Draft Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection Plan

Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming

December 2012

Prepared by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1, Pacific Region

Division of Planning and Visitor Services

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232

503 / 872 2086

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 8145

Citation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Draft environmental assessment and land protection plan: proposed 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Regions 1 and 6. Lakewood, 

Colorado. 153 p.

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) CHAPTER 1—Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Draft Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Decisions to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Biological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Socioeconomic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Administrative and Enforcement Issues for Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Related Actions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

U.S. Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Habitat Protection and Easement Acquisition Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

DRAFT EA CHAPTER 2—Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Alternatives Considered But Not Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Voluntary Landowner Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

County Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Fee Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Smaller Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Short-Term Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

DRAFT EA CHAPTER 3—Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

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

Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Climate.......................................................................................20

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
IV Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Connectivity and Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Riverine and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Species of Special Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Paleo-Indian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Archaic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Landownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

DRAFT EA CHAPTER 4—Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Effects on the Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Effects Common to Both Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Water and Soil Resources—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Water and Soil Resources—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Effects on the Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Habitat and Wildlife—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Loss and Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Riverine Area, Riparian Area, and Wetland Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Upland Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Species of Special Concern Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Habitat and Wildlife—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Loss and Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Riverine Area, Riparian Area, and Wetland Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Upland Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Species of Special Concern Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Climate—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Climate—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Landownership and Land Use—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Landownership and Land Use—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Public Use—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Public Use—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Development—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Subsurface Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Commercial and Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Development—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Subsurface Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Commercial and Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Contents V

Other Conservation Impacts—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Other Conservation Impacts—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Effects on Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Cultural Resources—Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Cultural Resources—Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Alternative A (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Past Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Present Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Other Conservation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

DRAFT EA CHAPTER 5—Coordination and Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Agency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Contaminants and Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Distribution and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Strategic Habitat Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Biological Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Focal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Conservation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Integrated Conservation Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Monitoring and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

DRAFT LAND PROTECTION PLAN (LPP) CHAPTER 1—Introduction and Project Description.........59

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Biological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Socioeconomic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Administrative and Enforcement Issues for Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Related Actions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

U.S. Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Habitat Protection and Easement Acquisition Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
VI Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

DRAFT LPP CHAPTER 2—Area Description and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Climate.......................................................................................70

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Connectivity and Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Riverine and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Species of Special Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Paleo-Indian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Archaic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Landownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

DRAFT LPP CHAPTER 3—Threats to and Status of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Threats to the Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Effects on the Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Water and Soil Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Climate.......................................................................................92

Effects on the Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Habitat and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Riverine Areas, Riparian Areas, and Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Species of Special Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Effects on Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Landownership and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Subsurface Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Commercial and Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Other Conservation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Contents VII

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Past Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Present Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Other Conservation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Landscape-Scale Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

DRAFT LPP CHAPTER 4—Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Land Protection Options Not Analyzed in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Proposed Easement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Project Objectives and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Evaluation of Easement Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Contaminants and Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Cost of Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Easement Acquisition Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Ecosystem Management and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Strategic Habitat Conservation and Protection Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Biological Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Protection Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Focal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Conservation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Focal Species Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Priority Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Marxan-based Conservation Value Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Integrated Conservation Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Monitoring and Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Sociocultural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Public Involvement and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Public Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Land Protection Plan Distribution and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Service Unit Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Appendix A—List of Preparers and Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

TABLES

Draft EA

EA–1 Acreages of vegetation types found in the Bear River project area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

EA–2 Population statistics for Wyoming and counties in and near the proposed Bear River Watershed 

 Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
VIII Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Draft LPP

LPP–1 Acreages of vegetation types found in the Bear River project area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.............74

LPP–2 Population statistics for Wyoming and counties in and near the proposed Bear River Watershed 

 Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

LPP–3 Matrix of Bonneville cutthroat trout fish densities and ranking criteria for genetic purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

LPP–4 Conservation targets and goals for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, 

 Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

LPP–5 Protection priority category acreages for acquisition in the proposed Bear River Conservation Area in 

 Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

FIGURES

Draft EA

EA–1 Map of the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

EA–2 Map of land stewardship in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, 

 and Wyoming................................................................................6

EA–3 Map of the three landscape conservation cooperative areas that cover the proposed Bear River 

 Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

EA–4 Vicinity map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . 19

EA–5 Graph of the trend in annual average temperature in the Bear River watershed (in Idaho, Utah, and 

 Wyoming) over the past 100 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

EA–6 Habitat map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . 23

EA–7 Map of regional conservation and protected areas adjacent to the proposed Bear River Watershed

 Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

EA–8 Chart of the relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

EA–9 Elements of strategic habitat conservation........................................................53

Draft LPP

LPP–1 Map of the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

LPP–2 Map of land stewardship in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, 

 and Wyoming...............................................................................65

LPP–3 Base map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . 69

LPP–4 Graph of the temperature trend in the Bear River watershed (in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming) over the 

 past 100 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

LPP–5 Habitat map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . 73

LPP–6 Map of regional conservation and protected areas adjacent to the proposed Bear River Watershed 

 Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

LPP–7 Chart of the relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

LPP–8 Map of the three landscape conservation cooperative areas that cover the proposed Bear River 

 Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

LPP–9 Elements of strategic habitat conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

LPP–10 Map of predicted sage thrasher and sage-grouse densities in the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

LPP–11 Map of predicted American avocet densities in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

LPP–12 Map of the presence of Bonneville cutthroat trout in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

LPP–13 Map of combined species priority areas for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in 

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

LPP–14 Map of conservation ranking priority areas for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in 

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing 

a conservation area for the Bear River watershed in 

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. The proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area project would work 

with private landowners to establish up to 920,000 

acres of voluntary conservation easements: 

■ to conserve aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland 

habitats;

■ to provide wildlife habitat connectivity and migratory corridors; 

■ to maintain healthy populations of native wildlife 

species;

■ to protect and maintain water quality and quantity;

■ to increase the watershed’s resiliency during climate and land use changes;

■ to conserve the area’s working landscapes;

■ to promote partnerships for coordinated watershed-level conservation.

To successfully implement the proposed Bear 

River Watershed Conservation Area, the Service 

would work with the three landscape conservation 

cooperatives that encompass the proposed project 

area—Great Northern, Great Basin, and Southern 

Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. In 

addition, the Service would coordinate conservation 

efforts throughout the Bear River watershed with 

numerous partners: The Nature Conservancy, Trout 

Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, local Audubon chapters, 

PacifiCorp, conservation districts, State agencies, and 

other Federal agencies.

The Service has developed a draft environmental 

assessment and land protection plan for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. The 

document: 

■ highlights the resource values of the proposed 

project area; 

■ presents alternatives for the project that address 

issues the Service, its conservation partners, and 

the public have identified; 

Mountains and marshes at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah

© Hal Reeder
X Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

■ evaluates the environmental and socioeconomic 

effects projected to occur if the conservation area 

were established.

The Bear River Watershed

The Bear River is the largest river in the Western Hemisphere that flows into an inland sea—the 

Great Salt Lake. The river originates in the Uinta 

Mountains and flows north and west in an arc from 

Utah, through Wyoming and Idaho, and back into 

Utah. In the course of its 500-mile journey, the Bear 

River passes through three national wildlife refuges: Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and Bear River 

Migratory Bird Refuge.

The wide range of altitudes in the Bear River 

watershed allow for diverse habitats. Grassland and 

shrubland dominate the flats and the lowlands, while 

pinyon–juniper woodland and pine forest cover the 

higher slopes. Big sagebrush is common on much of 

the landscape, although other shrubs such as rabbitbrush, saltbush, and greasewood may dominate some 

areas. 

Most of the lower elevation areas are privately 

owned, with much of the land in the wide valleys used 

for agriculture and grazing. Bear River water is used 

extensively to irrigate alfalfa, small grain crops, and 

ranchland. 

Future activity in the Bear River watershed is 

expected to include commercial oil and gas development, mining, wind energy development, and 

residential development, along with an associated 

increase in water demand.

How Conservation 

Easements Work

To protect habitat, the Service recognizes that it 

is essential to work with private landowners on conservation matters of mutual interest. The proposed 

project would use voluntary conservation easements 

on privately owned land throughout the Bear River 

watershed to protect wetland, grassland, and agricultural land from conversion to other uses. As a 

voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and 

the Service, an easement is a perpetual conservation 

agreement that the Service would purchase from willing landowners. 

■ A conservation easement typically contains habitat protection measures that prohibit subdivision 

but allow for the continuation of traditional activities such as livestock grazing and haying. 

■ Alteration of the natural topography and conversion of native grassland, shrubland, or wetland to 

cropland would be prohibited on a conservation 

easement. 

■ Conservation easement land would remain in 

private ownership, and property tax and land 

management, including invasive weed control, 

would remain the responsibility of the landowner. 

■ Control of public access to a conservation easement would remain under the control of the 

landowner.

The Service would purchase conservation easements with money generated by the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1965. These funds are 

derived from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale 

of surplus federal property. The U.S. Congress 

appropriates money for a specific project, such as 

the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area. Easement prices offered to willing sellers 

would be determined by an appraisal completed by 

an appraiser familiar with the local market. 

Service staff at the three wildlife refuges in the 

Bear River watershed would administer and monitor 

the conservation easement program.

Resources Would Benefit

Through the goal of acquiring conservation easements from willing sellers, the proposed project 

would help maintain habitat important to a variety 

of fish, mammals, and migratory birds throughout 

the Bear River watershed. This includes the major 

migration corridors that connect the northern and 

southern Rocky Mountains. Watershed-wide conservation efforts would be coordinated, and valuable 

farmland and ranchland would be protected.

The small, pristine mountain streams in the 

forested headwaters of the Bear River are ideal 

breeding habitat for Bonneville cutthroat trout, leatherside chub, and blue-nosed sucker, all important 

native species. Elk, black bear, pika, and marmots use 

these high-elevation forests and snow-covered mountain slopes. 

The primary routes of migratory birds following the central and Pacific flyways converge in the 

Bear River watershed. The national wildlife refuges and adjacent areas provide essential habitat for 

many species of waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, 
Summary XI

and upland birds that migrate through on their way 

to and from the Canadian and Alaskan interior and 

coastal wetlands. 

More than 200 bird species have been documented 

in the proposed project area, and half are closely 

associated with wetlands. Marshbirds and shorebirds include white-faced ibis, black tern, American 

avocet, long-billed curlew, American bittern, sandhill crane, and trumpeter swan. Upland birds include 

the greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed 

grouse. 

In addition to the importance of the proposed conservation area to bird species, many mammals are 

dependent on the blocks of intact habitat and the key 

migration linkages between these areas. Elk, mule 

deer, moose, pronghorn, bear, lynx, and wolverine 

depend on key wintering areas and migration corridors throughout the Bear River watershed.

Abbreviations

BRWCA Bear River Watershed Conservation Area

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 carbon dioxide

EA environmental assessment

GCN (species of) greatest conservation need

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

LCC land conservation cooperative

LPP land protection plan

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWR national wildlife refuge

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WPA waterfowl production area

A glossary of these and other terms follows the Draft LPP Chapter 4.

Draft Environmental Assessment

Water is the most critical resource issue 

of our lifetime and our children’s lifetime. 

The health of our waters is the principal 

measure of how we live on the land.

—Luna Leopold 

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA)

Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action

Birds at Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area, Idaho

USFWS

Introduction

Before Euro-American settlement, the Bear River 

delta on the north side of the Great Salt Lake was a 

vast natural marsh that provided wetland habitat for 

waterfowl in the arid Great Basin region. When John 

C. Fremont, an early explorer in the West, visited the 

area near the present-day Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge in 1843, he commented, “the waterfowl made 

a noise like thunder... as the whole scene was animated with waterfowl.”

The Bear River travels a 500-mile course from 

its headwaters in Utah’s Uinta Mountains through 

Wyoming and Idaho, eventually terminating its 

horseshoe-shaped route in Utah’s Great Salt Lake, 

the largest inland sea in the Western Hemisphere. 

The forested areas at the headwaters are part of a 

crucial wildlife corridor for species migration in the 

western United States. These areas offer a major link 

between the northern and southern Rocky Mountain ecosystems (Theobald et al. 2011, USDA Forest 

Service 2003). The small, pristine mountain streams 

found in the area provide ideal breeding habitat for 

important native species, such as the Bonneville 

cutthroat trout and northern leatherside chub. Elk, 

black bear, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, gray 

wolf, pika, and marmot use the high-elevation forest and snow-covered mountain slopes found in the 

watershed. The montane shrubland, sage grassland, 

and pastureland provide good habitat for greater 

sage-grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, bald 

eagle, hawks, mule deer, elk, pronghorn, rabbit, bobcat, and black bear.

Wetlands and riparian areas in the lower elevations 

provide some of the most important resting, staging, 

feeding, breeding, and nesting areas for migratory 

birds in the Pacific and central flyways (Downard 

2010). More than 46 percent of the North American population of white-faced ibis, 24 percent of the 

North American population of marbled godwit, and 18 

percent of the North American population of blacknecked stilt use the wetland habitat found within 

the watershed. More than 270 different species are 

associated with the habitats supported by the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge, Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area, 

and adjacent lands located within the Bear River 

watershed. The Bear River watershed is essential to 
4 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

the survival of the Bonneville cutthroat trout, millions 

of birds, and many other species of wildlife.

The Bear River is heavily influenced by land use 

along its course that in turn affects wildlife habitat 

and the amount and quality of available water. Agricultural lands provide habitat for wildlife, but in some 

areas these lands are rapidly being converted to residential development. The collaborative efforts of 

conservation partners in the Bear River watershed 

will be needed to preserve this working landscape that 

is such an important resource for people and wildlife.

Proposed Action

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to establish a voluntary conservation easement 

program in southeast Idaho, northeast Utah, and 

southwest Wyoming called the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (see figure EA–1). The 

proposed project boundary encompasses roughly 4.8 

million acres, within which the Service would strategically protect using conservation easements on up 

to 920,000 acres of privately owned land from willing 

sellers (see figure EA–2). 

Conservation Easements

The Service would seek to protect habitat through 

perpetual conservation easements; it would not seek 

fee-title acquisitions. This easement program would 

rely on voluntary participation from landowners. 

Grazing, haying, and prescribed burning would continue on any land included in the easement contract. 

Land within an easement would remain in private 

ownership and, therefore, property tax and management activities such as invasive plant control and 

burning would remain the responsibility of the landowner. Public access to the land would also remain 

under the control of the landowner. This purpose is 

in alignment with, but does not supersede, the vision 

and statutory purposes of the three existing refuges 

in the Bear River watershed. 

Easement restrictions may include, but are not 

limited to, residential, commercial, and industrial 

development that alters the natural topography; conversion of native uplands and wetlands to cropland; 

and draining of wetlands. The proposed easements 

would help maintain unfragmented blocks of habitat that would complement efforts by the existing 

national wildlife refuges and land trusts and entities:

■ The Nature Conservancy

■ Bridgerland Audubon

■ Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land Trust 

■ Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust 

■ Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

■ Trout Unlimited 

■ Utah Division of Natural Resources 

■ Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

■ Utah Partners for Conservation and Development 

■ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Draft Vision Statement 

Landscape-scale protection of the natural 

resources found within the Bear River 

watershed is essential to humans and 

wildlife. The Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area project preserves, 

protects, and restores the natural resources 

and working landscapes within the drainage. 

Through cooperative efforts with 

ranchers, farmers, local communities, 

land management agencies, and other 

conservation organizations, the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service builds a 

community of citizens dedicated to protection 

of wildlife habitat, maintenance of healthy 

communities, enhancement of water quality, 

promotion of sustainable agriculture, and 

recognition of good stewardship. 

The legacy of this effort is the tapestry of 

snow-covered mountains, deciduous and 

conifer forest, vast areas of sagebrush 

and wetlands, and working farms and 

ranches that decorate the landscape of the 

Bear River Watershed. This expansive 

landscape supports a multitude of diverse 

wildlife species including migratory birds, 

sage-grouse, elk, black bear, pronghorn, 

mule deer, Bonneville cutthroat trout, 

and other native species. 

Implementation of a landscape-scale 

collaborative effort within the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area conserves 

the significant wildlife, aesthetic, and 

cultural values of this region in perpetuity.
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 5

Figure EA–1. Map of the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.
6 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Figure EA–2. Map of land stewardship in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming.
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 7

Project Area

The Bear River’s current course developed about 

50,000 years ago (Toth et al. 2005) when a volcanic 

debris slide cut off its original northerly route and 

deflected the river southwards through present-day 

Soda Springs and into the Great Basin instead of 

westwards toward the Snake River watershed and 

present-day Pocatello, Idaho. 

The Bear River originates in the mountains of 

Utah’s High Uintas Wilderness, meanders through 

Wyoming and Idaho, and reenters Utah, where it 

empties into the Great Salt Lake. The Bear River is 

in the Basin and Range and the Middle Rocky Mountains physiographic provinces. It has the largest 

discharge of any river in the Western Hemisphere 

that does not flow to an ocean (Dion 1969). Along 

with other areas in the basin, the forested areas at 

the headwaters form a crucial wildlife migration corridor. These forested areas offer a major link between 

the northern and southern Rocky Mountain ecosystems (Theobald et al. 2011). As the river flows north 

out of the conifer-covered slopes of the Uinta Mountains into the narrow valleys of Utah downstream, 

land uses begin to change and water quality begins 

to decline.

The Bear River eventually passes through the 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and terminates 

its almost circular route in the Great Salt Lake in 

Utah, which has no outlet. The river contributes more 

than half of the total surface flow entering the Great 

Salt Lake each year. This large volume of fresh water 

from the river influences temperatures, salinity, and 

water levels in the lake. The basin contains many 

large reservoirs and hundreds of small reservoirs, 

stock ponds, and an extensive network of irrigation 

canals. 

The water of the Bear River is the lifeblood for 

human and wildlife populations throughout the 

region. The central and Pacific flyways for migratory 

birds overlap in the watershed, and the Bear River 

Migratory Bird Refuge and Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge are considered by the National Audubon 

Society to be Globally Important Bird Areas. [See 

the glossary for descriptions and definitions of some 

of the terms used in this document.]

Approximately one-half of the Bear River watershed is under Federal ownership. The proposed 

project area is adjacent to or encompasses portions of 

lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, 

and USDA Forest Service. Important habitat in private ownership is located within and next to lands 

managed by these Federal entities, as wells as on 

lands adjoining the national wildlife refuges.

Purpose of and Need for the 

Proposed Action

This project proposal originates from the recognition that water availability and quality are crucial 

for conserving the fish and wildlife species within the 

Bear River watershed. It is recognized that private 

lands are heavily used by wildlife and that properties 

that are next to public lands provide crucial migration 

corridors and linkages to a variety of habitats. As climate conditions and land use patterns change over 

time, many key off-refuge habitat areas will likely 

become both increasingly important for wildlife and 

increasingly subject to development pressures. 

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is a landscape-scale, strategic habitat 

conservation effort designed to contribute to the protection of significant values of this highly diverse 

ecosystem. (See more on strategic habitat conservation in chapter 5.) These values follow:

■ The area is one of the most significant resting, 

staging, feeding, breeding, and nesting areas for 

large populations of migratory waterfowl and 

shorebirds on both the central and Pacific flyways:

■ white-faced ibis (46 percent of the North American population)

■ tundra swan (32 percent of the western population) 

■ American avocet (over 16 percent of the North 

American population)

■ black-necked stilt (over 18 percent of the North 

American population) 

■ marbled godwit (over 24 percent of the North 

American population) 

■ The watershed provides habitat for species such 

as greater sage-grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed 

grouse, Bonneville cutthroat trout, pronghorn, 

and, in the high country, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, 

wolverine, and gray wolf.

■ The watershed is an important source of water 

both along the river course and as the major surface water source of the Great Salt Lake.

■ It is an important migration area for wide-ranging mammals.
8 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Much of the lands in the wide valleys of the Bear 

River watershed have been converted to pastures 

and agricultural fields. Water from the river is 

used for irrigation of alfalfa, pastureland, and small 

grains. Oil and gas exploration and development are 

expanding in parts of the watershed. Residential 

development is affecting prime agricultural lands and 

wildlife habitat. In some areas of the Cache Valley, 

the population is expected to double by 2050 (Utah 

Division of Water Resources 2004). The Service seeks 

to work with ranchers, conservation organizations, 

and other agencies to conserve wildlife habitat and 

working lands for future generations.

The purposes for establishing the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area are to: 

■ maintain healthy populations of native wildlife 

species including migratory birds and threatened 

and endangered species;

■ protect and maintain water quality and quantity;

■ conserve aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland 

habitats associated with the full diversity of Bear 

River ecosystems;

■ provide habitat connectivity and migratory corridors; 

■ promote partnerships to coordinate implementation of watershed-level wildlife conservation 

actions; 

■ increase resiliency of the watershed to sustain 

wildlife and important habitat through climate and 

land use changes.

Decisions to Be Made

The Service’s planning team (see “Appendix A, 

List of Preparers and Reviewers”) has completed 

a draft analysis of the protection and management 

alternatives. Based on the analysis to be documented 

in the final EA, the Service’s Directors of Region 1 

and Region 6, with the approval of the Director of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will make three 

decisions: 

■ Determine whether the Service should establish 

the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area.

■ If yes, select an approved, conservation easement 

project boundary that best fulfills the habitat protection purposes for the proposed conservation 

area.

■ If yes, determine whether the selected alternative 

would have a significant impact on the quality of 

the human environment. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires this decision. 

If the quality of the human environment would 

not be significantly affected, a finding of no significant impact will be signed and made available 

to the public. If the alternative would have a significant impact, completion of an environmental 

impact statement would be required to address 

those impacts.

Issues Identified and Selected 

for Analysis

Six public scoping meetings were held in Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming in May 2011. Public comments 

were taken in Cokeville and Evanston, Wyoming; 

Brigham City and Logan, Utah; and Preston and 

Montpelier, Idaho, to identify issues to be analyzed 

for the proposed action. Approximately 130 landowners, members of various organizations, and elected 

representatives attended the meetings. Additionally, 

10 letters providing comments were received by mail 

or email. A total of 327 comments and questions were 

received on the project proposal.

Refuge staff contacted tribal, Federal, State, and 

local officials as well as conservation groups that 

expressed an interest in the future of the Bear River 

watershed. Approximately 675 fact sheets were distributed, and they were also made available on the 

refuges’ Web sites.

The main categories of comments, issues, and 

questions expressed at meetings or received by mail 

follow.

Biological Issues

■ Importance of wildlife and wildlife habitat in the 

watershed.

■ Questions about the types of habitat and lands 

that would be included in the proposed project.

■ Ecosystem importance of the watershed (connectivity and habitat types represented).

■ Importance of protecting water resources.

■ Water quality and quantity issues in the watershed.

■ Impacts of dams and diversions.
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 9

■ Climate change impacts on the region.

■ Development (residential, oil and gas, mineral, 

and recreational), which was perceived as the biggest threat to the long-term health and stability 

of the Bear River landscape, culture, and wildlife 

resources.

■ Perceived mismanagement of lands and inappropriate stewardship (grazing and agricultural 

practices) in the watershed.

■ Invasive species in the watershed.

■ Fragmentation of habitat.

Socioeconomic Issues

■ Funding sources and matching contributions.

■ Tax implication of easements.

■ Economic impacts of easements.

■ Financial implications of easements.

■ Quantity and location of land needed for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area 

project.

■ Agricultural values of the Bear River.

■ Aesthetics (open space and scenery).

■ Importance of recreational opportunities.

■ Availability of recreational opportunities in the 

watershed.

■ Economic importance of the watershed (agriculture and power generation).

Administrative and Enforcement 

Issues for Easements

■ Potential easement restrictions and language.

■ Responsibilities and limitations on management 

practices of an easement.

■ Current and future land uses and encumbrances 

(oil and gas leases, mining, and rights-of-way).

■ Perpetual nature of Service easements.

■ Comments and questions about enforcement of 

easements.

■ Importance of monitoring conservation easement 

parcels.

■ Possibility of easements increasing wildlife depredation, especially by sandhill cranes.

■ Comparable easement programs that are available 

with other agencies and organizations.

■ Easement financial and funding implications.

■ Service appraisal process.

■ Easement valuation determination.

Other Issues

■ Conservation partnerships and coordination.

■ Organizations and other agencies that the Service 

would be working with.

■ Interest expressed in selling a conservation easement to the Service.

■ Questions on timelines, public input opportunities, 

and availability of data and GIS information.

■ Comments on the need for planning various watershed uses and future development.

■ General concern.

■ General support.

■ Interest in easements.

Issues Not Selected for 

Detailed Analysis

Historically, there has been concern about the 

amount of tax generated for the counties when land 

protection programs take place. Because the proposed project involves conservation easements, land 

would not change hands and, therefore, the property 

taxes paid by the landowner to the county would not 

be affected. 

Development of rural landscapes often leads to 

increased demand for services and higher costs to 

rural counties. There would generally be an offset of 
10 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

any perceived reduction in the tax base, because the 

county would not incur the expense of providing services to rural developments. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Authorities

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is “to preserve a national 

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

fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans.” The Bear 

River Watershed Conservation Area would be a part 

of the Refuge System managed in accordance with 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 and other relevant legislation, Executive 

orders, regulations, and policies. 

Conservation of more wildlife habitat in the Bear 

River watershed would also continue in a manner 

consistent with the following policies and management plans:

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (1934)

■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940) 

■ Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■ “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

(1994)

■ “Migratory Non-game Birds of Management Concern in the U.S.” (2002)

Related Actions and Activities

Private landowners have worked with many organizations to complete conservation easements. In an 

effort to control invasive species such as tamarisk, 

phragmites, Russian olive, quagga and zebra mussels, 

and carp, the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

program, The Nature Conservancy, State agencies, 

county weed districts, and private landowners have 

begun cooperative efforts throughout the region. 

Bridgerland Audubon Society has worked with 

The Nature Conservancy and PacifiCorp to protect 

500 acres of key riparian land along the Bear River in 

Cache County using conservation easements.

Coordinated Resource Management committees in Box Elder and Rich Counties consist of State 

and Federal agency staff, representatives from local 

government, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and private individuals. 

Coordinated Resource Management committees work 

to provide rich, healthy ecosystems with a sustainable agricultural industry and wildlife populations 

and that contain diverse recreational opportunities 

and a vibrant rural community.

Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust was 

founded in 2003. It has completed 15 projects in 

southeast Idaho that protect 2,260 acres of natural 

and working lands that benefit Bonneville cutthroat 

trout and other wildlife species.

The Nature Conservancy bought a 6,700-acre 

conservation easement to protect habitat for the 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and other wildlife 

species. The Nature Conservancy is developing a 

comprehensive plan to provide early detection and 

rapid response for the control of invasive weeds in 

Cache County. The Nature Conservancy has also 

been involved with mapping important wetland areas 

throughout the watershed. 

Trout Unlimited has 12 projects underway in the 

watershed that aim to reconnect essential spawning tributaries in each of the five major sections of 

the Bear River. Trout Unlimited and project partners identified barriers to fish passage such as dams 

and retrofitted the structures with fish ladders and 

screens to allow upstream passage and prevent 

downstream loss of fish in irrigation canals. Trout 

Unlimited also improves riparian and aquatic habitats in the reconnected tributaries and the main stem 

Bear River.

Utah Partners for Conservation and Development is a sponsor of the Utah Watershed Restoration 

Initiative, a partnership-driven effort to conserve, 

restore, and manage ecosystems in priority areas 

across the State to enhance Utah’s wildlife, biological 

diversity, water quality and quantity for all uses, and 

opportunities for sustainable uses. In 2010, the watershed restoration initiative was involved in 26 projects 

totaling 19,336 acres in its Northern Region, which 

includes the Bear River watershed (Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources 2011).

Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land 

Trust holds 62 conservation easements on more than 

170,000 acres of ranchland throughout the State. 

By working with landowners to conserve working 

ranches, crucial wildlife winter ranges and migration 

corridors commonly found in the most agriculturally 

productive locations along valleys and waterways are 

also protected. 

Wyoming Land Trust holds conservation easements on 30,324 acres of working ranchland, wildlife 

habitat, and scenic areas in Wyoming. 
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 11

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The Conservation Reserve Program is administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency and 

provides technical and financial help to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related 

natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. 

Currently, 668,643 acres in Idaho, 163,082 acres in 

Utah, and 226,044 acres in Wyoming are enrolled in 

the Conservation Reserve Program (USDA Farm 

Service Agency 2007).

The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program

provides matching funds to help buy development 

rights to keep productive farm and ranchland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, 

the USDA collaborates with State, tribal, or local 

governments and nongovernmental organizations to 

acquire conservation easements or other interests in 

land from landowners. A total of 3,450 acres in Idaho, 

898 acres in Utah, and 101,326 acres in Wyoming are 

Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program lands 

(USDA NRCS 2010a).

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program

is a voluntary program administered through the 

NRCS that provides financial and technical help to 

agricultural producers through contracts lasting up 

to a maximum term of 10 years. These contracts provide financial assistance to help plan and carry out 

conservation practices that address natural resource 

concerns and for opportunities to improve soil, water, 

plant, animal, air, and related resources on agricultural land and nonindustrial private forestland. In 

addition, a purpose of Environmental Quality Incentives Program is to help producers meet Federal, 

State, tribal, and local environmental regulations.

The Grassland Reserve Program is a voluntary 

conservation program administered through the 

NRCS that emphasizes support for working grazing 

operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and protection of grassland under threat of 

conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily 

limit future development and cropping uses of the 

land while keeping the right to conduct common grazing practices and operations related to the production 

of forage and seeding, subject to certain restrictions 

during nesting seasons of bird species that are in significant decline or are protected under Federal or 

State law. A grazing management plan is required for 

participants. There are 9,692 acres in Idaho, 29,336 

in Utah, and 24,458 acres in Wyoming enrolled in the 

program. 

The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program is a 

voluntary program administered by the NRCS 

for conservation-minded landowners who want to 

develop and improve wildlife habitat on agricultural 

land, nonindustrial private forest land, and Native 

American lands.

Wetland Scenery in Utah

© Hal Reeder
12 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

The Wetlands Reserve Program was reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers that 

promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national goals. The program 

offers financial and technical assistance to help eligible participants install or implement structural 

improvements and management practices on eligible 

agricultural land. In Idaho 812, Utah 30, and in Wyoming 1,013 acres are enrolled in Wetlands Reserve 

Program (USDA NRCS 2010b).

U.S. Department of the Interior

Partners for Fish and Wildlife provides costsharing to fund habitat enhancements with a special 

emphasis placed on projects that simultaneously benefit agricultural production and wildlife habitat for 

Service trust species. Participation in the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program is voluntary, and the 

details for each project are outlined in individual landowner agreements. Past examples include fence and 

water developments that improve livestock grazing 

management, irrigation diversion upgrades that allow 

for traditional water withdrawal and fish passage in 

streams, and rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure to maintain and enhance created wetlands. 

The Utah Partners for Fish and Wildlife program 

has restored or enhanced 11,915 acres of wetland, 

46,258 acres of upland, and 64 miles of riparian or 

instream habitat. In Wyoming, the program has 

restored or enhanced 5,373 acres of wetland, 228,592 

acres of upland, and 242 miles of riparian or instream 

habitat. More than 6,760 acres of wetland, 8,754 acres 

of upland, and 62 miles of riparian or instream habitat 

(2001–2011) have been restored or enhanced in Idaho.

Landscape conservation cooperatives are public–private partnerships that recognize that natural 

resource challenges transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries and require a more networked 

approach to conservation—holistic, collaborative, 

adaptive, and grounded in science to ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, wildlife, and 

cultural resources. As a collaborative effort, landscape conservation cooperatives seek to identify best 

practices, connect efforts, find gaps, and avoid duplication through improved conservation planning and 

design. Partner agencies and organizations coordinate 

with each other while working within their existing 

authorities and jurisdictions. In carrying out conservation actions through the proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area, the Service would 

work with the three landscape conservation cooperatives (Great Northern, Great Basin, and Southern 

Rockies) (see figure EA–3) and other partners to 

address current and future issues and opportunities 

related to landscape-scale conservation in a rapidly 

changing world.

Habitat Protection and 

Easement Acquisition Process

Following approval of a project boundary, habitat 

protection would occur through the purchase of conservation easements. It is the long-established policy 

of the Service to acquire the minimum land interest 

needed from willing sellers to achieve habitat acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authority for the proposed conservation area is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 

United States Code [U.S.C.] 742 a–742j). The Federal monies used to acquire conservation easements 

are received from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is derived primarily from oil and 

gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat 

fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal 

property. 

There could be more money to acquire lands, 

waters, or interest therein for fish and wildlife conservation purposes through congressional appropriations 

and donations from nonprofit organizations and other 

possible sources including Federal Duck Stamp 

money.

The Service would develop an objective review 

process for evaluating potential conservation easement areas submitted for consideration by willing 

sellers. The main considerations in acquiring an 

easement interest in private land are the biological 

significance of the area, the biological needs of wildlife 

species of management concern, existing and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and landowner 

interest in the program. The purchase of conservation easements would occur with willing sellers only 

and would be subject to available funding. 
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 13

Figure EA–3. Map of the three landscape conservation cooperative areas that cover the proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

Draft EA Chapter 2—Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action

Alternative A (No Action)

The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area 

would not be established. Habitat enhancement or 

restoration projects on private lands, such as water 

developments, grazing systems, and grassland management, would continue through cooperative efforts 

with private landowners. Public agencies and private land trusts would continue conservation efforts 

through securing easements. 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

The Service would establish the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area in parts of Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming, with the objective of conserving 

up to 920,000 acres of grassland, shrubland, riparian 

areas, and wetlands. 

The Service would work to protect habitat using 

conservation easements from willing sellers on privately owned lands that are now providing valuable 

wildlife habitat. The easement contracts would specify perpetual protection of habitat used by trust 

species (migratory birds and threatened and endangered species) and would restrict development.

Development for residential, commercial, or 

industrial purposes such as energy and aggregate 

extraction would not be permitted on properties 

under a conservation easement. Alteration of the natural topography and conversion of native grassland, 

shrubland, wetland, and riparian lands to cropland 

would be prohibited. Conservation easements would 

prohibit the draining, filling, or leveling of protected 

lands.

All land would remain in private ownership; property tax and land management, including invasive 

plant control, would remain the responsibility of the 

landowner. The Service would seek to provide participating landowners with more help for invasive plant 

control and habitat restoration. Control of public 

access to the land would remain with the landowner.

The easement program would be managed by 

staff located at the three national wildlife refuges 

within the Bear River watershed. The Service staff 

at the Bear Lake, Bear River, and Cokeville Meadows Refuges would be responsible for monitoring and 

administering all easements on private land. Monitoring activities would include periodically reviewing 

land status through correspondence and meetings 

with the landowners or land managers to make sure 

that the stipulations of the conservation easements 

are being met. Photo documentation would be used at 

the time the easements are established to document 

baseline conditions.

Alternatives Considered 

But Not Studied

The Service considered five other potential alternatives, but did not study them further for the 

reasons described below.

The Bear River watershed provides important complexes 

of wet meadow, flooded pastures, and hayfields used by 

many species of migratory birds, including sandhill 

crane.

© Keith Penner
16 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Voluntary Landowner Zoning

Landowners would voluntarily petition the county 

commissioners to create a zoning district directing the types of development that can occur within 

an area. This is called “citizen-initiated” zoning. For 

example, landowners could petition the county government to zone an area as agricultural, precluding 

certain types of nonagricultural development such as 

residential subdivisions. Because “citizen initiatives” 

are rarely used, this alternative was not studied 

further.

County Zoning

In a traditional approach used by counties and 

municipalities, the local government would use zoning 

as a means of designating what type of development 

could occur in an area. While laws in Idaho, Utah, and 

Wyoming grant cities and counties the authority to 

regulate land use, engaging in planning and zoning 

activities is optional. Many counties in these States 

have opted to have no planning or zoning requirements but, where used, zoning may be subject to 

frequent changes and would not ensure the long-term 

prevention of residential or commercial development 

in the proposed conservation area. 

Fee Title

The initial cost associated with fee-title acquisition would be more than twice that of the purchase 

of conservation easements. In addition, there would 

be substantial annual costs for staff and materials 

needed by the Service to manage fee-title land. The 

higher costs associated with this method would limit 

acquisition to a much smaller area, making landscapescale conservation unlikely. 

It is the long-established policy of the Service to 

acquire the minimum interest in land necessary to 

achieve Service habitat conservation goals. Fee-title 

acquisition is not preferred over the use of conservation easements, nor is this method of acquisition 

necessary to conserve wildlife habitat and trust wildlife resources in the Bear River watershed.

Smaller Project Area

During initial project scoping, a smaller project 

area immediately adjacent to the established national 

wildlife refuges was discussed for potential land protection. The smaller project area would be unlikely 

to successfully conserve enough areas of intact habitat and migration corridors that are needed to sustain 

wildlife populations.

Short-Term Conservation 

Easements

Interest in the possibility of using short-term conservation easements was expressed in public scoping 

meetings. However, the purpose and need for action 

described in chapter 1 is for landscape-scale protection in perpetuity in the Bear River watershed. 

Repeatedly paying for the same conservation through 

short-term easements would not allow the Service to 

achieve the habitat goals and objectives needed to 

sustain migratory bird and other wildlife populations 

in this area. Because several less-than-perpetual conservation options are available through other Federal 

and State programs and conservation partners, it is 

logical that the Service continue to pursue permanent 

conservation avenues for the proposed conservation 

area project.

The Service has periodically tested short-term 

wetland easements in other areas of the country. A 

study by Higgins and Woodward (1986) concluded 

that 20-year contracts merely delayed habitat alteration and that short-term easements have only 

short-term benefits.
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected 

Environment

Physical Environment

The physical environment comprises the geology, 

soils, hydrology, and climate of the Bear River watershed. In addition, climate change is discussed.

Geology and Soils

The Bear River basin encompasses two physiographic provinces: The Basin and Range Province and 

the Middle Rocky Mountain Province of the Rocky 

Mountain Section (Dion 1969). The Basin and Range 

Province is noted for numerous north–south oriented, 

fault-tilted mountain ranges separated by intervening broad, sediment-filled basins. Approximately 

the western one-third of the watershed lies within 

the Basin and Range Province, which began forming 

when the previously deformed Precambrian (over 570 

million years old) and Paleozoic (570 to 240 million 

years old) rocks were slowly uplifted and broken into 

huge fault blocks by extensional stresses that still 

continue to stretch the earth’s crust (Milligan 2000). 

Sediments shed from the ranges have been slowly 

filling the intervening wide, flat basins. Many of the 

basins have been further modified by shorelines and 

sediments of lakes that intermittently cover the 

valley floors. The most notable of these was Lake 

Bonneville, which reached its deepest level about 

15,000 years ago when it flooded basins across western Utah (Milligan 2000).

The Middle Rocky Mountains Province, which 

encompasses approximately the eastern two-thirds 

of the basin, consists of mountainous terrain, stream 

valleys, and alluvial basins. The Utah part of this 

province has two major mountain ranges, the north–

south trending Wasatch and east–west trending 

Uinta Mountains. Both ranges have cores of old Precambrian rocks, some more than 2.6 billion years old 

(Milligan 2000). This Precambrian bedrock became 

exposed during the Pleistocene by glacial activity 

that created smooth bowls that collect and funnel 

water down the Bear River (Denton 2007). 

Oneida Narrows Breakwater, Idaho

© Craig Denton
18 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

The Bear River Range, located in the central 

part of the Bear River watershed, is aligned north 

to south and divides the eastern Mesozoic and western Cenozoic zones. From the Uinta Mountains in the 

eastern part of the watershed, the Bear River flows 

northward along the edge of a Mesozoic region, characterized by rock structures that have little ability to 

absorb water. The western part of the watershed is 

comprised primarily of Paleozoic rock in the mountains and Cenozoic rock in the valleys. The valleys 

here contain alluvial and glacial deposits that are 

absorptive and lend well to agricultural use (Haws 

and Hughes 1973). The Bear River range is an important catch basin for precipitation. 

