Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge

September 2008

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex

953 Jackson County Road #32

Walden, CO 80480

970/723 8202

and

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, CO 80228

303/236 4305

Approved by 

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

 Date

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge

Submitted by 

Ann Timberman 

Project Leader

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Walden, CO

Date

Concurred with by

Bud Oliveira 

Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, CO

Date

and

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Date

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................................. ix

Summary...................................................................................................................................................................... xi

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

Purpose and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................................................ 1

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

National and Regional Mandates .............................................................................................................................. 4

Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ........................................................................................ 4

Ecosystem Description and Threats ......................................................................................................................... 6

The Planning Process .................................................................................................................................................. 6

2 The Refuge ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ....................................................................................... 11

Special Values of the Refuge .................................................................................................................................... 12

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Goals ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Planning Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

3 Refuge Resources and Description ...................................................................................................... 17

Physical Environment ............................................................................................................................................... 17

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 27

Special Management Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Visitor Services .......................................................................................................................................................... 27

Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................................................................... 28

Operations ................................................................................................................................................................... 32

4 Management Direction ........................................................................................................................... 33

Management Focus .................................................................................................................................................... 33

Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ......................................................................................................... 34

 Natural Resources Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 34

 Visitor Services Goal............................................................................................................................................. 37

 Partnerships Goal ................................................................................................................................................. 38

 Cultural Resources Goal ..................................................................................................................................... 39

 Administrative Goal ............................................................................................................................................. 39

Staffing and Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 39

Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Plan Amendment and Revision ................................................................................................................................ 40

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43

Contents 
vi CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Appendixes

A. Environmental Compliance ......................................................................................................................... 51

B. Key Legislation and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 53

C. Section 7 Biological Evaluation .....................................................................................................................57

D. List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination ....................................................................................67

E. Public Involvement .........................................................................................................................................69

F. Memorandum of Understanding ...................................................................................................................77

G. Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy ..................................................................................................................81

H. Compatibility Regulations .............................................................................................................................89

I. Fire Management Program .........................................................................................................................101

J. List of Occurring Plant Species ...................................................................................................................105

K. List of Occurring and Potentially Occurring Bird Species .....................................................................109

L. List of Potentially Occurring Amphibian and Reptile Species ...............................................................113

M. List of Potentially Occurring Mammal Species ........................................................................................115

N. Compatibility Determinations .....................................................................................................................117

 O. Divestiture Model ............................................................................................................................................123

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................................. 125
Figures and Tables

FIGURES

1 Vicinity map for Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming ............................................................................................... 2 

2 Pathfinder NWR is located in the Wyoming Basin, physiographic area 86 ............................................. 5 

3 Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem. ................................................................................................................... 7 

4 The planning process. ........................................................................................................................................ 8 

5 Base map of Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming .................................................................................................... 14 

6 Habitats at Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming ...................................................................................................... 22

7 Infrastructure and public use areas at Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming ....................................................... 29 

8 Location of Pathfinder NWR ......................................................................................................................... 30 

9 Wyoming and study area population ............................................................................................................ 30 

10 Study area age composition ........................................................................................................................... 31 

11 Study area employment distribution, 2006 .................................................................................................. 31 

12 Proposed boundary of Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming ................................................................................... 35 

13 The adaptive management process. .............................................................................................................. 40

TABLES

1 Planning process summary for Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming ...................................................................... 9 

2 Bureau of Reclamation irrigation rights for the Sweetwater 

River and Horse Creek, Wyoming. ............................................................................................................... 20 

3 Documented occurrences of vertebrate species of concern within 

Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming. .......................................................................................................................... 26 

4 Current staff for the Arapaho NWR Complex, Colorado ......................................................................... 32 

5 Step-down management plans for Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming .............................................................. 41

Abbreviations

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BSFW Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CRP conservation reserve program

EA environmental assessment

EO executive order

FMP fire management plan

FONSI finding of no significant impact

FTE full-time equivalent

GS General Schedule (employment)

GIS Geographic Information System

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGO nongovernmental organization

NOI notice of intent

NWR national wildlife refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

Region 6 Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

RONS Refuge Operations Needs System

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SUP special use permit

SWG State Wildlife Grant

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WG Wage Grade (employment)

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WUI wildland–urban interface

Summary

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming

Mark Ely/USFWS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed this 

comprehensive conservation plan as the foundation 

for the management and use of the Pathfinder 

National Wildlife Refuge located in Carbon and 

Natrona counties, Wyoming. This plan, approved in 

2008, will guide the management of the refuge for the 

next 15 years. 

Assessing the refuge’s ability to provide quality 

wildlife habitat for migratory bird species and 

actively managing the refuge to achieve this end, 

along with identifying and providing appropriate 

public uses on the refuge, were key factors driving 

the development of this plan.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 requires the Service to develop a 

comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each 

national wildlife refuge in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System.

This brief summary describes the refuge, 

comprehensive conservation plan, and planning 

process. 

ThE REFUGE

Located in central Wyoming in a high plains basin 

near the headwaters of the “Platte–Kansas Rivers” 

ecosystem, the Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge 

lies approximately 47 miles southwest of the city of 

Casper. 

Pathfinder Dam construction was completed in 1909, 

creating the first reservoir on the North Platte 

River. At the same time, the Pathfinder Wildlife 

Refuge (later renamed “Pathfinder National Wildlife 

Refuge”) was established as an overlay refuge 

on Bureau of Reclamation lands on the reservoir. 

This large body of water was very attractive to 

waterbirds, and where the refuge once offered 

a unique environment in this semiarid region of 

Wyoming, the reservoir on which it is situated is now 

part of a larger system of reservoirs including Alcova 

to the north and Seminoe to the south. 

Major habitat types of the Pathfinder National 

Wildlife Refuge include open water wetlands, 

uplands consisting of shrub and grasslands, and alkali 

flats.

ThE PLANNING PROCESS

Through the environmental analysis process, the 

Service has selected as the preferred alternative 

(final comprehensive conservation plan) for the 

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge alternative C 

from the draft comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment published in July 2008. 

In 2006, a planning team of refuge and other Service 

staff gathered and began to analyze resource 

information. The planning process included designing 

a vision for the refuge, along with identifying goals 

to reach the vision. After identifying key issues 

related to achieving the vision, the team developed 

management alternatives. 

The team invited the public to participate in the 

planning process and public scoping. A mailing 

list of approximately 148 names was created and 

included private citizens; local, regional, and state 

government representatives and legislators; other 

federal agencies; tribal governments; and nonprofit 

organizations.

Key issues (habitat, wildlife, water quality, public 

outreach, public use, and refuge operations) were 

identified during analysis of concerns raised by 

refuge staff, along with analysis of public comments 

collected during scoping. These issues were 

addressed throughout the planning process and in 

the final comprehensive conservation plan. 
xii CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

COMPREhENSIvE CONSERvATION PLAN

This plan includes detailed objectives and strategies 

to carry out the vision and goals for the Pathfinder 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Vision

Pathfinder Reservoir and surrounding public 

lands supply life-cycle needs for a multitude 

of wildlife adapted to this semiarid region of 

central Wyoming. The wetland complexes, 

upland sagebrush habitats, and open waters of 

the reservoir provide feeding, breeding, staging, 

resting, and nesting areas for migratory birds 

and resident wildlife. Management decisions 

will be directed toward maintaining or 

improving wildlife habitat values. Appropriate 

public use opportunities will be identified, and 

provided where possible. 

GOALS

The following goals will direct work toward achieving 

the vision for the Pathfinder National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Natural resource Goal

Conserve the ecological diversity of uplands and 

wetlands to support healthy populations of native 

wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory birds. 

Visitor serVices Goal

Provide wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities to a diverse audience when the 

administration of these programs does not adversely 

affect habitat management objectives. 

PartNershiPs Goal

Work with partners to support healthy populations of 

native wildlife and to increase the understanding of 

wildlife needs as well as the benefits wildlife offer to 

local communities. 

C

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources on the 

refuge and protect those that are determined to be 

significant.

A

Obtain administrative capabilities that will result 

in efficient strategies to manage the landscape to 

achieve habitat and public management goals. 
1 Introduction

Hooded Merganser

Glen Smart/USFWS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, 

USFWS) has developed this comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) to provide a foundation for 

the management and use of the Pathfinder National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in central Wyoming 

near the city of Casper (figure 1). It is intended to 

be a working guide for management programs and 

actions over the next 15 years for Pathfinder NWR.

This CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described 

within this CCP meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Compliance with the NEPA is being achieved 

through the involvement of the public and inclusion 

of an integrated environmental assessment (EA) in 

the previous draft document (see the environmental 

compliance documents in appendix A).

The CCP specifies the necessary actions to achieve 

the vision and purposes of Pathfinder NWR. Wildlife 

is the first priority in refuge management, and 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed 

and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the 

refuge’s purpose.

The CCP has been prepared by a planning team 

consisting of representatives from various Service 

programs (refuge planning, education and visitor 

services, and ecological services), the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD). In addition, the planning 

team incorporated public input. Public involvement 

and the planning process are described in “The 

Planning Process” section of this chapter.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ThE PLAN

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that 

the refuge will play in support of the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), 

and to provide long-term guidance for management of 

refuge programs and activities. The CCP is needed:

R to communicate with the public and other 

partners in efforts to carry out the mission of 

the Refuge System;

R to provide a clear statement of direction for 

management of the refuge;

R to provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge;

R to ensure that the Service’s management 

actions are consistent with the mandates of the 

Improvement Act;

R to ensure that management of the refuge is 

consistent with federal, state, and county plans;

R to provide a basis for development of 

budget requests for the refuge’s operation, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
2 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Figure 1. Vicinity map for Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming.
Chapter 1 — Introduction 3

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 U.S. FISh AND WILDLIFE SERvICE 

AND ThE REFUGE SYSTEM

The Service is the principal federal agency 

responsible for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. 

The Refuge System is one of the Service’s major 

programs.

U

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is working with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.

Over a century ago, America’s fish and wildlife 

resources were declining at an alarming rate. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and 

angling groups joined together to restore and sustain 

America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the 

genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally significant fisheries, conserves and 

restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers 

endangered species, and helps other governments 

with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service 

administers 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 America.

NatioNal W ildliFe ReFuGe System

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s 

first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown 

pelicans and other native, nesting birds. This small 

but significant designation was the beginning of the 

Refuge System.

Over one hundred years later, the Refuge System 

has become the largest collection of lands in the 

world specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing 

over 96 million acres within 546 refuges and over 

3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. 

Today, there is at least one refuge in every state 

as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands.

In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear 

mission for the 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.

The Improvement Act states that each national 

wildlife refuge shall be managed

R to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;

R to fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;

R to consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;

R to fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP 

for each unit of the Refuge System and fully 

involve the public in the preparation of these 

plans;

R to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge 

System;

R to recognize that the six wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) 

are legitimate and priority public uses;

R to retain the authority of refuge managers to 

determine compatible public uses.

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System stresses the following principles:

R Wildlife comes first.

R Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are 

vital concepts.

R Habitats must be healthy.

R Growth of the Refuge System must be 

strategic.

R The Refuge System serves as a model for 

habitat management with broad participation 

from others.

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 all CCPs in 

conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge 

is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year 

schedule (by 2012).
4 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

PeoPle aNd the reFuGe system

The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives. Wildlife and wild places 

provide special opportunities to recreate, relax, and 

enjoy the natural world.

Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In 2006, nearly 35 million people visited 

the Refuge System, mostly to observe wildlife in 

their natural habitats (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

Visitors are most often accommodated through 

nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, 

and hunting and fishing opportunities. Significant 

economic benefits are being generated to the local 

communities that surround refuges. During fiscal 

year 2006, recreational use on national wildlife 

refuges generated almost $1.7 billion of sales in 

regional economies, supported approximately 27,000 

private sector jobs, produced about $543 million in 

employment income, and generated nearly $185.3 

million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and 

federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANDATES

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

designated purpose of the refuge (as described in 

establishing legislation, executive orders, or other 

establishing documents) and the mission and goals 

of the Refuge System. Key concepts and guidance 

of the Refuge System are in the Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), 

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

“The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the 

Improvement Act.

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses on refuges, and a requirement that each 

refuge be managed under a CCP. The Improvement 

Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority 

of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of 

the Interior will ensure 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 it was established. The 

Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor 

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

each refuge.

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 

B. Service policies on planning and day-to-day 

management of refuges are in the “Refuge System 

Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”

REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL 

AND REGIONAL PLANS

Pathfinder NWR contributes to the conservation 

efforts described here.

FulFilliNG the Promise

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise: The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS] 1999), is the culmination of a 

yearlong process by teams of Service employees to 

evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report 

was the focus of the first national Refuge System 

conference in 1998 attended by refuge managers, 

other Service employees, and representatives from 

leading conservation organizations.

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with wildlife 

and habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals 

with all three of these major topics. The planning 

team looked to the recommendations in the document 

for guidance during CCP planning.

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, according to 

the program, is managing human population growth 

while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. 

To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked 

to establish priorities for conservation efforts and 

identify land bird species and habitat types. Partners 

in Flight activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation 

plans covering the continental United States.

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide 

for the long-term health of the bird life of North 

America. The first priority is to prevent the rarest 

species from going extinct, the second is to prevent 

uncommon species from descending into threatened 

status, and the third is to “keep common birds 

common.”

There are 58 physiographic areas, defined by similar 

physical geographic features, wholly or partially 

contained within the contiguous United States 

and several others wholly or partially in Alaska. 

Pathfinder NWR falls within physiographic area 86, 

the Wyoming Basin (figure 2).

The Wyoming Basin is primarily in Wyoming but 

also extends into northern Colorado, southern 

Montana, and very small parts of northeast Utah 

and southeast Idaho. The area consists of broad 

intermountain basins interrupted by isolated hills 

and low mountains that merge to the south into a 

dissected plateau. The Wyoming Basin is primarily 

shrub–steppe habitat, dominated by sagebrush and 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 5

shadscale, interspersed with areas of short-grass 

prairie. Higher elevations are in mountain shrub 

vegetation, with coniferous forest atop the highest 

areas. Priority bird populations and habitats of the 

Wyoming Basin include:

Shrub–Steppe

 Ferruginous hawk

 Prairie falcon

 Greater sage-grouse

 Cassin’s kingbird

 Sage thrasher

 Brewer’s sparrow

 Sage sparrow

Sagebrush Grasslands

 Swainson’s hawk

 Mountain plover

 McCowan’s longspur

Montane Shrub

 Lewis’s woodpecker

 Virginia’s warbler

Wetlands

 American white pelican

 Wilson’s phalarope

A large percentage of the Wyoming Basin is in public 

ownership, with the BLM owning much of the lower 

elevation shrub–steppe and grassland and the U.S. 

Forest Service owning a great deal of the higherelevation wooded land. A checkerboard pattern of 

land ownership is a subtle problem that affects the 

consistency of land management over large areas. 

The primary land use in the Wyoming Basin has been 

for many years and continues to be grazing, although 

conversion to agriculture is also an issue. The effects 

of overgrazing and nonnative plant invasion should 

be mitigated to improve conditions for breeding 

birds. Maintenance of springs and riparian habitat 

may be crucial, particularly to sage-grouse. Fencing 

or changing grazing systems may be effective in 

maintaining water flow. Oil and gas extraction and 

hard rock mining are relatively recent factors that 

may negatively affect the greater landscape needs of 

the sage-grouse (Nicholoff 2003).

Figure 2. Pathfinder NWR is located in the Wyoming Basin, physiographic area 86.

RecoVery laNs For ederally isted

threateNed or eNdaNGered sPecies

 P F L

The Service conducted a biological evaluation of the 

actions in this CCP per section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (see appendix C). Where federally listed 

threatened or endangered species occur at Pathfinder 

NWR, management goals and strategies in their 
6 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

respective recovery plans will be followed. The list 

of threatened or endangered species that occur 

at the refuge will change as species are listed or 

delisted, or as listed species are discovered on refuge 

lands. Currently, no federally listed threatened or 

endangered species occur at the refuge. 

S

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 

program in 2001. This program provides states 

and territories with federal dollars to support 

conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from 

becoming endangered and in need of protection 

under the Endangered Species Act. The SWG 

program represents an ambitious endeavor to take 

a proactive role in keeping species from becoming 

threatened or endangered in the future.

According to the SWG program, each state or 

territory and the District of Columbia must have 

completed a comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005, to receive 

future funding.

These strategies will help define an integrated 

approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, 

with additional emphasis on species of concern and 

habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from singlespecies management and highly specialized individual 

efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, 

fish and wildlife conservation effort. The Service 

approves CWCSs and administers SWG program 

funding.

The CWCS for the state of Wyoming was reviewed 

and information therein was used during the 

development of the CCP. Implementation of CCP 

habitat goals and objectives will support the goals 

and objectives of the CWCS.

ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND 

ThREATS

Pathfinder NWR is located within the Platte–Kansas 

Rivers ecosystem, which includes almost all of 

Nebraska, southeast Wyoming, northeast Colorado, 

and northern Kansas (figure 3). The ecosystem is 

home to the Nebraska Sandhills, the largest sand 

dune complex in the western hemisphere. This area 

and many others provide vital habitat for numerous 

threatened and endangered wildlife and plant 

species.

The ecosystem spans snow-capped, barren mountain 

peaks in Colorado to lowland riparian cottonwood 

forests along the Missouri River in eastern 

Nebraska and Kansas. The mountainous regions 

are predominately a mixture of coniferous forests 

comprised of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. Pinyon 

pine, juniper woodlands, and aspen communities are 

also common throughout. At high elevation, alpine 

meadows and lakes, willow shrublands, and barren, 

rocky areas are frequently found. Forests generally 

transition into shrub communities dominated by 

sagebrush with short grasses and forbs in eastern 

Wyoming and western Nebraska. Farther to the 

east, trees give way to short-grass prairie dominated 

by buffalo grass, blue grama, hairy grama, and 

western wheatgrass. The short-grass prairie turns 

into mixed-grass prairie in central Nebraska and 

Kansas, due primarily to greater annual rainfall.

Threats to the Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem 

that require attention include overgrazing of land, 

invasive plants, population growth and housing 

development, and groundwater and surface-water 

depletion. To overcome these threats, the priorities 

for the ecosystem will be to ensure that natural, 

healthy ecological processes dominate and that 

economic development complements environmental 

protection.

ThE PLANNING PROCESS

This CCP for Pathfinder NWR is intended to comply 

with the Improvement Act and the NEPA as well 

as the implementing regulations of the acts. The 

Service issued its Refuge System planning policy in 

2000, which established requirements and guidance 

for refuge plans—including CCPs and step-down 

management plans—to ensure that planning efforts 

comply with the Improvement Act. The planning 

policy identifies several steps of the CCP and EA 

process (also see figure 4):

R Form a planning team and conduct preplanning.

R Initiate public involvement and scoping.

R Draft the vision statement and goals.

R Develop and analyze alternatives, including the 

proposed action.

R Prepare the draft CCP and EA.

R Prepare and adopt the final CCP and EA 

and issue a “finding of no significant impact” 

(FONSI) or determine if an environmental 

impact statement is needed.

R Implement the CCP; monitor and evaluate.

R Review the CCP every 5 years and revise it 

every 15 years.

The Service began the preplanning process for 

Pathfinder NWR in January 2006. The planning team 

consisted of representatives from various Service 

programs (refuge planning, education and visitor 

services, and ecological services), the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, and 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 7

Figure 3. Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem. 
8 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

A list of planning team members and other major 

contributors to the development of this CCP is in 

appendix D. 

At the start of the CCP process, the refuge was 

evaluated by the planning team using the Mountain–

Prairie Region Divestiture Model (appendix O) to 

determine whether or not it warranted status as a 

national wildlife refuge. Designed as a preplanning 

tool, the model allows planners and refuge managers 

to determine whether or not a refuge should be 

considered for divestiture. In the case of Pathfinder 

NWR, the model indicated that, although the 

majority of the refuge does not meet the purpose 

of the refuge and the goals of the Refuge System, 

approximately 5,000 acres of the refuge provide 

valuable habitat for migratory birds.

Following this analysis, the Service developed three 

unique management alternatives based on the issues, 

concerns, and opportunities expressed during the 

scoping process. The evaluation of the alternatives 

was documented in “Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment—

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge,” which was 

published in July 2008. After the public comment 

period for the draft CCP and EA, the Service 

finalized the CCP.

4. Develop anD analyze

alternatives

— Create a reasonable range 

of alternatives including a 

“no-action” alternative

5. prepare Draft plan

anD nepa 

Document

— Public comment and 

review

1. preplanning: 

plan the plan

2. initiate public

involvement anD

scoping

— Involve the public

3. Draft vision

statement anD

goals anD Determine

substantive issues

6. prepare anD aDopt

final plan

— Respond to public comment

— Select preferred alternative

7. implement plan, 

monitor, anD evaluate

— Public involvement when 

applicable

8. review anD revise

plan

— Public involvement when 

applicable

The

Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process 

and 

NEPA Compliance

Figure 4. The planning process.

C

The Service held two public scoping meetings in May 

2006 (see table 1 for details) announced by the local 

media. During the public meetings, a description 

of the CCP and NEPA process was provided. 

Participants were asked to provide suggestions on 

the scope of issues to be considered in the planning 

process, and comments were recorded and entered in 

the planning record. Attendees were encouraged to 

ask questions and offer comments; each attendee was 

given a comment form to submit additional thoughts 

or questions in writing.

Approximately 51 people attended the public 

meetings. Attendees included local citizens and 

members of Audubon Wyoming, the Wyoming 

Outdoor Council, and Biodiversity Conservation 

Alliance.

Written comments were due July 17, 2006. A total of 

70 written comments were received throughout the 

scoping process. Input obtained from meetings and 

correspondence including email was considered in 

development of this CCP.

A mailing list of more than 148 contacts includes 

private citizens; local, regional, and state government 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 9

representatives and legislators; other federal 

agencies; and interested organizations (appendix E).

In September 2006, the first planning update was 

sent to everyone on the mailing list. Information 

was provided on the history of the refuge and the 

CCP process, along with an invitation to share ideas 

regarding refuge management with the planning 

team. 

Table 1. Planning process summary for Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming.

Date Event Outcome

January–March 2006 Preplanning. CCP overview; established planning team; 

identified purpose of the refuge, history, and 

establishing authority; developed planning schedule 

and CCP mailing list. 

April 27, 2006 Kickoff meeting. Toured refuge; conducted internal scoping by 

developing issues and qualities list for the refuge; 

identified biological and mapping needs; developed a 

vision statement for the refuge.

May 8, 2006 News release for public 

meeting sent to Wyoming 

media contacts.

Notified public of opportunities for involvement in 

the CCP process. 

May 24, 2006 Public meeting in Casper, 

WY.

Opportunity for the public to learn about the CCP 

and offer suggestions on the scope of issues to be 

considered in the planning process.

May 25, 2006 Public meeting in Laramie, 

WY.

Opportunity for the public to learn about the CCP 

and offer suggestions on the scope of issues to be 

considered in the planning process.

June 16, 2006 NOI (to prepare the CCP) 

published in the “Federal 

Register.”

Notified the public of the intention to prepare a 

CCP and EA for Pathfinder NWR.

August 31, 2006 Goals and alternatives 

workshop.

Goals developed; alternatives discussed.

September 2006 Planning update distributed 

to CCP mailing list.

Planning update (describing CCP process and 

providing opportunity for public suggestions on 

the scope of issues to be considered in the planning 

process).

January 25, 2007 Environmental consequences 

workshop and identification 

of the proposed action.

Reviewed the anticipated environmental 

consequences; identified alternative C as the 

proposed action. 

May 2008 Internal review of the draft 

CCP and EA.

Received comments on the draft CCP and EA.

July 2008 Planning update (issue 2) 

distributed to CCP mailing 

list.

Planning update (describing the CCP, vision, and 

goals and how to provide comments on the draft 

CCP and EA).

July 28, 2008 Release of draft CCP and EA 

for public review.

Draft CCP and EA presented to the public; 

received comments on the draft CCP and EA. 

August 18, 2008 Public meeting in Casper, 

WY.

Increased public understanding of the draft CCP 

and EA; received public comments about the draft 

CCP and EA.

September 18, 2008 CCP approval. Selection of the preferred alternative (C) for the 

final CCP.

S

On January 27, 2006, an invitation letter to 

participate in the CCP process was sent by the 

Service’s region 6 director to the director of 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Two 

representatives from the WGFD are part of the CCP 

planning team. Local WGFD wildlife biologists and 

the refuge staff had established excellent ongoing 

working relations before starting the CCP process.
10 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is 

charged with providing “an adequate and flexible 

system for the control, management, protection, 

and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife.” The WGFD 

maintains 36 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas 

and 96 Public Access Areas, encompassing 410,000 

acres of managed lands for wildlife habitat and public 

recreation opportunity. These lands contain 121 miles 

of stream easements and about 21,014 surface acres 

of lakes and reservoirs for public access (Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department 2006).

T

On October 17, 2006, five Native American tribal 

governments (Arapaho, Crow, Northern Cheyenne, 

Oglala Sioux, and Shoshone) were contacted through 

a letter signed by Service’s region 6 director. With 

information about the upcoming CCP, the letter 

invited tribal recipients to serve on the planning 

team. Although Native American tribal governments 

did not express interest in participating on the 

planning team, the tribal governments remain on the 

CCP mailing list and will continue to receive CCP 

correspondence.

R

Table 1 summarizes the CCP process. Comments 

collected from scoping meetings and correspondence, 

including comment forms, were used in the 

development of a final list of issues that were 

addressed in the draft CCP and EA.

The Service determined which alternatives could 

best address these issues. The planning process 

ensures that issues with the greatest impact on 

the refuge are resolved or given priority over the 

life of the final CCP. Identified issues, along with a 

discussion of effects on resources, are summarized in 

chapter 2.

In addition, the Service considered suggested 

changes to current refuge management presented by 

the public and other groups. 
2 The Refuge

Northern Pintail

USFWS

The Pathfinder Wildlife Refuge (later renamed 

the “Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge”) was 

established by executive order (EO) in 1909. The 

refuge’s boundaries have been modified several 

times since its establishment. The present-day 

refuge comprises four separate units—Sweetwater 

Arm, Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek—

totaling 16,806 acres (see figure 5).

