Socioeconomic Issues for the Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area Land Protection Plan

By Catherine Cullinane Thomas, Christopher Huber, William Gascoigne, and Lynne Koontz

Open-File Report 2012–1039

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Thomas, C.C., Huber, Christopher, Gascoigne, William, and Koontz, Lynne, 2012, Socioeconomic issues 

for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection Plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2012–1039, 15 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

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

Socioeconomic Profile ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Population.................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Ethnicity and Education.............................................................................................................................................. 2

Regional Economy, Employment, and Income .......................................................................................................... 3

Commodity Industries, Recreation, and Tourism....................................................................................................... 5

Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding the Refuge ........................................................................................ 6

Current Land Use....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Changes in Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Conservation Easements........................................................................................................................................... 8

Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation Easements ....................................................................................... 9

Conservation Value................................................................................................................................................ 9

Benefits to Local Communities............................................................................................................................... 9

Landowner Compensation.....................................................................................................................................10

Effects on Local Government Net Revenue ..........................................................................................................11

Effects on Local Government Revenues ...........................................................................................................11

Effects on Local Government Costs ..................................................................................................................11

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................12

Tables

1. Population statistics ................................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Income, education, unemployment, and poverty..................................................................................................... 4

3. Percentage employment by sector.......................................................................................................................... 5

4. Social and economic impacts of conservation easements .................................................................................... 12
Socioeconomic Issues for the Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area Land Protection Plan

By Catherine Cullinane Thomas, Christopher Huber, William Gascoigne, and Lynne Koontz

Introduction

The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA) is located in the Bear River Watershed, a 

vast basin covering fourteen counties across three states. Located in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho, the 

watershed spans roughly 7,500 squares miles (mi2): 1,500 mi2 in Wyoming; 2,700 mi2 in Idaho; and 3,300 

mi2 in Utah (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004). Three National Wildlife Refuges are currently 

contained within the boundary of the BRWCA: the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah, the Bear 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Idaho, and the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in 

Wyoming. 

In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) conducted a Preliminary Project Proposal 

(PPP), and identified the BRWCA to have high value wildlife habitat. This finding initiated the Land 

Protection Planning (LPP) process, which is used by the Service to study land conservation opportunities 

including adding lands to the National Wildlife Refuge System (the Refuge System). The Service 

proposes to include part of the BRWCA in the Refuge System by acquiring up to 920,000 acres of 

conservation easements from willing landowners to maintain landscape integrity and habitat connectivity 

in the region. The analysis described in this report provides a profile of the social and economic conditions 

in the BRWCA and addresses social and economic questions and concerns raised during public 

involvement in the LPP process.

Socioeconomic Profile

Population

The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA) spans fourteen counties: two in 

Wyoming, six in Utah, and six in Idaho. Table 1 lists population statistics for these fourteen counties and 

three additional counties (Bonneville County, Idaho; Teton County, Idaho; and Teton County, Wyo.), 

which, although outside of the watershed basin, have significant economic importance to the region. The 

fourteen-county region (which excludes the three out-of-basin counties) has a population of roughly 2.9 

million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Population growth is expected throughout much of the region 

with most of the growth centered on the Cache Valley. Located in the western portion of the Bear River 

Basin in Utah, the Cache Valley is currently the most populated area in the basin. The valley’s population 

is estimated to double from 2000 levels to 297,597 by 2050 (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004). 

Population growth in the Cache Valley is partly due to the valley’s proximity to the metropolitan Wasatch 

Front. The eastern portion of the basin has historically been sparsely populated and is expected to continue 

on this trend (Toth and others, 2010). The northern portion of the basin (which includes the Star Valley) 

and the three out-of-basin counties of interest (which include the Teton Valley) have high development 

value and are likely to face management issues in the future. 

The State of Utah has experienced a population increase of 24 percent from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2010). The six Utah counties that are part of the Bear River Watershed have experienced 
2

similar population-growth trends. With more than 112,000 residents, Cache County has grown the fastest 

with a population increase of 64 percent since 2000, and has the second largest population among the six 

Utah counties. Weber County, which has grown by 18 percent since 2000, has the largest population 

among these six counties with more than 231,000 residents, and has the highest population density with 

402 persons/mi2. The population in Box Elder County, where the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge is 

located, has grown by 17 percent in the last decade.

Idaho has experienced similar growth in population with an increase of 21 percent since 2000 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). However, unlike Utah, not all Idaho counties that are part of the BRWCA 

have experienced an increase in population. Two counties, Caribou County and Bear Lake County, have 

decreased in population by 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively. Bear Lake County, where the Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge is located, has a population of nearly 6,000 residents. With nearly 83,000 

residents, Bannock County has the largest population of the Idaho counties located within the watershed, 

and has grown by 10 percent since 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). 

The population in Wyoming has increased by 14 percent since 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). 

Lincoln County, home to the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, has grown by 24 percent

since 2000, making it the county with the fastest growing population among the Wyoming counties in the 

conservation area. 

Bonneville County, Idaho, Teton County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyo., are included in the 

socioeconomic profile due to their development patterns and their potential economic impacts on the 

entire watershed; however, they are not part of the fourteen-county region in which the BRWCA is 

located. Among the Idaho counties in table 1, Teton County and Bonneville County have experienced the 

greatest population growth since 2000, with Teton County growing by 70 percent and Bonneville County 

growing by 26 percent over the decade. Bonneville County has the largest population of the Idaho

counties with more than 100,000 residents, and includes a portion of the Star Valley which has 

experienced high development rates in recent years. The Star Valley straddles the Idaho-Wyoming border 

roughly 30 miles north of the BRWCA. Further north of Star Valley is Teton Valley, which spans the 

Idaho-Wyoming border into Teton County, Idaho and Teton County, Wyo. The population in Teton 

County, Idaho and Teton County, Wyoming has increased by 70 percent and 17 percent, respectively,

since 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). These two regions, Star Valley and Teton Valley, have 

potentially high development values and may impact the Bear River Watershed in the future. 