The watershed contains multiple mountain ranges 

including the Wasatch Front to the west, the Bear 

River Divide and Tunp Ranges to the east, and the 

Sublette Range to the north (see figure EA–4). The 

convergence of mountain ranges at Rocky Point 

about 1 mile northeast of Cokeville creates a pinchpoint for one of the regionally important migration 

corridors in the watershed. The position and alignment of the various ranges across the watershed play 

a central role in precipitation, climatic, hydrological, 

and biological patterns. 

Hydrology

The Bear River is the largest tributary to the 

Great Salt Lake, the remnant of ancient Lake Bonneville. Lake Bonneville was a closed inland sea basin 

the size of Lake Michigan that once dominated the 

landscape in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Approximately 16,000 years ago, Lake Bonneville began 

spilling over into the Snake River drainage at Red 

Rock Pass, reducing the lake level by 375 feet. Over 

the following 8,000 years, Lake Bonneville continued to shrink because of changing climatic conditions, 

eventually occupying only the present day Great Salt 

Lake (Utah Geological Survey [no date]). 

The Bear River watershed is unusual in that it 

is entirely enclosed by mountains, forming one arm 

of the Great Salt Lake basin, which has no natural 

drainage outlets. Three States share drainage in the 

7,500 square-mile watershed: 2,700 square miles in 

Idaho, 3,300 square miles in Utah, and 1,500 square 

miles in Wyoming. Progressions of small, high-mountain streams form the headwaters of the Bear River 

in Utah‘s Uinta–Wasatch–Cache National Forest. 

The Uinta Mountains, a subrange of the Rocky Mountains, vary in elevation from 7,500 to 13,500 feet and 

are unusual in that they run in an east to west orientation. From the headwaters, the Bear River flows 

north and west in an arc from Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, 

and back into Utah. Near the city of Evanston, Wyoming, the topography flattens and land use becomes 

a mix of urban and agricultural uses. Here the river 

begins a dramatic transformation from fast-flowing, cold, and clear water in the narrow valleys to a 

slow-moving, cool-water, meandering course on the 

valley floors. Humans have altered the natural stream 

dynamics throughout the remaining course of the 

Bear River to its termination at the Great Salt Lake. 

Although agriculture accounts for only 7 percent of 

the land use in the upper watershed, it accounts for 

more than 80 percent of the water usage. Surface and 

ground water sources are used to irrigate more than 

96,512 acres of hay, pasture, and cropland (Bear River 

Watershed Information System 2009).

Instream structures like the Chapman Canal 

Diversion and Woodruff Narrows Reservoir disrupt natural channel-forming flows and sediment 

transport, leading to streambed and bank instability 

downstream. After passing through Woodruff Narrows Reservoir, the valley broadens and the river 

travels along the Wyoming–Utah border and lends 

itself to irrigation and production agriculture for 30 

miles before reentering Wyoming near Sage Junction. Nutrient loading (especially phosphorus, which 

is found at naturally high levels in surrounding soil 

formations), sediment from accelerated bank erosion, 

and dewatering are leading causes of stream degradation. Sediment and nutrient levels remain as the 

main water quality concerns throughout the entire 

Bear River watershed, and those impacts contribute 

to water management challenges in the refuges (Utah 

Division of Water Resources 2002).

As the river flows north from Evanston, the ridge 

and swale topography of the floodplain is characterized by a complex association of irrigated meadows, 

wetlands, and grass uplands that support one of the 

highest densities of migrating and nesting waterfowl 

in Wyoming. Centered along a 20-mile stretch of the 

Bear River and its associated wetlands and uplands, 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992 to protect this important habitat. 

After leaving Cokeville, the Bear River crosses 

into Idaho near the community of Border, where the 

flow is greatly increased by inflow from the Smith’s 

Fork River, which originates in the Bridger–Teton 

National Forest and has a relatively intact watershed and native fish assemblages (Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2010).

As the Bear River passes into Idaho, PacifiCorp diverts water at Stewart Dam through Bear 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge and into Bear Lake 

proper (which straddles Idaho and Utah). Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, near Montpelier, Idaho, was 

established in 1968 to protect and manage habitat for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Once released 

from Bear Lake proper, water travels from the Outlet Canal and the refuge’s Mud Lake unit back to 

the Bear River’s original channel about 7 miles from 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 19

Figure EA–4. Vicinity map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.
20 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

where the water is first diverted. Except for some 

water seepage from Stewart Dam, all Bear River 

water is diverted through the refuge; however, small 

creeks and irrigation return water enter into the original river channel so that the river is not completely 

dewatered between Stewart Dam and its reunion 

with the Outlet Canal.

From Bear Lake, the river travels 100 miles to the 

north, where it is impounded in the Alexander Reservoir for irrigation, recreation, and hydroelectric 

power generation. Below the Alexander Dam, about 

one-tenth of the river’s annual flow is sent through 

one of the oldest diversion canals in the watershed, 

the Last Chance Canal. The canal was constructed 

by settlers to provide irrigation for agriculture in the 

early 1900s. From there, the river continues south 

toward Grace, Idaho. Just above the Black Canyon, almost all the river water is again diverted, at 

the Grace Dam, through an aqueduct to the Grace 

Power Plant for power production. The water then is 

returned to its original river channel just below Black 

Canyon at Cove Dam. As a part of its 2008 relicensing 

agreement for the Grace and Cove dams, PacifiCorp 

provides scheduled whitewater flow releases back 

into Black Canyon during spring and early summer 

months to help mimic natural flow patterns.

Below Black Canyon, the river continues south 

through the Gem, Gentile, and Cache Valleys, where 

the predominant land uses are irrigated agriculture, 

grazing, and dairy production. About 100,000 people 

live in the Cache Valley, making it the most populated 

area in the Bear River watershed. Just below the 

Idaho–Utah State line, the Bear River receives water 

from the Cub River, which in turn obtains part of its 

water from the Mount Naomi Wilderness. Below the 

Cub River, the amount of water in the Bear River 

doubles because of input from the Logan, Blacksmith 

Fork, and Little Bear River flows.

Eventually the Bear River passes into the Bear 

River delta and the Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge and then terminates its horseshoe-shaped 

500-mile route in Utah’s Great Salt Lake. Today, the 

Bear River contributes more than one-half of the 

total surface flow entering the Great Salt Lake each 

year. This large volume of freshwater from the river 

helps to maintain proper temperatures, salinity, and 

water levels in the lake. The saline waters and freshwater marshes of the Great Salt Lake comprise one 

of the most essential breeding and migratory staging 

sites for colonial waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds in the Great Basin. 

Climate

The climate of most of the proposed conservation area is characterized as having warm to hot 

summers and cold winters and is classified as humid 

continental, mild summer under the Koppen climate 

classification system. The remainder of the watershed 

near the Great Salt Lake is classified as semiarid desert–steppe or humid continental, hot summer for the 

Great Basin and Wasatch Front, respectively.

Annual precipitation is influenced greatly by the 

topography and elevations found within the watershed, which range from 4,200 to 13,000 feet. Annual 

precipitation ranges from 10 inches in the lower valleys to 65 inches at the headwaters of the Bear River 

in the Uinta Mountains (Utah Division of Water 

Resources 2004). Two major storm patterns influence 

precipitation in the basin: (1) frontal systems from the 

Pacific Northwest during winter and spring; and (2) 

thunderstorms from the south and southwest in late 

summer and early fall. 

Temperatures are also variable throughout the 

watershed because of differences in elevation. Mean 

annual temperatures range from 37 °F in the Uinta 

Mountains at about 8,400 feet elevation to 53 °F at 

Tremonton at 4,300 feet. Maximum July temperatures 

average 91 °F at Tremonton compared to 74 °F in the 

Uinta Mountains. 

Climate Change

The Bear River basin has warmed an average 

2 °F since 1971 (Utah Climate Center; see figure 

EA–5). The trend of 0.5 °F per decade during the 

last 40 years is 1.5 times greater than the trend for 

the global average over the same period. Simulation models predict that by 2040 to 2060, the Bear 

River basin’s climate could be 5–6 °F warmer, with 

a 5–13 percent decrease in annual runoff, 10–15 percent lower peak accumulation of snowpack, earlier 

spring melt by 2–4 weeks, and an increasing fraction 

of winter precipitation coming as rain (Degiorgio et 

al. 2010). Climate change models in the arid western 

regions of North America also suggest an increased 

frequency of extended drought in the future (Hughes 

and Diaz 2008, Barnett et al. 2008, Degiorgio et al. 

2010). These changes have important implications for 

waterbird populations, and ecosystem stability within 

the Bear River basin wetlands. Maclean et al. (2008) 

found that waterbird abundance and phenology are 

sensitive to the effects of climate change. 

Waterbirds dependent on inland wetlands in the 

west are at particular risk because these important 

habitats are among the most likely to be dramatically 

influenced by climate change in the region (Hughes 

and Diaz 2008, Barnett et al. 2008). For example, 

breeding waterbirds at the Bear River Migratory 

Bird Refuge rely on wetlands that lie at the interface 

between freshwater inflows and the saline Great Salt 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 21

Figure EA–5. Graph of the trend in annual average temperature in the Bear River basin (Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming) 

over the past 100 years. 

Lake. As the timing and amount of freshwater snowmelt change and humans respond by altering their 

use of water, the hydrology and salinity regimes of 

these wetlands may be dramatically influenced. Without actions that anticipate and address these likely 

changes, the value of this area for breeding waterbirds could be disrupted, which would likely influence 

the continental populations of some species.

The “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan 

for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change” 

(2010) involves three progressive strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. Adaptation 

involves helping fish, wildlife, and their habitats 

adapt to climate change by implementing management actions to help reduce the impacts. Mitigation 

involves reducing the carbon footprint by using less 

energy, consuming fewer materials, and increasing sequestration of biological carbon. Engagement 

encompasses developing partnerships with local, 

national, and international partners, key constituencies, and stakeholders to seek solutions to the 

challenges and threats to fish that address all three 

of these strategies. 

Adaptation 

Worldwide scientific consensus is that human 

activity is changing the climate system. As the climate changes, the abundance and distribution of 

wildlife and fish will also change in response to 

changing habitat conditions. Some species will adapt 

successfully to a warming world; many will struggle; 

and others will disappear. 

The exact changes to temperature and precipitation in the Bear River basin are unknown. Equally 

unknown are the responses of wildlife and habitat 

to these changes, for example, which species will 
22 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

become the most vulnerable. Maintaining adequate 

densities of wetlands, robust riparian corridors, 

and open spaces will become increasingly important 

to allow fish and wildlife to adapt to the changing 

environment. 

Mitigation

Forests, grasslands, wetlands, and soils have a 

large influence on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon sequestration forms one of the key 

elements of mitigation. The World Resources Institute estimates that grasslands store approximately 

34 percent, forests store approximately 39 percent, 

and agro-ecosystems approximately 17 percent of the 

global stock of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems. It is 

as important to protect existing carbon stores from 

further degradation as it is to sequester atmospheric 

carbon. 

Historically, the destruction of wetlands through 

land use changes has had the largest effects on carbon 

fluxes and the resulting radiative forcing of North 

American wetlands. [Radiative forcing is the measure 

of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of 

balance.] The primary effects have been a reduction 

in the ability of the wetlands to sequester carbon (a 

small to moderate increase in radiative forcing), oxidation of their soil carbon reserves upon drainage (a 

small increase in radiative forcing), and reduction in 

methane emissions (a small to large decrease in radiative forcing). It is uncertain how global changes will 

affect the carbon pools and fluxes of North American 

wetlands (Bridgham et al. 2006).

Engagement

Engagement involves cooperation, communication, and partnerships to address the conservation 

challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 

2009). The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area would serve as a model for engagement 

by working with landowners, nongovernmental organizations, State agencies, and Federal agencies listed 

earlier under “Partnership Development.”

A key recommendation from a recent climate 

change workshop held by The Nature Conservancy 

was to coordinate management of shared resources. 

Given the regional pattern of recent temperature 

changes, with some areas experiencing warming more 

rapidly than others, natural resource managers would 

benefit by coordinating their activities with others 

who are managing common resources. Regional and 

coordinated management of shared habitat may be 

the only way to make sure that some habitat can be 

kept in a resilient state while other habitat transitions to another state (Robles 2010).

Taking action on these recommendations will be 

crucial for achieving conservation and management 

goals in the face of a changing climate. Reduced snowpack in the mountains combined with earlier seasonal 

melting caused by rising temperatures may increase 

the intensity and length of late summer droughts 

and reduce the availability of water, especially in 

the western United States. Finding enough water is 

becoming an increasingly difficult challenge for western fish and wildlife species. Spring is arriving earlier, 

and plants and animals are being found farther and 

farther north of their historical ranges in the United 

States. Wildlife biologists are concerned that this will 

mean some migratory species may not arrive in their 

breeding habitats when, or where, their particular 

food sources are available.

Education is a key part of engagement. The Bear 

River Migratory Bird Refuge watershed education 

program will work with local school districts to apply 

scientific understanding, at a student level, through 

field trips to sites within the Bear River watershed. 

Students groups will monitor local climate change 

through tracking phenological events and engage in 

strategies to reduce carbon footprints. It is predicted 

that student engagement in climate change education 

will result in advancing its understanding among the 

citizenry within the watershed.

Biological Environment

The Bear River watershed’s habitat ranges from 

river and the adjacent riparian areas to wetland, 

grassland, shrubland, and forest. This section also 

describes the wildlife and species of concern that use 

these habitats.

Habitat 

Below the peaks of the Uinta Mountains lies 

a landscape carved by glaciers containing lakes, 

streams, forests, and meadows. Dropping in elevation from more than 13,000 feet to 4,211 feet and 

crossing through numerous life zones (alpine to valley floor), the Bear River watershed contains a large 

diversity of plant communities. The diversity of habitats in the Bear River watershed support a variety of 

fish, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species as well 

as a large number of resident and migratory bird species. See figure EA–6 for a map of habitat types, table 

EA–1 for acreages, and appendix B for a list of plant 

and animal species representative of the Bear River 

watershed.)
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 23

Figure EA–6. Habitat map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Source: NorthWest GAP (Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 2011); South West reGAP (U.S. Geological Survey 

2005).
24 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Table EA–1. Acreages of vegetation types found in 

the proposed Bear River project area in Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming. 

Vegetation types Acres

Agriculture: cultivated cropland 594,358

Agriculture: pasture and hay 133,482

Developed 83,343

Forest and woodland 1,250,529

Grassland 128,848

Introduced riparian area and wetland 

vegetation 8,821

Introduced upland vegetation—annual 

grassland 44,840

Introduced upland vegetation—perennial 

grassland and forbs 19,171

Marsh 69,430

Mining 197

Open water 119,497

Riparian area 261,407

Sagebrush steppe and shrubland 1,945,752

Shrubland and steppe 18,565

Sparse and barren 44,912

Wet meadow or prairie 12,803

Wetland 27,577

Wetland–playa 59,350

 Total 4,822,882

Source: http://gap.uidaho.edu/index.php/gap-home/Northwest

-GAP/landcover; http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap

/habitatreview/ModelQuery.asp; Northwest GAP (Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 2011); Southwest 

ReGAP (U.S. Geological Survey 2005).

Connectivity and Corridors

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the chief factors in the decline of many populations of wildlife 

throughout the world (Harris 1984, Ehrlich 1986, 

Lovejoy et al. 1986). In the western United States, 

human development of open spaces has fragmented 

the connections between wildlife habitats (Gude et al. 

2007). Corridors that link habitats or other landscape 

linkages help mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by linking core areas so that individuals can 

move between them (Mech and Hallett 2001). They 

also allow evolutionary and ecological processes (for 

example, fire, succession, and predation) to continue. 

By ensuring that plants and animals have connected 

populations, corridors can help prevent or mitigate 

against harmful population-level effects resulting 

from isolation including inbreeding, low genetic diversity, and extirpation (Noss 1983, Harris 1984, Dobson 

et al. 1999) and may actually increase population sizes, 

viability, and movement of habitat-restricted species 

(Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Haddad 1999, Haddad 

and Baum 1999). Corridors that provided connection 

between habitats within the landscape should also 

help provide for longer-term gene flow between populations in core habitats and may provide a pathway 

for plant populations to shift under regional climate 

change trends (Bates and Jones 2007).

Almost all species rely on more than one habitat 

type to complete their life cycles, and the availability 

of various intact habitats close together is essential to many wildlife species found in the watershed. 

For example, Saalfeld et al. (2010) found that, while 

the long-billed curlew’s need for wetlands near its 

grassland nesting habitat is poorly understood, 

close proximity might be important since more curlews were detected near wetlands. Brood-rearing 

long-billed curlews typically forage in upland areas 

(Pampush and Anthony 1993); however, curlew chicks 

move toward wetlands as they grow (Foster-Willfong 

2003). Shorter travel times between nest sites and 

wetland foraging sites may reduce chick mortality 

(Saalfeld et al. 2010). In addition to grassland habitat, 

conservation of emergent wetlands—an element that 

generally has been overlooked—needs to be incorporated into habitat management plans for curlews 

(Saalfeld et al. 2010). 

White-faced ibis also have specific habitat needs 

that are being met in the Bear River watershed. In 

Wyoming, Dark-Smiley and Keinath (2003) found that 

ibis require large wetlands or lakes with dense emergent vegetation, such as bulrushes for breeding and 

foraging grounds near breeding areas. One consistent feature that all the breeding records in Wyoming 

have in common is proximity to irrigated crops where 

ibis forage. It seems likely that a combination of factors, such as proximity of foraging grounds and 

specialized habitat at open-water systems, plays a 

role in where white-faced ibis choose to breed. 

The Bear River watershed provides linkages and 

migration corridors for seasonal movements of wildlife between various habitats within the watershed 

as well as between other protected lands and ecosystems in the region (see figure EA–7). Crucial 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 25 atershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, Figure EA–7. Map of regional conservation and protected areas adjacent to the proposed Bear River W and Wyoming.
26 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

wildlife corridors maintain system resiliency in the 

face of climate change, especially for wide-ranging wildlife species such as Canada lynx, wolverine, 

mule deer, and pronghorn. Migration corridors provide connectivity between habitats in the northern 

and southern Rockies and between Idaho and the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem for mule deer, elk, 

and mid- to large-sized carnivores. In particular, Canada lynx linkages are mentioned for Cache, Rich, 

and Uinta Counties (Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game 2007). Core habitat areas for lynx are found in 

the Uinta Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2003) 

as well. Large numbers of mule deer, pronghorn, 

elk, and moose migrate through narrow corridors in 

the Rocky Point area north of Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming. 

Riparian areas are important habitat for yellow warblers.

USFWS

Riverine and Riparian Areas

Although riparian areas occupy only a small proportion of the total landscape in the western United 

States, they tend to be more productive than other 

ecosystems (Svejcar 1997). Riparian habitat is estimated to cover less than 2 percent of the States of 

Idaho (Idaho Gap Analysis 2011) and Wyoming (Merrill et al. 1996) and less than 1 percent of the State 

of Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b). 

The importance of riparian habitat to wildlife far 

exceeds its abundance. Distinct ribbons of green 

riparian areas connect streams with uplands across 

much of the West. These ecosystems support high 

species diversity and density as well as high productivity, and they allow for an exchange of energy, 

nutrients, and species between aquatic, riparian, and 

upland terrestrial systems (Johnson and McCormack 

1978, Gregory et al. 1991, Poff et al. 2011). Riparian zones along the major streams are important 

migration and dispersal corridors traversing harsh 

grassland and desert environments (Lohman 2004). 

Densities of breeding birds can be up to 10 times 

higher in riparian tracts than in adjacent, nonriparian habitats (Lohman 2004). Bird diversity in 

riparian habitats has been linked to the complex vertical vegetative structure of these habitats compared 

to adjacent grassland or shrubland habitats (Slater 

2006). In the arid Southwest, about 60 percent of all 

vertebrate species (Omhart and Anderson 1982) and 

70 percent of all threatened and endangered species are riparian area obligates (Johnson 1989, Poff 

et al. 2011). The quality of riparian habitat greatly 

influences the quality of aquatic habitat. Riparian 

vegetation influences light penetration and air and 

water temperatures, and is the transition point for 

food chain interactions between aquatic and terrestrial zones. Large woody debris and litter associated 

with riparian vegetation are often necessary for 

productive fish habitats, and influence the physical, 

chemical, and biotic characteristics of riparian and 

stream ecosystems (Naiman et al. 1992). In some 

riparian ecosystems, herbaceous plants provide the 

functions supplied by woody plants in other locations 

(Baker et al. 2004, Poff et al. 2011). 

Riparian areas also play an essential role in maintaining year-round aquatic habitat for fish and other 

species that occupy the stream channel. In most 

years, overbank flooding during snowmelt saturates riparian area soils and elevates water tables 

in adjacent areas. Subsurface water sustains riparian vegetation during drought periods and releases 

water slowly into the stream (Ewing 1978). Although 

often small, these waterflows help keep appropriate stream temperatures, improve water quality, 

and sustain isolated pools essential for fish survival 

(Winters et al. 1998 as cited in Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 2010). Native fish populations have 

fluctuated, through time, in response to changes in 

the extent and function of riparian willow communities (Chaney et al. 1991, Binns 1981). Riffle-dwelling 

species such as longnose dace and riffle-spawning salmonids require relatively smaller fine sediment levels 

associated with healthy riparian vegetation. Riparian 

habitat is also required by many amphibian and reptile species.

Trout Unlimited (2010) found that the greatest 

limiting factor for Bonneville cutthroat trout appears 

to be land stewardship, because most populations 

are located on unprotected public and private lands. 

Strategies such as securing long-term protection, 

restoring and reconnecting degraded and fragmented 

habitats, and controlling nonnative species on a 

watershed scale are necessary to build resiliency 

while protecting genetic purity. 

Wildlife abundance, water availability, vegetation 

diversity, soil productivity, and favorable topography found in riparian zones attracted both Native 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 27

Americans and early Europeans settlers to these 

areas. As a result, a high percentage of riparian areas 

are privately owned today. Most communities in 

the Bear River watershed are located near riparian 

zones used for agriculture, recreation, travel, water 

development, and housing (Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 2010). 

Riparian areas in the West are being influenced 

by a variety of stressors including land use change, 

grazing, dams, invasive species, timber harvesting, climate change, recreation, water quality, water 

diversion, ground-water depletion, fire, and mining. 

Although no comprehensive national inventory of 

riparian area conditions exists, Ohmart (1994) suggests that a minimum of 95 percent of all western 

riparian habitats have been altered in some way during the past century. 

Another major influence on riparian areas in 

the Bear River watershed is irrigation. The timing, 

extent, and method of irrigation can have a strong 

influence on riparian vegetation. Conversion from 

flood irrigation to center pivot irrigation has been 

known to change riparian area characteristics. While 

technological changes like side-role systems and 

gated pipe deliver water more efficiently to crops and 

potentially conserve water for other uses like maintaining streamflows, the influence on riparian area 

characteristics is complex (Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 2010).

Lowland Riparian Areas. Lowland riparian areas 

in the West are typically narrow bands of trees—predominantly cottonwoods—and shrubs surrounded 

by uplands of shorter vegetation (Knopf et al. 1988, 

Montgomery 1996). Principal woody species found in 

lowland riparian habitats in the watershed include 

Fremont cottonwood, netleaf hackberry, squaw-bush, 

boxelder, lanceleaf cottonwood, willow, and redosier 

dogwood. Nonnative invasive species include Russian 

olive and tamarisk. (Jones and Walford 1995, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2005).

Mountain Riparian Areas. Mountain riparian 

habitats differ from those found in lowlands because 

of the generally steeper stream gradients, cooler 

temperatures, and smaller amounts of soil deposition (Knight 1994). Mountain riparian vegetation is 

often characterized by sedges and short willow shrubland (Winward 2000). As elevation decreases, alder 

and tall willows become common, along with Engelmann spruce, narrowleaf cottonwood, lodgepole pine, 

aspen, and occasionally blue spruce and balsam poplar (Knight 1994).

Wetland

Wetlands represent a small part of the landscape 

in the Intermountain West, covering less than 5 

percent of Utah and 2 percent or less in both Idaho 

and Wyoming (Idaho Gap Analysis, Wyoming Joint 

Venture Steering Committee 2010). Wetlands are 

often found in the form of marshes next to desert 

springs, rivers, streams, and lakes; wetlands can also 

be found in the spring and summer where snowmelt 

collects. In the Intermountain West, wetlands provide 

habitat for more than 140 birds and 25 mammals that 

are either dependent on or associated with wetlands 

(Gammonley 2004, Copeland et al. 2010). Nicholoff 

et al. (2003) estimates that about 90 percent of the 

wildlife species in Wyoming use wetlands and riparian habitats daily or seasonally during their life cycle, 

and about 70 percent of Wyoming bird species depend 

on wetland or riparian areas. 

Wetlands within lower elevation grasslands and 

shrublands are especially important in terms of the 

biodiversity of plant species and because they have 

much longer growing seasons than those at higher 

elevations (Weiher and Keddy 1999). Lower elevation wetlands generally sustain greater biological 

diversity and greater overall densities of wildlife. 

However, these lower wetland complexes are also at 

greatest risk of future change because they support 

higher density human populations and more agriculture, have a higher potential for energy development, 

and are at a higher risk for climate change (Copeland 

et al. 2007, 2009). 

Privately owned wet meadow habitats are some 

of the most important unprotected wetlands within 

the Intermountain West. Irrigated wet meadows that 

are hayed and grazed annually (hay meadows) represent a particularly important subset of wetland 

habitats. These privately owned wetlands typically 

occur at mid- to high elevations (4,500–8,500 feet) in 

The long-billed curlew depends on wetland and upland 

habitats. 

USFWS
28 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Springtime wetlands at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming.

USFWS

landscapes dominated by intact wetland, grassland, 

and sagebrush habitats not fragmented by development. These areas are important, as they often 

comprise almost entirely native habitats with little 

area converted to cropland. Grass-dominated landscapes with minimal fragmentation from cropland 

support high nest success for wetland- and grasslandnesting birds.

In addition to nesting habitat, these landscapes 

provide crucial stopover habitat for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds (Intermountain West Joint 

Venture 2010). Agricultural areas are a major source 

of foraging habitat during migration as well as nesting and brood-rearing habitat for many waterbird 

species. The Bear River watershed provides important complexes of wet meadow, flooded pastures, and 

hayfields used by many species of migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds including American 

avocet, sandhill crane, white-faced ibis, American 

bittern, marbled godwit, long-billed dowitcher, longbilled curlew, and northern pintail. The quality and 

availability of spring migration habitat have direct 

implications for the survival and breeding productivity of migratory birds. This shallowly flooded habitat 

is extremely important to spring-migrating waterfowl, especially northern pintails, whose population 

remains below continental management goals. Important flood-irrigated grazed and hayed wet meadow 

habitats sustain migrating waterfowl and waterbirds 

in the Intermountain West. These areas also provide 

crucial brood habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds by supplying both escape cover from predators 

and productive foraging sites for rapidly growing 

ducklings and chicks. 

As with riparian areas, the irrigation of agricultural lands can have both a positive and a negative 

influence on the ecological condition of wetlands. 

Agricultural irrigation has affected the hydrology of 

many wetlands in the Bear River watershed. Copeland et al. (2010) found that more than 50 percent of 

Wyoming wetland areas in four different complexes 

were influenced by agricultural irrigation and predicted that changes in irrigation practices driven by 

the need for water conservation would be likely to 

adversely affect the hydrology of many lower elevation wetlands. As agricultural producers convert to 

alternative forms of irrigation because of drought 

concerns, many wetlands throughout the watershed may disappear. Some studies have documented 

negative effects from irrigation, mainly involving 

the conversion of existing wetlands to cropland and 

impairment from contaminant and nutrient runoff 

(Dickerson et al. 1996; Lemly et al. 1993, 2000; Kiesecker 2002).

Livestock grazing can also have a major influence 

on the functional integrity of wetlands and riparian 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 29

systems throughout the Intermountain West (U.S. 

General Accounting Office 1988; Chaney et al. 1990, 

1993; Belsky et al. 1999; Copeland et al. 2010). If effective land conservation measures are not employed, 

certain farming practices may adversely affect wetlands. Sediment runoff from tilled fields and heavily 

grazed pastures decreases the lifespan of ponds and 

wetlands and impairs water quality.

Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland

From 1950 to 1990, grasslands west of the Mississippi River declined by 27.2 million acres, with 

approximately 36 percent converted to uses other 

than cropland (Conner et al. 2001). Now, the greatest threats to grasslands and sagebrush ecosystems 

come from oil and gas development, increasing urban 

and agricultural development, and invasive species. Climate change is also expected to cause major 

changes in grassland and sagebrush distribution 

across the landscape (Bachelet et al. 2001). Range 

expansions of woody species are predicted to continue, particularly the expansion of pinyon–juniper 

into sagebrush–steppe and grasslands (Rowland et 

al. 2008), resulting in a decrease in sagebrush and 

an increase in woodlands across the West. Wildfires 

are increasing and are likely to intensify in a warmer 

future with drier soils, longer growing seasons, and 

more severe droughts (Field et al. 2007). Wildfires 

may also cause large changes in grassland and sagebrush ecosystems. 

Changes in grassland cover can be subtle, but 

cover is generally predicted to decrease (Bachelet et 

al. 2001). Modeling suggests that climate change will 

likely increase net primary production in grasslands 

and decrease soil carbon, but high annual variability 

in plant production makes these projections uncertain (Parton et al. 2005). Nutrient cycling and plant 

production are expected to occur more rapidly in 

response to climate change than changes in community composition (Parton et al. 1994).

Sagebrush is typically the most common plant in 

shrub–steppe habitats in the watershed. There are 

many species of sagebrush in the Bear River watershed including basin, Wyoming, and mountain big 

sagebrush, and black or low sagebrush, which differ in height and habitat affinity. Other common 

shrubs include rabbitbrush, greasewood, fourwing 

saltbush, shadscale, serviceberry, and bitterbrush. 

Perennial grasses may also be common and include 

Indian ricegrass, sand dropseed, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, alkali sacaton, wild rye, 

and inland saltgrass. Common forbs include Hood’s 

phlox, arrowleaf balsamroot, yarrow, Richardson’s 

geranium, and milkvetch (Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

2005b). 

In the foothills and on mountain slopes, mountain 

big sagebrush occurs as a dominant shrub, typically 

with bluebunch wheatgrass or Idaho fescue. Mountain big sagebrush also occurs in a more diverse shrub 

community known as mountain shrub, in which it 

White-faced ibis feeding in an irrigated agricultural field.

USFWS
30 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

codominates with bitterbrush, serviceberry, mountain 

snowberry, chokecherry, mountain mahogany, bigtooth maple, and a variety of forbs. In Utah, Gambel 

oak is a dominant species in the mountain shrub community. Idaho fescue and basin wildrye are common 

bunchgrasses (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b). 

In Idaho, this habitat is restricted to the southern 

part of the State but is widespread in Wyoming. This 

diverse community of shrubs is highly palatable and 

is the preferred browse for many big game species 

(Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010). 

Sagebrush ecosystems are among the most imperiled in North America because of a variety of human 

disturbances. Sagebrush habitat has been altered 

and fragmented by changing fire regimes, an influx 

of invasive species, and development (agriculture, 

energy, natural resource, urban, and associated infrastructure). This has resulted in a decline in both the 

numbers and the distribution of many of the more 

than 350 species that depend on sagebrush habitat 

for all or part of their life cycles (Wisdom et al. 2005). 

In particular, such habitat shifts have major implications for sagebrush-dependent vertebrates, such as 

certain bird species (Knick et al. 2003). In all, shrub–

steppe habitats are home to 20 species in Utah, 15 

species in Wyoming, and at least 25 species Idaho that 

need additional conservation actions (Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources 2005b), Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 2005, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game 2005). 

Climatic suitability models suggest that by 2100, 

sagebrush communities in Nevada, southern Idaho, 

Utah, Colorado, and eastern Wyoming may be at risk 

of loss because of climate change. Communities in 

southwestern Wyoming will be at less risk (Bradley 

2010).

Sagebrush-dependent wildlife species have 

adapted to heterogeneous sagebrush communities 

comprised of multiple age classes of plants across the 

landscape. In sites where the forb and grass diversity necessary for a healthy sagebrush community is 

reduced, the amount of essential food and cover available for wildlife is decreased (Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 2011). Greater sage-grouse in particular have been affected, with breeding populations 

declining 45 to 80 percent from estimated numbers in 

the 1950s (Connelly and Braun 1997, Connelly et al. 

2004, Braun 2006).

Sagebrush ecosystems are rapidly declining both 

in extent and quality rangewide. The historical range 

contraction of the greater sage-grouse is a result 

of land conversion of sagebrush habitats to agriculture, climatic trends, and human population growth. 

Future range loss, however, may be due more to 

recent changes in land use and habitat condition 

including energy development and invasive species, 

such as cheatgrass and disease such as West Nile 

virus (Aldridge et al. 2008). Keeping large areas of 

intact sagebrush is considered essential to the longterm persistence of the sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 

2008). Based on this finding, it has been recommended 

that conservation efforts should begin by keeping 

large expanses of sagebrush habitat and enhancing 

the quality and connectivity of those areas. 

Recent research shows that viable prairie grouse 

and sage-grouse populations are heavily dependent 

on suitable nesting and brood-rearing habitat (Connelly et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2009). These habitats 

are usually associated with leks that are located in 

the approximate centers of nesting and brood-rearing habitats (Connelly et al. 2000, but see Connelly 

et al. 1988; Becker et al. 2009). Quality nesting and 

brood-rearing habitats surrounding leks are crucial 

to sustaining viable prairie grouse and sage-grouse 

populations (Giesen and Connelly 1993, Hagen et al. 

2004, Connelly et al. 2000). The average distances 

from nests to active leks of nonmigratory sage-grouse 

range from 0.7 mile to 4 miles (Connelly et al. 2000), 

and are possibly much more for migratory populations (Connelly et al. 1988). Kaczor et al. (2011) found 

that sage-grouse selected brood-rearing habitats that 

provided increased visual obstruction and bluegrass 

cover. More herbaceous vegetation at these sites may 

provide increased invertebrate abundance. Invertebrates are a necessary part of the diet of sage-grouse 

chicks to support their growth, development, and survival (Johnson and Boyce 1990).

Sage-grouse avoid energy developments in otherwise suitable habitats in winter. Previous research 

has shown that breeding sage-grouse in oil and gas 

fields avoid developments, experience higher rates 

of mortality, or both (Holloran 2005, Kaiser 2006, 

Aldridge and Boyce 2007). Studies on the impacts of 

energy development in sagebrush–steppe ecosystems 

show that the effects extend beyond the sage-grouse. 

Sawyer et al. (2006) found that mule deer avoided 

otherwise suitable habitats within 1.7–2.3 miles (2.7–

3.7 kilometers) of gas wells, and densities of Brewer’s 

sparrow and sage sparrow declined by 36–57 percent 

within 328 feet (100 meters) of dirt roads in gas fields 

(Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004).

Sagebrush habitats conserved for sage-grouse 

may also benefit other sagebrush-dependent species, although the effectiveness of sage-grouse as an 

umbrella species will depend on the specific management objectives for the conservation of other target 

species (Rowland et al. 2006). The limits of the conservation umbrella of sage-grouse for management of 

many species is related in part to the nearly complete 

reliance of sage-grouse on sagebrush; sage-grouse are 

among the few species identified as true ‘‘sagebrush 

obligates’’ (Schroeder et al. 1999).
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 31

Forest

At higher elevations in the watershed, forests 

below treeline typically consist of spruce, lodgepole 

pine, and subalpine fir, with areas of high-elevation 

tundra on north-facing slopes. Moving down slope and 

the corresponding precipitation gradient, subalpine 

forests give way to dry forests of Douglas-fir, white 

fir, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and aspen groves, 

with bigtooth maple and boxelder in ravines. 

Although the forested areas are largely on public 

lands, habitat loss through conversion to residential 

development is of local importance in some areas of 

the watershed. Phosphate mining also has had a significant long-term impact on forest habitats in eastern 

Idaho. This habitat typically occurs in landscapes 

that are extensively used for recreation, for livestock 

grazing, and increasingly for residential development.

An aspen grove in bright fall colors.

Mark Hogan / USFWS

Wildlife

This section describes the abundant variety of 

birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish that 

live in the Bear River watershed.

Birds

The Bear River watershed provides diverse habitats used by more than 300 species of birds annually 

for breeding or migration. Banding data also show 

that migratory routes for some species that nest in 

the Pacific and central flyways overlap in the Bear 

River watershed (for example, northern pintail). The 

Intermountain West Joint Venture’s diverse partnership for avian habitat conservation has identified 

eight Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005), and the Bear River 

Migratory Bird Refuge and Great Salt Lake are designated as Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network Sites. The National Wildlife Refuge Association has designated the Bear River watershed as 

one of six Beyond the Boundaries focal areas nationwide because of its importance to migratory birds and 

other wildlife. The National Audubon Society (2012) 

has designated eight Important Bird Areas within 

the Bear River watershed, which serves to highlight the regional and continental significance of this 

watershed for migratory birds. Many of the transient 

species are neotropical migrants that breed in the 

United States and Canada and winter in the Central 

Highlands of Mexico or further south into Central and 

South America. Other spring migrants to the watershed winter along the Gulf of Mexico and the coasts of 

southern California, Baja Norte, Baja Sur, and southwestern Mexico, including the Gulf of California.

Upland areas within the Bear River watershed provide essential habitat to many bird species. 

Shrub–steppe and grassland habitats make up about 

60 percent of the Bear River watershed land cover, 

supporting species such as greater sage-grouse, 

sage sparrow, sage thrasher, Columbian sharp-tailed 

grouse, burrowing owl, and long-billed curlew. All 

of these bird species have been listed as “Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need” (GCN) in the Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies because of changes in habitat 

quantity and quality (Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game 2005, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b). 

The greater sage-grouse is the only species listed 

above that has Federal status. The species became a 

candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act after the Service’s conclusion that listing 

was warranted but precluded (USFWS 2010a). The 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was petitioned for 

listing in 2004, with a finding of “Not Warranted for 

Listing” issued in 2006 (USFWS 2006).

Studies referenced in the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Land-Based Wind Guidelines” (2012) found that 

“based primarily on data documenting reduced 

fecundity (a combination of nesting, clutch size, nest 

success, juvenile survival, and other factors) in sagegrouse populations near roads, transmissions lines, 

and areas of oil and gas development and production 

(Holloran 2005, Connelly et al. 2000), development 

within 3–5 miles (or more) of active sage-grouse leks 

may have significant adverse effects on the affected 

grouse population.” Lyon and Anderson (2003) found 

that in habitats fragmented by natural gas development, only 26 percent of hens captured on disturbed 

leks nested within 1.8 miles of the lek of capture, 

whereas 91 percent of hens from undisturbed areas 

nested within the same area. Holloran (2005) found 

that active drilling within 3.1 miles of sage-grouse 
32 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

leks reduced the number of breeding males by displacing adult males and reducing recruitment of 

juvenile males. The magnitudes and proximal causes 

(for example, noise, height of structures, movement, 

human activity) of those impacts on grouse populations are areas of much needed research (Becker et 

al. 2009).

Hanser and Knick (2011) found that the diversity 

of sagebrush habitats used by greater sage-grouse 

may provide an effective umbrella for a broader community of passerine bird species associated with 

sagebrush that are also declining in numbers. Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher had 

moderate to strong associations with sage-grouse.

Cinnamon teal and many other waterfowl species migrate 

through the watershed.