ESTABLIShMENT, ACqUISITION, AND 

MANAGEMENT hISTORY

The origins of present-day Pathfinder NWR can be 

traced to June 17, 1902, when Congress authorized 

the Bureau of Reclamation to build the Pathfinder 

Dam and Reservoir in central Wyoming. When dam 

construction was completed in 1909, the refuge was 

established on the reservoir as an overlay refuge on 

Reclamation lands. Wildlife management must be 

compatible with those uses for which Reclamation 

acquired the land.

Below is a summary of the legislation that has shaped 

the refuge over the years:

R EO 1032 (February 25, 1909)—established 

Pathfinder Wildlife Refuge on the Pathfinder 

Reservoir site “as a preserve and breeding 

ground for native birds.”

R EO 3725 (August 18, 1922)—revoked that part 

of EO 1032 reserving the Pathfinder Reservoir 

site for use “as a preserve and breeding ground 

for native birds.” 

R EO 4860 (April 19, 1928)—reestablished the 

area created by EO 1032 “as a preserve and 

breeding ground for native birds.”

R EO 7425 (August 1, 1936)—established the 

present refuge and designated it “as a refuge 

and breeding ground for birds and other 

wildlife.”

R EO 8296 (November 30, 1939)—changed the 

refuge name from “Pathfinder Wildlife Refuge” 

to “Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge.” 

Reclamation administers lands within the Pathfinder 

Reservoir boundary for North Platte Project 

purposes including flood control, irrigation, and 

hydroelectric power generation. A memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) specifies the management 

responsibilities of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife (BSFW), the Service’s predecessor, while 

preserving the autonomy of Reclamation to manage 

Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir (see appendix F). 

The North Platte Project is a 111-mile irrigation 

project stretching along the North Platte River 

Valley from Guernsey, Wyoming, to Bridgeport, 
12 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Nebraska (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Reclamation [USBR]). The project provides 

full-service irrigation for about 226,000 acres and 

supplemental irrigation service for a combined area 

of roughly 109,000 acres. The project includes five 

storage dams, four diversion dams, a pumping plant, 

and a power plant, as well as about 2,000 miles of 

canals, laterals, and drains.

Many mountain streams rising in the Rocky 

Mountains of Colorado and Wyoming feed the 

North Platte River. Its waters are stored and 

used for irrigation and power development for the 

North Platte Project and related projects. These 

projects’ storage structures require close operational 

coordination, which is further complicated by various 

agreements and laws governing water rights. 

Before reaching the Pathfinder Reservoir, the North 

Platte River waters pass through the Seminoe 

and Kortes dams, where they are joined by waters 

from the Sweetwater River. Pathfinder Reservoir 

holds much of the North Platte Project water, with 

a storage capacity of 1,016,000 acre-feet. A small 

amount of water is released during the nonirrigation 

season to satisfy other water rights, enhance fish 

and wildlife, and operate power plants downstream, 

and during the irrigation season, water is released as 

required.

Pathfinder Dam is located about 3 miles below the 

North Platte River’s junction with the Sweetwater 

River.

In the 1960s, the BSFW became increasingly 

concerned with the decline in waterfowl use of the 

reservoir. This decline was attributed to various 

ecological changes resulting from Reclamation 

activities, particularly water manipulation. 

Recreational activities were also increasing, and 

the trend was expected to continue. The BSFW 

concluded that developing and intensively managing 

only areas that had existing and potential waterfowl 

attraction would better benefit wildlife than 

continuing extensive management of the entire area. 

To this effect, various memorandums of agreement 

and understanding were signed with Reclamation 

and other agencies that oversee lands on the 

Pathfinder Reservoir:

R February 12, 1963—a proposal was made to 

limit the boundary of Pathfinder NWR to 

include only the Sweetwater Arm Unit and 

three small areas (Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, 

and Sage Creek units) designated for waterfowl 

production on the main body of the reservoir.

R May 20, 1963—the proposal was approved in a 

memorandum to the BSFW’s regional director 

of the division of technical services.

R May 19, 1964—the proposal was carried out 

through partial revocation of EO 7425, which 

deleted 31,545 acres from the refuge. 

R May 26, 1964—an MOU was signed between 

Reclamation and the BSFW (contract #14-06-

700-4605), allowing the latter to manage land 

and water areas, including grazing, recreation, 

and related uses, for the conservation of wildlife 

resources (appendix F). 

R September 10, 1964—the BSFW submitted an 

application to the BLM for the withdrawal of 

lands from the BLM to add 1,971.97 acres to 

Pathfinder NWR. The withdrawal of 1,574.84 

acres of land was completed November 4, 

1964, and serial number Wyoming 0311814 was 

assigned. 

R May 7, 1965—Public Land Order 3657 placed 

2,554 acres of public land under the primary 

responsibility of the BSFW through a 

realignment of the refuge boundary. 

R November 16, 1965—an MOA (contract #14-06-

700-4737) between Reclamation, the BLM, and 

the BSFW transferred administration of the 

grazing program to the BLM. 

R May 19, 1966—an MOU (contract #14-06-

700-4749) between Reclamation, the Natrona 

County Commissioners, and the BSFW was 

established concerning the administration and 

development of land and facilities at Alcova, 

Pathfinder, and Grays Reef reservoirs for 

recreational purposes. 

R May 19, 1991—an MOU (contract # 1-AG-60-

01340) between Reclamation and Natrona 

County replaced the MOU dated May 19, 

1966. The area at Pathfinder NWR covered 

by this MOU is the Bishops Point Recreation 

Area in the Sweetwater Arm Unit. These 

recreational lands are currently within the 

refuge’s boundary and therefore are subject 

to the Service’s appropriate refuge uses policy 

(appendix G) and compatibility regulations 

(appendix H).

SPECIAL vALUES OF ThE REFUGE

Early in the planning process, the planning team 

and public identified the outstanding qualities of 

Pathfinder NWR, the characteristics and features 

that make it special to people, valuable for wildlife, 

and worthy of refuge status. Identifying these 

values at the outset helps ensure they will be 

preserved, protected, and enhanced throughout the 

planning process. Refuge qualities can range from 

providing a unique biological habitat for wildlife to 

offering visitors a quiet place to observe a variety of 

birds and enjoy nature. The following summarizes 

the qualities that make portions of the refuge unique 

and valued.

Wildlife and habitat 

R Forty species of waterfowl, wading birds, and 

shorebirds use the refuge for migration and 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 13

nesting including mountain plover, phalarope, 

avocet, redhead duck, and scaup.

R The Steamboat Lake area of the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit provides important feeding and 

nesting habitat for waterfowl and other 

migratory bird species. 

R The refuge contains a large body of water in 

a semiarid environment that provides resting 

habitat for migratory birds.

R Uplands sagebrush habitat on the refuge 

supports sage-grouse, antelope, and other sageobligate species. 

R The refuge is designated an “Important Bird 

Area” by Audubon Wyoming.

R A state-listed rare plant, slender spiderflower, 

is present at the Sweetwater Arm Unit of the 

refuge. 

R The potential exists to form partnerships with 

other agencies and with private landowners in 

the area that are interested in maintaining and 

improving the refuge’s natural resources. 

R Currently, there is little pressure for 

development near the refuge.

Phalarope Chicks

USFWS

Public Use 

R The refuge provides a variety of public 

recreation including the six priority public 

uses of the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation). 

R The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge 

provides wildlife observation and interpretation 

opportunities. 

R The Oregon Trail and Independence Rock offer 

opportunities to showcase the refuge to the 

public. 

R The refuge offers visitors open space and 

the opportunity to experience solitude in an 

aesthetically pleasing environment. 

PURPOSE

Every refuge is established for a purpose. This 

purpose is the foundation upon which to build all 

refuge programs, from biology and public use to 

maintenance and facilities. No action that the Service 

or public takes may conflict with this refuge purpose. 

The refuge purpose is found in the legislative acts or 

administrative orders, which are 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 a variety of transfer 

and acquisition authorities, giving it more than 

one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies 

identified in the CCP are intended to support 

the individual purpose for which the refuge was 

established.

As stated in EO 7425, the purpose of Pathfinder 

NWR is “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds 

and other wildlife.”

Vision

At the beginning of the planning process, the Service 

developed a vision for Pathfinder NWR. A vision 

describes what will be different in the future as a 

result of the CCP and is the essence of what the 

Service is trying to accomplish at the refuge. The 

vision is a future-oriented statement designed to be 

achieved through refuge management by the end 

of the 15-year CCP planning horizon. The vision for 

Pathfinder NWR is the following:

Pathfinder Reservoir and surrounding public 

lands supply life-cycle needs for a multitude 

of wildlife adapted to this semiarid region of 

central Wyoming. The wetland complexes, 

upland sagebrush habitats, and open waters of 

the reservoir provide feeding, breeding, staging, 

resting, and nesting areas for migratory birds 

and resident wildlife. Management decisions 

will be directed toward maintaining or 

improving wildlife habitat values. Appropriate 

public use opportunities will be identified, and 

provided where possible.

GOALS

The Service also developed a set of goals for the 

refuge based on the Improvement Act, the refuge 

purpose, and information developed during project 

planning. The goals direct work toward achieving 

the vision and purpose of the refuge and outline 

approaches for managing refuge resources. The 
14 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Figure 5. Base map of Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming.
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 15

following five goals were identified for Pathfinder 

NWR. 

Natural Resources Goal

Conserve the ecological diversity of uplands and 

wetlands to support healthy populations of native 

wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory birds. 

V

Provide wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities to a diverse audience when the 

administration of these programs does not adversely 

affect habitat management objectives.

Partnerships Goal

Work with partners to support healthy populations of 

native wildlife and to increase the understanding of 

wildlife needs as well as the benefits wildlife offer to 

local communities. 

Cultural Resources Goal

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources on the 

refuge and protect those that are determined to be 

significant.

Administrative Goal

Obtain administrative capabilities that will result 

in efficient strategies to manage the landscape to 

achieve habitat and public management goals.

PLANNING ISSUES

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of comments collected from refuge staff 

and the public, as well as during a review of the 

requirements of the Improvement Act and the 

NEPA. Substantive comments (those that could be 

addressed within the authority and management 

capabilities of the Service) were considered during 

the formulation of the alternatives for future 

management. These key issues for Pathfinder NWR 

are summarized below.

Refuge Management

Pathfinder NWR is part of the Arapaho NWR 

Complex. Refuge staff are headquartered near 

Walden, Colorado, approximately a four-hour drive 

from the refuge. The complex’s small staff size (four 

full-time employees), limited resources, and remote 

headquarters create management challenges for 

the refuge, including a lack of day-to-day oversight 

and minimal opportunities for law enforcement. 

Degrading infrastructure (specifically, roads, fences, 

and signs) and litter occur on the refuge due to lack 

of active management. 

Management of Pathfinder Reservoir and refuge 

lands by multiple agencies creates additional 

management challenges. The Service currently has 

memorandums of agreement and understanding 

with a number of agencies in the Casper region 

including Reclamation, BLM, WGFD, and 

Natrona County. Reclamation has a withdrawal on 

Pathfinder Reservoir lands to support North Platte 

Project purposes (i.e., flood control, irrigation, and 

hydroelectric power generation). The Service has a 

withdrawal on refuge lands for wildlife management 

purposes. The roles and responsibilities of each 

agency should be clearly defined, evaluated, and 

simplified where possible during the CCP process.

Refuge Uses

Refuge uses (grazing and recreation) need to be 

evaluated to ensure existing and proposed uses 

are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and 

mission of the Refuge System. Refuge uses have not 

been actively evaluated over time due to minimal 

staff presence. Through the development of this 

CCP, refuge uses and management activities will be 

evaluated to ensure the best, most informed decisions 

are made for proper management of refuge lands. 

For a use to be deemed compatible, appropriate staff 

and resources must be available to manage the use. 

Water Resources

Water and water availability are vital in semiarid 

regions. The Service does not own water rights for 

the refuge, which can result in poor wildlife habitat 

for trust species. 

Water Level Fluctuation

During the past 20 years the average fluctuation of 

the Pathfinder Reservoir water level was 20 feet per 

year with a range of 8–40 feet, resulting in a lack of 

shoreline vegetation and food source for migratory 

birds and nesting cover for waterfowl. The Bureau 

of Reclamation is responsible for managing reservoir 

water levels. 

Separated Land Parcels

The refuge consists of four separate units. Separated 

land parcels are generally more difficult to access 

and manage than contiguous parcels of land, and 

generally of less value to wildlife. 

Invasive Species

Invasive species are a threat to quality habitat. If 

not contained early, they can also drain resources. 

Tamarisk and Canada thistle have been identified on 

the refuge. An increase in monitoring, management, 

and control of these and other invasive species is 

needed.

Research and Science

The Service needs to obtain good baseline data 

for the refuge. Monitoring programs need to be 
16 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

implemented for species that use the refuge. 

Audubon Wyoming could be a partner in gathering 

quality research data on the refuge.

Partnerships

Cooperation with other agencies is needed to address 

issues of common concern. Opportunities for the 

public to assist in the protection and management 

of the refuge should be identified and provided. 

Local conservation groups could help raise funds for 

the refuge either directly or by lobbying state and 

federal representatives.

Staffing

The refuge should be managed by Service staff 

stationed in Wyoming. This issue was raised 

frequently in public meetings. The managing staff 

is currently headquartered at Arapaho NWR 

in Walden, Colorado, a four-hour drive from the 

refuge. The remote location of staff prevents active, 

consistent oversight of the refuge.
3 Refuge Resources and Description

Sage Thrasher

Dave Menke/USFWS

Located in central Wyoming in a high plains basin 

near the headwaters of the Platte–Kansas Rivers 

ecosystem, Pathfinder NWR lies approximately 

47 miles southwest of the city of Casper. Since the 

refuge was established on the Pathfinder Reservoir 

in 1909, many other reservoirs have been created, 

including Alcova to the north and Seminoe to the 

south, and the refuge no longer offers a unique 

environment for wildlife in this semiarid region of 

Wyoming.

This chapter describes the refuge’s setting, as 

follows:

R physical environment

R biological resources

R cultural resources

R special management areas

R visitor services

R partnerships

R socioeconomic environment

R operations

PhYSICAL ENvIRONMENT

This section describes global warming as well as the 

climate, soils, water resources, and air quality at the 

refuge.

Global WarmiNG

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 1999 report, 

“Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” 

concluded that ecosystem protection is important 

to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent 

loss of carbon currently 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.”
18 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to 

as “global warming.” In relation to comprehensive 

conservation planning for Refuge System units, 

carbon sequestration constitutes the primary 

climate-related effect to be considered in planning.

C

The annual precipitation as recorded at Pathfinder 

Dam averages 9.55 inches (Western Regional 

Climate Center [WRCC]). The average maximum 

temperature is 58.3oF, average minimum 

temperature is 33.4oF, and extremes range from a 

summer high of approximately 100oF to a winter low 

of approximately −40oF (WRCC). High winds buffet 

the area in all seasons, creating ground blizzard 

conditions in winter and windblown deposition of 

soils in the spring through fall.

PhysioGraPhy

The Pathfinder Reservoir area consists almost 

entirely of Miocene age tertiary sediments with 

outcrops of Precambrian granite. A small area of 

quaternary alluvial bedrock is found on the west 

end of the Sweetwater Arm Unit, as well as small 

deposits of dune sand or loess (loamy deposits) on 

the Deweese Creek Unit (Larson and Letts 2003). 

There is little indication of geologic influence from 

glaciation, and the North Platte River primarily cuts 

through the granite in the area, creating spectacular 

canyons but little in the way of flood plains. The 

Sweetwater River, when reservoir conditions reveal 

it, seems to have had some history of meandering, 

and the formation of a flood plain with it. Shifting 

sand areas (dunes) occur on the western shore of 

the reservoir and farther to the southwest. The 

high water mark of the reservoir is 5,850 feet, but 

lands are regularly exposed below this elevation. 

The highest point on the refuge is a 6,360-foot rock 

outcrop on the northwest portion of the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit. 

S

Soils in the Sweetwater Arm Unit, located in 

Natrona County, are comprised of 13 different soil 

types. Soils found in the eastern half of the unit 

include Bosler-Alcova, Haverdad-Clarkelen, DelphillBlazon, Bronsto-Lupinto, and McFadden-EdinBlackhall. Soils found in the western half of the unit 

include Zeomont-Ryan Park, Rock River-Ryan Park, 

Havermom, and Aquic Ustifluvents. 

The west and east portions of the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit share four common soil types including 

Rawlings-Rock River, Rock Outcrop, Ryan Park, 

and the Typic Fluvaquents found in the Horse Creek 

area. The soil range includes saline subirrigated, 

loamy, shallow loamy, shallow sandy, sandy, and very 

shallow. 

The three most common soil types across the 

Sweetwater Arm Unit are Ryan Park (in the 

eastern half) and Typic Fluvaquents and Aquic 

Ustifluvents (in the western half). Ryan Park is a 

sandy soil, which creates blowing, sandy conditions 

depicted in the photograph of the eastern half of the 

Sweetwater Arm Unit in chapter 4 on page 38. The 

more common soils in the western half of the unit, 

including Havermom, are subirrigated soils, which 

provide better growing conditions for vegetation. 

The sandy soil types (Rawlins-Rock River and Rock 

River-Ryan Park) in the western half of the unit are 

less impacted by reservoir operations. One area of 

Ryan Park in the western half of the unit abuts the 

reservoir on the south side of the water body.

Soils at Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming

Mark Ely/USFWS

Water resources, hydroloGy, aNd Water

riGhts

The refuge is situated on portions of the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Pathfinder Reservoir. The reservoir’s 

dam, located on the North Platte River and backing 

water flowing in from the Sweetwater River, 

impounds 1,016,000 acre-feet. The reservoir serves 

as part of the North Platte Project, explained in 

chapter 2. 

Water on the refuge’s four units—the main 

Sweetwater Arm Unit and the satellite Goose 

Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units—

flows into the North Platte River. Reclamation 

retains ownership of all appurtenant state-based 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 19

water rights. All of the state-based water rights 

appurtenant to the formerly ranched lands 

withdrawn for the reservoir are North Platte 

Project water and part of the reservoir pool, which 

is maintained on behalf of the downstream water 

users who entered into repayment contracts for the 

construction of the project. The Service cannot obtain 

or purchase state-based water rights for this refuge, 

due to the lack of enabling legislation. 

Four perennial streams on the Sweetwater Arm 

Unit empty into the reservoir: the Sweetwater 

River, Dry Creek, Arkansas Creek, and Horse 

Creek. Upstream of the reservoir pool, all of these 

streams are relatively free-flowing, with only small 

on-stream irrigation reservoirs. The largest of the 

four streams is the Sweetwater River, which has 

a watershed area of 2,338 square miles upstream 

of a USGS gauge, located 7 miles upstream of the 

reservoir. The station has been in operation from 

1914 to 1924 and from 1939 to the present. A gauging 

station (USGS 06639500) was operated on Horse 

Creek near the dam from 1915 to 1924. The drainage 

area of Horse Creek at the gauging station was 117 

square miles.

Stream discharge generally peaks from snowmelt 

and precipitation runoff in May and is at its 

lowest levels in September. Former oxbows of the 

Sweetwater River receive spring flood flows and 

serve as seasonal marshes. USGS gauging station 

records indicate the mean annual production is 

approximately 91,200 acre-feet for the Sweetwater 

River and approximately 2,400 acre-feet for Horse 

Creek. 

The Sweetwater Arm Unit contains former 

ranchland that had several irrigation ditches. The 

Bothwell ditches divert water from the Sweetwater 

River, and the Smith ditches divert water from 

Horse Creek. The lands these ditches irrigated 

were designated to be inundated by Pathfinder 

Reservoir. However, over the years, the reservoir’s 

storage obligations have decreased and some of 

the lands are not underwater. These state-based 

water rights were adjudicated and have not been 

abandoned. Table 2 shows the irrigation rights held 

by Reclamation for the Sweetwater River and Horse 

Creek.

The Soda Lakes area contains a series of small, seepfed alkali ponds. The ponds are shallow, and some dry 

up in the summer. Several of the ponds are connected 

by ditches; some have dams that allow water to 

impound to deeper levels. The structures are in poor 

condition. All of these lands were withdrawn from 

the public domain for Reclamation purposes.

A portion of the Goose Bay Unit is underwater when 

reservoir levels are high. In low-water conditions, 

it is dry. The unit’s water derives either from 

reservoir storage or from surface moisture from 

high water tables resulting from reservoir storage. 

Approximately 320 acres of the unit were reserved 

for refuge purposes.

The Deweese Creek Unit has small dams and waterspreader ditches, most of which are dilapidated. 

Some water from the creek is diverted and spread 

into small impoundments and moist areas that offer 

protection for waterfowl broods and afford growth 

of aquatic plants and grass. Because the soil has 

hardpan clay under it, the diverted water returns 

to the creek, which has a fairly constant flow. A 

gauging station (USGS 06637000) was operated on 

Deweese Creek from 1917 to 1924. The drainage area 

above the gauging station was 16.4 square miles. 

The mean annual production during the period of 

record was 1,960 acre-feet. Approximately 440 acres 

of the Deweese Creek Unit were reserved for refuge 

purposes.

Sage Creek and the North Platte River run through 

the Sage Creek Unit. Sage Creek has a watershed 

of approximately 190 square miles, which produces 

flashy, torrential flows filled with silt and sediment. 

A gauging station (USGS 06636500) was operated on 

Sage Creek from 1915 to 1925. The mean production 

during the period of record was 13,800 acre-feet per 

year.

Pricklypear

Gary Eslinger/USFWS

A

Air quality receives protection under several 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and 
20 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

the prevention of significant deterioration program. 

NAAQS include maximum allowable pollution levels 

for particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, lead, and carbon dioxide. 

Based on the Wyoming’s most current data, the state 

has relatively clean air. In the area of the refuge 

(Carbon and Natrona counties), the levels of carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, 

particulate matter (diameter <2.5 micrometers), 

particulate matter (diameter <10 micrometers), 

and lead did not exceed federal standards at any 

monitoring site in 2006 (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency [EPA] 2007a). 

Table 2. Bureau of Reclamation irrigation rights for the Sweetwater River and horse Creek, Wyoming.

Permit Territorial Priority 

No. Right Date Name Use Source CFS Acreage

A.J. Bothwell 9/1/1886 Bothwell- Irrigation Sweetwater 6.77 474 

Sweetwater River

No. 2 Ditch

State of 9/1/1886 Bothwell- Irrigation Sweetwater 2.99 209 

Wyoming et al. Sweetwater River

No. 2 Ditch

A.J. Bothwell 6/1/1888 Bothwell- Irrigation Sweetwater 9.55 669 

Sweetwater and River

No. 3 Ditch domestic 

397-E A.J. Bothwell 12/22/1898 Bothwell- Stock and Sweetwater 2.79 195 

Sweetwater domestic River

No. 2 Ditch 

Enlargement

397-E State of 12/22/1898 Bothwell- Stock and Sweetwater 1.01 71 

Wyoming Sweetwater domestic River

No. 2 Ditch 

Enlargement

397-E A.J. Bothwell 12/22/1898 Bothwell- Stock and Sweetwater .79 55 

Sweetwater domestic River

No. 2 Ditch 

Enlargement

1384 A.J. Bothwell 2/6/1897 Supplement Irrigation A spring 8.8

of Bothwell and or seep 

No. 2 Ditch domestic supplements 

the 

Sweetwater 

River 

BothwellSweetwater 

No. 2 Ditch 

rights in case 

they are not 

whole

A.J. Bothwell 6/17/1885 Smith No. 1 Irrigation Horse Creek 2.8 190 

Ditch and 

domestic 

A.J. Bothwell 6/17/1885 Smith No. 2 Irrigation Horse Creek 1.14 80 

Ditch

The air quality index (AQI) is an approximate 

indicator of overall air quality, because it takes into 

account all of the criteria air pollutants measured 

within a geographic area. Air quality in Carbon and 

Natrona counties is considered to be generally good, 

with no reported days of unhealthy air quality (EPA 

2007b). 

Prescribed burning is the refuge management 

activity that has the greatest effect on air quality 

(find more information in the description of the 

fire management program in appendix I). The 

management of smoke is incorporated into planning 

prescribed burns and, to the extent possible, 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 21

in suppression of wildfires. Sensitive areas are 

identified and precautions are taken to safeguard 

visitors and local residents. Smoke dispersal is a 

consideration in determining whether a prescribed 

burn is within prescription. Generally, the fine-grass 

fuels and small burn size (80–600 acres) generate low 

volumes of smoke for short durations (4–5 hours). 

Prescribed burning activities have not yet occurred 

at Pathfinder NWR.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section describes the existing habitat and 

wildlife at Pathfinder NWR. Appendixes J–M 

list species that occur or potentially occur on the 

refuge for plants (appendix J), birds (appendix K), 

amphibians and reptiles (appendix L), and mammals 

(appendix M). 

H

Major habitat types of Pathfinder NWR include 

open water wetlands, uplands consisting of shrub 

and grasslands, and alkali flats. The location and 

distribution of the major habitat types for the refuge 

is shown in figure 6.

O

Water rights throughout Wyoming are tightly 

regulated by the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. 

Central Wyoming is characterized by dry, arid 

uplands and unpredictable water runoff events. 

Due to these conditions, Pathfinder Reservoir was 

constructed to control flooding and to provide for 

irrigation water to ranches. Over time, the purposes 

of Pathfinder Reservoir expanded, and it now is 

used to provide water for hydropower and to deliver 

water to other downstream reservoirs.

R

As explained in chapter 2, Pathfinder Reservoir is 

part of a system of dams and reservoirs operated by 

the Bureau of Reclamation in the North Platte River 

Basin for irrigation, hydroelectric power production, 

and municipal and industrial water supply. As such, 

the Service has little to no input into reservoir level 

management, although a significant portion of the 

refuge lies below the high water line of the reservoir. 

As a result, the available management options 

and long-term benefits of management actions are 

limited, as reservoir fluctuations can inundate, 

desiccate, or destroy wildlife habitats. 

The spillway elevation for the reservoir is 

approximately 5,850 feet, at which point the storage 

capacity is 1,016,507 acre-feet. From 1996 to 2005, 

the reservoir level saw a high of 5,849.89 feet in 1999 

and a low of 5,784.84 feet in 2004. Annual variation 

between high and low reservoir levels during this 

time period ranged from 8 feet in 2005 to 26 feet in 

2001 and 2002, and averaged nearly 17 feet annually 

(USBR). 