Ethnicity and Education

Relative to other counties in the fourteen-county region, Power County, Idaho has the largest 

percentage of individuals who identified as Hispanic or Latino on the 2010 Census (30 percent of the 

population) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Power County, Idaho also had the lowest percentage of persons 

who identified as white (75 percent of the population). Cokeville County, Wyo., and Morgan County, 

Utah, had the lowest percentage of persons who identified as Hispanic or Latino (2 percent of the 

population). Cokeville, Wyo., had the highest percentage of individuals who identified as white (99

percent of the population). 

Table 2 shows the percent of the population that has obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher within 

each of the BRWCA states and counties. Of the three states, Utah has the highest percentage of 

individuals with at least a bachelor’s degree (29 percent of the population), followed by Idaho (24 percent)

and Wyoming (23 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Among the Utah counties, Summit County and 

Cache County have a higher percentage of the population with a bachelor’s degree relative to the state 

average (48 percent and 35 percent, respectively). Among Idaho counties, Teton County, Bannock 

County, and Bonneville County have greater percentages of the population with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher relative to the state average (28 percent, 27 percent and 26 percent of residents, respectively). In 
3

Table 1. Population statistics for counties in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming that contain the Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area (BRWCA). 

Residents (2010) Persons per square mile Percentage population 

change since 2000

Utah 2,763,885 33.6 24

Cache County 112,656 96.7 64

Rich County 2,264 2.2 16

Summit County 36,324 19.4 22

Weber County 231,236 401.8 18

Morgan County 9,469 15.5 33

Box Elder County 49,975 8.7 17

Idaho 1,567,582 18.9 21

Power County 7,817 5.6 4

Bannock County 82,839 74.4 10

Oneida County 4,286 3.6 4

Franklin County 12,786 19.2 13

Caribou County 6,963 3.9 -5

Bonneville Countya 101,234 55.8 26

Teton Countya 10,170 22.6 70

Bear Lake County 5,986 6.2 -7

Wyoming 563,626 5.8 14

Uinta County 21,118 10.1 7

Teton Countya 21,294 5.3 17

Lincoln County 18,106 4.4 24

Source: (Utah Governors Office of Planning Budget, 2008)

a.Indicates counties outside of the BRWCA

Wyoming, the only county with a rate higher than the state average is Teton County, with 50 percent of 

residents having a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Regional Economy, Employment, and Income

Table 2 shows median household income and poverty rates for each of the BRWCA States and 

counties. Among the three States, Utah had the highest median household income in 2009 ($55,183 per 

year), followed by Wyoming ($54,400), and Idaho ($44,644 per year) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Idaho

had the highest statewide poverty rate at 14.4 percent, and Wyoming had the lowest (10.2 percent). Within 

the fourteen-county region, Morgan County, Utah had the highest median household income ($75,164 per 

year) and the lowest poverty rate (4.9 percent). Power County, Idaho had the lowest median household 

income ($38,509 per year) and one of the highest poverty rates (16.6 percent). The highest poverty rate in 

the fourteen-county region was in Cache County at 16.7 percent. Although all but two of the counties in 

Idaho had poverty rates less than the statewide average, none had a poverty rate less than 10 percent. In 

2009, each of the counties in Wyoming had a poverty rate lower than the statewide average and a median 

household income level higher than statewide average. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009)
4

Table 2. Income, education, unemployment, and poverty rates for counties in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming that 

contain the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA).

Median household 

income (2009)

Bachelor's degree 

or higher

Percentage unemployed Percentage of 

individuals below 

2008 2011 poverty (2009)

Utah $55,183 29 3.8 7.5 11.7

Cache County $47,064 35 2.9 6.0 16.7

Rich County $53,783 26 2.8 4.9 10.1

Summit County $73,769 48 3.5 6.6 7.3

Weber County $53,094 22 4.4 8.7 12.5

Morgan County $75,164 25 3.5 6.3 4.9

Box Elder County $52,867 22 4.2 9.3 9.6

Idaho $44,644 24 4.8 9.4 14.4

Power County $38,509 20 5.0 8.4 16.6

Bannock County $44,451 27 4.4 8.4 14.5

Oneida County $43,057 16 3.3 5.3 12.8

Franklin County $45,404 16 3.1 6.0 10.6

Caribou County $51,060 18 3.4 7.4 10.9

Bonneville Countya $49,446 26 3.3 7.1 11.9

Teton Countya $57,999 28 2.7 5.2 10.3

Bear Lake County $42,199 16 3.1 5.0 13.0

Wyoming $54,400 23 3.2 5.8 10.2

Uinta County $64,284 17 2.9 5.1 9.0

Teton Countya $68,777 50 3.0 4.6 5.8

Lincoln County $59,160 17 3.6 6.6 8.0

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 (mean household income and percentage of individuals below poverty in 2009)

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a) (July 2011 unemployment)

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011b) (2011 county unemployment estimates)

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008) (2008 county unemployment estimates)

a

Indicates counties outside of the BRWCA

Table 3 shows the percent of employment by sector within the fourteen-county region. The 

combined fourteen-county region had a total non-farm employment of more than 265,000 individuals in 

2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The highest percentage of total employment was found in educational 

services, health care, and social assistance (20 percent of non-farm employment). This is in part due to the 

high population and abundance of educational and health care centers in Cache County, Utah (home to 

Utah State University) and Weber County, Utah. The second and third highest percentage of total 

employment in 2010 was in manufacturing (14 percent) and retail trade (12 percent). Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, hunting, and mining made up an estimated 4 percent of the total employment by sector. 
5

Table 3. Percentage employment by sector for counties in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming that contain the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA). 

Employment sectors Percentage of fourteen

-county region employed

Total non-farm employment in 2010a 265,495

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining 4

Construction 8

Manufacturing 14

Wholesale trade 3

Retail trade 12

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4

Information 2

Finance and insurance, and real estate, rental, and leasing 5

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste-management services 8

Educational services, health care, and social assistance 20

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 9

Other services, except public administration 3

Public administration 7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011

a

Not every sector category for every county was fully disclosed due to confidentiality requirements; the table reflects the 

best and most accurate information available.

Commodity Industries, Recreation, and Tourism

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining accounted for roughly 4 percent of total jobs in 

the fourteen-county region in 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The total number of agriculture jobs 

decreased from nearly 14,000 jobs in 1970 to 10,600 in 2009 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010a [data 

complied using EPS-HDT]). Oneida County, Idaho had the largest percentage of employment in 

agriculture (23 percent), and Weber County, Utah had the smallest (0.87 percent) (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2010a; U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010b [data complied using EPS-HDT]). Weber 

County, Utah also had the smallest percentage of land area in agriculture (29 percent), while Morgan 

County, Utah had the largest (more than 77 percent of total land in agriculture) (U.S. Departmnet of 

Agriculture, 2009 [data complied using EPS-HDT]) . 

Regional employment in timber represents a small fraction of total employment and has decreased 

in the fourteen-county region since 1999 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010b [data complied using 

EPS-HDT]). As a percentage of the total regional employment, timber has decreased from 0.76 percent to 

0.38 percent from 1998 to 2009. During this period, employment in timber-related fields shrank from 

1,500 to 877 jobs (a 41-percent decrease); sawmill and paper mill employment decreased by 71 percent, 

and wood product manufacturing declined by 35 percent. 

Mining also represents a relatively small percentage of total employment for many of the counties 

in the region, but has increased slightly since 1998 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010b [data complied 

using EPS-HDT]). Mining accounted for less than 1 percent of total employment in 2009 for all but three 

counties in the fourteen-county region. Caribou County, Idaho had more than 23 percent of total 

employment in mining; Oneida County, Idaho had more than 12 percent, and Franklin County, Idaho had 

2.5 percent. The combined region had roughly 0.6 percent of total employment in mining in 2009, up from 

0.38 percent in 1998. From 1998 to 2009, the total number of mining jobs in the region increased by 84
6

percent from 750 jobs to 1,381 jobs. Within the mining sector, nonmetallic mineral mining jobs increased 

by 124 percent, oil and gas extraction jobs decreased by 64 percent, and metal ore mining jobs decreased 

to zero jobs by 2009 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010b [data complied using EPS-HDT]). One of 

the most economically significant non-metallic mining activities during the past 50 years has been 

phosphate extraction, with roughly 40 percent of the U.S. reserves located in southeastern Idaho (Van 

Every, 2004). 

According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 

approximately 2.9 million residents participated in wildlife-associated recreation activities in Utah, Idaho, 

and Wyoming in 2006 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008). It was estimated that residents and visitors 

combined spent $3.3 billion on wildlife-associated recreation activities in 2006 in the three states 

combined. Among participants, wildlife watching was the most frequently reported activity followed by 

fishing and hunting. In Wyoming, 84 percent of individuals surveyed watched wildlife, 27 percent fished, 

and 13 percent hunted; in Utah, 77 percent watched wildlife, 33 percent fished, and 15 percent hunted; and 

in Idaho, 75 percent watched wildlife, 35 percent fished, and 19 percent hunted (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2008). Following the national trend, wildlife viewing has become increasingly popular while 

hunting and fishing have decreased or remained stable in popularity. From 1996 to 2006, it was found that 

the number of Idaho residents who went fishing declined by 21 percent and hunting declined by 33

percent. Wyoming residents who went fishing declined by 19 percent, while hunting and wildlife viewing 

numbers remained relatively constant. During the same time period, Utah residents who watched wildlife 

increased by 30 percent, while hunting and fishing remained relatively constant.

Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding the Refuge 

Current Land Use

The Bear River originates in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah’s Uinta Mountains, 

meanders through the mountains and foothills of Utah and Wyoming into the foothills and valleys of 

Idaho and Utah, and terminates its course in the Great Salt Lake. The Upper Bear River area is located in 

part of Summit and Uinta counties, Utah, and Lincoln County, Wyo. The headwaters of the Bear River, 

near the border of Summit and Uinta counties, is forested; the remaining land cover in the high elevation 

Upper Bear River area is primarily grasslands and shrublands, with about three-quarters of the land used 

for grazing (Utah Water Research Laboratory, 2011). As of 2006, about 63 percent of the land in the 

Upper Bear counties was federally owned, primarily by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.

Forest Service; about 24 percent of the land was privately owned, 4 percent was State owned, and 7

percent was tribally owned (Conservation Biology Institute, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). Very 

few people live in the Upper Bear River area; the largest municipalities in the region are Evanston and 

Cokeville, Wyo., and Randolph and Woodruff, Utah (Utah Water Research Laboratory, 2011). 

The Middle Bear River area is located in part of Bear Lake, Caribou, Franklin, Bannock, Oneida, 

and Power Counties in Idaho. Grasslands and shrublands account for about 77 percent of the land cover in 

the Middle Bear Counties, and croplands account for about 11 percent of the land cover. As of 2006, 

urban development accounts for only about 0.2 percent of the land cover in these counties; the largest 

municipalities in the region are Grace, Preston, Montpelier, Soda Springs, and Malad City, Idaho, and 

Richmond, Smithfield, North Logan, and Garden City, Utah (NASA, 2006 [data complied using EPSHDT]); Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004). As of 2006, landownership in the Middle Bear River 

counties was 48 percent private, 38 percent Federal, 5 percent state, and 6 percent tribal (Conservation 

Biology Institute, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). 

The Lower Bear River area includes part of Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Weber, and Morgan Counties 

in Utah. The rich soil and abundant water in this portion of the Bear River Basin support a mix of urban 

and agricultural uses. About 9 percent of the land cover in the Lower Bear counties is water. Mixed 
7

croplands account for 21 percent of the land cover in the Lower Bear counties, with croplands 

concentrated in Cache, Weber, and Morgan Counties (NASA, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). As 

of 2006, about 1.6 percent of the land in these counties is urban development, with much of the 

development concentrated in the Cache Valley (NASA, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). Major 

municipalities within the Lower Bear River area include Ogden, Brigham City, Logan, and Tremonton, 

Utah. As of 2006, landownership in the Lower Bear counties was 52 percent private, 31 percent Federal, 

and 6 percent state owned (Conservation Biology Institute, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). 

Changes in Land Use

The Bear River watershed is located in both the Pacific and Central migratory flyways, and 

provides one of the most significant resting, staging, feeding, breeding, and nesting areas for large 

populations of migratory birds and waterfowl traveling these flyways (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2010). The watershed also provides habitat for species such as the Greater sage grouse, Columbian sharptailed grouse, Bonneville cutthroat trout, pronghorn antelope, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, and 

gray wolf (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). These species benefit from the three existing refuges in 

the watershed but also utilize and depend on adjacent public and private lands and waters. In 2009, The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) conducted a Conservation Action Planning (CAP) study in the Bear River 

Watershed and found residential development and water-allocation policies to be the greatest threats to 

wildlife conservation in the watershed (The Nature Conservancy, 2010). 

Much of the land cover in the BRWCA is comprised of a mix of public lands and large tracts of 

privately owned ranchlands and croplands. Private ranchlands and croplands provide dual benefits by 

supplying wildlife habitat on working landscapes. These valuable landscapes are threatened by residential 

development. In 2000, the American Farmland Trust identified 4.0 million acres of prime ranchlands1 in 

Idaho, 3.4 million acres in Utah, and 2.6 million acres in Wyoming as being vulnerable to low-density 

development by the year 2020, with ranchlands located in high mountain valleys and mixed grassland 

areas surrounding the Rocky Mountains at highest risk of conversion. Within the Rocky Mountain Region 

(which includes 263 counties in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico),

Uinta County, Wyo., and Summit County, Utah ranked in the top 25 counties for acres of strategic 

ranchland2 at risk (American Farmland Trust, 2000). 

Development risk for ranchlands and farmlands is largely driven by population growth and 

housing demand. Human populations have been expanding rapidly in the three Bear River states, and are 

projected to continue growing. The Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects that the 

population in Utah will increase by more than 250 percent between 2008 and 2060 (from 2.7 million to 

6.84 million people), with Cache and Box Elder Counties housing an increasing share of the state’s 

population. To accommodate this growth, 32,000 new households are expected to be built statewide every 

year, resulting in a 75 percent increase in developed land and a 7.3 percent loss of agricultural land by 

2030 (Utah Governors Office of Planning and Budget, 2008). In Wyoming, Lincoln County has seen a 

24.3 percent population growth over the last decade (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), with about 200 new 

homes built each year (Royster and Gearino, 2006), and Uinta County has experienced 7.0 percent

population growth over the decade. Ranches in the Star Valley (located in Lincoln County, just south of 

Teton County) are rapidly being lost to development. The picturesque Star Valley is in close proximity to 

Jackson Hole and has become a popular location for second-home owners and people commuting to 

Jackson. High land prices have spurred many longtime ranchers to sell their land to developers (Royster 

and Gearino, 2006). The Valley once supported about 200 full-time dairy operations; as of 2006, there 

 1 Prime ranchlands are defined as ranchland with high quality agricultural land and desirable wildlife characteristics. 

2 Strategic ranchlands are defined as both prime and threatened. Threatened ranchlands are located in rural areas projected to

grow to suburban density within 20 years or are along major road corridors in counties with growth rates great than 10 percent 

per decade.
8

were only about six dairy farms left (Royster and Gearino, 2006). Idaho has also seen a large boom in 

population over the past decade. The percent of population growth in Idaho ranks fourth nationally, with

21 percent growth between 2000 and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Much of the growth in Idaho has 

been in urban areas, with 80 percent of the State’s growth occurring in metropolitan counties (State of 

Idaho Department of Labor, 2011). Idaho counties within the BRWCA have seen less growth, and Bear 

Lake and Caribou counties have seen a decline in population over the decade. Of the BRWCA counties in 

Idaho, Franklin and Bannock counties have experienced the greatest growth (12.9 percent and 9.6 percent

growth over the decade, respectively). 

Ecosystems in the three existing refuges in the Bear River Watershed are highly dependent on 

water availability. Since the Bear River Watershed is considered one of the last areas of Utah with a 

developable water supply, there is a concern that development pressure and demand for water will 

negatively impact sensitive refuge habitat and ecosystems (Toth and others, 2010). With much of the 

undeveloped water claimed by municipalities along the Wasatch Front, it has been estimated that one fifth 

of the current Bear River flows could be diverted within the next 50 years (Utah State University 

Extension, 2006). Agricultural operations, roads, dams, and grazing practices along sensitive riparian 

environments have contributed to the degradation of the main stem Bear River (Utah State University 

Extension, 2006; Utah Water Research Laboratory, 2011). Although flood irrigation has provided water 

for many waterfowl that use the valley, irrigation threatens to lower the water table of the watershed and 

in turn threatens ranching and conservation efforts. 

Conservation Easements

One of the Service’s high-priority objectives is to guide residential and commercial development 

away from high-priority conservation areas by securing appropriate conservation easements. The purpose 

of the BRWCA is to conserve critical resources in the watershed that have direct positive impacts on the 

management of the three existing refuges (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Conservation of these 

key habitats will be accomplished through the purchase of conservation easements from willing land 

owners. Conservation easements leave land in private ownership, protecting private property rights, while 

providing the Service with a cost-effective conservation strategy that enables the conservation of large 

blocks of habitat. Within the BRWCA, the Service proposes to protect up to 920,000 acres of significant 

wildlife habitat to maintain landscape integrity and habitat connectivity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2010).

A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement entered into between a landowner and a 

conservation entity. Conservation easements are binding in perpetuity; the landowner reserves the right to 

sell or bequeath the property, but the easement and its associated restrictions remain with the property in 

perpetuity. Under a conservation easement, a landowner maintains ownership of their property, but 

transfers some of their ownership rights to the conservation entity. Landowners have a set of rights 

associated with their land. For example, landowners have the right to run cattle, grow crops, harvest trees, 

build structures, and subdivide and sell part of their land. The most common right transferred under a 

conservation easement is the right to develop or subdivide the land. 

Conservation easements in the BRWCA may require the transfer of additional rights. A 

conservation easement on a parcel of land may have restrictions on the development of vertical structures 

(including wind turbines and buildings). The significant concern with vertical structures in the Bear River 

Watershed is the potential negative impact on sage grouse populations; a conservation easement that 

precludes vertical structures may protect critical sage grouse habitat cover. Roughly 60 percent of the Bear 

River Watershed is shrub-steppe, and protection of this land cover may provide an opportunity for crucial 

habitat protection for sage grouse (Dobkin and Sauder, 2004; Rich and others, 2005; Rowland and others, 

2005). Water sources on private lands also provide critical habitat in the BRWCA. Protecting these 

sources of water will be a key objective within the Conservation Area, and easement agreements may 
9

include restrictions on the sale or diversion of water from the land. Water laws are sensitive to State 

requirements; therefore, water issues will need to be addressed individually for each easement (Utah State 

University Extension, 2006). In all cases, the terms of a conservation easement must be mutually agreed 

upon by the landowner and the easement holder. 

Subsurface rights are often severed from the surface rights of a parcel of land. Conservation 

easements only apply to surface rights; therefore the mineral interest may be extracted at any time by the 

person who holds the qualified mineral right (Byers and Ponte, 2005). For this reason, the Service is 

unlikely to enter into a conservation easement agreement for a parcel of land that has a viable subsurface 

mineral interest. Exceptions may be made if the parcel has high habitat value and the probability of 

mineral extraction is low. 

Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation Easements

Conservation easements are a public good that generate benefits for local residents, communities, 

and governments. Easements also reshape future development patterns, affect property values, and inject 

new money into local communities. There are many dynamic variables at play when considering the social 

and economic effects of conservation easements. This analysis addresses the following effects of 

conservation easements in the BRWCA:

• Conservation values in the region, 

• Benefits to local communities,

• Landowner compensation, and

• Effects to local government net revenue.

Table 4, located at the end of this section, provides a summary of the social and economic impacts of 

conservation easements in the BRWCA.

Conservation Value

 Conservation easements can protect values associated with biodiversity and wildlife abundance, 

maintain aesthetic beauty, and protect social and culturally significant features of landscapes and 

livelihoods (Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment, 2005; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1992; Daily, 1997). 

Ecosystem services, such as water purification, oxygen production, pollination, and waste breakdown, are 

also maintained for local residents through conservation easements (Millennium Ecosystem Service 

Assessment, 2005). The primary public benefit of Service conservation easements is enhanced and 

preserved wildlife habitat. As development stressors increase over time, many key off-refuge habitat areas 

may become less available due to conversion to non-wildlife habitat uses. Habitat preservation has been 

shown to stabilize and increase wildlife populations (Reynolds and others, 2001). Conservation easements 

on private lands strengthen the resiliency of species habitat and provide opportunities for wildlife 

movement and adaptation for years to come. 

Benefits to Local Communities

Although local residents may not be able to explicitly use or access land protected by conservation 

easements, protected lands act as a buffer which benefits residents through increased biodiversity, 

recreational quality, and hunting opportunities on publicly accessible wildlife refuges and on some private 

lands (Rissman and others, 2007). It is well documented that open space carries positive values to local 

residents and communities, as well as to passers-by (McConnell and Walls, 2005). This is evidenced by 

the success of open space preservation ballot initiatives at the local, county, and state levels. Banzhaf and 

others (2006) point out that between 1997 and 2004, over 75 percent of the more than 1,100 referenda on 

open space conservation that appeared on ballots across the United States passed, most by a wide margin. 
10

It is also well documented that open space and protected natural areas can increase surrounding 

property values (see McConnell and Walls, 2005, for a comprehensive review). The reciprocating value of 

open space on property values will vary depending on landscape characteristics and location attributes (for 

example, distance to the conserved area) (Kroger, 2008). The permanence of the open space is also an 

influencing factor. Typically, open space that is permanently protected (such as refuge lands and lands 

protected with perpetual conservation easements) will generate a higher enhancement value of local 

properties than land that has the potential for future development (Geoghegan and others, 2003). Location 

and demographic factors in the region can also influence the relative level of property enhancement value. 

For instance, open space may generate larger amenity premiums for property in more urbanized areas and 

where median incomes are higher (Netusil and others, 2000); this is not to say there isn’t the chance for 

property values to increase substantially in rural areas as well (Vrooman, 1978; Phillips, 2000; Crompton, 

2001; Thorsnes, 2002). 

Conservation easement purchases may also inject new money into the local economy. The sale of 

conservation easements provides landowners with additional revenue. Landowners may spend some 

percentage of these funds in the local economy, including purchasing new real estate, consumer goods, or 

services in the local area. This spending activity can directly impact local industries (such as construction 

and various service sectors), with additional indirect impacts to follow suit. 

Conservation easements may also help maintain the character of a region by protecting a 

traditional and historic way of life and the associated working landscape. Land with historic commercial 

use, such as ranching, forestry, and farming, is often compatible with or beneficial to wildlife refuge 

objectives (Jordan and others, 2007; Rissman and others, 2007). Conservation easements provide financial 

benefits for landowners that may enable them to preserve the natural and historic value of their farm, 

ranch, and open space lands, and to pass this legacy on to their children and grandchildren. 

Landowner Compensation 

The Service proposes to buy conservation easements from willing sellers at fair market value. The 

fair market value of a conservation easement is determined through an appraisal process. An appraiser 

estimates how much the land would sell for unencumbered by the conservation easement (the “before”

value) and how much the land would sell for with the conservation easement in place (the “after” value). 

The value of the conservation easement is equal to the before value minus the after value, or the difference 

in the fair market value of the property with and without the easement. Landowners may also choose to 

donate conservation easements to the Service. The donation of a conservation easement may qualify as a 

tax-deductible charitable donation, which may result in Federal income tax benefits. The sale of a 

conservation easement for less than its fair market value (called a “bargain sale”) may also qualify for tax 

deductions. Landowners may be able to claim a charitable income-tax donation equal to the difference 

between the fair market value and the bargain sale price of their easement. Income from the sale of a 

conservation easement may be taxable. Please note that the Service does not give tax advice. Landowners 

considering entering into a conservation agreement with the Service should consult a tax advisor or 

attorney for advice on how a conservation easement would affect their taxes and estate. 

Conservation easements reduce the value of the encumbered property. A conservation easement 

will reduce the fair market value of an estate, because the easement permanently removes some of the 

estate’s development potential. The reduction in value depends on the potential development value of the 

land and the level of restriction agreed upon in the easement. In general, an easement on land located in an 

area with high development pressure will have a greater effect on the value of the land than an easement 

on land located in an area with low development pressure, and an easement that is more restrictive will 

have a greater effect on the value of the land than an easement that is less restrictive. The Service will 

purchase easements at their appraised fair market value; therefore, easements on lands with high 

development pressure will receive higher payments. 
11

Effects on Local Government Net Revenue

The effect of conservation easements on local government net revenue is complex and speculative; 

many variables are at play, and realizing the effects often requires time. Local governments collect 

revenue through intergovernmental transfers, property taxes, sales taxes, personal income taxes, and other

charges, such as permitting. These revenues are then spent to provide community services such as fire and 

police services, schools, infrastructure, and public spaces. Conservation easements affect the location of 

future development, and therefore affect both future revenues and costs for local governments. The 

following sections describe the possible effects to local government revenues and costs. Overall, the 

effects of the BRWCA conservation easement program on net revenues (revenues minus costs) to local 

governments are expected to be marginal. 

Effects on Local Government Revenues

Property taxes constitute the largest source of local governments’ own revenue (Urban Institute 

and Brookings Institution, 2008), and are not expected to be substantially affected by conservation 

easements in the BRWCA. Property taxes are assessed based on the value of property. For most types of 

properties, county assessors use fair market value to determine property tax liabilities; however, 

agricultural land is often assessed differently. In many states, the assessed value of agricultural land is 

determined based on the productive value of the land rather than on the fair market value of the property. 

The fair market value of land is the amount that a property is estimated to sell for. This value includes 

both the productive value of the land and any speculative value associated with the possibility of 

developing the land. Conservation easements reduce the fair market value of property by removing the 

speculative value associated with possible development; however, conservation easements generally do 

not affect the productive value of agricultural land. The BRWCA encompasses three states: Utah, Idaho, 

and Wyoming. In all three states, property taxes for agricultural land are assessed based on the productive 

value of the land3

. The majority of properties that enter into conservation-easement agreements with the 

Service are classified as agricultural land; thus, there will be little to no impact to the current property tax 

base for the fourteen-county area. 

Local government revenue associated with personal income is also expected to remain relatively 

constant within the fourteen-county area. Conservation easements in the BRWCA would affect the 

location and distribution of development, but are not expected to change the rate or density of human 

population growth. Redistribution of population growth could affect the distribution of personal-incomerelated revenues across the counties, but is expected to have little effect on total revenues within the 

fourteen-county area. 

Effects on Local Government Costs

Land protection through conservation easements could result in a reduction in future expenditures 

for local governments and municipalities. New residential developments require local governments to 

 3 Special rules and statues apply in each state to determine if agricultural land and land in conservation easements is eligible to 

be assessed as agricultural land. To qualify in each state, land must have previously been in agriculture for a minimum amount 

of time, meet a minimum acreage requirement, meet minimum production requirements, and be operated in such a way that 

there is a reasonable expectation of profit (utah.gov, 2011; Idaho State Tax Commission, 2011; Wyoming Department of 

Revenue, 2011). In all three states, agricultural property that meets these criteria prior to being encumbered with a conservation 

easement, and continues to meet these criteria after a conservation easement is in place, will be assessed based on productive 

value (utah.gov, 2011; Idaho State Tax Commission, 2011; Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2011). In Wyoming and Utah, 

land must remain actively devoted to agricultural use to maintain its assessment status as agricultural land (utah.gov, 2011; 

Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2011). In Idaho, the Wildlife Habitat Exemption allows land that is managed for wildlife 

habitat under a qualified conservation agreement to be assessed as agricultural land, whether or not it is operated as a for-profit 

agricultural operation (Idaho State Tax Commission, 2011).
12

provide services such as fire protection, police services, and schools, and to construct new infrastructure 

such as roads, parks, and water and electricity-delivery systems. The costs to provide government services 

for new residential developments often exceed new revenues derived from the developments. This is 

especially true for rural residences, which tend to have higher costs to county governments and school 

districts than urban residences. In 2001, the American Farmland Trust found that, on average, the cost to 

provide community services to new residential developments was $1.15 for every $1.00 of revenue

created by those developments (American Farmland Trust, 2001; Coupal and others, 2002). A study 

conducted in Wyoming found that community service costs averaged $2.01 for every $1.00 of revenue for 

rural residential lands; in contrast, the average cost to provide services for lands under agricultural 

production averaged $0.54 for every $1.00 of revenue (Taylor and Coupal, 2000). 

Table 4. Social and economic impacts of conservation easements

Issue Social and economic impacts

Conservation value • Migration corridors and habitat for deer, elk, moose, and migratory birds will 

be preserved.

Benefits to local communities • The public will enjoy increased biodiversity, recreational quality, and hunting 

opportunities on publicly accessible refuges and some private lands.

• Neighboring property values may increase.

• Positive economic impacts may result from new money injected into the local 

economy.

• Traditional and historic ranching and farming landscapes will be preserved.

Landowner compensation • Land owners will be compensated for the fair market value of the easement.

• Easements will reduce the fair market value of the encumbered property.

• Landowners maintain the majority of use rights, but forfeit their right to 

develop or subdivide the land. Other possible restrictions include 

development of vertical structures, diversion or sale of water rights, and oil or 

mineral extraction.

Affects to local government net 

revenue

• No changes to property tax revenues are expected for agricultural lands.

• Other government revenues, such as personal income tax, may be 

redistributed throughout the region.

• Land protection through conservation easements could result in reduced 

future service costs for local governments and municipalities.

References Cited

American Farmland Trust, 2000, Strategic ranchland in the Rocky Mountain west–Mapping the threats to 

prime ranchland in seven western States: Washington D.C., American Farmland Trust, accessed online 

September 05, 2011, at http://www.farmland.org/resources/rockymtn/default.asp

American Farmland Trust, 2001, Cost of community service studies: Washington D.C., American 

Farmland Trust.

Banzhaf, S., Oates, W., Sanchirico, J., Simpson, D., and Walsh, R., 2006, Voting for conservation–What 

is the American electorate revealing? Resources, v. 160, p. 8–12.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008, Labor force data by county–2008 annual averages: Washington D.C., 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, accessed online November 14, 2011, at 

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty08.txt
13

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a, Local area unemployment statistics: Washington D.C., Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, accessed online November 14, 2011, at 

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011b, Labor force data by county (not seasonally adjusted)—July 2010–

August 2011: Washington D.C., Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, accessed online 

November 14, 2011, at http://www.bls.gov/lau/laucntycur14.txt

Byers, E., and Ponte, K., 2005, The conservation easement handbook: Washington, D.C., Land Trust 

Alliance and San Fransisco, The Trust for Public Land, 555 p.

Conservation Biology Institute, 2006, Protected Areas Database, compiled using Headwaters Economics 

Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit

Coupal, R., Tayor, D.T., and McLeod, D., 2002, The cost of community services for rural residential 

development in Wyoming: Laramie, Wyo., Wyoming Open Spaces, 4 p.

Crompton, J., 2001, The impact of parks on property values—A review of the empirical literature: Journal 

of Leisure Research, v. 33, no. 1, p. 1–31.

Daily, G., 1997, Nature's services: Washington D.C., Island Press.

Dobkin, D.S., and Sauder, J.D., 2004, Shrubsteppe landscapes in jeopardy—Distributions, abundances, 

and the uncertain future of birds and small mammals in the intermountain west: Bend, Oreg., High 

Desert Ecological Research Institute, 199 p.

Ehrlich, P., and Ehrlich, A., 1992, The value of biodiversity: Ambio, v. 21, no. 3, p. 219–226.

Geoghegan, J., Lynch, L., and Bucholtz, S., 2003, Capitalization of open spaces into housing values and 

the residential property tax revenue impacts of agricultural easement programs: Agricultural and 

Resource Economics Review, v. 32, no. 1, p. 33–45.

Headwaters Economics, 2011, Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit (EPS–HDT), available 

for download online at http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt, downloaded September 05, 2011 

Idaho State Tax Commission, 2011, Homeowners and property tax: accessed online September 05, 2011, 

at http://tax.Idaho.gov/i-1051.cfm

Jordan, N., Boody, G., Broussard, W., Glover, J., Keeney, D., McCown, B., and others, 2007, Sustainable 

development of the agricultural bio-economy: Science, v. 316, p. 1570–1571.

Kroger, T., 2008, Open space property value premium analysis: Washington D.C., National Council for 

Science and the Environment, Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program; Conservation Economics 

Program, Defenders of Wildlife.

McConnell, V., and Walls, M., 2005, The value of open space—Evidence from studies of nonmarket 

benefits: Washington D.C., Resources for the Future, 79 p.

Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being—Synthesis Report: 

Washington D.C., Island Press.

NASA, 2006, MODIS Land Cover Type, compiled using Headwaters Economics Economic profile 

system-human dimensions toolkit

Netusil, N.R., Boyd, E., Griffen, Z.V., LaMerrill, M., and Rainsberger, E., 2000, Can open space be selffinancing?: Choices, v. 15, no. 2, p. 21–23.

Phillips, S., 2000, Windfalls for wilderness—Land protection and land value in the Green Mountains, in

McCool, S.F., Cole, D.N., Borrie, W.T., and O'Loughlin, J., Wilderness science in a time of change 

conference—Volume 2—Wilderness in the contect of larger systems, Missoula, Mont., May 23–27, 

1999: Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2:258–267: Ogden, Utah, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Reynolds, R., Shaffer, T., Renner, R., Newton, W., and Batt, B., 2001, Impact of the Conservation 

Reserve Program on duck recruitment in the U.S. Prairie Pothole region: Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 65, no. 4, p. 765–780.
14

Rich, T.D., Wisdom, M.J., and Saab, V.A., 2005, Conservation of sagebrush steppe birds in the interior 

Columbia Basin, General Techinical Report PSW-GTR-191, in Ralph, C.J., Rich, T., and Long, L., 

International Partners in Flight Conference, 3rd, Albany, Calif., September 05, 2011, Proceedings: 

Washington D.C., U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

p. 589–606. 

Rissman, A., Lozier, L., Comendant, T., Kareiva, P., Kiesecker, J., Shaw, M., and others, 2007, 

Conservation easements—Biodiversity protection and private use: Conservation Biology, v. 21, no. 3, p. 

709–718.

Rowland, M.M., Wisdom, M.J., Meinke, C.W., and Suring, L.H., 2005, Utility of greater sage-grouse as 

an umberlla species, in Wisdom, M.J., Rowland, M.M., and Suring, L.H., Habitat threats in the 

sagebrush ecosystem—Methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin: Lawrence, 

Kans., Allen Press, p. 232–249.

Royster, W., and Gearino, J., 2006, Squeezed in Star Valley: Casper, Wyo., Casper Star Tribune. [October 

15]

State of Idaho Department of Labor, 2011, Migration to urban Idaho persisted in 2000's: Boise, Idaho, 

State of Idaho Department of Labor, accessed online September 05, 2011, at 

http://labor.Idaho.gov/NEWS/Default.aspx?Tabid=1953andctl=PressReleaseandmid=2527anditemid=

2302andAspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. [Press release on March 10, 2011]

Taylor, D.T., and Coupal, R.H., 2000, The cost of rural community services in Laramie, Wyoming: 

Laramie, Wyo., University of Wyoming, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

The Nature Conservancy, 2010, Tri-State Bear River CAP: Arlington, Va., The Nature Conservancy, 

accessed online September 05, 2011, at http://conpro.tnc.org/1561/.

Thorsnes, P., 2002, The value of a suburban forest preserve—Estimates from sales of vacant residential 

building lots: Land Economics, v. 78, no. 3, p. 426–441.

Toth, R.E., Edwards, T.C., Perschon, A.L., and White, D.C., 2010, Bear River Watershed—Its role in 

maintaining the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge—Final Project Report no. 2010-1, U.S. Geological 

Survey: Logan, Utah, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State Universiy.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, Census of Agriculture, (Table 8): Washington, D.C. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, compiled using Headwaters Economics Economic profile system-human 

dimensions toolkit

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, Small area income and povery estimates: Washington D.C., U.S. Census 

Bureau, accessed online November 14, 2011, at http://www.census.govl/did/www/saipe/

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, State and county quickfacts: Washington D.C., U.S. Census Bureau, accessed 

online November 14, 2011, at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, American factfinder: Washington D.C., U.S. Census Bureau, accessed online 

November 14, 2011, at http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010a, Regional Economic Information System, (Table CA25N & 

CA25N): Washington, D.C., Bureau of Economic Analysis, compiled using Headwaters Economics 

Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010b, County business patterns: Washington, D.C., Census Bureau, 

compiled using Headwaters Economics Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife—Associated 

recreation: Washington D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau, 164 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, Preliminary project proposal–Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area: Washington D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 2008, State and local tax policy—What are the sources of 

revenue for local governments?: Washington D.C., Tax Policy Center, accessed online July 18, 2011, 

available at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-local/revenues/local_revenue.cfm
15

Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004, Bear River Basin—Planning for the future: Salt Lake City, Utah, 

Utah Division of Water Resources, 105 p.

Utah Governors Office of Planning and Budget, 2008, 2008 Utah baseline—Current conditions, trends, 

and projections: Salt Lake City, Utah, Governors Office of Planning and Budget, Envision Utah, and the 

Utah Quality Growth Commission.

Utah State University Extension, 2006, Journey through the Bear River Watershed—Project Wet 

International Foundation: Logan, Utah, Utah State University Cooperative Extension, accessed online 

September 05, 2011, at http://extension.usu.edu /waterqualtiy/filesupload.

Utah Water Research Laboratory, 2011, Bear River Watershed Information System: Logan, Utah, Utah 

Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, accessed online September 05, 2011, at 

http://www.bearriverinfo.org/

Utah.gov, 2011, The Utah Farmland Assessment Act: Salt Lake City, Utah, Utah State Tax Commission, 

accessed online September 05, 2011, at http://propertytax.utah.gov/faa/faa.html

Van Every, L., 2004, Water quality impacts from selenium and other metals in the southeastern Idaho 

phosphate mining resource area, in The Rocky Mountain (56th Annual) and Cordilleran (100th Annual) 

Joint Meeting, Boise, Idaho, May 3–5, 2004, Proceedings: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of 

America, accessed online September 05, 2011, at 

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_71959.htm

Vrooman, D., 1978, An empirical analysis of determinants of land values in the Adriondack Park: 

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, v. 37, no. 2, p. 165–177.

Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2011, Property tax FAQ: Cheyenne, Wyo., Wyoming Department of 

Revenue, accessed online September 05, 2011, at 

http://revenue.state.wy.us/portalvbvs/desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=4andtabid=11 

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

(970) 226-9398

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at:

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/