FWSUS

The three national wildlife refuges—Bear Lake 

(with the Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area), 

Bear River, and Cokeville Meadows— in the watershed provide habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and landbirds that migrate through these 

refuges on their way to and from Canadian and Alaskan interior and coastal wetlands. More than 270 

different species have been identified using the habitats associated with the three refuges including the 

following birds:

■ white-faced ibis (46 percent of the North American population)

■ marbled godwit (more than 24 percent of the 

North American population)

■ black-necked stilt (more than 18 percent of the 

North American population) 

■ American avocet (more than 16 percent of the 

North American population)

■ tundra swan (32 percent of the western population) 

Fish populations on the refuges provide food 

for birds like the American white pelican, egrets, 

herons, and the bald eagle. The Bear River Refuge 

is likely the most important foraging location for the 

Great Salt Lake breeding colony of American white 

pelican (Frank Howe, Utah Department of Wildlife 

Resources, personal communication 2000).

Other noteworthy species using wetland habitats found throughout the watershed include sandhill 

crane, redhead, Wilson’s phalarope, trumpeter swan, 

black-crowned night-heron, cinnamon teal, bluewinged teal, northern pintail, American white pelican, 

rough-legged hawk, burrowing owl, and short-eared 

owl. 

Mammals

The Bear River watershed provides habitat for 

nearly 100 species of mammals. Forty-six of these 

species are listed as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” under the Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies 

(Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2005).

Many wide-ranging mammals depend on the large 

blocks of intact habitat found in the watershed, the 

wintering areas, and the key migration linkages 

including elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn, grizzly 

bear, Canada lynx, gray wolf, and wolverine. Upland 

A bull moose rests in wetland vegetation at Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho.

USFWS
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 33

shrub and grassland habitats support many species, 

such as white-tailed prairie dog, pygmy rabbit, Idaho 

pocket gopher, sagebrush vole, Wyoming ground 

squirrel, and Preble’s shrew.

Wetlands in the watershed provide habitat for 

such species as water shrew, water vole, and northern 

river otter. In addition, the concentration of insects 

found in and around wetland complexes attract many 

bat species of concern including pallid bat, Townsend’s 

big-eared bat, long-eared bat, and long-legged bat.

Amphibians

The diversity of amphibian species in the Great 

Basin and southern Rocky Mountains is low compared to other areas of the country, such as the Pacific 

Northwest. However, wetland and riparian habitats 

in the watershed do support 11 species of frogs and 

toads and one salamander. Most of these species are 

listed as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” 

under the Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming comprehensive 

wildlife conservation strategies (Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005).

The Bear River watershed provides important 

habitat for the western population of the northern 

leopard frog, which was petitioned for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act in 2006. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service issued its 12-month finding in October 2011. Although the species is declining across 

its range and is considered rare or is locally extirpated from many States, including Idaho, Utah, and 

Wyoming, the Service concluded that listing was not 

warranted at this time (Federal Register 2011).

Reptiles

Approximately 20 species of reptiles occur in the 

Bear River watershed. Fifteen of these species are 

listed under State plans as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need.” Upland areas such as sagebrush and 

grasslands are important habitats for species such as 

common sagebrush lizard and western skink. Moist 

habitats near wetlands or streams support species 

such as common gartersnake, eastern yellow-bellied 

racer, and smooth greensnake.

Fish

The Bear River and its tributaries provide important instream habitat for at least 15 species of native 

fish. All three State comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies identified the Bear River and its 

tributaries as playing an important role in providing 

habitat for an assemblage of native cool- and coldwater fish species, most notably the following:

■ Bear River Bonneville cutthroat trout: Because 

of overharvesting, habitat modifications, dams, 

and diversions, Bonneville cutthroat trout was 

thought to be extinct by the 1960s; however, in 

1974, an isolated population was discovered, which 

resulted in large restoration efforts by State, Federal, and local wildlife officials to bring them back. 

The Bonneville cutthroat trout was petitioned for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2008; 

however, a finding of “Not Warranted for Listing” 

was decided (USFWS 2008b).

■ Northern leatherside chub: The northern leatherside chub was petitioned for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act in 2011; however, a finding of “Not Warranted for Listing” was decided 

(Federal Register 2011).

Several other important Bear River native fish 

species recognized by these plans include mountain 

whitefish, mottled and Paiute sculpin, longnose and 

speckled dace, redside shiner, Utah sucker, and mountain sucker. 

Many of these fish species evolved primarily as 

lake-dwelling (lacustrine) populations inhabiting Lake 

Bonneville during the Pleistocene. As Lake Bonneville began to recede, some fish moved up stream in 

search of cooler water while others adapted to the 

shrinking remnant lake. In the upper reaches of 

the Bear River, seasonal migrations from larger to 

smaller rivers is a common reproductive strategy for 

many fluvial fishes—those produced or found by a 

river or stream. 

Species of Special Concern

Several federally listed species live in or have 

home ranges that overlap the proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area, as described in the 

following:

■ The historical range of the endangered blackfooted ferret includes the far eastern part of the 

watershed. Where ferrets have been reintroduced, 

they are considered experimental–nonessential; however, unconfirmed sightings of naturally 

occurring ferrets continue to be reported (Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources 2005a).

■ Grizzly bear and Canada lynx, both listed as 

threatened, can be found in the high country.

■ The threatened plant Ute ladies’-tresses occurs 

within the proposed project area and is found in 

wet meadows and along perennial streams.
34 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

■ Maguire primrose, a threatened plant that grows 

in rocky areas and on cliff faces, is highly localized 

near Logan, Utah.

■ Candidate species such as the yellow-billed cuckoo 

occupy mature cottonwood–willow riparian habitats

■ Greater sage-grouse, a candidate for listing, is 

dependent on sagebrush and grassland habitats 

found throughout the watershed.

■ The wolverine, a candidate species, occurs in 

higher elevation forested areas of the watershed. 

■ Whitebark pine, a coniferous tree occurring in 

subalpine to alpine sites above 8,000 feet, is a candidate species.

Cultural Resources

Humans have inhabited the Bear River area for 

more than 12,000 years. Their uses of the land are as 

diverse as the regional topography and environments 

and reflect both changes through time and localized 

adaptations. The following brief summary of the prehistory and history of the Bear River area provides 

an overview of some of the major themes that have 

influenced the human interaction with the land.

Prehistory

Paleo-Indian Period

Current archaeological evidence shows that the 

earliest humans, called the paleo-Indians, migrated 

to the region near the close of the last ice age approximately 12,000 years ago. These people had a highly 

mobile lifestyle that depended on big game hunting 

including mammoths and a huge, now-extinct bison 

species. The hallmarks of most paleo-Indian sites are 

the beautiful but deadly spear points that are generally recovered from animal kill and butchering 

sites and small temporary camps, or from isolated 

occurrences. 

Recorded paleo-Indian sites are rare in the Bear 

River drainage, probably indicating the need for 

more surveys and research rather than reflecting 

actual prehistoric use patterns. Several early sites 

have been recorded in the general region, and many 

of these are found in the many caves that characterize parts of the Great Basin. Sites are also found near 

wetlands and along the shorelines of ancient lakes, 

indicating the use of the abundance of floral and faunal resources that would have been available in these 

locations. The warming and drying climatic trend 

that began at the start of the Paleo-Indian Period 

continued and, by approximately 8,000 years ago, contributed to a change in settlement patterns and local 

adaptations.

Archaic Period

There was a gradual but definite shift in the pattern of human use of the region beginning about 8,000 

years ago and continuing until approximately 2,500 

years ago. The changes were the result of a combination of regional climatic fluctuations and an increasing 

population, coupled with technological innovation and 

regional influences. Although the Archaic Period is 

better represented in the archaeological record than 

the preceding Paleo-Indian Period, the interpretation of the remains is difficult. A greater diversity of 

tools and the use of a larger variety of plants and animals are found on many sites. The semipermanent 

occupation of small villages, the use of smaller spear 

points, and the creation of basketry, cloth, and cordage are hallmarks of this period. As with the earlier 

inhabitants, the Archaic peoples made extensive use 

of the many caves and the wetland environments in 

the region.

Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric 

Period

Beginning approximately 2,500 years ago, several innovations greatly influenced life in the Bear 

River region. Although these changes were adopted 

at different rates and degrees throughout the area, 

the advent of pottery, the bow and arrow, and agriculture, coupled with a larger and more sedentary 

population, define the period until approximately 800 

years ago. 

Approximately 1,500 years ago, people archaeologists refer to as the Fremont began to settle the 

Bear River drainage. Although five distinct Fremont 

variants have been identified in the archaeological record of the Great Basin, the use of pit houses, 

agriculture, granaries, and distinctive artistic motifs 

are common throughout the region. Fremont subsistence included cultivated corn, beans, and squash 

but also relied heavily on hunting and the intensive 

exploitation of native plants. Archaeologists suspect 

that a major staple of the Fremont diet along the 

Bear River would have been cattail and other seeds 

ground into meal. Animal species exploited included 

bison, pronghorn, and mule deer as well as shellfish, 

fish, and waterfowl. Evidence of the Fremont in the 

archaeological record disappears about 700 years ago.
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 35

About 600 years ago, the people living in the 

Bear River watershed began to blend culture traits 

with Shoshonean people living to the east of the 

Uinta Mountains and abandoned some Fremont cultural traits. These people continued to live in part on 

wild foods available in the marsh, but probably lived 

in smaller groups and exploited a broader range of 

resources. It is not known if the Fremont people were 

replaced or the two groups integrated. When the first 

trappers arrived in the early 1800s, people of the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes were living in the area.

History

The Historic Period for the Bear River drainage 

begins with the recurring contact of the Native Peoples with people of European descent and ends in the 

mid-twentieth century. This interaction generally followed many years of occasional contact—usually for 

the exchange of trade goods—and occurred at different times throughout the area. As with the prehistory 

of the area, the history of the Bear River watershed 

reflects both broad themes and individual stories. The 

narrative below briefly summarizes some of the major 

historic influences in the region.

The earliest documented European in the area 

was fur trapper Robert Stuart in 1812. The region 

quickly gained fame for its abundant resources and 

became the site of both the 1827 and 1828 trappers’ 

rendezvous on the southern end of Bear Lake near 

the current town of Laketown, Utah. These annual 

gatherings were held from 1825 to 1840 to allow the 

trappers to sell their furs and restock their supplies.

Border disputes between the United States and 

Spain in various parts of North America, including the Bear River drainage, were addressed in the 

Adams–Onis Treaty of 1819. As a part of this treaty, 

the land north of the 42nd Parallel—the State boundary between Idaho and Utah—became United States 

territory and the lands below the parallel that of New 

Spain (Mexico after 1821). 

Several major trails, sometimes referred to as the 

Emigrant Trails, crossed the Bear River drainage. 

The Oregon Trail in this area often followed the route 

of earlier fur trapper foot and horse trails but did not 

become a wagon trail until 1836. Coming from the 

east, the main trail takes a sharp north turn at Fort 

Bridger in southwest Wyoming before heading northwest along the northern banks of the Little Muddy 

Creek. It crosses over the Bear River Divide and 

joins the Bear River just south of the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. From there, it never 

strays far from the Bear River and is most often 

along the east or north sides of the river. Just west 

of Soda Springs, where the river cuts to the south, 

the trail diverges from the river and heads northwest 

toward Fort Hall. The California Trail follows a similar path through the watershed, but splits from the 

Oregon Trail at Fort Hall.

The grade of the Union Pacific Railroad, built 

as a part of the Transcontinental Railroad, crosses 

the watershed just north of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. The Union Pacific began in Omaha, 

Nebraska, and headed west until joining the Central 

Pacific Railroad at Golden Spike, approximately 10 

miles to the north of the Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge in 1869. The completion of this railroad and 

its links to rail systems in the eastern United States 

had a profound effect on the settlement of the West.

The first European resident of the area is reported 

to have been Thomas “Peg Leg” Smith, who ran 

a trading post from 1842–57 near Dingle, Idaho, on 

the northeastern shores of Bear Lake. The influx of 

settlers accelerated greatly during the early 1850s 

following the initial waves of Mormon immigrants 

arriving from the east. The towns of Brigham City 

and Willard in the southwest corner of the watershed 

were both founded in 1851 by Mormon pioneers. In 

1860, Mormons settled to town of Franklin, Idaho, 

located along the Cub River just north of the Utah–

Idaho boundary, which became the first town settled 

in what is now Idaho. In 1867, the Fort Hall Reservation near Pocatello, Idaho, was established for the 

Shoshone and Bannock Tribes.

Socioeconomic Environment

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is located in a vast basin covering 14 

counties across Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. The 

watershed spans roughly 7,500 square miles: 1,500 

square miles in Wyoming, 2,700 square miles in Idaho, 

and 3,300 square miles in Utah (Utah Division of 

Water Resources 2004). 

The 14-county region (which excludes the three 

out-of-watershed counties) has a population of 

roughly 2.9 million people (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

(See table EA–2.) Population growth is expected 

throughout much of the region, with most of the 

growth centered in the Cache Valley. Located in the 

western part of the Bear River watershed in Utah, 

the Cache Valley is the most populated area in the 

watershed, and its 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 because of the valley’s proximity to the metropolitan Wasatch Front. In Wyoming, 

Lincoln County has seen 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 
36 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

experienced a 7 percent population growth over the 

decade. Idaho counties within the proposed conservation area have seen less growth, with Bear Lake and 

Caribou Counties seeing a decline in population over 

the decade. Of the proposed conservation area counties in Idaho, Franklin, and Bannock Counties have 

experienced the greatest growth, with 12.9 percent 

and 9.6 percent growth over the decade, respectively. 

Total nonfarm employment was more than 265,000 

individuals in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011) in the 

combined 14-county region. The highest percentage of 

total employment was found in educational services, 

health care, and social aid at 20 percent of nonfarm 

employment. This percentage is, in part, because of 

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 at 14 percent and 

retail trade at 12 percent. Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining made up an estimated 4 

percent of the total employment by sector. 

Mining represents a relatively small percentage 

of total employment for many of the counties in the 

region, but has increased slightly since 1998 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011, Headwaters Economics 2011). 

Mining accounted for less than 1 percent of total 

employment in 2009 for all but three counties in the 

14-county region. 

Table EA–2. Population statistics for Wyoming and counties in and near the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

Residents (2010) Persons per square mile 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 County* 101,234 55.8 26

Teton County* 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 County* 21,294 5.3 17

Lincoln County 18,106 4.4 24

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (2008).

*Outside the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area.

Landownership

The Upper Bear River area is located in parts of 

Summit County, Utah, and Lincoln and Uinta County, 

Wyoming. 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 grassland and shrubland, 

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 

River counties was federally owned, primarily by the 

Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest 

Service; about 24 percent of the land was privately 

owned, 4 percent was State owned, and 7 percent 

was tribally owned (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

The Upper Bear River area is lightly populated. The 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 37

largest municipalities in the region are Evanston and 

Cokeville, Wyoming, and Randolph and Woodruff, 

Utah (Utah Water Research Laboratory 2011). 

The Middle Bear River area is located in parts of 

Bear Lake, Caribou, Franklin, Bannock, Oneida, and 

Power Counties in Idaho. Grassland and shrubland 

account for about 77 percent of the land cover in the 

Middle Bear River counties, and croplands account 

for about 11 percent of the land cover (Headwaters 

Economics 2011). 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 (Headwaters 

Economics 2011, 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 (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

The Lower Bear River area is in parts of Box 

Elder, Cache, Rich, Weber, and Morgan Counties in 

Utah. The rich soil and abundant water in this part of 

the Bear River watershed support a mix of urban and 

agricultural uses. About 9 percent of the land cover 

in the Lower Bear River counties is water. Mixed 

croplands account for 21 percent of the land cover in 

the Lower Bear River counties, with croplands concentrated in Cache, Weber, and Morgan Counties 

(Headwaters Economics 2011). 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 (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

Major municipalities in the Lower Bear River area 

include Ogden, Brigham City, Logan, and Tremonton, 

Utah. As of 2006, landownership in the Lower Bear 

River counties was 52 percent private, 31 percent 

Federal, and 6 percent State (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

While the population of the proposed conservation 

area has declined in two counties in Idaho, some parts 

of the proposed conservation area as well as areas 

next to it have experienced significant growth trends 

over the past decade (see table EA–2).

Property Tax

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. In many States, however, 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 estimate of a property’s sale price. 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 a property by removing the speculative 

value associated with possible development; however, 

conservation easements generally do not affect the 

productive value of agricultural land. The proposed 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Area encompasses three States: Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. In all 

three States, property taxes for agricultural land are 

assessed based on the productive value of the land. 

Most properties that enter into conservation easement agreements with the Service are classified as 

agricultural land. 

Public Use and WildlifeDependent Recreational 

Activities

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

approximately 2.9 million residents took part in wildlife-associated recreational activities in Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming in 2006 (USFWS 2008a). It was estimated that residents and visitors spent $3.3 billion 

on wildlife-associated recreational 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 

(USFWS 2008a). 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 fished declined by 

21 percent while those who hunted declined by 33 

percent. Wyoming residents who fished 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 

numbers remained relatively constant (USFWS 

2008a).

Draft EA Chapter 4—Environmental 

Consequences

This chapter assesses the environmental impacts 

that are expected to occur from the implementation 

of alternatives A and B, as described in chapter 2. 

Environmental impacts are analyzed by issues for 

each alternative and appear in the same order as discussed in chapter 2. Several aspects of environmental 

effects are evaluated including whether the effects 

are negative or beneficial, direct, indirect, or cumulative with actions independent of the proposed action. 

The duration of the effect, whether it is a short-term 

or a long-term effect, is also used in the evaluation of 

the environmental consequences.

The intensity and timing of effects from alternative A, the no-action alternative, would vary by the 

location within the watershed. For example, the 

intensity of development would be much greater, and 

would occur sooner in the Cache Valley than in the 

more rural areas. 

The level of impact from alternative B would be 

greatly dependent on the degree completeness the 

program achieves. If only a small acreage is conserved through the easement program, the long-term 

effects would be negligible. The rate of implementation would depend on the availability of funding 

and the level of landowner interest. Alternative B 

would likely be a long-term process with incremental change.

Effects on the Physical 

Environment

The physical environment comprises the geology, soils, hydrology, and climate of the Bear River 

watershed. In addition, climate change is discussed. 

Anticipated effects on these features are described 

for alternatives A and B. Some of the effects would 

be the same for either alternative.

© Keith Penner

Black-necked stilts are migratory shorebirds that frequent the Bear River watershed.
40 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Effects Common to Both 

Alternatives

Existing uses of the proposed lands would continue to have some negative effects on soils. On lands 

zoned for agriculture, soil problems such as compaction, trampling, and erosion caused by farming 

equipment, cattle grazing, and vehicle use on range 

lands would continue. 

Water and Soil Resources—

Alternative A (No Action) 

The Bear River delivers an annual average of 1.2 

million acre-feet of water into the Great Salt Lake, 

more than one-half of the total surface water flowing 

into the lake each year. Over the next 50 years, about 

one-fifth of this volume of water could be diverted to 

the Wasatch Front for municipal and industrial use 

by communities outside of the watershed (Utah State 

University Extension 2006).

Increased development and disturbance could 

reduce infiltration and ground-water recharge. Development can result in more wetland drainage, water 

diversion, and introduction of invasive species. Development could change drainage patterns and the rate 

of surface runoff, increasing soil erosion and nonpoint 

source pollution. Additional residential development in the proposed conservation area would have 

a negative effect on aquatic habitat because of sewage-derived nutrient additions to streams and lakes 

(Wernick et al. 1998). With projected development 

patterns (Toth et al. 2010), there would be more 

demand for ground water, potentially resulting in 

degradation of the hydrology of some wetland areas 

and negatively affecting the three refuges in the Bear 

River watershed. 

This alternative could have a negative effect on 

local mitigation efforts by reducing options for conserving and storing carbon through land protection 

and habitat restoration. 

Water and Soil Resources—

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Historical water rights would continue and the 

conservation easements would not allow any water 

rights to be sold or otherwise separated from the 

property. The easements would not allow change to 

or alteration of points of diversion, timing, or place of 

use for any water rights. Historical water use would 

be kept in accordance with current practices. 

Water resources on up to 920,000 acres of conservation easements would result in some additional 

protection from increased nonpoint source pollution 

from residential subdivisions, commercial development, and draining of wetlands, all of which would be 

prohibited under the proposed easement program. A 

long-term commitment to maintenance of vegetative 

cover with minimal soil disturbance would help conserve local microclimate patterns and soil processes. 

By limiting development on some prime agricultural and wildlife habitat areas, communities would 

help to ensure future ground-water supplies, thus 

reducing the need to develop more water resources 

to meet growing demand (Toth 2010). The protection 

from conservation easements would improve water 

resources throughout the Bear River watershed, 

including for the three national wildlife refuges. 

Effects on the Biological 

Environment

This section describes the anticipated effects on 

wildlife and habitat under alternatives A and B. The 

Bear River watershed’s habitat ranges from river 

and the adjacent riparian areas to wetland, grassland, 

shrubland, and forest. This section also describes the 

wildlife and species of concern that use these habitats.

Habitat and Wildlife—

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, the Service would 

continue to work cooperatively with landowners to 

voluntarily improve habitat on private land through 

programs such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife. Private landowners would continue to be responsible 

for complying with Federal, State, county, and local 

invasive animal and plant control laws. Degradation 

of resources used by wildlife on some unprotected 

lands would continue as the need and demand for 

help and for easements exceed the capacity of existing programs. Intensification of agricultural processes 

combined with increasing residential and commercial 

development would result in the further decline of 

wildlife populations, such as migratory birds, native 

fish, resident wildlife, and species of special concern.

Under this alternative, predicted changes in the 

quantity and quality of water (Toth et al. 2010) combined with direct loss and fragmentation of habitat 
Draft EA Chapter 4 —Environmental Consequences 41

and of migration corridors would negatively affect 

fish and wildlife over the long term.

Loss and Fragmentation

Subsurface, residential, and commercial development would negatively affect riverine, riparian, 

grassland, and shrubland habitat on which a wide 

variety of wildlife species depend. Besides direct 

habitat loss resulting from commercial and residential development, infrastructure associated with 

development would fragment wildlife habitat. Oil and 

gas development could lead to saltwater contamination and new road development. Increased levels of 

nonnative and invasive species resulting from disturbance would likely further fragment wildlife habitat. 

Davies et al. (2011) found that exurban growth 

decreases native plant and animal diversity, increases 

the number of exotic species (including nonnative 

predators), and restricts the use of ecosystem management options, such as using fire to prevent conifer 

encroachment (Knight et al. 1995, Maestas et al. 2003, 

Hansen et al. 2005). Fire frequency and size are influenced by housing density and tend to be highest at 

intermediate levels of human actions (Syphard et al. 

2007, 2009). 

Riverine Area, Riparian Area, and 

Wetland Effects

Because the Bear River watershed is considered 

one of the last areas of Utah with a developable water 

supply, there is some concern that development pressure and demand for water would negatively affect 

sensitive refuge habitats and ecosystems (Toth et al. 

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).

Under the no-action alternative, the likely 

increase in development in riparian areas would 

remove corridors of connectivity between wetland 

and upland habitat types. In addition, stream quality could become degraded from development, which 

would negatively affect the Bonneville cutthroat 

trout; leatherside chub; mountain whitefish; mottled and Paiute sculpin; longnose and speckled dace; 

redside shiner; and Utah, bluehead, and mountain 

suckers. With increasing development, more barriers 

to fish passage are likely to be constructed.

White-faced ibis colony a-wing.

USFWS
42 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Upland Effects

Wildlife habitat would be fragmented by increased 

levels of nonnative and invasive species that result 

from disturbance. Vertical structures such as wind 

towers and oil and gas infrastructure could result 

in large tracts of otherwise suitable habitat being 

avoided by some species, such as greater sage-grouse, 

sage thrasher, sage sparrow, pronghorn, mule deer, 

and other sage-dependent species. Besides the direct 

impacts of habitat loss and increased wildlife mortality from vehicle collisions, roads associated with 

development would lead to increased soil erosion, 

wetland degradation, spreading of invasive weeds, 

and habitat fragmentation.

Because it would increase the number of humancaused fires, exurban development in sagebrush 

communities could create and keep plant systems 

dominated by exotic plants and start a positive 

feedback loop between exotic grass invasion and 

increased fire frequency (D’Antonio and Vitousek 

1992). 

The loss of sagebrush communities is a concern in 

part because these plant communities provide crucial habitat for sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. 

Long-term monitoring of sage-grouse populations has 

shown a steady decline across their range since the 

1960s (Connelly and Braun 1997, Connelly et al. 2004). 

Aldridge et al. (2008) suggested that the loss of sagebrush habitat was the main factor in the extirpation 

of local sage-grouse populations. 

Species of Special Concern Effects 

The Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming State conservation 

strategies include at least 70 bird, 7 amphibian, 15 

reptile, and 8 fish “Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need” (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department 2005). 

Although there are many species on the State 

lists of concern, only 10 species within the Bear River 

watershed are federally listed. The no-action alternative would increase the level of threat to endangered, 

threatened, and candidate species through habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, among 

other factors. More land conservation and protection 

measures are the primary actions identified in the 

recovery plans for most such species, as well as for 

species on the State lists. 

Without more habitat protection measures in the 

watershed, there would be an increased likelihood 

that more species would be added to the State lists 

of conservation concern or to the Federal threatened 

and endangered species lists.

Habitat and Wildlife—

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Loss and Fragmentation 

The availability of large, intact areas of diverse 

habitat types is important to provide for the various needs of wildlife species. Habitat connectivity 

provides a migration corridor for neotropical birds; 

between winter and summer ranges for mule deer, 

pronghorn, and elk; and between breeding, nesting, 

and brood-rearing areas for birds. It also provides 

access to spawning grounds for native fish. Connectivity increases the resiliency of wildlife populations 

by allowing movement to new areas during environmental challenges such as drought or flooding, 

and provides for genetic diversity by allowing an 

exchange of individuals from different subpopulations. Privately owned lands adjacent to the Bear 

Lake (and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production 

Area), Bear River, and Cokeville Meadow Refuges 

provide connectivity between the refuges and other 

Federal lands, thus creating a larger block of permanently protected wildlife habitat. Through protection 

of important migration corridors and habitats, the 

proposed action would have long-term beneficial 

effects on fish and wildlife populations.

Riverine Area, Riparian Area, and 

Wetland Effects

The Bear River is the lifeblood of the three 

national wildlife refuges located along its course. 

Large populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

native fishes depend on the refuges and adjacent 

habitat areas to meet their breeding, migration, and 

feeding needs. The proposed action would protect privately owned wetlands, irrigated meadows, and fields 

that now provide important wildlife habitat.

The proposed action would help maintain healthy 

riparian areas that recharge aquifers, reduce soil 

erosion, filter chemical wastes, moderate stream temperatures, and help buffer water loss from upland 

drainages.

Retaining the role of riparian habitats in providing 

travel corridors for wildlife would become an increasingly important part of effective mitigation plans for 

human development as well as climate change (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010). Conservation 

of riparian areas would benefit a variety of species of 

special conservation concern that depend on riparian 

habitat, such as Lewis’s woodpecker and many neotropical migratory birds. Additionally, connectivity 

between different riverine habitat types is important for fish access to suitable spawning and rearing 
Draft EA Chapter 4 —Environmental Consequences 43

grounds while providing adequate habitat for adult 

growth and survival.

Upland Effects 

The proposed action would provide the ability to 

conserve large patches of sagebrush that occur on 

acquired easements. 

Maintaining and restoring large patches of sagebrush would create a mosaic of sagebrush habitats 

that would be an important step toward reversing the 

population declines of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species, such as sage sparrow, sage 

thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow (Hanser and Knick 

2011). 

Species of Special Concern Effects

With the additional habitat protection measures 

in the watershed under the proposed action, there 

would be a greater likelihood that common species 

can remain common. There are relatively few species 

with Federal status in the Bear River watershed. 

There would be a reduced need for more species to be 

added to the State lists of conservation concern or to 

be federally listed as threatened or endangered.

The effects of the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area on endangered, threatened, and 

candidate species would vary by the area under consideration. The differences in the effects would be due 

to differences in species’ ranges, habitat affinities and 

restrictions, and elevations. 

Climate—Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Carbon sequestration capabilities would be 

reduced with the increased development and disturbance of native vegetation likely to occur under the 

no-action alternative. There would be negative effects 

on the resiliency of the watershed and the ability of 

ecosystems to adapt to a changing climate and changing land uses. This alternative could also negatively 

affect local mitigation efforts by reducing options for 

conserving and storing carbon through land protection and habitat restoration.

Climate—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

By protecting habitat, reducing habitat fragmentation, and increasing connectivity between habitats, 

the proposed action would help keep the ability of 

native species and ecosystems to adapt to a changing climate. Climate change mitigation efforts would 

be positively affected by this alternative because carbon sequestration now provided by native vegetation 

would be conserved.

Effects on the Socioeconomic 

Environment

This section describes the anticipated effects of 

alternatives A and B on landownership, land use, 

public use, development (including oil and gas, wind 

energy, and residential), and intact ecosystem values.

Landownership and Land Use—

Alternative A (No Action)

Landownership would not be affected by the noaction alternative. Acquisition of wetland and upland 

easements would continue under current Federal 

and private programs and funding sources. More 

than 2.53 million acres of the Bear River watershed 

would remain in private ownership, with no additional 

protections by the Service through conservation 

easements. 

With future predicted development trends (Toth 

et al. 2010), landowners would lose some open space 

as well as the agricultural and ranching heritage and 

natural aesthetics of the Bear River watershed. 

Ranching and agricultural opportunities would 

be reduced if landowners begin to split tracts into 

smaller lots for residential and commercial development. Landowners who subdivide could increase their 

revenue by developing recreational homesites. Subdivided tracts could maintain wildlife values if there 

were a desire to cluster housing or to keep open 

space. 

Landownership and Land Use—

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The proposed action would only affect lands where 

the Service has acquired a conservation easement. 

The location, distribution, and sale of development 

rights by landowners on adjacent lands without Service easements would not be affected. Traditional 

agricultural uses such as ranching, grazing, and haying would be allowed to continue on easement lands. 

Because this alternative would maintain open 

space on a large scale, it would preserve a rural 
44 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

lifestyle and associated tourism and economic activities. The purchase of an easement would not result in 

a transfer of land title, so private landowners would 

continue to pay property taxes. In all three States, 

property taxes for agricultural land are assessed 

based on the productive value of the land. Most 

properties that enter into conservation easement 

agreements with the Service are classified as agricultural land; therefore, there would be little or no effect 

on the current property tax base for the 14-county 

area.

Because the sale of conservation easements provides landowners with more revenue, easement 

purchases could inject new money into local economies. Landowners could spend some percentage of 

this money on such items as purchasing new real 

estate, consumer goods, or local services. This spending activity would directly affect local industries such 

as construction and various service sectors. 

Conservation easements could help keep the 

regional character by protecting working landscapes 

and a traditional agricultural way of life. Land with 

historical commercial use, such as ranching, forestry, 

and farming, is often compatible with or beneficial to 

wildlife refuge objectives (Jordan et al. 2007, Rissman 

et al. 2007). Conservation easements provide financial 

benefits for landowners that enable them to preserve 

the natural and historic value of their farms, ranches, 

and open space lands, and to pass this legacy on to 

their children and grandchildren. 

The easement program would have no effect on 

tribal jurisdiction or tribal rights, because it is outside 

of reservation lands and would affect only private 

landowners who are willing to sell easements.

Public Use—Alternative A 

(No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, the Service would 

not buy conservation easements. Private landowners 

would continue to manage public use and access of 

their lands.

With increased development levels, opportunities 

for wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as 

hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation would likely 

decline, resulting in diminished associated economic 

benefits to local communities. Negative economic 

effects to landowners could occur from diminished 

public wildlife viewing, tourism, fishing, and hunting 

opportunities.

Public Use—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

Conservation easements bought on private tracts 

would not change landowners’ rights to manage public access to and use of their property. Under the 

proposed easement program, landowners would 

retain full private property rights, including control of hunting and fishing on their lands. Under the 

proposed action, wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation would not be diminished because of 

declining wildlife populations. According to the “2006 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation,” approximately 2.9 million 

residents took part in wildlife-associated recreation 

activities in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming in 2006. It 

was estimated that residents and visitors spent $3.3 

billion on wildlife-associated recreation activities in 

the three States combined (USFWS 2008a).

Development—Alternative A 

(No Action)

More than 2.53 million acres would remain in private ownership, with no additional restrictions from 

conservation easements. Farming and ranching 

opportunities could be reduced if landowners begin to 

split tracts into smaller lots for residential and commercial development. 

Over time, the land development that is forecast 

(Toth et al. 2010) would result in population declines 

of many wildlife species. The Utah Governor’s Office 

of Planning and Budget (2008) 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 accommodating 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 Governor’s 

Office of Planning and Budget 2008). As a result, the 

communities within the Bear River watershed would 

lose open space, agricultural lands, and scenic values.

Subsurface Development

Mining and oil and gas development would continue to occur on private lands in the Bear River 

watershed. Stipulations to protect the surface estate 

would be governed by existing State regulations. 
Draft EA Chapter 4 —Environmental Consequences 45

Commercial and Residential 

Development

Development rights would remain in private 

ownership, with none of the restrictions that would 

accompany conservation easements. 

Residential development and subdivisions generally increase costs to the county governments that 

provide services to rural areas. Rural residences 

tend to have higher costs for county governments 

and school districts than urban residences. On average, the cost to provide community services to new 

residential developments is $1.15 for every $1.00 of 

revenue created by those developments (American 

Farmland Trust 2001, Coupal et al. 2002). In Wyoming, 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).

Development—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

The proposed action would protect up to 920,000 

acres of wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrubland 

wildlife habitat from more fragmentation and loss 

by precluding surface occupancy and infrastructure 

development.

Subsurface Development

Conservation easements typically do not affect 

subsurface estates (mineral, oil, and gas deposits) 

because the Service only acquires rights associated 

with surface ownership. The proposed easement 

program would preclude mining and oil and gas exploration or development requiring surface occupancy 

on easement land only when the landowner owns the 

subsurface rights. In many places, including the Bear 

River watershed, the subsurface estate has been 

severed from surface ownership, and the landowner 

does not own the subsurface rights. In these cases, 

the easement that the Service acquires from the landowner is junior to the subsurface rights. 

For easements that have been put in place on land 

where the owner has not sold or leased the mineral 

or subsurface estates, the Service easement would be 

senior to any subsurface interests later acquired by a 

developer. Because development of the mineral estate 

could significantly damage the resources that the 

Service is attempting to protect, the Service would 

require that a developer access minerals from offsite 

as a term of the easement. 

Commercial and Residential 

Development

The Service’s easement program would enhance 

the protection of wildlife species that depend on 

unfragmented upland habitat through prohibiting 

surface disturbance or development of infrastructure. 

This program would also provide financial compensation to landowners through the sale of easements to 

offset potential revenue loss from the sale of development rights or leases. 

The proposed project would only affect lands on 

which the Service has acquired a conservation easement. Development on adjacent lands that do not have 

Service conservation easements would not be limited.

Land acreage with potential for wind energy development is relatively low in Idaho (1.67 percent) and 

Utah (1.19 percent). Wyoming, however, has a higher 

development potential at 43.58 percent (National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory 2011). Most land with 

potential for wind energy development in each State 

would still be available under the proposed action.

Designated open space and protected natural areas can increase surrounding property values 

(see McConnell and Walls 2005 for a comprehensive 

review). The value of open space on nearby property 

values would vary depending on landscape characteristics and location (for example, distance to the 

conserved area) (Kroger 2008). Permanence of the 

open space also influences property values. Typically, 

open space that is permanently protected—such 

as refuge lands and lands protected with perpetual 

conservation easements—would generate a higher 

enhancement value to local properties than land that 

has the potential for future development (Geoghegan 

et al. 2003). Location and demographic factors in the 

region can also influence the relative level of property 

enhancement value. For instance, open space could 

generate larger amenity premiums for property in 

more urbanized areas and where median incomes are 

higher (Netusil et al. 2000, Vrooman 1978, Phillips 

2000, Crompton 2001, Thorsnes 2002). Private lands 

protected by conservation easements benefit residents through increased biodiversity, recreational 

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

lands (Rissman et al. 2007). 

Other Conservation Impacts—

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, the threat of 

habitat fragmentation would continue to increase. 

Landowners would continue to face economic 
46 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

pressures to subdivide their land and sell their water 

rights. Ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling 

(see figure EA–8) that are now provided by a rural 

landscape would be diminished.

Conservation of wetland and upland habitats 

would continue under existing acquisition authorities. 

These conservation programs are not able to keep 

pace with current rates of wetland and upland loss.

Figure EA–8. Chart of the relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services. 

Source: Dodds et al. 2008. 

Note: The relative value is determined as the ratio of estimated benefits derived from native and restored acreages 

per year. 

Other Conservation Impacts—

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrubland habitat would remain intact. Because the proposed action 

would keep intact wildlife habitat on working lands 

through conservation easements, ecosystem services 

would be available for local residents (Millennium 

Ecosystem Service Assessment 2005). Ecosystem 

services such as pollination, water purification, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, 

and control of pest insects by birds are often unrecognized or are considered “free.” These services would 

not be provided in areas that have undergone residential or commercial development. 

The proposed action would help protect valuable 

ecosystem services, as shown in figure EA–8 above. 

Furthermore, it would eliminate the need for expensive restoration of disturbed land and habitat. 

Dodds et al. (2008) found that wetlands had the 

greatest value for each of the ecosystem services 

examined in both native and restored habitat. The 

most valuable ecosystem goods and services that 

wetlands provided were disturbance regulation and 

nutrient cycling. The greater value per area of wetlands did not translate to an equally large disparity 

in total value because the total area of wetlands is 

substantially less than that of terrestrial ecoregions 

within the United States.

Conservation easements on private lands would 

strengthen habitat resiliency and provide opportunities for wildlife movement and adaptation for years 

to come. 

Public safety is an added benefit of conservation 

easements that limit development in wetlands and 

riparian areas. Some areas within the Bear River 

watershed have a moderate to high likelihood of a 

natural disaster that could cause harm to both the 

residents and structures in these areas. The major 

hazards that are located within the watershed include 

flooding, landslides, earthquakes, and soils that are 

susceptible to liquefaction (Toth 2010). 
Draft EA Chapter 4 —Environmental Consequences 47

Effects on Cultural Resources

This section describes the anticipated effects of 

alternatives A and B on cultural resources.

Cultural Resources—

Alternative A (No Action)

Cultural resources on the lands under consideration would remain subject to State and local 

regulation and permitting. Cultural resources could 

be negatively affected by differing land uses or 

development. Activities not requiring permits could 

contribute to the loss or damage of cultural resources, 

especially if resources have not been identified. 

Cultural Resources—

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

As a Federal agency, the Service is required 

to comply with many laws pertaining to cultural 

resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., Public Law 89–665, 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470mm; Public Law 96–95), 

as amended, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 

et seq., Public Law 101–601). Although conservation 

easements would preclude or limit most forms of surface disturbance, these requirements would not apply 

to or be fully effective in protecting cultural resources 

on private lands with easements. However, the proposed action provides benefits to cultural resources 

when compared to the no-action alternative because 

easements would limit surface disturbance.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Any adverse effects that could be unavoidable 

while carrying out alternatives A and B are described 

below.

Alternative A (No Action)

The adverse impacts of habitat degradation and 

fragmentation would be expected to be more widespread and prevalent in the proposed project area. 

Some habitat protection would continue through 

existing authorities and funding.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

No direct or indirect, unavoidable, adverse 

impacts to the environment would result from the 

selection of alternative B. The easement program 

would not result in unavoidable adverse impacts on 

the physical or biological environment. The selection 

of an approved boundary would not, by itself, affect 

any aspect of landownership or values. Management 

of lands to protect wildlife habitat would benefit 

ranching operations, but would limit future development options for landowners.

More conservation easements acquired by the 

Service could have unavoidable minimal to moderate 

adverse effects on the local economy by precluding 

new mining oil, gas, wind, and residential development on easement lands. However, these impacts 

would be offset in part by protecting these areas from 

adverse impacts to watersheds, which are important 

to aquifer recharge and water quality, from further 

degradation or loss of native ecosystems, and from 

conversion of prime agricultural lands.

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Any commitments of resources that could be irreversible or irretrievable because of carrying out 

alternatives A and B are described below.

Alternative A (No Action) 

There would be no added commitment of resources 

by the Service if no action were taken.

The likely introduction of new residential and 

commercial infrastructure in the Bear River watershed would be considered an irretrievable loss of 

habitat. The irretrievable loss of habitat caused by 

the development of new residential and commercial 

infrastructure in the Bear River watershed could 

eventually lead to an irreversible loss of both wildlife 

species and habitat.

The new infrastructure could effectively cause an 

irretrievable loss of habitat for certain wildlife species because of their avoidance of infrastructure. With 

the loss of habitat, some of these wildlife species could 

be pushed toward threatened or endangered status. 

Without other suitable habitat being available, there 

could be an irreversible loss to some of these species.

The connectivity between various habitat types 

and migration corridors between the three national 

wildlife refuges and other large areas of protected 
48 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

lands would be reduced or possibly eliminated without more conservation of important wildlife areas. 

In 2009, The Nature Conservancy conducted a 

Conservation Action Planning study in the Bear 

River watershed and found that residential development and water allocation policies are the greatest 

threats to wildlife conservation in the watershed (The 

Nature Conservancy 2010). Because 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 

adversely affect sensitive refuge habitats and ecosystems (Toth et al. 2010). Without more measures such 

as wetland easements to keep some of the current 

water uses and applications, there could be irreversible impacts to wetlands and riparian ecosystems.

The connectivity between various habitat types 

and migration corridors between the three national 

wildlife refuges and large areas of protected lands 

would be reduced or possibly be maintained with 

added protection of important wildlife habitat with 

conservation easements. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

There would not be any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources associated with 

establishing the conservation easement program; 

however, any easements that are acquired with Land 

and Water Conservation Funds would require an irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources 

(such as expenditures for fuel and staff for monitoring) for the long-term administration of the easement 

provisions. 

The introduction of new residential and commercial infrastructure to the Bear River watershed would 

be greatly restricted on conservation easement lands, 

so this alternative would reduce the likelihood of an 

irretrievable loss of habitat associated with development. The irretrievable loss of habitat caused by the 

development of new residential and commercial infrastructure in the Bear River watershed that would 

eventually lead to an irreversible loss of both species 

and habitat could be minimized under the proposed 

action.

With the protection measures provided by the 

wetland conservation easements, some of the current water uses and applications could be retained 

and irreversible impacts to wetlands and riparian 

ecosystems related to water loss could be reduced or 

avoided.

Short-Term Use versus LongTerm Productivity

This section describes the short-term effects versus long-term productivity under alternatives A and B.

Alternative A (No Action)

Wetlands and uplands are expected to continue to 

be lost at current, or in some areas, increasing rates 

of development, which would create long-term negative implications for the maintenance of the biological 

and ecological communities now found in the watershed. Although efforts to conserve these habitats 

would continue through ongoing efforts by existing agencies and organizations as well as funding, 

the ability to conserve large tracts of wetlands and 

uplands would be diminished and fragmentation of 

these habitats would continue.

Ranches and agricultural lands could be sold to 

developers for short-term gains, but the expected 

rates of development would have an adverse effect 

on the long-term biological and agricultural productivity of the area. 

Over the long term, the costs to counties to sustain development in rural areas could be significant 

(see the “Landownership and Land Use” section 

above). Wind energy and oil and gas development 

would provide short-term income gains, but would 

have a long-term adverse impact on the wildlife habitats in the Bear River watershed and region.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The increased ability to acquire perpetual conservation easements under the proposed action would 

conserve important wetland and upland areas and 

reduce long-term loss and fragmentation of important 

habitats that a variety of wildlife species, including 

threatened and endangered species, depend on.

The proposed conservation easement program 

would maintain the Bear River watershed’s longterm biological productivity, biological diversity, and 

habitat connectivity as well as migration corridors to 

other ecosystems and adjacent large blocks of protected lands. 

The ability to sell conservation easements would 

provide an immediate economic benefit to participating landowners while maintaining the long-term 

agricultural heritage and productivity of the area.

The nation would gain the protection of these 

habitat types for the wildlife species that depend on 

them for future generations of Americans. The public 
Draft EA Chapter 4 —Environmental Consequences 49

would retain long-term opportunities for wildlifedependent recreational activities. 

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act as the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] § 1508.7).

This section describes the cumulative impacts 

on the environment that could result from the combination of reasonably foreseeable actions under 

alternatives A and B, with other biological and 

socioeconomic conditions, actions, events, and 

developments.

Past Actions

Previous land protection efforts within the Bear 

River watershed included the establishment of the 

three national wildlife refuges—Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge (18,089 acres), Bear River Migratory 

Bird Refuge (74,421 acres), and Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge (9,259 acres)—the Thomas 

Fork Unit of Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(1,015 acres), and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (1,878 acres). Sagebrush Steppe Regional 

Land Trust, Wyoming Land Trust, and the Wyoming 

Stock Growers Agricultural Land Trust have worked 

with a variety of partners to acquire conservation 

easements in the watershed.

Present Actions

The Service’s proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area easement program, which would 

establish up to 920,000 acres of conservation easements in the Bear River watershed, is the only known 

action of this scope and scale for land protection in the 

region. Once approved, it would take several years 

for the program to begin to have a noticeable effect. 

Acquisition of easements would depend on available 

funding and willing sellers. 

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Actions

Reasonably foreseeable actions are actions and 

activities that are independent of the proposed action 

but could result in cumulative or additive effects 

when combined with the proposed action. These 

actions are anticipated to occur regardless of which 

alternative is selected. Commercial oil and gas, mining, wind, and residential development; increased 

water demands; and future conservation efforts by 

a variety of organizations are the primary reasonably foreseeable actions occurring in the Bear River 

watershed.

Development

Overall, mining represents a relatively small 

percentage of total employment for many of the 

counties in the region, but has increased slightly 

since 1998 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011, Headwaters 

Economics 2011). In particular, employment in nonmetallic mineral mining increased by 124 percent, 

oil and gas extraction decreased by 64 percent, and 

metal ore mining decreased to zero by 2009 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011, Headwaters Economics 2011). 

One of the most economically significant nonmetallic 

mining activities during the past 50 years has been 

phosphate extraction, with roughly 40 percent of the 

United States’ reserves located in southeastern Idaho 

(van Every 2004). 

The acreage that has potential for wind energy 

development is relatively low in Idaho and Utah, 

with 1.67 percent and 1.19 percent of the State available for such development, respectively. Wyoming 

has a higher development potential at 43.58 percent 

(National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2011). Most 

of the land with potential for wind energy development would still be available under the proposed 

action.

Population growth is expected throughout much of 

the region, with most of the growth centered on the 

Cache Valley. Located in the western part of the Bear 

River watershed in Utah, the Cache Valley is the 

most populated area in the watershed. It has experienced a population increase of 64 percent since 2000, 

and it is anticipated to double in population by 2050 

(Utah Division of Water Resources 2004).

Lincoln County, home to the Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, has grown by 24 percent 

since 2000, making it the fastest growing county 

among the Wyoming counties in the proposed conservation area. 

Bannock County has the largest population of the 

Idaho counties located within the watershed; it has 

grown by 10 percent since 2000. The populations of 

two other Idaho counties, Caribou County and Bear 

Lake County, have decreased by 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

Development—Alternative A (No Action). The 

incremental increases in infrastructure construction resulting from commercial and residential 
50 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

development activities in the Bear River watershed 

would likely result in the fragmentation of wetland, 

riparian, grassland, and shrubland habitats now used 

by wildlife. Over the long term, the combined effect 

of these activities would likely result in the continuation, and possibly the acceleration, of the decline of 

many wildlife populations. 

Development—Alternative B (Proposed Action). 

The proposed action would provide more long-term 

protection on up to 920,000 acres of wildlife habitat from the combined effects of various future 

development activities by precluding surface occupancy and the resultant habitat fragmentation and 

infrastructure. 

Other Conservation Efforts

The USDA’s Conservation, Grassland, and Wetland Reserve Programs provide ongoing programs 

in the watershed. Additionally, many nongovernmental organizations are active in the area, including 

Bridgerland Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and Wyoming 

Stock Growers Agricultural Land Trust. These organizations are expected to continue offering multiple 

programs to landowners. The proposed action would 

augment these current conservation efforts by collaborating with landowners to protect wildlife, fisheries, 

and working agricultural lands. The Service would 

continue to work with other agencies, organizations, 

and individuals to ensure conservation of migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern. 

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program would likely continue to help landowners in the 

watershed under either alternative. With the proposed action, this program could increase its efforts 

in the watershed because of the increased Service 

interaction with local landowners and the added benefit of habitat restoration and enhancement on lands 

protected by perpetual conservation easements. 

The conservation efforts of these groups would 

result in generally beneficial cumulative effect for the 

wildlife resources of the watershed.

Conservation Efforts—Alternative A (No Action). 

Current Service programs such as Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife would continue within the proposed conservation project area. The Service would continue 

to work cooperatively with landowners to voluntarily 

improve habitat on private land. Those landowners 

wishing to sell easements on their lands would have 

fewer options for selling them.

Conservation Efforts—Alternative B (Proposed 

Action). Through the proposed easement program, 

up to 920,000 acres of privately owned wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrubland habitats could be added 

to the 2.53 million acres within the proposed project 

area that already have some level of protection. This 

would have long-term positive impacts on wildlife 

habitat and would result in the long-term conservation of migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, resident wildlife species, native plants, and 

the overall biological diversity of the proposed Bear 

River Watershed Conservation Area. 
Draft EA Chapter 5—Coordination and 

Environmental Review

Canada geese in flight near Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho.

USFWS

The Service has discussed the proposal to establish the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area 

with landowners; conservation organizations; other 

Federal agencies; tribal, State, and local governments; and other interested groups and individuals.

Agency Coordination 

The Service has coordinated within the agency 

as well as with each of the three State wildlife agencies in developing this EA. Field and regional Service 

staffs conducted the analysis and prepared the documentation (refer to “Appendix A, List of Preparers 

and Reviewers”). The Service held six public openhouse meetings throughout the proposed project area 

to provide information and to discuss the proposal 

with landowners and other interested citizens.

At the Federal level, Service staff briefed Senators Labrador, Simpson, Hatch, Lee, Enzi, and 

Barrasso and the congressional delegations for 

Representatives Simpson, Labrador, Bishop, and 

Lummis. Representatives from the USDA Forest 

Service, NRCS, and the Bureau of Land Management 

were also contacted and provided with project information. At the State level, Governors Otter, Herbert, 

and Mead; Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources; Utah State Forestry; 

Utah Sovereign Lands; and the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department were also briefed on the proposed 

project. Information on the proposed project was 

provided for 15 tribes with interest in the proposed 

project area.

Representatives from local soil and water conservation districts, farm bureaus, universities, 

counties, and towns were also provided with project 

information. 

The Service has coordinated with many nongovernmental groups that are essential to the success 

of the proposed conservation project, including The 

Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Bridgerland 
52 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Audubon, Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust, 

and Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land 

Trust.

Contaminants and Hazardous 

Materials 

A level I pre-acquisition site assessment would 

be conducted on individual tracts before purchase of 

any land interests. Qualified Service staff in Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming would make sure that policies 

and guidelines are followed before acquisition of any 

conservation easements.

National Environmental Policy 

Act

The Service conducted this environmental analysis under the authority of and in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, which requires 

an evaluation of reasonable alternatives that meet 

stated objectives and an assessment of the possible 

effects on the human environment.

Environmental Assessment

This EA will be the basis for determining whether 

implementation of the proposed action would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. National Environmental Policy Act planning for this EA involved 

other government agencies and the public in the identification of issues and alternatives for the proposed 

project.

Distribution and Availability

The Service is distributing this EA (with the associated draft LPP in the same volume) to the project 

mailing list, which includes Federal and State legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, private 

groups, and other interested individuals. After they 

have been released for public review, the Service will 

hold public meetings to talk about the EA and draft 

LPP.

Copies of the EA and information about public 

meetings are available by visiting the project Web 

site or by contacting the Service by email, postal mail, 

telephone, or in person.

Project Web site: www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie

/planning/lpp/ut/brr/brr.html

Project email: brwca_comments@fws.gov

Service Unit Contacts

Amy Thornburg, Planning Team Leader

Attn: Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 4345

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1

Division of Refuge Planning

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181

503 / 872 2897

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 9 

Montpelier, Idaho 83254

208 / 847 1757

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge

2155 West Forest Street

Brigham City, Utah 84302

435 / 734 6451

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 700

Green River, Wyoming 82935

307 / 875 2187

Strategic Habitat 

Conservation 

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area project is a landscape-scale effort to 

conserve populations of priority species in a highly 

diverse and endangered ecosystem over the approximately 4.8 million-acre project area. Therefore, it is 

important to incorporate the elements of strategic 

habitat conservation to ensure effective conservation. Strategic habitat conservation uses an ongoing 

cycle of strategic biological planning and conservation 
Draft EA Chapter 5—Environmental Coordination and Review 53

design, integrated conservation delivery, monitoring, 

and research at ecoregional scales (see figure EA–9). 

Figure EA–9. Elements of strategic habitat conservation.

Biological Planning

Biological planning requires the identification of 

priority species, development of population objectives, and identification of landscape-level limiting 

factors that are keeping the populations of priority 

trust species below desired levels. 

The need and opportunity for strategic conservation to benefit fish and wildlife in the Bear River 

watershed is articulated in the following regional 

plans reviewed by the planning team: 

■ “Conservation Action Plan (CAP) for the Bear 

River Watershed”

■ State Wildlife Action Plans for Idaho, Utah, and 

Wyoming 

■ “Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan” 

■ “Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation 

Plan” 

■ “Partners In Flight”

■ “Audubon Society Globally Important Bird Areas” 

■ “National Fish Habitat Action Plan 2006” 

■ “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

■ “U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan” 

Based on these plans and input from local stakeholders and partners, initial biological planning uses 

four focal species, acting as surrogates for others, to 

model the distribution and habitat needs of a larger 

group of wildlife species with similar needs. This 

information will also be used to set priorities for 

Service conservation efforts within the proposed 

project area. 

Focal Species

Bonneville cutthroat trout was used to represent 

the habitat needs of other native fish species found in 

the Bear River watershed including northern leatherside chub, mountain whitefish, mottled and Paiute 

sculpin, longnose and speckled dace, redside shiner, 

and Utah and mountain suckers. Once thought to 

be extinct because of habitat loss and overharvesting, Bonneville cutthroat trout were rediscovered 

in recent decades, with relatively pure populations 

continuing to persist along the periphery of the Bonneville basin in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada. 

The Bear River basin supports the largest remaining migratory populations, including both fluvial 

(living in rivers or streams) and adfluvial (living in 

lakes and migrating to rivers or streams) forms, while 

other metapopulations and strongholds also occur 

in the Northern Bonneville basin (Haak et al. 2011). 

Declines in populations of native salmonids, including Bonneville cutthroat trout, can result from the 

combined effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation, blocked migration corridors, degraded water 

quality or quantity, angler harvesting and poaching, 

entrainment into diversion canals and dams, nonnative 

species interactions, and other factors (USFWS 2002).

The greater sage-grouse and the sage thrasher

act as surrogates for sagebrush-dependent trust 

species. Sagebrush ecosystems are among the most 

imperiled in North America because of a variety of 

human-caused disturbances. Sagebrush habitat has 

been altered and fragmented, resulting in the decline 

in both the numbers and the distribution of many of 

the more than 350 species that depend on sagebrush 

habitat for all or part of their life cycles (Wisdom et 

al. 2005.) In particular, such habitat shifts have major 

implications for sagebrush-dependent vertebrates 

including bird species such as sage thrasher, greater 

sage-grouse, and sage sparrow (Knick et al. 2003). 

Keeping large areas of intact sagebrush is considered 

crucial for the long-term persistence of sage-grouse 

(Aldridge et al. 2008) as well as other sagebrushdependent species. Based on this finding, it has been 

recommended that conservation efforts begin by 

keeping large expanses of sagebrush habitat and 

enhancing the quality and connectivity of those areas. 
54 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

American avocet was used to represent a larger 

group of wetland-dependent species including the 

white-faced ibis. Breeding Bird Surveys have shown 

the population trend for American avocets in the 

Basin and Range physiographic region to be declining at a rate of approximately 18 percent per year 

from 1966 ( Sauer et al. 2005). Habitat destruction and 

fragmentation of wetlands and marshes also limits the 

population of many waterbirds and waterfowl as they 

eliminate nesting, brood, and foraging habitats. The 

proximity and quality of these various habitat types 

particularly affect the survival rates of young birds. 

Besides the importance of breeding habitat, the 

quality and availability of spring migration habitat 

has direct implications for the survival and breeding 

productivity of the millions of migratory birds passing through the Bear River watershed each year.

Conservation Design

Conceptual and quantitative models have been 

developed to help in predicting key habitats now 

used by the highest density of four focal species populations, and to aid in initial conservation design and 

delivery efforts. 

Priority species, along with associated population goals, would continually be defined and updated 

throughout the implementation of this proposed 

project, and additional landscape models would be 

developed for priority trust species.

Most wildlife species require more than one type 

of habitat during their life history. The wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrubland habitats found in the 

Bear River watershed allow multiple groups of species to meet their needs.

The connectivity between the three national wildlife refuges, waterfowl production area, and other 

large areas of protected lands keeps migration corridors for migratory and resident wildlife species. The 

connectivity within the Bear River watershed as well 

as to other ecosystems such as the Greater Yellowstone increases the resiliency of the region.

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

(HAPET) biologists assessed land cover data in a 

Geographic Information System (GIS) to set priorities for different areas of the watershed for 

acquisition of conservation easements, resulting in 

spatially explicit decision support tools. An existing 

landscape prioritization tool for the greater sagegrouse, which identified rangewide breeding densities 

(Doherty et al. 2010), was coupled with the decision 

support tool for sage thrasher and American avocet 

to provide land managers in the Bear River watershed the best available information on landscape 

values for the four focal species.

To assess Bonneville cutthroat trout populations, 

the Service used models prepared by Trout Unlimited 

that evaluated species densities and genetic purity in 

Bear River watershed streams. 

The Service used a Marxan model to incorporate the HAPET models for sage thrasher, greater 

sage-grouse, and American avocet along with the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout model based on data 

provided by Trout Unlimited. In addition, Marxan 

modeling was used to incorporate crucial wetland 

and riparian habitat depended on by a wide variety 

of migratory bird species including white-faced ibis, 

yellow warbler, flycatchers, yellow-billed cuckoo, for 

which there is insufficient data available to develop 

other types of models based on bird densities and 

abundance. The modeling allowed a “bottom-up” 

approach to be used to generate an alternate method 

of predicting likely areas of habitat use by migratory birds. One of the key results from Marxan is 

the “selection frequency” of a given spatial planning 

unit. A spatial planning unit that has a high selection frequency shows that it must be protected to 

meet conservation goals, based on input criteria. In 

other words, it is irreplaceable; conservation goals 

cannot be met in an efficient manner without protecting these areas. The four conservation ranks are 

described below: 

■ High Conservation Rank: High irreplaceability 

across all goal levels, higher ecological integrity, 

and multiple conservation targets present.

■ Medium Conservation Rank: Moderate irreplaceability across all goal levels, lower ecological 

integrity, and fewer conservation targets than 

high priority. 

■ Low Conservation Rank: Not irreplaceable across 

all goal levels, lower ecological integrity, and one 

conservation target present. 

■ No Conservation Rank: Not selected with the 

data that is now available.

Chapter 4 of the LPP describes the detailed process for determining conservation priority areas.

Integrated Conservation 

Delivery

Over the years, the staffs from the three national 

wildlife refuges have worked with a wide variety of 

agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private landowners on wildlife conservation issues and 
Draft EA Chapter 5—Environmental Coordination and Review 55

opportunities. Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologists have worked with landowners on habitat 

restoration projects and partnerships that provide 

the foundation for a successful easement program. 

The ongoing involvement of the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife program, landscape conservation cooperatives, and many partner organizations and agencies 

would be essential for the effective delivery of sustainable conservation program. Application of the 

strategic habitat conservation framework would 

build on existing partnerships and support the 

development of new partnerships for conservation 

throughout the region. The spatially explicit decisionsupport tools being developed would allow for greater 

flexibility, increased responsiveness, and improved 

efficiency in meeting Service and partner needs for 

conservation delivery.

Wetland and upland conservation easements are 

essential tools for protecting important wildlife habitat on a landscape scale. The detailed LPP developed 

in conjunction with this EA provides the information necessary to carry out the conservation action of 

acquiring conservation easements on the “best of the 

best” habitat for priority species. As understanding of 

the functional relationships between priority species 

and habitats increases, the Service would adapt the 

strategies used to target acquisition of the highest 

priority habitat for meeting the population objectives 

of priority species.

Monitoring and Research 

Although the importance of the Bear River watershed for migratory birds is widely recognized, there 

are gaps in our knowledge about the area’s resources. 

More Breeding Bird Survey routes, completion of the 

National Wetlands Inventory database, and incorporating research and information from the large 

number of conservation agencies and organizations in 

the region would help to assess conservation needs 

and priorities in the region. The Service would work 

with the Great Basin, Great Northern, and Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

and many partners to develop and refine predictive 

population models. The results of Breeding Bird Surveys; the annual monitoring the Service conducts on 

waterfowl, breeding shorebirds, other waterbirds, 

grassland birds, and raptors on the three national 

wildlife refuges; and other appropriate regional, 

State, and local surveys would be used to assess the 

effectiveness of the conservation easement program. 

Research and monitoring emphasis would be 

placed on the highest priority species that have 

the greatest degree of uncertainty about limiting 

factors and the effectiveness of management actions 

at minimizing and reducing limiting factors. Data 

from existing surveys such as the Breeding Bird 

Survey would be evaluated and incorporated into 

spatial models. When necessary, more data would 

be collected to evaluate the assumptions used in the 

modeling process and assessments would be adjusted 

accordingly. These methods would provide an estimate of the population response of trust species on 

easement lands and on noneasement properties.

Evaluation of the assumptions and uncertainties 

identified through the biological planning, conservation design, and conservation delivery elements 

would be addressed in cooperation with partners such 

as nongovernmental organizations and universities. 

The contributions of conservation easements and 

other management actions toward meeting population goals for priority trust species would be 

evaluated using spatially explicit models that allow 

for estimation of population size on conservation 

easements and other land parcels of interest. Such 

models would allow the Service and its conservation 

partners to evaluate the contribution of the program 

to meeting population goals and to refine conservation delivery to ensure greatest efficiency. Spatially 

explicit models would also enable the Service to show 

the contribution of the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area to national and continental 

population goals for priority species.

Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area covers three landscape conservation 

cooperatives (Great Basin, Great Northern, and 

Southern Rockies) that cover parts of 11 western 

States and Canada (see figure EA–3). The landscape 

conservation cooperatives involve many partners and 

function at a scale necessary to address wildlife adaptation in response to climate change. In carrying out 

conservation actions through the proposed conservation area, the Service would use the efforts of the 

landscape conservation cooperatives to refine priority 

acquisitions and to address current and future issues 

and opportunities related to landscape-scale conservation in a rapidly changing world.

The Service would work with the three landscape 

conservation cooperatives as a means of conducting 

strategic habitat conservation to deal with a range of 

resource threats, such as development, invasive species, and water scarcity. 

Draft Land Protection Plan

Draft Vision Statement

Landscape-scale protection of the natural resources 

found within the Bear River watershed is essential to 

humans and wildlife. The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area project preserves, protects, and restores 

the natural resources and working landscapes within the 

drainage. 

Through cooperative efforts with ranchers, farmers, local communities, land management agencies, and 

other conservation organizations, the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service builds a community of citizens dedicated to protection of wildlife habitat, maintenance of 

healthy communities, enhancement of water quality, promotion of sustainable agriculture, and recognition of good 

stewardship. 

The legacy of this effort is the tapestry of snow-covered 

mountains, deciduous and conifer forest, vast areas of sagebrush and wetlands, and working farms and ranches that 

decorate the landscape of the Bear River Watershed. This 

expansive landscape supports a multitude of diverse wildlife species including migratory birds, sage-grouse, elk, 

black bear, pronghorn, mule deer, Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, and other native species. 

Implementation of a landscape-scale collaborative effort 

within the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area conserves the significant wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural values 

of this region in perpetuity.

Draft Land Protection Plan (LPP) 

Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description

Introduction 

The draft EA completed by the Service during 

the planning process considered several alternatives, 

with two alternatives being selected for further analysis. Alternative A, called the no-action alternative, 

considered the consequences of not doing anything 

beyond current actions in the Bear River watershed. 

Alternative B considers the positive and negative 

consequences of purchasing conservation easements 

and establishing the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (see figure LPP–1 for a map of the 

proposed project area).

© Brian Ferguson

Bear River Marsh, Utah

Project Description 

Before Euro-American settlement, the Bear 

River delta was a vast natural marsh that provided 

wetland habitat for waterfowl in the arid Great Basin 

region. When John C. Fremont, an early explorer in 

the West, visited the area near the present day Bear 

River Refuge in 1843, he commented, “the waterfowl 

made a noise like thunder... as the whole scene was 

animated with waterfowl.”

The Bear River travels a 500-mile course from 

its headwaters in Utah’s Uinta Mountains through 

Wyoming and Idaho, eventually terminating its horseshoe-shaped route in Utah’s Great Salt Lake, the 

largest inland sea in the Western Hemisphere (see figure LPP–1). The forested areas at the headwaters are 

part of a crucial wildlife migration corridor. These forested areas offer a major link between the Northern 

and Southern Rocky Mountain ecosystems (Theobald 

et al. 2011, USDA Forest Service 2003). The small, 

pristine mountain streams found in the area provide 

ideal breeding habitat for important native species, 

such as the Bonneville cutthroat trout and northern 

leatherside chub. Elk, black bear, grizzly bear, Canada 

lynx, wolverine, gray wolf, pika, and marmots inhabit 
60 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Figure LPP–1. Map of the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.
Draft LPP Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 61

the high-elevation forest and snow-covered mountain 

slopes found in the watershed. The montane shrubland, sage grassland, and pastureland provide good 

habitat for greater sage-grouse, Columbian sharptailed grouse, bald eagle, mule deer, elk, pronghorn, 

rabbit, bobcat, black bear, and various hawks.

Wetlands and riparian areas in the lower elevations provide some of the most important resting, 

staging, feeding, breeding, and nesting areas for 

migratory birds in the Pacific and central flyways 

(Downard 2010). More than 46 percent of the whitefaced ibis, 24 percent of the marbled godwits, and 18 

percent of the black-necked stilts in North America 

use the wetland habitat found within the watershed. 

More than 270 different species are associated with 

the habitats supported by the Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area, and adjacent lands located within the Bear River watershed. 

The Bear River watershed is essential to the survival of the Bonneville cutthroat trout as well as 

millions of birds and other wildlife. 

Although it provides many functions both for wildlife and for people along its route, the river is heavily 

affected by land use along its course. Land use in the 

watershed affects wildlife habitat and the amount and 

quality of available water. Agricultural lands provide 

habitat for wildlife, but in some areas are rapidly 

being converted to residential developments. Some 

counties in the watershed are expected to double 

in population over the next 30 years (Utah Division 

of Water Resources 2004). Based on its job growth 

rate and low unemployment rate, Logan, Utah, in 

the Cache Valley, was deemed the best-performing 

small city in the United States in 2011 (DeVol et al. 

2011). The collaborative efforts of conservation partners in the Bear River watershed would be crucial 

to preserving this working landscape that is such an 

important resource for people and wildlife. 

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is located in southeast Idaho, southwest 

Wyoming, and northeastern Utah. The proposed conservation area would contain parts of 12 counties: 

Bannock, Bear Lake, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida, and 

Power in Idaho; Box Elder, Cache, Rich, and Summit 

in Utah; and Lincoln and Uinta in Wyoming.

Issues Identified and Selected 

for Analysis

Six public scoping meetings were held in Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming in May 2011. Public comments 

were taken in Cokeville and Evanston, Wyoming; 

Brigham City and Logan, Utah; and Preston and 

Montpelier, Idaho, to identify issues to be analyzed 

for the proposed action. Approximately 130 landowners, members of various organizations, and elected 

representatives attended the meetings. Additionally, 

10 letters providing comments were received by mail 

or email. A total of 327 comments and questions were 

received on the project proposal.

Refuge staff contacted tribal, Federal, State, and 

local officials, as well as conservation groups that 

expressed an interest in the future of the Bear River 

watershed. Not only were fact sheets describing the proposed project made available on the refuges’ Web sites, 

but approximately 675 fact sheets on the proposed project were distributed to interested members of the public.

The main categories of comments, issues, and 

questions expressed at meetings or received by mail 

follow. 

Biological Issues

■ Importance of wildlife and wildlife habitat in the 

watershed.

■ Questions about the types of habitat and lands 

that would be included in the proposed project.

■ Ecosystem importance of the watershed (connectivity and habitat types represented).

■ Importance of protecting water resources.

■ Water quality and quantity issues in the watershed.

■ Impacts of dams and diversions.

■ Climate change impacts on the region.

■ Development (residential, oil and gas, mineral, 

and recreational), which was perceived as the biggest threat to the long-term health and stability 

of the Bear River landscape, culture, and wildlife 

resources.

■ Perceived mismanagement of lands and inappropriate stewardship (grazing and agricultural 

practices) in the watershed.

■ Invasive species in the watershed.

■ Fragmentation of habitat.

Socioeconomic Issues

■ Funding sources and matching contributions.
62 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

■ Tax implication of easements.

■ Economic impacts of easements.

■ Financial implications of easements.

■ Quantity and location of land needed for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area 

project.

■ Agricultural values of the Bear River.

■ Aesthetics (open space and scenery).

■ Importance of recreational opportunities.

■ Availability of recreational opportunities in the 

watershed.

■ Economic importance of the watershed (agriculture and power generation).

Administrative and Enforcement 

Issues for Easements

■ Potential easement restrictions and language.

■ Responsibilities and limitations on management 

practices of an easement.

■ Current and future land uses and encumbrances 

(oil and gas leases, mining, and rights-of-way).

■ Perpetual nature of Service easements.

■ Comments and questions about enforcement of 

easements.

■ Importance of monitoring conservation easement 

parcels.

■ Possibility of easements increasing wildlife depredation, especially by sandhill cranes.

■ Comparable easement programs that are available 

with other agencies and organizations.

■ Easement financial and funding implications.

■ Service appraisal process.

■ Easement valuation determination.

Other Issues

■ Conservation partnerships and coordination.

■ Organizations and other agencies that the Service 

would be working with.

■ Interest expressed in selling a conservation easement to the Service.

■ Questions on timelines, public input opportunities, 

and availability of data and GIS information.

■ Comments on the need for planning various watershed uses and future development.

■ General concern.

■ General support.

■ Interest in easements.

National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Authorities

The mission of the Refuge System is “to preserve 

a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where proper, restoration 

of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans.” The proposed 

conservation area project would be monitored as part 

of the refuge system in accordance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

and other relevant legislation, Executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

Conservation of more wildlife habitat in the Bear 

River region would also continue, consistent with the 

following policies and management plans:

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (1934)

■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940) 

■ Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■ “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

(1994)

■ “Migratory Non-game Birds of Management Concern in the U.S.” (2002)
Draft LPP Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 63

Related Actions and Activities

Private landowners have worked with many organizations including the Service’s Partners in Fish and 

Wildlife program, The Nature Conservancy, State 

agencies, and county weed districts, to complete conservation easements and control invasive plants such 

as tamarisk, phragmites, Russian olive, carp, and 

quagga and zebra mussels. 

Bridgerland Audubon Society has worked with 

The Nature Conservancy and PacifiCorp to establish 

conservation easements on 500 acres of key riparian 

land along the Bear River in Cache County.

Coordinated Resource Management committees in Box Elder and Rich Counties consist of State 

and Federal agency staff, representatives from local 

government, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and private individuals. 

Coordinated Resource Management works to provide rich, healthy ecosystems; sustainable agriculture 

industry and wildlife populations; and diverse recreational opportunities and vibrant rural communities.

Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust was 

founded in 2003. It has completed 15 projects in 

southeast Idaho that provide protection on 2,260 

acres of natural and working lands to benefit Bonneville cutthroat trout and other wildlife species.

The Nature Conservancy bought a 6,700-acre 

conservation easement to protect habitat for the 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and other wildlife species. The organization is developing a comprehensive 

plan to provide early detection and rapid response 

for the control of invasive weeds in Cache County. 

The Nature Conservancy has also been involved with 

mapping important wetland areas throughout the 

watershed. 

Trout Unlimited has 12 projects underway in the 

watershed to reconnect essential spawning tributaries in each of the five major sections of the Bear 

River. Trout Unlimited and project partners find 

movement barriers and retrofit the structures with 

fish ladders and screens to allow upstream passage 

around dams and prevent downstream loss of fish 

in irrigation canals. Trout Unlimited also works to 

improve aquatic and riparian habitats in the reconnected tributaries and in the main stem Bear River.

Utah Partners for Conservation and Development is a sponsor of the Utah Watershed Restoration 

Initiative, a partnership-driven effort to conserve, 

restore, and manage ecosystems in priority areas 

across the State to enhance Utah’s wildlife and biological diversity, water quality and yield for all uses, and 

opportunities for sustainable uses. In 2010, the watershed restoration initiative was involved in 26 projects 

comprising 19,336 acres in the Northern Region, 

which includes the Bear River watershed (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2010). 

Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land 

Trust holds 62 conservation easements on more than 

170,000 acres of ranchland throughout the State. 

By working with landowners to conserve working 

ranches, the crucial wildlife winter ranges and travel 

corridors that are commonly found in the most agriculturally productive locations along valleys and 

waterways are also protected. 

Wyoming Land Trust holds conservation easements on 30,234 acres of working ranchland, wildlife 

habitats, and scenic areas in Wyoming. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The Conservation Reserve Program is administered by the Farm Service Agency and provides 

technical and financial help to eligible farmers 

and ranchers to address soil, water, and related 

natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. 

The statewide acreage of Conservation Reserve Program–enrolled land is 668,643 acres in Idaho, 163,082 

acres in Utah, and 226,044 acres in Wyoming (USDA 

Farm Service Agency 2007).

The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program

provides matching funds to help buy development 

rights to keep productive farm and ranchland in agricultural uses. The Farm and Ranch Land Protection 

Program works through existing programs. The 

USDA collaborates with State, tribal, or local governments and nongovernmental organizations to acquire 

conservation easements or other interests in land 

from landowners. Currently, 3,450 acres in Idaho, 898 

acres in Utah, and 101,336 acres in Wyoming are protected under this program (USDA NRCS 2010a).

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is a voluntary program administered through 

the NRCS that provides financial and technical help 

to agricultural producers through contracts up to a 

maximum term of 10 years. These contracts provide 

financial assistance to help plan and carry out conservation practices that address natural resource 

concerns and for opportunities to improve soil, water, 

plant, animal, air, and related resources on agricultural land and nonindustrial private forestland. This 

program also helps producers to meet Federal, State, 

tribal, and local environmental regulations.

The Grassland Reserve Program is a voluntary 

conservation program administered through the 

NRCS that emphasizes support for working grazing 

operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and protection of grassland under threat of 

conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily 
64 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

limit future development and cropping uses of their 

land while keeping the right to conduct common grazing practices and operations related to the production 

of forage and seeding, subject to certain restrictions 

during nesting seasons of bird species that are in significant decline or are protected under Federal or 

State law. A grazing management plan is required for 

participants. There are 9,692 acres in Idaho, 29,336 

in Utah, and 24,458 acres in Wyoming enrolled in the 

program. 

The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program is a 

voluntary program administered by the NRCS 

for conservation-minded landowners who want to 

develop and improve wildlife habitat on agricultural 

land, nonindustrial private forest land, and tribal 

lands.

The Wetlands Reserve Program was reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers that 

promotes agricultural production and environmental 

quality as compatible national goals. This program 

offers financial and technical assistance to help eligible participants install or implement structural and 

management practices on eligible agricultural land. 

In Idaho 892 acres, in Utah 22 acres, and in Wyoming 

1,013 acres are enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program (USDA NRCS 2010b).

Department of the Interior

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife program provides cost-sharing to fund habitat enhancements, 

with a special emphasis placed on projects that simultaneously benefit agricultural production and wildlife 

habitat for Service trust species. Participation in the 

program is voluntary, and the details of each project are outlined in individual landowner agreements. 

Past examples include fence and water developments 

that improve livestock grazing management, irrigation diversion upgrades that allow for traditional 

water withdrawal and fish passage in streams, and 

rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure to maintain 

and enhance created wetlands.

The Utah Partners for Fish and Wildlife program 

has restored or enhanced 11,915 acres of wetlands, 

46,258 acres of uplands, and 64 miles of riparian or 

instream habitat. In Wyoming, the program has 

restored or enhanced 5,373 acres of wetland, 228,592 

acres of upland, and 242 miles of riparian or instream 

habitat. More than 6,760 acres of wetland, 8,754 acres 

of upland, and 62 miles of riparian or instream habitat 

(from 2001 to 2011) have been restored or enhanced 

in Idaho.

Landscape conservation cooperatives are public–

private partnerships that recognize that conservation challenges transcend political and jurisdictional 

boundaries and require an approach that is holistic, 

collaborative, adaptive, and grounded in science to 

ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, 

wildlife, and cultural resources.

As a collaborative, landscape conservation cooperatives seek to identify best practices, connect efforts, 

find gaps, and avoid duplication through improved 

conservation planning and design. Partner agencies and organizations coordinate with each other 

while working within their existing authorities and 

jurisdictions.

In carrying out conservation actions through the 

proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area, 

the Service would work with the Great Northern, 

Great Basin, and Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (see figure LPP–2) and other 

partners to address current and future issues and 

opportunities related to landscape-scale conservation 

in a rapidly changing world.

Habitat Protection and 

Easement Acquisition Process

On approval of a project boundary, habitat 

protection would occur through the purchase of conservation easements. It is the long-established policy 

of the Service to acquire minimum interest in land 

needed from willing sellers to achieve habitat acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authority for the proposed conservation area is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

(16 U.S.C. 742 a–742j). The Federal monies used to 

acquire conservation easements are received from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is derived 

primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale of 

surplus Federal property. 

There could be more money to acquire lands, 

waters, or interest therein for fish and wildlife conservation purposes through congressional appropriations 

and donations from nonprofit organizations and other 

possible sources.

Conservation Easements

The Service would develop an objective review 

process for evaluating potential conservation easement areas submitted for consideration by willing 

sellers. The main considerations in acquiring an 

easement interest in private land are the biological 

significance of the area, the biological needs of wildlife 
Draft LPP Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 65

Figure LPP–2. Map of land stewardship in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming.
66 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

species of management concern, existing and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and landowner 

interest in the program. The purchase of conservation easements would occur with willing sellers only 

and would be subject to available funding. 

Service conservation easements would complement current conservation efforts by other agencies 

and organizations in the watershed. Fee-title acquisition is not required for, nor is it preferable to, 

conservation easements to achieve wildlife habitat protection. Fee-title acquisition would triple or 

quadruple the cost of land acquisition, would add significant increases in management costs, and would not 

be accepted by most landowners.

Keeping the working landscapes and agricultural 

heritage that have sustained the variety of wildlife 

species in the proposed conservation area is key to 

ensuring long-term habitat integrity and protection 

of wildlife resources. Conservation easements are the 

only viable means of protecting wildlife values on a 

large scale.
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description 

and Resources

Yellow-headed Blackbird

© Keith Penner

Physical Environment

The physical environment comprises the geology, 

soils, hydrology, and climate of the Bear River watershed. In addition, climate change is discussed.

Geology and Soils

The Bear River basin encompasses two physiographic provinces: The Basin and Range Province and 

the Middle Rocky Mountain Province of the Rocky 

Mountain Section (Dion 1969). The Basin and Range 

Province is noted for many north–south oriented, 

fault-tilted mountain ranges separated by intervening broad, sediment-filled basins. Approximately 

the western one-third of the watershed lies within 

the Basin and Range Province, which began forming 

when the previously deformed Precambrian (over 570 

million years old) and Paleozoic (570–240 million years 

old) rocks were slowly uplifted and broken into huge 

fault blocks by extensional stresses that still continue 

to stretch the earth’s crust (Milligan 2000). 

Sediments shed from the ranges are slowly filling 

the intervening wide, flat basins. Many of the basins 

have been further modified by shorelines and sediments of lakes that intermittently cover the valley 

floors. The most notable of these was Lake Bonneville, which reached its deepest level about 15,000 

years ago when it flooded basins across western Utah 

(Milligan 2000).

The Middle Rocky Mountains Province, which 

encompasses approximately the eastern two-thirds 

of the basin, consists of mountainous terrain, stream 

valleys, and alluvial basins. The Utah part of this 

province has two major mountain ranges, the north–

south trending Wasatch and east–west trending 
68 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Uinta Mountains. Both ranges have cores of old Precambrian rocks, some more than 2.6 billion years old 

(Milligan 2000). This Precambrian bedrock became 

exposed during the Pleistocene by glacial activity 

that created smooth bowls that collect and funnel 

water down the Bear River (Denton 2007). 

The Bear River Range, located in the central 

part of the Bear River watershed, is aligned north 

to south and divides the eastern Mesozoic and western Cenozoic zones. From the Uinta Mountains in the 

eastern part of the watershed, the Bear River flows 

northward along the edge of a Mesozoic region, characterized by rock structures that have little ability to 

absorb water. The western part of the watershed is 

comprised primarily of Paleozoic rock in the mountains and Cenozoic rock in the valleys. The valleys 

here contain alluvial and glacial deposits that are 

absorptive and lend well to agricultural use (Haws 

and Hughes 1973). The Bear River range is an important catch basin for precipitation. 

The watershed contains multiple mountain ranges 

including the Wasatch Front to the west, the Bear 

River Divide (Crawford) and Tunp Ranges to the 

east, and the Sublette Range to the north (see figure LPP–3). The convergence of mountain ranges at 

Rocky Point about 1 mile northeast of Cokeville creates a pinch-point for one of the regionally important 

migration corridors in the watershed. The position 

and alignment of the various ranges across the watershed play a central role in precipitation, climatic, 

hydrological, and biological patterns. 

Hydrology

The Bear River is the largest tributary to the 

Great Salt Lake, the remnant of ancient Lake Bonneville. Lake Bonneville was a closed inland sea basin 

the size of Lake Michigan that once dominated the 

landscape in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Approximately 16,000 years ago, Lake Bonneville began 

spilling over into the Snake River drainage at Red 

Rock Pass, reducing the lake level by 375 feet. Over 

the following 8,000 years, Lake Bonneville continued to shrink because of changing climatic conditions, 

eventually occupying only the present day Great Salt 

Lake (Utah Geological Survey [no date]). 

The Bear River watershed is unusual in that it 

is entirely enclosed by mountains, forming one arm 

of the Great Salt Lake basin, which has no natural 

drainage outlets. Three States share drainage in the 

7,500 square-mile watershed: 2,700 square miles in 

Idaho, 3,300 square miles in Utah, and 1,500 square 

miles in Wyoming. Progressions of small, high-mountain streams form the headwaters of the Bear River 

in Utah’s Uinta–Wasatch–Cache National Forest. The 

Uinta Mountains, a subrange of the Rocky Mountains, 

vary in elevation from 7,500 to 13,500 feet and are 

unusual in that they run in an east to west orientation. From the headwaters, the Bear River flows 

north and west in an arc from Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, 

and back into Utah. Near the city of Evanston, Wyoming, the topography flattens and land use becomes 

a mix of urban and agricultural uses. Here the river 

begins a dramatic transformation from fast-flowing, cold, and clear water in the narrow valleys to a 

slow-moving, cool-water, meandering course on the 

valley floor. Humans have altered the natural stream 

dynamics throughout the remaining course of the 

Bear River to its termination at the Great Salt Lake. 

Although agriculture accounts for only 7 percent of 

the land use in the upper watershed, it accounts for 

more than 80 percent of the water usage. Surface and 

ground water sources are used to irrigate more than 

96,512 acres of hay, pasture, and cropland (Bear River 

Watershed Information System 2009).

Instream structures like the Chapman Canal 

Diversion and Woodruff Narrows Reservoir disrupt natural channel-forming flows and sediment 

transport, leading to streambed and bank instability 

downstream. After passing through Woodruff Narrows Reservoir, the valley broadens and the river 

travels along the Wyoming–Utah border and lends 

itself to irrigation and production agriculture for 30 

miles before reentering Wyoming near Sage Junction. Nutrient loading (especially phosphorus, which 

is found at naturally high levels in surrounding soil 

formations), sediment from accelerated bank erosion, 

and dewatering are leading causes of stream degradation. Sediment and nutrient levels remain as the 

main water quality concerns throughout the entire 

Bear River watershed, and those impacts contribute 

to water management challenges in the refuges (Utah 

Division of Water Resources 2002).

As the river flows north from Evanston, the ridge 

and swale topography of the floodplain is characterized by a complex association of irrigated meadows, 

wetlands, and grass uplands that support one of the 

highest densities of migrating and nesting waterfowl 

in Wyoming. Centered along a 20-mile stretch of the 

Bear River and its associated wetlands and uplands, 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992 to protect this important habitat. 

After leaving Cokeville, the Bear River crosses 

into Idaho near the community of Border, where the 

flow is greatly increased by inflow from the Smith’s 

Fork River, which originates in the Bridger–Teton 

National Forest and has a relatively intact watershed and native fish assemblages (Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2010).

As the Bear River passes into Idaho, PacifiCorp diverts water at Stewart Dam through Bear 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge and into Bear Lake 

proper (which straddles Idaho and Utah). Bear Lake 
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 69

Figure LPP–3. Base map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.
70 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

National Wildlife Refuge, near Montpelier, Idaho, was 

established in 1968 to protect and manage habitat for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Once released 

from Bear Lake proper, water travels from the Outlet Canal and the refuge’s Mud Lake unit back to 

the Bear River’s original channel about 7 miles from 

where the water is first diverted. Except for some 

water seepage from Stewart Dam, all Bear River 

water is diverted through the refuge; however, small 

creeks and irrigation return water enter into the original river channel so that the river is not completely 

dewatered between Stewart Dam and its reunion 

with the Outlet Canal.

From Bear Lake, the river travels 100 miles to the 

north, where it is impounded in the Alexander Reservoir for irrigation, recreation, and hydroelectric 

power generation. Below the Alexander Dam, about 

one-tenth of the river’s annual flow is sent through 

one of the oldest diversion canals in the watershed, 

the Last Chance Canal. The canal was constructed 

by settlers to provide irrigation for agriculture in the 

early 1900s. From there, the river continues south 

toward Grace, Idaho. Just above the Black Canyon, almost all the river water is again diverted, at 

the Grace Dam, through an aqueduct to the Grace 

Power Plant for power production. The water then is 

returned to its original river channel just below Black 

Canyon at Cove Dam. As a part of its 2008 relicensing 

agreement for the Grace and Cove dams, PacifiCorp 

provides scheduled whitewater flow releases back 

into Black Canyon during spring and early summer 

months to help mimic natural flow patterns.

Below Black Canyon, the river continues south 

through the Gem, Gentile, and Cache Valleys, where 

the predominant land uses are irrigated agriculture, 

grazing, and dairy production. About 100,000 people 

live in the Cache Valley, making it the most populated 

area in the Bear River watershed. Just below the 

Idaho–Utah State line, the Bear River receives water 

from the Cub River, which in turn obtains part of its 

water from the Mount Naomi Wilderness. Below the 

Cub River, the amount of water in the Bear River 

doubles because of input from the Logan, Blacksmith 

Fork, and Little Bear River flows.

Eventually the Bear River passes into the Bear 

River delta and the Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge and then terminates its horseshoe-shaped 

500-mile route in Utah’s Great Salt Lake. Today, the 

Bear River contributes more than one-half of the 

total surface flow entering the Great Salt Lake each 

year. This large volume of freshwater from the river 

helps to maintain proper temperatures, salinity, and 

water levels in the lake. The saline waters and freshwater marshes of the Great Salt Lake comprise one of 

the most important breeding and migratory staging 

sites for colonial waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds in the Great Basin. 

Climate

The climate of most of the proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area is characterized as 

having warm to hot summers and cold winters and is 

classified as humid continental, mild summer under 

the Koppen climate classification system. The remainder of the watershed near the Great Salt Lake is 

classified as semiarid desert–steppe or humid continental, hot summer for the Great Basin and Wasatch 

Front, respectively.

Annual precipitation is influenced greatly by the 

topography and elevations found within the watershed, which range from 4,200 to 13,000 feet. Annual 

precipitation ranges from 10 inches in the lower valleys to 65 inches at the headwaters of the Bear River 

in the Uinta Mountains (Utah Division of Water 

Resources 2005b). Two major storm patterns influence precipitation in the basin: (1) frontal systems 

from the Pacific Northwest during winter and spring; 

and (2) thunderstorms from the south and southwest 

in late summer and early fall. 

Temperatures are also variable throughout the 

watershed because of differences in elevation. Mean 

annual temperatures range from 37 °F in the Uinta 

Mountains at about 8,400 feet elevation to 53 °F at 

Tremonton at 4,300 feet. Maximum July temperatures 

average 91 °F at Tremonton compared to 74 °F in the 

Uinta Mountains. 

Climate Change

The Bear River basin has warmed an average 2 °F 

since 1971 (Utah Climate Center). The trend of 0.5 °F per 

decade during the last 40 years is 1.5 times greater than the 

trend for the global average over the same period. Simulation models predict that, by 2040 to 2060, the Bear River 

basin’s climate could be 5–6 °F warmer with a 5–13 percent 

decrease in annual runoff, 10–15 percent lower peak accumulation of snowpack, earlier spring melt by 2–4 weeks, and 

an increasing fraction of winter precipitation coming as rain 

(Degiorgio et al. 2010) (see figure LPP–4). Climate change 

models in the arid western regions of North America also 

suggest an increased frequency of extended drought in the 

future (Hughes and Diaz 2008, Barnett et al. 2008, Degiorgio et al. 2010). These changes have important implications 

for waterbird populations, and ecosystem stability within 

the Bear River basin wetlands. 

Maclean et al. (2008) found that waterbird abundance and phenology are sensitive to the effects of 

climate change. 

Waterbirds dependent on inland wetlands in the 

west are at particular risk because these crucial habitats are among the most likely to be dramatically 

influenced by climate change in the region (Hughes 
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 71

Figure LPP–4. Graph of the trend in annual average temperature in the Bear River basin (Idaho, Utah, and 

Wyoming) over the past 100 years. 

and Diaz 2008, Barnett et al. 2008). For example, 

breeding waterbirds at the Bear River Migratory 

Bird Refuge rely on wetlands that lie at the interface 

between freshwater inflows and the saline Great Salt 

Lake. As the timing and amount of freshwater snowmelt change and humans respond by altering their 

use of water, the hydrology and salinity regimes of 

these wetlands may be dramatically influenced. Without actions that anticipate and address these likely 

changes, the value of this area for breeding waterbirds could be disrupted, which would likely influence 

the continental populations of some species.

The “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change” (2010) involves three progressive strategies: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement. 

Adaptation involves helping fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats adapt to climate change by implementing management actions to help reduce the impacts. 

Mitigation involves reducing the carbon footprint 

by using less energy, consuming fewer materials, 

and increasing sequestration of biological carbon. 

Engagement encompasses developing partnerships 

with local, national, and international partners, key 

constituencies, and stakeholders to seek solutions to 

the challenges and threats to fish and wildlife conservation. The proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area would have aspects that address 

all three of these strategies. 

Adaptation

Worldwide scientific consensus is that human 

activity is changing the climate system. As the climate changes, the abundance and distribution of 

wildlife and fish will also change in response to 

changing habitat conditions. Some species will adapt 
72 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

successfully to a warming world; many will struggle; 

and others will disappear. 

The exact changes to temperature and precipitation in the Bear River basin are unknown. Equally 

unknown are the responses of wildlife and habitat to 

these changes, for example, which species will become 

the most vulnerable. Keeping adequate densities of 

wetlands, robust riparian corridors, and open spaces 

will become increasingly important to allow fish and 

wildlife to adapt to the changing environment. 

Mitigation

Forests, grasslands, wetlands, and soils have a 

large influence on atmospheric levels of CO2. Carbon 

sequestration forms one of the key elements of mitigation. The World Resources Institute estimates that 

grasslands store approximately 34 percent, forests 

store approximately 39 percent, and agro-ecosystems approximately 17 percent of the global stock of 

carbon in terrestrial ecosystems. It is as important to 

protect existing carbon stores from further degradation as it is to sequester atmospheric carbon. 

Historically, the destruction of wetlands through 

land use changes has had the largest effects on carbon 

fluxes and the resulting radiative forcing of North 

American wetlands. [Radiative forcing is the measure 

of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of 

balance.] The primary effects have been a reduction 

in the ability of the wetlands to sequester carbon (a 

small to moderate increase in radiative forcing), oxidation of their soil carbon reserves upon drainage (a 

small increase in radiative forcing), and reduction in 

methane emissions (a small to large decrease in radiative forcing). It is uncertain how global changes will 

affect the carbon pools and fluxes of North American 

wetlands (Bridgham et al. 2006).

Engagement

Engagement involves cooperation, communication, and partnerships to address the conservation 

challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 

2009). The conservation area would serve as a model 

for engagement by working with landowners, nongovernmental organizations, State agencies, and 

Federal agencies listed earlier under “Partnership 

Development.”

A key recommendation from a recent climate 

change workshop held by The Nature Conservancy 

was to coordinate management of shared resources. 

Given the regional pattern of recent temperature 

changes, with some areas experiencing warming more 

rapidly than others, natural resource managers would 

benefit by coordinating their activities with others 

who are managing common resources. Regional and 

coordinated management of shared habitat may be 

the only way to make sure that some habitat can be 

kept in a resilient state while other habitat transitions to another state (Roble 2011).

Taking action on these recommendations will be 

crucial for achieving conservation and management 

goals in the face of a changing climate. Reduced snowpack in the mountains combined with earlier seasonal 

melting caused by rising temperatures may increase 

the intensity and length of late summer droughts 

and reduce the availability of water, especially in 

the western United States. Finding enough water is 

becoming an increasingly difficult challenge for western fish and wildlife species. Spring is arriving earlier, 

and plants and animals are being found farther and 

farther north of their historical ranges in the U.S. 

Wildlife biologists are concerned that this will mean 

some migratory species may not arrive in their breeding habitats when, or where, their particular food 

sources are available.

Education is a key part of engagement. The Bear 

River Migratory Bird Refuge watershed education 

program will work with local school districts to apply 

scientific understanding, at a student level, through 

field trips to sites within the Bear River watershed. 

Students groups will monitor local climate change 

through tracking phenological events and engage in 

strategies to reduce carbon footprints. It is predicted 

that student engagement in climate change education 

will result in advancing its understanding among the 

citizenry within the watershed.

Biological Environment

The Bear River watershed’s habitat ranges from 

river and the adjacent riparian areas to wetland, 

grassland, shrubland, and forest. This section also 

describes the wildlife and species of concern that use 

these habitats.

Habitat 

Below the peaks of the Uinta Mountains lies 

a landscape carved by glaciers containing lakes, 

streams, forests, and meadows. Dropping in elevation 

from more than 13,000 feet to 4,211 feet and crossing 

through many life zones (alpine to valley floor), the 

Bear River area contains a large diversity of plant 

communities. The diversity of habitats in the Bear 

River watershed support a variety of fish, mammal, 

reptile, and amphibian species as well as a large number of resident and migratory bird species. See figure 

LPP–5 for a map of habitat types, table LPP–1 for 
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 73

Figure LPP–5. Habitat map for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and 

Wyoming. Source: NorthWest GAP (Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 2011); South West reGAP (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2005).
74 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

acreages of vegetation types, and appendix B for a 

list of plant and animal species representative of the 

Bear River watershed.

Table LPP–1. Acreages of vegetation types found in 

the proposed Bear River project area in Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming. 

Vegetation types Acres

Agriculture: cultivated cropland 594,358

Agriculture: pasture and hay 133,482

Developed 83,343

Forest and woodland 1,250,529

Grassland 128,848

Introduced riparian area and wetland 

vegetation 8,821

Introduced upland vegetation—annual 

grassland 44,840

Introduced upland vegetation—perennial 

grassland and forbs 19,171

Marsh 69,430

Mining 197

Open water 119,497

Riparian area 261,407

Sagebrush steppe and shrubland 1,945,752

Shrubland and steppe 18,565

Sparse and barren 44,912

Wet meadow or prairie 12,803

Wetland 27,577

Wetland–playa 59,350

 Total 4,822,882

Source: http://gap.uidaho.edu/index.php/gap-home/Northwest

-GAP/landcover; http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap

/habitatreview/ModelQuery.asp; Northwest GAP (Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 2011); Southwest 

ReGAP (U.S. Geological Survey 2005).

Connectivity and Corridors

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the chief factors in the decline of many populations of wildlife 

throughout the world (Harris 1984, Ehrlich 1986, 

Lovejoy et al. 1986). In the western United States, 

human development of open spaces has fragmented 

the connections between wildlife habitats (Gude et 

al. 2007). Corridors that link habitats or other landscape linkages help mitigate the effects of habitat 

fragmentation by linking core areas so that individuals can move between them (Mech and Hallett 

2001). They also allow evolutionary and ecological 

processes (for example, fire, succession, predation) to 

continue. By ensuring that plants and animals have 

connected populations, corridors can help prevent 

or mitigate against harmful population-level effects 

resulting from isolation including inbreeding, low 

genetic diversity, and extirpation (Noss 1983, Harris 

1984, Dobson et al. 1999) and may actually increase 

population sizes, viability, and movement of habitat-restricted species (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, 

Haddad 1999, Haddad and Baum 1999). Landscape 

linkages should also help to provide for longer term 

gene flow between populations in core habitats and 

linkage areas and may provide a pathway for plants 

populations to shift under regional climate change 

trends (Bates and Jones 2007).

Almost all species rely on more than one habitat 

type to complete their life cycles, and the availability 

of various intact habitats close together is essential 

to many wildlife species found in the watershed. For 

example, Saalfeld et al. (2010) found that, while the 

long-billed curlew’s need for wetlands near its grassland nesting habitat is poorly understood, it is clearly 

important since more curlews were detected near 

wetlands. Brood-rearing long-billed curlews typically forage in upland areas (Pampush and Anthony 

1993); however, curlew chicks move toward wetlands as they grow (Foster-Willfong 2003). Shorter 

travel times between nest sites and wetland foraging 

sites reduce chick mortality (Saalfeld et al. 2010). In 

addition to grassland habitat, conservation of emergent wetlands—an element that generally has been 

overlooked—needs to be incorporated into habitat 

management plans for curlews (Saalfeld et al. 2010).

White-faced ibis also have specific habitat needs 

that are now being met in the Bear River watershed. 

In Wyoming, Dark-Smiley and Keinath (2003) found 

that ibis require large wetlands or lakes with dense 

emergent vegetation, such as bulrushes for breeding and foraging grounds near breeding areas. One 

consistent feature that all the breeding records in 

Wyoming have in common is proximity to irrigated 

crops. It seems likely that a combination of factors, 

such as proximity of foraging grounds and specialized 

habitat at open-water systems, plays a role in where 

white-faced ibis choose to breed. 

The Bear River watershed provides linkages and 

migration corridors for seasonal movements of wildlife between various habitats within the watershed 
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 75 atershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Figure LPP–6. Map of regional conservation and protected areas adjacent to the proposed Bear River W Utah, and Wyoming.
76 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

as well as between other protected lands and ecosystems in the region (see figure LPP–6). Crucial 

wildlife corridors maintain system resiliency in the 

face of climate change, especially for wide-ranging wildlife species such as Canada lynx, wolverine, 

mule deer, and pronghorn. Migration corridors provide connectivity between habitats in the northern 

and southern Rockies and between Idaho and the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem for mule deer, elk, 

and mid- to large-sized carnivores. In particular, Canada lynx linkages are mentioned for Cache, Rich, 

and Uinta Counties (Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game 2007). Core habitat areas for lynx are found in 

the Uinta Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2003) 

as well. Large numbers of mule deer, pronghorn, 

elk, and moose migrate through narrow corridors in 

the Rocky Point area north of Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming. 

Oneida Narrows Breakwater, Idaho

© Craig Denton

Riverine and Riparian Areas

Although riparian areas occupy only a small proportion of the total landscape in the western United 

States, they tend to be more productive than other 

ecosystems (Svejcar 1997). Riparian habitat is estimated to cover less than 2 percent of the States of 

Idaho (Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit 2011) and Wyoming (Merrill et al. 1996) and less 

than 1 percent of the State of Utah (Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources 2005b). 

The importance of riparian habitat to wildlife far 

exceeds its abundance. Distinct ribbons of green 

riparian areas connect streams with uplands across 

much of the West. These ecosystems support high 

species diversity and density as well as high productivity, and they allow for an exchange of energy, 

nutrients, and species between aquatic, riparian, and 

upland terrestrial systems (Johnson and McCormack 

1978, Gregory et al. 1991, Poff et al. 2011). Riparian zones along the major streams are important 

migration and dispersal corridors traversing harsh 

grassland and desert environments (Lohman 2004). 

Densities of breeding birds can be up to 10 times 

higher in riparian tracts than in adjacent, nonriparian habitats (Lohman 2004). Bird diversity in 

riparian habitats has been linked to the complex 
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 77

vertical vegetative structure of these habitats compared to adjacent grassland or shrubland habitats 

(Slater 2006). In the arid Southwest, about 60 percent of all vertebrate species (Omhart and Anderson 

1982) and 70 percent of all threatened and endangered species are riparian area obligates (Johnson 

1989, Poff et al. 2011). The quality of riparian habitat greatly influences the quality of aquatic habitat. 

Riparian vegetation influences light penetration and 

air and water temperatures, and is the transition 

point for food chain interactions between aquatic and 

terrestrial zones. Large woody debris and litter associated with riparian vegetation are often necessary 

for productive fish habitats, and influence the physical, chemical, and biotic characteristics of riparian 

and stream ecosystems (Naiman et al. 1992). In some 

riparian ecosystems, herbaceous plants provide the 

functions supplied by woody plants in other locations 

(Baker et al. 2004, Poff et al. 2011). 

Riparian areas also play an essential role in maintaining year-round aquatic habitat for fish and other 

species that occupy the stream channel. In most years, 

overbank flooding during snowmelt saturates riparian area soils and elevates water tables in adjacent 

areas. Subsurface water sustains riparian vegetation 

during drought periods and releases water slowly 

into the stream (Ewing 1978). Although often small, 

these waterflows help keep appropriate stream temperatures, improve water quality, and sustain isolated 

pools essential for fish survival (Winters et al. 1998 as 

cited in “Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan” 2010). 

Native fish populations have fluctuated, through time, 

in response to changes in the extent and function of 

riparian willow communities (Chaney et al. 1991, 

Binns 1981). Riffle-dwelling species such as longnose 

dace and riffle-spawning salmonids require relatively 

smaller fine sediment levels associated with healthy 

riparian vegetation. Riparian habitat is also required 

by many amphibian and reptile species.

Trout Unlimited (2010) found that the greatest 

limiting factor for Bonneville cutthroat trout appears 

to be land stewardship, because most populations 

are located on unprotected public and private lands. 

Strategies such as securing long-term protection, 

restoring and reconnecting degraded and fragmented 

habitats, and controlling nonnative species on a 

watershed scale are necessary to build resiliency 

while protecting genetic purity. 

Wildlife abundance, water availability, vegetation 

diversity, soil productivity, and favorable topography 

found in riparian zones attracted both Native Americans and early Europeans settlers to these areas. As 

a result, a high percentage of riparian areas are today 

privately owned. Most communities in the Bear River 

watershed are located near riparian zones used for 

agriculture, recreation, travel, water development, and 

housing (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010). 

Riparian areas are important habitat for yellow warblers.

USFWS

Riparian areas in the West are being influenced 

by a variety of stressors including land use change, 

grazing, dams, invasive species, timber harvesting, climate change, recreation, water quality, water 

diversion, ground-water depletion, fire, and mining. 

Although no comprehensive national inventory of 

riparian area conditions exists, Ohmart (1994) suggests that a minimum of 95 percent of all western 

riparian habitats have been altered in some way during the past century. 

Another major influence on riparian areas in 

the Bear River watershed is irrigation. The timing, 

extent, and method of irrigation can have a strong 

influence on riparian vegetation. Conversion from 

flood irrigation to center pivot irrigation has been 

known to change riparian area characteristics. While 

technological changes like side-role systems and 

gated pipe deliver water more efficiently to crops and 

potentially conserve water for other uses like maintaining streamflows, the influence on riparian area 

characteristics is complex (Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 2010).

Lowland Riparian Areas. Lowland riparian areas 

in the West are typically narrow bands of trees—predominantly cottonwoods—and shrubs surrounded 

by uplands of shorter vegetation (Knopf et al. 1988, 

Montgomery 1996). Principal woody species found in 

lowland riparian habitats in the watershed include 

Fremont cottonwood, netleaf hackberry, squaw-bush, 

boxelder, lanceleaf cottonwood, willow, and redosier 

dogwood. Nonnative invasive species include Russian olive and tamarisk. (Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, 2005, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2005).

Mountain Riparian Areas. Mountain riparian 

habitats differ from those found in lowlands because 

of the generally steeper stream gradients, cooler 

temperatures, and smaller amounts of soil deposition 
78 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

(Knight 1994). Mountain riparian vegetation is often 

characterized by sedges and short willow shrubland 

(Winward 2000). As elevation decreases, alder and 

tall willows become common, with Engelmann spruce, 

narrowleaf cottonwood, lodgepole pine, aspen, and 

occasionally blue spruce and balsam poplar (Knight 

1994).

Wetland

Wetlands represent a small part of the landscape 

in the Intermountain West, covering less than 5 percent of Utah and 2 percent or less in both Idaho and 

Wyoming (Idaho Gap Analysis, Wyoming Joint Venture Steering Committee 2010). Wetlands are often 

found in the form of marshes next to desert springs, 

rivers, streams, and lakes, but can also be found in 

the spring and summer where snowmelt collects. In 

the Intermountain West, wetlands provide habitat for 

more than 140 birds and 25 mammals that are either 

dependent on or associated with wetlands (Gammonley 2004, Copeland et al. 2010). Nicholoff et al. (2003) 

estimates that about 90 percent of the wildlife species 

in Wyoming use wetlands and riparian habitats daily 

or seasonally during their life cycle, and about 70 percent of Wyoming bird species depend on wetland or 

riparian areas. 

Wetlands within lower elevation grasslands and 

shrublands are especially important in terms of the 

biodiversity of plant species and because they have 

much longer growing seasons than those at higher 

elevations (Weiher and Keddy 1999). Lower elevation wetlands generally sustain greater biological 

diversity and greater overall densities of wildlife. 

However, these lower wetland complexes are also at 

greatest risk of future change because they support 

higher density human populations and more agriculture, have a higher potential for energy development, 

and are at a higher risk for climate change (Copeland 

et al. 2007, 2009). 

Privately owned wet meadow habitats are some of 

the most important unprotected wetlands within the 

Intermountain West. Irrigated wet meadows that are 

hayed and grazed annually (hay meadows) represent 

a particularly important subset of wetland habitats. 

These privately owned wetlands typically occur at 

mid- to high elevations (4,500–8,500 feet) in landscapes dominated by intact wetland, grassland, and 

sagebrush habitats not fragmented by development. 

These areas are important, as they often comprise 

almost entirely native habitats with little area converted to cropland. Grass-dominated landscapes with 

minimal fragmentation from cropland support high 

nest success for wetland- and grassland-nesting birds.

In addition to nesting habitat, these landscapes 

provide crucial stopover habitat for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds (Intermountain West Joint 

Venture 2010). Agricultural areas are a major source 

of foraging habitat during migration as well as nesting and brood-rearing habitat for many waterbird 

species. The Bear River watershed provides important complexes of wet meadow, flooded pastures, and 

hayfields used by many species of migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds including American 

avocet, sandhill crane, white-faced ibis, American 

bittern, marbled godwit, long-billed dowitcher, and 

northern pintail. The quality and availability of spring 

migration habitat have direct implications for the survival and breeding productivity of migratory birds. 

This shallowly flooded habitat is extremely important 

to spring-migrating waterfowl, especially northern 

pintails, whose population remains below continental 

management goals. Important flood-irrigated grazed 

and hayed wet meadow habitats sustain migrating waterfowl and waterbirds in the Intermountain 

West. These areas also provide crucial brood habitat 

for waterfowl and other waterbirds by supplying both 

escape cover from predators and productive foraging 

sites for rapidly growing ducklings and chicks. 

As with riparian areas, the irrigation of agricultural lands can have both a positive and a negative 

influence on the ecological condition of wetlands. 

Agricultural irrigation has affected the hydrology of 

many wetlands in the Bear River watershed. Copeland et al. (2010) found that more than 50 percent of 

Wyoming wetland areas in four different complexes 

were influenced by agricultural irrigation and predicted that changes in irrigation practices driven by 

the need for water conservation would be likely to 

adversely affect the hydrology of many lower elevation wetlands. As agricultural producers convert to 

The long-billed curlew depends on wetland and upland 

habitats. 

USFWS
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 79

alternative forms of irrigation because of drought 

concerns, many wetlands throughout the watershed may disappear. Some studies have documented 

negative effects from irrigation, mainly involving 

the conversion of existing wetlands to cropland and 

impairment from contaminant and nutrient runoff 

(Dickerson et al. 1996; Lemly et al. 1993, 2000; Kiesecker 2002).

Livestock grazing can also have a major influence 

on the functional integrity of wetlands and riparian 

systems throughout the Intermountain West (U.S. 

General Accounting Office 1988; Chaney et al. 1990, 

1993; Belsky et al. 1999; Copeland et al. 2010). If effective land conservation measures are not employed, 

certain farming practices may adversely affect wetlands. Sediment runoff from tilled fields and heavily 

grazed pastures decreases the lifespan of ponds and 

wetlands and impairs water quality.

Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland

From 1950 to 1990, grasslands west of the Mississippi River declined by 27.2 million acres, with 

approximately 36 percent converted to uses other 

than cropland (Conner et al. 2001). Now, the greatest 

threats to grasslands and sagebrush ecosystems come 

from oil and gas development, increasing urban and 

agricultural development, and invasive species. Climate change is also expected to cause major changes 

in grassland and sagebrush distribution across the 

landscape (Bachelet et al. 2001). Range expansions of 

woody species are predicted to continue, particularly 

the expansion of pinyon–juniper into sagebrush–

steppe and grasslands (Rowland et al. 2006), resulting 

in a decrease in sagebrush and an increase in woodlands across the West. Wildfires are increasing and 

are likely to intensify in a warmer future with drier 

soils, longer growing seasons, and more severe 

droughts (Field et al. 2007); wildfires may also cause 

large changes in grassland and sagebrush ecosystems. 

Changes in grassland cover can be subtle, but 

cover is generally predicted to decrease (Bachelet et 

al. 2001). Modeling suggests that climate change will 

likely increase net primary production in grasslands 

and decrease soil carbon, but high annual variability 

in plant production makes these projections uncertain (Parton et al. 2005). Nutrient cycling and plant 

production are expected to occur more rapidly in 

response to climate change than changes in community composition (Parton et al. 1994).

Sagebrush is typically the most common plant in 

shrub–steppe habitats in the watershed. There are 

many species of sagebrush in the Bear River watershed including basin, Wyoming, and mountain big 

sagebrush, and black or low sagebrush, which differ in height and habitat affinity. Other common 

shrubs include rabbitbrush, greasewood, fourwing 

saltbush, shadscale, serviceberry, and bitterbrush. 

Perennial grasses may also be common and include 

Indian ricegrass, sand dropseed, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, alkali sacaton, wild rye, 

and inland saltgrass. Common forbs include Hood’s 

phlox, arrowleaf balsamroot, yarrow, Richardson’s 

geranium, and milkvetch (Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

2005b). 

In the foothills and on mountain slopes, mountain 

big sagebrush occurs as a dominant shrub, typically 

with bluebunch wheatgrass or Idaho fescue. Mountain big sagebrush also occurs in a more diverse shrub 

community known as mountain shrub, in which it 

codominates with bitterbrush, serviceberry, mountain 

snowberry, chokecherry, mountain mahogany, bigtooth maple, and a variety of forbs. In Utah, Gambel 

oak is a dominant species in the mountain shrub community. Idaho fescue and basin wildrye are common 

bunchgrasses (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b). 

In Idaho, this habitat is restricted to the southern 

part of the State but is widespread in Wyoming. This 

diverse community of shrubs is highly palatable and 

is the preferred browse for many big game species 

(Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010). 

Sagebrush ecosystems are among the most imperiled in North America because of a variety of human 

disturbances. Sagebrush habitat has been altered 

and fragmented by changing fire regimes, an influx 

of invasive species, and development (agriculture, 

energy, natural resource, urban, and associated infrastructure). This has resulted in a decline in both the 

numbers and the distribution of many of the more 

than 350 species that depend on sagebrush habitat 

for all or part of their life cycles (Wisdom et al. 2005). 

In particular, such habitat shifts have major implications for sagebrush-dependent vertebrates, such as 

certain bird species (Knick et al. 2003). In all, shrub–

steppe habitats are home to 20 species in Utah, 15 

species in Wyoming, and at least 25 species Idaho that 

need added conservation actions (Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005). 

Sagebrush-dependent wildlife species have 

adapted to heterogeneous sagebrush communities 

comprised of multiple age classes of plants across the 

landscape. In sites where the forb and grass diversity necessary for a healthy sagebrush community is 

reduced, the amount of essential food and cover available for wildlife is decreased (Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 2011). Greater sage-grouse in particular have been affected, with breeding populations 

declining 45 to 80 percent from estimated numbers in 

the 1950s (Connelly and Braun 1997, Connelly et al. 

2004, Braun 2006).
80 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Sagebrush ecosystems are rapidly declining both 

in extent and quality rangewide. The historical range 

contraction of the greater sage-grouse is a result 

of land conversion of sagebrush habitats to agriculture, climatic trends, and human population growth. 

Future range loss, however, may be due more to 

recent changes in land use and habitat condition 

including energy development and invasive species, 

such as cheatgrass and West Nile virus (Aldridge et 

al. 2008). Keeping large areas of intact sagebrush is 

considered essential to the long-term persistence of 

the sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2008). Based on this 

finding, it has been recommended that conservation 

efforts should begin by maintaining large expanses of 

sagebrush habitat and enhancing the quality and connectivity of those areas. 

Recent research shows that viable prairie grouse 

and sage-grouse populations are heavily dependent 

on suitable nesting and brood-rearing habitat (Connelly et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2009). These habitats 

are usually associated with leks that are located in 

the approximate centers of nesting and brood-rearing habitats (Connelly et al. 2000, but see Connelly 

et al. 1988; Becker et al. 2009). Quality nesting and 

brood-rearing habitats surrounding leks are crucial 

to sustaining viable prairie grouse and sage-grouse 

populations (Giesen and Connelly 1993, Hagen et al. 

2004, Connelly et al. 2000). The average distances 

from nests to active leks of nonmigratory sage-grouse 

range from 0.7 mile to 4 miles (Connelly et al. 2000), 

and are possibly much more for migratory populations (Connelly et al. 1988). Kaczor et al. (2011) found 

that sage-grouse selected brood-rearing habitats that 

provided increased visual obstruction and bluegrass 

cover. More herbaceous vegetation at these sites may 

provide increased invertebrate abundance. Invertebrates are a necessary part of the diet of sage-grouse 

chicks to support their growth, development, and survival (Johnson and Boyce 1990).

Sage-grouse avoid energy developments in otherwise suitable habitats in winter. Previous research 

has shown that breeding sage-grouse in oil and gas 

fields avoid developments, experience higher rates 

of mortality, or both (Holloran 2005, Kaiser 2006, 

Aldridge and Boyce 2007).

Studies on the impacts of energy development in 

sagebrush–steppe ecosystems show that the effects 

extend beyond the sage-grouse. Sawyer et al. (2006) 

found that mule deer avoided otherwise suitable habitats within 1.7–2.3 miles (2.7–3.7 kilometers) of gas 

wells, and densities of Brewer’s sparrow and sage 

sparrow declined by 36–57 percent within 328 feet 

(100 meters) of dirt roads in gas fields (Ingelfinger 

and Anderson 2004).

Sagebrush habitats conserved for sage-grouse 

may also benefit other sagebrush-dependent species, although the effectiveness of sage-grouse as an 

umbrella species will depend on the specific management objectives for the conservation of other target 

species (Rowland et al. 2006). 

White-faced ibis feeding in an irrigated agricultural field.

USFWS
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 81

Forest

At higher elevations in the watershed, forests typically consist of spruce, lodgepole pine, and subalpine 

fir, with areas of high-elevation tundra on north-facing slopes. Moving down slope and the corresponding 

precipitation gradient, subalpine forests give way to 

dry forests of Douglas-fir, white fir, lodgepole pine, 

limber pine, and aspen groves, with bigtooth maple 

and boxelder in ravines.

Although the forested areas are largely on public 

lands, habitat loss through conversion to residential 

development is of local importance in some areas of 

the watershed. Phosphate mining also has had a significant long-term impact on forest habitats in eastern 

Idaho. This habitat typically occurs in landscapes 

that are extensively used for recreation, for livestock 

grazing, and increasingly for residential development.

An aspen grove in bright fall colors.

Mark Hogan / USFWS

Wildlife

This section describes the abundant variety of 

birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish that 

live in the Bear River watershed.

Birds

The Bear River watershed provides diverse habitats used by more than 300 species of birds annually 

for breeding or migration. Banding data also show 

that migratory routes for some species that nest in 

the Pacific and central flyways overlap in the Bear 

River watershed (for example, northern pintail). 

The Intermountain West Joint Venture’s diverse 

partnership for avian habitat conservation has 

identified eight Bird Habitat Conservation Areas 

(Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005), and the 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge is designated 

as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site. The National Wildlife Refuge Association 

has designated the Bear River watershed as one of 

six Beyond the Boundaries focal areas nationwide 

because of its importance to migratory birds and 

other wildlife. The National Audubon Society (2012) 

has designated eight Important Bird Areas within 

the Bear River watershed, which serves to highlight the regional and continental significance of this 

watershed for migratory birds. Many of the transient 

species are neotropical migrants that breed in the 

United States and Canada and winter in the Central 

Highlands of Mexico or further south into Central and 

South America. Other spring migrants to the watershed winter along the Gulf of Mexico and the coasts of 

southern California, Baja Norte, Baja Sur, and southwestern Mexico, including the Gulf of California.

Upland areas within the Bear River watershed 

provide essential habitat for many bird species. 

Shrub–steppe and grassland habitats make up about 

60 percent of the Bear River watershed land cover, 

supporting species such as greater sage-grouse, 

sage sparrow, sage thrasher, Columbian sharp-tailed 

grouse, burrowing owl, and long-billed curlew. All 

of these bird species have been listed as “Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need” in the Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategies because of changes in habitat quantity 

and quality (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

2005, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005, 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b). The 

greater sage-grouse is the only species listed above 

that has Federal status. The species became a candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act after the Service’s conclusion that listing was warranted but precluded (USFWS 2010a). 

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was petitioned 

for listing in 2004, with a finding of “Not Warranted 

for Listing” issued in 2006 (USFWS 2006).

Studies referenced in the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Land-Based Wind Guidelines” (2011) found that 

“based primarily on data documenting reduced 

fecundity (a combination of nesting, clutch size, nest 

success, juvenile survival, and other factors) in sagegrouse populations near roads, transmissions lines, 

and areas of oil and gas development and production 

(Holloran 2005, Connelly et al. 2000), development 

within 3–5 miles (or more) of active sage-grouse leks 

may have significant adverse effects on the affected 

grouse population.” Lyon and Anderson (2003) found 

that in habitats fragmented by natural gas development, only 26 percent of hens captured on disturbed 

leks nested within 1.8 miles of the lek of capture, 

whereas 91 percent of hens from undisturbed areas 

nested within the same area. Holloran (2005) found 
82 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

that active drilling within 3.1 miles of sage-grouse 

leks reduced the number of breeding males by displacing adult males and reducing recruitment of 

juvenile males. The magnitudes and proximal causes 

(for example, noise, height of structures, movement, 

human activity) of those impacts on grouse populations are areas of much needed research (Becker et 

al. 2009).

Hanser and Knick (2011) found that the diversity 

of sagebrush habitats used by greater sage-grouse 

may provide an effective umbrella for a broader community of passerine bird species associated with 

sagebrush that are also declining in numbers. Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher had 

moderate to strong associations with sage-grouse.

The three national wildlife refuges—Bear Lake 

(with the Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area), 

Bear River, and Cokeville— in the watershed provide habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, 

and landbirds that migrate through these refuges on 

their way to and from Canadian and Alaskan interior 

and coastal wetlands. More than 270 different species 

have been identified using the habitats associated 

with the three refuges including the following birds:

■ white-faced ibis (46 percent of the North American population)

■ marbled godwit (more than 24 percent of the 

North American population)

■ black-necked stilt (more than 18 percent of the 

North American population) 

■ American avocet (more than 16 percent of the 

North American population)

■ tundra swan (32 percent of the western population) 

Fish populations on the refuges provide food 

for birds like the American white pelican, egrets, 

herons, and the bald eagle. The Bear River Refuge 

is likely the most important foraging location for the 

Great Salt Lake breeding colony of American white 

pelican (Frank Howe, Utah Department of Wildlife 

Resources, personal communication 2000).

Other noteworthy species using wetland habitats found throughout the watershed include sandhill 

crane, redhead, Wilson’s phalarope, trumpeter swan, 

black-crowned night-heron, cinnamon teal, bluewinged teal, northern pintail, American white pelican, 

rough-legged hawk, burrowing owl, and short-eared 

owl. 

Cinnamon teal and many other waterfowl species migrate 

through the watershed.

USFWS

Mammals

The Bear River watershed provides habitat for 

nearly 100 species of mammals. Forty-six of these 

species are listed as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” under the Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies 

(Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2005).

Many wide-ranging mammals depend on the large 

blocks of intact habitat found in the watershed, the 

wintering areas, and the key migration linkages 

including elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn, grizzly 

bear, Canada lynx, gray wolf, and wolverine. Upland 

shrub and grassland habitats support many species, 

such as white-tailed prairie dog, pygmy rabbit, Idaho 

pocket gopher, sagebrush vole, Wyoming ground 

squirrel, and Preble’s shrew.

Wetlands in the watershed provide habitat for 

such species as water shrew, water vole, and northern 

river otter. In addition, the concentration of insects 

found in and around wetland complexes attracts 

A bull moose rests in wetland vegetation at Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho.

USFWS
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 83

many bat species of concern including pallid bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-eared bat, and longlegged bat.

Amphibians

The diversity of amphibian species in the Great 

Basin and southern Rocky Mountains is low compared to other areas of the country, such as the Pacific 

Northwest. However, wetland and riparian habitats 

in the watershed do support 11 species of frogs and 

toads and one salamander. Most of these species are 

listed as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” 

under the Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming comprehensive 

wildlife conservation strategies (Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005).

The Bear River watershed provides important 

habitat for the western population of the northern 

leopard frog, which was petitioned for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act in 2006. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service issued its 12-month finding in October 2011. Although the species is declining across 

its range and is considered rare or is locally extirpated from many States, including Idaho, Utah, and 

Wyoming, the Service concluded that listing was not 

warranted at this time (USFWS 2011d).

The

USFWS

 northern leopard frog is declining across its range.

Reptiles

Approximately 20 species of reptiles occur in the 

Bear River watershed. Fifteen of these species are 

listed under State plans as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need.” Upland areas such as sagebrush and 

grasslands are important habitats for species such as 

common sagebrush lizard and western skink. More 

moist habitats near wetlands or streams support 

species such as common gartersnake, eastern yellowbellied racer, and smooth greensnake.

Fish

The Bear River and its tributaries provide important instream habitat for at least 15 species of native 

fish. All three State comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies identified the Bear River and its 

tributaries as playing an important role in providing 

habitat for an assemblage of native cool- and coldwater fish species, most notably the following:

■ Bear River Bonneville cutthroat trout: Because 

of overharvesting, habitat modifications, dams, 

and diversions, Bonneville cutthroat trout was 

thought to be extinct by the 1960s; however, in 

1974, an isolated population was discovered, which 

resulted in large restoration efforts by State, Federal, and local wildlife officials to bring them back. 

The Bonneville cutthroat trout was petitioned for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2008; 

however, a finding of “Not Warranted for Listing” 

was decided (USFWS 2008b).

■ Northern leatherside chub: The northern leatherside chub was petitioned for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act in 2011; however, a finding of “Not Warranted for Listing” was decided 

(USFWS 2011c).

Several other important Bear River native fish 

species recognized by these plans include mountain 

whitefish, mottled and Paiute sculpin, longnose and 

speckled dace, redside shiner, Utah sucker, and mountain sucker. 

Many of these fish species evolved primarily as 

lake-dwelling (lacustrine) populations inhabiting Lake 

Bonneville during the Pleistocene. As Lake Bonneville began to recede, some fish moved up stream in 

search of cooler water while others adapted to the 

shrinking remnant lake. In the upper reaches of 

the Bear River, seasonal migrations from larger to 

smaller rivers is a common reproductive strategy for 

many fluvial fishes—those produced or found by a 

river or stream.

Species of Special Concern

Several federally listed species live in or have 

home ranges that overlap the proposed conservation 

area, as described in the following:

■ The historical range of the endangered blackfooted ferret includes the far eastern part of the 

watershed. Where ferrets have been reintroduced, 
84 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

they are considered experimental–nonessential; however, unconfirmed sightings of naturally 

occurring ferrets continue to be reported (Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources 2005a). 

■ Grizzly bear and Canada lynx, both listed threatened, can be found in the high country.

■ The threatened plant Ute ladies’-tresses occurs 

within the proposed project area and is found in 

wet meadows and along perennial streams.

■ Maguire primrose, a threatened plant that grows 

in rocky areas and on cliff faces, is highly localized 

near Logan, Utah.

■ Candidate species such as the yellow-billed cuckoo 

occupy mature cottonwood–willow riparian habitats.

■ Greater sage-grouse, a candidate for listing, is 

dependent on sagebrush and grassland habitats 

found throughout the watershed.

■ The wolverine, a candidate species, occurs in 

higher elevation forested areas of the watershed. 

■ Whitebark pine, a coniferous tree occurring in 

subalpine to alpine sites above 8,000 feet, is a candidate species.

Maguire primrose is a threatened plant.

Steve Caicco / USFWS

Cultural Resources

Humans have inhabited the Bear River area for 

more than 12,000 years. Their uses of the land are as 

diverse as the regional topography and environments 

and reflect both changes through time and localized 

adaptations. The following brief summary of the prehistory and history of the Bear River area provides 

an overview of some of the major themes that have 

influenced the human interaction with the land.

Prehistory

Paleo-Indian Period

Current archaeological evidence shows that the 

earliest humans, called the paleo-Indians, migrated 

to the region near the close of the last ice age approximately 12,000 years ago. These people had a highly 

mobile lifestyle that depended on big game hunting 

including for mammoths and the huge, now-extinct 

bison. The hallmarks of most paleo-Indian sites are 

the beautiful but deadly spear points that are generally recovered from animal kill and butchering 

sites and small temporary camps, or from isolated 

occurrences. 

Recorded paleo-Indian sites are rare in the Bear 

River drainage, probably indicating the need for 

more surveys and research rather than reflecting 

actual prehistoric use patterns. Several early sites 

have been recorded in the general region, and many 

of these are found in the numerous caves that characterize parts of the Great Basin. Sites are also found 

near wetlands and along the shorelines of ancient 

lakes, indicating the use of the abundance of floral 

and faunal resources that would have been available 

in these locations. The warming and drying climatic 

trend that began at the start of the Paleo-Indian 

Period continued and, by approximately 8,000 years 

ago, contributed to a change in settlement patterns 

and local adaptations.

Archaic Period

There was a gradual but definite shift in the pattern of human use of the region beginning about 8,000 

years ago and continuing until approximately 2,500 

years ago. The changes were the result of a combination of regional climatic fluctuations and an increasing 

population, coupled with technological innovation and 

regional influences. Although the Archaic Period is better represented in the archaeological record than the 

preceding Paleo-Indian Period, the interpretation of 

the remains is difficult. A greater diversity of tools and 
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 85

the use of a larger variety of plants and animals are 

found on many sites. The semipermanent occupation 

of small villages, the use of smaller spear points, and 

the creation of basketry, cloth, and cordage are hallmarks of this period. As with the earlier inhabitants, 

the Archaic peoples made extensive use of the many 

caves and the wetland environments in the region.

Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric 

Period

Beginning approximately 2,500 years ago, several 

innovations greatly influenced life in the Bear River 

region. Although these changes were adopted at different rates and degrees throughout the area, the 

advent of pottery, the bow and arrow, and agriculture, 

coupled with a larger and more sedentary population, 

defines the period until approximately 800 years ago. 

Approximately 1,500 years ago, people archaeologists refer to as the Fremont began to settle the 

Bear River drainage. Although five distinct Fremont 

variants have been identified in the archaeological record of the Great Basin, the use of pit houses, 

agriculture, granaries, and distinctive artistic motifs 

are common throughout the region. Fremont subsistence included cultivated corn, beans, and squash 

but also relied heavily on hunting and the intensive 

exploitation of native plants. Archaeologists suspect 

that a major staple of the Fremont diet along the 

Bear River would have been cattail and other seeds 

ground into meal. Animal species exploited included 

bison, pronghorn, and mule deer as well as shellfish, 

fish, and waterfowl. Evidence of the Fremont in the 

archaeological record disappears about 700 years ago.

About 600 years ago, the people living in the 

Bear River watershed began to blend culture traits 

with Shoshonean people living to the east of the 

Uinta Mountains and abandoned some Fremont cultural traits. These people continued to live in part on 

wild foods available in the marsh, but probably lived 

in smaller groups and exploited a broader range of 

resources. It is not known if the Fremont people were 

replaced or the two groups integrated. When the first 

trappers arrived in the early 1800s, people of the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes were living in the area.

History

The Historic Period for the Bear River drainage 

begins with the recurring contact of the Native Peoples with people of European descent and ends in the 

mid-twentieth century. This interaction generally followed many years of occasional contact—usually for 

Springtime wetlands at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming.

USFWS
86 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

the exchange of trade goods—and occurred at different times throughout the area. As with the prehistory 

of the area, the history of the Bear River watershed 

reflects both broad themes and individual stories. The 

narrative below briefly summarizes some of the major 

historic influences in the region.

The earliest documented European in the area 

was fur trapper Robert Stuart in 1812. The region 

quickly gained fame for its abundant resources and 

became the site of both the 1827 and 1828 trappers’ 

rendezvous on the southern end of Bear Lake near 

the current town of Laketown, Utah. These annual 

gatherings were held from 1825 to 1840 to allow the 

trappers to sell their furs and restock their supplies.

Border disputes between the United States and 

Spain in various parts of North America, including the Bear River drainage, were addressed in the 

Adams–Onis Treaty of 1819. As a part of this treaty, 

the land north of the 42nd Parallel—the State boundary between Idaho and Utah—became United States 

territory and the lands below the parallel that of New 

Spain (Mexico after 1821). 

Several major trails, sometimes referred to as the 

Emigrant Trails, crossed the Bear River drainage. 

The Oregon Trail in this area often followed the route 

of earlier fur trapper foot and horse trails but did not 

become a wagon trail until 1836. Coming from the 

east, the main trail takes a sharp north turn at Fort 

Bridger in southwest Wyoming before heading northwest along the northern banks of the Little Muddy 

Creek. It crosses over the Bear River Divide and 

joins the Bear River just south of the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. From there, it never 

strays far from the Bear River and is most often 

along the east or north sides of the river. Just west 

of Soda Springs, where the river cuts to the south, 

the trail diverges from the river and heads northwest 

toward Fort Hall. The California Trail follows a similar path through the watershed, but splits from the 

Oregon Trail at Fort Hall.

The grade of the Union Pacific Railroad, built 

as a part of the Transcontinental Railroad, crosses 

the watershed just north of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. The Union Pacific began in Omaha, 

Nebraska, and headed west until joining the Central 

Pacific Railroad at Golden Spike, approximately 10 

miles to the north of the Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge in 1869. The completion of this railroad and 

its links to rail systems in the eastern United States 

had a profound effect on the settlement of the West.

American avocets feed in a wetland while cattle graze the adjacent grassland.

USFWS
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 87

The first European resident of the area is reported 

to have been Thomas “Peg Leg” Smith, who ran 

a trading post from 1842–57 near Dingle, Idaho, on 

the northeastern shores of Bear Lake. The influx of 

settlers accelerated greatly during the early 1850s 

following the initial waves of Mormon immigrants 

arriving from the east. The towns of Brigham City 

and Willard in the southwest corner of the watershed 

were both founded in 1851 by Mormon pioneers. In 

1860, Mormons settled the town of Franklin, Idaho, 

located along the Cub River just north of the Utah–

Idaho boundary, which became the first town settled 

in what is now Idaho. In 1867, the Fort Hall Reservation near Pocatello, Idaho, was established for the 

Shoshone and Bannock Tribes.

Socioeconomic Environment

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is located in a vast basin covering 14 

counties across Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. The 

watershed spans roughly 7,500 square miles: 1,500 

square miles in Wyoming, 2,700 square miles in Idaho, 

and 3,300 square miles in Utah (Utah Division of 

Water Resources 2004). 

The 14-county region (which excludes the three 

out-of-watershed counties) has a population of 

roughly 2.9 million people (U.S. Census Bureau 2010) 

(see table LPP–2). Population growth is expected 

throughout much of the region, with most of the 

growth centered in the Cache Valley. Located in the 

western part of the Bear River watershed in Utah, 

the Cache Valley is the most populated area in the 

watershed, and its 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. In Wyoming, Lincoln County has seen 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 a 

7.0 percent population growth over the decade. Idaho 

counties within the proposed conservation area have 

seen less growth, with Bear Lake and Caribou Counties seeing a decline in population over the decade. 

Of the proposed conservation area counties in Idaho, 

Franklin and Bannock Counties have experienced the 

greatest growth, with 12.9 percent and 9.6 percent 

growth over the decade, respectively.

Total nonfarm employment was more than 265,000 

individuals in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011) in the 

combined 14-county region. The highest percentage of 

total employment was found in educational services, 

health care, and social aid at 20 percent of nonfarm 

employment. This percentage is, in part, because of 

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 at 14 percent and 

retail trade at 12 percent. Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining made up an estimated 4 

percent of the total employment by sector. 

Mining represents a relatively small percentage 

of total employment for many of the counties in the 

region, but has increased slightly since 1998 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011, Headwaters Economics 2011). 

Mining accounted for less than 1 percent of total 

employment in 2009 for all but three counties in the 

14-county region. 

Landownership

The Upper Bear River area is located in parts of 

Summit County, Utah, and Lincoln and Uinta County, 

Wyoming. 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 grassland and shrubland, 

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 

River counties was federally owned, primarily by the 

Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest 

Service; about 24 percent of the land was privately 

owned, 4 percent was State owned, and 7 percent 

was tribally owned (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

The Upper Bear River area is lightly populated. The 

largest municipalities in the region are Evanston and 

Cokeville, Wyoming, and Randolph and Woodruff, 

Utah (Utah Water Research Laboratory 2011). 

The Middle Bear River area is located in parts of 

Bear Lake, Caribou, Franklin, Bannock, Oneida, and 

Power Counties in Idaho. Grassland and shrubland 

account for about 77 percent of the land cover in the 

Middle Bear River counties, and croplands account 

for about 11 percent of the land cover (Headwaters 

Economics 2011). 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 (Headwaters 

Economics 2011; 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 (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

The Lower Bear River area is in parts of Box 

Elder, Cache, Rich, Weber, and Morgan Counties in 
88 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Utah. The rich soil and abundant water in this part of 

the Bear River watershed support a mix of urban and 

agricultural uses. About 9 percent of the land cover 

in the Lower Bear River counties is water. Mixed 

croplands account for 21 percent of the land cover in 

the Lower Bear River counties, with croplands concentrated in Cache, Weber, and Morgan Counties 

(Headwaters Economics 2011). 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 (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

Major municipalities in the Lower Bear River area 

include Ogden, Brigham City, Logan, and Tremonton, 

Utah. As of 2006, landownership in the Lower Bear 

River counties was 52 percent private, 31 percent 

Federal, and 6 percent State (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

While the population of the proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area has declined in two 

counties in Idaho, some parts of the proposed conservation area as well as areas next to it have 

experienced significant growth trends over the past 

decade (see table LPP–2).

Table LPP–2. Population statistics for Wyoming and counties in and near the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

Residents (2010) Persons per square mile 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 County* 101,234 55.8 26

Teton County* 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 County* 21,294 5.3 17

Lincoln County 18,106 4.4 24

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (2008).

*Outside the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area.

Property Tax

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. In many States, however, 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 estimate of a property’s sale price. 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 a property by removing the speculative 

value associated with possible development; however, 

conservation easements generally do not affect the 

productive value of agricultural land. The proposed 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Area encompasses three States: Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. In all 

three States, property taxes for agricultural land are 

assessed based on the productive value of the land. 
Draft LPP Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 89

Most properties that enter into conservation easement agreements with the Service are classified as 

agricultural land; therefore, there would be little or 

no impact on the current property tax base for the 

14-county area. 

Public Use and WildlifeDependent Recreational 

Activities

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

approximately 2.9 million residents took part in wildlife-associated recreational activities in Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming in 2006 (USFWS 2008a). It was estimated that residents and visitors spent $3.3 billion 

on wildlife-associated recreational 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 

(USFWS 2008a). 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 fished declined by 

21 percent while those who hunted declined by 33 

percent. Wyoming residents who fished declined by 

19 percent, while hunting and wildlife viewing numbers remained relatively constant. During the same 

timeframe, Utah residents who watched wildlife 

increased by 30 percent, while hunting and fishing 

numbers remained relatively constant.

Killdeer at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Wyoming.

© Keith Penner

Draft LPP Chapter 3—Threats to and 

Status of Resources

Threats to the Resources

The diverse habitats in the Bear River watershed support a variety of fish, mammal, reptile, and 

amphibian species as well as a large number of resident and migratory bird species. The Bear Lake 

(with Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area), 

Bear River, and Cokeville Refuges provide habitat 

for waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and landbirds that migrate through these refuges on their 

way to and from Canada and Alaska. More than 270 

different wildlife species have been identified using 

the habitats associated with the three refuges. The 

Bear River watershed provides linkages and migration corridors for seasonal movements of wildlife 

between various habitats within the watershed as 

well as between other protected lands and ecosystems in the region.

Historically, the abundant wildlife, availability of 

water, diverse vegetation, productive soil, and favorable topography found in riparian areas attracted 

both Native Americans and early Euro-American 

settlers to these areas. As a result, a high percentage of riparian habitat is privately owned today. Most 

communities in the Bear River watershed are located 

near riparian zones, which are used for agriculture, 

recreation, travel, water development, and housing (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010). 

These types of development are expected to continue 

to occur in riparian corridors and valleys within the 

watershed. An increase in development along riparian areas will likely remove areas of connectivity 

between wetland and upland habitat types. Stream 

quality could become degraded from continued development, adversely affecting Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, leatherside chub, and many other native fish 

species. With increasing development, more barriers 

to fish passage are likely to be constructed.

Cache County is one of the fastest growing counties in Utah, with a 64 percent population increase 

since 2000. With nearly 83,000 residents, Bannock 

County has the largest population of the Idaho counties in the watershed and has grown by 10 percent 

since 2000. Lincoln County, home to the Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, has grown by 

24 percent since 2000. Just to the north of Cokeville are the Star Valley and the Teton Valley, which 

span the Idaho–Wyoming border into Teton County, 

Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming. The populations 

in Teton County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming, 

have increased by 70 percent and 17 percent, respectively, since 2000.

With projected development patterns (Utah State 

University 2010), ground-water aquifers will receive 

more demand, resulting in potential degradation to 

the hydrology of some wetland areas and affecting 

the three refuges in the Bear River watershed. 

By planning for future expected development and 

other changes in land use, we can maintain the quality and quantity of habitat that more than 270 wildlife 

species depend on. 

Two willets keep a watchful eye over a nearby wetland.

© Keith Penner
92 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Effects on the Physical 

Environment

The physical environment comprises the water 

and soil resources and climate of the Bear River 

watershed. In addition, climate change is discussed. 

Anticipated effects on these features are described.

Water and Soil Resources 

Conservation easements under the proposed conservation area would hold the historical water rights 

on the easement property and not allow any water 

rights to be sold or otherwise separated from the 

property. The easements would not allow changes to 

or alterations in points of diversion, timing, or place of 

use for any water rights. Historical water use would 

be maintained in accordance with current practices. 

Water resources on up to 920,000 acres of conservation easements would be protected from increased 

nonpoint source pollution from residential subdivisions, commercial development, and draining of 

wetlands, all of which are prohibited under the proposed easement program. A long-term commitment 

to keeping vegetative cover with minimal soil disturbance would help conserve local microclimate 

patterns and soil processes. By limiting development 

on some prime agricultural and wildlife habitat areas, 

communities would be ensuring future ground-water 

supplies and reducing the need to develop more water 

resources to meet growing demand (Toth 2010). This 

protection would improve water resources throughout the Bear River watershed as well as for the three 

refuges. This alternative may also negatively affect 

local mitigation efforts by reducing ways to conserve 

and store carbon through land protection and habitat 

restoration. 

Climate

By protecting habitat, reducing fragmentation, 

and keeping connectivity, the proposed action would 

help maintain the ability of native species and ecosystems to adapt to a changing climate. Climate change 

mitigation efforts would be positively affected by this 

alternative because carbon sequestration now provided by native vegetation would be conserved.

While exact temperature and precipitation 

changes and habitat and wildlife response to those 

changes are unknown, it is clear that changes are 

coming to the Bear River basin. Keeping adequate 

densities of wetlands, robust riparian corridors, 

and open spaces will become increasingly important to allow fish and wildlife to adapt to a changing 

environment.

Bear River South of Woodruff Narrows, Wyoming

USFWS
Draft LPP Chapter 3 —Threats to and Status of Resources 93

Historically, the destruction of wetlands through 

changes in land use has had the largest effects on 

the carbon fluxes and consequent radiative forcing 

(the measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy 

budget is out of balance) of North American wetlands. The primary effects have been a reduction in 

their ability to sequester carbon (a small to moderate increase in radiative forcing), oxidation of their 

soil carbon reserves upon drainage (a small increase 

in radiative forcing), and reduction in methane emissions (a small to large decrease in radiative forcing).

Effects on the Biological 

Environment

This section describes the anticipated effects on 

habitat and wildlife. The Bear River watershed’s habitat ranges from river and the adjacent riparian areas 

to wetland, grassland, and shrubland. This section 

also describes effects on the wildlife and species of 

concern that use these habitats.

Habitat and Wildlife

The availability of large, intact areas of diverse 

habitat types is essential for various wildlife species. 

Habitat connectivity provides a migration corridor 

between winter and summer ranges for mule deer, 

pronghorn, and elk; between breeding, nesting, and 

brood-rearing areas for birds including neotropical 

migrants; and between spawning and rearing habitat for native fish. Connectivity between different 

habitat types increases wildlife population resiliency 

by facilitating movement to new areas during environmental challenges such as drought or flooding as 

well as by allowing an exchange of individuals and 

genes from different subpopulations. Privately owned 

lands next to the Bear Lake, Bear River, and Cokeville Meadow Refuges provide connectivity between 

the refuges and other Federal lands, thus creating a larger block of permanently protected wildlife 

habitat. Through protection of important migration 

corridors and habitats, the proposed action would 

have long-term beneficial effects on fish and wildlife 

populations.

Riverine Areas, Riparian Areas, and 

Wetland

The Bear River is the lifeblood of the three refuges located along its course. Large populations 

of waterfowl, shorebirds, and native fishes depend 

on the refuges and adjacent habitat areas to meet 

their breeding, migration, and nutritional needs. The 

proposed action would protect privately owned wetlands, irrigated meadows, and fields that now provide 

important wildlife habitat. This would help maintain 

healthy riparian areas that recharge aquifers, reduce 

soil erosion, filter chemical wastes, moderate stream 

temperatures, and buffer water loss from upland 

drainages.

Protecting essential travel corridors for wildlife 

by maintaining riparian areas will become an increasingly important part of effective mitigation plans for 

human development as well as climate change (“Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan” 2010). Additionally, 

connectivity among different riverine habitat types is 

important for allowing fish access to suitable spawning and rearing grounds while providing adequate 

main stem habitat for adult growth and survival.

Conservation of riparian areas would benefit a 

variety of species of special conservation concern that 

depend on riparian habitat, such as Lewis’s woodpecker and many neotropical migratory birds. 

Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland

The proposed action would conserve large patches 

of sagebrush that occur on the easements that are 

targeted for acquisition. Keeping and restoring existing large patches of sagebrush would create a mosaic 

of sagebrush habitats that would be an important 

step toward reversing the population declines of sagegrouse and other sagebrush-dependent species, such 

as sage sparrow, sage thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow 

(Hanser and Knick 2011). 

A white-faced ibis foraging in a shallow wetland.

USFWS

Species of Special Concern

With the additional habitat protection measures in 

the watershed under the proposed action, there is a 
94 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

greater likelihood that common species can be kept 

common. There are relatively few species with Federal status in the Bear River watershed. Under the 

proposed action, there would be a reduced probability of more species needing to be added to the State 

lists of conservation concern or to be federally listed 

as threatened or endangered.

The effects of the proposed easement program on 

endangered, threatened, and candidate species vary 

by the specific area under consideration because of 

differences in species’ ranges, their habitat affinities 

and restrictions, and elevations. 

Effects on Cultural Resources

As a Federal agency, the Service is required to 

comply with numerous laws pertaining to cultural 

resources including the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., Public Law 89–665); 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470mm, Public Law 96–95), 

as amended; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 

et seq., Public Law 101–601). Although conservation 

easements would preclude or limit most forms of surface disturbance, these requirements may not apply 

to or be fully effective in protecting cultural resources 

on private lands with easements. The proposed action 

provides more protection to cultural resources than 

does the no-action alternative. 

Effects on the Socioeconomic 

Environment

This section describes the anticipated effects on 

landownership, land use, public use, and development.

Landownership and Land Use

The proposed action would affect only lands where 

the Service has acquired a conservation easement. 

The location, distribution, and sale of development 

rights by landowners on adjacent lands without Service easements would not be affected. Traditional 

agricultural uses such as ranching, grazing, and haying would be allowed to continue on easement lands. 

Because this alternative would keep open space on 

a large scale, it would preserve a rural lifestyle and 

associated tourism and economic activities. The purchase of an easement would not result in a transfer 

of land title, so private landowners would continue to 

pay property taxes. 

Because the sale of conservation easements provides landowners with more revenue, easement 

purchases may inject new money into local economies. Landowners may spend some percentage of 

this money on such items as purchasing new real 

estate, consumer goods, or local services. This spending activity would directly affect local industries such 

as construction and various service sectors.

Conservation easements may help keep regional 

character by protecting working landscapes and a traditional agricultural way of life. Land with historical 

commercial uses such as ranching, forestry, and farming is often compatible with or beneficial to wildlife 

refuge objectives (Jordan et al. 2007, Rissman et al. 

2007). Conservation easements provide financial benefits for landowners that 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. 

The easement program would have no effect on 

tribal jurisdiction or tribal rights, because it is outside of reservation lands and deals only with willing 

private sellers.

Public Use

Conservation easements bought on private tracts 

would not change the landowners’ rights to manage 

public use and access to property. Under the proposed easement program, landowners would keep full 

control over private property rights, including hunting and fishing on their lands. Under the proposed 

action, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation 

would not be diminished because of declining wildlife 

populations. According to the “2006 National Survey 

of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,” approximately 2.9 million residents took part 

in wildlife-associated recreation activities in Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming in 2006. It was estimated that 

residents and visitors spent $3.3 billion on wildlifeassociated recreation activities in the three States 

combined (USFWS 2008a).

Development

The proposed action would protect up to 920,000 

acres of wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrubland habitat from more fragmentation and loss by 

precluding surface occupancy and infrastructure 

development.
Draft LPP Chapter 3 —Threats to and Status of Resources 95

Subsurface Development

Conservation easements typically do not affect 

subsurface estates (mineral, oil, and gas deposits) 

because the Service only acquires rights associated 

with surface ownership. The proposed easement 

program would preclude mining or oil and gas exploration or development requiring surface occupancy 

on easement land only when the landowner owns 

the subsurface rights. In many places, including in 

the Bear River watershed, the subsurface estate has 

been severed from surface ownership, and the landowner does not own the subsurface rights. In these 

cases, the easement that the Service acquires from 

the landowner is junior to the subsurface rights. 

For easements that have been put in place on land 

where the owner has not sold or leased the mineral 

or subsurface estates (mineral, oil, and gas deposits), 

the Service easement would be senior to any subsurface interests later acquired by a developer. Because 

development of the mineral estate could significantly 

affect the resources that the Service is attempting to 

protect, the Service would require that a potential 

developer access minerals from off site as a term of 

the easement. 

Commercial and Residential 

Development

The Service’s easement program would enhance 

the protection of wildlife species dependent on 

unfragmented upland habitat through protection 

from surface disturbance or development of commercial or residential infrastructure. This program would 

also provide financial compensation to landowners 

through the sale of easements, offsetting potential 

revenue loss from the sale of development rights or 

leases. The proposed project would affect only lands 

on which the Service has acquired a conservation 

easement. Development on adjacent lands that do 

not have Service conservation easements would not 

be limited.

Land acreage with potential for wind energy 

development is relatively low in Idaho (1.67 percent) 

and Utah (1.19 percent), while Wyoming has a higher 

development potential at 43.58 percent (National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory 2011). Most land with 

potential for wind energy development in each State 

would still be available under the proposed action.

Designated open space and protected natural areas can increase surrounding property values 

(see McConnell and Walls 2005 for a comprehensive 

review). The value of open space for nearby property values would vary, depending on landscape 

characteristics and proximity to the conserved area 

(Kroger 2008). Permanence of the open space also 

influences property values. Typically, open space that 

is permanently protected—such as refuge lands and 

lands protected with perpetual conservation easements—would generate a higher enhancement value 

to local properties than land that has the potential for 

future development (Geoghegan et al. 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 et al. 2000, Vrooman 1978, Phillips 2000, Crompton 

2001, Thorsnes 2002). Private lands protected by 

conservation easements benefit residents through 

increased biodiversity, recreational quality, and hunting opportunities on adjacent publicly accessible 

wildlife refuges and on some private lands (Rissman 

et al. 2007). 

Other Conservation Impacts

Under the proposed action, wetland, riparian, 

grassland, and shrubland habitats would remain 

intact. Because this alternative keeps intact wildlife 

habitat on working lands through conservation easements, ecosystem services would be available for local 

residents (Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment 2005). 

American avocets are common throughout the watershed.

USFWS
96 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Ecosystem services such as pollination, water 

purification, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, and control of pest insect 

populations by birds are often unrecognized, or are 

considered “free.” These services would not be provided in areas that have undergone residential or 

commercial development.

The proposed action would help protect valuable 

ecosystem services as shown in figure LPP–7. Furthermore, it would prevent the prohibitively high cost 

of future habitat restoration. 

Wetlands in both native and restored habitat had 

the greatest value for each of the ecosystem services 

examined. The most valuable ecosystem services that 

wetlands provided were disturbance regulation and 

nutrient cycling. The greater value per area of wetlands did not translate to an equally large disparity 

in total value because the total area of wetlands is 

substantially less than that of terrestrial ecoregions 

within the United States (Dodds et al. 2008).

Conservation easements on private lands would 

strengthen habitat resiliency and provide opportunities for wildlife movement and adaptation for years 

to come. 

Potential benefits to public safety are another benefit of conservation easements that limit development 

in wetlands and riparian areas. Some areas within the 

Bear River watershed have a high to moderate likelihood of a natural disaster that could cause harm to 

both the residents and structures in these areas. The 

major hazards that are located within the watershed 

include flooding, landslides, earthquakes, and soils 

that are susceptible to liquefaction (Toth 2010). 

Figure LPP–7. Chart of the relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services. Source: Dodds et al. 2008. 

Note: The relative value is determined as the ratio of estimated benefits derived from native and restored acreages 

per year. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

No direct or indirect, unavoidable, adverse 

impacts to the environment would result from the 

selection of the proposed action. The easement program would not result in unavoidable adverse impacts 

on the physical or biological environment. The selection of an approved boundary would not, by itself, 

affect any aspect of landownership or values. Management of lands to protect wildlife habitat would benefit 

ranching operations, but would limit future development options for landowners.

Additional conservation easements acquired 

by the Service could have unavoidable minimal to 

moderate adverse effects on the local economy by 

precluding new mining oil, gas, wind, and residential development on easement lands. However, these 
Draft LPP Chapter 3 —Threats to and Status of Resources 97

impacts would be offset in part by protecting these 

areas from adverse impacts to watersheds, which are 

important to aquifer recharge and water quality, from 

further degradation or loss of native ecosystems, and 

from conversion of prime agricultural lands.

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

There would not be any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources associated with 

establishing the conservation easement program; 

however, any easements that are acquired with Land 

and Water Conservation Funds would require an irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources 

(such as expenditures for fuel and staff for monitoring) for the long-term administration of the easement 

provisions. 

The introduction of new residential and commercial 

infrastructure to the Bear River watershed would be 

greatly restricted on conservation easement lands, so 

this alternative would reduce the likelihood of an irretrievable loss of habitat associated with development. 

The irretrievable loss of habitat caused by the development of new residential and commercial infrastructure 

in the Bear River watershed that would eventually 

lead to an irreversible loss of both species and habitat 

could be minimized under the proposed action.

With the protection measures provided by the 

wetland conservation easements, some of the current water uses and applications could be retained 

and irreversible impacts to wetlands and riparian 

ecosystems related to water loss could be reduced or 

avoided.

Short-Term Use versus LongTerm Productivity

This section describes the short-term effects versus long-term productivity from the proposed action.

The increased ability to acquire perpetual conservation easements would conserve important wetland 

and upland areas and reduce long-term loss and fragmentation of important habitats. These habitats are 

important for a variety of wildlife species, including 

threatened and endangered species.

The proposed conservation easement program 

would help maintain the Bear River watershed’s 

long-term biological productivity, biological diversity, 

linkages, and migration corridors to other ecosystems 

and adjacent large blocks of protected land. 

The ability to sell conservation easements would 

provide an immediate economic benefit to participating landowners while keeping the long-term 

agricultural heritage and productivity of the area.

These habitat types would be preserved not only 

for the species that now depend on them, but also so 

that future generations of Americans may enjoy and 

benefit from them. The public would retain long-term 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. 

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act as the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR § 1508.7). 

This section describes the cumulative impacts on 

the environment that may result from the combination of reasonably foreseeable actions with other 

biological and socioeconomic conditions, events, and 

developments.

Past Actions

Previous land protection efforts within the Bear 

River watershed have included the establishment of 

three national wildlife refuges—Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge (18,089 acres), Bear River Migratory 

Bird Refuge (74,421 acres), and Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (9,259 acres)—and the 

Thomas Fork Unit of Bear Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (1,015 acres), and the Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (1,878 acres). The Sagebrush 

Steppe Regional Land Trust, Wyoming Land Trust, 

and Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land 

Trust have worked with a variety of partners to 

acquire conservation easements in the watershed.

Present Actions

The Service’s proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area easement program, which would 

establish up to 920,000 acres of conservation easements in the Bear River watershed, is the only known 

present action of similar scope and scale for land protection in the region. Once approved, it would take 

several years for the program to begin to have a 

noticeable effect. Acquisition of easements would 

depend on available funding and willing sellers. 
98 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

White-faced Ibis at Sunset

© Brian Ferguson

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Actions

Reasonably foreseeable actions are actions and 

activities that are independent of the proposed action 

but could result in cumulative or additive effects 

when combined with the proposed action. They are 

anticipated to occur regardless of which alternative 

is selected. Commercial (oil and gas, mining, and 

wind) and residential development, increased water 

demands, and future conservation efforts by a variety 

of organizations are the primary reasonably foreseeable actions occurring in the Bear River watershed.

Development

Overall, mining represents a relatively small 

percentage of total employment for many of the 

counties in the region, but it has increased slightly 

since 1998 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011, Headwaters 

Economics 2011). In particular, nonmetallic mineral 

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

decreased to zero jobs by 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011, Headwaters Economics 2011). One of the most 

economically significant nonmetallic 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).

The acreage with potential for wind energy development is relatively low in Idaho and Utah, with 

1.67 percent and 1.19 percent of the States available 

for such development, respectively. Wyoming has a 

higher available potential for wind energy development at 43.58 percent (National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory 2011). Most of the land with potential for 

wind energy development would still be available 

under the proposed action.

Population growth is expected throughout much 

of the region, with most of the growth centered on 

the Cache Valley. Located in the western part of 

the Bear River watershed in Utah, the Cache Valley is the most populated area in the watershed. It 

has experienced a population increase of 64 percent 

since 2000, and its population is estimated to double 

by 2050 (Utah Division of Water Resources 2004). 

Lincoln County, home to the Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, has grown by 24 percent 
Draft LPP Chapter 3 —Threats to and Status of Resources 99

since 2000, giving it the fastest growing population 

among the Wyoming counties in the proposed conservation area. 

Bannock County has the largest population of the 

Idaho counties in the watershed and has grown by 10 

percent since 2000. Two other Idaho counties, Caribou County and Bear Lake County, have decreased 

in population by 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

The proposed action would protect up to 920,000 

acres of wildlife habitat from the combined effects of 

various future development activities by precluding 

development and the resultant increase in infrastructure and fragmentation of habitat. 

Other Conservation Efforts

The USDA’s Conservation, Grassland, and Wetland Reserve Programs provide ongoing programs 

in the watershed. Additionally, many nongovernmental organizations are active in the area including 

Bridgerland Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and Wyoming 

Stock Growers Agricultural Land Trust. These organizations are expected to continue to offer multiple 

programs to landowners. The proposed action would 

augment these current conservation efforts by collaborating with landowners to protect wildlife, fisheries, 

and working agricultural lands. The Service would 

continue to work with other agencies, organizations, 

and individuals to ensure conservation of migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, and other 

species of special concern. 

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program would likely continue to help landowners in the 

watershed under either alternative. With the proposed action, Partners for Fish and Wildlife efforts in 

the watershed may increase because of more Service 

interaction with local landowners and the added benefit of habitat restoration and enhancement on lands 

protected by perpetual conservation easements.

Landscape-Scale Conservation

Through the proposed easement program, up to 

920,000 acres of privately owned wetland, riparian, 

grassland, and shrubland habitats could be added 

to the 2.53 million acres within the proposed project 

area that already have some level of protection. This 

would have long-term positive impacts on wildlife 

habitat and result in the long-term conservation of 

migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, 

resident wildlife species, native plants, and the overall biological diversity of the proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area.

Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project 

Implementation

Riparian habitat along the Thomas Fork of the Bear River, Idaho

USFWS

Land Protection Options Not 

Analyzed in Detail

During development of the alternatives for this 

project, the Service considered the following land 

protection options:

■ voluntary landowner zoning

■ county zoning

■ fee-title acquisition

■ smaller project area

■ short-term easements

■ expansion of the project

The Service found that none of the above protection options would meet the purpose, need, or 

objectives of the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area, and they were therefore not 

analyzed in further detail in the EA.

No Action

Under the no-action alternative evaluated in the 

EA, habitat enhancement or restoration projects on 

private lands, such as water developments, grazing 

systems, and grassland management, could continue 

through cooperative efforts with private landowners. 

Public agency and private land trusts would continue 

conservation efforts by securing easements. 

The large numbers of native birds, fish, and other 

wildlife supported by the diversity of habitat types in 

the Bear River watershed are a tribute to the conservation efforts of ranchers, landowners, and a variety 

of agencies and organizations. Although these conservation efforts have been essential to sustaining 

wildlife populations in the past, they are not expected 

to be enough to meet future development and climate 

change challenges. 

Under the no-action alternative, many of the 

privately owned wetlands and riparian corridors 
102 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

vulnerable to development would be lost. The burden 

to protect wetlands and riparian and upland areas 

would rest more heavily on private landowners without compensation. Future wetland protection would 

rely primarily on the Wetland Reserve Program and 

conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and Trout Unlimited. 

The future of wildlife and the habitat they depend on 

would be less certain without a collaborative landscape-scale conservation project like the proposed 

conservation area.

Proposed Easement Program 

Conservation easements are the most costeffective, politically acceptable means to ensure 

landscape-scale level protection of crucial wildlife 

habitat within the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area. Although fee-title acquisition 

would be preferable in some locations, it is not 

required and is not preferable to establishing conservation easements in the Bear River watershed. 

Fee-title acquisition would triple or quadruple the cost 

of land acquisition besides adding significant increases 

in long-term management and operational costs for 

the Service. The Service views conservation easements as the most viable means of protecting habitat 

integrity and wildlife resources on the scale necessary 

to maintain the resiliency of the proposed conservation area and its connectivity to adjacent ecosystems.

Under the proposed easement program, the 

Service would seek to buy perpetual conservation 

easements from willing sellers on privately owned 

lands that are providing valuable wildlife habitat. The 

easement contract language would reduce confusion 

about any restrictions, facilitate enforcement, and 

specify the necessary level of protection and limitations on development for wetland and upland habitat 

for trust species.

The Service has standard conservation easement 

agreements that have been used successfully in other 

easement conservation areas of the United States. 

With appropriate modifications for the resources of 

the Bear River watershed, the Service would develop 

a standard document with similar language and terms 

for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area easements. 

Development for residential and commercial or 

industrial purposes, such as energy and aggregate 

extraction, may not be permitted on properties under 

a conservation easement. Alteration of the natural 

topography and conversion of native grassland, shrubland, or wetland to cropland would be prohibited. In 

addition, the conservation easements would prohibit 

the draining, filling, or leveling of protected lands.

All land would remain in private ownership, and 

property tax and land management, including invasive weed control, would remain the responsibility 

of the landowner. The Service would seek to provide 

participating landowners with more help for invasive 

weed control and habitat restoration. Control of public access to the land would remain under the control 

of the landowner.

The easement program would be managed by staff 

located at the three wildlife refuges located within 

the Bear River watershed. The Service staff located 

at Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Montpelier, 

Idaho; Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Brigham 

City, Utah; and Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge in Cokeville, Wyoming, would be responsible for monitoring and administering all easements 

on private land. Monitoring would include periodically reviewing land status through correspondence 

and meetings with the landowners or land managers 

to make sure that the stipulations of the conservation 

easement are being met. Photo documentation would 

be used at the time the easements are established to 

document baseline conditions.

Project Objectives and Action

The purposes of establishing the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area are to: 

■ maintain healthy populations of native wildlife 

species, including migratory birds and threatened 

and endangered species;

■ protect and maintain water quality and quantity;

■ conserve aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland 

habitats associated with the full diversity of Bear 

River ecosystems; 

■ provide wildlife habitat connectivity and migratory corridors; 

■ promote partnerships to coordinate implementation of watershed-level wildlife conservation 

actions; 

■ increase the resiliency of the watershed to sustain 

wildlife and important habitat during climate and 

land use changes.

Through the Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area project, the Service proposes to buy or receive 

through donations up to 920,000 acres of perpetual 

conservation easements from willing landowners 

within the watershed boundary. The Service seeks to 

connect existing protected lands and to complement 
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 103

ongoing conservation efforts by working with partners. Within the project boundary, the Service would 

strategically identify the most important areas to 

acquire wetland and upland conservation easements 

from interested landowners on a voluntary basis. 

Evaluation of Easement 

Potential

The relative importance of a potential easement 

would be determined by the ability of the parcel 

to help protect the habitat types that trust wildlife resources and species of conservation concern 

depend on. The prioritization modeling described 

below, along with evaluation criteria that would be 

developed, would be used by Service biologists and 

realty specialists to evaluate individual tracts of land 

to determine which should be considered as the “best 

of the best” for habitat conservation.

Contaminants and Hazardous 

Materials

Fieldwork for pre-acquisition contaminant surveys would be conducted, on a tract-by-tract basis, 

before the purchase of any land interest. Any suspected problems or contaminants requiring more 

surveys would be referred to contaminants specialists located in the Service’s Ecological Services offices 

in Idaho, Utah, or Wyoming to make sure that policies and guidelines for contaminants assessment are 

followed before any easements are acquired.

Cost of Project Implementation

The per-acre cost for conservation easements 

would vary by location in the watershed, habitat 

type, and the type of restrictions or rights acquired 

through the easement. Easements would be valued 

by a qualified outside appraiser using an adjusted 

land value (Service policy 341 FW6) based on a percentage (usually between 20 percent and 50 percent) 

of the full fee-title value of the land. Land values 

within the proposed conservation area vary from $400 

per acre to $3,700 per acre, depending on whether 

the land is upland or wetland and irrigated or nonirrigated, and where it is located in the watershed. 

Based on a watershed-wide average cost of $810 per 

acre, the one-time initial cost for acquisition of easements is estimated to be about $745 million if all the 

potentially approved acreage is eventually acquired. 

Costs for landowner contacts and staff time would be 

divided among the three refuges and would depend 

on the level of landowner participation and available 

funding.

Easement Acquisition Funding

The primary source for acquisition of easements 

in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area would be Land and Water Conservation Funds. 

These funds are not derived from general taxes; 

rather, they are derived primarily from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease revenues, motorboat 

fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 

Land and Water Conservation Funds are intended for 

land and water conservation projects; funding is subject to annual appropriations by Congress for specific 

acquisition projects.

Money from other sources may also be considered for use in the proposed project area. If approved 

by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, 

Migratory Bird Conservation Funds from the sale 

of Federal Duck Stamps may also be used for wetland conservation. Management activities associated 

with easements may be funded through sources 

such as The Nature Conservancy, Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife, and other private and public partners. 

Additionally, the Service would consider accepting 

voluntary donations of easements.

Sagebrush habitat in the Bear River watershed.

Dave Kimble / USFWS
104 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Ecosystem Management and 

Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives

To successfully implement the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area, the Service would work 

with the three landscape conservation cooperatives that encompass the proposed project area. The 

Great Northern, Great Basin, and Southern Rockies 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives cover parts 

of 10 western States and part of Canada (see figure 

LPP–8). Landscape conservation cooperatives function across broad landscapes with many partners at 

the scale necessary to address the needs of wildlife 

populations. 

Strategic Habitat 

Conservation and Protection 

Priorities

Strategic habitat conservation (see figure LPP–9) 

incorporates five key principles into an ongoing process that changes and evolves:

■ biological planning (setting targets)

■ conservation design (developing a plan to meet the 

goals)

■ conservation delivery (implementing the plan)

Figure LPP–8. Map of the three landscape conservation cooperative areas that cover the proposed Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 105

■ monitoring and adaptive management (measuring 

success and improving results)

■ research (increasing our understanding) 

These steps are essential in dealing with a range 

of landscape-scale resource threats, such as development, invasive species, and water scarcity—all 

magnified by accelerating climate change. 

Figure LPP–9. Elements of strategic habitat conservation.

Biological Planning

Biological planning requires the identification of 

priority species, development of population objectives, and identification of landscape-level limiting 

factors that keep the populations of priority trust species below desired levels. 

The need and opportunity for strategic conservation to benefit fish and wildlife in the Bear River 

watershed are articulated in the following regional 

plans reviewed by the planning team: 

■ “Conservation Action Plan for the Bear River 

Watershed”

■ State Wildlife Action Plans for Idaho, Utah, and 

Wyoming

■ “Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan” 

■ “Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation 

Plan” 

■ “Partners In Flight” 

■ “Audubon Society Globally Important Bird Areas” 

■ “National Fish Habitat Action Plan 2006” 

■ “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

■ “U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan” 

Based on these plans and input from local stakeholders and partners, initial biological planning uses 

four focal or “surrogate species” to model the distribution and habitat needs of a larger group of wildlife 

species with similar needs. This information would 

also be used to set priorities for Service conservation 

efforts within the proposed project area.

Protection Priorities

The Service and its partners recognize the 

tremendous opportunity within the Bear River 

watershed to expand existing blocks of conservation 

lands, including lands under fee-title or easement 

ownerships by State, Federal and conservationoriented nongovernmental organizations. There is 

considerable interest by landowners in an additional 

landscape-scale conservation effort and funding 

source within the proposed conservation area.

Determination of which habitat resources are the 

most important to conserve for the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations requires a prioritization 

strategy. The Service evaluated the conservation priorities and concerns in many regional plans, including 

the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan,” 

“Intermountain West Joint Venture Waterbird and 

Shorebird Plans,” Partners in Flight plans, State 

Wildlife Action Plans (Idaho, Utah and Wyoming), 

and the comprehensive conservation plans under 

development for the three national wildlife refuges.

In applying conservation ecology, focal or surrogate species have been used as a practical bridge 

between single- and multiple-species approaches to 

wildlife conservation and management prioritization. 

Initial biological planning by the Service used four 

focal species to model the distribution and habitat of 

a larger group of wildlife species with similar needs. 

Focal Species

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout. All three State comprehensive wildlife strategies identified the Bear River 

and its tributaries as playing an important role in providing habitat for an assemblage of native cool- and 

cold-water fish species and for Bonneville cutthroat 

trout in particular.
106 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout

Once thought to be extinct because of habitat loss 

and overharvesting, Bonneville cutthroat trout were 

rediscovered in recent decades, with relatively pure 

populations continuing to persist along the periphery of the Bonneville basin in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, 

and Nevada. The Bear River watershed supports the 

largest remaining migratory populations, including 

both fluvial and adfluvial forms, while other metapopulations and strongholds also occur in the Northern 

Bonneville basin (Haak et al. 2011). 

Declines in populations of native salmonids, including Bonneville cutthroat trout, can result from the 

combined effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation, blocked migration corridors, degraded water 

quality or quantity, angler harvest and poaching, 

entrainment into diversion canals and dams, nonnative species interactions, and other factors (USFWS 

2002). The quality of riparian habitat also greatly 

influences the quality of aquatic habitat. Riffle-dwelling species such as longnose dace and riffle-spawning 

salmonids require fine sediment levels associated 

with healthy riparian vegetation. Riparian habitat is 

also required by many amphibian and reptile species.

Bonneville cutthroat trout is used to represent a 

variety other native fish species found in the Bear 

River watershed including northern leatherside chub, 

mountain whitefish, mottled and Paiute sculpin, longnose and speckled dace, redside shiner, Utah sucker, 

and mountain sucker.

Sage Thrasher and Greater Sage-Grouse. Sagebrush ecosystems are among the most imperiled in 

North America because of a variety of human disturbances. Sagebrush habitat has been altered and 

fragmented, resulting in the decline in both the numbers and the distribution of many of the more than 

350 species that depend on sagebrush habitat for 

all or part of their life cycles (Wisdom et al. 2005.) 

Shrub–steppe and grassland habitats make up about 

60 percent of the Bear River watershed land cover 

that supports such species as greater sage-grouse, 

sage thrasher, sage sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed 

grouse, burrowing owl, and long-billed curlew, all of 

which have been listed as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

Habitat shifts have major implications for sagebrush-dependent vertebrates including sage thrasher, 

greater sage-grouse, and sage sparrow (Knick et al. 

2003). Maintaining large areas of intact sagebrush 

is considered crucial to the long-term persistence of 

sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2008) as well as other 

sagebrush-dependent species. 

Hanser and Knick (2011) found that the diversity 

of sagebrush habitats used by greater sage-grouse 

may provide an effective umbrella for a broader community of passerine bird species associated with 

sagebrush that are also declining in numbers. Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher were 

found to have moderate to strong associations with 

sage-grouse. However, it is important to analyze the 

habitat needs of grouse and passerines separately due 

to the large difference in the scale of home range sizes 

as well as their specific habitat needs within sagebrush communities.

Sage-grouse are considered a landscape-scale species (Connelly et al. 2004, Crawford et al. 2004), and 

home ranges for individual sage-grouse may vary 

from hundreds to thousands of acres (Connelly et al. 

2004, Rowland et al. 2006). Migratory populations 

of sage-grouse may use areas of 1,042 square miles 

(2,700 square kilometers) or more in size (Connelly et 

al. 2000 and Leonard et al. 2000). By contrast, territories for many passerines, such as sage thrashers and 

sage sparrows, are about 200 acres for an individual 

bird (Rowland et al. 2006, Martin and Carlson 1998). 

To persist, nesting thrasher populations require 

patches of sagebrush–steppe of at least 247 acres (100 

hectares) (Casey 2000, Nicholoff 2003).

Sage-grouse use a variety of patch sizes arranged 

in a mosaic across the landscape, a reflection of their 

high mobility and large home ranges (Connelly et 

al. 2004, Crawford et al. 2004). Sage thrasher populations are found to be positively correlated with 

specific landscape characteristics, such as structure 

(for example, presence of “robust” woody plants 

like big sagebrush), increasing horizontal and vertical heterogeneity, and high horizontal patchiness. 

Sage thrasher occurrence is greater in shrub steppe 

located on loamy and shallow soils than on sandy soils 

(Vander Haegen et al. 2000), Thrasher populations 

seem to be negatively correlated with grass cover 

and spiny shrubs (for example, hopsage and budsage) 

(Rotenberry and Wiens 1980, Wiens and Rotenberry 

1981, Dobler et al. 1996). Research suggests that 

thrashers do best in less disturbed communities that 

approach climax conditions (Vander Haegen et al. 

2000); however, whether they are adversely affected 

by habitat fragmentation seems to be an unresolved 

rout Unlimited © Kirk Dahle / T
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 107

issue (Knick and Rotenberry 1995, Vander Haegen et 

al. 2000, Nicholoff 2003). 

A 2006 assessment by Rowland et al. found that 

the geographic ranges of sagebrush-dependent species overlap sufficiently with those of sage-grouse 

that most of their habitat falls within the range of 

sage-grouse. However, when the spatially explicit 

overlap in habitats for target species and sage-grouse 

was accounted for, only 10 of the 39 target species 

had their habitat both shared with sage-grouse and 

within the historical range of that species. Thus, conservation benefits to target species from habitat 

management applied to sage-grouse would be minimal for most species in our analysis. Even within 

sagebrush communities in the range of sage-grouse, 

vegetation manipulation tailored to benefit sagegrouse may not improve habitat for other species.

Because of the large difference in the spatial extent of areas used by sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-dependent species, declining trends in 

individual sage-grouse populations may not be apparent until other species associated with sagebrush 

communities have experienced far more severe 

population declines that may be difficult to reverse 

(Rowland et al. 2006). 

Because of the large amount and relative importance of sagebrush habitat within the proposed 

conservation area and the degree of uncertainty 

about the similarity of habitat needs of greater sagegrouse and sage thrasher, both species were included 

in the geospatial analysis and modeling for the 

project.

American Avocet. American avocet represents a 

larger group of waterbirds including white-faced ibis 

and long-billed curlew. Breeding Bird Surveys have 

shown that the population trend for American avocets 

in the watershed has trended downward through 2000 

(Sauer et al. 2005). Habitat destruction and fragmentation of wetlands and marshes limit the population of 

several waterbird and waterfowl species because of 

the reduction or elimination of nesting, brooding, and 

foraging habitats. The proximity and quality of these 

various habitat types particularly affect the survival 

rates of young birds.

Besides the importance of breeding habitat, the 

quality and availability of spring migration habitat 

have direct implications for the survival and breeding 

productivity of the millions of migratory birds passing 

through the Bear River watershed each year. Complexes of wetlands, wet meadows, flooded pastures, and 

hayfields found in the Bear River watershed are used 

by many species of migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and waterbirds including American avocet, sandhill 

crane, white-faced ibis, American bittern, marbled godwit, long-billed dowitcher, and northern pintail. Greater Sage-Grouse

Mark Hogan / USFWS

Sage Thrasher

USFWS

American Avocet

USFWS
108 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Conservation Design

Conceptual and quantitative models have been 

developed to help predict key habitats used by the 

highest density of the four focal species populations 

and to aid in initial conservation design and delivery 

efforts. 

Priority species, along with associated population goals, would continually be defined and updated 

throughout the implementation of this project, and 

additional landscape models would be developed for 

priority trust species.

Most wildlife species require more than one type 

of habitat during their life history. The wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrubland habitat found in the 

Bear River watershed allow multiple groups of species to meet their needs. The connectivity between 

the three national wildlife refuges, the waterfowl production area, and other large areas of protected lands 

maintains migration corridors for migratory and resident wildlife species. The connectivity within the 

Bear River watershed as well as to other ecosystems 

such as the Greater Yellowstone increases the resiliency of the region.

Numerous wide-ranging mammals that depend 

on the large blocks of intact habitat, wintering areas, 

and key migration linkages found in the Bear River 

watershed would benefit from the conservation strategy for the four focal species. The proposed Bear 

River Watershed Conservation Area project would 

help maintain overall habitat connectivity and keep 

travel corridors for many species including grizzly 

bear and Canada lynx (both listed as threatened), 

wolverine, (a candidate for Federal listing as threatened or endangered), as well as elk, mule deer, moose, 

and pronghorn. 

Focal Species Models

HAPET biologists assessed land cover data in a 

Geographic Information System (GIS) to set priorities for the watershed for conservation easement 

acquisition, resulting in spatially explicit decisionsupport tools. 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Models: For Bonneville 

cutthroat trout populations, the Service used models 

prepared by Trout Unlimited that evaluated species 

densities and genetic purity in Bear River watershed 

streams.

Sage Thrasher, Greater Sage-Grouse, and American 

Avocet Models: Methods were adapted from Niemuth 

et al. (2008) to design the conservation strategy for 

the proposed conservation area. North American 

Breeding Bird Survey data were collected from 1997 

to 2010 on 32 roadside survey routes in and around 

the Bear River watershed. A subset of these data 

was used in conjunction with land cover information to model the spatial distribution and number of 

sage thrashers (figure LPP–10). Additionally, Breeding Bird Survey stop-level data were used with the 

land cover data to model habitat-occupancy relationships of American avocet in the watershed (see figure 

LPP–11). Predictor variables were sampled using 

radii of 1,312 feet, 2,625 feet, 3,937 feet, and 5,249 feet 

(400, 800, 1,200, and 1,600 meters) around Breeding 

Bird Survey stops; models fit best for sage thrasher 

at the 3,937-foot (1,200-meter) scale and best for 

American avocet at the 2,625-foot (800-meter) scale. 

Besides improving model fit, inclusion of trend surface and time-of-day variables substantially reduced 

positive spatial autocorrelation in model residuals. 

Spatial autocorrelation can lead to overestimation of 

the precision of model parameter estimates (Legendre 1993) and obscure ecological patterns (Carroll and 

Pearson 2000).

The top model for each species was tested for 

how well the model fits the data and validated using 

cross-validation techniques to test the predictive 

capabilities. The best model was then applied to 

the land cover data in GIS to set priorities for the 

watershed for conservation easement acquisition, 

resulting in spatially explicit decision-support tools. 

An existing landscape prioritization tool for greater 

sage-grouse, which identifies rangewide breeding 

densities (Doherty et al. 2010), was coupled with the 

decision-support tool for sage thrasher and American 

avocet. This provides watershed land managers with 

the best available information on landscape values for 

the four focal species.

New decision support tools would be developed 

through refinements of the focal species models 

described above as more data are collected and new 

modeling techniques implemented in an iterative, 

adaptive conservation framework. Further refinements in the conservation framework would be 

achieved by setting population objectives for focal 

species and evaluating conservation delivery through 

the elements of biological planning, conservation 

design, and monitoring and research. These new tools 

may result in challenges to currently held paradigms 

about the best conservation approach for target species (Reynolds et al. 2001).

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Model: Ensuring the 

long-term survival of native cutthroat trout in an era 

of rapid environmental change requires a diverse conservation portfolio that spreads the risk of loss in an 

uncertain future across a variety of habitats, populations and management approaches. Rangewide 

diversity for native trout includes genetic integrity, 

life history diversity, and geographic (or ecological) 

diversity. 

The Service worked with Trout Unlimited’s existing data and assessment tools for modeling Bonneville 
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 109

Figure LPP–10. Map of predicted sage thrasher and sage-grouse densities in the proposed Bear 

River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Source: HAPET West.
110 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Figure LPP–11. Map of predicted American avocet densities in the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Source: HAPET West.
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 111

cutthroat trout habitat and species status for streams 

within the proposed conservation area. The Trout 

Unlimited management portfolio has multiple examples of these elements of diversity and large patches 

of interconnected habitat for resiliency to attempt to 

reduce the threat of biodiversity loss because of climate change. The 3–R framework (Schafer and Stein 

2000) used by Trout Unlimited provides a structure for describing existing levels of diversity for a 

subspecies:

■ Representation—saving existing elements of 

diversity

■ Resiliency—having sufficiently large populations and intact habitats to facilitate recovery 

from large disturbances and rapid environmental 

change

■ Redundancy—saving enough different populations so that some can be lost without jeopardizing 

the subspecies

All the drainages in Trout Unlimited dataset were 

classified as historically having contained Bonneville cutthroat trout. The next level of differentiation 

between streams where Bonneville cutthroat trout 

have been observed compared to those that were 

classified as having conservation populations. Trout 

Unlimited identified conservation populations of 

Bonneville cutthroat trout based on their ecological value, unique adaptation, or tendency to reach 

a large size (personal communication, Paul Burnett, 

Trout Unlimited). Population densities and genetic 

status were used by the Service to create a matrix 

of conservation prioritization (see table LPP–3). The 

matrix in table LPP–3 was used to rank the relative 

status of Bonneville cutthroat trout populations and 

to determine the conservation priorities displayed in 

the Bonneville cutthroat trout population status map 

(see figure LPP–12): 

Table LPP–3. Matrix of Bonneville cutthroat trout fish densities and ranking criteria for genetic purity.

Density (number of fish) per linear mile or per 10 acres

of habitat for lake populations

Genetic purity*

Over 400 151–400 50–150 0–50 Unknown

Criteria rank 5 4 3 2 1

unaltered, not tested–unaltered 5 5 4 4 3 3

90–99% 4 4 4 3 3 2

3 4 3 3 2 2

80–89% not tested hybridized 2 3 3 2 2 1

< 80% 1 3 2 2 1 1

*Value definitions for genetic purity and population density were derived from Trout Unlimited “Conservation Success Index: 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout: Sub-Watershed Scoring and Rule Set.” The combined value of the averaged density and genetic purity 

rankings were rounded down to the next lowest number.

■ First Priority—Conservation population streams 

with a combined genetic and populations score of 

“5”

■ Second Priority—Conservation population streams 

with a combined genetic and populations score of 

“4”

■ Third Priority—Conservation population streams 

with a combined genetic and populations score of 

“3”

■ Fourth Priority—Conservation population streams 

with a combined genetic and populations score of 

“2”

■ Fifth Priority—Conservation population streams 

with a combined genetic and populations score of 

“1”

Priority Categories

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area has been classified into three categories 

from the highest to lowest resource conservation priority based on modeling results from HAPET and 

Trout Unlimited data (see figure LPP–13). 

■ High Conservation Rank: Key wetland, riparian, 

grassland, and shrub habitat where the highest 

densities of the four focal species representing 

Federal trust resources (migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species) occur.

■ Medium Conservation Rank: Key wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrub habitat where the 

moderate to high densities of the four focal 

species representing Federal trust resources 

occur.
112 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Figure 12. Map of the presence of Bonneville cutthroat trout in the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Source: Trout Unlimited.
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 113

■ Low Conservation Rank: Low to moderate to high 

densities of the four focal species representing 

Federal trust resources occur.

Marxan-based Conservation Value 

Modeling

The conservation analysis software—Marxan (Ball 

et al. 2009)—can be used to model a wide range of 

management and conservation challenges such as climate change, land use change, and development, as 

well as key conservation priorities including maintaining habitat connectivity and migration corridors. 

Marxan was designed to provide a conservation 

design that maximizes conservation value based on 

goals and criteria while minimizing constraints.

The Service used a Marxan model incorporating the HAPET models for sage thrasher, greater 

sage-grouse, and American avocet along with the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout model based on data provided by Trout Unlimited (see figure LPP–14). 

In addition, Marxan modeling was used to incorporate crucial wetland and riparian habitat depended on 

by a wide variety of migratory bird species including 

white-faced ibis, yellow warbler, flycatchers, yellow-billed cuckoo, for which there is insufficient data 

available to develop other types of models based on 

bird densities and abundance. The modeling allowed 

a habitat-based approach to be used to generate an 

alternate method of predicting likely areas of habitat 

use by migratory birds. 

This model also allowed the Service to incorporate 

information provided by State partners and local organizations on important spawning and wintering areas 

for Bonneville cutthroat trout, and key migration corridors for mule deer, elk, and moose. Maintaining 

connectivity between habitat types and between larger 

areas of protected lands in the watershed and the region 

increases ecological resiliency and helps to ensure a 

functional landscape in a rapidly changing world.

Marxan sets priorities for areas based on their 

contribution to meeting conservation goals. Because 

the biological goals for ecological systems and species in the proposed conservation area are uncertain, 

goal levels that span a range of potentials were 

assessed. For some conservation features, such as 

priority winter rearing areas for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, the mapped area was small relative to 

other species that occupy a larger range. Therefore, 

a goal level of 90 percent was kept constant across 

all Marxan runs. Table LPP–4 describes conservation targets, data sources, and how conservation 

goals were set for three different runs of the Marxan 

model. Marxan seeks to minimize constraints to the 

overall conservation design. For this analysis, a constraint of “ecological integrity” was based on the 

NatureServe Landscape Condition of the Conterminous United States (Comer and Hak 2009). This data 

set integrates stressors from human land uses including transportation corridors, urban and industrial 

development, mining, and modified land cover. Areas 

across all goal levels are in relatively better ecological condition. 

Marxan will attempt to find a near-optimal selection of areas to meet a goal level of 30 percent for a 

conservation target. Areas selected in the 30-percent 

“low” goal level represent a selection that is in the 

best condition. More areas must be added to meet 

the 50 percent and 80 percent goals, so the selection 

is expanded to areas in a lower level of condition. 

This has implications for understanding the results 

described below. Priority 3 has few areas with high 

selection frequency at the 30-percent goal level. 

Another Marxan variable is “connectedness” of 

the solution. By setting the connectivity variable 

properly, Marxan will force potential conservation 

areas to be adjacent. For example, conservation goals 

could be met with widely distributed areas. A more 

efficient spatial solution is to meet conservation goals 

in a spatially cohesive and connected design. 

Table LPP–4. Conservation targets and goals for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming.

Conservation target Conservation goal level Notes and source

Measure Low Medium High

sage thrasher potential bird density 30% 50% 80% density models, HAPET modeling

sage-grouse potential bird density 30% 50% 80% top 25% density, Doherty 2010

30% 50% 80% top 50% density, Doherty 2010

American avocet potential bird density 30% 50% 80% density models, HAPET modeling

Bonneville cutthroat trout stream miles

30% 50% 80% multiple, conservation success index

90% 90% 90% priority areas, expert-based

90% 90% 90% winter rearing, expert-based

emergent wetlands acres 30% 50% 80% National Wetland Inventory and GAP

riparian zones acres 30% 50% 80% National Wetland Inventory and GAP
114 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Figure 13. Map of combined species priority areas for the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Source: Bonneville cutthroat trout (Trout Unlimited); 

bird modeling (HAPET West); Canada lynx (county-level data from Ecological Conservation Online System 

development group).
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 115

Figure 14. Map of conservation ranking priority areas for the proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. 
116 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Marxan Results. One of the key results from 

Marxan is the “selection frequency” of a given spatial planning unit. A spatial planning unit that has 

a high selection frequency indicates that it must be 

protected to meet conservation goals, based on input 

criteria. In other words, it is irreplaceable, and conservation goals cannot be met in an efficient manner 

without protecting such areas. The four conservation 

ranks described below are also displayed in figure 

LPP–14. 

■ High Conservation Rank: High irreplaceability 

across all goal levels, higher ecological integrity, 

and multiple conservation targets present.

■ Medium Conservation Rank: Moderate irreplaceability across all goal levels, lower ecological 

integrity, and fewer conservation targets than 

high priority. 

■ Low Conservation Rank: Not irreplaceable across 

all goal levels, lower ecological integrity, and one 

conservation target present. 

■ No Conservation Rank: Not selected with the 

data that is now available.

The data were separated into five distinct groups 

based on their selection frequency multiplied by the 

number of conservation targets present. The top 

three groups represent areas with the highest conservation value. The high priority represents areas that 

(1) are connected, (2) are the best condition landscapes possible, (3) contain multiple conservation 

targets, and (4) are irreplaceable across all goal 

levels. The lowest priority still represents areas of 

conservation value but for typically one conservation 

target, although more may be present. The landscape 

condition will be lower and may not be irreplaceable 

across all goal levels. 

The conservation ranking reflected in figure LPP–

14, with potential acres shown in table LPP–5, would 

be used for initial prioritization of acquisition efforts 

in the proposed conservation area. Subsequently, the 

Service would reevaluate priorities as resource conditions in the watershed changed, as research needs 

were met, and as new decision-support tools became 

available. 

Table LPP–5. Protection priority category acreages 

for acquisition in the proposed Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

 Description Priorities for easements

Private: nonprotected

Priority 1 

high conservation rank 289,861 acres

Priority 2 

medium conservation rank 385,362 acres

Priority 3 

low conservation rank 244,777 acres

 Total 920,000 acres

Integrated Conservation 

Delivery

Over the years, the staff from the three national 

wildlife refuges worked with a wide variety of agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private 

landowners on wildlife conservation issues and 

opportunities. Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologists have worked with landowners on habitat 

restoration projects and developing partnerships that 

provide the foundation for a successful easement program. The ongoing involvement of the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife program, landscape conservation 

cooperatives, and many partner organizations and 

agencies would be essential for the effective delivery 

of sustainable conservation programs. Application 

of the Strategic Habitat Conservation framework 

would build on existing partnerships and support 

the development of new partnerships for delivering 

conservation throughout the region. The spatially 

explicit decision-support tools being developed would 

allow for greater flexibility, increased responsiveness, 

and improved efficiency in meeting Service and partner conservation delivery needs.

The proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area would serve as a model for engagement 

in that it would work with landowners, nongovernmental organizations, State agencies, and Federal 

agencies. Education is a key part of engagement. The 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge has an extensive 

educational program that teaches children and adults 

about ecological functions, the importance of wetlands, and the diversity of plant and animal life and 

conservation. 

Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management

Wetland and upland conservation easements are 

an essential tool for protecting important wildlife habitat on a landscape scale. The detailed LPP developed 

in conjunction with the EA provides the information necessary to carry out the conservation action of 

acquiring conservation easements on the “best of the 

best” habitat for priority species. As understanding of 

the functional relationships between priority species 
Draft LPP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 117

and habitats increases, the Service would adapt the 

strategies used to target acquisition of the highest 

priority habitat for meeting the population objectives 

of priority species.

Contributions of conservation easements and 

other management actions toward meeting population 

goals for priority trust species would be evaluated 

using spatially explicit models, allowing estimation of 

population size on conservation easements and other 

land parcels of interest. This would allow the Service 

and conservation partners to evaluate the contribution of the program to meeting population goals and 

to refine conservation delivery to ensure greatest efficiency. Spatially explicit models would also enable the 

Service to show the contribution of the proposed conservation area to national and continental population 

goals for priority species.

The Service would work with the Great Basin, 

Great Northern, and Southern Rockies Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives and numerous other 

partners to develop and refine predictive population 

models. The results of Breeding Bird Surveys, the 

annual monitoring the Service conducts on waterfowl, 

breeding shorebirds, other waterbirds, grassland 

birds, and raptors on the three wildlife refuges, and 

other appropriate State and local surveys would be 

used to assess the effectiveness of the conservation 

easement program.

Evaluation of the assumptions and uncertainties 

identified through the biological planning, conservation design, and conservation delivery elements 

would addressed by the Service in cooperation with 

partners such as nongovernmental organizations and 

universities.

Research

Although the importance of the Bear River watershed for migratory birds is widely recognized, there 

are knowledge gaps about the area resources. More 

Breeding Bird Survey routes, completion of the 

National Wetlands Inventory database, and incorporating information and research results from the 

large number of conservation agencies and organizations in the region would help to assess conservation 

needs and priorities in the region.

Research and monitoring emphasis would be 

placed on the highest priority species with the greatest degree of uncertainty about limiting factors and 

the effectiveness of management actions at minimizing and reducing limiting factors. Data from existing 

surveys such as the Breeding Bird Survey would be 

evaluated and incorporated into spatial models. When 

necessary, more data would be collected to evaluate 

assumptions used in the modeling process and assessments would be adjusted accordingly. These methods 

would provide an estimate of the population response 

of trust species on project (easement) lands and on 

noneasement properties.

Sociocultural Considerations

Much of the land cover in the proposed conservation area consists 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 million acres of prime 

ranchlands1 in Idaho, 3.4 million acres in Utah, and 2.6 

million acres in Wyoming as being vulnerable to lowdensity residential 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 has 263 counties in Idaho, 

Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and 

New Mexico), Uinta County, Wyoming, and Summit 

County, Utah, ranked in the top 25 counties for acres 

of strategic ranchland2 at risk (American Farmland 

Trust 2000). 

1

Prime ranchlands are defined as ranchland with quality 

agricultural land and desirable wildlife characteristics.

2

Strategic ranchlands are defined as both prime and threatened 

ranchlands. 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 greater than 10 

percent per decade.

© Keith Penner

Butterfly on Marsh Vegetation
118 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Conserving the ranching heritage of the proposed 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Area would help 

make sure that wildlife populations are sustained and 

are available for long-term enjoyment by the American public.

Public Involvement and 

Coordination

The Service involves the public to get input on 

proposals and to make sure issues are addressed 

while conducting an environmental analysis that follows the National Environmental Policy Act.

Public Scoping

Six public scoping meetings were held in Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming in May 2011. Public comments 

were taken in Cokeville and Evanston, Wyoming; 

Brigham City and Logan, Utah; and Preston and 

Montpelier, Idaho, to identify issues to be analyzed 

for the proposed action. Approximately 130 landowners, members of various organizations, and elected 

representatives attended the meetings. Additionally, 

10 letters providing comments were received by mail 

or email. A total of 327 comments and questions were 

received on the project proposal.

Refuge staff contacted tribal, Federal, State, and 

local officials as well as conservation groups that 

expressed an interest in the future of the Bear River 

watershed. Approximately 675 fact sheets were distributed, and they were also available on the refuges’ 

Web sites.

Public meetings will be held to discuss the draft 

EA and LPP for the proposed project.

National Environmental 

Policy Act

As a Federal agency, the Service must comply 

with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Under the act, an EA is required to evaluate 

reasonable alternatives that meet stated objectives 

and to assess the possible impacts to the human 

environment. The draft EA serves as the basis for 

determining whether implementation of the proposed project would constitute a major Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment.

Land Protection Plan 

Distribution and Availability

The Service will distribute the draft EA (with 

the associated draft LPP in the same volume) to the 

project mailing list, which includes Federal and State 

legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, 

private groups, and other interested individuals. 

Copies of the draft EA and LPP will also be available on the project Web site or by contacting the 

Service by email, postal mail, phone, or in person.

Project Web site: www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie

/planning/lpp/ut/brr/brr.html

Project email: brwca_comments@fws.gov

Service Unit Contacts

Amy Thornburg, Planning Team Leader

Attn: Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation 

Area

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 4345

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1

Division of Refuge Planning

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181

503 / 872 2897

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 9 

Montpelier, Idaho 83254

208 / 847 1757

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge

2155 West Forest Street

Brigham City, Utah 84302

435 / 734 6451

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 700

Green River, Wyoming 82935

307 / 875 2187
Glossary

adfluvial—Referring to fish that live in lakes and 

migrate to rivers and streams.

Beyond the Boundaries—National Wildlife Refuge 

Association program to expand conservation work 

to areas outside national wildlife refuge borders. 

BRWCA—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area.

candidate species—A species of plant or animal for 

which the USFWS has sufficient information on 

their biological status and threats to propose them 

as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of 

a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other 

higher priority listing activities.

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations. 

CO2—Carbon dioxide.

conservation easement—A legally enforceable 

encumbrance or transfer of property rights to a 

government agency or land trust for the purposes 

of conservation. Rights transferred could include 

the discretion to subdivide or develop land, change 

current land use practices, sever water rights, or 

others as appropriate, and are specified by contract between the landowner and the conservation 

entity.

conservation strategy—An adaptive approach for 

integrating biological priorities with current 

socioeconomic threats to habitat to target the 

acquisition of wetland and grassland easements in 

the Bear River of Region 6. The strategy focuses 

on the five, primary, upland-nesting duck species, 

which also provide for other trust species’ benefits. To meet the goal of this strategy, there is an 

estimated need of an additional 1.4 million acres 

of high-priority wetland and 10.4 million acres of 

high-priority grassland.

EA—See environmental assessment. 

endangered species—A species of plant or animal 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant part of its range.

Endangered Species Act—A law passed by Congress 

in 1973 with the purpose of protecting and recovering imperiled species and the ecosystems on 

which they depend.

environmental assessment (EA)—A public document 

for which a Federal agency is responsible. An 

environmental assessment provides evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a finding of 

no significant impact, aids an agency’s compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act when 

no environmental impact statement is necessary, 

and facilitates preparation of a statement when 

one is necessary.

fluvial—Referring to fish that live in rivers and 

streams. 

GCN—(A species of) greatest conservation need. 

HAPET—Habitat and Population Evaluation Team.

Important Bird Areas Program—A global effort to 

find and conserve areas that are vital to birds 

and other biodiversity sponsored by the National 

Audubon Society.

Intermountain West Joint Venture—Diverse partnership of 18 entities including Federal agencies, 

State agencies, nonprofit conservation organizations, and for-profit organizations representing 

agriculture and industry. IWJV was founded in 

1994 to facilitate bird conservation across the vast 

495 million acres of the Intermountain West.

Intermountain West Joint Venture Implementation 

Plan—A plan that provides direction for integrating the conservation of all migratory birds under 

one framework. The process involves stepping 

down the objectives of the four plans for the international species groups of waterfowl, shorebirds, 

other waterbirds, and landbirds. Population and 

habitat trends, coupled with knowledge of how 

species respond to landscape change, would be 

used to build a biological foundation and set quantifiable goals.

landscape conservation cooperative (LCC)—A public–private partnership intended to facilitate 

cross-political boundary conservation in the face 

of a changing environment through application of 

science.

land protection plan (LPP)—Describes resource protection needs, proposes a refuge or conservation 

area boundary, and identifies in priority order 

the areas that the Service may buy land interests 

from willing sellers.

LCC—See landscape conservation cooperative.

LPP—See land protection plan.

Marxan—A software package used as a decision support tool for spatial conservation prioritization.

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service, an 

agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

NWR—National wildlife refuge. 
120 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Refuge System —National Wildlife Refuge System.

Region 1 —An administrative unit of the Service 

known as the Pacific Region encompassing Hawaii, 

Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Pacific Island Territories and United States affiliated States.

Region 6 —An administrative unit of the Service 

known as the Mountain–Prairie Region, which 

covers eight States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wyoming.

Service, or USFWS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

strategic habitat conservation —A process used within 

the Service to set biological goals for priority species populations, make strategic decisions, and 

to reassess and improve management actions. 

Comprised of four stages: Biological Planning, 

Conservation Design, Delivery of Conservation 

Action, and Monitoring and Research. 

threatened species —A species of plant or animal that 

is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future.

trust species —Federal trust species include threatened and endangered species, as well as migratory 

birds such as waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, 

and neotropical migratory songbirds, anadromous 

(migratory) fish such as salmon.

U.S.C. —United States Code.

USDA —U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USFWS, or Service —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

WPA —Waterfowl production area.
Appendix A 

List of Preparers and Reviewers

Author name Position Work unit

David Allen realty specialist USFWS, Region 1, Division of Realty, Portland, Oregon

Bob Barrett project leader USFWS, Region 6, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

Brigham City, Utah

Pamela Benn realty specialist USFWS, Region 1, Division of Realty, Portland, Oregon

Badge Blackett Landscape Conservation Programs National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC

Howard Browers refuge biologist USFWS, Region 6, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

Brigham City, Utah

Steve Caicco conservation planner USFWS, Region 1, Planning Division, Portland, Oregon

Tracy Casselman project leader USFWS, Region 1, Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex, 

Chubbock, Idaho

Annette deKnijf refuge manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Region 1, Bear 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montpelier, Idaho

Joann Dullum wildlife biologist, Inventory and 

Monitoring GIS specialist

USFWS, Region 6, Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Great Falls, Montana 

Mark Ely cartographer USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Sean Fields HAPET biologist USFWS, Region 6, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, Montana

Karl Fleming Utah State coordinator for Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program

USFWS, Region 6, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

Brigham City, Utah

Todd Gallion refuge manager USFWS, Region 6, Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Cokeville, Wyoming

Pat Gonzales-Rogers tribal liaison USFWS, Region 1, External Affairs, Portland, Oregon

Kim Greenwood tribal liaison USFWS, Region 6, External Affairs, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Mark Hogan Wyoming State coordinator for Partners for Fish and Wildlife program

USFWS, Region 6, Partners for Fish and Wildlife State 

Office, Lander, Wyoming

David Kimble biologist for Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program

USFWS, Region 6, Partners for Fish and Wildlife State 

Office, Evanston, Wyoming

Tom Koerner project leader USFWS, Region 6, Cokeville Meadows and Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuges, Green River, Wyoming

Greg Langer law enforcement officer USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Brant Loflin archaeologist USFWS, Region 6, Bozeman Fish Technology Center, 

Montana

David C. Lucas division chief USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado

Noel Matson realty specialist USFWS, Region 6, Division of Realty, Huron, South 

Dakota
122 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Author name Position Work unit

Tom Miewald geographer and conservation planner USFWS, Region 1, Planning Division, Portland, Oregon

Carl Millegan former project leader USFWS, Region 6, Cokeville Meadows and Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuges, Green River, Wyoming

Linda Moeder cartographer USFWS, Region 6, Division of Realty, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Greg Mullin law enforcement officer USFWS, Region 6, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

Brigham City, Utah

Cary Myler biologist for Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program

USFWS, Region 1, Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program, Chubbock, Idaho

Sue Oliveira former division chief USFWS, Region 6, Division of Realty, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Kathi Stopher visitor services manager USFWS, Region 6, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

Brigham City, Utah

Amy Thornburg land protection planning team leader USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Anne Truslow Strategic Programs and Development National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC 

Meg Van Ness regional historic preservation officer USFWS, Region 6, Refuges, Lakewood, Colorado

Sharon Vaughn deputy project leader USFWS, Region 6, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 

Brigham City, Utah

Jeffrey Warren wildlife biologist USFWS, Region 6, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, Montana

Reviewer name Position Work unit

Scott McCarthy branch chief , refuge planning USFWS, Region 1, Planning Division, Portland, Oregon

Brooke McDonald technical editor North State Resources, Inc., Sacramento, California

Kathryn McDonald managing editor North State Resources, Inc., Sacramento, California

Noreen Walsh deputy regional director USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado
Appendix B 

Representative Plant and Animal Species 

Plant Species

Scientific name Common name

TREES

Abies concolor white fir

Abies lasiocarpa subalpine fir

Acer grandidentatum big-toothed maple

Acer negundo boxelder

Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper

Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper

Picea englemannii Engelmann spruce

Picea glauca white spruce

Picea pungens blue spruce

Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine

Pinus contorta lodgepole pine

Pinus edulis pinyon pine

Pinus flexilis limber pine

Pinus monophylla singleleaf pinyon

Populus tremuloides quaking aspen

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir

Quercus gambellii Gambel oak

SHRUBS and SUBSHRUBS

Acer glabrum mountain maple

Acer negundo boxelder

Alnus incana gray alder

Alnus tenuifolia thinleaf alder

Amelanchier alnifolia western serviceberry

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi kinnikinnick

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata basin big sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis Wyoming big sagebrush

Artemisia arbuscula low sagebrush

Artemisia cana silver sagebrush

Artemisia nova black sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana mountain big sagebrush

Atriplex canescens four-wing saltbush

Atriplex confertifolia shadscale

Bassia americana green molly

Berberis repens creeping Oregon grape

Betula glandulosa bog birch
124 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Plant Species

Scientific name Common name

Betula occidentalis water birch

Cercocarpus ledifolius curlleaf mountain-mahogany

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus green rabbitbrush

Cornus stolonifera redosier dogwood

Dasiphora fruticosa shrubby cinquefoil

Ericameria nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush

Grayia spinosa spiny hopsage

Juniperus communis common juniper

Ledum glandulosum Labrador tea

Lonicera involucrata honeysuckle

Menziesia ferruginea menziesia

Pachistima myrsinites pachistima

Physocarpus malvaceus ninebark

Physocarpus monogynus mountain ninebark

Picrothamnus desertorum bud sagebrush

Populus angustifolia narrow-leaf cottonwood

Populus × acuminata lance-leaf cottonwood

Prunus virginiana chokecherry

Ribes lacustre prickly currant

Ribes montigenum mountain gooseberry

Rosa nutkana wild rose

Salix boothii Booth’s willow

Salix drummmondiana Drummond’s willow

Salix exigua coyote willow

Salix geyeriana Geyer willow

Salix lucida Pacific willow

Salix lutea yellow willow

Salix wolfii Wolf’s willow

Sarcobatus vermiculatus black greasewood

Shepherdia canadensis russet buffaloberry

Spiraea betulifolia white spiraea

Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry

Symphoricarpos oreophilus mountain snowberry

Tetradymia canescens horsebrush

Vaccinium caespitosum dwarf huckleberry

Vaccinium scoparium grouse whortleberry

GRASSES and GRAMINOIDS

Agropyron cristatum crested wheatgrass

Agropyron desertorum desert wheatgrass

Agropyron spicatum bluebunch wheatgrass

Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass

Alopecurus aequalis shortawn foxtail

Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail

Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 125

Plant Species

Scientific name Common name

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass

Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint

Calamagrostis rubescens pinegrass

Carex aquatilis water sedge

Carex athrostachya slenderbeak sedge

Carex disperma soft-leaved sedge

Carex geyeri elk sedge

Carex hoodii Hood’s sedge

Carex lasiocarpa American woollyfruit sedge

Carex microptera smallwing sedge

Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge

Carex praegracilis clustered field sedge

Carex rossii Ross’ sedge

Carex rostrata beaked sedge

Carex simulata analogue sedge

Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass

Distichlis spicata saltgrass

Eleocharis acicularis needle spikerush

Elymus elymoides squirreltail

Elymus glaucus blue wildrye

Elymus repens quackgrass

Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass

Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue

Glyceria striata fowl mannagrass

Hesperochloa kingii spike fescue

Heterostipa comata needle and thread

Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley

Hordium brachyantherum meadow barley

Juncus arcticus mountain rush

Juncus bufonius toad rush

Leymus cinereus basin wildrye

Leymus triticoides bearded wheatgrass

Luzula hitchcockii smooth woodrush

Luzula spicata spiked woodrush

Melica spectabilis purple oniongrass

Muhlenbergia richardsonis mat muhly

Mulenbergia asperifolia scratchgrass

Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass

Phleum pratense timothy

Phragmites australis common reed

Poa fendleriana muttongrass

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass

Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot
126 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Plant Species

Scientific name Common name

Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall’s alkaligrass

Schoenoplectus acutus hardsterm bulrush

Schoenoplectus americanus chairmaker’s bulrush

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani softstem bulrush

Scolochloa festucacea common rivergrass

Spartina gracilis alkali cordgrass

Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton

Thinopyrum intermedium intermediate wheatgrass

Triglochin maritima seaside arrowgrass

Triglochin palustris marsh arrowgrass

Trisetum spicatum spike trisetum

Typha angustifolia narrowleaf cattail

Typha latifolia broadleaf cattail

HERBS and FORBS

Achillea millefolium yarrow

Aconitum columbianum monkshood

Actaea rubra baneberry

Alisma plantago-aquatica European water plantain

Antennaria microphylla littleleaf pussytoes

Aquilegia caerulea Colorado blue columbine

Argentina anserina silverweed cinquefoil

Arnica cordifolia heartleaf arnica

Arnica latifolia broadleaf arnica

Astragalus miser timber milkvetch

Bassia scoparia burningbush

Caltha leptosepala white marsh marigold

Cardaria pubescens hairy whitetop

Castilleja linariifolia Wyoming Indian paintbrush

Castilleja minor lesser Indian paintbrush

Castilleja rhexifolia splitleaf Indian paintbrush

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle

Cleome serrulata Rocky Mountain beeplant

Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed

Delphinium barbeyi subalpine larkspur

Downingia laeta Great Basin calico flower

Epilobium ciliatum fringed willowherb

Epilobium latifolium fireweed

Epilobium palustre marsh willowherb

Equisetum arvense field horsetail

Erigeron peregrinus subalpine fleabane

Eriogonum heracleoides parshnip wild buckwheat

Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry

Galium triflorum fragrant bedstraw
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 127

Plant Species

Scientific name Common name

Geranium richardsonii Richardson’s geranium

Geranium viscossissimum sticky geranium

Glaux maritima sea milkwort

Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice

Grindelia squarrosa curlycup gumweed

Helianthus nuttallii Nuttall’s sunflower

Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip

Hymenoxys hoopesii owl’s-claws

Hyoscyamus niger black henbane

Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce

Lathyrus lanszwertii Nevada pea

Lepidium perfoliatum clasping pepperweed

Lupinus argenteus silvery lupine

Maianthemum racemosum feathery false lily-of-the-valley

Maianthemum stellatum starry false lily-of-the-valley

Medicago sativa alfalfa

Melilotus officinalis sweetclover

Mertensia ciliata bluebells

Monolepis nuttalliana Nuttall’s poverty weed

Mondardella odoratissima mountain monardella

Myriophyllum sibiricum shortspike watermilfoil

Orthocarpus luteus yellow owl’s-clover

Osmorhiza berteroi sweet cicely

Osmorhiza occidentalis western sweetroot

Pastinaca sativa wild parsnip

Pedicularis groenlandica elephanthead lousewort

Pedicularis racemosa sickletop lousewort

Penstemon whippleanus Whipple’s beardtongue

Plagiobothrys leptocladus finebranched popcornflower

Polemonium foliosissimum towering Jacob’s-ladder

Potamegeton gramineus variableleaf pondweed

Potamogeton pectinatus sago pondweed

Potamogeton richardsonii Richardson’s pondweed

Potentilla glandulosa sticky cinquefoil

Potentilla gracilis slender cinquefoil

Pseudostellaria jamesiana tuber starwort

Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup

Ranunculus longirostris longbeak buttercup

Ranunculus sceleratus cursed buttercup

Sagittaria cuneata arumleaf arrowhead

Salicornia rubra red swampfire

Scutellaria galericulata marsh skullcap

Senecio hydrophiloides tall groundsel

Senecio hydrophilus water ragwort
128 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Plant Species

Scientific name Common name

Senecio integerrimus lambstongue ragwort

Senecio triangularis arrowleaf ragwort

Sisymbrium altissimum tall tumblemustard

Sium suave hemlock waterparsnip

Solanum triflorum cutleaf nightshade

Sonchus arvensis sow thistle

Sparganium euycarpum broadfruit bur-reed

Spergularia salina salt sandspurry

Streptopus amplexifolius claspleaf twistedstalk

Suaeda calceoliformis Pursh seepweed

Symphotrichum adscendens western aster

Symphotrichum chilense Pacific aster

Thalictrum fendleri Fendler’s meadow-rue

Thalictrum occidentale western meadow-rue

Tragopogon dubius salsify

Trollius laxus American globeflower

Utricularia macrorhiza common bladderwort

Viola nuttallii Nuttall’s violet

Xerophyllum tenax common beargrass

FERNS and FERN ALLIES

Asplenium adiantum-nigrum black spleenwort

Asplenium septentrionale northern spleenwort

Asplenium viride green spleenwort

Athyrium distentifolium alpine lady-fern

Azolla mexicana waterfern

Botrychium boreale northern grapefern

Botrychium lunaria moonwort

Athyrium filix-femina lady-fern

Cheilanthes feei Fee’s lipfern

Cheilanthes gracillima lace-fern

Cryptogramma crispa parsley-fern

Cystopteris fragilis brittle-fern

Equisetum arvense common horsetail

Equisetum hyemale common scouringrush

Equisetum laevigatum smooth scouringrush

Isoetes howellii Howell’s quillwort

Marsilea vestita pepperwort

Pellaea breweri Brewer’s cliff-brake

Polystichum lonchitis holly-fern

Polystichum scopulinum rock holly-fern

Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern

Selaginella densa Rydberg’s spikemoss

Selaginella mutica awnless spikemoss

Woodsia oregana Oregon woodsia
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 129

Plant Species

Scientific name Common name

Woodsia scopulina Rocky Mountain woodsia

Source: DeKnijf 2011, Mauk et al. 1984, Steele 1983, Welsh et al. 2003, West 1988, Windell et al. 1986, Youngblood et al. 

1985.

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

DUCKS, GEESE, and SWANS

Anser albifrons greater white-fronted goose

Chen caerulescens snow goose

Chen rossii Ross’s goose

Branta hutchinsii cackling goose

Branta canadensis Canada goose

Cygnus buccinator trumpeter swan GCN GCN

Cygnus columbianus tundra swan

Aix sponsa wood duck

Anas strepera gadwall

Anas penelope Eurasian wigeon

Anas americana American wigeon

Anas platyrhynchos mallard

Anas discors blue-winged teal

Anas cyanoptera cinnamon teal

Anas clypeata northern shoveler

Anas acuta northern pintail GCN GCN

Anas crecca green-winged teal

Aythya valisineria canvasback GCN

Aythya americana redhead GCN

Aythya collaris ring-necked duck

Aythya marila greater scaup

Aythya affinis lesser scaup GCN GCN

Histrionicus histrionicus harlequin duck GCN GCN

Melanitta perspicillata surf scoter

Melanitta fusca white-winged scoter

Melanitta nigra black scoter

Clangula hyemalis long-tailed duck

Bucephala albeola bufflehead

Bucephala clangula common goldeneye

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye GCN

Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser GCN

Mergus merganser common merganser

Mergus serrator red-breasted merganser

Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck
130 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

UPLAND GAMEBIRDS

Callipepla californica California quail

Alectoris chukar chukar

Perdix perdix gray partridge

Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant

Bonasa umbellus ruffed grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus greater sage-grouse candidate GCN tier II GCN

Lagopus leucura white-tailed ptarmigan

Dendragapus obscurus dusky grouse

Tympanuchus phasianellus Columbian sharp-tailed grouse GCN tier II GCN

Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey

LOONS

Gavia pacifica Pacific loon

Gavia immer common loon GCN

GREBES

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe

Podiceps auritus horned grebe

Podiceps grisegena red-necked grebe GCN

Podiceps nigricollis eared grebe

Aechmophorus occidentalis Western grebe GCN GCN

Aechmophorus clarkii Clark’s grebe GCN GCN

CORMORANTS

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant

PELICANS

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican GCN tier II GCN

HERONS, EGRETS, and BITTERNS

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern GCN

Ardea herodias great blue heron GCN

Ardea alba great egret GCN

Egretta thula snowy egret GCN GCN

Bubulcus ibis cattle egret GCN

Butorides virescens green heron

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night-heron GCN GCN

IBISES

Plegadis falcinellus glossy Ibis

Plegadis chihi white-faced Ibis GCN GCN

VULTURES

Cathartes aura turkey vulture

HAWKS and EAGLES

Pandion haliaetus osprey tier III
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 131

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle species of 

concern

GCN tier I GCN

Circus cyaneus northern harrier

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk tier I GCN

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk

Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk GCN GCN

Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk

Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk GCN tier II CGN

Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle

FALCONS

Falco sparverius American kestrel

Falco columbarius merlin GCN GCN

Falco rusticolus gyrfalcon

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon GCN tier III GCN

Falco mexicanus prairie falcon

RAILS and COOTS

Rallus limicola Virginia rail GCN

Porzana carolina sora

Gallinula galeata common moorhen

Fulica americana American coot

CRANES

Grus canadensis sandhill crane GCN GCN

SHOREBIRDS

Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover

Pluvialis dominica American golden-plover

Charadrius alexandrinus snowy plover tier III

Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover

Charadrius vociferus killdeer

Charadrius montanus mountain plover species of 

concern

tier III GCN

Himantopus mexicanus black-necked stilt GCN tier III

Recurvirostra americana American avocet GCN tier III

Actitis macularius spotted sandpiper

Tringa solitaria solitary sandpiper

Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs

Tringa semipalmata willet

Tringa flavipes lesser yellowlegs

Numenius phaeopus whimbrel
132 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Numenius americanus long-billed curlew GCN tier II GCN

Limosa haemastica Hudsonian godwit

Limosa fedoa marbled godwit

Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone

Calidris canutus red knot

Calidris alba sanderling

Calidris pusilla semipalmated sandpiper

Calidris mauri western sandpiper

Calidris minutilla least sandpiper

Calidris bairdii Baird’s sandpiper

Calidris melanotos pectoral sandpiper

Calidris alpina dunlin

Calidris himantopus stilt sandpiper

Limnodromus griseus short-billed dowitcher

Limnodromus scolopaceus long-billed dowitcher

Gallinago delicata Wilson’s snipe

PHALAROPES

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope GCN

Phalaropus lobatus red-necked phalarope

Phalaropus fulicarius red phalarope

GULLS

Xema sabini Sabine’s gull

Chroicocephalus philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull

Leucophaeus pipixcan Franklin’s gull GCN GCN

Larus canus mew gull

Larus delawarensis ring-billed gull

Larus californicus California gull GCN

Larus argentatus herring gull

Larus thayeri Thayer’s gull

Larus glaucescens glaucous-winged gull

Larus hyperboreus glaucous gull

TERNS

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern GCN tier III GCN

Chlidonias niger black tern GCN GCN

Sterna hirundo common tern

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern GCN GCN

DOVES and PIGEONS

Columba livia rock pigeon

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared-dove

Zenaida asiatica white-winged dove

Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 133

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

CUCKOOS

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo candidate GCN tier I GCN

OWLS

Bubo virginianus barn owl

Otus flammeolus flammulated owl GCN

Megascops kennicottii western screech-owl

Bubo virginianus great horned owl

Glaucidium gnoma northern pygmy-owl GCN

Athene cunicularia burrowing owl GCN tier II GCN

Strix occidentalis spotted owl

Asio otus long-eared owl

Asio flammeus short-eared owl GCN tier II GCN

Aegolius funereus boreal owl GCN tier III GCN

Aegolius acadicus northern saw-whet owl

NIGHTJARS

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk

Phalaenoptilus nuttallii common poorwill

SWIFTS

Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s swift

Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift

HUMMINGBIRDS

Archilochus alexandri black-chinned hummingbird

Stellula calliope calliope hummingbird

Selasphorus platycercus broad-tailed hummingbird tier III

Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird

KINGFISHERS

Megaceryle alcyon belted kingfisher

WOODPECKERS

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker GCN tier II GCN

Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker tier III

Sphyrapicus nuchalis red-naped sapsucker

Picoides scalaris ladder-backed woodpecker

Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker

Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker

Picoides dorsalis American three-toed woodpecker GCN tier II GCN

Colaptes auratus northern flicker

FLYCATCHERS

Contopus cooperi olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher GCN

Empidonax minimus least flycatcher
134 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Empidonax hammondii Hammond’s flycatcher

Empidonax wrightii gray flycatcher

Empidonax oberholseri dusky flycatcher

Empidonax occidentalis Cordilleran flycatcher

Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe

Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher GCN

Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird

Tyrannus tyrannus eastern kingbird

SHRIKES

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike

Lanius excubitor northern shrike

VIREOS

Vireo plumbeus plumbeous vireo

Vireo cassinii Cassin’s vireo

Vireo gilvus warbling vireo

Vireo olivaceus red-eyed vireo

CORVIDS

Perisoreus canadensis gray jay

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus pinyon jay GCN

Cyanocitta stelleri Steller’s jay

Cyanocitta cristata blue jay

Aphelocoma californica western scrub-jay GCN

Nucifraga columbiana Clark’s nutcracker

Pica hudsonia black-billed magpie

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow

Corvus corax common raven

LARKS

Eremophila alpestris horned lark

SWALLOWS

Progne subis purple martin

Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow

Tachycineta thalassina violet-green swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow

Riparia riparia bank swallow

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow

Hirundo rustica barn swallow

CHICKADEES and TITMICE

Poecile atricapillus black-capped chickadee

Poecile gambeli mountain chickadee

Baeolophus ridgwayi juniper titmouse GCN GCN
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 135

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

BUSHTITS

Psaltriparus minimus bushtit GCN

NUTHATCHES

Sitta canadensis red-breasted nuthatch

Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch

Sitta pygmaea pygmy nuthatch GCN

CREEPERS

Certhia americana brown creeper

WRENS

Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren

Catherpes mexicanus canyon wren

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren

Troglodytes aedon house wren

Troglodytes pacificus Pacific wren

Cistothorus palustris marsh wren

GNATCATCHERS

Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher

DIPPERS

Cinclus mexicanus American dipper

KINGLETS

Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet

Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet

BLUEBIRDS and THRUSHES

Sialia mexicana western bluebird

Sialia currucoides mountain bluebird

Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire

Catharus fuscescens veery

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush

Turdus migratorius American robin

Ixoreus naevius varied thrush

MIMICS

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird

Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird

Oreoscoptes montanus sage thrasher tier III GCN

Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher

STARLINGS

Sturnus vulgaris European starling

PIPITS

Anthus rubescens American pipit
136 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

WAXWINGS

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing

Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing

LONGSPURS and BUNTINGS

Calcarius lapponicus Lapland longspur

Plectrophenax nivalis snow bunting

WARBLERS

Seiurus aurocapilla ovenbird

Parkesia noveboracensis northern waterthrush

Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler

Oreothlypis peregrina Tennessee warbler

Oreothlypis celata orange-crowned warbler

Oreothlypis ruficapilla Nashville warbler

Oreothlypis virginiae Virginia’s warbler GCN tier III

Geothlypis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler

Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart

Setophaga americana northern parula

Setophaga petechia yellow warbler

Setophaga striata blackpoll warbler

Setophaga palmarum palm warbler

Setophaga coronata yellow-rumped warbler

Setophaga nigrescens black-throated gray warbler tier III

Setophaga townsendi Townsend’s warbler

Cardellina pusilla Wilson’s warbler

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat

SPARROWS

Pipilo chlorurus green-tailed towhee

Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee

Spizella arborea American tree sparrow

Spizella passerina chipping sparrow

Spizella pallida clay-colored sparrow

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow GCN tier III GCN

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow

Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow

Amphispiza bilineata black-throated sparrow

Amphispiza belli sage sparrow GCN

Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting GCN

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow GCN tier II GCN

Passerella iliaca fox sparrow

Melospiza melodia song sparrow
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 137

Bird Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow

Melospiza georgiana swamp sparrow

Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow

Zonotrichia querula Harris’s sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow

Zonotrichia atricapilla golden-crowned sparrow

Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco

CARDINALS, BUNTINGS, and GROSBEAKS

Piranga ludoviciana western tanager

Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak

Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak

Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak GCN

Passerina amoena lazuli bunting

Passerina cyanea indigo bunting

BLACKBIRDS and ORIOLES

Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink tier II GCN

Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird

Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird

Quiscalus quiscula common grackle

Quiscalus mexicanus great-tailed grackle

Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird

Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole

FINCHES

Leucosticte tephrocotis gray-crowned rosy-finch

Leucosticte atrata black rosy-finch GCN tier III GCN

Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak

Carpodacus cassinii Cassin’s finch

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch

Loxia curvirostra red crossbill

Loxia leucoptera white-winged crossbill

Acanthis flammea common redpoll

Spinus pinus pine siskin

Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch GCN

Spinus tristis American goldfinch

Coccothraustes vespertinus evening grosbeak

WEAVER FINCHES

Passer domesticus house sparrow

1

Federally listed under the Endangered Species Act as an “endangered” or “threatened” species; a species that is a “candidate” for listing 

as endangered or threatened; a “recovered” species that is no longer listed; or a species not listed but recognized as a “species of concern.”

2

Listed as a States species of “Greatest Conservation Need” (GCN): “tier I” species (highest priority), “tier II” species (moderate priority), 

or a “tier III” species (lowest priority).
138 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Mammal Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Sorex merriami Merriam’s Shrew GCN tier III

Sorex preblei Preble’s Shrew tier II GCN

Sorex vagrans vagrant shrew GCN

Sorex monticolus montane shrew

Sorex nanus dwarf shrew GCN tier III GCN

Sorex palustris water shrew GCN

BATS

Myotis californicus California myotis GCN

Myotis ciliolabrum western small-footed myotis GCN

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis tier III

Myotis lucifugus little brown myotis GCN

Myotis evotis long-eared myotis GCN

Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis tier II GCN

Myotis volans long-legged myotis GCN

Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat GCN

Pipistrellus hesperus western pipistrelle

Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat GCN

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat GCN

Euderma maculatum spotted bat tier II GCN

Antrozous pallidus pallid bat GCN

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat GCN tier II GCN

CARNIVORES

Ursus americanus black bear

Ursus arctos brown (grizzly) bear threatened GCN

Mustela nigripes black-footed ferret endangered tier I GCN

Bassariscus astutus ringtail

Procyon lotor northern raccoon

Martes americana American marten tier III GCN

Martes pennanti fisher GCN

Mustela erminea ermine

Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel

Mustela vison American mink

Lontra canadensis northern river otter tier III GCN

Gulo gulo wolverine candidate GCN tier III GCN

Taxidea taxus badger

Spilogale gracilis western spotted skunk

Mephitis mephitis striped skunk

Canis latrans coyote

Canis lupus gray wolf recovery GCN tier I

Vulpes vulpes red fox

Urocyon cinereoargenteus common gray fox

Vulpes macrotis kit fox tier II

Felis concolor mountain lion or cougar
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 139

Mammal Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx threatened GCN tier I GCN

Lynx rufus bobcat

RODENTS

Marmota flaviventris yellow-bellied marmot

Cynomys leucurus white-tailed prairie dog species of 

concern

tier II GCN

Spermophilus variegatus rock squirrel GCN

Spermophilus elegans Wyoming ground squirrel GCN tier III GCN

Spermophilus mollis Great Basin ground squirrel/ 

Piute ground squirrel

GCN

Spermophilus armatus Uinta ground squirrel GCN

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel tier III

Spermophilus lateralis golden-mantled ground squirrel

Cynomys parvidens Utah prairie dog

Neotamias minimus least chipmunk

Neotamias amoenus yellow-pine chipmunk

Neotamias dorsalis cliff chipmunk GCN GCN

Neotamias umbrinus Uinta chipmunk GCN

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus red squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus northern flying squirrel tier III GCN

Thomomys talpoides northern pocket gopher

Thomomys idahoensis Idaho pocket gopher GCN tier III GCN

Perognathus parvus Great Basin pocket mouse GCN

Dipodomys ordii Ord’s kangaroo rat

Castor canadensis American beaver

Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse

Peromyscus crinitus canyon mouse GCN

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse

Peromyscus boylii brush mouse

Peromyscus truei pinyon (pinon) mouse GCN

Onychomys leucogaster northern grasshopper mouse

Neotoma cinerea bushy-tailed woodrat

Phenacomys intermedius western heather vole GCN

Microtus pennsylvanicus meadow vole

Microtus montanus montane vole

Microtus longicaudus long-tailed vole

Lemmiscus curtatus sagebrush vole GCN

Clethrionomys gapperi southern red-backed vole

Microtus richardsoni water vole GCN

Ondatra zibethicus muskrat

Rattus rattus black rat

Rattus norvegicus Norway rat

Mus musculus house mouse

Zapus princeps western jumping mouse
140 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Mammal Species

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine

Ochotona princeps American pika tier III

Myocastor coypus nutria

LAGOMORPHS

Brachylagus idahoensis pygmy rabbit species of 

concern

GCN tier II GCN

Lepus townsendii white-tailed jackrabbit

Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit

Sylvilagus nuttallii mountain cottontail

Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail

Lepus americanus snowshoe hare

HOOFED MAMMALS

Cervus canadensis elk or wapiti

Odocoileus hemionus mule deer tier III

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer

Alces alces moose GCN

Antilocapra americana pronghorn

Ovis canadensis canadensis Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep GCN

Oreamnos americanus mountain goat GCN

1

Federally listed under the Endangered Species Act as an “endangered” or “threatened” species; a species that is a “candidate” for listing 

as endangered or threatened; a “recovered” species that is no longer listed; or a species not listed but recognized as a “species of concern.”

2

Listed as a States species of “Greatest Conservation Need” (GCN): “tier I” species (highest priority), “tier II” species (moderate priority), 

or a “tier III” species (lowest priority).

Reptiles

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

SNAKES

Thamnophis sirtalis common gartersnake tier III GCN

Coluber constrictor eastern yellow-bellied racer GCN

Pituophis catenifer Great Basin gophersnake GCN

Crotalus oreganus lutosus Great Basin (western) rattlesnake

Lampropeltis triangulum milksnake tier III GCN

Hypsiglena torquata nightsnake tier III

Diadophis punctatus ring-necked snake GCN tier III

Charina bottae rubber boa tier III GCN

Opheodrys vernalis smooth greensnake tier III GCN

Masticophis taeniatus striped whipsnake

Thamnophis elegans terrestrial gartersnake GCN

LIZARDS

Sceloporus graciosus common sagebrush lizard GCN

Uta stansburiana common sideblotched lizard
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 141

Reptiles

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Phrynosoma platyrhinos desert horned lizard

Sceloporus undulatus eastern fence lizard GCN

Crotaphytus bicinctores Great Basin collared lizard

Phrynosoma hernandesi greater short-horned lizard GCN

Gambelia wislizenii long-nosed leopard lizard tier II

Urosaurus ornatus ornate tree lizard

Aspidoscelis tigris tiger whiptail

Eumeces skiltonianus western skink tier III

1

Federally listed under the Endangered Species Act as an “endangered” or “threatened” species; a species that is a “candidate” for listing 

as endangered or threatened; a “recovered” species that is no longer listed; or a species not listed but recognized as a “species of concern.”

2

Listed as a States species of “Greatest Conservation Need” (GCN): “tier I” species (highest priority), “tier II” species (moderate priority), 

or a “tier III” species (lowest priority).

Amphibians

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

FROGS and TOADS

Rana catesbeiana American bullfrog

Spea intermontana Great Basin spadefoot GCN

Bufo cognatus Great Plains toad GCN

Rana clamitans green frog

Rana pipiens northern leopard frog GCN tier III GCN

Pseudacris regilla Pacific treefrog tier III

Bufo boreas western (boreal) toad tier II GCN

Pseudacris triseriata western chorus frog

Bufo woodhousii Woodhouse’s toad GCN GCN

Pseudacris maculata boreal chorus frog

SALAMANDERS

Ambystoma tigrinum tiger salamander GCN

1

Federally listed under the Endangered Species Act as an “endangered” or “threatened” species; a species that is a “candidate” for listing 

as endangered or threatened; a “recovered” species that is no longer listed; or a species not listed but recognized as a “species of concern.”

2

Listed as a States species of “Greatest Conservation Need” (GCN): “tier I” species (highest priority), “tier II” species (moderate priority), 

or a “tier III” species (lowest priority).

Fishes

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

SALMONIDS

Oncorhynchus nerka sockeye salmon (kokanee)

Oncorhynchus clarkii utah Bonneville cutthroat trout GCN tier I GCN

Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout
142 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Fishes

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

Salmo trutta brown trout

Salvelinus namaycush lake trout

Salvelinus fontinalis brook trout

Prosopium gemmifer Bonneville cisco GCN tier II

Prosopium spilonotus Bonneville whitefish GCN tier II

Prosopium abyssicola Bear Lake whitefish GCN tier II

Prosopium williamsoni mountain whitefish GCN

Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling CGN

MINNOWS

Cyprinus carpio common carp

Carassius auratus goldfish

Gila atraria Utah chub tier III

Gila copei northern leatherside chub tier II GCN

Richardsonius balteatus redside shiner tier III

Iotichthys phlegethontis least chub candidate tier I

Rhinichthys osculus speckled dace tier III

Rhinichthys cataractae longnose dace tier III

Pimephales promelas fathead minnow

Cyprinella lutrensis red shiner

SUCKERS

Catostomus ardens Utah sucker tier III

Catostomus latipinnis flannelmouth sucker tier I GCN

Catostomus platyrhynchus mountain sucker GCN

Catostomus discobolus bluehead sucker GCN tier I GCN

Catostomus commersonii white sucker

CATFISH

Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish

Ameiurus melas black bullhead

LIVEBEARERS

Gambusia affinis western mosquitofish

SUNFISH

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass

Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill

Archoplites interruptus Sacramento perch

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie

PERCH

Perca flavescens yellow perch
Appendix B—Representative Plant and Animal Species 143

Fishes

Scientific name Common name Status or designation

Federal1 Idaho2 Utah2 Wyoming2

SCULPINS

Cottus bairdii mottled sculpin GCN

Cottus extensus Bear Lake sculpin GCN tier II

Cottus beldingii Paiute sculpin tier III GCN

1

Federally listed under the Endangered Species Act as an “endangered” or “threatened” species; a species that is a “candidate” for listing 

as endangered or threatened; a “recovered” species that is no longer listed; or a species not listed but recognized as a “species of concern.”

2

Listed as a States species of “Greatest Conservation Need” (GCN): “tier I” species (highest priority), “tier II” species (moderate priority), 

or a “tier III” species (lowest priority).

Bibliography

Aldridge, C.L.; Boyce, M.S. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: a habitat-based 

approach for greater sage-grouse. Ecological 

Applications 17:508–26.

Aldridge, C.L.; Nielsen, S.E.; Beyer, H.L.; [and 

others]. 2008. Range-wide patterns of greater 

sage-grouse persistence. Density and Distributions 14:983–94.

American Farmland Trust. 2000. Strategic ranchland in the Rocky Mountain west—mapping the 

threats to prime ranchland in seven western 

States. Washington, DC: American Farmland 

Trust. In: Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, 

W.; Koontz, L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues for the 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area 

Protection Plan: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2012–1039. 15 p. <www.farmland.org/

resources/rockymtn/default.asp> accessed September 5, 2011.

———. 2001. Cost of community service studies. 

Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust. In: 

Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, 

L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection 

Plan. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2012–1039. 15 p.

Baker, Jr., M.B.; Folliott, P.F.; DeBano, L.F.; Neary, 

D.G. 2004. Riparian areas of the Southwestern 

United States. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 408 p.

Ball, I.R.; Possingham, H.P.; and M. Watts. 2009. 

Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Moilanen, A.; Wilson, 

K. A.; and Possingham, H.P.; editors. Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and 

computational tools. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10 p. (chapter 14, 185–95).

Barnett, T.P.; Pierce, D.W.; Hidalgo, H.G.; [and 

others]. 2008. Human-induced changes in the 

hydrology of the Western United States. Science 

319:180–1083.

Batchelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, 

R.J. 2001. Climate change effects on vegetation 

distribution and carbon budget in the United 

States. Ecosystems 4:164–85.

Bates, W.; Jones, A. 2007. Least-cost corridor analysis for evaluation of lynx habitat connectivity 

in the Middle Rockies. <wildutahproject.org

/files/images/Final%20Report.doc> [access date 

unknown].

Becker, J.M.; Duberstein, C.A.; Tagestad, J.D.; 

Downs, J.L. 2009. Sage-grouse and wind energy: 

biology, habits, and potential effects from development. U.S. Department of Energy Contract 

No. DE–AC05–76RL01830. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind 

& Hydropower Technologies Program. [Pages 

unknown].

Belsky, A.J.; Matzke, A.; Uselman, S. 1999. Survey of 

livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation 54:419–31.

Binns, N.A. 1981. Bonneville cutthroat trout Salmo 

clarki utah in Wyoming. Fisheries Cheyenne, WY: 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Technical 

Bulletin No. 5.

Bradley, B.A. 2009. Regional analysis of the impacts 

of climate change on cheatgrass invasion shows 

potential risk and opportunity. Global Change 

Biology 15:196–208.

Braun, C.E. 2006. Sage-grouse habitat conservation strategies: a blueprint for conservation 

and recovery. Tucson, AZ: Grouse Inc. <www

.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/Braun_Sage_Grouse_Blue

Print.pdf> [access date unknown].

Bridgham, S.D.; Megonigal, J.P.; Keller, J.K.; Bliss, 

N.B.;Trettin, C. 2006. The carbon balance of North 

American wetlands. Wetlands. [Place of publication unknown]: The Society of Wetland Scientists. 

26(4): 889–916.

Carrol, S.S.; