and 

connecting to other pathways, the public would have 

more opportunity for wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

The pathway would also encourage a safe transportation option for workers and visitors to and from the 

town of Jackson to Grand Teton National Park and 

provide a connection to other pathways and cycling 

routes for most of the biking season. 

The seasonal closure (November 1–April 30) 

would continue to protect elk migration corridors and 

prevent disturbance to wintering elk and other wildlife. Prohibiting pets would limit disturbance to wildlife, particularly nesting waterfowl and other wildlife 

that use the area between the fence and Highway 89. 

The pet prohibition would also reduce the accumulation of fecal matter from pet owners that do not clean 

up after their animals. 

The refuge would need substantial staff time to 

coordinate regulation enforcement by Teton County 

and to conduct public outreach on our mission and 

how it differs from the mission of the surrounding 

National Park Service and USDA Forest Service. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, people 

would have more opportunity for interpretive experiences, and the refuge would be better able to promote our agency mission. Refuge staff would get data 

about wildlife movement across the pathway that 

would help us to adjust public use, if needed, to protect wildlife and keep people safe. There would be 

more staff time needed and higher costs for associated facilities and signage. Increased use of the pathway could adversely affect the success of trumpeter 

swan nests. 

To effectively manage the pathway, we would 

address the following situations: 

■■	 Because the pathway is narrow, it might be 

difficult for cyclists, runners, or other users 

to safely pass visitors that are focused on 

wildlife- and habitat-viewing. This is common on other parts of the Jackson Hole 

Community Pathways when users are distracted by talking, using cell phones, or 

engaging in other activities that detract 

them from being conscious of their position 

on the pathway or limits their reaction time 

to oncoming users. It might cost us more to 

add needed signage and facilities for safety 

and interpretation. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 177 

■■	 The refuge, in coordination with Teton 

County, could adjust the dates for the seasonal closure (increase the number of weeks 

the pathway is open) if data collected by 

either the refuge or the county provided 

solid justification for a change. Use must 

remain compatible with the purposes of the 

refuge and the “wildlife first” mission of the 

Refuge System. 

North Park 

The effects of each alternative for North Park are 

described below. 

Alternative A 

The current fee collection and reservation system 

used by the Teton County Parks and Recreation 

Department for reserving the site is not in compliance with Service policy. Weddings, family reunions, 

and other non-wildlife-dependent events would continue to be common at North Park. Depending on the 

size of the party, a wedding at North Park or the visitor center could reduce or eliminate parking spaces 

for visitors using the center to learn about the area 

and get visitor service information. The wedding prohibition would be a largely unenforceable situation. 

Alternative B 

Revising the memorandum of understanding with 

the town of Jackson for North Park to exclude activities such as weddings and reserving picnicking sites 

through a fee-based system would comply with our 

agency’s policies. There potentially could be negative 

public relations about the new restrictions. Jackson 

might be affected by having one less picnic shelter 

within the town limits that can be rented and 

reserved. However, Jackson has many designated 

picnic sites and public parks available through a feebased reservation system, including some close to 

North Park, for these activities. 

Weddings, family reunions, and other non-wildlife-dependent events would continue to be common 

at North Park. Depending on the size of the party, a 

wedding at North Park or the visitor center could 

reduce or eliminate parking spaces for visitors using 

the center to learn about the area and get visitor service information. The wedding prohibition would be a 

largely unenforceable situation. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, by converting North Park to native habitat, the refuge 

could add to the visitor experience by providing a 

more natural setting, rather than a manicured lawn, 

along with interpretation. The refuge would incur 

costs to restore the park and maintain the area. Most 

breeding birds, except Canada geese, would benefit 

from the increased habitat value. 

The visitor center hosts exhibits and allows staff to offer interpretation. 

FWS 

Special Uses 

The effects of each alternative on special uses are 

described below. 
 

178 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Alternative A 

Additional activities that the refuge could not provide because of lack of funding and staff follow: 

guided hunting and fishing, hunting retrieval services, wildlife-viewing tours, commercial photography and videography, and research. However, 

commercial services could provide some of these 

activities. These activities promote wildlife-dependent recreation and increase outreach about the refuge. Guides offer services that might bring visitors, 

who would not otherwise engage in the activity without assistance, to the refuge. The refuge would continue to accommodate commercial photographers and 

film companies, depending on the potential effects 

and staff available at the time of filming. 

We might approve certain special requests, such 

as accompanying staff during management operations on a very limited basis that takes into account 

equal treatment of requestors, setting precedents, 

safety, and the availability and priorities of our staff. 

Special permit conditions would reduce effects on 

resources and other activities. In many cases, we 

would require permittees to report their use at the 

end of the permit period, documenting the number of 

clients and trips onto the refuge. Staff would spend a 

substantial amount of time on contacting the permittee, writing the special conditions, completing the 

permit, recording the information in a register, monitoring the permitted use, filing the use reports, and 

compiling annual use results. In the case of commercial filming, staff would spend more time making 

logistical arrangements and accompanying the film 

crew. 

The refuge would deny requests for holding weddings at Miller House. 

Commercial, non-wildlife-dependent horseback 

trail rides along a 1-mile segment of the Gros Ventre 

River would continue as long as staff was available 

manage the use. This effort would divert limited 

staff resources away from critical refuge programs. 

More commercial horseback trail riding would be 

prohibited, which would prevent the diversion of 

additional staff time to this activity. 

Alternative B 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

fees charged for special use permits for commercial 

activities would help cover some of the associated 

administration and enforcement. Companies who violate refuge regulations or permit conditions could 

have their permits revoked by refuge management or 

be assessed fees. 

The use of wildlife-viewing tours to provide interpretation to visitors could increase public understanding of refuge resources and management. 

By restricting weddings on all refuge land, we 

would help reduce disturbance to visitors using the 

refuge for wildlife-dependent activities, as well as 

comply with our agency policy. There might be some 

negative public relations related to restricting 

weddings. 

Phasing out commercial horseback trail riding 

would reduce the risk of new invasive plant infestations and allow staff time devoted to managing this 

activity to be used on higher priority programs. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, limiting the number of commercial operators could help 

mitigate traffic congestion and reduce wildlife disturbance on Elk Refuge Road. On the other hand, fewer 

tours could reduce the quality of the wildlife-viewing 

experience and might not meet public demand. There 

might be negative economic impacts to the tour companies not selected to receive a special use permit. 

General Access and Elk Refuge 

Road 

The effects of each alternative on general access 

to refuge lands are described below. 

Alternative A 

By keeping open Elk Refuge Road, Flat Creek 

Road, and Curtis Canyon Road, visitors would be 

able to see more of the refuge. For winter wildlife 

viewing, visitors would have opportunities along the 

3.5 miles of Elk Refuge Road that we would keep 

open. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Same as alternative A. In addition, the refuge 

would consider adding more access and designated 

parking lots for hunters. This could include access on 

the northern end of the refuge for bison hunters and 

access on the western boundary of the refuge for 

archery hunters. 

Access to the National Forest 

The effects of each alternative access to the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest are described below. 
 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 179 

Alternative A 

By providing access to national forest lands at 

designated locations, the refuge would exhibit good 

cooperation between the two Federal agencies and 

extend a convenience to national forest users. Closure of the “jump cliff” access to the national forest 

would decrease use in this area. Limiting access to 

designated locations would reduce disturbance to 

wildlife and habitat, reduce trespass onto the refuge, 

and provide an opportunity for public outreach on our 

agency’s mission and how it differs from that of the 

USDA Forest Service, where more recreational 

opportunities exist. There would be some disturbance to wildlife, mainly elk, from people passing 

through the refuge. 

The refuge has allowed people to park overnight 

on Elk Refuge Road one night each year; these are 

people interested in accessing national forest lands as 

soon as the winter closure is lifted on May 1 to look 

for antlers and has involved hundreds of cars. The 

resulting congestion would continue to reduce access 

by other road users, interfere with egress and 

ingress for residents of the Twin Creek subdivision, 

and impair access by emergency vehicles responding 

to private property owners. There would also continue to be some impacts to the areas next to the 

roadway from foot traffic and horses. The refuge 

would continue to have substantial costs (up to 

$30,000 annually) to provide more law enforcement. 

Because the travel distance across the refuge for 

winter users of the Goodwin Lake Ski Cabin (on 

national forest land) is several hundred yards and the 

designated route is next to a fence, only minor wildlife disturbance would occur. Refuge staff would 

administer the permits for access to the cabin, which 

is off refuge land. Staff duties and costs would 

increase in late April to manage the May 1 event. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, signing 

for an egress route would decrease trespass on private land in the Twin Creek subdivision. Since skiers 

would predominantly recreate on national forest 

lands, moving special use permit administration to 

the national forest would shift the workload to the 

agency that is most involved. 

Prohibiting overnight parking and staging on 

April 30 would reduce congestion and effects on other 

road users, local residents, and emergency and service vehicles. Effects on the areas next to the roadway would be reduced because of less use by 

pedestrians and stock, mainly horses. There would 

be substantial savings for expenses previously 

related to the event (up to $30,000 annually) that 

could be used for priority refuge management. The 

prohibition of overnight camping and staging on Elk 

Refuge Road could create other law enforcement 

issues, such as increased poaching and illegal access. 

The local economy might see increased revenue from 

lodging and dining if people were not allowed to 

spend the night on the refuge camped in vehicles and 

trailers. However, these “campers” instead might 

choose to stage their vehicles in the streets and parking lots of Jackson, resulting in complaints from the 

local police department and residents. In addition, 

with a later refuge gate opening time than at other 

access points to the national forest, refuge staff 

might be able to reduce or eliminate people interested in staging on Elk Refuge Road. Users that 

learned other accesses onto the national forest would 

be opening before the refuge access might be discouraged from using Elk Refuge Road, knowing 

other antler collectors would be reaching the same 

destinations sooner. 

Public Outreach 

The effects of each alternative for public outreach 

are described below. 

Alternative A 

Sending out news releases and refuge articles, 

maintaining the refuge Web site, and using social 

media would keep a wide variety of audiences current on visitor opportunities and management activities and would serve both internal and external 

audiences. Maintaining an email contact list to distribute refuge information would help the refuge to 

reach a wide and diverse audience. 

Working with the media would increase the presence of the refuge and its attraction as a destination 

site, but is an activity that requires a large amount of 

staff time because the refuge receives so much 

regional and national coverage. 

More hunt program outreach would help refuge 

users and critics understand both the wildlife management and the priority recreational use aspects of 

hunting on a national wildlife refuge. 

The staff’s educational outreach to anglers would 

increase harvest of nonnative species and supplement 

our efforts to suppress populations of the nonnative 

rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout. 

The amount of indepth outreach information 

would be limited because of limited staff and the reliance on seasonal naturalists and volunteers. With 

high turnover in the seasonals and volunteers, staff 

would be constantly training new people who would 

lack the institutional knowledge that comes with 

long-term employees. 
A. In addition, by 

refuge would reach 

 of people. Unlike 

 outreach tool that 

 can regularly post 

ion, check the sites 

d to questions and 

 size of the visitor 

orkload would dic

sed. 

ratory birds would 

ur habitat manage

se, outreach about 

ease plan would 

180 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Public meetings are a good form of outreach. 

WS F

Alternatives B and D 

Same effects as alternative 

using more electronic media, the 

a greater number and diversity

Web sites, new media sites are an

requires a designated person that

updates, add to previous informat

and public responses, and respon

comments on a regular basis. The

services staff in relation to the w ­

tate the level of electronic media u

The staff outreach about mig

increase public understanding of o ­

ment to help these birds. Likewi

the comprehensive wildlife dis

increase public understanding of our habitat management as it relates to dispersion of elk and bison herds 

to reduce the risk of disease. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, the 

public would have more understanding of the role of 

the refuge in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Cost and staff time associated with outreach 

related to migratory birds would be higher than 

alternative A but less than alternative B. 

5.12 Safety Effects 

The effects of each alternative for visitor and 

employee safety are described below. 

of refuge

Since

concentr

these act

staff to t

uge bou

quently, 

roadway

remain u

Alternative A 

Visitors would have safe conditions when using 

the refuge, and employees would have safe working 

conditions. By reducing workplace hazards and focusing on safe work practices, the refuge would have a 

secure workforce and substantial financial savings. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, to keep 

pace with the hunting program, more law enforce

ment presence during hunting season would increase 

enforcement of refuge regulations emphasizing safe 

practices. Continued efforts by WGFD and the ref

uge would keep a good safety record in the refuge 

hunt program. Hunters observed by law enforcement 

committing safety violations could have their refuge 

hunting permits revoked. This could improve hunt 

area safety by removing unsafe hunters from the ref

uge. Failure to check and improve safe hunting prac

tices might result in more hunting-related accidents. 

More staff would increase costs 

­

­

­

­

5.13 Resource Protection 

Effects 

The effects of each alternative for resource pro

tection are described below. 

­

Alternative A 

The current suboptimal law enforcement presence 

would prevent most major wildlife resource violations. Limited patrol activities would continue to 

miss significant violations such as those that 

occurred in backcountry areas during hunting season, fishing violations, trespass, theft of shed antlers, 

and illegal road and parking use that occurred during night hours and was associated with public use 

activities on the adjoining Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Failure to supply an increased law enforcement presence might result in the degradation or loss 

 resources. 

 hunter densities and animal harvest are 

ated near roads and parking areas, covering 

ivities would consume the law enforcement 

he exclusion of having a presence on the refndary or in backcountry hunt areas. Consefew hunters would be checked away from 

s, and several hunting violations would 

nresolved each season. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 181 

Alternative B 

As visitor services were expanded, the ability to 

protect refuge resources would decline. However, 

more law enforcement staff and equipment would 

help us deter refuge trespass and theft of shed elk 

antlers and other wildlife parts. Increased patrol 

activity involving staff and equipment would have a 

higher cost. More staff could increase data gathered 

about hunter and angler use, which could be used to 

guide future management. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, land 

exchanges between the refuge and adjacent Federal 

agencies could be used to simplify (straighten) the 

refuge boundaries. Hunters would benefit from a 

simplified refuge boundary because they are 

required to comply with refuge-specific regulations 

within the refuge boundary. Land exchanges would 

be an expensive and time-consuming process for our 

agency realty divisions and would not result in a net 

increase in protected acres. There would be a change 

in mandate for those acres, from multiple use or wil

derness on national forest lands, to a wildlife-first 

mandate as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. A 

simplified boundary might increase compliance with 

regulations and have a corresponding decreased need 

for law enforcement. 

­

5.14 Administration Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to funding, staff, and facilities and real 

property assets. 

Relia

mental 

of involv

agement

received

Jackson

program

■■	 Fin

Funding and Staff 

The effects of each alternative for funding and 

staff are described below. 

Alternative A 

Low base funding and lack of staff has limited 

management on some units and reduced emphasis for 

some programs. Current funding and staff levels 

(10.5 FTEs) would continue to be insufficient to conduct programs and achieve the refuge goals. A staff 

of 10.5 FTEs is 42-percent lower than the 18 FTEs 

recommended for the refuge during a nationwide 

(adjusted by region) minimum staffing exercise completed for the Refuge System in 2008 (FWS 2008). 

The workload and complexity of refuge programs has 

continued to increase since that time. 

Today, the refuge can only achieve its critical 

work through the additional money from private 

organizations and the efforts of one of the region’s 

largest volunteer programs. A reduction in private 

money would prevent the refuge from successfully 

conducting its programs and substantially reduce the 

service and benefits the refuge provides to the public 

and wildlife populations. 

Private money could enable the refuge to hire 

approximately 4.8 FTE positions, and volunteers 

would continue to contribute approximately 9.3 FTEs 

of assistance each year. There would continue to be 

high turnover in these positions, resulting in staff 

with limited experience, which would require more 

training and oversight of workers and volunteers. 

This would make a higher supervisory workload for 

the permanent staff and would reduce their ability to 

address other refuge priorities. Volunteers are limited in the type of work they can do because of Service policies for use of Government computers. 

Volunteers are often not hired far enough in advance 

to get the credentials needed for Government computer use during their scheduled season. Because of 

the high turnover in volunteers, staff would need to 

continually get credentials for volunteers that may 

not assist the refuge for an extended period of time. 

nce on partnerships that provide nongovernmoney would continue to be an excellent way 

ing private citizens in supporting the man­

 of the refuge. The refuge relies on money 

 from the Grand Teton Association and the 

 District Boy Scouts to accomplish 

s: 

ancial support from the Grand Teton 

Association would continue to enable the 

hiring of three temporary winter naturalists from November through March (1.5 

FTEs). These naturalists would provide 

winter interpretive programs during a key 

period when herds of elk and bison are on 

the refuge. Without this money, the refuge 

would eliminate popular and requested 

environmental education and interpretive 

programs, substantially reducing the positive effect these programs have on public 

understanding of the refuge mission. 

■■	 A minimum of 2.6 FTE temporary employees would continue to be hired to operate 

the irrigation system using money from the 

Boy Scouts of American Elk Antler Auction. 

Use of irrigation to increase winter forage 

and reduce the need for supplemental feed­
182 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

ing is a primary strategy in the management of elk and bison. If this money were 

not available, the acres irrigated would be 

severely limited, substantially reducing the 

amount of natural winter forage available 

for elk and bison. Reduction in forage would 

increase the seasonal length of the supplemental feeding program, increase the cost 

for alfalfa pellets, and put elk and bison at 

greater risk of disease transmission because 

of longer periods of concentration. 

Seasonal law enforcement officers would continue 

to be critical to safely and successfully conducting the 

refuge hunting programs. These officers would continue to be funded each year from the annual sales of 

“America the Beautiful—National Parks and Federal 

Recreational Lands Passes,” also called Interagency 

Passes. This is an unreliable source of money for a 

critical refuge program. If money for seasonal law 

enforcement officers was unavailable, the hunting 

program might need to be scaled back for public 

safety reasons. This would likely reduce the harvest 

of elk and bison and have an adverse effect on refuge 

efforts to achieve a balance between habitat and herd 

sizes and meet the objectives in the Bison and Elk 

Management Plan. 

The integrity of long-term, biological monitoring 

programs would require annual consistency. If 

money for staff was unavailable or volunteers were 

unable to collect specific biological data, the value of 

the long-term monitoring efforts could be severely 

reduced. This could negatively affect our ability to 

make reliable management decisions based on sound 

science. 

Alternative B 

Increased base funding would enable the refuge 

to add 14 FTE positions, which would have the following benefits: 

■■	 The combination of adding a permanent biological technician to collect field survey 

information and the addition of a permanent 

rangeland specialist would substantially 

enhance the refuge’s ability to manage refuge lands for the greatest benefit to the elk 

and bison herds. These positions would also 

lead to improved management of native 

plant communities for the highest diversity, 

which would benefit other wildlife species. 

Establishing native plant plots would provide a long-term source of desirable seed for 

management purposes. 

■■	 The addition of permanent seasonal irrigators would reduce training, orientation time, 

and the need for annual utility vehicle certification. By using primarily trained and 

experienced irrigators, the efficiency of the 

program would improve and ultimately 

increase the amount of forage produced. 

This would have a positive effect on reducing the need for supplemental feeding and 

the potential for disease transmission, 

which would make a positive contribution 

toward the refuge goal of managing for 

healthy herds. 

■■	 The addition of a permanent law enforcement officer would help enforce regulations 

across the refuge, respond to public safety 

incidents promptly, and improve wildlife 

protection during the hunting season. 

■■	 An environmental education specialist 

would dramatically improve the amount of 

educational programming offered to the 

public. Currently, the visitor center manager works primarily on the interagency 

coordination of the facility, visitor center 

supplies and expenses, license sales, facilities maintenance, scheduling, and extensive 

volunteer recruitment coordination. This 

leaves little time for educational programming including interpretation, environmental education, special events, and family 

activities. An environmental education specialist would increase the number of public 

activities; promote high priority, wildlifedependent activities such as wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation; and help coordinate volunteers. Permanent seasonal staff 

for the visitor center desk would provide 

consistent and reliable service to nearly 

300,000 visitors annually and reduce the 

staff workload of training short-term volunteers and temporary employees. The addition of this staff would reduce the current 

workload demand on the visitor center 

manager. 

■■	 The reestablishment of three permanent 

seasonal winter naturalists would enable 

the refuge to regularly provide interpretative presentations on a variety of topics specific to the Service mission. In addition to 

elk biology and management, these presentations could emphasize the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, the refuge, and other refuge wildlife. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 183 

Private funding would be subject to the annual 

success of fundraising efforts primarily by the Grand 

Teton Association and the Jackson District Boy 

Scouts. The refuge would use this money to enhance 

refuge management and conduct volunteer programs. 

However, there would be no guarantee on the availability of this money. 

Alternatives C and D 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, an 

environmental education specialist would elevate the 

quality and quantity of environmental education and 

interpretive programs. Through this specialist’s 

focused efforts, the public, especially students, would 

better understand ecosystem functions in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the changes that 

threaten the integrity of this area. 

The addition of three seasonal naturalists would 

enable the refuge to increase the number of programs provided to the public when demand for programs is high. These programs could broaden the 

public’s understanding of the mission of the Refuge 

System and the refuge by focusing programs on wildlife species other than elk and bison. 

With the work of added visitor services staff, the 

refuge staff could improve basic programming outreach, and the public would gain a better appreciation 

and understanding of wildlife and the natural 

resources that support them. This would build public 

support for the agencies that protect and manage 

natural resources such as our agency, the National 

Park Service, and the USDA Forest Service. 

Facilities 

The effects of each alternative for facilities and 

infrastructure are described below. 

Alternative A 

The refuge has two primary visitor services facilities, the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center and the Miller House. The continued 

maintenance and use of these facilities would be vital 

in achieving the environmental education and interpretation aspects of the visitor services goal. 

The refuge was established in 1912 and is one of 

the oldest national wildlife refuges in the Refuge 

System. The continued maintenance and use of refuge buildings that are more than 50 years old (and 

qualify for protection under the National Historic 

Preservation Act) would preserve their historic value 

and would help us achieve the spirit of the act while 

providing the public with a connection to refuge 

history. 

The option for refuge staff to rent Government 

(refuge) housing would have several benefits: 

■■	 The high cost of both permanent and temporary housing is a significant impediment to 

recruiting and retaining staff to work at the 

refuge. Renting a refuge house would provide a reasonably affordable alternative to 

purchasing a home in the Jackson area, 

though Jackson has experienced severe 

rental shortages. This housing would also be 

slightly more affordable than area rentals 

and would locate the employee near the refuge, thus eliminating the need for a long and 

difficult commute from other communities. 

Providing the option of renting a refuge 

house has been vitally important in recruiting highly qualified staff, especially at times 

when there is a strong housing market. 

Even with this option, it is common for candidates who are considering filling a staff 

vacancy to decline the position because of 

the high cost of housing (Government housing, private rental, and home purchase). 

■■	 Wildlife observations by staff after normal 

work hours could provide valuable information about wildlife use of habitat, movements, and wildlife interactions. Refuge 

houses located at various places on the refuge could provide these after-hour wildlife 

observations, and this information could be 

especially helpful in conducting the supplemental feeding program. 

■■	 Key refuge staff such as equipment operators would continue to be located in houses 

that are near the refuge’s heavy equipment. 

Operators could quickly access their heavy 

equipment to keep hunter parking lots 

accessible and conduct the supplemental 

feeding program, even during winter 

storms. 

■■	 Security for resources would be enhanced 

by providing staff housing at various refuge 

locations. Refuge facilities and equipment 

would less likely be vandalized or burglarized if located near an occupied refuge 

house. Public actions that violate refuge 

regulations such as trespass or wildlife 

harassment could be observed by refuge 

employees from their houses and reported 

to the county sheriff or the refuge law 

enforcement officer. 
184 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Staff that live in refuge housing would provide an economic benefit to the town of 

Jackson. These employees would buy many 

of their daily living items such as groceries, 

vehicle fuel, and entertainment in Jackson, 

thus supporting the local economy. 

Attracting bears to refuge houses could result in 

damage to personal or refuge property. Lack of regulations to prevent bear habituation and food conditioning, in which bears learn to associate humans 

with easily available food sources, could result in the 

destruction of bears, which would be inconsistent 

with the purpose of the Refuge System. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, more 

refuge housing for permanent and seasonal refuge 

staff would help us to effectively recruit highly qualified candidates for staff vacancies, especially for 

lower graded positions. Three to four (up to five) new 

family houses would reduce the amount of open space 

on the refuge headquarters campus and could be perceived as negative by some surrounding residents. 

Dog owners from the local community who have illegally allowed their pets to roam on the refuge campus might also complain. 

Refuge regulations for refuge houses and volunteers’ recreational vehicle sites could prevent bears 

from becoming habituated and seeking out humans to 

obtain food rewards, resulting in safe living conditions and limited need to relocate bears. 

The relocation of the Calkins House would allow 

the refuge to expand the zone where hunters could 

use high-powered rifles for hunting elk and bison. 

This might lead to a minor improvement in harvest, 

which would help the refuge to achieve herd size 

objectives. Removing the house would create a minor 

visual improvement in the viewshed for some hunters 

and the public when they travel through the refuge to 

access the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Another 

acre (plus driveway) of habitat would be available to 

produce winter forage, which would have a negligible 

positive effect on wintering elk and bison. Relocation 

of the Calkins House would eliminate (1) the benefit 

of obtaining after-hours wildlife observations from 

the refuge employee living there, and (2) that employee’s opportunity to observe and report violations. 

Elk Refuge Road 

The effects of each alternative for Elk Refuge 

Road are described below. 

Alternative A 

Elk Refuge Road provides safe, reasonable, uninterrupted access (ingress and egress) for our agency 

staff, the public, and private landowners 

year-round. 

Increases in visitation and traffic during either 

the summer or winter seasons could increase the 

potential for more traffic-related incidents. Refuge 

staff has noted increased congestion during both seasons, which impacts refuge vehicles and equipment, 

general traffic on the road, pedestrians, private adjacent landowners, and service and utility vehicles such 

as delivery trucks, propane trucks, gas and electrical 

service vehicles, and phone service vehicles. There 

could be increased traffic and congestion on the road 

from increasing numbers of permitted commercial 

tours, especially during the winter when abundant 

wildlife is visible. This could reduce the quality of the 

wildlife-viewing experience and cause possible economic impacts to tour operators. In addition, an 

increase in the use of Elk Refuge Road could cause 

moderate impacts by increasing the spread of invasive species such as perennial pepper plant and spotted knapweed from vehicles, especially during the 

summer season. 

Refuge managers anticipate a time when the summer and fall months might include an increased use of 

the refuge by grizzly bears, which might draw more 

visitors and photographers to use Elk Refuge Road. 

Leaving only the first 3.5 miles of Elk Refuge Road 

open from December 1 through April 30 and restricting all traffic beyond that point would offer critical 

protection to wintering animals during a time of year 

when minimizing encounters with humans is key to 

their survival. However, despite this closure, there 

would still be outstanding, wildlife-viewing opportunities for the public on the open stretch of road during the winter months. Enforcing a no-stopping 

regulation to prevent the obstruction to other vehicular traffic along the road would improve safety along 

the road. The regulation prohibiting stopping or 

parking on the roadway would prevent the creation of 

unwanted parking areas and associated disturbance 

to vegetation. The refuge is located within the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which includes two 

nearby heavily visited national parks where frequent 

stopping in the road to take photographs or view 

wildlife is common. Many of those same visitors come 

to Elk Refuge Road, bringing with them the same 

habits and viewing practices they exhibited in those 

areas during their same vacation stay. The current 

capacity in the turnouts might not be adequate to 

accommodate all the visitors. The county road easement would continue to be treated for dust abatement 

during summer months using magnesium chloride 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 185 

(salt)-treated water, which is an attractant to bighorn 

sheep. 

Plowed turnouts in the winter would give wildlife 

viewers an alternative to stopping in the road to photograph or view wildlife. Depending on the location of 

the bighorn sheep, the turnouts might not be in the 

best viewing locations and thus not used by wildlife 

viewers. While this would let the public closely view 

bighorn sheep, it could lead to increased vehicle– 

wildlife collisions. The bighorn sheep would become 

acclimated to vehicles using the road, but there 

would be potential for human–wildlife conflicts if 

wildlife viewers approached too closely on foot. Bighorn sheep close to the road could increase the potential for disease transmission to livestock or vice versa 

or lead to the spread of disease among the bighorn 

sheep herd itself. 

Opening parts of Elk Refuge Road would allow 

the public seasonal access to national forest lands on 

foot or by vehicle and shows good cooperation 

between the two Federal agencies. Because the number of foot trails to the national forest boundary is 

limited, disturbance to soils and vegetation would be 

minimal. Trailhead parking could spill over onto Elk 

Refuge Road during times of peak use, especially 

during hunting season. This would occur infrequently 

enough that it would have only a minor effect. However, allowing spillover parking onto Elk Refuge 

Road by hunters might conflict with future management decisions to be stricter on enforcing a regulation of no parking on the road. It could also lead to 

the public perception that hunters have special privileges on the Elk Refuge Road over other user 

groups, which could lead to conflicts between wildlife 

observers and hunters. 

Roads on the refuge are used by staff and visitors alike.. 

S Wh / Fguon HnA

Alternatives B and D 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

regulation prohibiting stopping or parking on the 

roadway would prevent the random creation of 

unwanted parking areas and associated disturbance 

to vegetation. Increased signing could lead to better 

compliance with these regulations and improve 

safety for a variety of road users; however, increased 

signage does not always result in better compliance. 

More signs would detract from the aesthetics of the 

scenic, rural setting and would have installation and 

maintenance costs. Depending on the location of the 

signs, the signs could interfere with snowplowing 

operations. A roadside parking ban that would prohibit hunter retrieval of harvested game would not 

be desired by the refuge or by refuge hunters 

because it would greatly increase the amount of time 

to haul the animal out and could lead to spoilage of 

meat. 

Visitors would learn about refuge wildlife and 

management issues by traveling the interpretive 

auto tour route. It would take substantial staff time 

initially to develop the auto tour route along with 

money for signs and printed material. We would 

update and reprint the brochure to include current 

information. Adding this interpretive experience 

could increase the amount of traffic on Elk Refuge 

Road, resulting in the effects discussed in alternative 

A. There would be higher costs and more staff time 

to develop and maintain the route. 

Increased visitation for wildlife viewing would 

elevate the potential for accidents between vehicles, 

pedestrians, and wildlife. Widening strategically 

located segments of Elk Refuge Road would improve 

the line-of-sight for vehicles and reduce the possibility of accidents involving vehicles. Minor habitat loss 

at these sites would cause temporary disturbance of 

vegetation but would not adversely affect long-term 

wildlife populations. 

Improving and increasing the number of turnouts 

on Elk Refuge Road and strategically placing them 

in areas commonly used by wildlife might encourage 

more visitors to use the turnouts than to stop in the 

road and create traffic hazards. This would enhance 

the public’s visit by providing a safer experience on 

the road as well as improving wildlife-viewing opportunities. Directing wildlife watchers into maintained 

parking areas would reduce the number of instances 
186 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

when their vehicles became stuck in the roadside 

ditch during winter months. However, increasing the 

number of turnouts or widening the road would create habitat loss. It would also add to the risk of new 

infestations from invasive species because of soil disturbance and the importation of fill material. 

Observation scopes at turnouts would provide better opportunities for viewing wildlife close up and 

could encourage wildlife viewers to safely park and 

exit their vehicle to use the equipment. Scopes could 

make turnouts attractive destinations for refuge visitors, reducing the number of vehicles stopped or 

parked in the roadway. Scope could provide accessible wildlife-viewing opportunities. Physical and biological effects to the area where the scopes were 

placed would be minimal. The refuge would incur 

costs to maintain and replace the scopes, which could 

also be susceptible to vandalism or theft. The scopes 

could impede snowplowing operations to clear out the 

turnouts, and they could result in vehicle or equipment damage if struck by cars during times of limited visibility or icy road conditions. Reducing dust 

abatement on Elk Refuge Road would decrease the 

attractiveness of the road to bighorn sheep, which 

would reduce potential conflicts with humans and 

reduce the likelihood of disease transmission in the 

herd and with domestic livestock. The dust during 

the summer months could negatively affect pedestrian and bicycle users on the road. Reduced dust 

abatement treatments would continue to attract bighorn sheep to the road during fall and winter months 

because road water runoff promotes tall, dense, 

green grasses even during the fall and winter. 

Increased maintenance in the winter would 

improve safety on the road and decrease the potential 

for incidents such as slide offs, multivehicle collisions, 

vehicle–wildlife collisions, vehicle–pedestrian collisions, or getting stuck in snowbanks or ditches. 

Increased road maintenance would take more staff 

time and increase long-term costs. With only one law 

enforcement officer on staff to enforce current regulations and make contacts with traffic offenders, the 

refuge would need money for more law enforcement 

support or to increase the amount of time the current 

officer could spend on enforcement of refuge road 

regulations. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, reducing the number of turnouts would decrease disturbance to soil and native habitats and reduce the risk 

of spreading invasive species. However, fewer turnouts would not address safety concerns on Elk Refuge Road. Visitors likely would still use the road but 

would not have a safe alternative to parking on the 

road to look at animals or take photographs. Fewer 

turnouts would mean less snowplowing, thus reducing cost and staff time. 

Ending dust abatement would likely decrease the 

attractiveness of the road to bighorn sheep, dispersing the sheep away from the road and reducing their 

numbers around Miller Butte. This would reduce the 

potential for human–wildlife conflicts if bighorn 

sheep stay away from the roadway, and wildlife viewers would not have the opportunity to come close to 

the sheep on foot. Without the attraction of salt on 

the road, bighorn sheep might remain more dispersed 

and reduce the transmission of diseases. Without 

dust abatement, more dust on foliage might predispose bighorn sheep to the risk of pneumonia. Wind 

along the road can be significant, and the dispersal of 

dust could occur throughout the east slope of Miller 

Butte to the national forest on the east. Less visitor 

use of the road for viewing bighorn sheep would 

require fewer parking areas and less vegetation disturbed. There would be less potential for vehicle collisions, and the refuge would have lower installation 

and maintenance costs if winter visitation on Elk 

Refuge Road decreased. Fewer bighorn sheep on or 

near the road would reduce the wildlife-viewing 

opportunity for some refuge visitors. However, visitors would be able to watch the bighorn sheep in a 

natural, dispersed population. Dispersing the bighorn 

sheep away from the road might decrease business 

opportunities for wildlife-viewing companies that 

have a special use permit to operate on the refuge. 

Partnerships 

The effects of each alternative for partnerships 

are described below. 

Alternative A 

Working with partners would help us in meeting 

the refuge goals and objectives. Furthermore, partnerships would be an excellent way of involving private citizens in supporting the management of the 

refuge. 

The refuge would maintain effective and professional relationships with Federal and State partners 

as well as community members, leaders, nongovernmental organizations, and business representatives 

to foster an understanding of a variety of concerns, 

impacts, perspectives, and needs of each of the organizations and partners. Refuge staff would be more 

efficient and effective by working with partners and 

combining resources. Building and maintaining a 

leadership role in the community and maintaining 

partnerships would require staff commitment and 

time. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 187 

The refuge would continue to rely on partner support in many aspects of refuge management, as 

described below. 

Physical Environment Support 

Water conservation in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem could affect water resources on the refuge. Efforts to prevent new water diversions for irrigation and fish ponds, projects to remove 

unnecessary low-head dams, and programs to protect 

streambanks from excessive livestock use would have 

positive effects on the streams and rivers that flow 

onto the refuge. Although specific programs to 

address these water conservation issues do not exist 

in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee is the likely organization to address these needs in the future. 

Biological Environment Support 

Intense scrutiny and often contradictory public 

opinions about management of some wildlife species 

would continue to require coordinated efforts among 

Federal land managers and WGFD. Each agency 

could contribute expertise and resources toward 

management of high-profile species, and combined 

efforts could ultimately provide better results than 

the disconnected efforts of the individual agencies. 

Sharing inventory and monitoring data, coordinating 

the timing and scope of habitat improvement projects, and synchronizing seasonal public access 

restrictions are examples of ways Federal land management agencies and WGFD work together. These 

efforts would improve wildlife management that 

benefits wildlife species and their habitats and would 

enhance the public’s understanding and confidence in 

management efforts by wildlife and land management agencies. 

Involvement with land management agencies and 

nongovernmental wildlife research organizations is 

essential for answering wildlife management questions because it combines expertise and resources 

that the refuge might not have. The Jackson Hole 

Cooperative Elk Studies Group and the local greater 

sage-grouse working group are collaborative efforts 

that would continue to combine agency resources to 

improve management of high-priority species (elk 

and greater sage-grouse). This sharing of expertise 

and resources would enhance the refuge’s ability to 

find sound solutions to management questions in a 

way that should increase public confidence. It would 

also provide an opportunity for the refuge to contribute to wildlife and land management efforts off the 

refuge, which could benefit the ecosystem wildlife 

populations and the populations that might use the 

refuge seasonally. 

Nongovernmental organizations can play an 

essential role in projects targeted for specific wildlife 

issues. The discovery of elevated blood-lead levels in 

scavenging birds on the refuge and Grand Teton 

National Park is a good example of positive involvement by a nongovernmental organization. CraigheadBeringia South, a private, nonprofit, wildlife research 

organization, not only conducted research that identified the blood-lead level problem, but they also 

obtained private money to help correct the problem. 

As a result of their involvement, a program for voluntary use of lead-free ammunition was established for 

these Federal lands and is showing positive results in 

reducing lead exposure to specific wildlife 

populations. 

Fire is a natural ecosystem process but unplanned 

wildfires can be destructive to agency facilities and 

sometimes impede wildlife management efforts. For 

example, a wildfire in September that would remove 

most of the refuge forage intended for use by wintering elk and bison would be counterproductive to the 

refuge management strategy. Also, the refuge could 

be held responsible for wildfire damage to adjacent 

private lands if the fire originated on the refuge. 

Cooperative agreements between the refuge, the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest, and the Grand Teton 

National Park would continue to provide important 

wildfire suppression capability that the refuge does 

not have. This partnership could prevent damage to 

wildlife habitat, refuge structures, and adjacent private lands. 

Invasive plants such as spotted knapweed and 

cheatgrass reduce natural vegetation diversity and 

are considered problems throughout Jackson Hole. 

Our participation with the Jackson Hole Weed Management Association has resulted in a partnership to 

address this landscape problem on and off the refuge. 

Control efforts in Jackson Hole, especially next to the 

refuge, would help prevent new infestations from 

becoming reestablished on the refuge. This landscape 

effort would continue to help protect and enhance 

native plant communities and preserve plant diversity on the refuge for the benefit of many wildlife species. It would also contribute to landscape resiliency, 

which would enable plants and wildlife to better 

withstand and adapt to climate change. 

Social Interaction Support 

The refuge and its management can be affected 

by challenges or issues that are ecosystem-wide. 

Infestations of mountain pine beetle and white pine 

blister rust might not directly affect refuge habitat, 

but the resulting changes to adjacent habitats can 

have a profound effect on refuge wildlife management. The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee is well positioned to address problems across 

the ecosystem, and the information they distribute to 

the public can help Jackson Hole residents understand how ecosystem-wide issues affect refuge 
 

188 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

resources. Refuge staff involvement with this committee provides an opportunity for refuge staff to 

help influence news releases that are effective for the 

Jackson area. 

Partnerships would be essential for the continued 

operation of the Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center that serves more than 300,000 

visitors each year. Information about wildlife and the 

use of Jackson Hole’s Federal lands would continue to 

enhance public understanding about the purpose and 

importance of the refuge. The visitor center would 

continue to provide an important service to the visiting public by not only answering questions about 

wildlife and natural resources, but also providing 

information about area accommodations and available 

recreational activities. 

Our coordination of the North Highway 89 Pathway project with Teton County has expanded public 

opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, 

and interpretation on the refuge. Collaborating with 

Teton County and other private, nonprofit organizations—to inform the public of use restrictions necessary for compatibility—has helped reduce conflicts 

with wildlife and reduce violations of the use restrictions. Public compliance with these restrictions 

would help ensure that use of the pathway remains a 

compatible use and that the pathway would remain 

open to the public in the future. 

Interpretation as part of the winter sleigh ride 

program would continue to inform more than 20,000 

visitors annually about the Refuge System and the 

refuge. The refuge does not have the resources to 

provide this program to the public, and it is only 

made possible through our partnership with the 

Grand Teton Association and the private sleigh ride 

contractor. 

The barn at Miller Ranch. 

Lori Iverson / FWS 

Economic Support 

Sustainable operations is a priority goal for the 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. They 

have helped inventory, analyze, and develop plans to 

improve energy efficiency and reduce the carbon footprint for all land management units in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. This assistance would continue to help the refuge focus on reducing the cost 

and environmental impact of refuge operations. 

Cost sharing with partner organizations for projects of mutual interest and benefit is a common 

approach to leveraging limited refuge money. An 

example is the cooperation between the refuge and 

the WGFD to monitor chronic wasting disease on the 

refuge and throughout Jackson Hole. The refuge has 
 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 189 

contributed money to help defray the cost of seasonal 

technicians who collected and analyzed samples from 

hunter-harvested deer and elk. This cost-sharing 

partnership would continue to enable a disease detection program on the refuge that is vital to both agencies and likely could not be conducted at a high level 

of confidence without this collaboration. 

The refuge has worked in partnership with the 

Jackson District Boy Scouts for more than 50 years. 

The Scouts periodically use the refuge to accomplish 

various Scouting programs as well as helping us by 

picking up shed elk antlers that pose a hazard to refuge equipment. Most of the proceeds from an auction 

of antlers held by the Scouts are returned to the refuge and used primarily for habitat projects benefitting elk. 

The Grand Teton Association has shown exceptional leadership and remarkable assistance in providing support for the Jackson Hole and Greater 

Yellowstone Visitor Center, which is a tremendous 

asset to Jackson’s tourist-based economy. Financial 

support from the association would continue to be 

invaluable in providing temporary staff to run the 

visitor center when the Government position is 

vacant. Proceeds from the visitor center sales outlet 

that is run by the Grand Teton Association, would be 

used to support environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife research programs on the refuge. 

Historical Program Support 

With help from the Grand Teton Association and 

other partner organizations, the historic Miller 

House was restored by removing or replacing contemporary fixtures and decorating with early 1900s 

e Grand 

pleting 

 to run a 

hat pro

period décor. The money leveraged by th

Teton Association was instrumental in com

this project. The association would continue

seasonal sales outlet in the Miller House t ­

vided merchandise with a historical theme. 

Alternatives B and D 

Same effects as alternative A, except as noted 

below. 

Biological Environment Support 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

potential exists for a Friends group to provide volunteer assistance and or money to enhance the refuge’s 

biological and visitor services programs. Increased 

focus in Jackson Hole by our Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program could result in off-refuge projects 

with private landowners that have the potential of 

providing important benefits for refuge habitat and 

wildlife populations. The restoration and enhancement of private land wetlands near the refuge would 

help support nesting waterfowl on the refuge: (1) 

shallow wetlands can help provide early season invertebrates, which are an important source of protein 

for nesting hens; and (2) deeper wetlands can help to 

provide summer brood-rearing habitat. 

Social Interaction Support 

Same effects as alternative A. In addition, the 

establishment of a Friends group would expand public awareness and participation in wildlife conservation on and around the refuge. The focus of a local 

Friends group usually develops in response to refuge 

needs and membership interests. 

Alternative C 

Same effects as alternative B, except as noted 

below. 

Physical and Biological Environment Support 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, the refuge would emphasize partnerships that support 

research focused on the natural resources and unique 

conditions found in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The results of this research would help land 

managers better understand and manage the natural 

resources found within their administrative boundary of responsibility. 

Social Interaction Support 

Same effects as alternative B. In addition, empha

sizing partnerships that result in ecosystem-wide 

and landscape-level activities would reduce the time 

spent on and benefits received from partnerships that 

focus primarily on refuge projects and programs. 

­

5.15 Socioeconomic Effects 

Economic impact analyses are commonly used to 

determine how changes in spending resulting from 

changes in policy or management activities affect 

business sales, jobs and income in local economies. 

This analysis quantifies how Refuge Revenue Shar

ing Act (RRS) payments to states and counties, Ref

uge personnel salary expenditures, Refuge 

purchases of goods and services, and spending by 

refuge visitors affect the local two-county region. 

The economic impacts of the alternatives were 

estimated using the IMPLAN software and data sys

tem supplied by IMPLAN Group LLC. (Any use of 

trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive pur

poses only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.) IMPLAN is a widely used inputoutput modeling system. The underlying data drawn 

upon by the IMPLAN system are collected by the 

­

­

­

­
 

190 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

IMPLAN Group LLC from multiple Federal and 

State sources including the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. 

Census Bureau. IMPLAN data profiles from 2012 for 

Teton County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming, 

were used in this study. 

Large management changes often take several 

years to achieve. The estimates reported for alternatives B, C and D represent final economic effects 

after all changes in management have been made. 

Impacts from Refuge Revenue 

Sharing 

We make revenue sharing payments to counties 

for land that is under our administration. Under provisions of RRS, local counties receive an annual payment for lands that have been purchased by full 

fee-title acquisition by the Service. Payments are 

based on the greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75 percent of the fair market value. The exact amount of 

the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be 

substantially less than the amount required to fully 

fund the authorized level of payments. Only Teton 

County, Wyoming, received an RRS payment of 

$323,217 in 2013, which was much lower than in previous years. Table 15 shows the impacts of local RRS 

payments. They generate an estimated annual total 

impact of 2 jobs, $103,000 in labor income and 

$137,000 in value added to the local two-county area. 

Table 15. Annual impacts of Refuge Revenue Sharing 

payments for all alternatives. 

Employment Labor Value (number of income added full- and part­ (2013) (2013) time jobs) 

Direct effects 2 $86,600 $109,100 

Secondary 

effects less than 1 $16,400 $27,900 

Total effect 2 $103,000 $137,000 

Effects of Refuge Personnel 

Salary Spending within the Local 

Economy 

Refuge employees reside and spend their salaries 

on daily living expenses in the local area, thereby 

generating impacts within the local economy. Household consumption expenditures consist of payments 

by individuals or households to industries for goods 

and services used for personal consumption. The 

IMPLAN modeling system contains household 

income consumption spending profiles that account 

for average household spending patterns by income 

level. These profiles also capture average annual savings and allow for leakage of household spending to 

outside the region. The IMPLAN household spending 

pattern for households earning $50,000-75,000 per 

year was used to reflect the average salary of fulltime permanent employees at the refuge. 

The current approved refuge staff consists of 11 

permanent employees. This will remain the same 

under alternative A. Refuge staff is anticipated to 

increase by an additional 24 employees under alternative B, and 27 employees under alternatives C and 

D (including full time, part time and seasonal positions). See table 21 in section 6.10 for a full list of 

positions. 

Refuge personnel estimate that current annual 

salaries total approximately $1,021,000 under alternative A. Staff needs are expected to increase to 

approximately $1,586,000 under alternative B, and 

$1,680,400 under alternatives C and D. The economic 

impacts associated with the spending of salaries in 

the local two-county area by refuge employees are 

summarized in Table 16. These impacts only include 

the secondary effects of non-refuge jobs created as 

refuge employees spend their salaries in the local 

two-county area. For alternative A, it is estimated 

that salary spending by refuge personnel would generate annual secondary effects of 3 jobs, $120,300 in 

labor income, and $225,200 in value added annually, 

in the local economy. Under alternative B, the annual 

impact of salary spending would increase to 4 jobs, 

$186,800 in labor income and $349,600 in value added. 

Under alternatives C and D, refuge salary spending 

would generate secondary effects of 4 jobs, $198,000 

in labor income, and $370,500 in value added 

annually. 

Table 16. Annual impacts of salary spending. 

Employment Labor (number of income full- and part­ (2013) time jobs) 

Value 

added 

(2013) 

Alternative A 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary 

effects 3 $120,300 $225,200 

Total effect 3 $120,300 $225,200 

Alternative B 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 
Table 16. Annual impacts of salary spending. 

Employment Labor (number of income full- and part- (2013) time jobs) 

Value 

added 

(2013) 

Secondary 

effects 4 $186,800 $349,600 

Total effect 4 $186,800 $349,600 

Alternatives C, D 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary 

effects 4 $198,000 $370,500 

Total effect 4 $198,000 $370,500 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 191 

Effects of Refuge Purchases of 

Goods and Service within the 

Local Economy 

A wide variety of supplies and services are purchased for refuge operations and maintenance activities. Refuge purchases made in the local two-county 

area contribute to the local economic impacts associated with the refuge. The refuge currently spends an 

average of $229,000 per year on nonsalary expenditures. Major local expenditures include office supplies, utilities, and equipment maintenance and 

repair. Table 17 provides a breakdown of current 

nonsalary expenditures by expenditure category. To 

determine the local economic impacts of nonsalary 

expenditures, only expenditures made within the 

local two-county area are included. This analysis 

assumes the percent of local spending will not differ 

across the alternatives. 

Table 17. Breakdown of current purchases of goods 

and services. 

Average Percent 

Expense annual percent spent in 

category of nonsalary local twoexpenditures county area 

Heavy equipment 

purchasing or leas 4 0 

ing 

Equipment Mainte

nance and Repair 26 83 

Vehicle Purchase 9 0 

Vehicle Mainte

nance and Repair 5 6 

Table 17. Breakdown of current purchases of goods 

and services. 

Average Percent 

Expense annual percent spent in 

category of nonsalary local twoexpenditures county area 

Habitat and 

grounds improve

ments and treat 6 100 

ments 

Travel 4 0 

Construction of 

New Structures 8 83 

Maintenance and 

Repair of Struc 7 57 

tures 

All other expenses 

(for example: over

head, office sup 31 86 

plies, utilities) 

Average annual nonsalary expenditures are anticipated to be $229,000 for alternative A, $348,000 for 

alternative B, and $369,000 for alternatives C and D. 

Table 18 shows the economic impacts associated with 

nonsalary related expenditures in the local communities near the refuge. For alternative A, the purchase 

of good and services would generate an estimated 

total economic impact of 2 jobs, $68,600 in labor 

income, and $92,400 in value added, annually. Under 

alternative B, 2 jobs, $104,200 in labor income and 

$140,500 in value added would be generated annually 

by the purchase of goods and services by the refuge. 

Alternatives C and D are estimated to have a slightly 

higher economic impact than alternative B, annually 

generating 2 jobs, $110,500 in labor income and 

$148,800 in value added. 

Table 18. Annual impacts of purchases of goods and 

services. 

Employment Labor Value (number of income added full- and part- (2013) (2013) time jobs) 

Alternative A 

Direct effects 1 $54,800 $70,000 

Secondary 

effects less than 1 $13,800 $22,400 

Total effect 2 $68,600 $92,400 

Alternative B 

Direct effects 2 $83,300 $106,400 

Secondary 

effects less than 1 $20,900 $34,100 

Total effect 2 $104,200 $140,500 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 18. Annual impacts of purchases of goods and 

services. 

Employment Labor Value (number of income added full- and part- (2013) (2013) time jobs) 

Alternative C 

Direct effects 2 $88,300 $112,700 

Secondary 

effects less than 1 $22,200 $36,100 

Total effect 2 $110,500 $148,800 

Alternative D 

Direct effects 2 $88,300 $112,700 

Secondary 

effects less than 1 $22,200 $36,100 

Total effect 2 $110,500 $148,800 

192 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Effects of Visitor Expenditures 

Spending associated with recreational visits to 

national wildlife refuges generates significant economic activity. The Service report, Banking on 

Nature: The Economic Benefits of National Wildlife 

Refuge Visitation to Local Communities, estimated 

the impact of national wildlife refuges on their local 

economies (Carver and Caudill, 2013). According to 

the report, more than 46.5 million people visited the 

national wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2011, which 

generated $2.4 billion of sales in regional economies. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by national wildlife refuge visitors generated over 35,000 jobs and $792.7 million in employment income (Carver and Caudill, 2013). Additionally, 

spending on refuge recreation generated approximately $342.9 million in tax revenue at the local, 

county, state and federal levels (Carver and Caudill, 

2013). 

This section focuses on the local economic impacts 

associated with National Elk Refuge visitation. The 

refuge offers a wide variety of recreation opportunities including wildlife observation and photography, 

interpretation, environmental education, fishing and 

big game hunting. Currently, the refuge does not 

allow waterfowl or upland game hunting. In the winter, the refuge offers its guests horse-drawn sleigh 

rides to view the wildlife living on the refuge. Additionally, visitors can participate in the refuge’s winter wildlife excursions; a refuge staff naturalist will 

take participants on a guided tour to view elk, bighorn sheep and waterfowl. 

Annual visitation estimates for the refuge are 

based on several refuge statistic sources including 

visitors entering the refuge and general observation 

by refuge personnel. Annual visitation estimates are 

on a per-visit basis. Table 19 summarizes estimated 

visitation by type of visitor activity for alternatives 

A, B, C, and D. 

Table 19. Estimated annual refuge visitation activity 

by alternative. 

Average Number Total Number hours of non- number of non- spent local of local on visitor visits visits refuge days* 

Alternative A 

Fishing 3,800 1,140 4 570 

Big game 

hunting 2,500 1,875 8 1,875 

Waterfowl 

and migra

tory bird 

hunting 

0 0 0 0 

Upland 

game hunt

ing 

0 0 0 0 

Noncon

sumptive 

uses 

111,300 55,650 2 13,913 

Total visi

tation 117,600 58,665 — 16,358 

Alternative B 

Fishing 3,990 1,197 4 599 

Big game 

hunting 2,750 2,063 8 2,063 

Waterfowl 

and migra

tory bird 

hunting 

0 0 0 0 

Upland 

game hunt

ing 

0 0 0 0 

Noncon

sumptive 

uses 

122,430 61,215 2 15,304 

Total visi

tation 129,170 64,475 — 17,965 

Alternative C 

Fishing 3,990 1,197 4 599 

Big game 

hunting 2,625 1,969 8 1,969 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 19. Estimated annual refuge visitation activity 

by alternative. 

Average Number Total Number hours of non- number of non- spent local of local on visitor visits visits refuge days* 

Waterfowl 

and migra

tory bird 

hunting 

0 0 0 0 

Upland 

game hunt

ing 

0 0 0 0 

Noncon

sumptive 

uses 

127,995 63,998 2 15,999 

Total visi

tation 134,610 67,163 — 18,567 

Alternative D 

Fishing 3,990 1,197 4 599 

Big game 

hunting 2,750 2,063 8 2,063 

Waterfowl 

and migra

tory bird 

hunting 

0 0 0 0 

Upland 

game hunt

ing 

0 0 0 0 

Noncon

sumptive 

uses 

133,560 66,780 2 16,695 

Total visi

tation 140,300 70,040 — 19,356 

* One visitor day equals eight hours. 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 193 

Conducting a forage survey on the refuge. 

S Wn / Fosrevi IroL

The information in Table 19 does not capture the 

estimated annual number of visitors using the visitor 

center. The interagency visitor center is a complex 

issue for which socioeconomic effects are difficult to 

quantify. 

To estimate visitor expenditures, we use average 

daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on 

Nature report (Carver and Caudill, 2007) that were 

derived from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (FWS, 

2008). The National Survey reports trip-related 

spending of State residents and nonresidents for 

wildlife-associated recreational activities. For each 

recreation activity, spending is reported in the categories of lodging, food and drink, transportation, and 

other expenses. Carver and Caudill (2007) calculated 

the average per-person, per-visitor day expenditures 

by recreation activity for each Service region. The 

spending profiles for nonresidents for Region 6 were 

used here, and the 2006 spending profiles were 

updated to 2013 dollars using the Consumer Price 

Index Inflation Calculator. Average daily spending 

profiles for nonresident visitors to Region 6 for fishing ($129.94 per-day) and big game hunting ($220.84 

per-day) were used to estimate nonlocal visitor 

spending for refuge fishing- and hunting-related 

activities. The average daily nonresident spending 

profile for nonconsumptive wildlife recreation 

(observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife) was used for nonconsumptive wildlife viewing 

activities ($162.93 per-day). 

Visitor spending profiles are estimated on an 

average per day (eight hours) basis. Because some 

visitors only spend short amounts of time visiting a 

refuge, counting each refuge visit as a full visitor day 

would overestimate the economic impact of refuge 

visitation. In order to properly account for the 

amount of spending, the annual number of nonlocal 

refuge visits were converted to visitor days. Refuge 

personnel estimate that nonlocal anglers spend 

approximately four hours (half a visitor day) on the 

refuge, while nonlocal big game hunters typically 

spend a full day, or eight hours. Nonlocal visitors who 

view wildlife on nature trails or participate in other 

wildlife observation activities typically spend two 

hours (one quarter of a visitor day). Table 16 shows 

the number of nonlocal visitor days by recreation 

activity for each alternative. Total spending by nonlocal refuge visitors was determined by multiplying 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
194 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

the average nonlocal visitor daily spending by the 

number of nonlocal visitor days at the refuge. 

Table 20 summarizes the total economic impacts 

associated with current nonlocal visitation by alternative. Under alternative A, nonlocal refuge visitors 

would spend nearly $2,755,000 in the local economy 

annually. This spending would directly account for an 

estimated 19 jobs, $801,600 in labor income, and 

$1,148,800 in value added in the local economy. The 

secondary, or multiplier, effects would generate an 

additional 5 jobs, $262,600 in labor income, and 

$429,100 in value added. Accounting for both the 

direct and secondary effects, spending by nonlocal 

visitors for alternative A would generate total economic impacts of 24 jobs, $1,064,200 in labor income, 

and $1,577,900 in value added. 

As shown in table 19, refuge nonlocal visitation for 

all activities is anticipated to increase by 1,607 visitor 

days under alternative B as compared to alternative 

A. Under alternative B, nonlocal visitors would spend 

approximately $3,026,800 in the local area annually. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative B would 

generate an estimated total annual economic impact 

of 27 jobs, $1,169,300 in labor income, and $1,733,600 

in value added (table 20). 

Refuge, nonlocal visitation across all activities is 

anticipated to increase by 2,209 visitor days under 

alternative C as compared to alternative A (Table 

19). Under alternative C, nonlocal refuge visitors 

would spend approximately $3,119,400 in the local 

area annually. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, spending by nonlocal visitors for 

alternative C would generate an estimated total economic impact of 28 jobs, $1,207,500 in labor income, 

and $1,790,000 in value added (Table 20). 

Finally, under alternative D, refuge visitation is 

expected to increase by 2,998 visitor days as compared to alternative A. It is estimated that this 

would result in the annual spending of approximately 

$3,253,400 in the local area. This spending by nonlocal visitors would result in a total annual economic 

impact of 29 jobs, $1,259,500 in labor income and 

$1,866,900 in value added (Table 20). 

Table 20. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor 

spending by alternative. 

Employment Labor (number of income full- and part­ (2013) time jobs) 

Value 

added 

(2013) 

Alternative A 

Direct 

effects 19 $801,600 $1,148,800 

Secondary 

effects 5 $262,600 $429,100 

Total effect 24 $1,064,200 $1,577,900 

Alternative B 

Direct 

effects 21 $880,700 $1,262,200 

Secondary 

effects 6 $288,600 $471,400 

Total effect 27 $1,169,300 $1,733,600 

Alternative C 

Direct 

effects 22 $909,100 $1,302,600 

Secondary 

effects 6 $298,400 $487,400 

Total effect 28 $1,207,500 $1,790,000 

Alternative D 

Direct 

effects 23 $948,200 $1,358,500 

Secondary 

effects 6 $311,300 $508,400 

Total effect 29 $1,259,500 $1,866,900 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone 

Visitor Center 

In addition to the National Elk Refuge, the refuge 

also staffs and maintains the visitor center, located 

just outside the town of Jackson, Wyoming, within 

Teton County, Wyoming. It serves as a contact for six 

governmental, non-profit and private agencies, 

including Grand Teton National Park, Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the 

National Elk Refuge, and the Grand Teton Natural 

History Association. In 2012, an estimated 306,048 

visitors came through the visitor center. Visitors can 

access information or make purchases related to trip 

planning, hunting and fishing licenses, annual park 

passes, off-road vehicle and snowmobile permits, 

firewood and Christmas tree permits, trail maps, 

bear canister rental and fires as well as view wildlife 

exhibits and tour the wildlife observation deck. 

Economic impacts are generated through the 

spending of money within a local community, and 

while the information provided to visitors by the refuge staff at the visitor center has an associated economic value, specific economic impacts directly 

related to visitor center visitation is difficult, in part 

due to the interagency nature of the facility. Economic impacts may be generated by the visitor center 

if individuals are inspired by their visitor center 

experience to spend additional time and money in the 

area, thus generating additional nonlocal spending. A 

2010 statewide survey of Wyoming visitor centers 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 195 

conducted by Randall Travel Marketing indicated 

that after stopping at a visitor center and receiving 

information, a portion of visitors stayed in Wyoming 

at least one more day (Randal Travel Marketing 

2010). This additional day spent within Wyoming by 

visitor center guests demonstrates that not only do 

visitor centers have an important educational component, but these centers can also help generate economic activity through increased visitor spending. 

Given that it is unknown where visitors may spend 

an additional day and in what activities they may 

participate, the economic impacts of visitation to the 

visitor center cannot be quantified. While directly 

quantifying the economic impacts of the visitor center is difficult, the importance of the center itself, as 

well as the value of the service and information provided to visitors by refuge staff, should not be overlooked or discounted. 

Spending in the visitor center through the nonprofit cooperating association (Grand Teton Association) was not included in the study. In 2013, the 

Grand Teton Association generated over $700,000 in 

sales at the visitor center. 

Snow Goose 

Ann Hough / FWS 

Summary of Economic Effects 

Under alternative A, refuge management and 

visitation activities annually generate an estimated 

31 jobs, $1,356,100 in labor income, and $2,032,500 in 

value added in the local economy. Given slight 

increases in refuge administration and an increase of 

over 1,600 in visitor days, alternative B would generate 4 additional jobs, $207,200 more in labor income, 

and $328,200 more in value added, as compared to 

alternative A. Under alternative C, refuge public use 

and administration activities would also increase. 

Alternative C would generate 5 additional jobs, 

$262,900 more in labor income, and $413,800 more in 

value added as compared to alternative A. Under 

alternative D, the refuge anticipates the greatest 

increase in visitation, an increase of nearly 3,000 visitor days. Alternative D would generate an additional 

6 jobs, $314,900 in labor income, and $490,700 in value 

added compared to alternative A. These impacts do 

not include the additional economic activity generated by the visitor center, though its management 

and maintenance by the refuge is essential. Total 

economic impacts associated with refuge operations 

across all alternatives represent slightly more than 

one tenth of one percent of total income and total 

employment in the overall two-county local economy. 

Total economic effects of refuge operations play a 

much larger role in nearby communities where most 

of the refuge-related expenditures and public userelated economic activity occurs. 

 

Chapter 6—Implementation of the 

Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 

Teton Mountain Range 

Ann Hough / FWS 

This chapter contains the specific objectives and 

strategies that would be used to carry out our proposed action (alternative D), which reflects the draft 

CCP for the National Elk Refuge. We are recommending this as the alternative that could best 

achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals while 

helping to fulfill the Refuge System mission. The 

stepdown management plans listed in section 6.11 

near the end of the chapter would provide implementation details for specific refuge programs. In addition, appendix F contains the draft compatibility 

determinations (required) for public and management uses associated with the draft CCP. 

If the Regional Director selected alternative D as 

the preferred alternative, the objectives and strategies presented in this chapter would become the final 

plan to be carried out over the next 15 years. The 

CCP would serve as the primary management document for the refuge until it is formally revised. We 

would carry out the final CCP with help from partner 

agencies, organizations, and the public. 

As stated in the Improvement Act, the primary 

mission of our Refuge System is wildlife conservation. Multiple policies and guidance documents have 

been developed to accomplish this mission, including 

the policy on biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and the 2011 “Conserving the 

Future” document developed in collaboration with 

our stakeholders and the public. The biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health policy provides directives for maintaining and restoring the 

biological integrity, diversity, and health of the Refuge System, whereas “Conserving the Future” 

articulates the desired roles for refuges and provides 

recommendations for the next decade and beyond 

(FWS 2011). This document states, “At the root of 
n Range, adjacent 

kson, the National 

 game wintering 

tone Ecosystem. 

etland, woodland, 

198 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

these challenges [that the Refuge System must 

address] is the increasing consumption of natural 

resources, which has caused loss, degradation and 

fragmentation of habitat around the world. Habitat 

loss is largely responsible for the current extinction 

event, in which the Earth may lose half of its species 

in the next 100 years.” 

This chapter describes the management focus of 

this draft plan (alternative D, the proposed action), 

followed by the objectives and strategies to achieve 

the refuge goals. The last sections of the chapter 

describe the staff needed to carry out the plan (sec

tion 6.10), stepdown management plans (section 6.11), 

monitoring and evaluation (section 6.12), and plan 

amendment and revision (section 6.13). 

­

6.1 Management Focus 

Our focus and planning approach for the National 

Elk Refuge is consistent with the visions and princi

ples promoted in the Improvement Act; the policy on 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health; and “Conserving the Future.” This includes 

conserving native communities and species of con

cern and developing “quantifiable objectives” that 

“integrate the conservation needs of the larger land

scape (including the communities they support).” 

­

­

­

Vision for the National Elk Refuge 

Nestled below the majestic Teto

to the historic gateway town of Jac

Elk Refuge provides crucial big

habitat in the Greater Yellows

Across the refuge’s grassland, w

and sagebrush shrubland communities, visitors view 

wintering elk and other wildlife populations that are 

balanced with their habitats. The public enjoys quality hunting and fishing as well as year-round interpretative opportunities. Effective outreach and 

strong public and private partnerships ensure understanding and protection of refuge resources for 

future generations. 

Promote Natural Habitats and Enhance 

Public Use 

The vision, proposed action alternative, and goals 

for the National Elk Refuge collectively focus objectives and associated management strategies on 

achieving sustainable, diverse, native communities 

that would conserve native species of concern at landscape and local scales. Achieving this vision represents the greatest contribution we at the refuge can 

make in addressing current and future threats to 

natural resources in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys

tem. Threats include, but are not limited to, increas

ing habitat fragmentation and decreasing landscape 

connectivity, adverse effects on water quantity and 

quality, and cumulative risks associated with a 

changing climate and energy production. To alleviate 

these risks and to meet the purposes of the refuge 

require us to consider multiple perspectives: 

■■ Refuge System policies and guidance 

■■	 the current understanding of native commu

nity ecology 

■■	 increasing human demands on natural 


resources
 

■■ continued landscape change 

■■	 our need to collaborate with the public and 

our partners on projects that extend beyond 

refuge boundaries 

­

­

­

6.2 Overview of Goals and 

Objectives 

Under each goal in this section, we describe the 

objectives and strategies that would serve as the 

steps needed to achieve the refuge vision. While a 

goal is a broad statement, an objective is a concise 

statement that indicates what is to be achieved, the 

extent of the achievement, who is responsible, and 

when and where the objective should be achieved— 

all to address the goal. The strategies are the actions 

needed to achieve each objective. Unless otherwise 

stated, the refuge staff would carry out the actions in 

the objectives and strategies. The rationale for each 

objective provides context such as background infor

mation, assumptions, and technical details. The plan 

has objectives for the following: 

6.3 Climate Change 

6.4 Landscape-Scale Conservation 

6.5 Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

6.6 Cultural Resources Goal 

6.7 Visitor Services Goal 

6.8 Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource

 Protection Goal 

6.9 Administration Goal 

­
 

Chapter 6—I

6.3 Climate Change 

The following objectives deal with our involve

ment in the landscape-scale and local aspects of cli

nati

cha

■■	 Col

hab

on s

mplementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 199 

­

­

mate change. 

Climate Change Objective 1 

For the life of the plan, continue involvement with 

partner organizations, especially land management 

agencies in the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee, to stay apprised of the developing science 

of climate change and the resulting information that 

can have Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem–wide 

application. 

Strategies 

■■	 Take part in climate change conferences, 

webinars, and seminars. 

■■	 Engage in the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee’s climate change planning efforts. 

Rationale 

The refuge’s limited staff would make it difficult 

for the refuge to remain current with the ever-growing knowledge of climate change and to conduct land 

management planning that reflects the latest science. 

The refuge could leverage our limited biological staff 

by staying involved with and relying on other Federal land management units in the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee with large staffs to 

develop climate change expertise and coordinate 

ecosystem-wide planning efforts. 

Climate Change Objective 2 

For the life of the plan, participate in the climate 

change assessments and long-term monitoring 

efforts initiated by the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. 

Strategies 

■■	 Conduct vulnerability assessments on the 

refuge that correspond and complement 

efforts of the Greater Yellowstone Coording Committee in predicting climate 

nge effects. 

lect long-term monitoring data for key 

itats and wildlife populations, focusing 

urrogate species when possible. (Note: 

Surrogate species is a recently adopted but 

yet to be implemented planning approach 

for the Refuge System. Surrogate species 

represent the needs of a wide array of wildlife species, and these needs will be used for 

conservation planning that supports multiple species and habitats within a defined 

landscape or geographic area.) 

Rationale 

Cooperation and coordination with surrounding 

Federal land management agencies through the 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee would 

enable us to collect long-term monitoring information 

that complements and adds value to ecosystem-wide 

efforts. Participation in climate change assessments 

conducted by other land management agencies on the 

committee would give the refuge the analysis expertise to address refuge-specific concerns. 

Climate Change Objective 3 

For the life of the plan, carry out mitigation 

actions identified in the Greater Yellowstone Area 

climate action plan (Fiebig 2011) to reduce the refuge’s carbon footprint. 

Strategies 

■■	 Continue to improve the energy efficiency of 

buildings and the vehicle fleet. 

■■	 Use a gravity-flow irrigation system to 

reduce the energy-related costs of pumping. 

Rationale 

The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee completed a comprehensive assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding mitigation 

plans for each Federal land management unit in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Following the specific mitigation recommendations for the refuge 

would reduce our carbon footprint. Reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions would support the goals of 

our agency’s “Strategic Plan for Responding to 

Accelerating Climate Change, 2009” (FWS 2010). 
200 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

6.4 Landscape-Scale 

Conservation 

The following objectives describe our responsibili

ties for involvement in landscape-scale conservation. 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Objective 2 

Within 5 years, determine the feasibility of a Ser

vice conservation easement program, and if appropri

ate, pursue authority for conservation easements in 

Teton County. 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Objective 1 

For the life of the plan, participate in the Greater 

Yellowstone Coordinating Committee to support 

landscape-scale conservation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Strategies 

■■	 Participate on the board and committees of 

the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee. 

■■	 Contribute money as available toward priority projects that provide ecosystem-wide 

benefits. 

■■	 Share information and resources such as 


equipment and staff.
 

Rationale 

Working with others would improve our ability to 

coordinate management of Federal lands at a landscape scale. 

Strategies 

■■	 Inventory and identify tracts of high biological value that support the refuge vision. 

■■ Develop a preliminary project proposal. 

■■ Develop a land protection plan. 

Rationale 

Off-refuge resources and activities affect our ability to achieve refuge goals. Wildlife often travel 

across administrative boundaries to meet their seasonal life cycle needs. Protection of off-refuge 

resources would help meet these seasonal wildlife 

needs. 

Spotted Sandpiper 

Ann Hough / FWS 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Objective 3 

For the life of the plan, work with partners to use 

non-Service (private, nongovernmental organization, 

or other agency) easements to support refuge-specific 

conservation goals in the CCP and Bison and Elk 

Management Plan. 

­

­ ­
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 201 

Strategies 

■■	 Set up a program with the Jackson Hole 

Land Trust and others to establish conservation easements with refuge-specific conservation goals. 

■■	 Consider partnership opportunities to build 

wildlife crossings for Highway 89. 

Rationale 

Off-refuge resources and activities affect our ability to achieve refuge goals. Wildlife often travel 

across administrative boundaries to meet their seasonal life cycle needs. Protection of off-refuge 

resources would help meet these seasonal wildlife 

needs. Use of privately funded wildlife and habitat 

protection easements might be more desirable to 

some landowners than Government-funded easements. Furthermore, private money might be available to finance easement programs when 

Government money was unavailable. Wildlife crossings could reduce collisions between vehicles and 

animals. 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Objective 4 

Within 10 years, evaluate potential land 

exchanges with adjacent landowners (agencies and 

private landowners) to change the refuge boundary 

to improve the effectiveness of refuge programs. 

Strategies 

■■	 Discuss potential land exchanges with adjacent landowners. 

■■	 Prioritize tracts for different refuge goals 

such as bison, elk, swan, bald eagle, or 

greater sage-grouse. 

Rationale 

Identifying and obtaining tracts of land that could 

improve wildlife benefits under our management 

would support refuge purposes. Some areas like the 

northeastern part of the refuge might better fit with 

other agency missions and provide benefits to the 

public (lands are managed by agencies according to 

different missions and policies). 

Landscape-Scale Conservation 

Objective 5 

Within 10 years, evaluate the effects of the potential sale of Wyoming State trust lands and Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commision-owned lands near the 

refuge and consider protection options. 

Strategy 

■■	 Work with local community to share information and effects. 

Rationale 

The potential sale of State of Wyoming lands next 

to or near the refuge to private landowners might 

have serious consequences to the management of the 

National Elk Refuge. Before lands are under consid

eration for sale, the refuge needs to determine and 

address the possible effects of access, rights-of-way, 

and human disturbance to elk and bison herds during 

sensitive winter and spring seasons. 

­

6.5 Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

Adaptively manage bison, elk, and other wildlife 

populations and habitats as outlined in the Bison and 

Elk Management Plan. Contribute to the conserva

tion of healthy native wildlife populations and their 

habitats. Restore and sustain a native fishery that 

provides quality fishing opportunities. 

­

Native Grasslands Objective 

Within 10 years, manage 500–1,000 acres of native 

grassland habitat on northern end of the refuge to 

increase elk and bison use of these areas. 

Strategies 

■■	 Use wildland fire to help accomplish the 


objective and reduce hazardous fuel.
 

■■ Control invasive plant species. 

■■ Seed sites with desired plant species. 
202 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Rationale 

The Bison and Elk Management Plan calls for 

reduced reliance on supplemental feeding. Encouraging elk and bison use of grassland habitats on the 

northern end of the refuge would reduce forage use 

and conserve forage on the southern end of the refuge, reducing the need for supplemental feeding. 

Sagebrush Shrublands Objective 1 

Within 5 years, define existing structural characteristics of sagebrush shrubland communities on the 

refuge, and protect existing sagebrush shrubland 

communities from disturbance or degradation. 

Strategies 

■■	 Cooperate with other agencies to obtain 

imaging for the refuge using the light detection and ranging (LIDAR) technology. 

■■	 Until the sagebrush shrubland habitat is 


defined, fully suppress wildfires in this 


habitat.
 

■■	 Conduct prescribed burns only after the 

current characteristics of sagebrush shrublands are defined. 

■■ Limit off-road vehicle use. 

■■	 Do not expand feedgrounds into sagebrush 

shrubland communities on the northern end 

of the refuge. 

Rationale 

Mapping of plant community types conducted 

between 2007 and 2009 identified 8,990 acres of 

sagebrush-associated plant communities on the refuge, but height and density of sagebrush within these 

areas has not been quantified at a fine scale. These 

communities on the refuge provide important habitat 

for the Jackson Hole greater sage-grouse population, 

and identifying and, when appropriate, protecting 

greater sage-grouse habitat is the highest priority 

for sagebrush-associated plant communities. 

Sagebrush Shrublands Objective 2 

Within 10 years, manage an estimated 1,000– 

3,000 acres of sagebrush shrubland communities to 

promote desired habitat conditions of sagebrush at 

least 11 inches tall with more than 15-percent canopy 

cover to assure no net loss of these sagebrush areas. 

Strategies 

■■	 Manage sagebrush shrublands to prevent 

degradation, maintain native structural and 

compositional characteristics, and allow 

degraded areas to recover, especially areas 

used by greater sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-dependent species. 

■■	 Use wildland fire to help accomplish the 


objective and reduce hazardous fuel.
 

■■ Minimize off-road vehicle use. 

■■ Limit elk feeding to current areas. 

■■	 Conduct habitat treatments in greater sagegrouse core areas in accordance with Wyoming Executive Order 2011–5. 

Rationale 

Holloran and Anderson (2004) suggested greater 

sage-grouse wintering habitat was the principal limiting factor on the Jackson Hole greater sage-grouse 

population and recommended protecting mature 

sagebrush stands from disturbance. The Upper 

Snake River Basin Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan 

(WGFD 2008) recommended maintaining and protecting tall sagebrush (11- to 31-inch-high stands 

with more than 15-percent canopy cover) as forage 

sites for wintering greater sage-grouse. Because the 

refuge needs a detailed inventory of the sagebrush 

shrubland plant community structure, 1,000–3,000 

acres is an imprecise estimate of the acreage that we 

would need to manage or provide special protection 

to meet management objectives. A more exact acreage will be determined through Sagebrush Shrublands Objective 1. 

Wetlands Objective 1 

Within 5 years, replace water control structures 

for the three existing Romney Ponds and Bill’s 

Bayou, and over the life of the plan construct two new 

ponds in the Romney Pond complex. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 203 

Strategies 

■■	 Develop funding partnerships with WGFD 

and nonprofit organizations. 

■■	 Evaluate the current and replacement 


water control structures for fish passage 


and screening.
 

■■	 Replace existing water control structures 

with inline water control structures with 

beaver-proof screens. 

■■	 Construct two new ponds to the north of the 

existing Romney Ponds and use inline water 

control structures and beaver-proof screens. 

Rationale 

The ability to manipulate water levels is necessary to meet habitat management objectives for 

trumpeter swans, but water control structures in the 

Romney Pond complex and Bill’s Bayou are near the 

end of their operational life and vulnerable to beaver 

damage. The Gros Ventre River channel is shifting to 

the south and eroding the Pierre’s Pond dikes; maintaining these ponds is no longer practical. Unlike the 

Pierre’s Pond complex, the Romney Pond complex is 

not vulnerable to river damage. Construction of two 

new ponds in the Romney Pond complex would 

replace the swan habitat lost when Pierre’s Ponds 

fail. 

Wetlands Objective 2 

Within 10 years, maintain 30–50 percent pondweed cover and 10–20 percent emergent vegetation 

in artificial ponds that have water management 

capability. 

Strategies 

■■	 Gradually reduce water levels in spring and 

maintain low water levels until the following 

spring on a 4- to 7-year rotating schedule for 

each pond to increase pondweed cover. 

■■	 Use wildland fire to help accomplish the 


objective and reduce hazardous fuel.
 

Rationale 

Water management would develop nesting and 

brood-rearing habitat for trumpeter swans. Squires 

and Anderson (1995) suggested that pondweed 

tubers ranked among the highest in nutritional quality for trumpeter swans, and water level manipulations have been shown to promote sago pondweed 

(Kantrud 1990). Some emergent vegetation is preferred for swan breeding sites (Lockman et al. 1987). 

Wetlands Objective 3 

Within 5 years, inventory and map invasive plant 

species in the Flat Creek wetland complex, and for 

the life of the plan limit cover of listed noxious weeds 

to less than 1 percent of the Flat Creek wetland 

complex. 

Strategies 

■■	 Use high-resolution photography at peak 

flowering periods to search for large infestations of perennial pepperweed and purple 

loosestrife in inaccessible locations. 

■■	 Inventory invasive plant species in the Flat 

Creek wetland complex using watercraft. 

■■	 Pull, bag, and remove invasive plants if 


found.
 

■■	 Use appropriately labeled herbicide where 

applicable. 

Rationale 

Early detection of invasive plants is critical to the 

effective control of infestations (Dewey and Andersen 

2004). 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands Objective 1 

Within 5 years, identify and map sites within the 

lower Flat Creek riparian zone with the highest 

potential for willow restoration. Over life of the plan, 

restore 200 acres of willow communities in the lower 

Flat Creek riparian zone to class 1 or class 2 conditions (refer to page 49 of the Bison and Elk Management Plan for definitions). 
204 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Strategies 

■■	 Map areas with existing willow along fishbearing stream channels in Flat Creek. 

■■	 Install exclosures around high-priority 


mapped areas.
 

■■	 Remove fences to exclude elk and bison 

around mapped areas after recovery. Rotate 

fences to restore new areas. 

Rationale 

Willow restoration would support fish habitat and 

habitat for birds. The Bison and Elk Management 

Plan indicates that 800 acres of willow habitat will be 

restored to class 1 or class 2 condition using 500- to 

1,000-acre exclosures, but the refuge has not begun 

any significant efforts to achieve this objective to 

date. Results from experimental exclosures (Smith et 

al. 2004, refuge unpublished data) suggest that, even 

with the complete exclusion of elk and bison, it will 

take at least 10 years for class 4 willow communities 

to recover to class 1 condition. Given these limitations, we need to limit restoration to areas with the 

greatest potential for restoration (existing class 4 

willow patches along fish-bearing stream channels). 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands Objective 2 

Over the life of the plan, restore 100 acres of the 

riparian, narrowleaf cottonwood community to class 

1 or class 2 condition in the upper Flat Creek riparian 

zone (refer to page 49 of the Bison and Elk Management Plan for definitions). 

Strategies 

■■	 Use separate exclosures to allow movement 

of elk and bison between the McBride and 

Chambers management units. 

■■	 Consider using prescribed fire to stimulate 

regeneration in areas where exclosures are 

in place. 

■■	 Install exclosures around high-priority 


mapped areas.
 

■■	 Remove fences used to exclude elk and bison 

after vegetation recovery. 

Rationale 

Elk and bison browsing has modified the cottonwood plant community in the upper Flat Creek riparian zone to class 3 and class 4 conditions (Smith et al. 

2004). Even if elk and bison population objectives 

were met, the refuge would need to completely 

exclude elk and bison from these areas to recover to 

class 1 or class 2 condition. 

Riparian Woodlands and Aspen 

Woodlands Objective 3 

Within 10 years, inventory the class condition 

(refer to page 49 of the Bison and Elk Management 

Plan for definitions) of willow, cottonwood, and aspen 

stands in the Gros Ventre River riparian area and 

Gros Ventre Hills. For the life of the plan, maintain 

the existing acreage of class 1 and class 2 condition 

willows, cottonwood, and aspen. 

Strategies 

■■	 Inventory existing structural characteristics using remote sensing (LIDAR) combined with field ground-truthing. 

■■	 Limit elk and bison browsing pressure in 

class 1 and class 2 willow, cottonwood, and 

aspen by limiting prescribed burning next 

to these stands, maintaining high hunting 

pressure on the northern end of the refuge, 

hazing elk and bison off the refuge during 

summer, using exclosure fences, and encouraging wolf activity on the northern end of 

the refuge. 

■■	 Consider using prescribed fire to stimulate 

regeneration in areas where exclosures are 

in place. 

Rationale 

The refuge would need a comprehensive class condition inventory to figure out where and when restoration efforts should occur. Objectives in the Bison 

and Elk Management Plan call for restoration of 800 

acres of willow, 1,000 acres of cottonwood, and 1,000 

acres of aspen to class 1 or class 2 condition, with the 

greatest opportunity for cottonwood and aspen restoration on the northern end of the refuge. Although 

the analysis for the Bison and Elk Management Plan 

predicted that large-scale exclosures would be neces­
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 205 

sary to restore aspen in the Gros Ventre Hills, new 

data for this area suggests limited recovery of aspen 

has occurred without exclosures since 2005 (Keigley 

et al. 2009). 

Scarlet Paintbrush 

S Wh / Fguon HnA

Flat Creek Enhancement Objective 1 

From 2014 to 2016, carry out the cooperative Flat 

Creek enhancement project by treating approximately 1.2 miles of Flat Creek each year. 

Strategies 

■■	 Assess existing structures, tree revetments 

(streambank support), and other treatments 

for functionality and habitat values. 

■■	 Remove, rehabilitate, or replace previously 

installed treatments with more suitable 

treatments, including removal of deteriorating instream structures, riprap, and an old, 

broken walkway. 

■■	 Specify appropriate stream habitat structures based on lessons learned from failed 

structures. 

■■	 Enhance riffle and pool habitats to increase 

spawning, rearing, and juvenile habitats for 

native Snake River cutthroat trout. 

■■ Modify meanders. 

■■	 Stabilize severe streambank erosion where 

it jeopardizes project success. 

■■	 Provide for continued irrigation and diversion activities such that habitat enhancement and channel restoration activities are 

not jeopardized. 

■■	 Map, remove, treat, and control infestations 

of reed canarygrass along both sides of Flat 

Creek. 

■■ Install woody and sod vegetation. 

■■	 Schedule construction during September to 

November to avoid cutthroat trout spawning, Flat Creek opening to anglers, elk and 

bison hunting and feeding periods, and the 

winter range restriction period. 

■■	 Continue to cooperate with WGFD and 

allow ample access to the refuge for fisheries management activities. 

Rationale 

Instream treatments along with riparian area 

restoration are necessary to restore stream form and 

function to Flat Creek, which would provide 

increased hydrologic stability as well as more habitat 

for all stages of the native Snake River cutthroat 

trout. WGFD, as the lead for the Flat Creek enhancement project, and the refuge have support for this 

project from several partners: Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation, Teton County Conservation District 

Board, and Trout Unlimited. 

Flat Creek Enhancement Objective 2 

In 2015, after the initial enhancement work in 

Flat Creek (objective 1) is done, monitor the treatments for effectiveness and to make any needed 

adjustments. 
206 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Strategies 

■■	 Assess the stability and functionality of 


structures.
 

■■	 Assess the bioengineering treatment (live 

material used in engineered treatments ) 

establishment, such as willows used in bank 

stabilization. 

■■	 Assess the disturbed area reclamation and 

revegetation. 

■■	 Assess the achievement of overall project 

goals (described in chapter 3, “3.8 Alternative D” under “Flat Creek Enhancement” in 

the habitat section). 

Rationale 

Based on the results of monitoring, we can apply 

adaptive management strategies to adjust the treatments, as needed, to increase the ecological benefits 

and better achieve the goals and objectives for the 

Flat Creek enhancement project. Monitoring can provide case study information, educational materials, 

and learning opportunities that we can use to make 

sure that future projects are carried out as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

Flat Creek Enhancement Objective 3 

Within 10 years, fully restore at least 1 mile of 

lower Flat Creek to improve fish habitat, support 

productive native trout populations, and promote 

natural and stable river morphology characteristics. 

Strategies 

■■	 Support and carry out the Flat Creek 

enhancement project as described in objectives 1 and 2. 

■■	 Continue to cooperate with WGFD and 

allow ample access to the refuge for fisheries management activities. 

Rationale 

Part of the habitat and wildlife goal is to restore 

and sustain a native fishery that supports quality 

fishing opportunities. Restoration of this portion of 

Flat Creek to promote natural and stable river morphology characteristics will enhance cutthroat trout 

habitat, potentially increase cutthroat trout populations, and provide quality fishing opportunities for 

native trout. 

Invasive Species Objective 1 

Throughout the life of the plan, treat more acreage as needed to ensure that the total of all noxious 

weed and other invasive plant infestations does not 

exceed the current 1,100 acres. 

Strategies 

■■	 Control invasive plants using integrated 

pest management including biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical methods. 

■■	 Prevent new infestations of invasive plants 

including noxious weeds, nonnative grasses, 

and aquatic invasive species by preventing 

the artificial transportation of seeds and 

materials onto the refuge through efforts 

like public education, weed-free-hay rules, 

and the cleaning of all excavation and 

angling equipment before entering the 

refuge. 

■■	 Increase monitoring and rapid response for 

new infestations including invasive species 

of aquatic plants and animals. 

■■	 Identify and consider removing invasive 

plants that are not considered noxious 

weeds, but are nonnative plant species such 

as crested wheatgrass, reed canarygrass, 

meadow foxtail, yellow sweetclover and 

cheatgrass. 

Rationale 

The National Elk Refuge has 1,100 acres of invasive plants, including noxious weeds, and no known 

occurrence of invasive animals or aquatic invasive 

species at this time. Noxious weed species threatening establishment and of greatest concern are Dalmatian toadflax, perennial pepperweed, and whitetop. 

Other weed species present and of concern include 

yellow toadflax; spotted, diffuse and Russian knapweed; sulfur cinquefoil; Dyer’s woad; oxeye daisy; 

plumeless thistle; black henbane; houndstongue; and 

common burdock. Weed species such as Canada and 

musk thistle are well established and of lower prior­
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 207 

ity but still require control to prevent dense stands 

that negatively affect native vegetation and wildlife 

forage. 

Invasive Species Objective 2 

Over the life of the plan, reduce the existing 420­

acre spotted knapweed infestation along the Gros 

Ventre River corridor by 50 percent. 

Strategies 

■■	 Develop large-scale invasive plant eradication programs (greater than 100 acres of 

infestation) where possible. 

■■	 Identify and develop suitable funding 

sources for monitoring, treatment, restoration, and public information. 

■■	 Use existing partnerships and private 


contractors.
 

■■	 Focus efforts on proven methods with using 

effective herbicides and applicable mixes 

and insects. 

Rationale 

Spotted knapweed is localized, infests 420 acres 

within the National Elk Refuge, and is mostly contained within the Gros Ventre River corridor and 

adjacent lands. The spotted knapweed population on 

the refuge represents a major risk for new infestations in other parts of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Within the refuge boundary, migration of 

spotted knapweed from the river corridor into the 

adjacent uplands would have a significant effect on 

existing greater sage-grouse populations and their 

habitat. Infestations would substantially degrade the 

vital, large ungulate, winter habitat and reduce the 

refuge’s winter population carrying capacity. 

Data from elk radio collars and GPS collars suggest that 90 percent of elk migration routes from the 

refuge transect the Gros Ventre River corridor (Cole 

and Ketchum 2011, Smith and Robbins 1994). There 

is considerable evidence that wild and domestic ungulates facilitate the transport of invasive plant species 

seeds (Schiffmam 1997) and might be responsible for 

colonization of invasive plant species into new areas 

(Boulanger et al. 2011). Seed ingestion and viability 

in feces has been documented in various studies 

(Malo et al. 2000, Olson et al. 1997), and seed transport in the coats of wild and domestic ungulates is 

also substantiated (Constible et al. 2005, De ClerkeFloate 1997). Because elk that winter on the refuge 

migrate as far as Yellowstone Lake, the risk of seed 

transport by elk and colonization of spotted knapweed in uninfested parts of the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem is significant. A major reduction in spotted knapweed density in the Gros Ventre River corridor would reduce the threat of new infestations in 

Grand Teton National Park, Teton Wilderness, and 

the southern part of Yellowstone National Park. 

Migratory Birds Objective 

Within 5 years, institute a monitoring program 

for migratory birds to evaluate the effects of habitat 

management activities on trumpeter swan, longbilled curlew, and other migratory bird species 

potentially affected by refuge habitat management 

activities. 

Strategies 

■■	 Conduct post-treatment migratory bird surveys in K-line experimental areas and compare to 2010 pretreatment data as defined 

by Dieni (2011). 

■■	 Continue monitoring trumpeter swans during nesting season to determine the number 

of breeding pairs, number of active and successful nests, number of cygnets hatched 

per nest, and number of cygnets fledged per 

nest. 

■■	 Continue monitoring long-billed curlews at a 

level sufficient to identify nesting territories 

and to avoid irrigating these areas until 

after birds have fledged. 

■■	 Conduct baseline surveys of breeding birds 

in areas subject to habitat management. 

Rationale 

Trumpeter swans and long-billed curlews are sensitive migratory species potentially affected by refuge management activities. Their small population 

sizes and relatively large breeding territories warrant species-specific monitoring. Large-scale habitat 

modifications are ongoing or planned in irrigated 

grasslands; sagebrush grasslands; and willow, aspen, 

and cottonwood plant communities. Baseline surveys 

of breeding birds in proposed treatment areas would 

allow managers to evaluate the effects treatments on 
208 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

bird communities and adaptively adjust treatments if 

necessary. 

Wolf 

S We / Floc CirE

Aquatic Species Objective 

Within the life of the plan, decrease nonnative 

trout prevalence in Flat Creek by 25 percent. 

Strategies 

■■	 Continue to cooperate with WGFD and 

allow ample access to the refuge for fisheries management activities. 

■■	 Remove all nonnative trout captured during 

fish surveys. 

■■	 Aggressively target brook trout for removal 

from Flat Creek during the fall spawning 

period using electrofishing and trapping 

techniques. 

■■	 Continue angler education efforts about the 

effect of nonnative species on the native 

fishery and encourage angler harvest of 

nonnative trout. 

■■	 Design and install a fish passage screen at 

the Southpark diversion to prevent nonnative trout in the Gros Ventre River from 

entering Flat Creek. 

■■	 Support and carry out habitat restoration of 

Flat Creek as described in the restoration 

plan (Biota 2013a) on file at the refuge. 

Rationale 

Nonnative trout populations can be substantially 

reduced by direct removal, preventing their introduction into irrigation systems, and by improving stream 

habitat conditions that provide a competitive advantage to native trout populations. 

Disease Management Objective 1 

Within 5 years, develop a comprehensive disease 

contingency plan in coordination with WGFD and 

Grand Teton National Park. 

Strategies 

■■	 Identify current and potential wildlife 


diseases.
 

■■	 Develop response plans for disease 


outbreaks.
 

Rationale 

Wildlife populations and associated pathogens do 

not recognize land management boundaries or 

agency jurisdictions. Developing interagency 

response plans to disease outbreaks before occurrence increases the likelihood of mitigating negative 

effects (Mörner et al. 2002). 

Disease Management Objective 2 

Within 5 years, quantify baseline patterns of elk 

group size, distribution, and density for elk on the 

refuge. 

Strategy 

■■	 Use high-resolution, photograph-based mapping to count elk groups on the refuge. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 209 

Rationale 

There is considerable evidence that high animal 

density adds to disease risk (Gross and Miller 2001, 

Maichak et al. 2009), but there is no fine-scale data to 

evaluate current elk density conditions on the refuge. 

Quantifying elk density patterns would facilitate 

modeling to predict the potential effects of disease 

outbreaks and allow the refuge to adaptively manage 

elk density compared to baseline conditions (Gortazar et al. 2006). 

Disease Management Objective 3 

Retest fish for whirling disease in next 5 years. 

Strategy 

■■	 Conduct whirling disease sampling during 

electroshocking operations conducted by 

WGFD. 

Rationale 

During routine monitoring in 2003, sampled sent 

to the WGFD laboratory tested positive for Myxololus cerebralis, the parasite that causes whirling disease. Infection levels were low and no 

population-level declines have been documented. No 

further testing has been done since 2003. 

Federally and State-Listed 

Species Objective 1 

Within 5 years, develop an inventory and monitoring plan for all federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species and State species of 

concern that potentially exist on the refuge. 

Strategies 

■■	 Create a list of potential Federal threatened 

and endangered species and State species of 

concern that exist on the refuge. 

■■	 Document existing and historical records of 

occurrence and survey data for relevant 

species. 

■■	 For species with sufficient available data, 

document the species’ status and trend. 

■■	 For species with insufficient data, develop 

monitoring plans to supply information 

needs. 

■■	 Follow and carry out Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011–5 for the greater sage-grouse. 

Rationale 

Habitat manipulations are proposed in many refuge plant communities, but the status and trend of 

Federal threatened and endangered species and 

State species of concern are unknown. Adequate 

baseline population information for these species 

would make sure that refuge actions could be adaptively managed to prevent negative effects on these 

populations. 

Federally and State-Listed 

Species Objective 2 

Within 1 year, develop a protocol to salvage, 

hatch, and return trumpeter swan cygnets to nests 

threatened by flooding in the Flat Creek Marsh. 

Strategy 

■■	 Cooperate with WGFD and the Wyoming 

Wetland Society to develop and implement 

the swan egg salvage protocol and to install 

floating nest structures near breeding territories most at risk to flooding. 

Rationale 

Past monitoring suggests that water diverted 

from the Gros Ventre River combined with spring 

runoff causes flooding that destroys swan nests in 

the Flat Creek Marsh. Egg salvage and installation 

of floating nest platforms would mitigate this effect 

and improve nest success and cygnet survival. 

Research and Monitoring 

Objective 

Within 5 years, develop a comprehensive inventory and monitoring plan designed to evaluate habi­
210 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

tat management objectives, migratory bird 

populations, Federal threatened and endangered 

species, State species of concern, and Bison and Elk 

Management Plan objectives. 

Strategies 

■■	 Rank information needs and identify areas 

where insufficient information exists. 

■■	 Develop study designs to answer questions 

of interest. 

■■	 Work with cooperating agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and volunteers to 

pay for inventory and monitoring projects 

and help with fieldwork. 

■■	 (Also refer to strategies for species of concern, migratory birds, and disease 

management.) 

Rationale 

The inventory and monitoring plan would help set 

priorities for research and monitoring tasks to make 

sure that critical information is being collected to 

guide management decisions. 

6.6 Cultural Resources Goal 

Preserve and interpret cultural resources in a 

way that allows visitors to connect to the area’s rich 

history and conservation heritage. 

Cultural Resources Objective 

Protect and preserve cultural resources on the 

refuge through coordination with the Region 6 cultural resources branch, which helps refuge staff in 

meeting the requirements of section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and other cultural resources–related legislation. 

Strategies 

■■	 Inform the Region 6 cultural resources staff 

of refuge projects early in planning by using 

the Cultural Resources Review Form. 

■■	 Develop exhibits and signage to enhance 


educational opportunities.
 

■■	 Encourage collaboration with interested 

tribes in developing relevant materials and 

correct interpretation of cultural resources. 

■■	 Identify facility needs for interpretive programs and assessment for any rehabilitation 

work done on the historic Miller Barn. 

Rationale 

It is important to protect the integrity of known 

cultural resources and make sure our activities do 

not affect unknown resources. Accurate information 

would help the refuge develop effective educational 

and interpretive materials for the public that would 

explain and encourage preservation of cultural 

resources. 

6.7 Visitor Services Goal 

Enable a diverse audience to understand and 

appreciate the refuge’s wildlife conservation role in 

Jackson Hole, while safely enjoying year-round 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Visitor services are concentrated on the southern 

end of the refuge where most of the public use occurs 

because of the adjacency to the town of Jackson. Fig

ure 12 shows this area, including several of the pro

posed uses. In addition, figures 13 and 14 reflect 

access and hunt areas during the elk hunting and 

bison hunting seasons, respectively. 

­

­

Hunting Objective 1 

Within 10 years, develop a hunting program for 

young people that provides quality hunting 

opportunities. 

Strategies 

■■	 Cooperate with WGFD to develop hunting 

season proposals. 

■■	 Work with the Boy Scouts of America and 

other outdoor-focused youth groups to identify important traits for a youth hunt. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 211
 

Figure 12. Map of visitor services on the southern end of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
212 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Figure 13. Map of the elk hunting program on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 213
 

Figure 14. Map of the bison hunting program on the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 
214 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Move the existing youth hunt to a time later 

in the hunting season when there are likely 

large elk numbers present on the refuge. 

Rationale 

Recruiting young hunters into the hunting culture 

is critical for continued public support of hunting as 

an accepted wildlife-dependent recreational activity, 

continued use as a wildlife management tool, and as 

the primary funding source for modern wildlife management. Key elements of any hunt for young people 

are preventing competition for game from adult hunters, adult supervision and mentoring, and quality 

opportunities to see and interact with wildlife. 

Hunting Objective 2 

Within 5 years, develop regulations for proper 

storage of bear attractants and for bear-deterrent 

practices on the refuge that address hunters and 

hunting practices. 

Strategies 

■■	 Develop regulations that focus on reducing 

attractants to parking areas and vehicles. 

■■	 Provide guidelines for refuge staff when a 

bear is present on the refuge. 

■■	 Provide educational material and guidelines 

to hunters on bear behavior and what to do 

in the presence of a bear, including carrying 

and using bear spray. 

Rationale 

A significant population of grizzly bear lives at 

Grand Teton National Park and Bridger-Teton 

National Forest. The bears are habituated to hunterkilled elk and bison and gut piles, and these food 

sources are an important part of their fall diet. The 

refuge hunting program produces large quantities of 

both carcass remains and gut piles throughout the 

refuge. Grizzly bears have discovered this food 

source and were present on the refuge after the bison 

hunt began in August 2013. 

Hunting Objective 3 

Within 10 years, develop a hunting opportunity 

for trophy bull elk on the refuge. 

Strategies 

■■	 Work cooperatively with WGFD to develop 

a bull elk license specifically for the refuge. 

■■	 Develop an antler point restriction to make 

sure only mature bulls are harvested. 

■■	 Provide educational and outreach material 

to other refuge users and the public to educate them about the Refuge System’s mandate to provide recreational hunting 

opportunities when they are compatible 

with the purpose of the refuge. 

Rationale 

Congress has identified hunting as a priority 

wildlife-dependent use for the Refuge System. The 

National Elk Refuge uses hunting as an important 

wildlife management tool. Other opportunities such 

as a limited-quota bull hunt could be made available 

to hunters as long as these opportunities supported 

the purpose of the refuge. A limited-quota bull hunt 

would increase hunting interest in the refuge, attract 

more hunters to participate in the annual cow hunt, 

and introduce more hunters to the purpose and vision 

of the National Elk Refuge. 

Hunting Objective 4 

Within 10 years, develop hunter-use management 

tools to better manage hunt program opportunities. 

Strategies 

■■	 Work cooperatively with WGFD to develop 

hunter checkpoints and hunter success 

surveys. 

■■	 Consider requiring mandatory reporting of 

tag use and harvest. 

Rationale 

Our current tools provide only minimum estimates of harvest and do not provide any data about 

hunter success or tag use on the refuge. More complete hunter use data would allow refuge staff to better manage refuge hunting opportunities and 

optimize refuge hunter use, distribution, and harvest 

management. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 215 

Hunting Objective 5 

Within 5 years, develop and implement guidelines 

for a commercial guided hunting and retrieval. 

Strategies 

■■ Coordinate with WGFD. 

■■	 Set limits for the number of permits issued 

each season for guided hunting. 

■■	 Set limits for the number of trips, guides, 

and clients per day per company. 

■■	 Establish a permit fee for commercial hunting guides. 

Rationale 

Guided hunting and retrieval could increase 

hunter success and help meet population objectives 

for bison and elk. 

Fishing Objective 1 

Within 5 years, develop and implement guidelines 

for a commercial guided fishing program, with special attention to the lower Flat Creek area. 

Strategies 

■■	 Coordinate with WGFD to conduct an 


angler survey.
 

■■	 Set limits for the number of permits issued 

each season for guided fishing. 

■■	 Set limits for the number of trips, guides, 

and clients per day per company. 

■■	 Establish a permit fee for commercial fishing guides. 

■■ Provide accessible opportunities for fishing. 

Rationale 

Unlimited commercial guiding has degraded the 

fishing experience for unguided individuals fishing on 

lower Flat Creek. Controls placed on the total number of guides permitted to work the refuge, as well as 

the total number of clients they are allowed to guide 

on each trip, would remove much of the congestion 

caused by large guided groups and improve the quality of experience had by all anglers on Flat Creek. 

Permit fees collected from commercial guides would 

help to pay for law enforcement activities and education and outreach materials. 

Fishing Objective 2 

Within 5 years, increase education of commercial 

guides and anglers on the negative effects of nonnative fish on the native Snake River cutthroat trout 

fishery and encourage angler harvest of nonnative 

trout. 

Strategies 

■■	 Work cooperatively with WGFD and Trout 

Unlimited to develop support for this 

program. 

■■	 Through increased education of commercial 

guides and anglers, increase angler harvest 

of nonnative trout. 

Rationale 

Fish harvest systems have a powerful effect on 

fish populations. By encouraging guided anglers to 

remove all nonnative trout they catch, many more 

would be removed than by employing management 

activities alone. The refuge would focus on guided 

anglers because they generally have better fish identification skills than the average angler. 

Fishing Objective 3 

Continue angler education about the negative 

effects of nonnative fish on the native Snake River 

cutthroat trout fishery and encourage angle harvest 

of nonnative trout. 

Strategies 

■■	 Work cooperatively with WGFD and Trout 

Unlimited to develop support for this 

program. 

■■	 Use public outreach to improve identification of fish species. 
216 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Update fishing regulations and refuge 


brochures.
 

Rationale 

Fish harvest systems have a powerful effect on 

fish populations. By encouraging anglers to remove 

all nonnative trout they catch, many more would be 

removed than by employing management activities 

alone. The 10-year timeframe would give us ample 

time to develop outreach materials and identification 

aides. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Objective 1 

For the life of the plan, enrich existing wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities on the 

refuge (25 percent of people report an enhanced 

experience). 

Strategies 

■■	 Maintain access to turnouts, trails, and 


other observation sites:
 

❏■ Second-story, visitor center viewing 

platform. 

❏■ Bert Raynes Boardwalk and remote-viewing platform near the visitor center. 

❏■ Turnout just north of the visitor center 

and Flat Creek Bridge. 

❏■ Elk jump turnout along Highway 89 (seasonal summer use only). 

■■	 Support a contracted, winter interpretive 

sleigh ride program. 

■■	 Allow wildlife-touring companies to operate 

on the refuge through a special use permit 

that outlines special conditions for 

operation. 

■■ Lead winter wildlife excursions. 

■■	 Loan equipment like binoculars, scopes, and 

backpacks through various Service initiatives and programs to increase opportunities for experiences and observation on the 

refuge. 

Rationale 

Visitor surveys conducted by the Jackson Hole 

Chamber of Commerce have consistently documented 

that 80–90 percent of valley tourists identify natural 

resource–based activities as their primary reason for 

visiting Jackson Hole. Viewing the mountains, bison, 

elk, birds, and other wildlife was rated as an important activity by local and nonlocal refuge visitors 

(Loomis and Caughlan 2004). Wildlife viewing and 

photography are two of the six priority public uses 

(wildlife-dependent recreational uses) of the Refuge 

System. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Objective 2 

Over the life of the plan, implement at least five 

new, accessible wildlife observation opportunities on 

the refuge. 

Strategies 

■■	 Develop a more prominent access route 

across the visitor center lawn to the existing remote-viewing platform. 

■■	 Develop a boardwalk through already disturbed wetlands near the visitor center. 

■■	 Build a photo blind along the boardwalk for 

noncommercial photography. 

■■	 Use webcams on the refuge to provide 


remote wildlife-viewing opportunities.
 

■■	 Incorporate accessible opportunities into 

wildlife observation and photography 

programs. 

■■ Develop a wildlife checklist. 

Rationale 

Public use would increase at area-specific, intensive use locations, resulting in increased development 

in some areas of the refuge. Visitors would have 

enhanced options to experience the refuge. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 217 

Environmental education at the refuge occurs at a variety of locations and events. 

Steve Miller / FWS 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1 

For the life of the plan, provide a variety of opportunities for environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Strategies 

■■	 Maintain and improve diverse and dynamic 

interpretive displays, new media, and handout literature that continually enhance and 

increase visitors’ interest in exploring the 

refuge. 

■■	 Develop a self-guided, interpretive tour 


route on Elk Refuge Road.
 

■■	 Offer improved programs at the Jackson 

Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center, Miller House, and offsite areas with 

more permanent or seasonal interpreters. 

■■	 Produce short video segments on a variety 

of topics related to the Service and share 

with audiences through multiple venues. 

■■	 Use the Miller Barn as an interpretive site 

once stabilization and restoration work is 

completed. 

Rationale 

Environmental education is a process designed to 

teach citizens and visitors of all ages the history and 

importance of conservation and scientific knowledge 

about the Nation’s natural resources. Through 

improved facilities and increased displays and presentations, we could better help to develop awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and 

commitment for the public to work cooperatively 

toward conservation. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2 

For the life of the plan, use the North Highway 89 

Pathway to interpret the refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System. 

Strategies 

■■	 Use the existing Jackson Hole Community 

Pathways to interpret wetland values. 

■■	 Coordinate with Jackson Hole Community 

Pathways about pathway traffic flow, 

develop trailside interpretive signage, and 

encourage wildlife viewing. 
218 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Cooperate with Jackson Hole Community 

Pathways to evaluate pathway effects on 

wildlife and habitat and adjust seasonal use 

as appropriate. 

Rationale 

Refuge staff would use the pathway during the 

open season as an interpretive venue. This would 

maximize the season and opportunity for interpretation without affecting wildlife. 

Visitor Center Objective 1 

Within 5 years, secure annual funding from visitor center partners to help with operation expenses, 

and document the financial assistance in a signed 

multiyear partnership agreement. 

Strategies 

■■	 Regularly meet with partners to provide an 

overview of visitor center visitation and 

expenses incurred for seasonal operational 

periods. 

■■	 Provide partners with expense reports that 

detail the annual costs of goods and services 

needed for critical visitor center operations. 

■■	 Use partner contributions as a sustainable 

way to pay for visitor center operations. 

■■	 Monitor information desk questions to document the benefits of the visitor center operation to each agency. 

■■	 Keep current a partnership agreement 

between the organizations and an annual 

operating plan. 

Rationale 

The Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center is an interagency facility, staffed and supported by area agencies and organizations. Each 

visitor center partner would continue to gain substantial financial benefit from our staff and visitor 

services rather than having to staff and provide a 

visitor contact location of their own. Sharing the 

financial burden among the agencies of operating the 

center, including purchasing supplies, would make it 

equitable for each of the partners. 

Visitor Center Objective 2 

Within 10 years, rehabilitate the existing building 

or build a new visitor center to address the aging 

building’s maintenance deficiencies. 

Strategies 

■■ Document maintenance issues as they occur. 

■■	 Continually evaluate and keep current the 

building condition assessment through the 

Service’s reporting procedures. 

■■	 Prioritize the maintenance needs in our 


agency maintenance reporting systems.
 

■■	 Complete evaluations or surveys that would 

need to be done before new construction. 

Rationale 

The visitor center building was formerly owned 

by the Wyoming Department of Transportation and 

served as a State Information Center for the Wyoming Division of Tourism. The building is more than 

50 years old and has many significant maintenance 

issues such as deficiencies in the electrical system, 

annual flooding in the crawlspace, rotted wood on the 

remote-viewing platform, and noncompliance with 

the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (United States Access Board 2013). A rehabilitated or new visitor center would also address the 

lack of space for interpretive programs or presentations to school or other large groups. 

North Park Objective 

Within 3 years, manage North Park in accordance 

with Service policies, restore the park area to native 

habitat, and develop interpretive services. 

Strategies 

■■	 Revise the memorandum of understanding 

with the town of Jackson to do away with 

the reservation and fee-collection system for 

the picnic shelter. 

■■	 Develop and provide public information 

about appropriate and compatible uses of 

the refuge. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 219 

■■	 Develop interpretive displays to support 

and explain the refuge purposes and Refuge 

System mission. 

■■	 Renovate habitat to reduce the lawn and 


restore native vegetation.
 

Rationale 

The refuge would work toward its goal of limiting 

public use to appropriate and compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses as identified our agency 

policies. The refuge would shift away from fringe 

uses or those that are prohibited by agency policy. 

Other Uses Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, provide proper 

and compatible opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation and non-wildlife-dependent recreation 

that support the six priority public uses or contribute 

to public appreciation of the refuge. 

Strategies 

■■	 Allow the following compatible and proper 

uses as long as wildlife is not disturbed and 

when areas are not closed for safety 

reasons: 

❏■ access to the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest 

❏■ North Park at the visitor center 

■■	 Allow under special use permit the following compatible and proper uses as long as 

wildlife is not disturbed: 

❏■ commercial photography 

❏■ commercial tours for wildlife viewing 

❏■ commercial guiding and game retrieval 

for hunting 

❏■ commercial guiding for fishing 

❏■ ceremonial tribal bison hunt 

■■ Prohibit the following incompatible uses: 

❏■ general collection of shed antlers 

❏■ collection of berries, fruit, roots, wildflowers, and mushrooms 

❏■ collection of reptiles and amphibians 

❏■ weddings 

❏■ boating 

❏■ swimming 

■■ Phase out commercial horseback trail rides. 

■■	 Review requests for other non-wildlifedependent activities for compatibility and 

appropriateness case-by-case. 

Rationale 

The Improvement Act states that other uses can 

occur within the Refuge System, but they must support or not conflict with a priority public use. Furthermore, a use might not keep a refuge from 

accomplishing its purposes or the mission of the Refuge System. 

Special Use Permit Objective 1 

Within 5 years, identify an appropriate level of 

commercial operations on the refuge. Within 10 

years, manage commercial operations to achieve 

appropriate levels of use for guided fishing, guided 

hunting, and wildlife-viewing companies. 

Strategies 

■■ Monitor ongoing commercial uses. 

■■	 Limit special use permits for commercial 

operations (such as hunting, fishing, and 

wildlife-viewing tours) to reduce traffic and 

effects on the refuge. 

■■	 Charge fees for commercial companies 

(guided hunting and fishing, hunting 

retrieval services, operation of commercial 

wildlife-viewing tours, and professional photography and videography) to offset administrative costs. 

■■	 Include special conditions with each permit 

to reduce effects on resources and other 

activities. 
220 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

■■	 Evaluate and potentially prohibit requests 

for special access that could be precedentsetting and would demand excessive refuge 

resources. 

Rationale 

We recognize that an appropriate level of commercial services can enhance visitor experience by 

providing programs that the refuge does not have the 

ability (resources) to provide. There would be no fee 

required when a special use is related to habitat 

improvement or wildlife research. If a special use 

permit resulted in a company profiting from the refuge, a fee to offset administrative costs would be 

justified. Charging a fee would help offset the costs of 

the administrative time involved in processing special use permits and compiling annual use 

information. 

Ciliate Bluebells 

FWS 

Special Use Permit Objective 2 

Within 5 years, complete a special use permitting 

system that has a fee schedule for the processing of 

permits and the associated costs for accommodating 

commercial filming or photography activity. 

Strategies 

■■	 Work with the regional office to implement 

national guidance on a fee schedule for collecting fees associated with commercial photography and filming. 

■■	 Communicate with the Grand Teton 

National Park permits office to make sure 

there is not a large discrepancy in the 

amount of fees charged on the refuge versus 

those same activities in the neighboring 

national park. 

Rationale 

The National Elk Refuge accommodates a large 

number of commercial photographers and film companies each year, especially during the winter 

months. Responding to media requests has become 

an increasing part of the winter duties for the visitor 

services staff. Making contacts with the permittee, 

evaluating the request, writing special conditions, 

completing the permit, and accommodating the 

request takes refuge staff a substantial amount of 

administrative time. A fee system would allow the 

refuge to recuperate some of the administrative costs 

associated with the activity. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 221 

lan, disseminate information 

anagement, refuge manage

isitor services programs to 

he National Elk Refuge. 

ntact lists for distribution 

tion to elected officials, 

 partners, nonprofit con

tner organizations, key 

Public Outreach Objective 

For the life of the p

about elk and bison m ­

ment practices, and v

increase awareness of t

Strategies 

■■	 Maintain email co

of refuge informa

Federal and State ­

servation and par

community and business leaders, and 

regional and national Service contacts. 

■■	 Prepare and send out news releases via 


established email lists.
 

■■	 Prepare and send out articles via established email lists.
 

■■	 Use electronic media, including maintaining 

and keeping current the refuge Web site as 

well as using our agency’s new media and 

photo-sharing sites. 

■■	 Conduct media interviews and accommodate film crews for local, national, and international audiences as workload allows. 

■■	 Use refuge leaders in an ambassadorial and 

leadership role in the community, including 

extensive involvement in a variety of 

partnerships. 

■■	 Coordinate with the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest on a winter closure to the public 

beyond the Twin Creek subdivision. 

Rationale 

Outreach is critical because of the National Elk 

Refuge’s high profile location, its “flagship refuge” 

status, and the complexity and controversial nature 

of many of the management issues. Effective outreach—by giving the media a source of readily available resources and material—would streamline our 

response to the demand for information from local, 

regional, national, and international media and 

decrease the inaccuracy of stories compiled by 

others. 

6.8 Visitor and Employee 

Safety and Resource 

Protection Goal 

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the refuge. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Objective 1 

Over the life of the plan, eliminate lost-time worksite accidents and reduce all other accidents by 75 

percent. 

Strategies 

■■	 Continue to talk about safety procedures 

with employees and volunteers. 

■■	 Continue to develop job hazard analyses for 

new activities. 

Rationale 

Visitor and employee safety is the refuge’s highest 

priority. We are required to provide a safe and hazard-mitigated environment for all refuge users and 

our employees. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Objective 2 

Within 5 years, document road hazards and vehicle accidents. 

Strategy 

■■ Monitor and report accidents. 

Rationale 

Visitor and employee safety is the refuge’s highest 

priority. We are required to provide a safe and hazard-mitigated environment for all refuge users and 

our employees. 
222 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Objective 3 

Within 10 years, reduce road accidents in identified risk areas by 50 percent. 

Strategies 

■■	 Enforce no stopping and no parking in the 

roadway. 

■■ Improve signage. 

■■	 Incorporate safety conditions in all special 

use permits. 

■■	 Revoke special use permits when violations 

occur, and restrict or limit the ability of 

revoked permittees to obtain future special 

use permits. 

Rationale 

Visitor and employee safety is the refuge’s highest 

priority. We are required to provide a safe and hazard-mitigated environment for all refuge users and 

our employees. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Objective 4 

Within 5 years, document hunting accidents, violations, and unsafe practices. Over the life of the plan, 

reduce hunting accidents, violations, and unsafe practices in risk areas and activities by 50 percent. 

Strategies 

■■ Revise hunt area boundaries. 

■■	 Incorporate safety conditions in hunting 


publications.
 

■■ Increase signage. 

■■	 Notify hunters of other public users that 

might be using the area (such as birders, 

cyclists, and users of the auto tour route). 

■■	 Increase the law enforcement presence during hunting season. 

■■	 Revoke hunting permits when safety violations occur, and restrict or limit the ability 

of hunters with revoked permits to obtain 

future hunting permits. 

Rationale 

Visitor and employee safety is the refuge’s highest 

priority. We are required to provide a safe and hazard-mitigated environment for all refuge users and 

our employees. 

Resource Protection Objective 1 

Protect wildlife and other natural and cultural 

resources from damage, theft, or illegal taking to 

preserve resources for the public and to prevent their 

unnatural decline. 

Strategies 

■■	 Enforce hunting, fishing, and other regulations in accordance with the CFR, State 

laws, and refuge-specific regulations to protect habitat and wildlife. 

■■	 Close areas to protect wildlife from human 

disturbance when necessary. 

■■	 Use law enforcement and education to protect cultural resources in accordance with 

Federal, State, and tribal laws, policies, and 

guidelines. 

■■	 Keep a minimum of two dual-function law 

enforcement officers or one dual-function 

and one full-time, permanent law enforcement officer. 

■■	 Provide ample and easy access to refuge 

regulations through various media such as 

printed leaflets, the Web site and social 

media, and six information kiosks located 

throughout the refuge. 

Rationale 

Adequately staffing refuges with sufficient officers to protect wildlife and habitat and to make refuges safe places for staff and visitors is a top priority 

for the Refuge System. “Conserving the Future” 

(FWS 2011), Recommendation 16, charges us to: Conduct a new, independent analysis of refuge law 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 223 

enforcement to measure progress and to name 

needed improvements. 

Resource Protection Objective 2 

Within 5 years, increase law enforcement patrols 

by 25 percent and develop shift coverage for highvisitor-use seasons. 

Strategies 

■■	 Detail (temporarily assign) officers from 

other refuges to the National Elk Refuge. 

■■ Hire a law enforcement officer. 

■■ Obtain a dual-function position. 

■■	 Develop special operations for hunting and 

antler collecting seasons. 

Rationale 

More law enforcement would be needed to man

age the current public use as well as the additional 

use from increased visitor services programs. 

­

6.9 Administration Goal 

Provide facilities and effectively use and develop 

staff resources, funding partnerships, and volunteer 

opportunities to maintain the long-term integrity of 

habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge. 

Strategy 

■■	 Brief our regional leaders about the need for 

an increased and stable budget to eliminate 

the severe staff shortfall and be able to 

accomplish the refuge goals. 

Funding and Staff Objective 1 

Over the life of the plan, increase permanent staff 

by 16.5 FTE positions to help realize the enhancement potential of all refuge programs. 

Strategies 

■■	 Include more positions in the Refuge Operation Needs System to get future funding. 

■■	 Brief our regional leaders about the refuge 

staff needed to accomplish the refuge goals 

and the effects of the current staff shortfall. 

Rationale 

Current Government staff levels are inadequate 

to accomplish the work of the refuge. The refuge 

relies on volunteers and positions paid by nongovernmental money to accomplish objectives. In 2011–2013, 

the refuge used more volunteer and nongovernmentally funded positions (12.5 FTEs) than Governmentfunded positions (10.5 FTEs). Although we are 

extremely fortunate to have volunteers and nongovernmentally funded positions, for the long term, the 

refuge cannot rely on these uncertain sources of 

assistance. The lack of a full-time assigned volunteer 

coordinator to conduct the recruiting, hiring, training, and logistics for the needed volunteers would 

continue to affect refuge programs. Providing necessary staff levels through Government-funded positions would provide the long-term consistency 

required for management excellence. 

Funding and Staff Objective 2 

Over the life of the plan, increase the refuge’s 

annual base funding to cover all operational costs and 

increased staff costs while maintaining a 75:25 staff 

to maintenance capacity ratio. 

Rationale 

Current annual base funding is a minimum of 

$200,000 short for funding adequate staff and management. Establishing an adequate annual budget 

would ensure long-term stability in management 

programs for the refuge. 

Facilities Objective 1 

Over the life of the plan, increase refuge housing 

to accommodate an increase in staff. 

Strategy 

■■	 Brief our regional leaders about the need for 

increased refuge housing. 
224 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Rationale 

The high cost of permanent and temporary housing in the Jackson area is an impediment to recruiting staff to work at the refuge. Having the option of 

reasonably priced, Government rental housing is an 

important factor in recruiting quality employees to 

fill lower-graded positions at the refuge. 

The refuge would coordinate with Teton County 

when planning and constructing new buildings. However, we are under no legal obligation to follow county 

regulations; coordination with the county would be a 

courtesy rather than complying with a legal 

requirement. 

Facilities Objective 2 

Over the life of the plan, relocate the Calkins 

House to the Nowlin Gate area. 

Strategy 

■■	 Move the Calkins House and all outbuildings to the Nowlin Gate area when money 

becomes available. 

Rationale 

Relocation of the Calkins House would consolidate 

refuge housing and eliminate the need to maintain 

communications and transportation facilities to an 

outlying facility. This would also allow that part of 

the hunt unit around the Calkins House to be open 

for firearms, which could result in a minor increase in 

elk and bison harvest. 

Elk Refuge Road Objective 1 

Within 5 years, monitor winter use of Elk Refuge 

Road to identify the magnitude of use, safety issues, 

and visitor experience. 

Strategies 

■■ Install traffic counters. 

■■ Conduct visitor surveys. 

■■	 Share use information with Teton County 

and identify safety concerns. 

Rationale 

With baseline information on road use, the staff 

would be able to address safety concerns and other 

issues associated with the road. 

Elk Refuge Road Objective 2 

Within 10 years, manage year-round use of Elk 

Refuge Road to improve safety and the visitor 

experience. 

Strategies 

■■	 Add new regulatory signing to prohibit 

stopping or parking on or along roadway. 

■■	 Permit parking only in designated lots and 

turnouts. 

■■	 Add mounted scopes at turnouts to encourage people to get out of their cars. 

■■	 Improve and increase the number of turnouts along the road for winter use. 

■■	 Add numbered turnouts (ending at the Twin 

Creek subdivision) and interpretive information to correspond with a winter auto 

tour brochure. 

■■	 Create and disseminate an interpretive brochure for a winter and summer auto tour 

route. 

■■	 Increase road maintenance (plowing, turnouts, sanding, and pulling ditches) in the 

winter for safety purposes. 

■■	 Work with Teton County to reduce dust 


abatement.
 

■■	 Increase enforcement of current
 

regulations.
 

■■	 Consider moving the entrance kiosk and 


parking area to the west side of the Elk 


Refuge Road entrance.
 

Rationale 

High traffic volume and numbers of people using 

Elk Refuge Road for recreation and exercise creates 

user conflicts that might lead to safety issues. More 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 225 

signing, turnouts, and enforcement would increase 

user safety. Visitors would have more information 

available to learn about refuge resources. 

Osprey 

S Wr / FekaJ BB

Elk Refuge Road Objective 3 

Within 5 years, eliminate overnight use of Elk 

Refuge Road for the opening of the national forest 

winter range. 

Strategies 

■■	 Prohibit overnight parking, camping, stag

ated 

 for 

e 

ss 

­

ing, and tailgating on the refuge associ

with antler collection on national forest

lands. 

■■	 Consider alternate gate opening times,

example, opening the refuge access gat

later than the other national forest acce

gates. 

■■	 Use educational outreach to explain the 


change in management to the public.
 

Rationale 

Refuge System policy does not allow overnight 

camping on the refuge. This use creates a safety hazard because it obstructs the road for emergency 

vehicles and other users and substantially increases 

law enforcement costs for the refuge. Enforcing the 

restriction on overnight use would help protect roadside resources, reduce traffic congestion, improve 

visitor and employee safety, and reduce refuge costs. 

Partnerships Objective 

Work with partners to accomplish mutually beneficial projects including the nonmotorized pathway, 

aerial photography, GIS mapping, wildlife disease 

monitoring, and habitat and corridor protection and 

restoration. 

Strategy 

■■	 Participate with the town of Jackson and 

Teton County, and provide data if available, 

to identify relatively important wildlife habitat and understand the cumulative impacts 

of development and different development 

types on wildlife. 

■■	 Continue to collaborate with Jackson Hole 

Trout Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk foundation, Snake River Fund, and WGFD to 

improve the fish-bearing streams for native 

cutthroat trout. 

Rationale 

Land use and habitat conditions off the refuge 

affect wildlife on the refuge. Teton County recently 

approved a comprehensive land use plan and will be 

developing regulations to carry out this plan. Shar

ing resources and close coordination between the 

refuge and the town of Jackson and Teton County 

through data sharing and project partnerships would 

help the refuge meet the habitat and wildlife goal. 

­

6.10 Staff 

Current staff within the complex consists of 10.5 

permanent full-time employees. Table 21 shows the 

current staff and proposed additional staff required 

to fully implement the CCP. Because of the area of 

responsibility and added complexities of this plan, we 

would evaluate all grade levels for current staff. If all 

positions were funded, the staff would be able to 

carry out all aspects of the draft CCP, which would 

provide the most long-term benefit to wildlife, habi

tat, and ecosystems; improve facilities; and provide 

visitor services. Projects that have adequate budgets 

and staff would receive priority for accomplishment. 

­
Table 21. Current and proposed staff at the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Current position 

Government-funded position (full-time 

equivalents [FTEs]) 

Proposed 

added position 

(FTEs) 

Refuge manager (GS1–485–14) 1 — 

Deputy refuge manager (GS–485–13) 1 — 

Outdoor recreation planner (GS–0023–12) 1 — 

Park ranger (GS–0025–9, visitor center manager) 1 — 

Wildlife biologist (GS–486–12) 1 — 

Refuge land management officer (GL2–1801–9) 1 — 

Office assistant (GS–0303–5) 0.5 — 

Heavy mobile equipment mechanic (WG3–5803–11) 1 — 

Maintenance mechanic (WG–4749–9) 1 — 

Engineering equipment operator (WG–5716–8) — 1 

Budget analyst (GS–0560–11, business team) 1 — 

Rangeland management specialist (GS–454–9) 1 — 

Biological science technician (GS–404–5/7) — 1 

Refuge land management officer (GL–1801–7/9) — 1 

Environmental education specialist (GS–0025–7/9) — 1 

Maintenance program supervisor (WG–5716–9) — 1 

Three permanent seasonal park rangers (GS–0025–5/7, winter interpre

tive naturalists) — 1.5 

Six permanent seasonal biological technicians (GS–404–4, irrigators) — 3 

Eight permanent seasonal park rangers (GS–0025–4, visitor center ) — 4 

Two permanent seasonal engineering equipment operators (WG–5716–7) — 1 

Three permanent seasonal park rangers (GS–0025–5) — 2 

1 GS=General Schedule classification and pay system.
 

2 GL= General Schedule classification and pay system for law enforcement officers.
 

3 WG= Wage Grade classification and pay system.
 

6.11 Stepdown Management Plans 

This CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, visitor 

services, and partnership objectives over the next 15 

years. Stepdown management plans, in turn, provide 

detail for our managers and employees so they can 

more effectively carry out the specific actions and 

strategies in the CCP. Table 22 lists needed plans. 

Table 22. Stepdown management plans for the 

National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Stepdown plan Planned completion 

Comprehensive disease contin 2014 

gency 

Cultural resource management 2020 

Fire management 2016 

Habitat management 2017 

Integrated pest management 2019 

Table 22. Stepdown management plans for the 

National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. 

Stepdown plan Planned completion 

Inventory and monitoring 2016 

Visitor services 2015 

6.12 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Our agency proposes that the uncertainty sur

rounding habitat management can be dealt with most 

226 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

­

efficiently within the paradigm of adaptive resource 

management (figure 15) (Holling 1978, Kendall 2001, 

Lancia et al. 1996, Walters and Holling 1990). This 

approach provides a framework within which we can 

make objective decisions and reduce the uncertainty 

surrounding those decisions. The key components of 

an adaptive resource management plan follow: 

­

­
theses describ

 communities 

f the response 

ment informa

making 

t model 

oals, actions, and 

initiating an adap

hile the latter two 

making) comprise 

h year the predic

Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft Plan) 227 

■■	 clearly defined management goals and 


objectives
 

■■	 a set of management actions with associated 

uncertainty as to their outcome 

■■	 a suite of priority models representing various alternative working hypo ­

ing the response of species or

of interest 

■■	 monitoring and assessment o

of target organisms 

■■	 use of monitoring and assess ­

tion to direct future decision

through the selection of a bes

The first three components (g

models) are largely defined before ­

tive resource management plan, w

(monitoring and directed decision

an iterative process, whereby eac ­

tive ability of models are tested against what was 

observed during monitoring. This might result in a 

new best model, greater support for the existing best 

model, or new models constructed from emerging 

hypotheses. In this way, management can evolve as 

information is gained and uncertainty is reduced. 

Development of adaptive resource management 

plans for habitat management would allow the refuge 

to “learn by doing,” while maintaining a focus on 

objectives. Knowledge gained from assessing man

agement actions is as integral to the process as the 

management actions themselves. Emphasizing gain

ing knowledge about the refuge creates a situation 

where we can refine its habitat management with 

feedback between management and assessment. 

Reducing the uncertainty of habitat management via 

adaptive resource management plans would greatly 

help us develop long-term habitat management plans. 

­

­

6.13 Plan Amendment and 

Revision 

The final CCP will be augmented by detailed 

stepdown management plans to address the comple

tion of specific strategies in support of the CCP goals 

and objectives. To determine the need for revision, 

the CCP will be reviewed annually. A revision would 

occur if and when significant information became 

available, such as a change in ecological conditions. 

Revisions to the CCP and the stepdown management 

plans would be subject to public review and compli

ance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

At a minimum, the final plan will be evaluated 

every 5 years and revised after 15 years. 

Figure 15. The adaptive resource management process. 

­

­

 

Glossary
 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, 

especially those with physical impairments. 

adaptive resource management—The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring 

programs to gain information and experience necessary to assess and change management activities; a process that uses feedback from research, 

monitoring programs, and evaluation of management actions to support or change objectives and 

strategies at all planning levels; a process in 

which policy decisions are carried out within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to 

test predictions and assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results helps managers 

decide whether current management should continue as is or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

alternative—A reasonable way to solve an identified 

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2); one of several different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the Refuge System mission (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian—A class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination. 

baseline—A set of essential observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control—The use of organisms or viruses 

to control invasive plants or other pests. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—The variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among 

them, and the communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on 

indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological processes. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; 

caused, produced by, or comprising living 

organisms. 

candidate species, Federal—A plant or animal species proposed for addition to the Federal endangered and threatened species list. These species 

have formerly been referred to as category 1 candidate species. From the February 28, 1996, Federal Register, page 7597: “those species for which 

the Service has on file sufficient information on 

biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support 

issuance of a proposed rule to list but issuance of 

the proposed rule is precluded.” 

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; mid-level or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy 

closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead vegetative cover. 

carrion—Dead animal body. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

channel—The linear route along which surface water 

and ground water flow is concentrated. 

channel morphology—the form and structure (such as 

width and depth) of a channel. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—The codification of 

the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the executive departments 

and agencies of the Federal Government. Each 

volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar 

year. 

compatibility determination—See compatible use. 

compatible use—A wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes 

of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). 

A compatibility determination supports the choice 

of compatible uses and identified stipulations or 

limits necessary to make sure that there is 

compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of the 

refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation of an area. 
230 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

cultural resources—The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past. 

cygnet—A young swan. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving environment; a biological community, with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United 

States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries and 

their sizes and ecological complexity vary. 

emergent—A plant rooted in shallow water and having most of the vegetative growth above water 

such as cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, Federal—A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a substantial part of its range. 

endangered species, State—A plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations of 

these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a substantial degree. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

environmental assessment (EA)—A concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly 

discusses the purpose and need for an action and 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of effects to decide whether 

to prepare an environmental impact statement or 

finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

extinction—The complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing. 

extirpation—The extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area. 

Federal trust resource—A trust is something managed by one entity for another who holds the ownership. The Service holds in trust many natural 

resources for the people of the United States of 

America as a result of Federal acts and treaties. 

Examples are species listed under the Endangered Species Act, migratory birds protected by 

international treaties, and native plant or wildlife 

species found on a national wildlife refuge. 

Federal trust species—All species where the Federal 

Government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, 

migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain 

marine mammals. 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible. 

Friends group—Any formal organization whose mission is to support the goals and purposes of its 

associated refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge Association overall; Friends organizations 

and cooperative and interpretive associations. 

FWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

geographic information system (GIS)—A computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial data; a set of computer hardware and software for analyzing and displaying spatially 

referenced features (such as points, lines and 

polygons) with nongeographic attributes such as 

species and age. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

GL—General Schedule classification and pay system 

for law enforcement officers. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable 

units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

GS—General Schedule classification and pay 

system. 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

habitat disturbance—Substantial alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for 

example, wildland fire) or human-caused events 

(for example, timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—A land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. 

hydrologic regime—The system of a water cycle and 

its changes with time. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place. 

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

education, prevention, physical or mechanical 
Glossary 231 

methods of control, biological control, responsible 

chemical use, and cultural methods. 

introduced species—A species present in an area 

because of intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a result of human activity. 

invasive plant, also noxious weed—A species that is 

nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration 

and whose introduction causes, or is likely to 

cause, economic or environmental harm or harm 

to human health. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in 

uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (Draft Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5). 

listed species—A species, subspecies, or distinct vertebrate population segment that has been added 

to the Federal lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as they appear in sections 17.11 and 17.12 of Title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). 

management alternative—See alternative. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding. 

migratory birds—Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and 

songbirds are all migratory birds. 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental effect or to make an effect less severe. 

monitoring—The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

national wildlife refuge—A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not 

include coordination areas; a complete listing of all 

units of the Refuge System is in the current 

“Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Department of the Interior for 

the conservation of fish and wildlife including species threatened with extinction, all lands, waters, 

and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, areas for the protection 

and conservation of fish and wildlife that are 

threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game 

ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes 

the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining appropriateness and 

compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of 

the Secretary of the Department of the Interior 

for managing and protecting the Refuge System. 

This Act amended parts of the Refuge Recreation 

Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

native species—A species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

neotropical migrant—A bird species that breeds 

north of the United States and Mexican border 

and winters primarily south of this border. 

nest success—The percentage of nests that successfully hatch one or more eggs of the total number 

of nests started in an area. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that is not 

comprised of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities. 

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or not widely prevalent in the United 

States) and can directly or indirectly injure crops, 

other useful plants, livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife resources, or public health. 

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 

93–639), a noxious weed (such as invasive plant) is 

one that causes disease or has adverse effects on 

humans or the human environment and, therefore, 

is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of 

the United States and to public health. 

objective—A concise target statement of what will 

be achieved, how much will be achieved, when and 

where it will be achieved, and who is responsible 

for the work; derived from goals and provide the 

basis for determining management strategies. 

Objectives should be achievable and time specific 

and should be stated quantitatively to the extent 

possible. If objectives cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively (Draft 

Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

patch—An area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions. 
232 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a 

lifespan of more than 2 years. 

plant community—An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; a reflection 

or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar 

radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community, such as 

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

prescribed fire—The skillful application of fire to 

natural fuels under conditions such as weather, 

fuel moisture, and soil moisture that allow confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and 

produces the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

to accomplish planned benefits to one or more 

objectives of habitat management, wildlife management, or hazard reduction. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be compatible with a refuge’s purposes. This includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. 

proposed action—The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the significant issues, and is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management). 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; American Indian tribes; and foreign 

nations. It may include anyone outside the core 

planning team. It includes those who may or may 

not have shown an interest in Service issues and 

those who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement—A process that offers affected 

and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on, Service actions and 

policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

Executive order, agreement, public land order, 

donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing authorization or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

raptor—A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a falcon, 

or a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses). 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

refuge use—Any activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out 

by or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee. 

resident species—A species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year; nonmigratory species. 

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, such as healthy upland habitats and 

aquatic systems. 

revetment—A structure to support a streambank. 

riffle—The shallow zone between pools in a stream. 

riparian area or riparian zone—An area or habitat 

that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems including streams, lakes, wet areas, and 

adjacent plant communities and their associated 

soils that have free water at or near the surface; 

an area whose parts are directly or indirectly 

attributed to the influence of water; of or relating 

to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and 

directly influenced by streams. For example, 

riparian vegetation includes all plant life growing 

on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

riprap—A loose foundation of irregular rock fragments used under water for streambed protection 

or in soft materials to prevent streamside 

erosion. 

scoping—The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

section 7—The section of the Endangered Species 

Act that requires all Federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

result in destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

block or slow down the wind. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or mudflat areas. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space. 

special use permit—A permit for special authorization from the refuge manager required for any 
Glossary 233 

refuge service, facility, privilege, or product of the 

soil provided at refuge expense and not usually 

available to the public through authorizations in 

Title 50 CFR or other public regulations (Refuge 

Manual 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or apparent populations declines, small or 

restricted populations, or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stepdown management plan—A plan that provides 

the details necessary to carry out management 

strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5). 

suppression—All the work of extinguishing a fire or 

confining fire spread. 

threatened species, Federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that 

are likely to become endangered in the future 

throughout all, or a substantial part, of their 

range. 

threatened species, State—A plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

travel corridor—A landscape feature that facilitates 

the biologically effective transport of animals 

between larger patches of habitat dedicated to 

conservation functions. Such corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic including frequent 

foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the 

once in a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. 

These are transition habitats and need not contain 

all the habitat elements required for long-term 

survival or reproduction of its migrants. 

trust resource—See Federal trust resource. 

trust species—See Federal trust species. 

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS)—The 

principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The Service manages the 

93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

comprised of more than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production 

areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries 

and 78 ecological service field stations, the agency 

enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores national significant 

fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat 

such as wetlands, administers the Endangered 

Species Act, and helps foreign governments with 

their conservation efforts. It also oversees the 

Federal aid program that distributes millions of 

dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting 

equipment to State wildlife agencies. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—A Federal agency 

whose mission is to provide reliable scientific 

information to describe and understand the earth; 

decrease loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our 

quality of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

vision statement—A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific 

refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water including egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

waterfowl—A category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

waterfowl production area—Land that the National 

Wildlife Refuge System acquires with Federal 

Duck Stamp money for restoration and management, primarily as prairie wetland habitat critical 

to waterfowl and other wetland birds. 

watershed—The region draining into a river, a river 

system, or a body of water. 

wetland management district (WMD)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck 

Stamp money for restoration and management 

primarily as prairie wetland habitat critical to 

waterfowl and other wetland birds. 

WG—Wage Grade classification and pay system. 

WGFD—Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

wildfire—A wildland fire originating from an 

unplanned ignition caused by lightning, volcanoes, 

unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires, 

and escaped prescribed burns. 

wildland fire—A general term describing any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland. 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, or interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are 

the six priority public uses of the Refuge System. 

woodlands—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25- to 60-percent cover. 

Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policy 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies and key legislation that guide the management of 

the National Elk Refuge. 

A.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997) 

■■

tion of fish, w

conservation,

safe, quality, 

dent public u

fishing, wildli

phy, and envi

interpretatio

Goals 

■■	 Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purposes and further the Refuge System 

mission. 

■■	 Conserve, restore where appropriate, and 

enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants that are endangered or threatened 

with becoming endangered. 

■■	 Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations. 

■■	 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and 

plants. 

■■	 Conserve and restore, where appropriate, 

representative ecosystems of the United 

States, including the ecological processes 

characteristic of those ecosystems. 

	 Foster understanding and instill appreciaildlife, and plants, and their 

 by providing the public with 

and compatible wildlife-depense. Such use includes hunting, 

fe observation and photograronmental education and 

n. 

Guiding Principles 

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System established by Executive Order 12996 (1996): 

■■	 Public Use—The Refuge System provides 

important opportunities for compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation. 

■■	 Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without quality habitat and without fish and 

wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot 

be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality 

and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat 

within refuges. 

■■	 Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and 

women were the first partners who insisted 

on protecting valuable wildlife habitat 

within wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal agencies, State 

agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, 

and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System. 

■■	 Public Involvement—The public should be 

given a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and 

management of our national wildlife 

refuges. 
 

236 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

A.2 Legal and Policy Guidance 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges 

are circumscribed by many mandates including laws 

and Executive orders. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)— 

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to figure out proper policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorizes the scientific 

investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects 

taken or collected without a permit. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

(1974)—Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in Federal construction projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended—Protects materials of archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires federally owned, leased, or financed buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications. 

Dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to provide 

financial help for State fish restoration and management plans and projects. Financed by excise taxes 

paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. Known as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish 

Restoration Act. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires Federal 

agencies to provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, decrease the effect of 

floods on 

beneficial

Execu

Public U

t

s

(1996)—

human safety, and preserve the natural and 

values served by the floodplains. 

ive Order 12996, Management and General 

e of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

It also presents four principles to guide management 

of the Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of American 

Indian sacred sites by American Indian religious 

practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites, and where proper, keep 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Requires the 

use of integrated management systems to control or 

contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the preservation of evidence of the Government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other 

information. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allows 

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

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, 

or gifts of areas approved by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

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

waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates the 

protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility; and enables the setting of seasons and other 

regulations, including the closing of areas, Federal or 

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)— 

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation 

of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate this 

Act with other planning requirements, and prepare 
 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policy 237 

proper documents to facilitate better environmental 

decisionmaking. [From the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 1500] 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as 

amended—Establishes as policy that the Federal 

Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the Nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior to allow any use of a refuge, provided 

such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which the refuge was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy 

for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; mandates comprehensive conservation planning 

for all units of the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Requires Federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, find ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or possession. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient money is available to manage the uses. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility and physical accessibility for all facilities 

and programs paid for by the Federal Government to 

make sure that any person can take part in any 

program. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)—Section 10 of this 

Act requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers before any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encourages the use of volunteers to help 

in the management of refuges within the Refuge System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the 

resources; and encourages donations and other 

contributions. 

Appendix B 

List of Preparers and Contributors 

This draft CCP and EA is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic effort by the members of 

the planning team shown below. In addition, many others have contributed time as subject matter experts and 

reviewers. 

B.1 Planning Team 

Team member Position Work unit 

Patti Bennett-Taylor Budget analyst, former National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Eric Cole Wildlife biologist National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Carol Cunningham Technical writer and editor Grand Teton National Park, Moose, Wyoming 

Cris Dippel Deputy refuge manager National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Mark Ely GIS specialist (former) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Tim Fuchs Wildlife supervisor WGFD, Jackson Regional Office, Jackson, Wyoming 

Toni Griffin Planning team leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Kirk HaYenga Heavy mobile equipment 

mechanic (former) National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Lori Iverson Outdoor recreation planner National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Steve Kallin Refuge manager National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Amanda Losch Staff biologist WGFD, Headquarters, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Marty Meyer Law enforcement officer 

(former) National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Alex Norton Senior planner Teton County Planning Department, Jackson, Wyoming 

Deb Parker Writer-editor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Paul Santavy Deputy refuge manager 

(former) National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Daniel Sharps Rangeland management 

specialist National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Amanda Soliday Engineering equipment 

operator National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Bryan Yetter Law enforcement officer National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming 

Mitch Werner Writer-editor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 
240 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

B.2 Contributors 

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals helped prepare this CCP. We acknowledge the efforts of the 

following individuals and groups toward the completion of this plan. The diversity, talent, and knowledge contributed dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this document. 

Contributor Position Work unit 

Lara Gertsch Aquatic habitat biologist WGFD, Jackson Regional Office, Jackson, Wyoming 

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Wayne King National Wildlife Refuge System 

biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Lynne Koontz Economist U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado 

David Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Richard Sterry Regional fire planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 
Appendix C 

Public Involvement 

C.1 Public Involvement 

On October 22, 2010, we published a notice of 

intent in the Federal Register to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan for the National Elk Refuge (75 Federal Register 65370). The notice provided 

information about the refuge and the CCP process 

along with details on how the public could provide 

comments about issues to consider in the environmental document and in development of the CCP. We 

specified that written comments were due by November 22, 2010. The notice indicated that more opportunities for providing comments would be announced in 

local news media throughout the planning process. 

During preplanning, our planning team assembled a mailing list of private citizens; local, regional, 

and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; tribes; and interested 

organizations. 

We sent the first planning update to the mailing 

list addressees in January 2011. The planning update 

provided information on the history of the National 

Elk Refuge and the CCP process, along with an invitation to an upcoming public open house on January 

11. We invited the public to meet with our staff, learn 

more about the planning process, and provide input 

to the planning process. The planning update told 

people how to submit written comments by letter, 

fax, or email, which were due February 10, 2011. 

At the January 2011 open house, the planning 

team used informational posters, maps, and handouts 

to display a history of the Refuge System, an orientation to the National Elk Refuge, and an overview of 

the processes for comprehensive conservation planning and implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Staff answered questions on a variety of 

topics about refuge management and the CCP process. We encouraged the 40 attendees to ask questions and offer comments; planning team members 

recorded verbal comments and gave each attendee a 

comment form to submit more thoughts or questions, 

which were due by February 10, 2011. 

We sent out a second planning update in March 

2011. The update had a summary of the public scoping effor

planning

the key is

servation

services.

ts and the more than 200 comments that the 

 team got during scoping. The update listed 

sues that we identified: landscape-scale con­

, wildlife, habitat, scenic quality, and visitor 

 We considered input from the public open 

house, letters, emails, and comment forms in developing the draft CCP and EA. 

Although the public identified elk and bison management as an issue during scoping for the CCP, the 

issue is outside the scope of this planning process. We 

and the National Park Service previously addressed 

this issue in an interagency, environment analysis 

process that had extensive public involvement. In 

2007, we completed the resulting Bison and Elk Management Plan, which has goals, objectives, and strategies for managing elk and bison at the National Elk 

Refuge and at Grand Teton National Park for the 

next 15 years. 

Our response to public comments on this draft 

CCP and EA will be completed before final approval 

of the CCP. The mailing list for the CCP follows. 

C.2 Federal Officials 

U.S. Congressman Cynthia Lummis, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator John Barrasso, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator Michael Enzi, Washington, DC 

C.3 Federal Agencies 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest 

Regional Office, Boise, Idaho 

National Park Service, Grand Teton National 

Park, Moose, Wyoming 

National Park Service, Intermountain Regional 

Office, Denver, Colorado 

USDA Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National 

Forest, Jackson, Wyoming 
242 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

C.4 Tribal Officials 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck, Popular, Montana 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Concho, 

Oklahoma 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, South 

Dakota 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council, Fort Thompson, South Dakota 

Eastern Shoshone Tribal Council, Fort 

Washakie, Wyoming 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, South 

Dakota 

Northern Arapaho Business Council, Fort 

Washakie, Wyoming 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, Lame Deer, 

Montana 

Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, South Dakota 

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, Rosebud, South 

Dakota 

Santee Sioux Tribal Council, Niobrara, Nebraska 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho 

Shoshone Business Council, Fort Washakie, 

Wyoming 

Shoshone Cultural Center, Fort Washakie, 

Wyoming 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council, Fort Yates, 

North Dakota 

C.5 State Officials 

Governor Matt Mead, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Senator Leland G. Christensen, Alta, Wyoming 

Senator Dan Dockstader, Afton, Wyoming 

Representative Keith Gingery, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Representative Ruth A. Petroff, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Representative Jim Roscoe, Wilson, Wyoming 

C.6 State Agencies 

WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

WGFD, Jackson, Wyoming 

WGFD, Lander, Wyoming 

C.7 Local Government 

Teton Conservation District, Jackson, Wyoming 

Teton County Board of Commissioners, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Teton County Building Department, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Teton County Sheriff’s Office, Jackson, Wyoming 

Town of Jackson, Wyoming 

C.8 Businesses 

Alta Planning and Design, Saratoga Springs, 

New York 

Atkins, PBS&J, Missoula, Montana 

Bear Creek Incorporated, Jackson, Wyoming 

Biota Research and Consulting, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Brush Buck Guide Services, Jackson, Wyoming 

Burton Design Incorporated, Jackson, Wyoming 

Four Seasons Resort, Teton Village, Wyoming 

Grizzly Country Wildlife Adventures, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

The Hole Hiking Experience, Jackson, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Eco Tour Adventures, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Photo Tours, Jackson, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Wildlife Safaris, Jackson, Wyoming 

Nelson Engineering, Jackson, Wyoming 

Snake River Brewing Company, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Snowmobiletours.net, Jackson, Wyoming 

Spring Creek Ranch, Jackson, Wyoming 

Steady Jake Mobile DJ, Jackson, Wyoming 

Upstream Anglers and Outdoor Adventures, 

Jackson, Wyoming 

Wyoming Photo Experience, Jackson, Wyoming 

C.9 Organizations 

Concerned Citizens for the Elk, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Craighead Beringia South, Kelly, Wyoming 

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC 

Ducks Unlimited, Conservation Program, Bismarck, North Dakota 
Appendix C—Public Involvement 243 

Ducks Unlimited, National Headquarters, Memphis, Tennessee 

Friends of Pathways, Jackson, Wyoming 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor 

Center, Jackson, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Art Initiative, Jackson, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Historical Society and Museum, 

Jackson, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Land Trust, Jackson, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole One Fly, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Trout Unlimited, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

The Murie Center, Moose, Wyoming 

Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, 

Jackson, Wyoming 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, 

Montana 

Safe Wildlife Crossings for Jackson Hole, Jackson, Wyoming 

Snake River Fund, Wyoming 

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Teton County Weed and Pest District, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Teton Raptor Center, Wilson, Wyoming 

Teton Science Schools, Jackson, Wyoming 

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland 

The Wildlife Society, Wyoming Chapter, Lander, 

Wyoming 

Wyoming Wetlands Society, Jackson, Wyoming 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Lander, Wyoming 

C.10 Universities 

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 

Sinte Gleska University, Sicangu Heritage Center, Mission, South Dakota 

C.11 Media 

Associated Press, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Casper Star Tribune, Casper, Wyoming 

Dubois Frontier, Dubois, Wyoming 

Herald Journal, Logan, Utah 

Idaho State Journal, Pocatello, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Magazine, Jackson, Wyoming 

Jackson Hole News and Guide, Jackson, 

Wyoming 

Jackson Hole Underground, Jackson, Wyoming 

JH Weekly, Jackson, Wyoming 

K2TV, Casper, Wyoming 

KCWY13, Mills, Wyoming 

KHOL, Jackson Hole Community Radio, Jackson, Wyoming 

KID FM, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

KIFI TV, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

KPIN, Pinedale Radio, Pinedale, Wyoming 

KPVI TV, Pocatello, Idaho 

KTWO, Casper, Wyoming 

KZ95, Jackson Hole Radio, Jackson, Wyoming 

The Mountain Pulse, Jackson, Wyoming 

New York Times, New York 

Pinedale Online, Pinedale, Wyoming 

Pinedale Roundup, Pinedale, Wyoming 

Post Register, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

Star Valley Independent, Afton, Wyoming 

Sublette Examiner, Pinedale, Wyoming 

Teton Valley News, Driggs, Idaho 

The Valley Citizen, Driggs, Idaho 

Wyoming Lifestyle Magazine, Laramie, 

Wyoming 

Wyoming Public Radio, Laramie, Wyoming 

C.12 Individuals 

121 individuals 

Appendix D
 

Species Lists 

What follows are the names of animals and plants found on the National Elk Refuge. 

D.1 Lists of Federally Listed and State-Listed Plants and Animals 

Plant species of concern listed in Wyoming are shown below. 

Scientific name Common name 

Aster borealis Rush aster 

Astragalus terminalis Railhead milkvetch 

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s sedge 

Carex parryana Parry sedge 

Carex scirpoidea scripiformis Canadian single-spike sedge 

Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keeled cotton-grass 

Heterotheca villosa var. depressa Teton golden aster 

Lesquerella carinata Keeled bladderpod 

Muhlenbergia glomerata Marsh muhly 

Salix candida Hoary willow 

Scirpus rollandii Pygmy bulrush 

Utricularia intermedia Flat-leaf bladderwort 

Animal species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act and by the State of Wyoming (species of 

greatest conservation need), with documented occurrence on the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming follow: 

Federally threatened—a plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its 

range; Federal candidate—a plant or animal species proposed for addition to the Federal endangered and 

threatened species list; Wyoming tier 1—highest priority species of greatest conservation need: Wyoming tier 

2—moderate priority species of greatest conservation need. 

Scientific name Common Name Documented refuge use 

Federally threatened 

Ursos arctos Grizzly bear Incidental 

Federal candidate 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater sage-grouse (also WY tier 1) Year-round, breeding documented 

Wyoming tier 1 

Anaxyrus boreas boreas Boreal toad Year-round, breeding documented 

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl Incidental 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk Seasonal 

Gavia immer Common loon Incidental 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Year-round, breeding documented 

Strix nebulosa Great gray owl Incidental 
246 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common Name Documented refuge use 

Wyoming tier 2 

Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted frog Year-round, breeding documented 

Charina bottae Northern rubber boa Incidental 

Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi Valley gartersnake Incidental 

Anas acuta Northern pintail Seasonal 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl Seasonal 

Aythya affinis Lesser scaup Seasonal, breeding documented 

Aythya americana Redhead Seasonal, breeding documented 

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern Seasonal 

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye Seasonal 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk Seasonal 

Calamospiza melanocorys Lark bunting Incidental 

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan Year-round, breeding documented 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Seasonal, breeding documented 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon Seasonal 

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern Incidental 

Larus pipixcan Franklin’s gull Seasonal 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker Seasonal 

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew Seasonal, breeding documented 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron Incidental 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail Incidental 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow Seasonal, breeding documented 

Tympanuchus phasianellus 

columbianus Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Incidental 

Alces alces Moose Year-round, breeding documented 

Lontra canadensis Northern river otter Year-round, breeding documented 

Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis Seasonal 

Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep Year-round, breeding documented 

Wyoming tier 3 

Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher Seasonal 

Falco columbarius Merlin Seasonal 

Grus canadensis Sandhill crane Seasonal, breeding documented 

D.2 Plant Species 

The following lists show the scientific and common names of the plant species that have been found on the 

National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. An asterisk (*) indicates a nonnative species. 

Scientific name Common name 

Achillea millefolium var. alpicola Common yarrow 

Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass 

Achnatherum nelsonii ssp. nelsonii Nelson’s needlegrass 

Agoseris glauca var. glauca Short-beaked agoseris 
Appendix D—Species Lists 247 

Scientific name Common name 

Agoseris glauca var. laciniata Short-beaked agoseris 

Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass* 

Agrostis stolonifera Redtop* 

Allium cernuum Nodding onion 

Allium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum Wild chives* 

Alopecurus aequalis Shortawn foxtail 

Alopecurus pratensis Meadow foxtail* 

Alyssum alyssoides Pale alyssum* 

Alyssum desertorum var. desertorum Desert alyssum* 

Amaranthus albus White pigweed 

Amelanchier alnifolia var. alnifolia Western serviceberry 

Anemone multifida Cliff anemone 

Angelica arguta Sharptooth angelica 

Angelica pinnata Pinnate-leaved angelica 

Antennaria dimorpha Low pussytoes 

Antennaria microphylla Small-leaf pussytoes 

Antennaria pulcherrima Showy pussytoes 

Antennaria rosea Rosy pussytoes 

Antennaria umbrinella Umber pussytoes 

Arabis drummondii Drummond’s rockcress 

Arabis glabra Towermustard 

Arabis holboellii Holboell’s rockcress 

Arenaria congesta Ballhead sandwort 

Argentina anserina Silverweed 

Arnica sororia Twin arnica 

Artemisia biennis var. biennis Biennial wormwood* 

Artemisia frigida Fringed sagewort 

Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. ludoviciana Louisiana sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Basin big sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita Threetip sagebrush 

Astragalus agrestis Field milkvetch 

Astragalus argophyllus var. argophyllus Silver-leaved milkvetch 

Astragalus canadensis var. brevidens Canada milkvetch 

Astragalus diversifolius var. campestris Lesser rushy milkvetch 

Astragalus eucosmus Elegant milkvetch 

Astragalus miser var. decumbens Sagebrush weedy milkvetch 

Astragalus miser var. tenuifolius Weedy milkvetch 

Astragalus purshii var. purshii Wooly milkvetch 

Astragalus terminalis Railhead milkvetch 

Atriplex rosea Red orache* 

Atriplex truncata Wedgescale orache 

Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot 

Besseya wyomingensis Wyoming kittentails 

Betula glandulosa Bog birch 
248 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common name 

Betula occidentalis Water birch 

Bidens cernua Nodding beggarticks 

Bromus carinatus California brome 

Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome 

Bromus inermis ssp. inermis Smooth brome* 

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass* 

Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint wheatgrass 

Calamagrostis rubescens Pinegrass 

Calamagrostis stricta Slimstem reedgrass 

Callitriche palustris Spring water starwort 

Calochortus nuttallii Sego-lily 

Camelina microcarpa Littlepod falseflax* 

Campanula rotundifolia Harebell 

Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s purse* 

Caragana arborescens Peatree* 

Cardaria chalapensis Chalapa hoarycress, whitetop* 

Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle* 

Carduus nutans Musk thistle* 

Carex aquatilis Water sedge 

Carex aurea Golden sedge 

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s sedge 

Carex capillaris Hair sedge 

Carex duriuscula Narrow-leaved sedge 

Carex filifolia Thread-leaved sedge 

Carex interior Inland sedge 

Carex microptera Small-wing sedge 

Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge 

Carex parryana var. parryana Parry sedge 

Carex pellita Woolly sedge 

Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge 

Carex rossii Ross sedge 

Carex rostrata Beaked sedge 

Carex sartwellii Sartwell’s sedge 

Carex scirpoidea ssp. scirpoidea Canadian single-spike sedge 

Carex simulata Analogue sedge 

Carex viridula Green sedge 

Castilleja angustifolia var. angustifolia Narrowleaf paintbrush 

Castilleja angustifolia var. dubia Desert paintbrush 

Castilleja flava Yellow paintbrush 

Castilleja miniata Scarlet paintbrush 

Catabrosa aquatica Brookgrass 

Cerastium beeringianum ssp. earlei Alpine chickweed 

Cercocarpus ledifolius var. ledifolius Curl-leaf mountain mahogany 

Chaenactis douglasii var. douglasii Hoary dustymaiden 

Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed 
Appendix D—Species Lists 249 

Scientific name Common name 

Chenopodium berlandieri var. zschackii Pitseed goosefoot 

Chenopodium foliosum Smallhead goosefoot* 

Chenopodium pratericola Mountain goosefoot 

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus Green rabbitbrush 

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus Green rabbitbrush 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle* 

Cirsium scariosum Elk thistle 

Cirsium subniveum Snowy thistle 

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle* 

Clematis hirsutissima Leatherflower 

Clematis occidentalis var. grosseserrata Rock virgin’s bower 

Collomia linearis Narrowleaf collomia 

Comandra umbellata ssp. pallida Bastard toad-flax 

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed* 

Cordylanthus ramosus Bushy birdbeak 

Cornus sericea Redosier dogwood 

Corydalis aurea Golden-smoke 

Crataegus douglasii Black hawthorn 

Crepis acuminata Tapertip hawksbeard 

Crepis modocensis Siskiyou hawksbeard 

Crepis runcinata ssp. glauca Meadow hawksbeard 

Crepis runcinata ssp. hispidulosa Broad-leaved meadow hawksbeard 

Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass* 

Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda Shrubby cinquefoil 

Delphinium bicolor Little larkspur 

Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass 

Descurainia incana ssp. procera Mountain tansymustard 

Descurainia sophia Flixweed* 

Dodecatheon pulchellum Dark-throat shooting star 

Elaeagnus commutata Silverberry 

Eleocharis acicularis Slender spikerush 

Eleocharis palustris Common spikerush 

Elymus albicans Griffith’s wheatgrass 

Elymus elymoides Bottlebrush squirreltail 

Elymus lanceolatus Thickspike wheatgrass 

Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Riparian thickspike wheatgrass 

Elymus repens Common quackgrass* 

Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass 

Epilobium brachycarpum Panicled willow-herb 

Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum American willow-herb 

Epilobium hornemannii Hornemann’s willow-herb 

Epilobium leptophyllum Swamp willow-herb 

Equisetum hyemale var. affine Common scouring-rush 

Equisetum laevigatum Smooth scouring-rush 

Equisetum variegatum Northern scouring-rush 
250 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common name 

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush 

Erigeron compositus Cut-leaved fleabane 

Erigeron corymbosus Foothill daisy 

Erigeron glabellus var. glabellus Smooth daisy 

Erigeron lonchophyllus Spear-leaf fleabane 

Erigeron pumilus Shaggy fleabane 

Eriogonum brevicaule var. laxifolium Shortstem buckwheat 

Eriogonum caespitosum Mat buckwheat 

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. purpureum Cushion buckwheat 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. majus Sulfur buckwheat 

Eriophorum angustifolium ssp. subarcticum Many-spiked cottongrass 

Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keeled cottongrass 

Erysimum capitatum var. capitatum Sanddune wallflower 

Erysimum cheiranthoides Treacle wallflower* 

Eucephalus elegans Elegant aster 

Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 

Festuca ovina Sheep fescue 

Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry 

Frasera speciosa Monument plant 

Frasera speciosa Green gentian 

Fritillaria atropurpurea Checker lily 

Galium boreale Northern bedstraw 

Galium trifidum Small bedstraw 

Gentiana affinis Prairie gentian 

Gentiana fremontii Water gentian 

Geranium viscosissimum var. incisum Sticky geranium 

Geranium viscosissimum var. viscosissimum Sticky geranium 

Geum macrophyllum var. perincisum Large-leaved avens 

Geum triflorum Prairie-smoke 

Glaux maritima Sea-milkwort 

Glyceria grandis American mannagrass 

Glyceria striata Fowl mannagrass 

Glycyrrhiza lepidota Licorice-root 

Gnaphalium palustre Lowland cudweed 

Grindelia squarrosa Curly-cup gumweed 

Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed 

Hackelia floribunda Many-flowered stickseed 

Hedysarum boreale Northern sweet-vetch 

Helianthella uniflora Rocky Mountain helianthella 

Heracleum maximum Cow parsnip 

Hesperostipa comata ssp. intermedia Needle and thread 

Heterotheca villosa var. depressa Teton golden aster 

Heuchera parvifolia Littleleaf alumroot 

Hierochloe odorata Common sweetgrass 

Hippuris vulgaris Common mare’s-tail 
Appendix D—Species Lists 251 

Scientific name Common name 

Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley 

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley 

Hypericum scouleri ssp. scouleri Western St. John’s-wort 

Ipomopsis aggregata Scarlet gilia 

Ipomopsis spicata ssp. orchidacea Mountain spicate-gilia 

Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis Baltic rush 

Juncus longistylis Long-styled rush 

Juncus nodosus Tuberous rush 

Juncus saximontanus Rocky Mountain rush 

Juncus tenuis var. dudleyi Slender rush 

Juniperus communis var. depressa Common juniper 

Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper 

Koeleria macrantha Junegrass 

Krascheninnikovia lanata Winterfat 

Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce* 

Lappula occidentalis var. occidentalis Western stickseed 

Lappula squarrosa European stickseed* 

Lemna minor Lesser duckweed 

Lepidium densiflorum Common peppergrass 

Lepidium perfoliatum Clasping peppergrass* 

Leptosiphon septentrionalis Northern linanthus 

Lesquerella carinata var. carinata Keeled bladderpod 

Leucopoa kingii Spikefescue 

Leymus cinereus Great Basin wildrye 

Linanthus pungens Common prickly-phlox 

Linum lewisii Blue flax 

Lithospermum ruderale Western gromwell 

Lomatium foeniculaceum Fennel-leaved biscuitroot 

Lomatium simplex var. simplex Nineleaf biscuitroot 

Lonicera involucrata Bearberry honeysuckle 

Lupinus argenteus ssp. argenteus Silvery lupine 

Lupinus argenteus var. rubricaulis Silvery lupine 

Lupinus sericeus Silky lupine 

Machaeranthera canescens ssp. canescens Hoary aster 

Mahonia repens Oregon-grape 

Maianthemum stellatum Starry false Solomon’s-seal 

Malcolmia africana Malcolmia* 

Matricaria discoidea Pineapple-weed* 

Medicago lupulina Black medic* 

Medicago sativa ssp. sativa Alfalfa* 

Melilotus officinalis White sweetclover* 

Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweetclover* 

Mentha arvensis Field mint 

Mertensia ciliata Ciliate bluebells 

Mertensia oblongifolia Leafy bluebells 
252 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common name 

Mimulus guttatus Yellow monkeyflower 

Minuartia nuttallii ssp. nuttallii Nutall’s sandwort 

Monolepis nuttalliana Povertyweed 

Muhlenbergia filiformis Pullup muhly 

Muhlenbergia glomerata Marsh muhly 

Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat muhly 

Myosotis scorpioides Common forget-me-not* 

Myriophyllum sibiricum Common watermilfoil 

Nassella viridula Green needlegrass 

Nasturtium officinale Watercress 

Oenothera caespitosa ssp. caespitosa Tufted evening-primrose 

Oenothera pallida ssp. trichocalyx Pale evening-primrose 

Opuntia polyacantha var. polyacantha Plains prickly-pear 

Orthocarpus luteus Yellow owl-clover 

Oxytropis deflexa var. sericea Nodding locoweed 

Packera cana Woolly groundsel 

Packera debilis Weak groundsel 

Packera paupercula Balsam groundsel 

Packera streptanthifolia Alpine meadow groundsel 

Packera streptanthifolia Cleft-leaved groundsel 

Parnassia palustris var. montanensis Northern grass-of-Parnassus 

Pedicularis crenulata Meadow lousewort 

Pedicularis groenlandica Elephanthead lousewort 

Penstemon humilis Lowly beardtongue 

Penstemon procerus var. procerus Small-flower beardtongue 

Penstemon radicosus Matroot beardtongue 

Penstemon subglaber Subglabrous beardtongue 

Petrophyton caespitosum Rocky Mountain rockmat 

Phacelia franklinii Franklin’s phacelia 

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass 

Phleum alpinum Alpine timothy 

Phleum pratense Timothy* 

Phlox hoodii Hood’s phlox 

Phlox kelseyi ssp. kelseyi Kelsey’s phlox 

Phlox longifolia Long-leaf phlox 

Phlox multiflora Many-flowered phlox 

Picea engelmannii Engelmann spruce 

Picea pungens Blue spruce 

Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine 

Pinus flexilis Limber pine 

Plantago eriopoda Alkali plantain 

Plantago major Common plantain 

Platanthera aquilonis Northern green bog-orchid 

Poa annua Annual bluegrass* 

Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass* 
Appendix D—Species Lists 253 

Scientific name Common name 

Poa cusickii ssp. epilis Cusick’s bluegrass 

Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 

Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass 

Polemonium occidentale Western Jacob’s-ladder 

Polygonum achoreum Erect knotweed 

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum Water smartweed 

Polygonum aviculare Common knotweed* 

Polygonum douglasii ssp. douglasii Douglas’ knotweed 

Polygonum viviparum Alpine bistort 

Populus angustifolia Narrowleaf cottonwood 

Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen 

Potentilla arguta Glandular cinquefoil 

Potentilla gracilis var. fastigiata Slender cinquefoil 

Potentilla gracilis var. pulcherrima Soft cinquefoil 

Potentilla norvegica Norwegian cinquefoil 

Potentilla ovina var. ovina Sheep cinquefoil 

Potentilla pensylvanica Prairie cinquefoil 

Primula incana Mealy primrose 

Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata Self-heal 

Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa Chokecherry 

Psathyrostachys juncea Russian wildrye* 

Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass 

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 

Pulsatilla patens ssp. multifida Pasqueflower 

Purshia tridentata Bitterbrush 

Pyrrocoma uniflora var. uniflora One-flowered goldenweed 

Ranunculus aquatilis var. diffusus new name White water buttercup 

Ranunculus cymbalaria Shore buttercup 

Ranunculus glaberrimus var. ellipticus Sagebrush buttercup 

Ranunculus hyperboreus Floating water buttercup 

Ranunculus inamoenus var. inamoenus Unlovely buttercup 

Ranunculus macounii Macoun’s buttercup 

Ranunculus sceleratus var. multifidus Blister buttercup 

Ribes aureum var. aureum Golden currant 

Ribes cereum var. cereum Wax currant 

Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. setosum Missouri gooseberry 

Rorippa curvipes var. truncata Wasatch yellowcress 

Rosa acicularis ssp. sayi Prickly rose 

Rosa woodsii var. woodsii Woods’ rose 

Rumex aquaticus var. fenestratus Western dock 

Rumex maritimus var. fueginus Golden dock 

Rumex salicifolius var. mexicanus Willow dock 

Salix bebbiana Bebb willow 

Salix boothii Booth’s willow 
254 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common name 

Salix brachycarpa Smallfruit willow 

Salix candida Hoary willow 

Salix drummondiana Drummond’s willow 

Salix exigua Narrowleaf willow 

Salix geyeriana Geyer willow 

Salix lucida ssp. caudata Greenleaf willow 

Salix lutea Yellow willow 

Salix melanopsis Dusky willow 

Salix planifolia Planeleaf willow 

Salsola tragus Russian thistle* 

Schoenocrambe linifolia Flax-leaved plainsmustard 

Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus Hardstem bulrush 

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Soft-stem bulrush 

Scutellaria galericulata Marsh skullcap 

Sedum lanceolatum Lance-leaved stonecrop 

Selaginella densa Compact spike-moss 

Senecio hydrophilus Water groundsel 

Senecio integerrimus var. exaltatus Western groundsel 

Senecio serra Butterweed groundsel 

Shepherdia canadensis Canada buffaloberry 

Silene latifolia White campion* 

Sisymbrium altissimum Tumblemustard* 

Sisyrinchium idahoense var. occidentale Western blue-eyed grass 

Sium suave Hemlock waterparsnip 

Solidago canadensis var. salebrosa Canada goldenrod 

Solidago missouriensis var. missouriensis Missouri goldenrod 

Solidago nana Low goldenrod 

Sonchus arvensis ssp. uliginosus Marsh sow-thistle* 

Spiranthes romanzoffiana Hooded lady’s tresses 

Stellaria crassifolia Thickleaved starwort 

Stellaria longipes Longstalk starwort 

Stenotus acaulis Stemless goldenweed 

Stuckenia filiformis ssp. filiformis Slender-leaved pondweed 

Stuckenia pectinata Fennel-leaved pondweed 

Swertia perennis Swertia 

Symphoricarpos oreophilus var. utahensis Mountain snowberry 

Symphyotrichum ascendens Long-leaved aster 

Symphyotrichum boreale Boreal aster 

Symphyotrichum eatonii Eaton’s aster 

Symphyotrichum foliaceum var. apricum Leafybract aster 

Symphyotrichum spathulatum var. spathulatum Western mountain aster 

Taraxacum laevigatum Red-seeded dandelion* 

Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion 

Tetradymia canescens Gray horsebrush 

Thalictrum alpinum Alpine meadowrue 
D.3 Mammal Species 

The following lists show the scientific and common names of the mammal species that have been found on 

the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. 

Scientific name Common name 

Insectivora Insectivores 

Sorex cinereus Masked shrew 

Sorex merriami Merriam’s shrew 

Sorex monticolus Dusky or montane shrew 

Sorex palustris Water shrew 

Appendix D—Species Lists 255 

Scientific name Common name 

Thalictrum venulosum Veiny meadowrue 

Thelypodium paniculatum Panicled thelypody 

Thinopyrum intermedium Intermediate wheatgrass* 

Thlaspi arvense Field pennycress* 

Townsendia nuttallii Nuttall’s Easter-daisy 

Tragopogon dubius Yellow salsify* 

Trichophorum pumilum Pygmy bulrush 

Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover* 

Trifolium pratense Red clover* 

Trifolium repens White clover* 

Triglochin maritima Seaside arrowgrass 

Triglochin palustris Marsh arrowgrass 

Typha latifolia Common cattail 

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle 

Utricularia intermedia Flat-leaf bladderwort 

Utricularia macrorhiza Greater bladderwort 

Valeriana edulis Tobacco-root 

Valeriana occidentalis Western valerian 

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein* 

Verbena bracteata Bracted vervain 

Veronica americana American brooklime 

Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water speedwell 

Vicia americana ssp. minor American vetch 

Vicia cracca Bird vetch* 

Viola adunca Early blue violet 

Viola palustris Marsh violet 

Viola praemorsa ssp. linguifolia Upland yellow violet 

Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed 

Zigadenus paniculatus Panicled death-camas 

Zizia aptera Heart-leaved Alexanders 
Scientific name Common name 

Chiroptera Bats 

Verspertilionidae 

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat 

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat 

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat 

Myotis ciliolabrum Small-footed myotis 

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis 

Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis 

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis 

Plecotus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Lagomorpha Rabbits and Hares 

Leporidae 

Lepus americanus Snowshoe hare 

Lepus townsendii White-tailed jackrabbit 

Rodentia Rodents 

Sciuridae (Squirrels) 

Glaucomys sabrinus Northern flying squirrel 

Marmota flaviventris Yellow-bellied marmot 

Spermophilus armatus Uinta ground squirrel 

Tamias amoenus Yellow-pine chipmunk 

Tamias minimus Least chipmunk 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel (pine squirrel, chickaree) 

Geomyidae (Pocket gophers) 

Thomomys talpoides Northern pocket gopher 

Castoridae (Beavers) 

Castor canadensis Beaver 

Cricetidae 

Neotoma cinerea Bushy tailed woodrat 

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse 

Arvicolinae (subfamily) 

Clethrionomys gapperi Southern red-backed vole 

Lemmiscus curtatus Sagebrush vole 

Microtus longicaudus Long-tailed vole 

Microtus montanus Montane vole 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 

Microtus richardsoni Water vole 

Microtus richardsoni Richardson’s vole 

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat 

Murinae (subfamily) 

Mus musculus House mouse 

Dipodidae 

Zapus princeps Western jumping mouse 

Erethizontidae (Porcupines) 

Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine 

256 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 
Scientific name Common name 

Carnivora Carnivores 

Canidae (Canids) 

Canis latrans Coyote 

Canis lupus Gray wolf 

Vulpes vulpes Red fox 

Ursidae (Bears) 

Ursus americanus Black bear 

Ursus arctos Grizzly bear 

Procyonidae (Raccoons) 

Procyon lotor Raccoon 

Mustelidae (Mustelids) 

Lutra canadensis Northern river otter 

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk 

Mustela erminea Ermine (short-tailed weasel) 

Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel 

Mustela vison Mink 

Taxidea taxus Badger 

Felidae (Felids) 

Lynx rufus Bobcat 

Puma concolor Mountain lion 

Artiodactyla Hoofed mammals 

Cervidae 

Alces alces Moose 

Antilocarpa americana Pronghorn 

Cervus elaphus Elk (wapiti) 

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer 

Odocoileus virgianus White-tailed deer 

Bovidae 

Bison bison Bison (American buffalo) 

Ovis canadensis Mountain sheep (bighorn sheep) 

Appendix D—Species Lists 257 

D.4 Bird Species 

The following lists show the scientific and common names of the mammal species that have been found on 

the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. An asterisk (*) indicates a nonnative species. 

Scientific name Common name 

Hummingbirds 

Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed hummingbird 

Selasphorus rufus Rufous hummingbird 

Stellula calliope Calliope hummingbird 
258 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common name 

Perching birds 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird 

Thus rubescens American pipit 

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing 

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing 

Carduelis pinus Pine siskin 

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch 

Carpodacus cassinii Cassin’s finch 

Carpodacus mexicanus House finch 

Catharus fuscescens Veery 

Catharus guttatu Hermit thrush 

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush 

Certhia americana Brown creeper 

Cinclus mexicanus American dipper 

Cistothorus palustris Marsh wren 

Contopus sordidulus Western wood-pewee 

Corvus brachyrhynchos Common crow 

Corvus corax Common raven 

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird 

Empidonax minimus Least flycatcher 

Empidonax oberholseri Dusky flycatcher 

Empidonax occidentalis Cordilleran flycatcher 

Empidonax trailii Willow flycatcher 

Eremophila alpestris Horned lark 

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird 

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat 

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow 

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat 

Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole 

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco 

Lanius excubitor Northern shrike 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike 

Leucosticte tephrocotis Gray-crowned rosy finch 

Loxia curvirostra Red crossbill 

Loxia leucoptera White-winged crossbill 

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow 

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird 

Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire 

Nucifraga columbiana Clark’s nutcracker 

Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler 

Passer domesticus House sparrow 

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow 
Appendix D—Species Lists 259 

Scientific name Common name 

Passerella iliaca Fox sparrow 

Passerina amoena Lazuli bunting 

Perisoreus canadensis Gray jay 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow 

Pheucticus melanocephalus Black-headed grosbeak 

Pica hudsonia Black-billed magpie 

Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed towhee 

Piranga ludoviciana Western tanager 

Plectrophenax nivalis Snow bunting 

Poecile atricapilla Black-capped chickadee 

Poecile gambile Mountain chickadee 

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow 

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned kinglet 

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet 

Riparia riparia Bank swallow 

Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren 

Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush 

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart 

Sialia currucoides Mountain bluebird 

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted nuthatch 

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted nuthatch 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow 

Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow 

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark 

Sturnus vulgaris European starling* 

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow 

Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green swallow 

Troglodytes aedon House wren 

Turdus migratorius American robin 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird 

Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird 

Vermivora celat Orange-crowned warbler 

Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo 

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed blackbird 

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow 

Woodpeckers 

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker 

Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker 

Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker 

Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker 
260 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common name 

Gallinaceous birds 

Alectoris chukar Chukar* 

Perdix perdix Gray partridge* 

Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater sage-grouse 

Dendragapus obscurus Blue grouse 

Waterfowl 

Anas acuta Northern pintail 

Anas americana American wigeon 

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler 

Anas crecca Green-winged teal 

Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon teal 

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 

Anas strepera Gadwall 

Aythya affinis Lesser scaup 

Aythya americana Redhead 

Aythya collaris Ringed-neck duck 

Branta canadensis Canada goose 

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead 

Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye 

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye 

Chen caerulescens Snow goose 

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan 

Cygnus columbianus Tundra swan 

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser 

Mergus merganser Common merganser 

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck 

Shorebirds 

Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper 

Capella gallinago Common snipe 

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer 

Ereubetes mauri Western sandpiper 

Eupoda montana Mountain plover 

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt 

Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed dowitcher 

Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit 

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew 

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope 

Recurvirostra americana American avocet 

Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs 

Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs 

Rails and coots 

Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail 
Scientific name Common name 

Fulica americana American coot 

Porzana carolina Sora 

Cranes 

Grus canadensis Sandhill crane 

Bitterns, herons, and ibis 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis 

Ardea herodias Great blue heron 

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern 

Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret 

Leucophoyx thula Snowy egret 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron 

Raptors 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk 

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk 

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged hawk 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk 

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture 

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier 

Falco columbarius Merlin 

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon 

Falco sparverius American kestrel 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey 

Owls 

Aegolius acadicus Northern saw-whet owl 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl 

Asio otus Long-eared owl 

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl 

Bubo virginianus Great-horned owl 

Strix nebulosa Great grey owl 

Seabirds 

Aechmophorus occidentalis Western grebe 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos White pelican 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant 

Podiceps caspicus Eared grebe 

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe 

Gulls and terns 

Chlidonias niger Black tern 

Larus californicus California gull 

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull 

Larus pipixcan Franklin’s gull 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern 

Appendix D—Species Lists 261 
262 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Scientific name Common name 

Sterna forsteri Forster’s turn 

Other birds 

Gavia immer Common loon 

Ceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher 

Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk 

Columba livia Rock dove* 

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove* 

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove 

D.5 Amphibian and Reptile Species 

The following lists show the scientific and common names of the amphibian and reptile species that have 

been found on the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. 

Scientific name Common name 

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander 

Bufo boreas boreas Boreal toad 

Charina bottae bottae Rubber boa 

Pseudacris maculate Boreal chorus frog 

Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted frog 

Thannophis elegans vagrans Intermountain wandering garter snake 

Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi Valley garter snake 

D.6 Fish Species 

The following lists show the scientific and common names of the fish species that have been found on the 

National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. An asterisk (*) indicates a nonnative species. 

Scientific name Common name 

Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker 

Catostomus ardens Utah sucker 

Catostomus platyrhynchus Mountain sucker 

Cottus bairdi Mottled sculpin 

Cottus beldingi Paiute sculpin 

Oncorhynchus clarkii Snake River cutthroat trout 

Oncorhynchus clarkia ssp. x O. mykiss Snake River cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid 

Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout* 

Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow* 

Prosopium williamsoni Mountain whitefish 

Richardsonius balteatus Redside shiner 
Appendix D—Species Lists 263 

Scientific name Common name 

Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose dace 

Rhinichthys osculus Speckled dace 

Salmo trutta Brown trout* 

Salvelinus fontinalis Eastern brook trout* 

E.1 Refuge Name and Date 

Established 

■■ National Elk Refuge 

■■ Established August 10, 1912 

E.2 Refuge Purposes 

The following excerpts describe the various purposes of the refuge as set in legal orders, laws, and 

regulations: 

■■	 as “a winter game (elk) reserve” (16 U.S.C. § 

673, 37 Stat.293) 

■■ as “a winter elk refuge” (37 Stat. 847) 

■■	 for “refuge and breeding grounds for birds” 

(Executive Orders 3596 and 3741) 

■■	 for “the grazing of, and as a refuge for, 

American elk and other big game animals” 

(16 U.S.C. § 673a, 44 Stat. 1246) 

■■ for “the conservation of fish and wildlife” (16 

U.S.C. § 742[a–j], Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

■■	 for “opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreational development oriented to fish and 

wildlife, the protection of natural resources, 

and the conservation of threatened or 

endangered species” (16 U.S.C., § 460[k–l], 

Refuge Recreation Act) 

E.3 National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

E.4 Description of Uses 

The following uses are evaluated for their compatibility on the refuge: 

■■ Hunting 

■■ Fishing 

■■	 Wildlife Observation and Noncommercial 

Photography 

■■	 Environmental Education and
 

Interpretation
 

■■ Research and Monitoring 

■■	 Commercial Filming, Audio Recording, and 

Still Photography 

■■	 Commercial Guiding, Outfitting, Game 


Retrieval, and Wildlife-Viewing Tours
 

Appendix E 

Compatibility Determinations 
266 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Hunting 

The CCP proposes to continue to provide elk and 

bison hunting consistent with the Bison and Elk Management Plan, including adaptively modifying hunting regulations to achieve herd size objectives and 

extending accommodations for hunters with disabilities. The refuge would continue to allow elk and bison 

retrieval from the Bridger-Teton National Forest to 

Elk Refuge Road south and west of Twin Creek subdivision, allow a ceremonial tribal bison hunt with 

annual harvest of up to five bison, prohibit the hunting of any other wildlife species other than elk and 

bison, and promote voluntary use of lead-free 

ammunition. 

In addition, the refuge would expand hunting 

opportunities for young people. We would work with 

partners to develop a hunter mentoring program. By 

scheduling the existing youth hunt to later in the season, young hunters would have a better chance of 

observing and harvesting elk. Options would include 

designating a weekend midseason (of the adult 

hunter season) for youth only or adding a weekend 

after the end of the regular elk season. 

The refuge would provide more outreach for other 

refuge users to promote education and awareness of 

the refuge hunting program. Staff would develop 

bear attractant regulations for hunting on the refuge, 

encourage the carry of bear spray while hunting, and 

consider requiring hunters to carry bear spray. Staff 

might develop hunter-use management tools such as 

hunter checkpoints, hunter success surveys, and 

mandatory reporting of tag use to better manage 

hunt program opportunities. 

The refuge would consider and create more hunting opportunities for species other than elk and bison 

as the need arose. Staff would coordinate with 

WGFD to develop specific refuge hunting opportunities by making available limited-quota type 6 tags in 

Hunt Area 77 on the refuge to increase cow elk harvest. We would also work with WGFD to develop a 

limited-quota antlered elk hunt on the refuge to provide more quality opportunities using limited-quota, 

type 1 tags in Hunt Area 77. The refuge would open 

currently closed areas on the southern and western 

boundaries of the refuge to archery hunters to create 

more harvest opportunities. 

We would analyze and consider more hunter 

access areas and designated parking lots. The staff 

would look at more access for bison hunters on the 

northern end of the refuge though the Teton Valley 

Highlands subdivision, either on the western end of 

the subdivision to hunt retrieval road 6 or on the 

eastern end to hunt retrieval road 7. We would consider access for archery hunters on the western 

boundary of the refuge next to the Jackson National 

Fish Hatchery. 

Availability of Resources 

The refuge updates with available resources the 

current directional signs and brochures. Maintenance of access roads, parking, hunting and information kiosks, and public use signs is closely tied to 

Maintenance Management System funding. The refuge’s base money would pay for the update and printing of brochures. 

The refuge would need more law enforcement 

staff and resources (1) to manage significant changes 

in the hunting program to reduce disturbance to 

wildlife and habitat, (2) to carry out and encourage 

preventative law enforcement efforts, and (3) to check 

compliance with public use and hunting regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

The hunting program would continue to provide 

hunters ample opportunity for quality hunting experiences without materially detracting from the mission of the Refuge System or the establishing 

purposes of the refuge. We would keep the public use 

brochures and the refuge’s Web site up-to-date and 

readily available to hunters. Staff would continue to 

monitor hunter success and satisfaction through random contacts with hunters in the field and in the refuge office. 

Elk and bison hunting programs on the National 

Elk Refuge are essential to achieve the population 

objectives outlined in the Bison and Elk Management 

Plan. Although hunting directly affects the hunted 

species and might indirectly disturb other species, 

limits on harvest and access for recreational hunting 

would make sure that populations do not fall to 

unsustainable levels. By its nature, hunting creates a 

disturbance to wildlife and directly affects the individual animals being hunted. We would design and 

monitor hunting to offer a safe and quality program 

and to keep adverse effects within acceptable limits. 

Other effects from hunting activity include conflicts with individuals participating in wildlife-dependent, priority public uses such as wildlife observation 

and photography. This could decrease the visitor 

satisfaction during the hunting season. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for the 

National Elk Refuge. 
Appendix E—Compatibility Determinations 267 

Determination 

Hunting would be a compatible use on the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

Hunters would be required to follow refuge-specific regulations for acquisition of hunting permits; 

access, parking, and travel restrictions; and weapons 

and ammunition limitations. Limiting access and 

monitoring the use could help limit any adverse 

effects. 

Justification 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966, 

other laws, and the Service’s policy allow hunting on 

a national wildlife refuge when it is compatible with 

the purposes for which the refuge was established 

and acquired. Hunting is a form of wildlife-dependent 

recreation and is identified as a priority public use in 

the Improvement Act. Based on anticipated biological 

effects described above and in the EA, we find that 

hunting on the refuge in accordance with State regulations would not interfere with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established and would support 

management objectives. Special refuge regulations 

are in place to reduce negative effects on habitat and 

wildlife. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028 

Fishing 

This use would be a continuation of the historical 

activity of noncommercial fishing. Public use areas 

such as parking and fishing areas, as well as interpretive panels, signs, kiosks, and other structures might 

be installed and supported to facilitate the fishing 

program. Areas on the refuge that are seasonally 

sensitive to migratory birds would remain closed to 

public entry and use. The refuge would open only 

selected areas to fishing. Special refuge regulations 

governing fishing would be available in refuge 

brochures. 

The CCP proposes to allow fishing on the refuge 

in accordance with State regulations. The refuge 

would provide fishing opportunities during daylight 

hours. We would maintain fishing access along Highway 89, along with the parking turnouts along upper 

Flat Creek. The Gros Ventre River, upper Flat 

Creek, lower Flat Creek, lower Nowlin Creek and 

Sleeping Indian Pond are open to fishing according to 

season dates and regulations set by WGFD. All other 

refuge ponds, Flat Creek downstream from the old 

Crawford Bridge site, and Nowlin Creek upstream 

from the posted fishing boundary would remain 

closed to fishing. 

Besides sponsoring Kids’ Fishing Day with Jackson National Fish Hatchery and WGFD, the refuge 

would start programs that attract more young people 

to fish at the refuge. Future programs could include 

casting instruction, fishing skills clinics, and a mentoring program for young anglers. 

The Flat Creek fishery is managed for a native, 

wild, and trophy-sized population of Snake River cutthroat trout. Long-time devotees of Flat Creek 

report a decline in the opportunity to fish for large 

cutthroats. Recent fish surveys show that nonnative 

trout (brook, brown, and rainbow) account for almost 

half of the trout population in Flat Creek. There is a 

need for management of this fishery to support the 

quality of the fishing experience. 

Availability of Resources 

The refuge has adequate administrative and management staff to support the fishing program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Temporary disturbance of wildlife might occur 

near fishing activity. Fishing would temporarily 

decrease the fish population until natural reproduction or stocking replenished the population. Frequency of use would be directly dependent on fish 

populations and their feeding activity. When fish 

populations were high and active, public use would 

increase. Minimal disturbance to ground-nesting 

birds might occur from anglers walking along rivers 

and streams. Littering could also become a problem. 

We anticipate no long-term negative effects on 

resources. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Determination 

Fishing would be a compatible use on the National 

Elk Refuge in accordance with State regulations. 
268 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

Refuge regulations allow access to fishing areas 

during daylight hours only. A scheduled gate opening 

at daylight on the August 1 season opening would be 

consistent with refuge regulations. We would post 

access gates with opening time information and conduct public outreach. 

The typical Flat Creek anglers are avid flycasters 

that have adopted catch-and-release principles as 

their conservation ethic. The refuge needs to create 

an educational component that would convince our 

anglers to harvest nonnative trout. Special refuge 

regulations might be necessary to require anglers to 

remove nonnative trout caught in Flat Creek to meet 

management objectives. 

Justification 

Fishing is a form of wildlife-dependent recreations and is identified as a priority public use in the 

Improvement Act. Based on the biological effects 

addressed above and in the EA, we find that fishing 

would not interfere with the purposes for establishment of the refuge. Current staff levels and money 

are adequate. Special refuge regulations are in place 

to reduce negative effects on refuge habitat and 

wildlife. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028 

Wildlife Observation and 

Noncommercial Photography 

A variety of habitats and many species of wildlife 

on the refuge provide observation and photography 

opportunities year-round. The refuge would continue 

to provide wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities such as (1) observation blinds, (2) an 

up-to-date species list for the refuge, and (3) allowing 

the use of portable viewing and photography blinds 

through the issuance of special use permits. These 

activities may take place on foot, bicycle, automobile, 

horse, cross-country skis, and snowshoes. 

Refuge facilities bring visitors closer to wildlife. 

New facilities for observing and photographing wildlife (such as observation platforms, trails, auto tour 

routes, photography blinds, and webcams) might be 

developed. In addition, the CCP proposes maintaining access to existing turnouts, trails, and other 

observation sites. The primary viewing turnouts and 

designated observation sites follow: 

■■	 upper viewing platform on the second story 

of the visitor center 

■■	 Burt Raynes Boardwalk and remote-viewing platform on the eastern side of the visitor center lawn 

■■	 turnout north of the visitor center and the 

Flat Creek Bridge, which has a viewing 

platform and National Elk Refuge sign 

(turnout would continue to be plowed in 

winter, thus providing year-round access to 

the turnout) 

■■	 turnout along Highway 89 north of Jackson, 

which has a kiosk and interpretive panel 

about the purpose of the fence and the elk 

“jumps” (refer to “Fencing” in chapter 4, 

section 4.3) (turnout would continue to be 

plowed in winter by the Wyoming Department of Transportation, giving travelers on 

Highway 89 a safe place to pull over and 

view wildlife; however, plowed snow would 

pile up on the northern end of the turnout, 

blocking access to the kiosk and interpretive 

panel) 

■■	 with added turnouts, about 10 turnouts 

would be available on Elk Refuge Road. 

They would be plowed during winter 

months to encourage vehicles to move off 

the road to view wildlife 

Elk Refuge Road and Flat Creek Road would be 

open to the public for wildlife observation and access 

to national forest lands from May 1 through November 30. During winter, 3.5 miles of Elk Refuge Road 

(from the refuge entrance to the Twin Creek subdivision) would be open to provide access to national forest lands and wildlife-viewing opportunities. Access 

to the refuge beyond the Twin Creek subdivision 

would continue to be restricted as part of an area 

closure to protect wintering wildlife and is coordinated with the Bridger-Teton National Forest. 

In addition the refuge would use the Jackson Hole 

Community Pathways to develop a more prominent 

access route across visitor center lawn to the existing remote-viewing platform and develop a boardwalk through wetland areas near the visitor center. 

We might build a photo blind along the boardwalk for 

noncommercial photography. The refuge might use 

webcams to provide remote wildlife-viewing 

opportunities. 
Appendix E—Compatibility Determinations 269 

Availability of Resources 

Sufficient resources are available to administer, 

manage, and check this use of wildlife observation 

and noncommercial photography. Existing refuge 

infrastructure would support these activities. The 

construction and maintenance of roadways, kiosks, 

observation platforms, and trails, as well as law 

enforcement activities to make sure that visitors 

comply with refuge regulations while conducting 

these activities, are the principle expenses associated 

with wildlife observation and photography. An extra 

park ranger, law enforcement officer, and maintenance worker, as proposed in the CCP, would enhance 

public opportunities for these uses and improve the 

quality and quantity of opportunities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The proposed wildlife observation and photography uses, including development of facilities to support those uses, would foster public appreciation and 

understanding of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

and the importance of refuge habitats for wildlife 

conservation. 

Short-term effects might include the temporary 

displacement of bison, elk, birds, and other wildlife to 

adjacent habitats during the initial positioning and 

removal of portable blinds, cameras, and other equipment. Observation areas are in locations that provide 

consistent wildlife-viewing opportunity with minimal 

disturbance to wildlife. 

Hiking during the breeding season, when confined 

to open trails and roads would have little or no effect 

on wildlife. Bicycling would be restricted to roadways open to vehicular traffic to reduce disturbance 

to wildlife. Some animals and birds would be flushed 

from foraging or resting habitats by the approach of 

people on trails. 

Winter disturbance to resident wildlife would be 

temporary and minor. The destruction of ground bird 

nests by horses (allowed only during hunting) and the 

disturbance to other wildlife would be minimal 

because of the seasonal restrictions inherent to the 

hunting season. 

The area affected by these disturbances would be 

small compared to the overall habitat available. Furthermore, all areas are available to wildlife for undisturbed use during closed hours, and we do not 

anticipate that disturbance caused by observation 

and photography would cause wildlife to leave the 

refuge. We find that disturbance from wildlife observation and noncommercial photography programs 

would be biologically insignificant. We would expect 

no long-term effects if recommended stipulations 

were followed. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Determination 

Wildlife observation and noncommercial photography would be compatible uses on the National Elk 

Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

The refuge would issue special use permits to all 

individuals using blinds for observation and photography on the refuge. Staff would issue five special use 

permits for designated areas in any given year. The 

use of small observation blinds would be available on 

a first-come, first-serve basis. If the number of 

requests for blinds exceeded five, the permitting process would be reviewed and modified as necessary. 

Refuge staff would give information to visitors using 

permanent or portable observation and photography 

blinds on proper use and etiquette of these structures 

to reduce disturbance to wildlife and their natural 

environments and other refuge visitors: 

■■	 Visitors need to notify refuge staff before 

arrival at the refuge for observation and 

photography. 

■■	 Refuge staff decides locations of blinds, 

which might be limited to areas next to public access roads. 

■■	 Refuge staff decides if, when, where, and for 

how long access may be allowed to photograph at individual areas. 

■■	 Visitors need to erect and remove portable 

blinds daily. 

The refuge would support seasonal closures to 

protect sensitive wildlife areas and reduce disturbance to fish and wildlife. We would restrict nonService vehicles to county and public access roads in 

the refuge. 

We would design viewing areas to reduce disturbance effects on wildlife and all refuge resources 

while providing a good opportunity to view wildlife 

in natural environments. 

The refuge would allow foot traffic (hiking, crosscountry skiing, and snowshoeing) only on designated 

trails, roads open to motorized vehicles, and in the 

refuge hunt area during the refuge hunting season. 
270 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

We would restrict use of horses to the hunting program or to roadways open to motorized vehicles 

year-round. The refuge would restrict bicycling to 

designated trails and roadways open to motorized 

vehicles. 

Justification 

Wildlife observation and photography are forms 

of wildlife-dependent recreation and are identified as 

priority public uses in the Improvement Act. These 

uses, both existing and future enhanced programs as 

prescribed in the CCP, would be compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge 

System. These uses are not only justified but are 

encouraged by the Improvement Act. Wildlife observation and photography can instill, in citizens of all 

ages, a greater appreciation for wildlife and its habitat. This appreciation could extend to the Refuge 

System and other conservation agencies. 

Disturbance from wildlife observation and photography is not expected to adversely affect wildlife 

populations. Most wildlife observation is confined 

within a set distance from existing roadways. In 

some locations, the infrastructure helps to concentrate visitors in areas that can allow wildlife observation and photography opportunities at safe distances 

that reduce disturbance to wildlife. 

Based on anticipated biological effects described 

above and in the EA, we find that wildlife observation and noncommercial photography on the refuge 

would not interfere with the purposes for which the 

refuge was established. Limiting access and monitoring the uses could help limit any adverse effects. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

The refuge would provide opportunity for student 

field trips on an “as-arranged” basis. Temporary and 

impromptu outdoor classrooms could be established 

or used in wetland and riparian habitats; however, 

seasonal closures might occur to avoid effects on 

threatened and endangered species or sensitive 

habitats. 

Interpretive panels and auto tour brochures 

would give visitors information about habitat, wildlife, management actions. 

The CCP proposes to continue environmental education and interpretation and add the following to 

improve these programs to foster appreciation and 

understanding of the Refuge System and the 

resources of the refuge: 

■■	 The refuge would develop a self-guided 

interpretive tour route on Elk Refuge Road 

and Flat Creek Road on the eastern side of 

the refuge, including interpretive turnouts, 

signage, and brochures. We would need to 

address safety mitigation during critical 

times of year (hunting and bison hazing). 

The refuge would need to update and 

replace interpretive signs as needed, with 

panels related to the tour route theme. 

❏■ First phase (winter route)—Develop the 

route from Elk Refuge Road entrance to 

Twin Creek subdivision for approximately 

3.5 miles. 

❏■ Second phase (summer route)—Develop 

the route from Twin Creek subdivision to 

the McBride area; open May 1–December 

1 with an interpretive kiosk at the 

McBride parking area. 

❏■ Third phase—Increase traffic control 

signing from the McBride area to the 

eastern parking lot and include the traffic 

information in the brochure. (If we 

encouraged or promoted traffic to the east 

parking lot, we would need to make a 

major change to the road for safety. Currently, this is a one-lane road around 

McBride Ridge.) 

■■	 We might develop short multimedia presentations that would be available on demand. 

This would respond to visitors’ needs and 

preferences as well as allow refuge staff to 

update segments with minimal cost and 

staff time. 

■■	 We would emphasize the role of national 

wildlife refuges versus national parks and 

national forests. 

■■	 The refuge would use the North Highway 

89 Pathway during open season to interpret 

wetland values or other messages. Refuge 

staff would cooperate with Teton County to 

evaluate pathway effects on wildlife and 

habitat and adjust use as appropriate. 

■■	 Refuge staff would develop a more prominent access route across visitor center lawn 

to the existing remote-viewing platform and 

develop a boardwalk through wetland areas 
 

Appendix E—Compatibility Determinations 271 

near the visitor center. A photo blind might 

be developed along the boardwalk for noncommercial photography. 

■■	 We would develop more accessible observation sites on the refuge. 

■■	 Refuge staff might take part in special 

events and activities offsite to bring the refuge message to large numbers of people as 

time and staff allow. 

■■	 The refuge would update interpretive panels, brochures, Web sites, and maps. 

Availability of Resources 

The refuge would use annual operations money, 

grants, regional project proposals, and challenge 

cost-share agreements to enhance environmental 

education and interpretation activities, directional 

signs, and brochures. 

The visitor services staff relies on a large residential volunteer workforce as the means to offer formal 

and informal interpretation during the summer 

months when visitor center visitation peaks. Volunteers also provide formal and informal interpretation 

during the winter months. The refuge would seek 

money for permanent or seasonal interpreters to 

improve programming at the visitor center, Miller 

House, and offsite programs. 

To meet the demand for environmental education 

during the school year, we use money from nongovernmental partnerships to hire seasonal winter naturalists. Refuge volunteers offer environmental 

education programs in the spring. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

We would continue to promote a greater public 

understanding and appreciation of the refuge 

resources, programs, and issues through interpretive, outreach, and environmental education programs. The refuge staff would continue to provide 

environmental education and interpretation both on 

and off refuge lands. Presentations, both on and off 

Service lands, would be provided to refuge visitors, 

school groups, and organizations, helping us reach a 

broader audience. 

Updated brochures, interpretive panels, and other 

educational materials would help visitors understand 

refuge resources, ecosystem processes, and land 

management. Features such as the proposed auto 

tour route and accessible observation sites would 

provide access to the many sights and sounds of the 

refuge. 

We would manage onsite presentations to reduce 

disturbance to wildlife, habitat, and cultural 

resources. 

We would manage onsite presentations to reduce 

disturbance to wildlife, habitat, and cultural 

resources; however, there might be a short-term, lowlevel effect on the immediate and surrounding area. 

Effects could include trampling of vegetation and 

temporary disturbance to nearby wildlife species 

during the activities. Development and implementation of interpretive and education programs would 

have minimal and biologically insignificant effects on 

refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Determination 

Environmental education and interpretation 

would be compatible uses on the National Elk 

Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

The refuge would hold onsite activities where 

minimal effect on wildlife and habitats would occur. 

All motor vehicles associated with environmental 

education and interpretation would remain on designated roads open to vehicular traffic. 

Staff would check use patterns and would make 

adjustments in timing, location, and duration of activities as needed to limit disturbance to wildlife and 

habitat. 

We would review new environmental education 

and interpretation activities to make sure these 

activities met program objectives and were 

compatible. 

Justification 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

forms of wildlife-dependent recreation and are priority public uses of the Refuge System. Environmental 

education and interpretation would increase public 

awareness and appreciation of the significant wildlife 

and habitat values of the refuge and the Refuge System. We anticipate that such appreciation and understanding would foster increased public support for 
272 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

the Refuge System and conservation of America’s 

wildlife resources. 

Based on the anticipated biological effects 

described above and in the EA, we find that environmental education and interpretation on the refuge 

would not interfere with the purposes for which the 

refuge was established. Limiting access and monitoring the uses could help limit any adverse effects. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028 

Research and Monitoring 

The refuge would allow research and monitoring 

on a variety of biological, physical, and social issues 

and concerns to address management information 

needs or other issues. Studies would be conducted by 

Federal, State, and private entities, including the 

U.S. Geological Survey, State and private universities, and independent researchers and contractors. 

Each year, the refuge issues special use permits 

for biological and physical research studies; normally, 

we get fewer than 10 requests each year. The refuge 

would give priority to studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge’s native plant, fish, and wildlife 

populations and their habitats. Research applicants 

must submit proposals that describe the following: 

■■ objectives of the study 

■■ justification for the study 

■■ detailed study methods and a schedule 

■■	 potential effects on wildlife and habitat 

including short- and long-term disturbance, 

injury, or mortality 

■■	 measures the researcher would take to 


reduce disturbances or other effects
 

■■	 personnel involved and their qualifications 

and experience 

■■	 status of necessary permits (such as scientific collecting permits and endangered species permits) 

■■	 costs to the refuge and refuge staff time 


requested, if any
 

■■	 anticipated progress reports and end products, such as reports or publications 

Refuge staff would review research permit applications and issue special use permits if approved. 

Evaluation criteria for the issuance of special use 

permits would include, but not be limited to, the 

following: 

■■	 We would give higher priority over other 

requests to research that would contribute 

to specific management issues, the purposes 

of the refuge, or the mission of the Refuge 

System. 

■■	 We would not approve research that would 

conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs. 

■■	 We would be less likely to approve research 

projects that could be conducted off refuge 

lands. 

■■	 We would likely not approve research that 

would cause undue disturbance or would be 

intrusive. The refuge would carefully weigh 

the degree and type of disturbance when 

evaluating a research request. 

■■	 We would decide if the research evaluation 

made any effort to reduce disturbance 

through study design including adjusting 

location, timing, number of permittees, 

study methods, and number of study sites. 

■■	 We would likely deny the request if staff 

levels or logistics make it impossible for refuge staff to check researcher activity in a 

sensitive area. 

■■	 We would consider and agree on the length 

of the project before approval. 

■■	 To reduce disturbance to wildlife, we would 

not permit researchers in closed areas, 

unless specifically authorized. The refuge 

would permit vehicular access only on roads 

and trails normally open to the public. 

Availability of Resources 

Current staff would be adequate to manage 

research and monitoring projects at anticipated levels. Reviewing a permit application, drafting and 

issuing the special use permit, and making compliance assessments would take an average of 15 hours 

of staff time per permit. 

Access points, vehicles, miscellaneous equipment, 

and limited logistical support might be available at 
Appendix E—Compatibility Determinations 273 

the refuge manager’s discretion. Temporary housing 

on the refuge might be available for use by researchers while studying refuge resources, at the refuge 

manager’s discretion. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

We would expect some degree of disturbance with 

all research activities, because researchers might use 

Service roads or enter areas that are closed to the 

public. Research activities might disturb fish and 

wildlife and their habitats. For example, the presence 

of researchers could cause waterfowl to flush from 

resting and feeding areas, cause disruption of birds 

and other wildlife on nests or breeding areas, or 

increase predation on individual nests and animals as 

predators follow human scent or trails. To wildlife, 

the energy cost of disturbance could be appreciable in 

terms of disruption of feeding, displacement from 

preferred habitat, and the added energy expenditure 

to avoid disturbance. Some research might require 

collection of samples or handling of wildlife. Efforts 

to capture animals could cause disturbance, injury, or 

death to groups of wildlife or to individuals. 

Sampling activities could cause compaction of soils 

and the trampling of vegetation, the establishment of 

temporary foot trails through vegetation, and disruption of bottom sediments in wetlands. The removal of 

vegetation or sediments by core sampling methods 

could increase localized turbidity and disrupt nontarget plants and animals. Installation of posts, equipment platforms, collection devices, and other 

research equipment might present a hazard to heavy 

equipment operators if these items were not adequately marked and removed at the right times or on 

completion of the project. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Determination 

Research and monitoring would be compatible 

uses on the National Elk Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

Refuge staff would use the above criteria for 

evaluating and determining whether to approve a 

proposed study. Before conducting investigations, 

researchers would obtain a special use permit from 

the refuge that contained specific stipulations for 

when, where, and how the research would be conducted. If research methods were found to have 

potential effects on habitat or wildlife, it must be 

shown that the research was necessary for conservation management of resources on the refuge. The 

researchers would develop measures to reduce potential effects to be included as part of the study design; 

these measures would be conditions in the special use 

permit. The refuge manager would have the discretion to prohibit research that causes undo harm or 

disturbance or that would not contribute to the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge 

System. 

Researchers would follow all refuge rules and 

regulations unless otherwise exempted by refuge 

management. Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats 

and species would be sufficiently protected from disturbance by limiting research activities in these 

areas. The refuge would review projects annually, 

and researcher would submit annual progress 

reports. Refuge staff would check research activities 

for compliance with conditions of the special use permit. At any time, refuge staff might accompany the 

researchers to determine potential effects. Staff 

could decide that approved research and special use 

permits be terminated because of observed effects. 

The refuge manager could also cancel a special use 

permit if the researcher was out of compliance or to 

make sure there is wildlife and habitat protection. 

Specific stipulations in the special use permit 

would vary by research project, but would be 

designed to reduce impacts to wildlife and their habitats and to make sure visitors, researchers, and refuge staff were safe. To reduce potential safety 

hazards, researchers must clearly mark posts, equipment platforms, fencing materials, and other equipment left unattended. Such items must be promptly 

removed on completion of the research. 

Researchers must possess all applicable State and 

Federal permits for the capture and possession of 

protected species, for conducting regulated activities 

in wetlands, and for any other regulated activities. 

Research involving collections would be 

extremely restricted. Collections would be limited to 

type or voucher specimens only, require preapproval 

by the refuge manager, and include verification of 

compliance with all State and Federal collection permits and requirements. 

Researchers would promptly submit findings, 

such as annual status reports and a final report, to 

the refuge manager for inclusion in the decisionmaking and management process. 

Justification 

Research and monitoring would be activities that 

provide essential information necessary for the 
274 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

appropriate and effective management of refuge 

resources: 

■■	 • Research can help provide answers to 

complex questions, when those answers are 

not readily apparent and are vital to determining effective management strategies. 

■■	 • Monitoring would be necessary to quantify or qualify the results of management 

actions. This is a basic step in the adaptive 

resource management process and necessary to guide modifications to management 

actions for improved results. 

We would issue research and monitoring permits 

only when the information they provided was so valuable that it outweighed the temporary disturbance 

and minor effects on wildlife and their habitats. We 

would expect minimal effects on refuge wildlife and 

habitats with research studies, because special use 

permits would include conditions to make sure that 

these effects were kept to a minimum. 

Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date: 2023 

Commercial Filming, Audio 

Recording, and Still Photography 

Commercial motion pictures and audio recordings 

are defined as the digital or film recording of a visual 

image or sound recording by a person, business, or 

other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television, feature film, advertisement, or 

similar project. It does not include news coverage or 

amateur and visitor use. 

Commercial photography is defined as a visual 

recording (motion or still) by firms or individuals 

other than news media representatives who intend to 

distribute their photographic content for money or 

other consideration. This includes the creation of educational, entertainment, or commercial enterprises as 

well as advertising audiovisuals for the purpose of 

paid product or services, publicity, and commercially 

oriented photo contests. 

The National Elk Refuge provides tremendous 

opportunities for commercial filming and photography of bison, elk, migratory birds, and other wildlife. 

Each year, the refuge staff receives 6–15 requests to 

conduct commercial filming or photography on refuge 

lands. Refuge staff review requests for commercial 

photography, motion pictures, and audio recordings 

and issue special use permits for approved requests. 

We evaluate each request on an individual basis 

using several U.S. Department of the Interior, 

agency, and Refuge System policies (such as 43 CFR 

Part 5, 50 CFR 27.71, and 8 RM 16). 

Evaluation criteria would include the following: 

■■	 Commercial photography, motion pictures, 

and audio recordings must (1) show a means 

to increase public appreciation and understanding of wildlife or natural habitats, (2) 

enhance public knowledge, appreciation, and 

understanding of the Refuge System, or (3) 

facilitate outreach and education goals of 

the refuge. The refuge would deny the use 

and not issue a special use permit if none of 

the previous criteria were met. 

■■	 We would not approve activities that caused 

undue disturbance to wildlife or habitat. 

Refuge staff would carefully weigh the 

degree and type of disturbance when evaluating a request. 

■■	 We would not approve requests that would 

conflict with other management programs 

or would impair existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. 

■■	 If logistics or lack of staff made it impossible 

for the refuge staff to monitor the activity, 

we might deny the request, depending on 

the specific circumstances. 

Availability of Resources 

The commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography uses would be administered with current resources. Administrative costs for review of 

applications and issuance of special use permits and 

staff time to conduct compliance checks might be offset by a fee system designated for the agencies 

within the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Wildlife filmmakers and photographers tend to 

create the greatest disturbance of all wildlife observers (Dobb 1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). While 

observers frequently stop to view wildlife, photographers are more likely to approach the animals; even a 

slow approach by photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife (Klein 1993). Photographers often remain close to wildlife for extended 

periods in an attempt to habituate the subject to 

their presence (Dobb 1998). Furthermore, photographers with low-power lenses tend to get much closer 

to their subjects (Morton 1995). This usually causes 
Appendix E—Compatibility Determinations 275 

more disturbance to wildlife as well as habitat, 

including the trampling of plants. Handling of animals and disturbing vegetation (such as cutting 

plants and removing flowers) or cultural artifacts is 

prohibited on refuge lands. 

Issuance of special use permits with strict guidelines and followup by refuge staff for compliance 

would help to reduce or avoid these effects. Permittees who did not follow the stipulations of their special use permits could have their permits revoked, 

and further applications for filming or photographing 

on the refuge would be denied. The refuge could issue 

a notice of violation to permittees who operate outside the conditions of their permits and violate refuge 

regulations. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Determination 

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography would be compatible uses on the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

We would use the evaluation criteria described 

earlier to decide if commercial filming, audio recording, or still photography was a compatible use. 

All commercial filming would require a special 

use permit that would (1) describe conditions that 

protect the refuge’s values, purposes, resources, and 

public health and safety, and (2) prevent unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of 

the refuge. Such conditions may be, but are not limited to: specifying road conditions when access would 

not be allowed, establishing time limitations, and 

identifying routes of access. These conditions would 

be identified to prevent (1) excessive disturbance to 

wildlife, (2) damage to habitat or refuge infrastructure, or (3) conflicts with other visitor services or 

management activities. Staff and workloads would 

determine if special access to closed areas of the refuge would be allowed case-by-case. 

The special use permit would stipulate that imagery produced on refuge lands would be made available for environmental education, interpretation, 

outreach, internal documents, or other suitable uses. 

In addition, any commercial products must include 

proper credits to the refuge, the Refuge System, and 

the Service. 

Still photography would require a special use permit, with specific conditions as outlined above, if one 

or more of the following occurred: 

■■	 Photography takes place at locations where 

or when members of the public are not 

allowed. 

■■	 Photography uses models, sets, or props 

that are not part of the location’s natural or 

cultural resources or administrative 

facilities. 

■■	 The refuge has higher administrative costs 

to provide management and oversight to 

avoid impairment of the resources and values of the site, limit resource damage, and 

decrease health and safety risks to the visiting public. 

■■	 The photographer intentionally manipulates 

vegetation to create a shot, for example, cutting vegetation to create a blind. 

To reduce the effects on refuge lands and 

resources, the refuge staff would make sure that all 

commercial filmmakers and commercial still photographers (regardless of whether a special use permit 

were issued) comply with policies, rules, and regulations. The staff would monitor and assess the activities of all filmmakers, audio recorders, and still 

photographers. 

Justification 

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography are economic uses that, to be compatible, must contribute to the achievement of the refuge 

purposes, mission of the Refuge System, and the mission of the Service. Providing opportunities for these 

uses should result in an increased public awareness 

of the refuge’s ecological importance as well as 

advancing the public’s knowledge and support for the 

Refuge System and our agency. The stipulations outlined above and conditions imposed in the special use 

permits issued to commercial filmmakers, audio 

recorders, and still photographers would make sure 

that these wildlife-dependent activities occur with 

minimal adverse effects to resources or visitors. 

Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date: 2023 
276 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Commercial Guiding, Outfitting, 

Game Retrieval, and WildlifeViewing Tours 

Flat Creek is a popular fishing destination especially in August, and some time periods seem to be 

overcrowded. Private anglers have asked us why we 

issue guided fishing permits since they can add to the 

crowding. Law enforcement has identified several 

unpermitted guiding outfitters in the past two seasons and suspects that there is little respect for the 

refuge permitting requirements. Creating a limit for 

the total number of permits and setting quotas of two 

trips, two guides, and a maximum of two clients per 

day could have a desired result of dispersing anglers. 

Charging a permit fee could create a sustained funding mechanism for maintaining fishing access signing 

and the printing of fishing regulations. 

The refuge has allowed guided elk and bison hunts 

by special use permit since 2008. This service has 

helped young, novice, and elderly hunters and hunters with limited equipment to enjoy a quality, wellequipped hunting experience. Guided hunting would 

continue to increase the potential for hunters unfamiliar with the refuge to successfully harvest an 

animal, contributing to meeting the refuge population objectives. Fees collected would help offset the 

costs of administering this program. 

The refuge has allowed game retrieval services by 

special use permit for decades. Elk and bison are 

large, making it challenging for a young, inexperienced, physically challenged, or ill-equipped hunter 

to field-dress or transport a large carcass from an 

area closed to motor vehicles to the hunter’s vehicle. 

We would continue to allow wildlife-viewing tour 

companies to operate on the refuge through a special 

use permit that outlined special conditions for operation including required safety mitigation. Several of 

the tour companies have attended National Elk Refuge–sponsored training to enable them to provide 

accurate, interpretive wildlife information. The visitor services staff would continue communication 

throughout the year with wildlife tour companies to 

give them with current information about management practices, operations, and issues. 

The refuge would continue to support a contracted interpretive sleigh ride program in winter 

and work closely with the contractor to provide quality education and interpretation through a unique 

wildlife-viewing opportunity. 

Availability of Resources 

The refuge would administer commercial guiding, 

outfitting, game retrieval, and wildlife-viewing tours 

with current resources. Administrative costs for 

review of applications, issuance of special use permits, and staff time to make compliance checks could 

be offset by a fee system designated for the agencies 

within the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Fishing and hunting guides assist visitors by providing local knowledge and equipment to enhance 

their client’s chances for a successful outdoor experience. Limitations placed in the special use permits 

would restrict these guiding operations and prevent 

an exclusive right to an area or the exclusion of the 

public. Fishing guides can help clients catch and 

release fish in a manner that prevents injuries to the 

fish. Hunting guides likely improve the potential for 

their clients to harvest a bison or elk, which helps 

move the herds closer to the population objectives 

outlined in the Bison and Elk Management Plan; this 

would be a positive contribution to the refuge’s management efforts. 

Permittees for game retrieval services would be 

constrained by the same travel restrictions as hunters, operating only in areas and on routes that were 

open to hunters. Wildlife disturbance would be minimal in these areas, which are already subject to 

hunter activities. Game retrieval services would prevent carcass spoilage and provide a service to hunters who might be unable to process and retrieve a 

harvested elk or bison. These services would contribute to a quality hunting program and could help 

increase total harvest. 

Wildlife-viewing tour companies provide wildlife 

observation and interpretation opportunities primarily to tourists visiting Jackson Hole, many of which 

arrive by aircraft and need ground transportation to 

wildlife-viewing areas. Tour company vehicles, along 

with tourists in personal vehicles, have parked along 

Elk Refuge Road in the winter to observe bighorn 

sheep and have caused traffic congestion. The proposed construction of additional parking areas along 

Elk Refuge Road near Miller Butte would help 

reduce this problem. 

The sleigh ride program would continue to provide a unique and spectacular setting to present a 

wildlife interpretive message that was important to 

the mission of the National Elk Refuge and raised 

awareness of National Wildlife Refuge System. This 

program is anticipated to continue to reach between 

20,000 and 25,000 people annually. Horse-drawn 

sleighs and wagons would cause insignificant disturbance to elk and other wildlife. 

The above commercial activities would require 

special use permits, which would include strict guidelines and conditions to prevent the exclusion of the 

public or damage and disturbance to wildlife and 
g, game retrieval, 

 be compatible uses 

g, game retrieval, 

(1) show a means to 

 understanding of 

enhance education, 

 of the Refuge Sys­

 education goals of 

y of these criteria 

it being denied. 

Appendix E—Compatibility Determinations 277 

their habitats. Refuge staff monitoring these activities for compliance with restrictions would help prevent conflicts with wildlife or the public. Permittees 

who did not follow the conditions outlined in their 

special use permits could have their permits revoked 

and further applications denied. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Determination 

Commercial guiding, outfittin

and wildlife-viewing tours would

on the National Elk Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

Commercial guiding, outfittin

and wildlife-viewing tours must 

extend public appreciation and

wildlife or natural habitats, (2) 

appreciation, and understanding

tem, or (3) facilitate outreach and

the refuge. Failure to show an

would result in a special use perm

Special use permits for these uses would (1) 

describe conditions that protect the refuge’s values, 

purposes, resources, and public health and safety, 

and (2) prevent unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the refuge. Such conditions 

may be, but would not be limited to, specifying road 

conditions when access would not be allowed, establishing time limitations, and identifying routes of 

access. 

For game retrieval services, we would prohibit 

off-road vehicles and require companies to operate 

only in areas and on routes that are open to hunters. 

The refuge would set these conditions to prevent 

excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to habitat 

or refuge infrastructure, or conflicts with other visitor services or management activities. To reduce the 

effects on our lands and resources, the refuge staff 

would make sure that all commercial guides, outfitters, game retrieval services, and wildlife-viewing 

tour companies (regardless of whether a special use 

permit is issued) comply with policies, rules, and 

regulations. 

Justification 

Commercial guiding, outfitting, game retrieval, 

and wildlife-viewing tours are economic uses that 

would need to contribute to the achievement of the 

refuge purposes, mission of the Refuge System, or 

the mission of the Service. Providing opportunities 

for these uses should result in an increased public 

awareness of the refuge’s ecological importance as 

well as advancing the public’s knowledge and support 

for the Refuge System and the Service. The stipulations outlined above and conditions imposed in the 

special use permits issued to commercial guides, outfitters, game retrieval services, and wildlife-viewing 

tour companies would make sure that these wildlifedependent activities occur with minimal adverse 

effects to resources or visitors. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2023 

E.5 Approval of Compatibility 

Determinations 

Submitted by: 

Steve Kallin, Project Leader Date 

National Elk Refuge 

Jackson, Wyoming 

Reviewed by: 

Mike Blenden, Refuge Supervisor Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Approved by: 

Will Meeks, Assistant Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Bibliography
 

Ammon, E.M.; Stacy, P.B. 1997. Avian nest success 

in relation to past grazing regimes in a montane 

riparian system. Condor 99(1):7–11. 

Anderson, C. 1958. The elk of Jackson Hole: a review 

of Jackson Hole elk studies. Bulletin 10. Cheyenne, 

WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Anderson, E.M. 2002. Influences of elk on upland 

aspen, riparian willow, and associated landbirds 

in and near Jackson Hole, Wyoming [master’s thesis]. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Anderson, E.M.; Anderson, S.H. 2001. An investigation of wild ungulate impacts on landbirds and 

their upland aspen habitat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, 

Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Balling, R.C., Jr.; Meyer, G.A.; Wells, S.G. 1992a. Climate change in Yellowstone National Park: Is the 

drought-related risk of wildfires increasing? Climatic Change 22:35–40. 

———. 1992b. Relation of surface climate and 

burned area in Yellowstone National Park. Agricultural Meteorology 60:285–93. 

Bergman, C. 2005. Inventing a beast with no body: 

radio-telemetry, the marginalization of animals, 

and the simulation of ecology. Worldviews: Global 

Religions, Culture, and Ecology 9(2):255–70. 

Blumstein, D.T.; Fernandez-Juricic, E.; Zollner, P.A.; 

Garity, S.C. 2005. Inter-specific variation in avian 

responses to human disturbance. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 42(5):943–53. 

Boulanger, Vincent; Baltzinger, Christophe; Saïd, 

Sonia; [and others]. 2011. Deer-mediated expansion of a rare plant species. Plant Ecology 

212(2)308–14. 

Biota. 2013a. Design report: Flat Creek enhancement project, phase 2, National Elk Refuge, Teton 

County, Wyoming. Prepared for Jackson Hole 

Trout Unlimited. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 76 p. 

———. 2013b. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) survey and treatment plan: phase 1 construction area, Flat Creek enhancement project, 

National Elk Refuge, Teton County, Wyoming. 

Prepared for Jackson Hole Trout Unlimited. On 

file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 10 p. 

Briske, D.D. 1991. Development morphology and 

physiology of grasses. In: Grazing management: 

an ecological perspective. Heitschmidt, R.K.; 

Stuth, J.W.; editors. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 

85–108. 

Brussard, P.F.; Charlet, D.A.; Dobkin, D.S. 1998. 

Great Basin-Mojave Desert Region. In: Status 

and trends of the Nation’s biological resources. 

Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; Puckett Haecker, C.E.; 

Doran, P.D.; editors. Volume 2:505–42. Reston, 

VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Bukowski, B.E.; Baker, W.L. 2013. Historical fire 

regimes, reconstructed from land-survey data, led 

to complexity and fluctuation in sagebrush landscapes. Ecological Applications 23(3):546–64. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012a. Local area personal income. Table CA05N NAICS (2001-2010), 

personal income and detailed earnings by industry. <http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/> accessed 

June 25, 2012. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012b. Local area personal income. Table CA25N NAICS (2001-2010), 

total employment by industry. http://<www.bea 

.gov/regional/reis/> accessed May 9, 2013. 

Callenbach, Ernest. 1996. Bring back the buffalo! A 

sustainable future for America’s Great Plains: the 

bison heartland. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Cannon, K.P.; Bringelson, D.; Eckerle, W.; [and others]. 2001. The results of the archeological investigations at three sites along the Wilson-Fall Creek 

Road corridor, Teton County, Wyoming. Lincoln, 

NE: National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Carpenter, S.R.; DeFries, R.; Dietz, T.; [and others]. 

2006. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research 

needs. Science 314:257–58. 

Carver, E.; Caudill, J. 2007. Banking on nature 2006: 

the economic benefits to local communities of 

national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Economics. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Carver, E.; Caudill, J. 2013. Banking on nature: the 

economic benefits to local communities of national 

wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 
280 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

Caudill, J.; Henderson, E. 2005. Banking on nature 

2004: the economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Charture Institute. 2003a. The health of Jackson 

Hole’s environment, 1990–2002: changes during a 

period of rapid economic and demographic 

growth. Jackson, WY: Charture Institute. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Charture Institute. 2003b. The Jackson Hole almanac: 2003 facts and data about the Teton County 

area. Jackson, WY: Charture Institute. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Christensen, J.H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; [and 

others]. 2007: Regional climate projections. In: 

Climate change 2007: the physical science basis; 

contribution of working group I to the fourth 

assessment report of the intergovernmental panel 

on climate change. Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, 

M. [and others]; editors. New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 996 p. <www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_ 

basis.htm> accessed May 1, 2013. 

Cole, E.K. 2002a. Analysis of browse data for the 

Flat Creek exclosure study, National Elk Refuge; 

2001–2002. On file at the National Elk Refuge, 

Jackson, WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Cole, E.K. 2002b. Final report: 2000 woody plant 

community monitoring on the National Elk Refuge. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, 

WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Cole, E.K. 2011a. Forage production survey and 

related irrigation analysis. National Elk Refuge 

Technical Report. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 33 p. 

Cole, E.K. 2011b. Summary of 2011 trumpeter swan 

nesting on the National Elk Refuge. National Elk 

Refuge Technical Report. On file at the National 

Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 4 p. 

Cole, E.K. 2012. Forage production survey and 

related irrigation analysis. National Elk Refuge 

Technical Report. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 29 p. 

Cole, E.K.; Ketchum, W. 2010. Cumulative habitat 

use by cow elk on the National Elk Refuge, preliminary results. National Elk Refuge Technical 

Report. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 16 p. 

Constible, J.M.; Sweitzer, R.A.; Van Vuren, D.H.; 

[and others]. 2005. Dispersal of non-native plants 

by introduced bison in an island ecosystem. Biological Invasions 7:699–709. 

Cook, J.G. 2002. Nutrition and food. In: North American elk—ecology and management. Toweill, D.E.; 

Thomas, J.W. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 259–350. 

Cooper, D.J.; Dickens, J.; Hobbs, N.T.; [and others]. 

2006. Hydrological, geomorphic and climatic processes controlling willow establishment in a montane ecosystem. Hydrologic Processes 

20(8):1845–64. 

Craighead, J.J. 1952. A biological and economic 

appraisal of the Jackson Hole elk herd. New York: 

New York Zoological Society and Conservation 

Foundation. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Cromley, C. 2000. Historical elk migrations around 

Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Yale School of Forestry 

and Environmental Studies, Bulletin Series 104. 

Coppock, Jane; editor. In: Developing sustainable 

management policy for the National Elk Refuge, 

Wyoming. Clark, Tim W.; Casey, Denise; Halverson, Anders; editors. New Haven, CT: Yale University. 53–65. 

Cross, P.C.; Cole, E.K.; Dobson, A.P.; [and others]. 

2010. Probable causes of increasing elk brucellosis 

in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecological 

Applications 20(1):278–88. 

Cross, P.C.; Edwards, W.H.; Scurlock, B.; [and others]. 2007. Management and climate impacts on 

brucellosis in elk of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecological Applications 17(4):957–64. 

Cunningham, J.M.; Calhoun, A.J.K.; Glanz, W.E. 

2007. Pond-breeding amphibian species richness 

and habitat selection in a beaver-modified landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71(8):2517–26. 

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M.; [and others]. 2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in 

response to fire in a temperate mixed-grass 

savanna. Journal of Environmental Quality 

35:1620–28. 

Daugherty. 1999. A place called Jackson Hole. Moose, 

WY: Grand Teton National Park. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Decker, D.J.; Wild, M.A.; Riley, S.J.; [and others]. 

2006. Wildlife disease management: a manager’s 

model. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management 11(3):151–58. 

De Clerke-Floate, R. 1997. Cattle as dispersers of 

hound’s-tongue on rangeland in southeastern 

British Columbia. Journal of Range Management 

50(1997):239–43. 

Dewey, S.A.; Anderson, K.A. 2004. Distinct roles of 

surveys, inventories, and monitoring in adaptive 

weed management. Weed Technology 

18:1449–52. 

Dieni. J.S. 2011. The effects of the irrigation expansion project on breeding bird populations and 

habitat at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson 

Hole, Wyoming: 2010 baseline monitoring. Administrative report submitted to U.S. Department of 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 281 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: National 

Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY; Region 6, Lakewood, 

CO. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Dieni, J.S.; Anderson, S.H. 1997. Plant and avian 

community characteristics in aspen stands of the 

National Elk Refuge following clearcutting. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Dieni, J.S.; Cole, E.K. 2011. National Elk Refuge irrigation expansion project baseline plant community data summary. Administrative report 

submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service: National Elk Refuge, 

Jackson, WY; Region 6, Lakewood, CO. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Dieni, J.S.; Smith, B.L.; Rogers, R.L.; Anderson, 

S.H. 2000. The effects of ungulate browsing on 

aspen regeneration in northwestern Wyoming. 

Intermountain Journal of Science 6:49–55. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the 

lens. Audubon: January–February. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Dobkin, D.S. 1994. Conservation and management of 

neotropical migrant landbirds in the Northern 

Rockies and Great Plains. Moscow, ID: University 

of Idaho Press. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Dobkin, D.S.; Singer, F.J.; Platts, W.S. 2002. Ecological condition and avian response in willow, aspen, 

and cottonwood communities of the National Elk 

Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming. Independent Science 

Panel. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, 

WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Dobkin, D.S.; Wilcox, B.A. 1986. Analysis of natural 

forest fragments: riparian birds in the Toiyabe 

Mountains, Nevada. In: Wildlife 2000: modeling 

habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. 

Verner, J.; Morrison, M.L.; Ralph, C.J.; editors. 

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Donovan, T.M.; Jones, P.W.; Annand, E.M.; Thompson, F.R., III. 1997. Variation in local-scale effects: 

mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 

78(7):2064–75. 

Ehrlich, P.R.; Dobkin, D.S.; Wheye, D. 1988. The 

birder’s handbook. New York: Simon and Schuster. 785 p. 

[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Air 

quality planning and standards. [Internet]. 

Revised November 13, 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/oaqps/> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Fellows, S.D.; Jones, S.L. 2009. Status assessment 

and conservation action plan for the long-billed 

curlew (Numenius americanus). Biological Technical Publication, FWS/BTP–R6012–2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [pages unknown]. 

Fenichel, E.P.; Horan, R.D. 2007. Jointly-determined 

ecological thresholds and economic trade-offs in 

wildlife disease management. Natural Resource 

Modeling 20(4):511–47. 

Ferris, Warren Angus. 1940. Life in the Rocky 

Mountains: 1830–1835. Denver, CO: Old West 

Publishing. 272 p. 

Fertig, W.A. 1998. Plant species of special concern 

and vascular plant flora of the National Elk Refuge. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, 

Wyoming. 109 p. 

Fertig, W.A.; Beauvais, G. 1999. Wyoming plant and 

animal species of special concern. On file at the 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, 

WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Ficetola, G.F.; Bernardi, F.D. 2004. Amphibians in a 

human-dominated landscape: the community 

structure is related to habitat features and isolation. Biological Conservation 119(2):219–30. 

Fiebig, Michael. 2011. Sustainability across boundaries: the Greater Yellowstone Area climate action 

plan. [City, State of publisher unknown]: Greater 

Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. 49 p. 

[FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior. 1998. Irrigation system rehabilitation plan environmental assessment, National Elk 

Refuge. Jackson, WY. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the promise, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System: visions for wildlife, habitat, people, and leadership. Washington, DC. 94 p. 

———. 2008. National Wildlife Refuge System 

workforce planning report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge—strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Washington, DC. 32 p. 

———. 2011. Conserving the future: wildlife refuges 

and the next generation. Implementation plan. 

Washington, DC: National Wildlife Refuge System. 93 p. 

———. 2012. 2011 national survey of fishing, hunting, 

and wildlife-associated recreation. <http:// 

digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document 

/id/858> [date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental action statement for categorical exclusion. 

[For restoration of the upper mile of the Flat 

Creek project area.] On file at the National Elk 

Refuge, Jackson, WY. 6 p. 

[FWS and Canadian Wildlife Service] Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. 

North American waterfowl management plan—a 

strategy for cooperation. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Gatineau, QC: Environment Canada. 26 p. 
282 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

[FWS and NPS] Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Park Service. 2007a. Bison and elk management plan: National Elk Refuge, Grand Teton 

National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 252 p. 

———. 2007b. Final bison and elk management plan 

and environmental impact statement, National 

Elk Refuge, Grand Teton National Park, and John 

D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. Volume 1. 

Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 605 p. 

[FWS, NPS, and USDA Forest Service] Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2008. 

This is a pledge of support: path of the pronghorn. 

National Elk Refuge, Grand Teton National Park, 

and Bridger-Teton National Forest. [City and 

State of publisher unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National 

Park Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services. 2003. Rocky Mountain 

wolf recovery 2002 annual report. Meier, T.; editor. Helena, MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Frame, P.F.; Cluff, H.D.; Hik, D.S. 2007. Response of 

wolves to experimental disturbance at homesites. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2):316–20. 

Fryxell, F.M. 1928. The former range of the bison in 

the Rocky Mountains. Journal of Mammalogy 

9:129–39. 

Galbraith, A.F.; Svalberg, T.L.; Tart, D.L. 1998. The 

Flat Creek riparian survey. Unpublished report. 

On file at Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, 

WY. 95 p. 

Garton, E.O.; Connelly, J.W.; Horne, J.S.; [and others]. 2011. Greater sage-grouse population 

dynamics and probability of persistence. In: 

Knick, S.T.; Connelly, J.W.; editors. Greater sagegrouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape 

species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 

38:293–381. 

Geist, V.; Mahoney, S.P.; Organ, J.F. 2001. Why hunting has defined the North American model of 

wildlife conservation. In: Transactions of the 

North American wildlife and natural resources 

conference; March 20, 2001; Washington, DC. 

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 

66:175–85. 

Geist, V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust foundation of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Northeast Wildlife 58:49–56. 

George, T.L.; Dobkin, D.S. 2002. Effects of habitat 

fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: 

contrasts with paradigms from the Eastern 

United States. Studies in Avian Biology No. 25. 

270 p. 

Gortazar, C.; Acevedo, P.; Ruiz-Fons, F.; Vincente, J. 

2006. Disease risks and overabundance of game 

species. European Journal of Wildlife Research 

52(2):81–87. 

Green, G. 1994. Use of spring carrion by bears in 

Yellowstone National Park [master’s thesis]. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Gross, J.E.; Miller, M.W. 2001. Chronic wasting disease in mule deer: disease dynamics and control. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 65:205–15. 

Grover, K.E.; Thompson, M.J. 1986. Factors influencing spring feeding site selection by elk in the Elkhorn Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 50(3):466–70. 

Gunderson, Lance H. 2000. Ecological resilience—in 

theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology 

and Systematics 31:425–39. 

Gunther, K.A.; Renkin, R.A. 1990. Grizzly bear predation on elk calves and other fauna of Yellowstone National Park. International Conference on 

Bear Research and Management 8:329–34. 

Gutzwiller, K.J.; Anderson, S.H. 1987. Short-term 

dynamics of cavity-nesting bird communities in 

disjunct floodplain habitats. Condor 89(4):710–20. 

Russell, Osborne. 1955. Journal of a trapper. Haines, 

A.; editor. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska 

Press. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Hall, Eugene Raymond; Kelson, Keith R. 1959. The 

mammals of North America. Volume 2. New York: 

The Ronald Press. 1083 p. 

Hansen, K. 1992. Cougar: the American lion. Flagstaff, AZ: Northland Publishing. 129 p. 

Henningsen, J. 2011. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department chronic wasting disease monitoring: 

Jackson elk herd and surrounding areas. Jackson, 

WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 8 p. 

Henson, P.; Grant, T.A. 1991. The effects of human 

disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248–57. 

Herkert, J.R.; Szafoni, R.E.; Kleen, V.M.; Schwegman, J.E. 1993. Habitat establishment, enhancement, and management for forest and grassland 

birds in Illinois. Technical Publication No. 1. 

Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Conservation, Natural Heritage. 20 p. 

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1–23. 

Holling, Crawford S.; editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. [City and 

State of publisher unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. 377 p. 

Holloran, M.J.; Anderson, S.H. 2004. Greater sagegrouse seasonal habitat selection and survival in 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 283 

Jackson Hole, Wyoming [master’s thesis]. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Wyoming Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Houston, D.B. 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54:1111–17. 

Jackson, N.H.; Roby, D.D. 1992. Fecundity and egglaying patterns of captive yearling brownheaded 

cowbirds. Condor 94:585–89. 

Jackson and Teton County, Wyoming. 1994. Jackson/ 

Teton County comprehensive plan and land use 

regulations. Jackson, WY: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce. 2013. <http:// 

www.jackonholechamber.com> accessed May 10, 

2013. 

Jaffe, R. 2001. Winter wolf predation in an elk-bison 

system in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 

[master’s thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State 

University. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Jimenez, M.D.; Smith, D.W.; Stahler, D.R.; [and others]. 2006. Wyoming wolf recovery annual report. 

In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery, 2005 Annual Report. Sime, 

C.A.; Bangs, E.E.; editors. Helena, MT: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. 81–101. 

Kantrud, H.A. 1990. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton 

pectinatus L.): a literature review. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Resource Publication 176. [City, 

State of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 89 p. 

Kaufmann, Kenn. 1996. Lives of North American 

birds. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 704 p. 

Kay, C.E. 1998. Are ecosystems structured from the 

top-down or bottom-up: a new look at an old 

debate. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(3):484–98. 

Keigley, R.B.; Warren, J.; King, W.J. 2009. A multirefuge program to evaluate the effect of ungulate 

browsing on habitat. Technical report. Lakewood, 

CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6. 186 p. 

Keinath, D.A.; Andersen, M.; Beauvais, G.P. 2010. 

Range and modeled distribution of Wyoming’s 

species of greatest conservation need. Technical 

Report, August 20, 2010. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, Tanya M.; Franklin, 

Alan B.; editors. Modeling in natural resource 

management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

147–170. 

Klein, Mary L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral 

responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21(1):31–39. 

Knick, S.T.; Aron, A.; Holmes, L.; Miller, R.F. 2005. 

The role of fire in structuring sagebrush habitats 

and bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology 

30:63–75. Knight, Dennis H. 1994. Mountains and 

plains: ecology of Wyoming landscapes. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 338 p. 

Knight, Richard R. 1970. The Sun River elk herd. 

Wildlife Monographs 23. Bethesda, MD: The 

Wildlife Society. 66 p. 

Knopf, F.L.; Johnson, R.R.; Rich, T.; [and others]. 

1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the 

United States. Wilson Bulletin 100:272–84. 

Koch, Edward D.; Peterson, Charles R. 1995. The 

amphibians and reptiles of Yellowstone and Grand 

Teton National Parks. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. 188 p. 

Krueper, D. 1992. Conservation priorities in naturally fragmented and human-altered riparian 

habitats of the arid West. <http://birds.cornell. 

edu/pifcapemay/krueper.htm> accessed May 1, 

2013. 

Kushlan, James A.; Steinkamp, Melanie J.; Parsons, 

Katharine C. [and others]. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American 

waterbird conservation plan. Version 1. Washington, DC: Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 78 p. 

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; [and others]. 1996. ARM! for the future: adaptive resource 

management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 24(3):436–42. 

Laughland, A.; Caudill, J. 1997. Banking on nature: 

the economic benefits to local communities of 

national wildlife refuge visitation. On file at the 

National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Legg, C.J.; Nagy, L. 2006. Why most conservation 

monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. 

Journal of Environmental Management 

78(2):194–99. 

Lenth, R.V. 2001. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. The American 

Statistician 55(3):187–93. 

Leopold, A.S.; Cain, S.A.; Cottam, C.M.; [and others]. 

1963. Wildlife management in national parks. 

Report to the Secretary of the Interior by the 

Advisory Board on Wildlife Management. [Location on file unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Lloyd-Smith, J.O.; Cross, P.C.; Birggs, C.J.; [and others]. 2005. Should we expect thresholds for wildlife disease? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

20(9):511–19. 

Lockman, D.C.; Wood, R.; Burgess, H.; Burgess, R.; 

Smith, H. 1987. Rocky Mountain trumpeter swan 

population, Wyoming flock, 1982–1986. Cheyenne, 
284 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Lompart, C.; Riley, J.; Fieldhouse, J. 1997. Woodlands for nature: managing your woodland for 

wildlife and nature appreciation. Don Mills, ON: 

Federation of Ontario Naturalists. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. 

Museum of Natural History (University of Kansas 

Publication) 14(18):493–758. 

Loomis, John; Caughlan, Lynne. 2004. Economic 

analysis of alternative bison and elk management 

practices on the National Elk Refuge and Grand 

Teton National Park: a comparison of visitor and 

household responses. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open File Report 

2004–1305. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics. 110 p. 

Loope, L.L.; Gruell, G.E. 1973. The ecological role of 

fire in the Jackson Hole area of northwestern 

Wyoming. Journal of Quaternary Research 

3(3):425–43. 

Love, C.M. 1972. An archaeological survey of the 

Jackson Hole region [master’s thesis]. Laramie, 

WY: University of Wyoming. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Magoun, A.J. 1987. Summer and winter diets of wolverines, Gulo gulo, in arctic Alaska. Canadian 

Field Naturalist 101:392–97. 

Maichak, E.J.; Scurlock, B.M.; Rogerson, J.D.; [and 

others]. 2009. Effects of management, behavior, 

and scavenging on risk of brucellosis transmission 

in elk of western North America. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45(2):398–410. 

Major, R.E. 1990. The effect of human observers on 

the intensity of nest predation. Ibis 

132(4):608–12. 

Malo, J.E.; Jiménez, B.; Suárez, F. 2000. Herbivore 

dunging and endozoochorous seed deposition in a 

Mediterranean dehasa. Journal of Range Management 53(2000):322–28. 

Mallord, J.W.; Dolman, P.M.; Brown, A.F.; Sutherland, W.J. 2007. Linking recreational disturbance 

to population size in a ground-nesting passerine. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 44(1):185–95. 

Malone, Michael P.; Roeder, Richard B.; Lang, William L. 1976. Montana: a history of two centuries. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 352 

p. 

Marsh, D.M.; Trenham, P.C. 2001. Metapopulation 

dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation Biology 15(1):40–49. 

Martin, T.E. 1988. Habitat and area effects on forest 

bird assemblages: Is nest predation an influence? 

Ecology 69(1):74–84. 

Martin, T.E. 1993. Nest predation and nest sites. 

Bioscience 43(8):523–32. 

Martin, Thomas E.; Finch, Deborah M.; editors. 

1995. Ecology and management of neotropical 

migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical 

issues. New York: Oxford University Press. 512 p. 

Martner, B.E. 1977. Climatological studies of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park. Final 

report. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, 

Department of Atmospheric Resources. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Mattson, D.J. 1997. Use of ungulates by Yellowstone 

grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). Biological Conservation 81:161–77. 

May, Roel. 2007. Spatial ecology of wolverines in 

Scandinavia. [Ph.D. dissertation]. Trondheim, 

Norway: Norwegian University of Science and 

Technology. 31 p. 

McDonald, Jerry N. 1981. North American bison: 

their classification and evolution. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 350 p. 

Mech, L.D.; Barber, S.M. 2002. A critique of wildlife 

radio-tracking and its use in national parks. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Mech, L.D.; Smith, D.W.; Murphy, K.M.; MacNulty, 

D.R. 2001. Winter severity and wolf predation on 

a formerly wolf-free elk herd. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 65(4):998–1003. 

Medin, D.E.; Clary, W.P. 1990. Bird populations in 

and adjacent to a beaver pond ecosystem and 

adjacent riparian habitat in Idaho. Ogden, UT: 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Mitton, J.B.; Grant, M.C. 1996. Genetic variation and 

the natural history of quaking aspen. Bioscience 

46(1):25–31. 

Mörner, T.; Obendork, D.L.; Artois, M.; Woodford, 

M.H. 2002. Surveillance and monitoring of wildlife diseases. International Office of Epizootics 

21(1):67–76. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effect on waterfowl. In: Whitman, 

W.R.; Strange, T.; Widjeskog, L.; [and others] [editors]. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement 

and management in the Atlantic flyway. 3rd edition. Dover, DE: Delaware Division of Fish and 

Wildlife, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, Environmental Management Committee. 

F59–F86. 

Mott, David. 1998. Water resources scoping report. 

NPS/NRWRS/NRTR–98/154. Moose, WY: Grand 

Teton National Park, Water Resources Division. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 285 

National Invasive Species Council. 2008. 2008–2012 

National invasive species management plan. 

<www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/2008-2012%20National%20Invasive%20 

Species%20Management%20Plan.pdf> accessed 

August 7, 2013. 

[NPS] National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior. 1998. Yellowstone National Park 

resource management plan. Yellowstone National 

Park, WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

[NPS and FWS] National Park Service and Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

1996. Jackson bison herd long-term management 

plan and environmental assessment. Denver, CO: 

National Park Service, Intermountain Region. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Olson, B.E.; Wallander, R.T.; Kott, R.W. 1997. Recovery of leafy spurge seed from sheep. Journal of 

Range Management 50(1997):10–15. 

Osenberg, C.W.; Schmitt, R.J.; Holbrook, S.J.; AbuSaba, K.E.; Flegal, A.R. 1994. Detection of environmental impacts: natural variability, effect size, 

and power analysis. Ecological Applications 

4(1):16–30. Patla, D. 1998. Amphibians and reptiles of the National Elk Refuge, Jackson Hole, 

Wyoming. Part 2. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Patla, D. 2000. Amphibians of the National Elk Refuge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming: a report based on 

surveys in 2000. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 12 p. 

Patla, D. 2004a. Amphibian surveys and monitoring, 

national fish hatchery and National Elk Refuge, 

2002–2003. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University, 

Herpetology Laboratory. On file at the National 

Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Patla, D. 2004b. Monitoring boreal toad populations 

on the National Elk Refuge. Pocatello, ID: Idaho 

State University, Herpetology Laboratory. On file 

at the National Elk Refuge, Jackon, WY. 16 p. 

Patla, D. 2009. Amphibian monitoring on the 

National Elk Refuge, 2009. Pocatello, ID: Idaho 

State University, Herpetology Laboratory. On file 

at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 12 p. 

Patla, D. 2010. Amphibian monitoring on the 

National Elk Refuge, 2010. Pocatello, ID: Idaho 

State University, Herpetology Laboratory. On file 

at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 24 p. 

Patla, D. 2012. Amphibian monitoring on the 

National Elk Refuge, 2012. Pocatello, ID: Idaho 

State University, Herpetology Laboratory. On file 

at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. 16 p. 

Patla, D.; Peterson, C.R. 2004. Amphibian and reptile inventory and monitoring, Grand Teton and 

Yellowstone National Parks, 2000–2003, final 

report. On file at Grand Teton National Park, 

Moose, Wyoming. 

Quigley, H.; Craighead, D.; Jaffe, R. 2005. TetonYellowstone carnivore landscape initiative 2004 

annual report. On file at the National Elk Refuge, 

Jackson, WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Randall Travel Marketing. 2010. Wyoming visitor 

center study: June-October 2010. [City and State 

of publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Redmond, R.L.; Jenni, D.A. 1986. Ecology of the 

long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) in 

western Idaho. The Auk 103(4):755–67. 

Reiss, S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850– 

1920. The American History Series. Wheeling, 

IL: Harlan Davidson. 178 p. 

Roath, L.R.; Krueger, W.D. 1982. Cattle grazing 

influence on a mountain riparian zone. Journal of 

Range Management 100–103. 

Romme, W.H.; Turner, M.G. 1991. Implications of 

global climate for biogeographic patterns in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation 

Biology 5(3):373–86. 

Ruth, T.K. 2004. Ghost of the Rockies. Yellowstone 

Science 12:13–24. 

Saab, V.A.; Bock, C.E.; Rich, T.D.; Dobkin, D.S. 1995. 

Livestock grazing effects on migratory landbirds 

in western North America. In: Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Martin, T.E.; 

Finch, D.M.; editors. New York: Oxford University Press. 311–53. 

Sauer, Ronald H. 1978. Effect of removal of standing 

dead material on growth of Agropyron spicatum. 

Journal of Range Management 31(2):121–22. 

Schiffman, P.M. 1997. Animal-mediated dispersal 

and disturbance: driving forces behind alien plant 

naturalization. In: Assessment and management 

of plant invasions. Luken, J.O.; Thieret, J.W. New 

York: Springer-Verlag. 87–94. 

Schlegel, M. 1976. Factors affecting calf elk survival 

in north-central Idaho: progress report. Proceedings of the Western Association of State Game 

and Fish Commissions 56:342–55. 

Servheen, C.W.; Knight, R.R. 1990. Possible effects 

of a restored wolf population on grizzly bears in 

the Yellowstone area. In: Wolves for Yellowstone? 

A Report to the U. S. Congress. Varley, J.D.; 

Brewster, W.G.; editors. Volume 4: research and 

analysis. Yellowstone National Park, WY: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 35–49. 

Shelley, K.J.; Anderson, S.H. 1989. A summary on 

genetics and sterilization in a free ranging herd of 

bison near Jackson, Wyoming. Wyoming Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Unit Report 
286 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—National Elk Refuge, Wyoming 

for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Cheyenne, WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Shields, R.H. 1983. Water rights study for hydroelectric power generation on the National Elk Refuge 

near Jackson, WY. Unpublished report. On file at 

the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Simon, J.R. [no date]. Jackson Hole Wildlife Park. 

Moran, WY: Jackson Hole Wildlife Park. On file at 

Grand Teton National Park, Moose, WY. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Singer, F.J.; Harting, A.T.; Symonds, K.K.; Coughenour, M.B. 1997. Density-dependence, compensation, and environmental effects on elk calf 

mortality in Yellowstone National Park. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 61:12–25. 

Skinner, M.F.; Kaisen, O.C. 1947. The fossil bison of 

Alaska and preliminary revision of the genus. 

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 89:127–256. 

Smith, B.L. 2000. Jackson Hole: the big herds. In: 

Bugle, Fall 1991 (updated 2000). [City and State of 

publisher unknown]: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Smith B.L. 2001. Winter feeding of elk in western 

North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 

65(2):173–90. 

Smith, B.L.; Anderson, S.H. 1996. Patterns of neonatal mortality of elk in northwest Wyoming. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74(7):1229–37. 

Smith, B.L.; Cole, E.K.; Dobkin, D.S. 2004. Imperfect pasture: a century of change at the National 

Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Moose, 

WY: Grand Teton Natural History Association. 

145 p. 

Smith, B.L.; Robbins, R.L. 1994. Migrations and 

management of the Jackson elk herd. National 

Biological Survey Resource Publication 199. [Publisher city and state unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Smith, B.L.; Robbins, R.L. 1984. Pelleted alfalfa hay 

as supplemental feed for elk at the National Elk 

Refuge, August 1984. On file at the National Elk 

Refuge, Jackson, WY. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Squires, J.R.; Anderson, S.H. 1995. Trumpeter swan 

(Cygnus buccinators) food habits in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. American Midland Naturalist 133(2):274–82. 

Stallknecht, D.E. 2007. Impediments to wildlife disease surveillance, research, and diagnostics. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 

315:445–61. 

Stockwell, D.R.B. 2002. Effects of sample size on 

accuracy of species distribution models. Ecological Modeling 148(1):1–13. 

Stottlemeyer, R.; Singer, F.; Mann, R.; Zeigenfuss, 

L.C. 2003. Effects of long term ungulate herbivory on plant and soil nitrogen and carbon, Jackson 

Hole, Wyoming (draft). Fort Collins, COL U.S. 

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter 

Swans. 2012. Pacific flyway management plan for 

the Rocky Mountain Population of trumpeter 

swans. Unpublished report. Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Swenson, J.E.; Alt, K.L.; Eng, R.L. 1986. Ecology of 

bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs 3–46. 

Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. Journal of 

Range Management 39(3):254–58. 

Terborgh, John. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 224 p. 

Teton County Weed and Pest District. 2002. Why 

are weeds a problem? <www.tcweed.org/weedspecies2.htm> [access date unknown]. 

Teton Valley Chamber of Commerce. 2013. <http:// 

tetonvalleychamber.com> accessed May 10, 2013. 

Tewksbury, J.J.; Black, A.E.; Nur, N.; [and others]. 

2002. Effects of anthropogenic fragmentation and 

livestock grazing on western riparian bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology 25:158–202. 

Tisdale, E.W.; Hironaka, M. 1981. The sagebrushgrass ecoregion: a review of the ecological literature. Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment 

Station Contribution 209. Moscow, ID: University 

of Idaho. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Trabold, V.; Smith, B.L. 2001. Effects of excluding 

ungulates on avian use of riparian areas on Flat 

Creek, National Elk Refuge, Wyoming. Interim 

report. On file at the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Tremblay, J.; Ellison, L.N. 1979. Effects of human 

disturbance on breeding of black-crowned nightherons. Auk 96:364–69. 

Trenholm, Virginia C.; Carley, Maurine. 1964. The 

Shoshonis: sentinels of the Rockies. Norman, OK: 

University of Oklahoma Press. 370 p. 

United States Access Board. 2013. ABA standards. 

<www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards/aba-standards> accessed December 21, 

2013. 

United States Census Bureau. 2012a. American fact 

finder: selected economic characteristics. <http:// 

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf 

/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR 

_DP03&prodType=table> accessed May 9, 2013. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 287 

United States Census Bureau. 2012b. State & county 

quickfacts. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd

/index.html> accessed May 9, 2013. 

United States Census Bureau. 2013. County business 

patterns. <http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index. 

html> accessed May 13, 2013. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. State and 

county profiles: Idaho and Wyoming. Washington, 

DC: National Agriculture Statistics Service. 

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications 

/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/Idaho 

(Wyoming)/index.asp> accessed May 9, 2013. 

USDA Forest Service. 1982. Snake River, Wyoming: 

a potential wild and scenic river, final statement 

and report. Jackson, WY: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Bridger-Teton National Forest. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestra

tion research and development. 1999. [City, State 

of publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Migratory birds and 

habitat fact sheet. News release. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, National Wetlands Resource Cen

ter. <www.nwrc.gov/ releases/pr99_054.htm> 

accessed August 6, 2003. 

———. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation—final 

report of the National Ecological Assessment 

Team. [City, State of publisher unknown]: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Sur

vey. 45 p. 

University of Wyoming. 2003. Species atlas. Lara

mie, WY: University of Wyoming, Geographic 

Information Science Center. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Von Der Lippe, M.; Kowarik, I. 2007. Long-distance 

dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant 

invasions. Conservation Biology 21:986–96. 

Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sus

taining ecosystems and people in a changing 

world. Washington, DC: Island Press. 174 p. 

Walker, Deward E., Jr. 2005. An ethnographic 

assessment of American Indian occupation and 

uses of the cultural and natural resources of 

Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk 

Refuge. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale man

agement experiments and learning by doing. Ecol

ogy 71(6):2060–68. 

White, C.A.; Olmstead, C.E.; Kay, C.E. 1998. Aspen, 

elk, and fire in the Rocky Mountain national parks 

of North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

26(3):449–62. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts 

and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 

66(4):1211–14. 

Wright, G.A.; Marceau, T.E.; Chernick, S.B.; Reeve, 

S.A. 1976. Summary of the 1976 Jackson Hole 

archaeological project. Albany, NY: State University of New York, Department of Anthropology. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Wright, Gary A. 1984. People of the high country: 

Jackson Hole before the settlers. New York: Peter 

Lang Publishing. 181 p. 

[WGFD] Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

2003. Final Wyoming gray wolf management plan. 

Cheyenne, WY. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2008. Upper Snake River sage-grouse conservation plan. Cheyenne WY. 160 p. 

———. 2010a. 2010 State wildlife action plan. Cheyenne, WY. <http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000407.aspx> accessed July 26, 2013. 

———. 2010b. Wyoming aquatic invasive species 

management plan. Cheyenne, WY. 63 p. 

———. 2011. Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

protocols for treating sagebrush to be consistent 

with Wyoming Executive Order 2011–5; greater 

sage-grouse core area protection. (City unknown), 

WY. 5 p. 

———. 2013. Big game completion reports. <http:// 

wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000496.aspx> 

accessed January 7, 2014. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDA 

APHIS–Wildlife Services, and Eastern Shoshone 

and Northern Arapahoe Tribal Fish and Game 

Department. 2013. 2012 Wyoming gray wolf population monitoring and management annual report. 

Mills, K.J.; Trebelcock, R.F.; editors. Cheyenne, 

WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2002. Yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Laramie, 

WY: University of Wyoming. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities 

near edges. Conservation Biology 2:333–39. 

Young, J.F. 1982. Soil survey of Teton County, Wyoming, and Grand Teton National Park area. [City, 

State of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­