The biological consequences of these variable 

water levels include a lack of reliable emergent or 

submergent vegetative growth; shorelines that are 

primarily sandy, varying from bare sand and rock to 

partially or fully vegetated with annuals; potentially 

significant weed issues in low-water years (tamarisk 

is currently scattered around the reservoir below 

the high water line); and substrates from the bottom 

of the reservoir being windblown and deposited 

on downwind uplands. With the low water levels 

of the past 5 years, the former floodplain of the 

Sweetwater River has produced some promising 

meadow habitat, but a relatively small rise in the 

reservoir elevation would inundate most of this area. 

Lesser Scaup

Dave Menke/USFWS
22 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Figure 6. Habitats at Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming.
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 23

Use of the reservoir by waterbirds is minimal, likely 

due to poor water conditions resulting in poor food 

production, along with disturbance on the water and 

shorelines from boating, fishing, camping, and allterrain vehicle (ATV) use.

Fluctuations in reservoir water levels create cutbank 

and sandy shorelines, resulting in the establishment 

of little emergent vegetation (i.e., cattails and rushes) 

for brood cover and feeding areas. The Service’s 

inability to control reservoir water levels to manage 

for habitat conditions to support migratory bird 

species, along with a decrease in migratory bird use 

of the reservoir, hinder the effectiveness of managing 

the reservoir area as a national wildlife refuge. 

A

The refuge’s 1961 annual narrative (BSFW) makes 

reference to “pit type” ponds that were apparently 

in place on the Goose Bay Unit. Remnants of these 

ponds still exist, but only two to three appear to 

be functional in good water years. The 1962 annual 

narrative (BSFW) also notes that three dikes and 

ditches were constructed on Deweese Creek that 

year, along with one on Sage Creek. The dikes on 

Deweese Creek were designed to back up water 

that would not only create a small impoundment 

but also supply water for use in irrigating adjacent 

uplands for waterfowl nesting habitat. It appears 

the dikes were somewhat successful, as this area 

holds remnants of tame grasses that were probably 

planted at or near the same time. All of the dikes are 

currently breached, with the creek running back on 

its old course through them. The remnants of these 

ponds hold the only emergents found on the refuge. 

The Sage Creek dike was reported to be 270 feet in 

length and included a 1,300-foot ditch for irrigation 

(present-day refuge staff have not seen the Sage 

Creek dike and ditch). Some of the area was planted 

to a wheatgrass mixture. The dike and ditch were 

apparently subject to regular damage by high waters 

during spring flows and thunderstorms, as damage 

to these structures were reported in 1962, 1963, and 

1964. In 1964–65, five dams were constructed on 

Horse Creek; they appear to be nonfunctional today 

and to have had little impact on habitat development. 

Playas

The playa lakes that make up the Steamboat Lake 

area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit are influenced by 

runoff and appear to be supplemented by springs 

around Steamboat Lake. This area blends in with the 

upland and alkali flat habitat types, as it consists of 

small rolling “hills” not more than 10–15 feet higher 

than the surrounding area with alkali areas between 

them. These hills and alkali areas vary in size from 

100 square feet to many acres. After significant 

precipitation events, and/or runoff, these alkali areas 

hold water for a time. Typically, the smaller alkaline 

areas provide spring habitat but are mainly dry later 

in the summer months, and the larger alkaline areas 

to the east of the chain of lakes hold some water most 

of the year. Steamboat Lake and the next lake east 

hold water year-round in most years, but an alkali 

flat generally forms around them in late summer and 

early fall. 

The 1961 annual narrative (BSFW) noted that 

1,650 linear feet of diking was constructed in the 

Soda Lakes area to hold early water and decrease 

evaporation. This construction can be seen today. 

Emergent vegetation is limited to the edges of the 

ponds and includes rushes and sedges. Steamboat 

Lake and Soda Lakes are used by American 

avocet, Wilson’s phalarope, and other shorebirds 

for migration and breeding, as well as several 

duck species, Canada geese, coot, and eared grebe. 

The smaller, drier lakes see some use by avocet, 

apparently when the water is fresher, but they are 

minimally used otherwise. 

The 1966 annual narrative (BSFW) documents the 

Service’s unsuccessful attempts to acquire water 

rights for Pathfinder NWR development.

U

Uplands consisting of shrub and grasslands are the 

dominant habitat type in the area. The upland areas 

adjacent to the reservoir in the area impacted by 

reservoir operations are characterized by blowing 

sand and dryland shrub communities. Areas farther 

west on the Sweetwater Arm Unit (approximately 

west of Horse Creek) are characterized by more 

gentle terrain and grassy and wet meadow areas 

rather than sandy cutbanks. Located in the 

backwaters of the reservoir, these areas are wet only 

if the reservoir is full or near full. 

The majority of the lands above the high water line of 

Pathfinder Reservoir—and likely, the area below and 

approaching the dam—consists of shrub-dominated 

uplands and rock outcrops. The upland habitats on 

the refuge slope upward from the reservoir where 

the North Platte and Sweetwater River channels lie, 

and in some places are 150 feet above the high water 

line. Rock outcrops occur on the north, northwest, 

southwest, and southeast portions of the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit and in the southeast corner of the Sage 

Creek Unit. In addition, the western part of the 

Sage Creek Unit adjacent to the North Platte River 

contains shear cliffs that rise up from the river 150 

feet to an upland bench above. A notable feature on 

the refuge landscape, these cliffs appear to be made 

of a different rock than the other Precambrian rock 

outcrops. These outcrops, though dominated by rock, 

contain within them areas of sparse grass, forbs, and 

sage mixes characteristic of the surrounding uplands, 

as well as scattered limber pine and Rocky Mountain 

juniper.

The upland vegetation is primarily dominated 

by sagebrush of various species and heights, and 
24 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

probably age classes as well. The understory of 

grasses and forbs is sparse in general, but varies 

from site to site based on soil and range type. The 

south side of the Sweetwater Arm Unit and the 

upland areas of the Deweese Creek and Goose Bay 

units consist primarily of well-dispersed sagebrush 

of 15–40 percent canopy cover, with a minimal grassand-forb understory and considerable bare ground. 

Some draws on the western portion of the Goose Bay 

Unit and the southern part of the Sweetwater Arm 

Unit contain small areas of sage 2–4 feet tall and have 

a canopy cover of nearly 100 percent. Some uplands 

areas on the north side of the Sweetwater Arm 

Unit and east of Horse Creek are almost completely 

covered with pricklypear. The sage component is still 

present, but the shrubs are further apart and the 

understory is dominated by cactus. 

An area in the northeast corner of the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit is apparently impacted by sediments 

blowing from the reservoir bottom when it is 

exposed. This area was once typical of the other 

sage-dominated uplands, but most of the plants have 

died, apparently as the result of being sandblasted or 

choked off in the sediments, as the soil deposits are 

several inches deep in spots and have formed drifts. 

The uplands adjacent to the Steamboat Lake area 

and the upper end of the Sweetwater River contain 

more greasewood than sage, and unless they are on a 

bench, contain very little undergrowth and appear to 

have very poor soils for vegetative growth. Historic 

use of the uplands has been for livestock grazing. The 

geography and soil types in this area are such that, 

for the most part, no thought seems to have been 

given to attempting irrigation. Wildlife use of these 

areas includes pronghorn, mule deer, sage thrasher, 

horned lark, meadow lark, sage-grouse, rattlesnake, 

and white-tailed prairie dog. 

Wyoming has more sagebrush than any other state. 

Two cover types, Wyoming big sagebrush (30.8 

percent) and mixed grass (20.2 percent), occupied 

about half of the land area of the Wyoming Gap 

Analysis (WY-GAP) land cover map, based on 

the proportional area of land cover (Merrill et al. 

1996). WY-GAP is part of the national Gap Analysis 

Program (GAP), whose goal is to keep common 

species common by identifying species and plant 

communities that are inadequately represented in 

existing conservation lands. Begun in 1991, WY-GAP 

was officially completed in November 1996. The 

main goal of WY-GAP was to analyze the current 

status of biodiversity within Wyoming, focusing on 

two biodiversity elements: land cover types and 

terrestrial vertebrate species. Land ownership and 

management for the state of Wyoming was combined 

with the data on land cover and species distributions 

in a geographic overlay using Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data to determine which biodiversity 

elements are inadequately protected within the 

current system of areas managed for conservation. 

Wyoming sagebrush communities are as diverse 

as the landscape, which is covered by 13 different 

types of sagebrush. Sagebrush-associated vegetation 

types provide habitat for approximately 87 species 

of mammals; 297 species of birds; and 63 species of 

fish, reptiles, and amphibians (Wyoming Interagency 

Vegetation Committee 2002). These species have 

been influenced by historic fire intervals and both 

domestic and wild ungulate grazing.

Associated species occurring in saltbush and desert 

shrub cover type include greasewood, winterfat, 

galleta grass, alkali sacaton, Indian ricegrass, 

bottlebrush, squirreltail, foxtail barley, basin wildrye, 

and western wheatgrass. 

Alkali Flats at Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming

Mark Ely/USFWS

GraziNG maNaGemeNt history

As noted in chapter 2, in 1965, the Service signed 

an MOA (contract #14-06-700-4737) with the BLM 

that transferred grazing management at Pathfinder 

NWR to the BLM. Since that time, the BLM has 

administered the grazing in conjunction with BLM 

allotment grazing. Section 202 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 

requires the development and maintenance of land 

use plans for public lands. BLM land use plans are 

designed to provide guidance for future management 

actions and the development of subsequent, more 

detailed and limited-scope plans for resources 

and uses. Land use plans are developed under 

the multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate of 

FLPMA. 

Land use plans identify lands that are available for 

livestock grazing and the parameters under which 

grazing is to occur. BLM issues grazing permits or 

leases for available grazing lands. Grazing permits 

and leases specify the portion of the landscape BLM 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 25

authorizes to the permittee or lessee for grazing 

(i.e., one or more allotments) and establish the terms 

and conditions of grazing use. Terms and conditions 

include, at a minimum, the number and class of 

livestock, when and where they are allowed to 

graze, and for how long. Grazing use must conform 

to any applicable allotment management plans, the 

terms and conditions of the permit or lease, land use 

plan decisions, the grazing regulations, and other 

applicable laws. 

A

Alkali flats are predominately flat lands and 

seasonally dried-up wetland basins with strongly 

saline soils. These areas are associated with or 

adjacent to playas or intermittent lakes. The alkaline/

saline soils appear to severely restrict plant growth, 

as vegetation is very spotty throughout much of 

this area. Vegetation includes saltgrass, alkali 

sacaton, and greasewood. Wildlife use by killdeer and 

American avocet (likely in association with water 

nearby) is similarly sparse. The Steamboat Lake area 

supports alkali wetlands and associated vegetation 

and wildlife uses.

The soil characteristic of this area is Aquic 

Ustifluvents (saline), 0–3 percent slopes, and includes 

the playas mentioned in the open water wetlands 

section above. When there is no water in the basins 

of the playas, the soils have an alkaline cover. The 

alkali flats also include the “hilly” areas of the playas, 

which occur mainly in the northeast portion of the 

unit and between the larger playas. The dominant 

vegetation includes greasewood and saltgrass on the 

hilly areas, and sedges, rushes, slender spiderflower 

(a state species of concern), and other salt-tolerant 

species on the edges of some of the playas. The 

bottoms of the playa basins do not appear to support 

vegetation. 

MeadoWs

The refuge does not contain irrigated meadows. 

Meadow areas exist in a limited capacity and vary 

with the reservoir level, as much of the meadowland 

is underwater in high water conditions. 

On the Deweese Creek Unit, the Service constructed 

a series of dikes and ditches in 1962 on the creek 

with the hope of irrigating the land to improve 

waterfowl-nesting habitat and create brood-rearing 

habitat with the ponds. The dikes blocked the creek 

and were constructed to continue into the adjoining 

upland area to serve as a ditch bank carrying water 

to irrigate these lands. When the Service realized, in 

1966, that no water rights were available to support 

such projects, all construction and maintenance 

efforts were abandoned. Available historical 

documents do not indicate that these irrigated 

meadows were seeded, but the remnant stand of 

tame grasses, as well as documentation of planting 

efforts in the 1960s on the Sage Creek Unit, indicate 

seeding could have been attempted on the Deweese 

Creek Unit as well. The meadow area on this unit is 

estimated to be less than 100 acres. 

The Goose Bay Unit holds some meadow habitat 

that fluctuates based on water conditions. It is likely 

nonexistent at full reservoir pool, but may return 

when the pool is low. The meadows slope down the 

bay to the east toward the reservoir and are likely 

influenced by surface and subsurface water flows, 

presumably spring fed. In extremely low water years 

(such as 2006), the meadow at Goose Bay is estimated 

at 100–150 acres. In high water years, the area is 

likely less than 20 acres. 

Another low reservoir phenomenon is the emergence 

of meadow habitat, which usually occurs after a few 

successive dry years, along the old floodplain of the 

Sweetwater River in the Sweetwater Arm Unit. This 

floodplain is some of the flattest terrain on the refuge 

when not inundated by the reservoir, and this aspect, 

combined with water flowing from the Sweetwater 

River and also likely influenced by Horse Creek, 

probably raises the water table enough to create 

fairly lush meadows and emergents over time. The 

growth of this area was apparent in 2006 and was 

also noted in the 1966 annual narrative (BSFW). No 

vegetative surveys have been completed of these 

areas, but sedges, rushes, and unidentified taller 

grass species have been observed. Although the 

aforementioned narrative noted the lush vegetative 

growth in the meadows of the Sweetwater Arm 

Unit, it also noted that use of the area by waterfowl, 

especially nesting birds, appeared to be light. 

With the dikes blown out at the Deweese Creek 

Unit, the pit ponds at the Goose Bay Unit 

functioning minimally, and no ponds along the 

Sweetwater River, the brooding areas may be 

limiting what waterfowl nesting occurs. Pronghorn 

heavily use the Sweetwater Arm Unit meadows. 

Snipe, Wilson’s phalarope, meadowlark, and willet 

have been noted. 

C

A contaminant assessment completed by the 

ecological services division of the Service (Ramirez, 

Dickerson, and Jennings 1995) did not find any 

major trace element problems at the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit, with the possible exception of arsenic 

and chromium in brine shrimp. Although elevated, 

arsenic and chromium concentrations do not 

pose a threat to aquatic birds. Major cations and 

anions (positively and negatively charged ions, 

respectively), specific conductance, and total 

alkalinity are typical of shallow alkaline wetlands in 

the semiarid western United States. 

The assessment did not find any evidence of 

sodium toxicity in ducklings or goslings; however, 
26 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

management recommendations state that waterfowl 

nesting should not be encouraged at these ponds 

due to the potential for sodium toxicity. Nesting 

enhancement measures could be carried out at the 

southeast ponds closest to the Sweetwater Arm 

Unit of the reservoir where freshwater is available. 

Refuge managers should consider water-quality 

analysis at these ponds before intensive management 

for waterfowl production. The alkaline ponds provide 

good nesting habitat for American avocet. If possible, 

aquatic bird surveys should be conduced during the 

breeding season to determine productivity and use 

(Ramirez, Dickerson, and Jennings 1995). 

T

Federally listed threatened and endangered species 

for Carbon County include black-footed ferret 

and blowout beardtongue. Although Canada lynx 

and yellow-billed cuckoo are potentially found in 

the county, the refuge does not contain habitat for 

either species. Currently, no known federally listed 

threatened or endangered species occur in Natrona 

County or at the refuge (Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database [WYNDD] 2006). 

S

Table 3 indicates documented occurrences of 

vertebrate species of concern within Pathfinder 

NWR (WYNDD 2006). Observations were in the 

Steamboat Lake area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit.

Black-crowned Night-heron

Gary Kramer/USFWS

Table 3. Documented occurrences of vertebrate species of concern within Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming.

Bird Species Most Recent Observation

American white pelican 2003

Black-crowned night-heron 2002

Brewer’s sparrow 2007

Franklin’s gull 2007

Great blue heron 2007

Greater sandhill crane 2006

Lark bunting 2007

Lesser scaup 2006

McCown’s longspur 2006

Mountain plover 2006

Northern pintail 2007

Redhead 2005

Sage thrasher 2007

Western grebe 2005

White-faced ibis 2005
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 27

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Service is responsible for managing 

archaeological and historical sites found on refuge 

lands.

Existing agreements have shifted management 

responsibilities for some refuge programs to other 

agencies, and coordination between the managing 

agencies is important to prevent negative effects to 

cultural resources. The grazing program is currently 

managed by the BLM, while reservoir water levels 

are managed by Reclamation. These programs may 

have effects on cultural resources. 

The likelihood of archaeological sites near the 

reservoir shoreline is high. Reservoir water levels 

fluctuate an average of 20 feet per year, and shoreline 

erosion may expose archaeological materials. During 

low water periods, the collecting of artifacts likely 

occurs without the Service’s knowledge. 

Prehistoric backGrouNd

Although structured searches have been minimal 

in number, archaeological surveys on and near 

refuge lands have found numerous indications of 

substantial use of the area by prehistoric cultures. 

Ten prehistoric sites have been recorded on the 

refuge and 142 near refuge lands. They consist of 

chipped stone, hearths, stone circles, stone raw 

material procurement areas, rock shelters, and 

lithic scatters. The presence of the North Platte 

and Sweetwater rivers in this semiarid land were 

likely influential on prehistoric human use (Larson 

and Letts 2003). Arapaho, Cheyenne, Sioux, and 

Shoshone tribes were probably the most common 

users of the area. 

E

Although trappers and traders traversed and used 

the area in the early nineteenth century, by far the 

largest push of humans through the region came 

as a result of the Oregon Trail. The remnants of 

the trail can clearly be seen in numerous locations 

on the Steamboat Lake area of the refuge, as well 

as numerous off-refuge locations nearby. Over 

200,000 people are estimated to have traveled the 

Oregon Trail between 1840 and 1870, many leaving 

a record of their passing at Independence Rock 

just 3 miles west of the refuge (Larson and Letts 

2003). In addition to travelers to the west coast, the 

Oregon Trial was used briefly by the Pony Express 

in the 1860s, and the discovery of gold in 1868 near 

South Pass City, Wyoming, brought opportunistic 

travelers.

E

European settlement of the refuge area was hindered 

by a combination of limited natural resources, the 

absence of major travel corridors (with the exception 

of the defunct Oregon Trail) and railways, and 

harsh environmental conditions. Indeed, even today 

very few people live in the vicinity of the refuge 

and reservoir. Settlement was almost exclusively 

dependent upon ranching. Some sheepherding 

occurred, but cattle ranching was preferred. Because 

the area is very dry, expanses of land were required 

to take advantage of what grass was available; 

ranches were large and included what is now BLM 

ground for grazing. As in much of the West, water 

was a critical commodity. At the base of the large 

rock outcrop on the north side of the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit is the gravesite of Ella Watson, better 

known as “Cattle Kate,” and James Averal. They 

were reported to have been hung in 1889 just off the 

southwest portion of the Sweetwater Arm Unit over 

a water dispute. 

H

One of the biggest signs of development in the region 

is the reservoir created by Pathfinder Dam. The dam 

was constructed between 1905 an 1909, and later 

modified, on a stretch of the North Platte River. 

Numerous pipelines for oil and natural gas traverse 

the area, but successful mineral exploration has been 

minimal. The nearest communities to the refuge are 

Alcova, located to the east, which currently caters to 

recreationists on Alcova and Pathfinder reservoirs, 

and Jeffrey City, a classic mining boom-and-bust 

town approximately 40 miles west of the refuge. 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

There are no special management areas related to 

the refuge. 

WilderNess

Due to human development in the area and current 

and past land use patterns, the refuge does not appear 

to meet the criteria for wilderness. As outlined in the 

Wilderness Act of 1994, a wilderness area:

R generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

human imprint substantially unnoticeable;

R offers outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

R has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient 

size as to make practicable its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired condition;

R may contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value.

Visitor

Refuge infrastructure (roads) and public use facilities 

(wildlife viewing area, county park) are shown in 

figure 7.
28 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

The distance of the refuge from the complex 

headquarters at Arapaho NWR, combined with 

little boundary fencing and the fact that part of the 

reservoir is refuge land and part is not, create a 

situation that allows for unrestricted public use on 

the refuge. 

A developed campground and boat ramp are located 

at Bishops Point in the Sweetwater Arm Unit and 

is administered by the Natrona County Roads, 

Bridges, and Parks Department. Hunting of ducks, 

coots, mergansers, deer, and pronghorn is permitted 

throughout the refuge in accordance with state 

seasons. 

An interpretive overlook located along Highway 220 

above Steamboat Lake interprets the refuge and 

likely receives several visits a day from the spring 

through the fall. Opportunities specific to wildlife 

observation and photography are minimal, as there 

are no formal tour routes, hiking trails, or signs. 

Several non-wildlife-dependent uses presently occur 

or are assumed to occur on the refuge, including offroad vehicle use (as the reservoir level fluctuates 

vehicles follow the shoreline); dispersed camping; 

water skiing, jet skiing, and pleasure boating; ATV 

use; Bishops Point campground and boat ramp use; 

rock climbing; and arrowhead hunting. Although 

refuge staff have known about these incompatible 

refuge uses for years, the lack of human and fiscal 

resources has made addressing them a low priority. 

Refuge staff believe that most public use occurs on 

the refuge’s largest unit, the Sweetwater Arm, due 

to its size and location close to a main highway and 

the city of Casper. The Sage Creek Unit is fairly 

small and remote. Goose Bay and Deweese Creek are 

small, extremely remote units surrounded by BLM 

lands that probably only see occasional use by hunters and jet skiers or boaters in high water conditions.

Bishops Point, Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming

Mark Ely/USFWS

H

Hunting is allowed per state seasons. Because the 

refuge boundary is not appropriately posted or 

fenced, Service law enforcement officers cannot 

enforce hunting regulations. The number of hunters 

using the refuge is unknown but is predicted to be 

low due to the remote access to most of the refuge.

Fishing

Fishing will continue to be allowed on the main 

reservoir and in stream areas leading to it. Fishing is 

allowed per state seasons. The Service does not have 

control over fishing limits or seasonal closures.

Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental 

Education, and Interpretation

Although wildlife viewing and photography probably 

occur on other areas of the refuge, the only known 

uses occur at the Steamboat Lake area, which 

offers the best opportunities for these activities. An 

interpretive overlook can be found off Highway 220 

above Steamboat Lake. 

PARTNERShIPS

Refuge staff work with Audubon Wyoming to 

conduct annual breeding bird surveys. Audubon 

Wyoming conducts annual waterfowl and shorebird 

surveys at the Steamboat Lake area. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENvIRONMENT

The local and regional demographics (statistical data 

about the population) are described below for the 

communities in the five-county study area pertaining 

to Pathfinder NWR. 

S

The following section illustrates the current 

socioeconomic conditions found within the study 

area, which is comprised of Albany, Carbon, 

Converse, Fremont, and Natrona counties. 

Pathfinder NWR is located within Carbon and 

Natrona counties; however, the remaining three 

counties included in the study area are located in 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 29

Figure 7. Infrastructure and public use areas at Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming.
30 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

close proximity to the refuge and could be affected 

by refuge management decisions.

Figure 8 shows the location of Pathfinder NWR in 

relation to nearby population centers. The refuge is 

located in central Wyoming near the cities of Casper, 

Rawlins, and Medicine Bow.

Figure 8. Location of Pathfinder NWR. 

(Source: Nationalatlas.gov and BBC Research & Consulting)

PoPulatioN

The 2006 census shows the population of the study 

area has slowly increased since 2000, and total 

population was about 165,300 as of 2005 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2006). Over the same period, the population 

of Wyoming decreased slightly (figure 9). The study 

area contained 33 percent of Wyoming’s population 

in 2005. The city of Casper (2000 census population 

49,644) is located within the study area and provides 

an ample tourist base for the refuge (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2006). 

65 and over

35 to 64

18 to 34

Under 18

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

12%

38%

25%

25%

2000 Census

13%

40%

26%

22%

2006 Estimate

14%

39%

26%

21%

2011 Projection

Under 18

18 to 34

35 to 64

65 and over

2000 Census 2006 Estimate 2011 Projection

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

25%

25%

38%

12%

22%

26%

40%

13%

21%

26%

39%

14%

Figure 9. Wyoming and study area population.

(Source: State of Wyoming, Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division)

A

Figure 10 illustrates the aging population of the 

study area. In 1990, 25 percent of the study area’s 

population was under the age of 18. By 2011, this 

age group will only constitute about 21 percent 

of the population. It should also be noted that the 

percentage of residents aged 65 and older has 

steadily increased since 2000. This increase can 

possibly be attributed to the aging of the baby boom 

generation. The median age of the study area was 

about 36.9 years as of 2006. 

E

The civilian workforce for the study area has 

increased by about 760 workers per year since 

2000. As of 2006, the workforce consisted of 84,278 

workers. The unemployment rate for 2006 was 

estimated at 4.0 percent, which is slightly higher 

than the state’s 3.5 percent unemployment rate. 

Both the study area and the state have a lower 

unemployment rate than the nation, which was 4.4 

percent as of October 2006 (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2006).
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 31

B B B B B B

J J J J J J

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Population

Year

B Study Area

J Wyoming

Figure 10. Study area age composition.

(Source: PCensus) 

L

A wide range of occupations are represented in 

the study area; sales and office occupations is the 

largest sector at 26 percent (figure 11). Professional 

and related occupations employ 19 percent, while 

farming, fishing, and forestry occupations employ 1 

percent of the population.

12%

19%

26% 16%

1%

12%

12%

Management, Business, and Financial Operations

Professional and Related Occupations

Service

Sales and Office

Farming, Fishing and Forestry

Construction, Extraction and Maintenance

Production, Transportation and Material Moving

Figure 11. Study area employment distribution, 2006.

(Source: PCensus)

VisitatioN leVels

Pathfinder Reservoir receives approximately 170,000 

visitors annually, but very little data exists on actual 

visitation to the refuge. Service officials estimate 

that more than half of the 170,000 reservoir visitors 

visit the refuge, due to the Sweetwater Arm Unit’s 

accessible location along the primary road entering 

the reservoir area. They also estimate that a high 

percentage of those who visit the refuge are locals, 

with the majority residing in nearby Casper. 

Visitor SPeNdiNG

Off-site spending by visitors helps support local 

lodging and retail establishments in surrounding 

towns such as Casper and Medicine Bow. 

Approximately 10 percent of refuge visitor days, or 

about 8,500 visitor days, are from nonlocal visitors. 

On average nonlocal visitors spend $60 per day for 

lodging, food, and supplies. If half of these guests 

spend the night locally in commercial lodging or 

campgrounds, then refuge activity may currently 

spur about $255,000 of new annual spending in the 

regional economy.
32 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

OPERATIONS

The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge has received 

some management and public use improvements. 

Surveys conducted demonstrate waterfowl 

and shorebird use at this very western end of 

Sweetwater Arm Unit. This area and the backwater 

reservoir areas are not impacted by the reservoir 

fluctuations that create sandy cutbank areas along 

the eastern half of the unit. As such, they have a 

higher potential for developing, protecting, and 

preserving quality trust resource habitats and 

quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.

StaFFiNG

Since 1967, Pathfinder NWR has been managed 

by Service staff headquartered at the Arapaho 

NWR in Walden, Colorado. The Arapaho NWR 

Complex includes Arapaho NWR, Pathfinder 

NWR, and three refuges located near Laramie 

known collectively as the “Laramie Plains refuges” 

(Bamforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson Lake). The 

complex’s staff of four full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees and three to four seasonal employees 

are responsible for management activities on six 

refuges totaling 46,673 acres. Refuge staff travel 

approximately 240 miles to conduct management 

activities at Pathfinder NWR. Table 4 indicates the 

current staff for the complex.

The complex is also supported by Refuge System 

staff as part of a developing business unit concept. 

Contracting, budget tracking, travel, and payroll 

are supported remotely by Service staff stationed in 

Colorado and Kansas.

Table 4. Current staff for the Arapaho NWR Complex, Colorado.

Staff Group Current Positions

Management Project leader, GS-12

Refuge operations specialist, GS-11

Biology Wildlife biologist, GS-9

Maintenance Maintenance worker, WG-8

GS=General Schedule Positions

WG=Wage Grade Positions

Facilities

The refuge has no operations facilities.
4 Management Direction

American Avocet

USFWS

This chapter describes the management direction 

the Service designed—with public coordination—to 

achieve the vision for Pathfinder NWR as described 

in chapter 2. The chapter includes the following 

sections:

R management focus

R goals, objectives, strategies, and rationale

R staffing and funding

R step-down management plans

R monitoring and evaluation

R plan amendment and revision

Pages 34–39 contain the management direction 

designed to achieve the vision (in chapter 2) for 

Pathfinder NWR.

MANAGEMENT FOCUS

For the past 35 years, Pathfinder NWR has received 

little to no active management due to the relatively 

small staff of the Arapaho NWR Complex and 

competing refuge priorities. Audubon Wyoming 

conducts bird surveys and the Service maintains 

an interpretive site, but little to no proactive 

management, monitoring, or other activities have 

occurred. 

It is hoped that this plan will demonstrate the need 

to actively manage this refuge for the benefit of 

migratory bird species. An increase of one FTE, 

dedicated to Pathfinder NWR and the Laramie 

Plains refuges, would have a noticeable impact on 

the ability to conduct site-specific research; build and 

maintain partnerships; develop specific biologically 

based goal-oriented, step-down management plans; 

and guide future management decisions for the 

refuge.

The planning team developed objectives in support of 

goals identified in chapter 2 to carry out the proposed 

action (alternative C) for management of Pathfinder 

NWR. Strategies to achieve objectives are 

suggested. Rationale is included that supports goals, 

objectives, and strategies. In addition, assumptions 

are discussed. 
34 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Biological goals and objectives emphasize 

management of plant communities as habitat 

for wildlife, especially migratory birds, and are 

organized by major habitat types represented at 

the refuge. Goals and objectives are habitat based 

rather than wildlife based, because wildlife often 

respond to factors beyond the control of local 

refuge management (for example, management 

of migratory birds). Furthermore, management 

practices (for example, prescribed fire, grazing, and 

water-level manipulation) usually benefit wildlife 

communities through improved habitat conditions 

rather than wildlife populations. Habitat-based 

objectives emphasize monitoring of important 

vegetation structure over time. In most cases, 

wildlife population responses to habitat changes 

are not monitored. Rather, site-specific inventories, 

applied research, and literature reviews offer 

reasonable predictions of wildlife response to habitat 

management. 

Additional goals, objectives, and strategies are 

developed for visitor services, cultural resources, and 

refuge administration and operations. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 required the Secretary of the Interior, 

before permitting uses, to ensure that those uses are 

compatible with the purposes of the refuge. The CCP 

process requires a compatibility determination for 

all existing and proposed refuge uses. Compatibility 

determinations for Pathfinder NWR include hunting, 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, and prescribed grazing 

(appendix N). 

Pronghorn

John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS

GOALS, OBjECTIvES, STRATEGIES, AND 

RATIONALE

The following goals, objectives, and strategies apply 

to Pathfinder NWR and outline the actions needed 

to achieve the vision of the refuge. Figure 12 shows 

the proposed boundary for Pathfinder NWR, further 

detailed in the administrative goal below. 

Natural resources Goal

Conserve the ecological diversity of uplands and 

wetlands to support healthy populations of native 

wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory birds.

Natural Resources Objective 1

Within 5 years of completing the CCP, establish 

vegetation monitoring transects to collect baseline 

floristic composition data.

Strategy

R Partner with USGS, Audubon Wyoming, 

universities, and other interested parties 

for information gathering and evaluation of 

habitats.

Rationale and Assumptions

The lack of active management has resulted in sparse 

biological information regarding the refuge. It will 

be important to focus on providing baseline data and 

achieve identified habitat goals. Baseline vegetative 

data will provide accurate information on species 

composition and presence, which will help guide 

management plans to ensure the highest and best use 

for wildlife resources.

Natural Resources Objective 2

Within 1 year of completing the basic inventory of 

vegetation, develop detailed objectives describing 

the desired vegetation conditions for upland, 

wetland, and riparian habitats.

Strategies

R Identify and prioritize habitat management 

research needs.

R Encourage data collection that focuses on 

developing plans for the future of this refuge.

R Conduct baseline habitat surveys to identify 

refuge resources and the role they serve.

R Complete a habitat management plan for the 

refuge.

R Coordinate with universities, nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), and Natrona County for 

cooperative development and accomplishment 

of management actions.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 35

Figure 12. Proposed boundary of Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming. 
36 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

R Investigate the habitat qualities of the 

Steamboat Lake and Horse Creek areas of the 

Sweetwater Arm Unit.

R Implement management actions to improve 

habitat conditions (i.e., burning, fencing, 

grazing, rest, and invasive plant control).

Tamarisk

Steven Perkins/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Rationale and Assumptions

The Sweetwater Arm Unit of the refuge provides 

some riparian habitat, but is primarily native 

grasslands and alkali lakes. The backwater areas, 

west of Horse Creek, provide vegetation and 

cover conditions for wildlife habitat. The decline 

of grassland nesting birds has been attributed to 

habitat loss and conversion, fragmentation, and 

the disruption of ecological factors, such as fire, 

which created a mosaic of habitat types across the 

landscape. As a result, many grassland bird species 

are now considered species of biological concern 

(USFWS 2002). Managing natural areas for these 

bird species involves providing the nesting habitat 

requirements and food resources essential for their 

reproduction and survival. These requirements 

include large, treeless patches containing within 

them diversity in vegetation structure. The habitat 

within Pathfinder NWR provides open water, shrub 

and grasslands, riparian habitat, and alkali lakes. This 

mosaic can be managed for the benefit of migratory 

birds.

The Service has no data on the effects of current 

grazing, condition of uplands, or other biological 

information due to inactive management. The lack 

of site-specific biological information on bird species’ 

use of refuge lands and personnel dedicated to guide 

management practices (grazing, rest, prescribed 

fire) needs to be corrected by gathering data and 

evaluating such management practices for the 

benefits they offer to wildlife resources. Baseline 

information on vegetative structure, composition, 

and quality as well as water quality are imperative to 

guide proper management decisions.

Submergent vegetation provides complex structure 

for macroinvertebrate production when it becomes 

established in early summer (Krull 1970, Voights 

1976, Nelson and Kadlec 1984). Waterfowl broods rely 

heavily on the availability of both invertebrate and 

plant foods (Sudgen 1973). In addition, submergents 

are used by many wetland-associated wildlife species 

(Kantrud 1990, 1991) for nesting, foraging, and 

escape habitat.

The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge provides 

shallow-water wetlands. Wilson’s phalarope will 

use both fresh and alkali wetlands with three 

characteristics: open water, emergent vegetation, 

and open shoreline (Dechant et al. 2003). Though 

Wilson’s phalarope have been observed, a lack of 

data concerning water quality and other parameters 

hamper management actions to benefit these and 

other species. Site-specific information is needed to 

guide management actions.

The backwater areas provide subirrigated grasses 

and, depending on the year, some wet meadow 

and shallow wetland habitat for migratory birds. 

These areas are limited to boating access due to 

dry conditions and shallow water. When water is 

available they provide feeding and loafing areas for 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Their shorelines are more 

stable and less influenced by the large fluctuations 

in reservoir operations. Steep, sandy cutbanks are 

less prevalent and gently sloping shorelines allow 

vegetative growth, which reduces soil erosion and 

blowing sands.

These backwater areas provide quality wildlife 

habitat to a variety of species. Riparian communities 

in the western states are mesic vegetative 

associations occurring along ephemeral, intermittent, 

and perennial streams (Meyer et al. 2003). 

Healthy riparian habitat helps filter runoff, reduces 

sedimentation, improves water quality, and provides 

habitat for associated wildlife species (Meyer et al. 

2003). The ability of riparian systems to support 

a diverse assemblage of vertebrates is also well 

documented (Pashley et al. 2002). In fact, riparian 

habitats are disproportionately more important for 

support of wildlife than any other type of ecological 

habitat (Cooper 1986). For example, floodplain 

vegetation provides habitats for more species of 

birds than other vegetation associations in western 

North America (Stanley and Knopf 2000). Riparian 

systems provide habitat for fish, large and small 

mammals, amphibians, reptiles, wetland-dependent 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 37

birds (waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds), and a 

large diversity of passerines including Neotropical 

migrants, grassland birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds. 

The channel, floodplain, and transitional fringe all 

work to provide life-cycle requirements for numerous 

wildlife species. The riparian habitat on the refuge 

needs to be evaluated for its current and potential 

condition in providing for wildlife life-cycle needs.

Natural Resources Objective 3

Over a 15-year period, during routine activities in 

the field, document any occurrences of problematic 

invasive plant species that have not yet been 

documented on refuge lands but have the potential 

to exist on them. Continue to work with Reclamation 

and Natrona County Weed and Pest on known 

infestations. 

Strategies

R Discuss invasive plant issues on the refuge with 

Natrona County Weed and Pest.

R Maintain efforts to actively look for invasive 

plants when performing other management 

duties.

R Develop an integrated pest management plan 

for the refuge.

R When invasive plants are discovered, 

coordinate with Natrona County Weed and Pest 

for control efforts to maintain habitat integrity.

Rationale and Assumptions

For native birds to be retained, invasive plants must 

be actively controlled (Marzluff and Ewing 2001). 

Invasive species pose a serious threat to existing 

fish and wildlife resources. Once invasive species 

are documented, it is important to maximize efforts 

to gain control or eliminate the presence of invasive 

plants, thereby reducing competition and providing 

areas for native plants to flourish. 

Currently, tamarisk is the primary invasive plant 

of concern. Tamarisk invades along the shoreline 

of the reservoir, and drawdowns in the summer 

months facilitate the spread of invasive plants 

within the transition and shoreline areas. During the 

course of other management activities, it is prudent 

to maintain vigilance for invasive species. New 

infestations are easier to control if noticed early.

Natural Resources Objective 4

Over the life of this plan, appropriately conserve and 

manage any threatened and endangered species or 

state species of concern documented on the refuge. 

Increase management efforts for state species of 

concern.

Strategies

R Conduct surveys for listed plant species.

R Conduct surveys for listed animal species.

R Develop management plans for threatened 

and endangered species and state species of 

concern (i.e., slender spiderflower and sagegrouse).

R Partner with Audubon Wyoming and other 

interested parties to conduct surveys.

Rationale and Assumptions

Federal law requires that threatened and 

endangered species are protected. Greater 

management capability will increase the Service’s 

ability to monitor and manage for any threatened 

and endangered species located on refuge lands. 

Partnering with the state of Wyoming to manage 

state species of concern will demonstrate the 

Service’s willingness to collaborate on wildlife 

management issues important to the state.

Visitor serVices Goal

Provide wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities to a diverse audience when the 

administration of these programs does not adversely 

affect habitat management objectives.

Wildlife Photography

Bob Savannah/USFWS

V

Within 10 years of plan approval, enhance wildlifedependent recreation opportunities by developing a 

visitor services management plan to address refuge 

activities, access, and circulation.

Strategies

R Assign a new FTE to coordinate the effort to 

develop a visitor services plan for the refuge.
38 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

R Request assistance from the Service’s region 

6 division of education and visitor services to 

develop a visitor services management plan for 

the refuge.

Rationale and Assumptions

The Steamboat Lake area of the Sweetwater Arm 

Unit provides wildlife viewing and photography 

opportunities. The public can observe and enjoy 

a variety of wildlife including raptors, waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and other migratory species. Conducting 

a site assessment is essential to create a quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity. 

V

Where compatible, opportunities for fishing will be 

provided based on refuge goals and objectives. 

Strategies

R Work with WGFD to gather information 

required to establish viable fishing program.

R Open refuge to fishing through the mandated 

CFR process.

R Prepare a compatibility determination for 

fishing program.

R Prepare a compatibility determination for 

boating in support of the six priority public 

uses. 

R Encourage fishing opportunities on the refuge.

Rationale and Assumptions

Fishing is a priority public use and will be supported. 

Stipulations on boating (e.g., designated boating 

areas, no wake zone, times of year) may be required 

to ensure compatibility with refuge goals and 

objectives. 

V

Enhance hunting program to manage wildlife 

and provide hunting opportunities (ducks, coots, 

mergansers, deer, pronghorn) consistent with refuge 

goals and objectives, while promoting ethical hunting 

practices. 

Strategies

R Work with partners (i.e., WGFD) to enhance 

and promote hunting program.

R Minimize resource damage caused by vehicles.

R Enhance quality of refuge habitats.

R Where necessary, implement seasonal and 

permanent road closures in selected areas. 

Rationale and Assumptions

Improving the quality of refuge habitats will attract 

more wildlife to the refuge. Reducing disturbance 

to hunters and wildlife will improve opportunities to 

observe and harvest game. Providing greater open 

distance between animals and potential threats to 

them helps promote their safety and security.

Sand deposits in the uplands in the eastern half of 

Sweetwater Arm Unit

Mark Ely/USFWS

PartNershiPs Goal

Work with partners to support healthy populations of 

native wildlife and to increase the understanding of 

wildlife needs as well as the benefits wildlife offer to 

local communities. 

Partnerships Objective 1

Throughout the life of the plan, promote existing 

partnerships and develop new partnerships to 

achieve refuge goals and objectives. 

Strategies

R Establish partnerships that result in collecting 

baseline data for the refuge.

R Work with partners to evaluate baseline data to 

determine management direction for the refuge. 

Rationale and Assumptions

Partnerships are important to the Service to achieve 

refuge management goals and objectives. If the 

Service does not cultivate partnerships, which 

take time and resources to develop and maintain, 

opportunities to work with others in conserving 

wildlife habitat will be missed. 

Current partnerships include Audubon Wyoming, 

the Bureau of Land Management; the Bureau of 

Reclamation; the Natrona County Road, Bridge, and 

Parks Department; Natrona County Weed and Pest; 

and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 39

C

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources on the 

refuge and protect those that are determined to be 

significant. 

Cultural Resources Objective 1

Within the 15-year life of this plan, accomplish a 

complete cultural resources survey of those areas 

of the refuge with a moderate to high potential for 

cultural resources. 

Strategies

R Create a sensitivity model that identifies areas 

as having a low, medium, or high potential for 

cultural resources.

R Complete a cultural resource survey, 

including evaluations and management 

recommendations, for the moderate and high 

potential areas. 

Rationale and Assumptions

A survey is the best tool available to determine 

the location of cultural resources on the refuge. 

Through survey, both historic and prehistoric sites 

are identified and key information is gathered 

that promotes planning, research, and educational 

outreach. Although a few small surveys have 

been conducted, large-scale surveys are needed to 

better understand the distribution and nature of 

the resources. By concentrating on areas with a 

moderate or high potential for cultural resources, the 

Service can locate the greatest number of significant 

sites and work toward their protection and possible 

interpretation. 

A

To obtain administrative capabilities that will result 

in efficient strategies to manage the landscape to 

achieve habitat and public management goals.

Administrative Objective 1 

Within 2 years of plan approval, hire and assign 

one FTE Service employee to perform increased 

management activities on the refuge.

Strategies

R Hire a refuge manager or refuge operations 

specialist assigned to Pathfinder NWR and the 

Laramie Plains refuges.

R Increase funding to improve management 

activities at the refuge.

Rationale and Assumptions

The current staffing level of the Arapaho NWR 

Complex restricts a dedicated staff member for 

Pathfinder NWR, which has resulted in minimal 

management of the refuge. 

Through discussions, the planning team determined 

that the addition of one full-time Service employee 

would provide adequate staff to actively manage 

refuge lands. Refuge management activities 

would be increased and enhanced, and refuge staff 

would strive to better understand the effects of 

management actions on the refuge. 

Administrative Objective 2

Within 5 years of plan approval, regional office and 

refuge staff work with Reclamation to accomplish 

modification of national wildlife refuge boundary 

(figure 12). 

Strategies

R Service completes field survey for proposed 

boundary line in the Sweetwater Arm Unit. 

R Revise “Exhibit A” attached to the MOU 

between Reclamation and the Service 

(appendix F) to indicate configuration of new 

refuge boundary. 

Rationale and Assumptions

Concentrating the Arapaho NWR Complex’s 

resources on manageable lands would improve the 

Service’s credibility by allowing limited funds to 

be spent on a smaller area that meets the Service’s 

mission of providing quality migratory bird habitat. 

STAFFING AND FUNDING

Currently, the Arapaho NWR Complex has a staff 

of four full-time employees. All four employees work 

in the complex with duties at Arapaho NWR, the 

Laramie Plains refuges, and Pathfinder NWR. Table 

4 in chapter 3 on page 32 lists these positions. One 

new FTE (specifically assigned to Pathfinder NWR 

and the Laramie Plains refuges) is needed for full 

implementation of the CCP. Projects required to 

carry out the CCP are funded through two separate 

systems as follows: 

R The Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) 

is used to document requests to Congress 

for funding and staffing needed to carry out 

projects above the existing base budget. 

R The Service Asset Maintenance Management 

System (SAMMS) is used to document the 

equipment, buildings, and other existing 

properties that require repair or replacement. 
40 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

MONITORING AND EvALUATION

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to longterm management of biotic resources. Adaptive 

management is directed, over time, by the results of 

ongoing monitoring activities and other information. 

More specifically, adaptive management is a process 

by which projects are carried out within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test the 

predictions and assumptions outlined with a CCP 

(figure 13). 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols would 

be adopted for Pathfinder NWR. The habitat 

management strategies would be systematically 

evaluated to determine management effects on 

wildlife populations. This information would be used 

to refine approaches and determine how effectively 

the objectives are being accomplished. If monitoring 

and evaluation indicate undesirable effects for 

target and nontarget species or communities, the 

management projects would be altered accordingly. 

Subsequently, the CCP would be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will 

be described in the step-down management plans 

(table 5). 

Figure 13. The adaptive management process.

PLAN AMENDMENT AND REvISION

The final CCP will be reviewed annually to determine 

the need for revision. A revision would occur if and 

when significant information becomes available. 

The final CCP will be supported by detailed stepdown management plans to address the completion 

of specific strategies in support of Pathfinder NWR 

goals and objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the 

step-down management plans will be subject to 

public review and NEPA compliance. 

At a minimum, the final CCP will be evaluated every 

5 years and revised after 15 years.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 41

Table 5. Step-down management plans for Pathfinder NWR, Wyoming.

Step-down 

Management Plan

Completed Plan, 

Year Approved

New or Revised Plan, 

Completion Year

Fire management plan 2001 2009

Habitat management plan — 2012

Integrated pest management plan 2007 n/a

Law enforcement plan — 2017

Safety plan Covered under Arapaho NWR 

Complex plan 2008

Visitor services plan — 2012

Water management plan 2007 n/a

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 

to gain information and experience necessary to 

assess and modify management activities; a process 

that uses feedback from research, monitoring, and 

evaluation of management actions to support or 

modify objectives and strategies at all planning 

levels; a process in which policy decisions are 

implemented within a framework of scientifically 

driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis 

of results helps managers determine 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, “U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 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.

ATV—All-terrain vehicle.

baseline—A set of critical 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.

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover.

CCC—See Civilian Conservation Corps.

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

cfs—Cubic feet per second.

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)—Peacetime 

civilian “army” established by President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt to perform conservation activities from 

1933 to 1942. Activities included erosion control; 

firefighting; tree planting; habitat protection; stream 

improvement; and building of fire towers, roads, 

recreation facilities, and drainage systems. 

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, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual,” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A 

document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction for the refuge 

manager to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, 

contribute to the mission of the Refuge System, and 

to meet other relevant mandates (draft, “U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual,” 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conspecific—An individual belonging to the same 

species as another.
44 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in 

the summer. These grasses will germinate at lower 

temperatures. Examples of cool-season grasses are 

western wheatgrass, needleandthread, and green 

needlegrass. 

coteau—A hilly upland including the divide between 

two valleys; a divide; the side of a valley.

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present 

vegetation of an area.

cultural resources—The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past. 

dense nesting cover (DNC)—A composition of 

grasses and forbs that allows for a dense stand of 

vegetation that protects nesting birds from the view of 

predators, usually consisting of one to two species of 

wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover.

depredation—Destruction or consumption of eggs, 

broods, or individual wildlife due to a predatory 

animal; damage inflicted on agricultural crops or 

ornamental plants by wildlife. 

DNC—See dense nesting cover.

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels in 

an impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out 

cycle of a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment.

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex 

of plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together 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.

EIS—Environmental impact statement. 

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 significant portion 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 

significant degree. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur 

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality.

environmental assessment (EA)—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 impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency.

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.

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an 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. 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

FMP—Fire management plan. 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seedproducing 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.
Glossary 45

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. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (draft, 

“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” 620 FW 

1.5). 

grassland tract—A contiguous area of grassland 

without fragmentation.

GS—General schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

federal positions). 

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—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for example, 

wildland fire) or human-caused events (for example, 

timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—A 

land classification system based on the concept of 

distinct plant associations. 

hMP—Habitat management plan.

hUA—Hydrologic unit area.

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 

methods of control, biological control, responsible 

chemical use, and cultural methods. 

introduced species—A species present in an area 

due to 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. 

inviolate sanctuary—A place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted.

IPM—See integrated pest management.

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; for example, a Service 

initiative, opportunity, resource management 

problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, 

conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an 

undesirable resource condition (draft, “U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual,” 602 FW 1.5).

lek—A physical area where males of a certain animal 

species gather to demonstrate their prowess and 

compete for females before or during the mating 

season. 

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 and/or 

reason for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—A transition zone between 

the tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie 

dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as 

the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less.

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 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 
46 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

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 and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining 

appropriateness and compatibility; establish the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior 

for managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each 

refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions 

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.

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act.

nest success—The percentage of nests that 

successfully hatch one or more eggs of the total 

number of nests initiated in an area.

NOA—Notice of availability. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that is 

not composed 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 U.S.) 

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 U.S. and to 

public health.

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

NWR—National wildlife refuge.

objective—An objective is 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 attainable and 

time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to 

the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated 

quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively 

(draft, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” 602 

FW 1.5). 

overlay refuge—Lands and waters that are under 

the primary jurisdiction of one federal agency; the 

refuge purpose is superimposed as a secondary 

interest in the property. Primary administration is 

retained by the host agency. Wildlife management 

must be compatible with those uses for which the 

primary agency acquired the land. 

overwater species—Nesting species such as diving 

ducks and many colonial-nesting birds that build 

nests within dense stands of water-dependent plants, 

primarily cattail, or that build floating nests of 

vegetation that rest on the water.

OWLS—Outdoor wildlife learning site. 

patch—An area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions.

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span 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 and photography, and 

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; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated an 

interest in Service issues and those who do or do not 

realize that Service decisions may affect them. 
Glossary 47

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, “U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 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).

Reclamation—Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS)—A 

national database that contains the unfunded 

operational needs of each refuge. Projects included 

are those required to implement approved plans and 

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

refuge 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.

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands.

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, 

such as healthy upland habitats and aquatic systems. 

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 components 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.

RONS—See Refuge Operations Needs System.

rough fish—A fish that is neither a sport fish nor an 

important food fish.

SAMMS—See Service Asset Maintenance 

Management System.

scoping—The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

seasonally flooded—Surface water is present for 

extended periods in the growing season, but is absent 

by the end of the season in most years.

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers.

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS)—A national database which contains the 

unfunded maintenance needs of each refuge; projects 

include those required to maintain existing equipment 

and buildings, correct safety deficiencies for the 

implementation of approved plans, and meet goals, 

objectives, and legal mandates.

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 status species—Plants or animals that 

have been identified through federal law, state law, 

or agency policy as requiring special protection 

of monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; state-listed endangered, threatened, 

candidate, or monitor species; Service’s species 

of management concern; species identified by the 

Partners in Flight program as being of extreme or 

moderately high conservation concern. 

special use permit—A permit for special 

authorization from the refuge manager required for 

any refuge service, facility, privilege, or product of 

the soil provided at refuge expense and not usually 

available to the general 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.
48 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

step-down management plan—A plan that provides 

the details necessary to implement management 

strategies identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan (draft, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

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, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual,” 602 FW 1.5).

submergent—A vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath 

the water surface, except for flowering parts in some 

species.

tame grass—See dense nesting cover.

threatened species, federal—Species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

that are likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion 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, USFWS, 

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; 

minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our 

quality of life.

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, “U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” 602 FW 1.5). 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a 

plant community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—A method of 

visually quantifying vegetative structure and 

composition.

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.

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 

funds for restoration and management primarily 

as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and 

other wetland birds. 

WG—Wage Grade schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain federal positions). 

WGFD—See Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

wildland fire—A free-burning fire requiring a 

suppression response; all fire other than prescribed 

fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 

FW 1.7). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 specifies six priority general public uses 

of the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation). 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent 

cover.

WPA—Works Progress Administration.
Glossary 49

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD)—The 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department is charged 

with providing “an adequate and flexible system for 

the control, management, protection, and regulation 

of all Wyoming wildlife.” The WGFD maintains 

36 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas and 96 

Public Access Areas, encompassing 410,000 acres 

of managed lands for wildlife habitat and public 

recreation opportunity.

WUI—Wildland–urban interface.

Appendix A

Environmental Compliance

Environmental Action Statement

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record.

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Pathfinder 

National Wildlife Refuge” is found not to have 

significant environmental effects, as determined by 

the attached finding of no significant impact and the 

environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan.

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Bud Oliveira 

Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, CO

Ann Timberman 

Project Leader

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Walden, CO

Date Date

 Date Date
52 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Finding of No Significant Impact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Fulfill the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge

Three management alternatives for the Pathfinder 

National Wildlife Refuge were assessed 

as to their effectiveness in achieving the refuge’s 

purpose and their impacts on the human environment.

R Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, 

would continue current management.

R Alternative B would increase management 

activities on the refuge. Upland habitats 

would be evaluated and managed for the 

benefit of migratory bird species. Monitoring 

and management of invasive species on the 

refuge would be increased. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities would be provided 

and enhanced where compatible with refuge 

purposes. The Service would not permit 

non-wildlife-dependent recreational uses at 

the refuge. Efforts would be increased in 

the operations and maintenance of natural 

resources on the refuge and to maintain and 

develop partnerships that promote wildlife and 

habitat research and management.

R Under Alternative C, the refuge boundary 

would be modified to remove Service interests 

from areas that provide minimal opportunity 

to improve wildlife and are difficult to manage. 

The Service would manage remaining refuge 

areas similar to those action described in 

alternative B. Modification of the refuge’s 

boundary would enable the Service to focus 

efforts on habitat improvement for the benefit 

of migratory bird species and efficiently direct 

refuge resources toward accomplishing the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Based on this assessment and comments received, 

I have selected alternative C as the preferred 

alternative for implementation.

The preferred alternative was selected because it 

best meets the purpose for which the Pathfinder 

National Wildlife Refuge was established and is 

preferable to the no-action alternative in light of 

physical, biological, economic, and social factors. 

The preferred alternative will continue to provide 

public access for recreation on Pathfinder Reservoir 

and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation 

within the refuge boundary (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major 

federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the 

meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement on 

the proposed action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated 

environmental effects from implementation of the 

preferred alternative:

R The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact endangered or threatened species or 

their habitat.

R The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact archaeological or historical resources.

R The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact wetlands nor does the plan call for 

structures that could be damaged by or that 

would significantly influence the movement of 

floodwater.

R The preferred alternative will not have a 

disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations.

R The state of Wyoming has been notified 

and given the opportunity to review the 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

associated environmental assessment. 

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

 Date
Appendix B

Key Legislation and Policies

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies 

and key legislation that guide the management of 

Pathfinder NWR.

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.

Goals

R Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purpose(s) and further the Refuge System 

mission. 

R Conserve, restore where appropriate, and 

enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants 

that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered.

R Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional 

fish, and marine mammal populations. 

R Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

R Conserve and restore, where appropriate, 

representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic 

of those ecosystems. 

R Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, highquality, and compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

GuidiNG PriNciPles

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System 

established by Executive Order 12996 (1996):

R Public Use—The Refuge System provides 

important opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation.

R Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without high 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.

R 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.

R 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.

LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE

Management actions on national wildlife refuges are 

circumscribed by many mandates including laws and 

executive orders, the latest of which is the Volunteer 

and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 

1998. Regulations that affect refuge management the 

most are listed below

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(1978)—Directs agencies to consult with native 

traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate 

policy changes necessary to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and 

practices.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and 

services.

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorizes the 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.
54 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), 

as amended—Protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction 

and requires federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires 

federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifications.

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species.

Executive Order 7425 (1936)—Establishes Pathfinder 

Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife” 

Executive Order 8296 (1939)—Changes the refuge 

name from “Pathfinder Wildlife Refuge” to 

“Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge.”

Executive Order 11990 (1977)—Requires federal 

agencies to take action to avoid the adverse impacts 

associated with the destruction or modification of 

wetlands.

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires federal 

agencies to provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 12996, Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)—Defines the mission, purpose, and priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

It also presents four principles to guide management 

of the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites 

(1996)—Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 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 nonfederal, 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 appropriate documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making. [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 historical 

resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act (1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

to permit 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, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when 

sufficient funds are available to manage the uses.
Appendix B — Key Legislation and Policies 55

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility 

for all facilities and programs funded by the 

federal government to ensure that any person can 

participate in any program.

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)—Section 10 of this 

Act requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers prior to 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 

assist in the management of refuges within the 

Refuge System; facilitates partnerships between the 

Refuge System and nonfederal 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 C

Section 7 Biological Evaluation
58 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix C — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 59
60 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix C — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 61
62 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix C — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 63
64 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix C — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 65
66 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix D

List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination

This document is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the 

planning team shown below.

Planning Team

Team Member Position Work Unit

Andrea Cerovski

Mark Ely

Charlie Fifield

Toni Griffin

Pam Johnson 

Timothy Meyer

Larry Roberts 

Ann Timberman

Wildlife biologist 

Geographic Information System 

(GIS) specialist

Range management specialist

Planning team leader

Wildlife biologist

Natural resource specialist

Wildlife biologist

Project leader

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department; Lander, WY 

USFWS, Region 6; Lakewood, CO

Bureau of Land Management; 

Casper, WY

USFWS, Region 6; Lakewood, CO

Arapaho NWR; Walden, CO

Bureau of Reclamation; Mills, WY

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department; Casper, WY

Arapaho NWR; Walden, CO

Contributors

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided assistance with the preparation of this CCP. The 

Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of this plan. 

The diversity, talent, and knowledge they contributed dramatically improved the vision and completeness of 

this document.

Team Member Position Work Unit

BBC Research and Consulting

Rick Coleman 

John Esperance 

Sheri Fetherman

Patti Fielder

Wayne King

Socioeconomic impact studies

Assistant regional director, 

NWRS

Chief, branch of comprehensive 

conservation planning

Chief, division of education and 

visitor services

Hydrologist, division of water 

resources

Biologist, NWRS

Contractor

USFWS, Region 6

USFWS, Region 6

USFWS, Region 6

USFWS, Region 6

USFWS, Region 6
68 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Team Member Position Work Unit

Deb Parker Writer-editor, division of refuge 

planning USFWS, Region 6

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6

Richard Schroeder Wildlife biologist USGS Science Center

Shapins Belt Collins Writer-editor; layout Contractor

Michael Spratt Chief, division of refuge planning USFWS, Region 6

Richard Sterry Regional fire planner USFWS, Region 6

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist USFWS, Region 6
Appendix E

Public Involvement

Public scoping began June 16, 2006, with publication 

of a notice of intent (NOI) in the “Federal Register” 

to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan 

and associated environmental documents for the 

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge. 

A public meeting was held in Casper, Wyoming, on 

May 24, 2006. The open house was announced in local 

newspapers and on radio and television stations. 

An overview of the CCP and NEPA processes 

was presented at the open house. Attendees were 

encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. 

Twenty-one people attended the open house. 

In September 2006, a planning update was sent 

to each individual, organization, and government 

representative on the CCP mailing list (see list 

below). The planning update provided information 

about the history of the Refuge System and the 

CCP process, along with a mailing list consent form, 

comment form, and schedule of the planning process. 

During the scoping effort, 27 people provided input 

via letter, email, and comment forms. Comments 

identified biological, social, and economic concerns 

regarding refuge management. This input was used 

in the development of management alternatives 

considered in the draft CCP and EA.

A second planning update was distributed to each 

individual, agency, and organization on the CCP 

mailing list in July 2008. This update provided 

information about the ongoing public involvement 

effort and encouraged the public to provide 

comments on the draft CCP and EA. 

The draft CCP and EA was presented to the public 

July 28, 2008, for a 30-day comment period. An 

open house was held August 18, 2008, in Casper, 

Wyoming. Seven people attended the open house. 

Response during the comment period consisted of 

a total of 16 letters and emails from individuals and 

organizations. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The following issues, concerns, and comments are 

a compilation and summary of those expressed 

during the comment period for the draft CCP and 

EA. Comments were provided by federal and 

state agencies, local and county governments, 

private organizations, Service staff, and individuals 

concerned about the natural resources and public use 

of Pathfinder NWR. Comments were received orally 

at meetings, via email and fax, and in writing.

The issues, comments, and concerns are summarized, 

followed by responses from the Service. Where 

there were similar statements from more than one 

commentator, the statements were grouped into one 

summarized comment. 

Comments about editorial and presentation 

corrections were addressed in the production of this 

final CCP and are not detailed here. 

The refuge staff recognize and appreciate all input 

received from the public review period. To address 

this input, several clarifications and some changes 

are reflected in this final CCP. 

Comment 1—The CCP process impacts refuge 

management and public use of public resources, 

no matter which choice is selected. The lack of 

transparency due to the interplay of regulations 

and jurisdictions calls for an extension and public 

hearing on the Pathfinder NWR. This process is not 

transparent or simple. 

Response 1—The Pathfinder NWR draft CCP was 

developed in accordance with the Service’s refuge 

planning policy approved May 25, 2000. Transparency 

was achieved through public involvement that 

began June 16, 2006, with publication of an NOI in 

the “Federal Register” to prepare a comprehensive 

conservation plan and associated environmental 

documents for Pathfinder NWR. The public was 

asked to provide suggestions on the scope of issues 

to be considered in the planning process during 

the 30-day scoping period. A notice of availability 

(NOA) of the draft CCP and EA was published in 

the “Federal Register” July 28, 2008. An open house 

was held August 18, 2008, in Casper, Wyoming. 

Service staff was available to answer questions 

regarding management of the refuge. The public was 

asked to provide comments on the draft CCP and 

EA. Additional information related to the planning 

process may be found in chapter 1 of the draft and 

final CCP, “The Planning Process.” 

Comment 2—Audubon Wyoming, the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, and other concerned 

citizens have dedicated over 12 years to working with 

the Service in an effort to help resolve management 
70 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

issues surrounding Pathfinder NWR. A result of 

these efforts produced an Interim Management 

Plan (signed August 16, 2005), which was intended 

to help guide the Service in achieving improved 

management of refuge lands. The Service should 

follow this interim plan until a fully developed habitat 

management plan can be developed. 

Response 2—The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 mandates that a CCP be 

completed for each unit of the Refuge System by 

2012. A schedule for preparing a CCP for each unit of 

the Mountain–Prairie Region was developed by the 

regional management team. The schedule is based 

on multiple factors including workload, available 

resources, staffing, and science. 

The Pathfinder NWR draft CCP and EA was 

developed in compliance with the regional schedule 

and meets the Improvement Act mandate to 

complete a CCP for each unit of the Refuge System 

by 2012. The Improvement Act specifies that CCPs 

must be developed using the best available science. 

The Service cannot postpone comprehensive 

conservation planning due to a lack of scientific data. 

The Pathfinder Interim Management Plan (page 3) 

states, “This plan will act as an Interim Management 

Plan until such time as a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) is developed for Pathfinder 

NWR.” The final CCP supersedes this plan. 

Comment 3—The Service should wait to 

finalize the Pathfinder NWR CCP until the 

current administration leaves office and the new 

administration is in place. 

Response 3—See response to comment 2. 

Comment 4—Oppose alternative C (modify refuge 

boundary) and support alternative B (increase 

management activities). The Service should 

reconsider the proposed action as recommended in 

the draft CCP and EA and consider alternative B as 

the proposed action. At a time when wildlife habitat 

is being lost nationwide, it is imperative that existing 

wildlife habitat be maintained and increased where 

possible. Decreasing the size of a national wildlife 

refuge is not a good idea. 

Response 4—Areas proposed for removal will remain 

within the Bureau of Reclamation’s North Platte 

Project boundary. As federal property, these lands 

will continue to be protected by applicable federal 

laws. 

Comment 5—Meeting the original and long-term 

goals set forth in the overarching Service mission 

cannot be accomplished by scaling back operations, 

management, and holdings. Reducing the size of the 

refuge could impair the refuge’s ability to fulfill its 

purpose as “a refuge and breeding ground for birds 

and other wildlife.” 

Since refuge lands currently receive little 

management attention, retaining these areas need 

not detract from future management plans that focus 

primarily on the remainder of the refuge. However, 

eliminating these areas from the Refuge System 

could limit future opportunities for the refuge to 

meet its stated goals.

Response 5—At the start of the CCP process all 

refuge units in the Mountain–Prairie Region are 

evaluated using the divestiture model approved in 

region 6 to help guide management decisions (see 

appendix O). The criteria set forth in the model 

assists the planning team in determining whether 

a unit warrants national wildlife refuge status, or 

should be considered for removal from the Refuge 

System. 

The planning team evaluated Pathfinder NWR at the 

beginning of the CCP process using the divestiture 

model. The results of the evaluation indicated the 

Steamboat Lake area in the Sweetwater Arm Unit 

of the refuge meets the purpose of the refuge and the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System. Remaining 

refuge areas did not meet the purpose of the refuge 

and the mission and goals of the Refuge System. 

Focusing efforts and providing quality habitats and 

appropriately managed lands will enable the Service 

to provide better services and focus efforts on lands 

that can be managed to benefit trust resources. 

Comment 6—Divesting of Pathfinder NWR units is 

an action that serves to relieve the Service from its 

obligation to provide sanctuary for wildlife within 

established boundaries in perpetuity. Encourage the 

Service to resist the quick fix that might temporarily 

relive political pressure and certain local tensions. 

Response 6—Management decisions were based 

on habitat quality, the potential for habitat 

improvements, and opportunities for trust resources. 

Benefits of the preferred alternative will be to 

concentrate efforts on highest-quality migratory bird 

areas. Land areas to be removed from the MOU are 

highly influenced by reservoir operations and will 

continue in this manner. When water is present, birds 

will use the reservoir body for migration and resting. 

When water levels decline, birds move to use other 

reservoirs and water bodies in the area. Land areas 

being retained provide quality habitat for migratory 

trust resources. Management of these lands will be 

improved, providing benefits to wildlife.

Comment 7—The proposed divestiture will likely 

result in irreparable harm to divested land and 

even to the retained units. It is almost certain that 

divestiture will result in negative spillover effects 

on remaining refuge units due to uncontrollable 

activities that will likely occur in divested units. The 

potential for habitat improvement would be greatest 

if the entire refuge were retained under the existing 

boundaries. 
Appendix E — Public Involvement 71

Response 7—The Service believes the potential for 

habitat improvement is greatest in the Steamboat 

Lake area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit due to the 

ability to fence the area to manage grazing, vehicle 

use, and public access. Inappropriate or incompatible 

refuges uses will not be allowed on refuge lands. 

The lands within the Sweetwater Arm Unit that 

are being considered for removal from the MOU are 

impacted by reservoir operations and do not provide 

quality, manageable habitat for migratory bird 

resources. As the refuge boundary currently exists, 

fencing is not feasible in many areas due to the large 

annual fluctuations in reservoir water levels. Fences 

would consistently be flooded and submerged or left 

exposed above the reservoir water level, allowing 

cattle access to wetland and shoreline habitat. BLM 

and Reclamation will continue to manage these lands 

in accordance with federal laws and regulations. 

Comment 8—The Service should pursue water 

rights for the refuge. The Supreme Court decision 

in Arizona v. California in 1963 determined that 

all federal reservations including national parks, 

national forests, and national wildlife refuges had a 

reserved water right. 

The narrative initially states that the Service has no 

water rights for the refuge. Later, there are several 

statements that “it is not known” if the Service has 

any right to adjudicated water rights that were 

not abandoned or federal reserved water rights for 

refuge purposes. If it is not known if the Service has 

water rights, why is no one finding out before the 

land is transferred to another agency? 

The 1997 North Platte River Compact complicates 

adjudication, but does not explain the lack of effort to 

keep Pathfinder NWR. Pathfinder has over 1,000,000 

acre-feet of capacity, so the impact to downstream 

interests is minimal. 

Response 8—Further research by the Service’s 

division of water resources indicates that water 

rights in the Wyoming Basin are fully appropriated. 

In 1966, the Service determined that the Bureau 

of Reclamation had purchased available water 

rights and transferred them to the reservoir pool 

for downstream users. The North Platte Compact, 

signed in 1997, requires water to move downstream 

for endangered species. The chances of obtaining 

water rights in this semiarid climate are minimal, 

and the Service would not pursue water rights for 

Pathfinder NWR that would potentially impact 

endangered species downstream. In areas with 

limited water resources, difficult decisions must be 

made. 

Comment 9—The Deweese Creek Unit contains 

a riparian wetland. The Service should consider 

retaining this unit in the refuge and repair the 

remnants of spreader dikes in the unit to improve the 

value of this area for nesting waterfowl. 

Response 9—Without water rights, the Service 

cannot improve these wetland areas. 

Comment 10—All refuge units, whether contiguous 

or not, serve as buffers and/or ecological islands that 

contribute to the overall quality of the refuge. 

Response 10—These lands will continue to act as 

buffers under management by Reclamation and the 

BLM. The lands will not be transferred to private 

ownership.

Comment 11—Fragmentation of habitat would 

follow the elimination of proposed units and further 

exacerbate issues created when the refuge was 

reduced in size in 1965. 

Response 11—Habitat fragmentation by 

development would not occur, since the Bureau of 

Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management will 

retain management authority. Lands will remain 

under federal ownership, and actions on those lands 

would be subject to NEPA.

Comment 12—The Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, 

and Sage Creek units were evaluated in the 1960s 

and found to contain wildlife resources. These units 

merit refuge status and should remain part of the 

Pathfinder NWR. 

Response 12—These areas were found to have merit 

and potential for migratory birds based on Service 

ability to acquire water rights and develop ponds/

wetlands in these areas. The CCP addresses that 

the water rights issue was settled in 1966 when it 

was realized that all water rights were transferred 

to the Bureau of Reclamation for reservoir purposes 

and downstream users. Once this occurred, wildlife 

habitat development potential on these parcels 

ended. 

Comment 13—Long-term brood and migration 

surveys conducted by Audubon Wyoming indicate 

the areas proposed for elimination from the refuge 

contain wildlife resources that merit refuge status. 

Response 13—The survey information provided by 

Audubon Wyoming was obtained in the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit of the refuge. The Steamboat Lakes area 

of that unit was found to contain the majority of the 

migratory species documented on the refuge. This 

area will be retained as refuge lands in the preferred 

alternative. 

Wildlife use in the reservoir pool area of the 

Sweetwater Arm Unit is a result of Reclamation 

management of reservoir waters. The reservoir 

pool area will continue to provide resting habitat for 

migratory birds under Reclamation management of 

the reservoir. 

Comment 14—Support the retention and proper 

management of the west end of the Sweetwater Arm, 

the lower segment of the Sweetwater River, and the 
72 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Steamboat Lake wetland complex. These three areas 

contain the most valuable wildlife habitats and the 

greatest potential for improvement under wildlifedirected management. This area should remain 

protected and under Refuge System care due to 

the avian diversity and abundance it supports yearround. 

Response 14—These areas will remain refuge lands. 

The planning team recognized the benefits these 

areas provide to trust resources, and the decision 

was made to retain these lands under the MOU with 

Reclamation. Resources invested in this area will 

benefit migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Comment 15—Bird Island is a Global Important 

Bird Area. The Service should include Bird Island 

and Sand Creek Point in the refuge boundary, which 

would provide nesting habitat for colony nesting birds 

(white pelicans, Caspian terns) during high water 

years. Attempts could be made to prevent a path 

for predators during low water years. Acquisition of 

these two areas would secure habitat for migratory 

wildlife and add value to Pathfinder NWR. 

Response 15—These nesting areas are currently 

located outside the refuge boundary. When water 

is high, these areas will continue to provide nesting 

islands. When the reservoir water level is low, 

the areas will not be islands. The Service does 

not have the ability to manage water levels in the 

reservoir for trust resources. Water management is 

under the responsibility of Reclamation for North 

Platte Project purposes and downstream water for 

endangered species.

Comment 16—Investigate potential land exchanges 

with other agencies to round out the refuge 

boundary. Consider acquiring connectivity corridors 

between refuge units and acquire parcels that 

demonstrate criteria qualifying them for inclusion 

into the Refuge System. 

Response 16—Lands adjacent to the west end of 

the Sweetwater Arm Unit will be considered for 

potential land exchanges to round out the refuge 

boundary. Lands outside the proposed retention 

area are not high-quality habitat for Service trust 

resources. 

Comment 17—Extend the refuge upstream from 

the Sage Creek Unit on both the North Platte and 

Sage Creek. The operation of the Kortes Dam has 

impacted the Miracle Mile fishing and streambed. 

Experience has shown that releasing large flows 

periodically can reinvigorate fish habitat and help 

maintain river health by scouring the streambed. The 

Miracle Mile needs help. 

Response 17—The refuge does not have the ability 

to impact water management of the river. Extending 

Service interests in the uplands will not change 

water management or fishing opportunities. These 

lands will remain in federal ownership under 

management by Reclamation and BLM. 

Comment 18—Some areas of the Sweetwater 

Arm Unit may not be suitable for nesting due to 

toxic concentrations noted in the Service Region 

6 Contaminant Report Number: R6/708C/95. The 

Service should follow-up on the trace elements study 

completed in 1995. 

Response 18—Further studies will occur in the 

future based on regional priorities and funding. 

Step-down plans will address the need for further 

contaminant studies to guide management decisions.

Comment 19—The refuge is full of thistle and 

tamarisk. The Service should hire professional 

contractors to spray weeds within 100 meters of the 

shoreline. After two or three years, the resources 

needed to accomplish the work would be minimal. 

Response 19—Natrona County Weed and Pest 

is an active partner of the refuge. Tamarisk was 

sprayed in 2008, and spraying will continue annually. 

The Service will continue to partner with Natrona 

County Weed and Pest to control tamarisk and other 

invasive plants found on the refuge.

Comment 20—Several places in the document state 

there are no listed or threatened species on the 

property. Greater sage-grouse has been identified in 

the Wyoming Basin. A proclamation signed August 

1, 2008, by the governor of Wyoming states the sagegrouse is threatened and a bird of concern for the 

state of Wyoming. The Service should extend the 

public review period and hold public hearings on the 

effects of the proposed action on the greater sagegrouse. 

Response 20—The lands that are proposed for 

removal from the MOU with Reclamation will be 

retained in federal ownership. As such, the lands will 

be subject to all federal laws pertaining to wildlife 

protection including the Endangered Species Act. 

The document references federally listed threatened 

and endangered species. There are no known 

federally listed species on the refuge. 

Comment 21—Forty species use the reservoir and 

shoreline of the Sweetwater Arm Unit for nesting 

and migrating, including fourteen species that are 

on the Wyoming Game and Fish Department species 

of special concern list. At least one species, the 

mountain plover, has been proposed for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act.

Response 21—The Steamboat Lake area of the 

Sweetwater Arm Unit is where the majority of 

wildlife data has been gathered. This area will be 

retained as refuge lands in the preferred alternative. 

Areas not retained as refuge lands will remain under 

federal ownership and are subject to all federal 

laws and regulations, including the Endangered 

Species Act. Water areas where species have been 

recorded are under the management of Reclamation. 

Wildlife use of these areas is due to Reclamation’s 

management of reservoir water levels.
Appendix E — Public Involvement 73

Comment 22—Pathfinder NWR is a designated 

critical habitat for antelope, elk, and deer. 

Response 22—Antelope, elk, and deer are managed 

by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Benefits to these species on refuge lands are 

secondary to the purpose of the refuge. All 

lands will remain in federal ownership and will 

remain protected and subject to federal laws and 

partnerships with other agencies.

Comment 23—The Miracle Mile flows into the Sage 

Creek Unit. This is a blue ribbon trout stream, but 

fishing is not approved as a compatible use on the 

refuge. The CCP states that the Service would 

consider opening the refuge to fishing through the 

CFR process. How long does the process take? 

Response 23—The CCP process highlighted the fact 

that the refuge was never officially opened to fishing 

under the Code of Federal Regulations process. 

Under the proposed alternative, the CFR will be 

updated to permit fishing. Fishing will continue to be 

allowed on the refuge until the CFR process has been 

completed. 

Comment 24—Hunting should not be allowed on 

the refuge. Hunting is a violent act that promotes 

additional violence. 

Response 24—The Improvement Act states that 

hunting is considered a priority general public use of 

the Refuge System. Hunting is an appropriate use of 

the refuge, when compatible.

Comment 25—Bishops Point should be reevaluated 

on its own and not lumped in with the rest of the 

area.

Response 25—Bishops Point Recreation Area 

is within the current boundary of lands under 

Service management per an MOU. This area must 

be considered as part of the refuge and cannot be 

considered as an isolated parcel of land. Bishops 

Point is managed by Natrona County Parks under an 

MOU with Reclamation.

Comment 26—Recommend prohibiting ATV and offroad vehicle use to prevent the destruction of refuge 

habitat.

Response 26—ATV and off-road vehicle use will not 

be allowed on lands managed by the Service. 

Comment 27—Pathfinder NWR provides an 

invaluable space for local citizens to learn about their 

landscapes and wildlife. There is an increasing need 

to preserve wild land for wildlife viewing. People 

value what they know and do not care about the 

destruction of what they do not know. Education and 

visitor access by foot are important for people to care 

about our wildlife. 

Response 27—Public use programs can be provided 

through partnerships with other agencies and 

interested organizations. Any organization interested 

in partnering with the Service is encouraged to 

contact the refuge manager to develop an educational 

plan and visitor opportunities.

Comment 28—The Service has a responsibility 

to ensure livestock grazing on refuge lands is 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge. In this 

regard, Service staff should work on a continuing 

basis with the Bureau of Land Management and 

landowners to eliminate overgrazing. Issues such 

as overgrazed lands should be dealt with in a timely 

manner. 

Response 28—The proposed alternative will improve 

grazing and infrastructure on remaining refuge 

lands. Retaining the highest-quality habitat for trust 

resources will allow the Service to focus efforts and 

improve grazing management on refuge lands. 

Comment 29—How is the money collected from 

grazing fees used? Grazing funds should be returned 

to the refuge to assist with operations costs. 

Response 29—Grazing fees are returned to the 

Service and are submitted to the general fund. These 

funds help support refuge revenue sharing efforts.

Comment 30—The Oregon-California-Mormon-Pony 

Express Trail going through the Sweetwater Arm 

Unit is a National Historic Trail and is protected 

by many national laws. The Oregon-California 

Trails Association has marked the trail as it crosses 

this section of the refuge. It is necessary to travel 

the two-track road that most of the trail follows 

to maintain trail markers. Mormon handcart 

groups have used this section of the trail on special 

occasions. We would like to use the travel and 

maintenance of the trail as has occurred in the past. 

Response 30—A special use permit (SUP) can be 

issued for maintenance and educational access to 

the Mormon Trail. The Mormon handcart groups 

should contact the refuge manager for information on 

applying for a SUP.

Comment 31—As private-public partnerships 

and collaboration-based interagency partnership 

programs continue to evolve into more seamless 

interfaces, the Service can look forward to increased 

cooperation and interagency facilitation regarding its 

management needs. 

Response 31—The Service looks forward to working 

with interested agencies and organizations to 

improve management of quality migratory bird 

habitats at Pathfinder NWR.

Comment 32—Private interests would like to acquire 

land, minerals, right-of-way, etc., and would find it 

easier to negotiate with the BLM or Reclamation 

rather than the existing overlay refuge structure. 

Once land is removed from the refuge, private 

interests may exchange or purchase land from the 
74 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

remaining federal agencies. The overlay refuge 

structure stabilizes land ownership. 

Response 32—The Service has not been approached 

regarding this issue. The Service does not own 

mineral rights at Pathfinder NWR. Reclamation 

has historically retained lands within the reservoir 

project boundary and could trade or sell lands subject 

to federal law with the current MOU. The interest 

of the Service cannot interfere with Reclamation 

project mission, per the MOU.

Comment 33—The Service should increase funding 

and staffing to support active management of refuge 

programs.

Response 33—The proposed action requests one 

additional full-time employee to support active 

management of the three Laramie Plains refuges 

and the Pathfinder NWR. A satellite refuge manager 

for Pathfinder NWR and the Laramie Plains refuges 

is the first priority of the station for any potential 

future funding. 

Comment 34—Recommend the Service provide 

local staffing to ensure that management actions are 

implemented on the reduced size refuge (alternative 

C). 

Response 34—A duty station in Wyoming will be 

considered when approval is received to hire an 

employee. 

Comment 35—Murie Audubon Society members 

have conducted surveys at Pathfinder NWR for 

seven years. This information would be more 

appropriate than the bird species list in the draft 

plan. 

Response 35—The Service will update the bird 

species list in the final plan to include the survey 

information collected by the Murie Audubon Society. 

Comment 36—Energy production companies have 

invested in asset-monitoring technology to enhance 

the performance of widely scattered properties. 

Using telemetry to monitor habitat conditions 

and wildlife movements could help make Service 

personnel more effective. 

Response 36—The Service looks forward to working 

with cooperating agencies or organizations to 

improve management on quality migratory bird 

habitats at Pathfinder NWR. Interested parties are 

encouraged to contact the refuge manager to discuss 

partnerships.

Comment 37—Soda mines were active in and 

around what is now Pathfinder NWR. Some of 

the mining was done on land in the refuge. If the 

land use changes, the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) may need to deal with 

the abandoned mine lands (AMLs). Once the refuge 

overlay is gone will the Wyoming DEQ need to spend 

taxpayer money on AMLs?

Response 37—Lands will remain in the same federal 

ownership as currently exists. The only change in 

land status is that the MOU between Reclamation 

and the Service will be modified. Some small, 

outlying areas may be exchanged with BLM but will 

also remain in federal ownership. 

MAILING LIST

The following mailing list was developed for this 

CCP.

Federal oFFicials

U.S. Representative Barbara Cubin, Washington DC

Rep. Cubin’s Area Director, Cheyenne, WY

U.S. Senator John Barrasso, Washington DC

Sen. Barrasso’s Area Director, Casper, WY

U.S. Senator Michael Enzi, Washington DC

Sen. Enzi’s Area Director, Cheyenne, WY

Federal aGeNcies

Bureau of Land Management; Casper, WY; Rawlins, 

WY

Bureau of Reclamation, Mills, WY 

National Park Service; Denver, CO; Omaha, NE

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Cheyenne, WY

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Conservation Training Center, Shepardstown, WV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife 

Refuge System; Walden, CO; Lander, WY; Rawlins, 

WY; Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK; Arlington, 

VA; Atlanta, GA; Fort Snelling, MN; Hadley, MA; 

Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Washington DC

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Public 

Affairs, Washington DC

U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, 

Fort Collins, CO

tribal oFFicials

Arapaho Business Committee, Fort Washakie, WY

Crow Tribal Council, Crow Agency, MT

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, Lame Deer, MT

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, Pine Ridge, SD

Shoshone Business Council, Fort Washakie, WY
Appendix E — Public Involvement 75

State Officials

Governor Dave Freudenthal, Cheyenne

Representative George Bagby, Rawlins

Representative Bob Brechtel, Casper

Representative Roy Cohee, Capser

Representative Gerald Gay, Casper

Representative Mary Meyer Gilmore, Casper

Representative Mary Hales, Casper

Representative Steve Harshman, Casper

Representative Thomas Lockhart, Casper

Representative Lisa Shepperson, Casper

Representative William Steward, Encampment

Representative Tim Stubson, Casper

Senator Kit Jennings, Casper

Senator Bill Landen, Casper

Senator Mike Massie, Laramie

Senator Phil Nicholas, Laramie

Senator Drew Perkins, Casper

Senator Charles Scott, Casper

Senator Bill Vasey, Rawlins

State Agencies

Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Cheyenne

Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Casper; 

Cheyenne; Lander; Laramie

Wyoming Game Fish Commission; Casper; 

Cheyenne; Gillette; Jackson; Laramie; La Grange; 

Sundance; Thermopolis 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments, 

Cheyenne

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, 

Cheyenne

Local Government

Carbon County Board of Commissioners, Rawlins

Natrona County Board of Commissioners, Casper

Natrona County Roads Bridges Parks, Mills

Mayor, Casper

Mayor, Rawlins

Organizations

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA

Audubon Wyoming; Casper, WY; Laramie, WY; Tie 

Siding, WY

Audubon Society, Washington DC

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Laramie, WY

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, TN

Izaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, MD

League of Women Voters of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

Murie Audubon Society, Casper, WY

National Audubon Society; Washington DC; New 

York, NY

National Trappers Association Inc., New 

Martinsville, WV

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington 

DC

North Platte Group Sierra Club, Casper, WY

Sierra Club; Sheridan, WY; San Francisco, CA

U.S. Humane Society, Washington DC

The Wilderness Society, Washington DC

Wyoming Outdoor Council, Logan, UT

Universities, Colleges, and Schools

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

Local Media

Casper Star Tribune, Casper

Daily Boomerang, Laramie

KISS 104.7 FM, Casper

KKTY AM & FM, Douglas

Rawlins Daily Times, Rawlins

Wyoming Public Radio, Laramie

Individuals

30 people

Appendix F

Memorandum of Understanding
78 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix F — Memorandum of Understanding 79
80 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix G

Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy

FISh AND WILDLIFE SERvICE

REFUGE MANAGEMENT

Part 603 National Wildlife Refuge System Uses

1.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter 

provides a national framework for determining 

appropriate refuge uses. In addition, this chapter 

provides the policy and procedure for refuge 

managers to follow when deciding if uses are 

appropriate on a refuge. This policy also clarifies 

and expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 

2.10D), which describes when refuge managers 

should deny a proposed use without determining 

compatibility. When we find a use is appropriate, 

we must then determine if the use is compatible 

before we allow it on a refuge.

1.2 What does this policy cover? This policy applies 

to all proposed and existing uses in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) only 

when we have jurisdiction over the use. This 

policy does not apply to:

A. Situations Where Reserved Rights or Legal 

Mandates Provide We Must Allow Certain Uses. For 

example, we usually will not apply this policy 

to proposed public uses of wetland or grassland 

easement areas of the Refuge System. The 

rights we have acquired on these areas generally 

do not extend to control over such public uses 

except where those uses would conflict with the 

conditions of the easement.

B. Refuge Management Activities. Refuge 

management activities are designed to conserve 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats and 

are conducted by the Refuge System or a Refuge 

System-authorized agent to fulfill a refuge 

purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission. These 

activities fulfill refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge 

System mission, and we base them on sound 

professional judgment. Refuge management 

activities are fish and wildlife population or 

habitat management actions including, but 

not limited to: prescribed burns, water level 

management, invasive species control, routine 

scientific monitoring, law enforcement activities, 

and maintenance of existing refuge facilities. We 

consider State fish and wildlife agency activities 

refuge management activities that are not subject 

to this policy when they:

(1) Directly contribute to the achievement of 

refuge purpose(s), refuge goals, and the Refuge 

System mission, as determined by the refuge 

manager in writing, 

(2) Are addressed in a document such as a 

Regional or California/Nevada Operations Office 

(CNO) memorandum of understanding or a 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), or

(3) Are approved under national policy.

1.3 What is the policy regarding the appropriateness of 

uses on a refuge? 

With the exception of 1.3.A. and 1.3.B. below, the 

refuge manager will decide if a new or existing 

use is an appropriate refuge use. If an existing 

use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will 

eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously 

as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, 

the refuge manager will deny the use without 

determining compatibility. Uses that have been 

administratively determined to be appropriate 

are:

A. Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the 

six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation) 

are determined to be appropriate. However, the 

refuge manager must still determine if these uses 

are compatible.

B. Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

States have regulations concerning take of wildlife 

that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We 

consider take of wildlife under such regulations 

appropriate. However, the refuge manager must 

determine if the activity is compatible before 

allowing it on a refuge.

1.4 What are the objectives of this chapter?

A. Refuges are first and foremost national 

treasures for the conservation of wildlife. Through 
82 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

careful planning, consistent Refuge Systemwide 

application of regulations and policies, diligent 

monitoring of the impacts of uses on wildlife 

resources, and preventing or eliminating uses 

not appropriate to the Refuge System, we can 

achieve the Refuge System conservation mission 

while also providing the public with lasting 

opportunities to enjoy quality, compatible, wildlifedependent recreation.

B. Through consistent application of this 

policy and these procedures, we will establish 

an administrative record and build public 

understanding and consensus on the types of 

public uses that are legitimate and appropriate 

within the Refuge System.

1.5 What are our statutory authorities for this policy?

A. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee (Administration Act). This law provides 

the authority for establishing policies and 

regulations governing refuge uses, including the 

authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. 

The Administration Act does not authorize any 

particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to allow uses only when they are 

compatible and “under such regulations as he may 

prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain 

public uses that, when compatible, are legitimate 

and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. 

The law states “. . . it is the policy of the United 

States that . . . compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System . . . compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses are the priority 

general public uses of the System and shall 

receive priority consideration in refuge planning 

and management; and . . . when the Secretary 

determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent 

recreational use is a compatible use within a 

refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . the 

Secretary shall . . . ensure that priority general 

public uses of the System receive enhanced 

consideration over other general public uses in 

planning and management within the System 

. . . .” The law also states “[i]n administering 

the System, the Secretary is authorized to take 

the following actions: . . . [i]ssue regulations 

to carry out this Act.” This policy implements 

the standards set in the Administration Act by 

providing enhanced consideration of priority 

general public uses and ensuring other public uses 

do not interfere with our ability to provide quality, 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses.

B. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k 

(Recreation Act). This law authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of 

the System] or parts thereof for public recreation 

when in his judgment public recreation can be an 

appropriate incidental or secondary use.” While 

the Recreation Act authorizes us to allow public 

recreation in areas of the Refuge System when 

the use is an “appropriate incidental or secondary 

use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge 

System mission and includes specific directives 

and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge 

System.

C. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 

1601-1624. Activities on lands conveyed from the 

Refuge System under section 22(g) of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act are not subject to 

this policy, but are subject to compatibility (see 

603 FW 2).

D. Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 

460mm-4, 539-539e, and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et 

seq.).

E. Executive Orders. We must comply with 

Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use 

of off-highway vehicles on refuges. This order 

requires that we: designate areas as open or 

closed to off-highway vehicles in order to protect 

refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize 

conflict among the various refuge users; monitor 

the effects of these uses once they are allowed; 

and amend or rescind any area designation as 

necessary based on the information gathered. 

Furthermore, E.O. 11989 requires us to close 

areas to off highway vehicles when we determine 

that the use causes or will cause considerable 

adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, 

habitat, or cultural or historic resources. Statutes, 

such as ANILCA, take precedence over Executive 

orders.

1.6 What do these terms mean?

A. Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a 

refuge that meets at least one of the following four 

conditions.

(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use 

as identified in the Improvement Act.

(2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge 

purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management 

plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law.

(3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife 

under State regulations.

(4) The use has been found to be appropriate as 

specified in section 1.11.
Appendix G — Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy 83

B. Native American. American Indians in the 

conterminous United States and Alaska Natives 

(including Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are 

members of federally recognized tribes.

C. Priority General Public Use. A compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation.

D. Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality 

recreational experience include:

(1) Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, 

and facilities.

(2) Promotes compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations and responsible behavior.

(3) Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and 

wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives in 

a plan approved after 1997.

(4) Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.

(5) Minimizes conflicts with neighboring 

landowners.

(6) Promotes accessibility and availability to a 

broad spectrum of the American people.

(7) Promotes resource stewardship and 

conservation.

(8) Promotes public understanding and increases 

public appreciation of America’s natural resources 

and our role in managing and protecting these 

resources.

(9) Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to 

experience wildlife.

(10) Uses facilities that are accessible and blend 

into the natural setting.

(11) Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and 

evaluate programs.

E. Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined 

by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation.

1.7 What are our responsibilities?

A. Director. Provides national policy for deciding 

the appropriateness of uses within the Refuge 

System to ensure such findings comply with all 

applicable authorities.

B. Regional Director/CNO Manager.

(1) Ensures refuge managers follow laws, 

regulations, and policies when making 

appropriateness findings.

(2) Notifies the Director about controversial or 

complex appropriateness findings.

C. Regional Chief/CNO Assistant Manager.

(1) Makes the final decision on appropriateness 

when the refuge supervisor does not concur with 

the refuge manager on positive appropriateness 

findings.

(2) Notifies the Regional Director/CNO Manager 

about controversial or complex appropriateness 

findings.

D. Refuge Supervisor.

(1) Reviews the refuge manager’s finding that an 

existing or proposed use is appropriate when that 

use is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use or 

is not already described in a refuge management 

plan approved after October 9, 1997.

(2) Reviews the refuge manager’s finding that an 

existing use is not appropriate outside the CCP 

process.

(3) Refers an appropriateness finding to the 

Regional Chief/CNO Assistant Manager if the 

refuge supervisor does not concur with the refuge 

manager. Discusses nonconcurrence with the 

refuge manager for possible resolution before 

referring the finding to the Regional Chief/CNO 

Assistant Manager.

(4) Notifies the Regional Chief/CNO Assistant 

Manager about controversial or complex 

appropriateness findings.

(5) Reviews documentation at least annually 

for refuge uses found not appropriate and 

forwards the documentation to Refuge System 

Headquarters for inclusion in a database of refuge 

uses.

E. Refuge Manager.

(1) Decides if a proposed or existing use is subject 

to this policy.

(2) Makes a finding as to whether a use subject to 

this policy is appropriate or not appropriate.

(3) Consults with State fish and wildlife agencies, 

as well as the refuge supervisor, when a request 

for a use could affect fish, wildlife, or other 

resources that are of concern to a State fish and 

wildlife agency.
84 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

(4) Documents all findings under this policy in 

writing as described in section 1.11A(3).

(5) Refers to the refuge supervisor all findings of 

appropriateness, both positive and negative, for 

any proposed use which is not a wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or which is not already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management 

plan approved after October 9, 1997. The refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence is required for new 

uses found to be appropriate and existing uses 

found not appropriate outside the CCP process. 

The refuge supervisor periodically reviews other 

findings for consistency.

1.8 What is the relationship between appropriateness 

and compatibility? This policy describes the 

initial decision process the refuge manager 

follows when first considering whether or not 

to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge 

manager must find a use is appropriate before 

undertaking a compatibility review of the 

use. This policy clarifies and expands on the 

compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D(1)), which 

describes when refuge managers should deny a 

proposed use without determining compatibility. 

If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, 

we will not allow the use and will not prepare a 

compatibility determination. By screening out 

proposed uses not appropriate to the refuge, the 

refuge manager avoids unnecessary compatibility 

reviews. By following the process for finding 

the appropriateness of a use, we strengthen and 

fulfill the Refuge System mission. Section 1.11 

describes the appropriateness finding process. 

Although a refuge use may be both appropriate 

and compatible, the refuge manager retains the 

authority to not allow the use or modify the use. 

For example, on some occasions, two appropriate 

and compatible uses may be in conflict with each 

other. In these situations, even though both 

uses are appropriate and compatible, the refuge 

manager may need to limit or entirely curtail 

one of the uses in order to provide the greatest 

benefit to refuge resources and the public. 

See the compatibility policy (603 FW 2.11G) 

for information concerning resolution of these 

conflicts.

1.9 How are uses considered in the comprehensive 

conservation planning process?

A. We will manage all refuges in accordance 

with an approved comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP). The CCP describes the desired 

future conditions of the refuge or refuge 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance 

and management direction to accomplish the 

purpose(s) of the refuge and Refuge System 

mission. We prepare CCPs with State fish and 

wildlife agencies and with public involvement 

and include a review of the appropriateness and 

compatibility of existing refuge uses and of any 

planned future public uses. If, during preparation 

of the CCP, we identify previously approved 

uses we can no longer consider appropriate on 

the refuge, we will clearly explain our reasons to 

the public and describe how we will eliminate or 

modify the use. When uses are reviewed during 

the CCP process, the appropriateness finding 

will be documented using the form provided 

as FWS Form 3-2319 for the refuge files. The 

documentation for both appropriateness findings 

and compatibility determinations should also be 

included in the documentation for the CCP.

B. For proposed uses we did not consider 

during the preparation of the CCP or if a CCP 

has not yet been prepared, we will apply the 

procedure contained in this policy and make 

an appropriateness finding without additional 

public review and comment. However, if we 

find a proposed use is appropriate, we must 

still determine that the use is compatible. 

The compatibility determination includes an 

opportunity for public involvement. See the 

planning policy (602 FW 1, 3, and 4) for detailed 

policy on refuge planning.

1.10 What are the different types of refuge uses? For 

the purposes of this policy, there are five types of 

uses.

A. Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses. When 

compatible, they are legitimate and appropriate 

uses of refuges and are the priority general public 

uses of the Refuge System.

B. State Regulated Take of Fish and Wildlife. When 

compatible, the take of fish and wildlife under 

State regulations is a refuge use.

C. Other General Public Uses. General public uses 

that are not wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(as defined in the Improvement Act) and do not 

contribute to the fulfillment of refuge purposes or 

goals or objectives as described in current refuge 

management plans (see section 1.6A(2)) are the 

lowest priorities for refuge managers to consider. 

These uses are likely to divert refuge management 

resources from priority general public uses or 

away from our responsibilities to protect and 

manage fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

Therefore, both law and policy have a general 

presumption against allowing such uses within the 

Refuge System. Before we will consider these uses 

further, regardless of how often they occur or how 

long they last, we must first find if these public 

uses are appropriate as defined in section 1.11.
Appendix G — Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy 85

D. Specialized Uses. These uses require specific 

authorization from the Refuge System, often 

in the form of a special use permit, letter of 

authorization, or other permit document. These 

uses do not include uses already granted by a prior 

existing right. We make appropriateness findings 

for specialized uses on a case-by-case basis. Before 

we will consider a specialized use, we must make 

an appropriateness finding as defined in section 

1.11A(3) of this chapter. Any person whose request 

for a specialized use is denied or who is adversely 

affected by the refuge manager’s decision relating 

to a permit may appeal the decision. In these 

situations, the person should follow the appeal 

process outlined in 50 CFR 25.45 and, for Alaska 

refuges, in 50 CFR 36.41(i). The appeal process for 

denial of a right-of-way application is in 50 CFR 

29.22. The appeal process for persons who believe 

they have been improperly denied rights with 

respect to providing visitor services on Alaska 

refuges is in 50 CFR 36.37(g). Some common 

examples of specialized uses include:

(1) Rights-of-way. See 340 FW 3 (Rights-of-Way and 

Road Closings) and 603 FW 2 (Compatibility) for 

detailed policy on rights-of-way.

(2) Telecommunications facilities. We process 

requests to construct telecommunication facilities 

on a refuge the same way as any other right-ofway request. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 

does not supersede any existing laws, regulations, 

or policy relating to rights-of-way on refuges. 

The refuge manager should continue to follow the 

procedures in 340 FW 3 (Rights-of-Way and Road 

Closings) and 603 FW 2 (Compatibility).

(3) Military, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), border security, and other 

national defense uses. The following guidelines 

apply to Refuge System lands owned in fee title 

by the Service or lands to which the Service has 

management rights that provide for the control of 

such uses:

(a) We will continue to honor existing, long-term, 

written agreements such as memorandums of 

understanding (MOU) between the Service and 

the military, NASA, and other Federal agencies 

with national defense missions. However, we 

discourage entering into any new agreements 

permitting military preparedness activities on 

refuges. Only the Director may approve any 

modification to existing agreements. Where joint 

military/NASA/Service jurisdiction occurs by 

law, an MOU negotiated by the principal parties, 

and subject to the approval of the Director, will 

specify the roles and responsibilities, terms, and 

stipulations of the refuge uses. Wherever possible, 

we will work to find practical alternatives to the 

use of refuge lands and to minimize the effects on 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

(b) We consider authorized military activities on 

refuge lands that directly benefit refuge purposes 

to be refuge management activities, and they 

are not subject to this policy. For example, in a 

case where a national guard unit is assisting the 

refuge with the construction of a water control 

structure or helping to repair a refuge bridge, we 

consider these activities to be refuge management 

activities. We do not consider them to be 

specialized uses.

(c) For routine or continuous law enforcement 

and border security activities, an MOU between 

the Service and the specific enforcement agency 

must clearly define the roles and responsibilities 

of the enforcement agency and must specify 

the steps they will take to minimize impacts to 

refuge resources. The MOU should also address 

emergency situations and require advance notice 

and approval as a general rule. It should clearly 

spell out under what circumstances, if any, the 

enforcement agency may enter refuge lands in 

emergency situations prior to notifying the refuge 

manager. We recognize that in some situations a 

refuge manager cannot be notified until after an 

operation has taken place (for example, where 

lives are in danger). If such situations occur, 

the refuge manager must be notified as soon 

as possible. For undercover operations, those 

involved must strictly follow Service guidelines 

that cover the specific situation.

(4) Research. We actively encourage cooperative 

natural and cultural research activities that 

address our management needs. We also 

encourage research related to the management 

of priority general public uses. Such research 

activities are generally appropriate. However, 

we must review all research activities to decide if 

they are appropriate or not as defined in section 

1.11. Research that directly benefits refuge 

management has priority over other research.

(5) Public safety training. We may assist local 

government agencies by allowing health, safety, 

and rescue training operations on the refuge if 

we find the use to be appropriate and compatible. 

Examples include fire safety training, search 

and rescue training, and boat operations safety 

training. Law enforcement training exercises 

in support of refuge management activities 

are usually appropriate. We will evaluate each 

request on a case-by-case basis and consider the 

availability of other local sites. We will review 

these uses to decide if they are appropriate as 

defined in section 1.11. To the extent practicable, 

we will develop written agreements with the 

requesting agencies.
86 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

(6) Native American ceremonial, religious, medicinal, 

and traditional gathering of plants. We will review 

specific requests and provide reasonable access 

to Native Americans to refuge lands and waters 

for gathering plants for ceremonial, religious, 

medicinal, and traditional purposes when the 

activity is appropriate and compatible or when 

existing treaties allow or require such access.

(7) Natural resource extractions. Part 612 of the 

Service Manual provides general guidance relating 

to minerals management on refuges. Managers 

should refer to those policies, particularly in 

cases where their refuge has valid existing rights 

vested in private interests. The Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 provides 

specific guidance for oil and gas leasing on Alaska 

refuges. We only allow the extraction of certain 

resources, such as gravel, that supports a refuge 

management activity when there is no practical 

alternative and only in compliance with 50 CFR 

29.1. We will not justify such activity by citing 

budgetary constraints or mere convenience. We 

will seek funding through our normal budgetary 

process for projects that require gravel or similar 

resources found on the refuge.

(8) Commercial uses. Commercial uses of a 

refuge may be appropriate if they are a refuge 

management economic activity (see 50 CFR 

25.12), if they directly support a priority general 

public use, or if they are specifically authorized 

by statute (such as ANILCA). See 50 CFR 29.1 

for additional information on economic uses of 

the natural resources of refuges. An example 

of a commercial use that may be appropriate is 

a concession-operated boat tour that facilitates 

wildlife observation and interpretation. We will 

review all commercial uses to decide if they are 

appropriate as defined in section 1.11.

E. Prohibited uses. Certain activities that are 

prohibited on refuges by regulations are listed in 

50 CFR 27.

1.11 How do we make the appropriateness finding for a 

use on a refuge?

A. A refuge use is appropriate if the use meets at 

least one of the following three conditions:

(1) It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use of 

a refuge. This finding does not require refuge 

supervisor concurrence.

(2) It contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), 

the Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives 

described in a refuge management plan approved 

after October 9, 1997, the date the Improvement 

Act was signed into law. This finding does not 

require refuge supervisor concurrence.

(3) The refuge manager has evaluated the use 

following the guidelines in this policy and found 

that it is appropriate. The refuge manager 

will address the criteria below and complete 

FWS Form 3-2319 for each use reviewed for 

appropriateness, including uses reviewed in 

conjunction with a CCP or step-down management 

plan. If the answers to the questions on FWS 

Form 3-2319 are consistently “yes,” and if the 

refuge manager finds, based on sound professional 

judgment, the use is appropriate for the refuge, 

the refuge manager then prepares the written 

justification using FWS Form 3-2319. (If the 

answer to any of the factors is “no,” refer to 

section 1.11B) Before undertaking a compatibility 

determination, the refuge manager should forward 

the justification to the refuge supervisor to 

obtain written concurrence when a use is found 

appropriate. The requirement for concurrence 

from the refuge supervisor will help us promote 

Refuge System consistency and avoid establishing 

precedents that may present management 

problems in the future. Refuge supervisors will 

usually consult with their Regional Chief/CNO 

Assistant Manager and peers in other Regions/

CNO as these decisions are made to promote 

consistency within the Refuge System. The refuge 

manager will base the finding of appropriateness 

on the following 10 criteria:

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? If we 

do not have jurisdiction over the use or the area 

where the use would occur, we have no authority 

to consider the use.

(b) Does the use comply with all applicable laws 

and regulations? The proposed use must be 

consistent with all applicable laws and regulations 

(e.g., Federal, State, tribal, and local). Uses 

prohibited by law are not appropriate.

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive 

orders and Department and Service policies? 

If the proposed use conflicts with an applicable 

Executive order or Department or Service policy, 

the use is not appropriate.

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? If the 

proposed use creates an unreasonable level of risk 

to visitors or refuge staff, or if the use requires 

refuge staff to take unusual safety precautions 

to assure the safety of the public or other refuge 

staff, the use is not appropriate.

(e) Is the use consistent with refuge goals and 

objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? Refuge goals and objectives are 

designed to guide management toward achieving 

refuge purpose(s). These goals and objectives 

are documented in refuge management plans, 

such as CCPs and step-down management plans. 
Appendix G — Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy 87

Refuges may also rely on goals and objectives 

found in comprehensive management plans or 

refuge master plans developed prior to passage of 

the Improvement Act as long as these goals and 

objectives comply with the tenets and directives 

of the Improvement Act. If the proposed use, 

either itself or in combination with other uses or 

activities, conflicts with a refuge goal, objective, 

or management strategy, the use is generally not 

appropriate.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied 

the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? If we have already considered the 

proposed use in a refuge planning process or under 

this policy and rejected it as not appropriate, 

then we should not further consider the use 

unless circumstances or conditions have changed 

significantly. If we did not raise the proposed use 

as an issue during a refuge planning process, we 

may further consider the use.

(g) For uses other than wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses, is the use manageable within 

available budget and staff? If a proposed use 

diverts management efforts or resources away 

from the proper and reasonable management 

of a refuge management activity or wildlifedependent recreational use, the use is generally 

not appropriate. In evaluating resources available, 

the refuge manager may take into consideration 

volunteers, refuge support groups, etc. If a 

requested use would rely heavily on volunteer 

or other resources, the refuge manager should 

discuss the situation with the refuge supervisor 

before making an appropriateness finding. The 

compatibility policy also addresses the question of 

available resources (603 FW 2.12A(7)).

(h) Will the use be manageable in the future 

within existing resources? If the use would lead 

to recurring requests for the same or similar 

activities that will be difficult to manage in the 

future, then the use is not appropriate. If we can 

manage the use so that impacts to natural and 

cultural resources are minimal or inconsequential, 

or if we can establish clearly defined limits, then 

we may further consider the use.

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s 

understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use 

beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? If not, we will generally not further 

consider the use.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without 

impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality 

(see section 1.6D), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? If not, we will generally 

not further consider the use.

B. Where we do not have jurisdiction over the 

use, there is no need to evaluate it further as we 

cannot control the use (a “no” response to criterion 

(a)). We may not find uses appropriate if they are 

illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe. 

Therefore, if there is a “no” response to criteria 

(b), (c), or (d), immediately stop consideration of 

the use. If the answer is “no” to any of the other 

questions, we will generally not allow the use. 

However, there may be situations where the 

refuge has exceptional or unique recreational 

resources, such as rock climbing, that are not 

available nearby, off the refuge, and the use 

requires insignificant management resources. In 

such cases, we may further consider a use.

C. When the refuge manager finds that a proposed 

use is not appropriate, the finding must be 

documented for the refuge files using FWS Form 

3-2319. This finding does not require refuge 

supervisor concurrence. However, if outside 

the CCP process a refuge manager finds that 

an existing use is not appropriate, the finding 

requires refuge supervisor concurrence. The 

refuge manager will send copies of all findings 

to the refuge supervisor to be incorporated 

into a national database annually. This section 

specifically clarifies and expands on the 

compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D).

D. Following the issuance of this policy, refuge 

managers, in consultation with the States, must 

review all existing uses for appropriateness 

within 1 year unless the use was reviewed in a 

post-1997 CCP. If the refuge manager finds an 

existing use is not appropriate, the use must be 

modified so it is appropriate or terminated or 

phased out as expeditiously as practicable. The 

refuge manager must obtain refuge supervisor 

concurrence when there are changes to existing 

uses that eliminate the use or substantially change 

the use. All appropriateness findings required 

under section 1.11A(3), including findings made 

during the CCP process, must be documented for 

the refuge files using FWS Form 3-2319. Include 

the documentation for both appropriateness 

findings and compatibility determinations in the 

documentation for the CCP. A finding of “not 

appropriate” for a new use does not require refuge 

supervisor concurrence. However, the decision 

to modify or terminate a use may be subject to 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Refuge managers should consult with their 

Regional NEPA coordinator to see if a decision 

would be subject to NEPA.

E. The Refuge System Headquarters will maintain 

a database of refuge uses. This database will 
88 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

include a refuge-by-refuge listing of all uses 

refuge managers have found either appropriate 

or not appropriate. With this information, refuge 

managers will know which uses have already been 

approved or denied at any other unit of the Refuge 

System. This information will help strengthen 

the Refuge System by reinforcing consistency 

and integrity in the way we consider refuge 

uses. However, this does not mean that a use 

found to be not appropriate on one refuge should 

automatically be found not appropriate on other 

refuges in the Refuge System.

1.12 How do we coordinate with the States? Both the 

Service and State fish and wildlife agencies have 

authorities and responsibilities for management of 

fish and wildlife on refuges as described in 43 CFR 

part 24. Consistent with the Administration Act, 

as amended, the Director will interact, coordinate, 

cooperate, and collaborate with the State fish 

and wildlife agencies in a timely and effective 

manner on the acquisition and management of 

refuges. Under both the Administration Act, as 

amended, and 43 CFR part 24, the Director as 

the Secretary’s designee will ensure that Refuge 

System regulations and management plans 

are, to the extent practicable, consistent with 

State laws, regulations, and management plans. 

We charge refuge managers, as the designated 

representatives of the Director at the local 

level, with carrying out these directives. We will 

provide State fish and wildlife agencies timely 

and meaningful opportunities to participate in the 

development and implementation of programs 

conducted under this policy. These opportunities 

will most commonly occur through State fish 

and wildlife agency representation on the CCP 

planning teams. However, we will provide other 

opportunities for the State fish and wildlife 

agencies to participate in the development and 

implementation of program changes that would be 

made outside of the CCP process. Further, we will 

continue to provide State fish and wildlife agencies 

opportunities to discuss and, if necessary, elevate 

decisions within the hierarchy of the Service.

/sgd/ H. Dale Hall

DIRECTOR

Date: January 20, 2006
Appendix H

Compatibility Regulations
90 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix H — Compatibility Regulations 91
92 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix H — Compatibility Regulations 93
94 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix H — Compatibility Regulations 95
96 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix H — Compatibility Regulations 97
98 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix H — Compatibility Regulations 99
100 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Appendix I

Fire Management Program

The Service has administrative and fire management 

for 16,806 acres located within the boundaries of 

Pathfinder NWR in central Wyoming.

ThE ROLE OF FIRE

Vegetation within the Wyoming Basin has evolved 

under periodic disturbance and defoliation from 

grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while maintaining significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years.

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions played an important disturbance role in 

many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts of insects and diseases, 

stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and 

wildlife.

When fire is excluded from shrub–steppe landscape, 

the fuel loading increases due the continued growth 

and increase in shrub size and density. This creates 

a decadent stand of tall dense shrubs that reduce 

species diversity by shading understory plants. It 

also increases fuel loading, which leads to an increase 

in a fire’s resistance to control. This increase in 

resistance to control threatens firefighter and public 

safety as well as private and federal properties.

However, fire when properly used, can:

R reduce hazardous fuels build-up in both 

wildland–urban interface (WUI) and non-WUI 

areas;

R improve wildlife habitats by reducing density of 

vegetation 

R and/or changing plant species composition;

R sustain and/or increase biological diversity;

R improve woodlands and shrublands by reducing 

plant density;

R reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks;

R improve quality and quantity of livestock 

forage;

R and improve the quantity of water available 

for municipalities and activities dependent on 

wildlands for their water supply.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY 

AND GUIDANCE

In 2001, an update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy” 

was completed and approved by the Secretaries 

of Interior and Agriculture. The 2001 “Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy” directs 

federal agencies to achieve a balance between fire 

suppression to protect life, property, and resources 

and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, it directs agencies to 

use the appropriate management response for all 

wildland fire regardless of the ignition source. This 

policy provides eight guiding principles that are 

fundamental to the success of the fire management 

program:

R Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity.

R The role of wildland fires as an ecological 

process and natural change agent will be 

incorporated into the planning process.

R Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, 

and activities support land and resource 

management plans and their implementation.

R Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities.

R Fire management programs and activities 

are economically viable, based on values to 

be protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives.

R FMPs and activities are to be based on the best 

available science.

R FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration; 

federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential.

R Standardization of policies and procedures 

among federal agencies is an ongoing objective.

The fire management considerations, guidance, 

and direction should be addressed in the land use 

resource plans (for example, the CCP). FMPs are 

step-down processes from the land use plans and 

habitat plans, with more detail on fire suppression, 

fire use, and fire management activities.
102 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The Arapaho NWR Complex will protect life, 

property, and other resources from wildland fire by 

safely suppressing all wildfires. Prescribed fire and 

manual and mechanical fuel treatments will be used 

in an ecosystem context for habitat management 

purposes, and to protect both federal and private 

property. Fuels reduction activities will be applied 

in collaboration with federal, state, private, and 

NGO partners. In addition, fuel treatments will be 

prioritized based on the guidance for prioritization 

established in the goals and strategies outlined in 

the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife 

Refuge System Wildland Fire Management Program 

Strategic Plan 2003–2010” and the “R6 Refuges 

Regional Priorities FY07–11.” For WUI treatments, 

areas with community wildfire protection plans 

(CWPPs) and communities at risk (CARs) will be 

the primary focus. On August 17, 2001, the “Federal 

Register” published a list of CARs throughout 

the nation. In the area near Pathfinder NWR, no 

communities were identified in the list. Any additions 

or deletions to the CARs list are the responsibility 

of the state through coordination with interagency 

partners. Wyoming has determined to complete 

CWPPs on a county basis. Natrona and Carbon 

counties have completed CWPPs. The Service 

will place a high priority in collaborating with our 

neighboring partners to reduce the risk of wildfire 

using fuels reduction projects. 

All aspects of the fire management program will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. The Arapaho NWR 

Complex will maintain an FMP to accomplish the fire 

management goals described below. Prescribed fire 

and manual and mechanical fuel treatments will be 

applied in a scientific way under selected weather 

and environmental conditions.

Fire maNaGemeNt Goals

The goals and strategies of the “U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System 

Wildland Fire Management Program Strategic 

Plan” are consistent with Department of Interior 

and Service policies, National Fire Plan direction, 

President Bush’s Healthy Forest Initiative, the 10-

Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation 

Plan, National Wildfire Coordinating Group 

(NWCG) guidelines, initiatives of the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council, and Interagency Standards for 

Fire and Aviation Operations.

The “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–11” are 

consistent with region 6’s refuges vision statement: 

“to maintain and improve the biological integrity 

of the region, ensure the ecological condition of 

the region’s public and private lands are better 

understood, and endorse sustainable use of habitats 

that support native wildlife and people’s livelihoods.” 

The fire management goals for Pathfinder NWR are 

to use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments to (1) reduce the threat to life 

and property; and (2) meet the habitat goals and 

objectives identified in this CCP.

Fire Management Objective

The objective of the fire management program is 

to use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

methods to treat refuge lands for hazardous fuels and 

habitat management purposes.

Strategies

Strategies and tactics that emphasize public and 

firefighter safety as well as resource values at risk 

will be used. Wildland fire suppression, prescribed 

fire methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, 

and monitoring are described in more detail within 

the step-down FMP.

All management actions would use prescribed fire 

and manual and/or mechanical means to reduce 

hazardous fuels, restore and maintain desired 

habitat conditions, control nonnative vegetation, 

and control the spread of woody vegetation 

within the upland and wetland habitats. The fuels 

treatment program will be outlined in the FMP 

for the wetland management district. Site-specific 

prescribed fire burn plans will be developed following 

the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Reference Guide (2006) 

template.

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components through 

combustion. Pathfinder NWR will meet the Clean Air 

Act emission standards by adhering to the “Wyoming 

State Implementation Plan” requirements during all 

prescribed fire activities.

Fire Management Rationale

Pathfinder NWR does not have any recorded fire 

history since its establishment in 1909. Landfire, 

the Landscape Fire and Resource Management 

Planning Tools Project, has identified the shrub–

steppe community within and around Pathfinder 

NWR as a Fire Regime IV, which means historically 

these areas burned every 35–100+ years and were 

stand-replacement fires. Some areas within the 

refuge boundary are identified as a Fire Regime III 

(35–100+ years and mixed-severity fires). Because 

fires have not occurred on Pathfinder NWR since its 

establishment, these habitat types are nearing or 

have reached the point where they maybe outside 

their historic fire return interval. Since settlement 

of the area, wildfires that have occurred have been 

suppressed (Landfire).
Appendix I — Fire Management Program 103

Fire Management Organization, Contacts, and 

Cooperation

Qualified fire management technical oversight for 

the refuges will be established by region 6 of the 

Service, using the fire management district approach. 

Under this approach, fire management staff will 

be determined by established modeling systems 

based on the fire management workload of a group 

of Service lands (refuges, wetland management 

districts, fish hatcheries), and possibly that of 

interagency partners. The fire management workload 

consists of historical wildland fire suppression 

activities as well as historical and planned fuels 

treatments.

Depending on budgets, fire management staffing 

and support equipment may be located at the 

administrative station or at other locations within 

the fire management district and shared between all 

units. Fire management activities will be conducted 

in a coordinated and collaborative manner with 

federal and nonfederal partners.

On approval of this CCP, a new FMP would be 

developed for Pathfinder NWR as (1) an FMP that 

covers the wetland management district, (2) an FMP 

that covers the fire management district, (3) an FMP 

that covers the Arapaho NWR Complex, or (4) an 

interagency FMP.

Appendix j

List of Occurring Plant Species

The following vascular plant species were documented on Pathfinder NWR during a rare survey of plants 

(Fertig 2000). Nonnative species are indicated by an asterisk (*). In addition, slender spiderplant (Cleome 

multicaulis), a state species of concern, is found on the Sweetwater Arm Unit of the refuge.

Scientific Name Common Name

Agrostis stolonifera Redtop*

Alopecurus aequalis Shortawn foxtail

Alopecurus arundinaceus Creeping meadow foxtail*

Artemisia biennis var. biennis Biennial wormwood

Artemisia cana var. cana Silver sagebrush

Artemisia frigida Prairie sagewort

Artemisia ludoviciana var. ludoviciana White sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis Wyoming big sagebrush

Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed

Aster ascendens Western aster

Aster ericoides Heath-leaved aster

Aster occidentalis Western mountain aster

Astragalus agrestis Purple milkvetch

Astragalus bodinii Bodin’s milkvetch

Atriplex rosea Tumbling saltweed*

Atriplex subspicata Saline saltbrush

Bassia hyssopifolia Fivehorn smotherweed*

Bidens cernua Nodding beggartick

Bromus inermis var. inermis Smooth brome*

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass*

Calamagrostis inexpansa Northern reedgrass

Cardaria pubescens Hairy whitetop

Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge

Centaurium exaltatum Desert centaury

Chenopodium atrovirens Pinyon goosefoot

Chenopodium glaucum var. salinum Oakleaf goosefoot

Chenopodium rubrum var. glomeratum Red goosefoot

Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rubber rabbitbrush

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle*

Cirsium tioganum var. coloradense Colorado thistle

Cleome serrulata Rocky Mountain beeplant

Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed

Distichlis stricta Saltgrass
106 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Echinochloa Scientific Name spp. Barnyardgrass Common Name

Eleocharis spp. Spikerush 

Elymus Canadensis Canada wildrye

Elymus lanceolatus Thickspike wheatgrass

Elymus repens Quackgrass*

Equisetum arvense Field horsetail

Equisetum hyemale Scouringrush horsetail

Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail

Gentianella amarella var. amarella Autumn dwarf gentian

Glaux maritima Sea milkwort

Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice

Gnaphalium palustre Western marsh cudweed

Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup gumweed

Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed

Haplopappus uniflorus Plantain goldenweed

Helenium autumnale var. montanum Common sneezeweed

Helianthus petiolaris Prairie sunflower

Heliotropium curassavicum var. obovatum Salt heliotrope

Hippuris vulgaris Common mare’s-tail

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley

Iva Marsh elder

Iva axillaris Povertyweed

Juncus bufonius Toad rush

Juncus compressus Roundfruit rush

Juncus nodosus Knotted rush

Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass

Lactuca oblongifolia Blue lettuce

Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce

Limosella aquatica Water mudwort

Lycopus asper Rough bugleweed

Melilotus albus White sweetclover

Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweetclover

Mentha arvensis Field mint

Muhlenbergia asperifolia Scratchgrass

Oenothera villosa Hairy evening-primrose

Opuntia polyacantha var. polyacantha Hairspine pricklypear

Oryzopsis hymenoides Indian ricegrass

Oxytropis riparia Oxus locoweed*

Plagiobothrys scouleri Scouler’s popcornflower

Plantago eriopoda Redwool plantain

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass*

Polygonum amphibium var. emersum Longroot smartgrass

Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed

Polygonum lapathifolium Curltop knotweed
Appendix J — List of Occurring Plant Species 107

Potentilla anserina Scientific Name Silverweed cinquefoil Common Name

Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall’s alkaligrass

Ranunculus cymbalaria Alkali buttercup

Rorippa truncata Buntleaf yellowcress

Rosa sayi Prickly rose

Rumex maritimus var. fueginus Golden dock

Rumex stenophyllus Narrowleaf dock*

Sagittaria cuneata Arumleaf arrowhead

Salicornia rubra Red swampfire

Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf willow

Salix exigua Narrowleaf willow

Salix lutea Yellow willow

Salsola australis Prickly Russian thistle*

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greasewood

Scirpus acutus Hardstem bulrush

Scirpus pungens var. polyphyllus Common threesquare

Sisymbrium altissimum Tumblemustard*

Solanum rostratum Buffalobur nightshade

Spartina pectinata Prairie cordgrass

Spergularia spp. Sandspurry

Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton

Stachys palustris Marsh hedgenettle

Suaeda calceoliformis Pursh seepweed

Symphyotrichum frondosum Short-rayed alkali aster

Tamarix ramosissima Saltcedar

Thelypodium integrifolium Entireleaved thelypody

Trifolium repens White clover

Triglochin maritimum Seaside arrowgrass

Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail

Xanthium strumarium var. canadense Canada cocklebur

Appendix K

List of Occurring and Potentially Occurring Bird Species

The following list of bird species were documented on Pathfinder NWR during surveys completed by the 

Murie Audubon Society from 2002 to 2007.

Scientific Name Common Name 

Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper

Aechmophorus occidentalis Western grebe

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird

Anas acuta Northern pintail

Anas americana American wigeon

Anas carolinensis Green-winged teal

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler

Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon teal

Anas discors Blue-winged teal

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard

Anas strepera Gadwall

Ardea herodias Great blue heron

Aythya affinis Lesser scaup

Aythya americana Redhead

Branta canadensis Canada goose

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead

Calamospiza melanocorys Lark bunting

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated sandpiper

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer

Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk

Eremophila alpestris Horned lark

Erolia bairdii Baird’s sandpiper 

Fulica americana American coot

Grus canadensis tabida Sandhill crane

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt

Larus argentatus Herring gull

Larus californicus California gull

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull

Larus pipixcan Franklin’s gull

Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed dowitcher

Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit

Micropalmata himantopus Stilt sandpiper

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron

Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher
110 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Scientific Name Common Name 

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope

Pinicola enucleator Pine grosbeak

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis

Podiceps auritus Horned grebe

Podiceps nigricollis Eared grebe

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow

Porzana carolina Sora

Recurvirostra americana American avocet

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark

Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs

Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs

Tringa semipalmata Willet

Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed blackbird

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove

In addition to the species listed in the table above, the following bird species potentially occur in the area but 

may or may not be present at Pathfinder NWR. 

Scientific Name Common Name

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk

Aechmophorus clarkii Clark’s grebe

Aix sponsa Wood duck

Anthus rubescens American pipit

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl

Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck

Aythya marila Greater scaup

Aythya valisineria Canvasback

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern

Bubo virginianus Great horned owl

Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret

Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye
Appendix K — List of Occurring and Potentially Occurring Bird Species 111

Scientific Name Common Name

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged hawk

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk

Butorides virescens Green heron

Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared longspur

Calcarius sandwichensis McGown’s longspur 

Calidris alba Sanderling

Carduelis pinus Pine siskin

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture

Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover

Chen caerulescens Snow goose

Chen rossii Ross’s goose

Chlidonias niger Black tern

Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier

Cistothorus palustris Marsh wren

Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening grosbeak

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow

Corvus corax Common raven

Cygnus columbianus Tundra swan

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler

Dendroica nigrescens Black-throated gray warbler

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler

Egretta thula Snowy egret

Erolia alpina Dunlin

Erolia mauri Western sandpiper

Erolia minutilla Least sandpiper

Euphagus carolinus Rusty blackbird

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon

Gallinago delicata Wilson’s snipe

Gavia immer Common loon

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern

Larus argentatus Herring gull
112 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

Scientific Name Common Name

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike

Leucosticte atrata Black rosy finch

Leucosticte australis Brown-capped rosy finch

Leucosticte tephrocotis Gray-crowned rosy finch

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser

Melanitta deglandi White-winged scoter

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow

Mergus merganser Common merganser

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel

Passer domesticus House sparrow

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow

Pica hudsonia Black-billed magpie

Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed towhee

Piranga ludoviciana Western tanager

Plectrophenax nivalis Snow bunting

Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe

Poecile atricapilla Black-capped chickadee

Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle

Rallus limicola Virginia rail

Riparia riparia Bank swallow

Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren

Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe

Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed hummingbird

Selasphorus rufus Rufous hummingbird

Sialia currucoides Mountain bluebird

Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern

Sterna hirundo Common tern

Sturnus vulgaris European starling

Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow

Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green swallow

Toxostoma rufum Brown thraser

Troglodytes aedon House wren

Turdus migratorius American robin 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird

Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow
Appendix L

List of Potentially Occurring Amphibian and Reptile Species

The following list of amphibian and reptile species was compiled from other national wildlife refuges in the 

state of Wyoming. The species listed below potentially occur in the area, but may or may not be present at 

Pathfinder NWR. 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Amphibians

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander

Phrynosoma platyrhinos Horned lizard

Pseudacris triseriata maculata Boreal chorus frog

Reptiles

Crotalus viridis Prairie rattlesnake 

Pituophis catenifer Bull snake

Appendix M

List of Potentially Occurring Mammal Species

The following list of mammal species was compiled from other national wildlife refuges in the state of 

Wyoming. The species listed below potentially occur in the area, but may or may not be present at Pathfinder 

NWR.

Scientific Name Common Name

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn

Canis latrans Coyote

Cervus canadensis Elk

Chaetodipus hispidus Hispid pocket mouse

Cynomys leucurus White-tailed prairie dog

Lepus townsendii White-tailed jackrabbit

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole

Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel

Mustela vison Mink

Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat

Perognathus fasciatus Wyoming pocket mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse

Procyon lotor Common raccoon

Reithrodontomys megalotis Western harvest mouse

Sorex cinereus Masked shrew

Spermophilus elegans Wyoming ground squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail

Tamias minimus Least chipmunk

Taxidea taxus American badger

Thomomys talpoides Northern pocket gopher

Vulpes vulpes Red fox

Appendix N

Compatibility Determinations

REFUGE NAME

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge

ESTABLIShING AND ACqUISITION 

AUThORITY

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Executive Order 

7425

REFUGE PURPOSES

“... as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and 

other wildlife...” (Executive Order 7425, dated 

August 1, 1936)

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

MISSION 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

1. descriPtioN oF use: recreatioNal huNtiNG

The use would be continuation of the existing hunting 

program, which includes ducks, coots, mergansers, 

deer, and pronghorn in accordance with dates and 

regulations established by the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission. The use would be conducted over 

the entire refuge.

Hunting is one of the six wildlife-dependent, priority 

public uses specified in the Improvement Act. It can 

be allowed at the refuge without interfering with the 

migratory bird resource.

When would the use be conducted?

Late-season upland game bird hunting and small 

game hunting would open on the day following the 

deer gun season. The upland game bird hunting 

season would close when the state season closes. The 

small game hunting season would close on March 31 

to reduce disturbance to waterfowl and other 

migratory birds. 

H

A state-issued unit permit would be required to 

hunt deer. All hunters must follow state regulations 

for hunted species. The refuge is closed to all other 

hunting activities. 

Availability of Resources

Resources involved in the administration and 

management of the use: None.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

necessary to support the use: None.

Maintenance costs: None.

Monitoring costs: None.

Offsetting revenues: None.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Short-term impacts: There may be temporary 

disturbance to nontarget wildlife near the activity. 

Animals surplus to populations would be removed by 

hunting, which may help ensure populations remain 

beneath the carrying capacity of available habitats.

Long-term impacts: Higher-quality habitats capable 

of supporting healthy populations of wildlife would 

result if animal populations (especially deer) remain 

beneath carrying capacity.

Cumulative impacts: There would be no direct or 

indirect cumulative impacts anticipated with this use.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the draft CCP and EA for the 

refuge. Public review and comment was achieved 

concurrently with the public review and comment 

period for the draft CCP and EA. 

Determination

Hunting is a compatible use at Pathfinder NWR.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Stipulations for the hunting program would be made 

available in the refuge’s hunting “tear sheet.” 
118 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

J

Hunting is a traditional and legislated wildlifedependent, priority public use. The current staff 

levels are adequate to ensure the activity takes place 

with minimum negative impacts to the refuge and 

its associated wildlife. Hunting at the refuge is a 

legitimate and necessary wildlife management tool 

that can be used to keep wild animal populations at 

healthy levels. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023

2. descriPtioN oF use: WildliFe obserVatioN

aNd PhotoGraPhy

The uses would be a continuation of existing public 

use programs and activities of and related to wildlife 

observation and photography. 

This CCP proposes to continue the above uses and 

add the following to improve wildlife observation and 

photography:

R Update and improve refuge signs.

R Update existing brochures to the Service’s 

graphic standards.

Wildlife observation and photography would be 

allowed year-round. However, access into the 

refuge would be limited during the deer gun 

and muzzleloader seasons; only hunters or those 

accompanying hunters (details in the “tear sheet”) 

would be allowed at the refuge during these seasons. 

The uses would occur over the entire refuge. Vehicle 

access would be restricted to the parking area at 

the interpretive overlook located off Highway 220. 

Supporting use (access) would be controlled and 

regulated through the publication of refuge “tear 

sheets” and brochures, and through information 

posted at the kiosks.

Wildlife observation and photography are two of the 

six wildlife-dependent, priority public uses specified 

in the Improvement Act. These uses and their 

supporting access-related uses can be allowed at the 

refuge without interfering with the migratory bird 

resource.

Availability of Resources

Currently, the programs for wildlife observation 

and photography are administered using available 

resources. Implementing new programs, activities, 

and facilities outlined in this CCP is tied to funding 

requests in the form of RONS and SAMMS projects.

Resources involved in the administration and 

management of the uses: None.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

necessary to support the uses: None.

Maintenance costs: None.

Monitoring costs: None.

Offsetting revenues: None.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Short-term impacts: Temporary disturbance may 

exist to wildlife near the activity. Direct, short-term 

impacts may include minor damage from traffic to 

refuge roads when wet and muddy. 

Long-term impacts: None.

Cumulative impacts: There would be no direct or 

indirect cumulative impacts anticipated with the 

continuation of these uses.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the draft CCP and EA for the 

refuge. Public review and comment was achieved 

concurrently with the public review and comment 

period for the draft CCP and EA.

Determination

Wildlife observation and photography, along with 

their supporting uses, are compatible uses at 

Pathfinder NWR.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Stipulations regarding the public use program would 

be made available in published refuge brochures. 

Dates, closed areas, and other information would be 

specified. 

J

Wildlife observation and photography are priority 

wildlife-dependent public uses acknowledged 

in the Improvement Act. These uses promote 

an appreciation for the natural resources at the 

refuge. Increased public stewardship will support 

and complement the Service’s actions in achieving 

the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The refuge contains unique habitats and supports 

wildlife populations—particularly migratory birds, 

upland game birds, and big game animals—in excess 

of what can be observed on neighboring private 

lands. These uses promote an appreciation for the 

natural resources at the refuge. Access into the 

refuge would be restricted during the deer gun and 

muzzleloader seasons for safety reasons. 

No significant adverse impacts to the wildlife 

resource are expected from the primary or 

supporting uses.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023
Appendix N — Compatibility Determinations 119

3. descriPtioN oF use: eNViroNmeNtal

educatioN aNd iNterPretatioN

The uses would be a continuation of environmental 

education and interpretative programs at current 

levels. Environmental education consists of activities 

conducted by refuge staff and partnerships. 

Interpretation occurs in less formal activities 

through exhibits, signs, and brochures. Visiting 

school and nonprofit groups would use the refuge as 

an outdoor classroom and tour site.

This CCP proposes to continue with the above uses 

and add the following to improve environmental 

education and interpretation activities for visitors:

R Update and improve refuge signs.

R Update existing brochures to the Service’s 

graphic standards.

These activities would be held during the 

daytime, most frequently while school is in session 

(September–May). Less frequently, nonprofit groups 

would be hosted during the summer months.

Refuge staff would provide the instruction and host 

classroom tours in most cases. When someone other 

than refuge personnel leads activities, a special use 

permit may be issued. Most activities would be at 

the interpretive overlook located off Highway 220. 

Occasionally, small groups would be led to interior 

portions of the refuge such as the riparian and 

wetland habitat areas.

Environmental education and interpretation are two 

of the six wildlife-dependent public uses specified in 

the Improvement Act. These uses can be allowed at 

the refuge without interfering with the migratory 

bird resource.

Availability of Resources

Currently, environmental education and 

interpretation programs are conducted using 

available resources. Implementing new programs, 

activities, and facilities outlined in this CCP is tied to 

funding requests in the form of RONS and SAMMS 

projects.

Resources involved in the administration and 

management of the uses: None.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

necessary to support the uses: None.

Maintenance costs: None.

Monitoring costs: None.

Offsetting revenues: None.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Short-term impacts: Temporary disturbance 

may exist to wildlife near the activities. Minimal 

disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitats will 

result from these uses at the current and proposed 

levels. Adverse impacts are minimized through 

careful timing and placement of activities. Minor 

damage to vegetation, littering, and increased 

maintenance may occur. These activities will have 

only minor impacts on wildlife and will not detract 

from the primary purposes of the refuge. 

Long-term impacts: These activities would increase 

local support of the refuge and increase knowledge of 

stewardship of natural resources to students young 

and old. 

Cumulative impacts: There would be no direct or 

indirect cumulative impacts anticipated with the 

continuation of these uses. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the draft CCP and EA for the 

refuge. Public review and comment was achieved 

concurrently with the public review and comment 

period for the draft CCP and EA. 

Determination

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible uses at Pathfinder NWR.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Anticipated impacts are assumed to be light; 

however, disturbance is almost an unavoidable 

impact of the interpretive and environmental 

education programs. However, it is through 

these activities that visitors would receive an 

understanding of proper etiquette and the impact 

people have on habitat and wildlife. This information 

and refuge-specific regulations would be available 

through visitor contacts, brochures, and kiosks. 

Periodic law enforcement would ensure compliance 

with regulations and area closures. 

J

Environmental education and interpretation are 

legislated, wildlife-dependent, priority public uses. 

Other than minor disturbance, they would have no 

impact to the resource. These uses would contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System by increasing 

knowledge and support of the stewardship of natural 

resources.

The refuge contains unique habitats and supports 

wildlife populations—particularly migratory birds, 

upland game birds, and big game animals—in excess 

of what can be observed on neighboring private 

lands. These uses promote an appreciation for natural 

resources and support for conservation programs at 

the refuge.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023
120 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

4. descriPtioN oF use: Prescribed GraziNG

Prescribed grazing is the use of livestock, usually 

cattle, to remove standing vegetation, reduce 

vegetative litter, suppress woody vegetation or 

noxious weeds, open up vegetation-choked wetlands, 

or open up areas to sunlight and encourage native 

grass seedlings and growth. Prescribed grazing is 

carefully timed, and usually of short duration (usually 

2–4 weeks), to target certain species for grazing 

impacts in order to benefit other species for growth 

after the competing vegetation has been removed.

Fence construction and maintenance (often a 

temporary electric fence) and control and rotation 

of the livestock are the responsibility of the 

cooperating private party. Market rate grazing 

fees are determined by the regional office, but may 

include standard deductions for fence construction 

and maintenance, frequent livestock rotations, 

construction of water gaps, or hauling/providing 

additional water in dry pasture.

This CCP proposes to continue with the above use 

and add the following to improve management of 

refuge upland habitats:

R Conduct upland vegetation surveys.

R Evaluate grazing program to determine 

appropriate stocking rates, duration, and so 

forth of grazing program.

R Install and maintain fencing, where 

appropriate, to manage grazing program.

Availability of Resources

Developing grazing plans and special use permits 

(SUPs) and monitoring compliance and biological 

effects require some Service resources. Most grazing 

management costs (fencing labor, monitoring and 

moving livestock, hauling water) are provided 

by the cooperator or permittee. Evaluating the 

grasslands for grazing prescriptions and grassland 

response is part of the refuge grassland management 

responsibilities. Some alternative form of grassland 

management, prescribed burning or haying, may 

be used if the areas are not treated with prescribed 

grazing. 

Managing grasslands through permitted haying 

has comparable costs to managing a prescribed 

grazing program. Managed mowing would be more 

expensive, since all labor costs would be assumed 

by the Service. Prescribed fire can be an effective 

grassland management tool, but there are personnel 

and weather limitations on a burning program, 

as well the fact that some tracts are not suited 

to burning management. In addition, there is an 

ecological benefit to rotating grassland management 

techniques, such as grazing, burning, and haying, 

at different seasons, rather than just relying on one 

technique.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Grazing by domestic livestock has the short-term 

effect of removing some or much of the standing 

vegetation from a tract of grassland. Properly 

prescribed, the effect of this removal of vegetation 

increases the vigor of the grassland, stimulates the 

growth of desired species of grass and forbs, and 

reduces the abundance of targeted species such as 

cool-season exotics, woody species, noxious weeds 

or invasive species, or cattails. Grazing in the 

spring may cause the loss of some bird nests due to 

trampling, and may cause some birds not to nest in 

areas being grazed. Grazing on public wildlife lands 

can create an aesthetic issue of concern for some 

people or visitors who do not understand grassland 

management. Prescribed grazing is usually of short 

duration and ultimately enhances the diversity and 

vigor of grassland habitats. Grazing livestock may 

create a minor and temporary disturbance to wildlife, 

but generally do no harm. There is a slight potential 

for conflict between the visiting public and the 

livestock or the permittee. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the draft CCP and EA for the 

refuge. Public review and comment was achieved 

concurrently with the public review and comment 

period for the draft CCP and EA.

Determination

As this activity is an economic use, it must meet 

the compatibility threshold of “contributing to the 

Mission and Purposes” of the Refuge System and 

refuge area. Prescribed grazing is used to improve 

and manage grassland habitats on refuges and 

benefit the migratory birds and other wildlife that 

use these habitats.

The use of grazing as a habitat management tool is 

compatible at Pathfinder NWR with the following 

stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

R SUPs will specify the stocking rates, dates of 

use, and timing for each unit or grazing cell on 

the refuge.

R The standard grazing fee, as determined for 

each state by the regional office, and any 

standard deductions for any labor or work done 

on Service lands will be included on the SUP.

R Grazing permittees must comply with all 

applicable state livestock health laws.

R No supplemental feeding will be allowed 

without authorization from the project leader/

refuge manager.

R Control and confinement of livestock will be the 

responsibility of the permittee.
Appendix N — Compatibility Determinations 121

R The permit is issued subject to the revocation 

and appeals procedure contained in Title 50, 

Part 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

J

Controlled grazing by domestic livestock will not 

materially interfere or detract from the purposes 

for which the refuge was established. Prescribed 

livestock grazing creates temporary disturbances to 

vegetation. Many of these disturbances are desirable 

for grassland management. Grazing produces an 

undesirable but short-term impact to grassland 

nesting birds and site aesthetics. In the long term, 

prescribed grazing increases grassland vigor, species 

diversity, and habitat quality. Prescribed grazing 

is an alternative management tool that can be used 

to replace or complement prescribed fire, mowing, 

or haying of Service grasslands. Without periodic 

disturbance caused by grazing the health of the 

grassland community would decline. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023

SIGNATURE

Ann Timberman 

Project Leader, Arapaho NWR Complex

USFWS, Region 6

Lloyd Jones 

Regional Compatibility Coordinator 

USFWS, Region 6

Bud Oliveira 

Refuge Supervisor 

USFWS, Region 6

CONCURRENCE

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

USFWS, Region 6

____________________________________________

 Date

____________________________________________

 Date

____________________________________________

 Date

____________________________________________

 Date

Appendix 0

Divestiture Model

INTRODUCTION

At the start of the comprehensive conservation 

plan process, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge 

was evaluated by the planning team to determine 

whether or not it warranted status as a national 

wildlife refuge. Following the analysis, the planning 

team decided to retain approximately 5,000 acres 

of Pathfinder NWR in the Refuge System due to 

the wildlife value of the Steamboat Lake area in the 

Sweetwater Arm Unit of the refuge. 

The divestiture model represents a set of criteria 

for measuring the value of a refuge. Designed as 

a preplanning tool, the model allows planners and 

refuge managers to determine whether or not a 

refuge unit should be considered for divestiture. 

If the model indicates that a refuge unit should 

be considered for divestiture, the process and 

consequences of divestiture will be studied further 

during the CCP process. 

In the case of Pathfinder NWR, the model indicated 

that although the majority of the refuge does not 

meet the purpose of the refuge and goals of the 

Refuge System, approximately 5,000 acres of the 

refuge provide valuable habitat for migratory birds. 

ThE DIvESTITURE MODEL 

The Mountain–Prairie Region’s divestiture model was 

developed during a two-day workshop held December 

14–15, 2004, at the regional office in Denver, Colorado. 

The purpose of the workshop was to develop a 

standard policy in the region for identifying which 

refuges to consider for divestiture. The model consists 

of a set of eight questions that must be addressed 

when considering a refuge for divestiture. 

Since its development, the model has been used 

to evaluate a number of refuges for divestiture 

consideration, with analysis resulting in the 

recommendation of some refuges for divestiture and 

others to be retained in the Refuge System. 

The questions were prioritized as primary and 

secondary criteria for evaluation. 

Primary criteria

1. Does the refuge achieve one or more of the 

Refuge System goals?

Yes. Forty species of waterfowl, wading birds, and 

shorebirds are known to use the Steamboat Lake 

area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit of the refuge for 

migration and nesting. Upland sagebrush habitats 

support sage-grouse and other sage-obligate species. 

The refuge also provides opportunities for public 

use including hunting, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

2. Does the refuge meets its purpose (fulfill the 

refuge’s intent and statutory purpose)?

Yes. The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge provides 

nesting and breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife.

3. Does the refuge provide substantial support 

for migratory bird species, provide important 

sheltering habitat for threatened and endangered 

species, or support species identified in authorizing 

legislation?

No. Refuge surveys indicate annual waterfowl, 

shorebird, and wading bird use of the refuge to 

number in the hundreds of pairs, which would not 

be considered substantial support in the region. 

Thousands of pairs would be considered substantial 

support in this region (Central Flyway). Currently, 

no known federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at the refuge.

4(a). Does the refuge have biological integrity? 

Yes. The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge is 

biologically intact with native riparian habitat and a 

small natural wetlands complex (approximately 5,000 

acres) that is independent of reservoir influences. 

Areas of the refuge that are influenced by the 

reservoir do not have biological integrity, as the 

system has been altered due to the construction of 

Pathfinder Dam. 

4(b). Does the Service have the ability, or can 

it reasonably acquire the ability, to restore the 

biological integrity of the habitat? 

No. Removal of the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir is 

not feasible. 
124 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

5. Does the refuge contribute to landscape 

conservation, provide a stepping stone for migratory 

birds, or serve as a unique habitat patch important 

to the conservation of a trust species?

Yes. The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge provides 

migration habitat for 40 species of waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds.

secoNdary criteria

6. Politics/Community—Is there such significant 

community interest in and support for the refuge 

that divestiture would result in unacceptable longterm public relations?

Possibly. Audubon Wyoming conducts avian surveys 

in the Steamboat Lake area and has initiated 

programs designed to encourage school groups to 

use the area (although the extent of such use is not 

known). The primary goal of Audubon Wyoming is to 

improve the area (specifically, the Steamboat Lake 

area) for wildlife. 

7. jurisdiction—Do we have or can we acquire 

the jurisdiction to meet the refuge’s purpose and 

the Refuge System mission and goals, and prevent 

incompatible uses?

No. The Bureau of Reclamation retains jurisdiction 

of the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir area for the 

North Platte and Missouri River Basin projects. 

Wildlife management cannot interfere with the 

operation of the dam and reservoir by Reclamation 

for reclamation purposes including flood control, 

irrigation, and the generation of hydroelectric power. 

Prevention of incompatible uses would involve 

shutting down or significantly altering traditional 

public uses (boating, fishing, camping, waterskiing, 

sailing, ATV use, etc.) with no indication that this 

would significantly improve habitat for wildlife in 

the area. Pathfinder NWR is a four-hour drive from 

refuge staff headquarters, making law enforcement 

and appropriate patrols difficult, if not impossible.

8. Other Land Manager—Can someone else achieve 

most or all of the purposes of the refuge without the 

Service having to incur costs? 

Yes. Reclamation, BLM, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Natrona County, and Audubon 

Wyoming already have a management history and 

presence on the refuge. With proper groundwork, 

BLM may be willing to manage upland areas in 

cooperation with Reclamation. Areas that BLM is not 

interested in managing may be managed by WGFD, 

Natrona County, or Audubon Wyoming.

RULES

The following five rules organize the responses to the 

above criteria questions and determine whether or 

not to consider a refuge for divestiture. 

Rule 1: IF the refuge cannot meet one or more 

Refuge System goals, THEN it should be considered 

for divestiture.

Rule 2: IF the answers to questions 1–4 are as 

follows, 

1. Yes—meets a Refuge System goal, but only the 

education goal

2. No—does not meet refuge purpose

3. No—does not substantially support trust species

4. No—does not possess biological integrity

THEN the refuge should be considered for 

divestiture. 

Rule 3: IF the answers to questions 1–5 are as 

follows, 

1. Yes—meets a Refuge System goal, but only the 

education goal

2. Yes—purpose

3. No—trust species

4. No—biological integrity 

5. No—connectivity 

THEN the refuge should be considered for 

divestiture. 

Rule 4: IF the answers to questions 1–6 are as 

follows, 

1. Yes—goal

2. Maybe—purpose

3. No—trust species

4. Yes—biological integrity

5. No—connectivity

6. Yes—jurisdiction

THEN keep the refuge (positive rule).

Rule 5: IF the answers to questions 1–3 are as 

follows, 

1. Yes—goal

2. Yes—purpose

3. Yes—trust species

THEN keep the refuge (positive rule).

R

According to rule 4 of the divestiture model, a 

refuge that answers “yes” to the first two questions 

(Refuge System goals, refuge purpose), “no” to 

the third question (substantial support for trust 

species), and “yes” to the fourth question (biological 

integrity) does not warrant further consideration for 

divestiture. 
Bibliography

Audubon Wyoming. Birds and science: IBAs in 

Wyoming. [Internet]. <http://www.audubon

wyoming.org/BirdSci_IBA_WY.html> accessed 4 

May 2008.

Autobee, Robert. 1996. Research on historic 

Reclamation projects. Denver, CO: Bureau of 

Reclamation History Program. [Pages unknown].

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW). 

1961. Annual narrative: Pathfinder National 

Wildlife Refuge. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. [Pages 

unknown]. 

———. 1962. Annual narrative: Pathfinder National 

Wildlife Refuge. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. [Pages 

unknown]. 

———. 1966. Annual narrative: Pathfinder National 

Wildlife Refuge. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Carver, Erin; Caudill, James. 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. 372 p. 

Cooper, D.J. 1986. Community structure and 

classification of Rocky Mountain wetland 

ecosystems. In: Windell, J.T.; Willard, B.E.; 

Cooper, D.J.; Foster, S.Q.; Knud-Hanson, C.F.; 

Rink, L.P.; Kiladis, G.N.; editors. An ecological 

characterization of Rocky Mountain montane 

and subalpine wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Report 86. 66–147.

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M.; Ansley, 

R.J.; Jessup, K.E. 2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen 

storage in response to fire in a temperate mixedgrass savanna. Journal of Environmental Quality 

35:1620–1628.

Dechant, J.A.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; Goldade, 

C.M.; Zimmerman, A.L.; Euliss, B.R. 2003. Effects 

of management practices on grassland birds: 

Wilson’s phalarope. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online (Version 

12DEC2003). <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/literatr/grasbird/wiph/wiph.htm> 

accessed 24 July 2007.

Dieter, C.D. 1990. Causes and effects of water 

turbidity: a selected annotated bibliography. 

Brookings, SD: South Dakota Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research Unit, South Dakota State 

University. Technical Bulletin Number 5. 64 p.

Fertig, W. 2000. Survey for Ute ladies’ tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) along the Sweetwater 

River in Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge. 

Report prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation 

by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, 

Laramie, WY. 15 p.

Kantrud, H.A. 1990. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton 

pectinatus L.): a literature review. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Resources Publication 176. 89 p.

———. 1991. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima L.): 

a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Fish and Wildlife Research 10. 58 p.

Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate 

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:707–718.

Kullberg, R.G. 1974. Distribution of aquatic 

macrophytes related to paper mill effluents in a 

southern Michigan stream. American Midland 

Naturalist 91(2):271–281.

Landfire. [Internet]. <http://www.landfire.gov/>. 

accessed 4 May 2008.

Larson, M.L.; Letts, R. 2003. Cultural resource 

overview of the Laramie Basin and Pathfinder 

Reservoir, Wyoming, and North Park, Colorado. 

Laramie, WY: George C. Frinson Institute of 

Anthropology and Archaeology, University of 

Wyoming. [Pages unknown].

Marzluff, J.M.; Ewing, K. 2001. Restoration of 

fragmented landscapes for the conservation 

of birds: a general framework and specific 

recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. 

Restoration Ecology 9(3):280–292.

Merrill, E.H.; Kohley, T.W.; Herdendorf, M.E.; 

Reiners, W.A.; Driese, K.L.; Marrs, R.W.; 

Anderson, S.H. 1996. Wyoming Gap Analysis: A 

geographic analysis of biodiversity, final report. 

Laramie, WY: Department of Zoology and 

Physiology, Department of Botany, and Wyoming 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

University of Wyoming. <http://www.wygisc.uwyo

.edu/wbn/content.html> accessed 3 May 2008.

Meyer, J.L.; Kaplan, L.A.; Newbold, D; Strayer, 

D.L.; Woltemade, C.J.; Zedler, J.B.; Beilfuss, R.; 

Carpenter, Q.; Semlitsch, R.; Watzin, M.C.; Zedler, 

P.H. 2003; revised 2007. Where rivers are born: the 

scientific imperative for defending small streams 

and wetlands. [Place of publication unknown]: 

American Rivers and the Sierra Club. 28 p. 
126 CCP, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, WY

<http://www.sierraclub.org/healthycommunities/

rivers/> accessed 4 May 2008.

Nelson, J.W.; Kadlec, J.A. 1984. A conceptual 

approach to relating habitat structure and 

macroinvertebrate production in freshwater 

wetlands. Transactions of the North American and 

Natural Resources Conference 49:262–270.

Nicholoff, S. H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming bird 

conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY: 

Wyoming Partners in Flight. <http://www

.partnersinflight.org/bcps/pl_86sum.htm> accessed 

3 May 2008. 

Oakleaf, B; Cerovski, A.O., Luce, B. 1996. Nongame 

bird and mammal plan: a plan for inventories and 

management of nongame birds and mammals in 

Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department. 184 p. <http://gf.state.wy.us/

wildlife/nongame/NongamePlan/> accessed 4 May 

2008.

Pashley, D.N.; Beardmore, C.J.; Fitzgerald, 

J.A.; Ford, R.P.; Hunter, W.C.; Morrison, 

M.S.; Rosenberg, K.V. 2000. Partners in 

Flight: Conservation of the land birds of the 

United States. The Plains, VA: American Bird 

Conservancy.

Ramirez P., Jr.; Dickerson, K.; Jennings, M. 1995. 

Trace element concentrations in water, sediment, 

and biota from Pathfinder National Wildlife 

Refuge, Natrona and Carbon counties, Wyoming. 

Cheyenne, WY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contaminant Report R6/708C/95. 13 p.

Stanley, T.R.; Knopf, F.L. 2000. Avian responses to 

late-season grazing in a shrub-willow floodplain. 

Conservation Biology 16 (1):225–231.

State of Wyoming, Wyoming Economic Analysis 

Division. 2007. Estimates of Wyoming and county 

population. [Internet]. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/

pop/CO-06EST.htm> accessed 21 January 2007.

Sudgen, L.G. 1973. Feeding ecology of pintail, 

gadwall, American widgeon, and lesser scaup 

ducklings in southern Alberta. Canadian Wildlife 

Service, Report Series 24. Ottawa, Canada. 45 p.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. The 

employment situation: October 2006. [Internet]. 

Revised November 3, 2006. <http://www.bls.gov/

news.release/archives/empsit_11032006.pdf> 

accessed 4 May 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. American FactFinder: 

Wyoming. [Internet]. <http://factfinder.census

.gov> accessed 4 May 2008.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil 

Energy and the Office of Science. 1999. Carbon 

sequestration research and development. 

Springfield, VA: National Technical Information 

Service. <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/

sequestration/publications/1999_rdreport/> 

accessed 24 July 2007.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation (USBR). North Platte Project, 

Nebraska and Wyoming. [Internet]. <http://www

.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/northplatte.html> 

accessed 4 May 2008. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Atlas of 

the United States. Wyoming federal lands and 

Indian reservations map. 2005. [Internet]. <http://

nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/

wy.pdf> accessed 21 January 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

2007a. AirData: air quality index report (Carbon 

and Natrona counties, Wyoming). [Internet]. 

<http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/> accessed 4 May 

2008.

———. 2007b. AirData: county air quality report–

criteria air pollutants (Carbon and Natrona 

counties, Wyoming). [Internet]. <http://http://

www.epa.gov/oar/data/> accessed 4 May 2008.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. 

Fulfilling the promise. Arlington, VA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 94 p.

———. 2002. Annual report. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages 

unknown].

Voights, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance 

in relation to changing marsh vegetation. 

American Midland Naturalist 95(2): 313–322.

Western Regional Climate Center. Pathfinder Dam, 

Wyoming: NCDC 1971–2000 monthly normals. 

[Internet]. <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/

cliMAIN.pl?wy7105> accessed 4 May 2008.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2006. 

Wyoming Game and Fish ENewsletter. 

[Internet]. <http://gf.state.wy.us/services/news/

newsletter/06/01/060106_4.asp> accessed 4 May 

2008. 

Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee. 

2002. Wyoming guidelines for managing 

sagebrush communities with emphasis on fire 

management. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department; Wyoming Bureau of Land 

Management. 53 p.

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2006. 

Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 

Unpublished data.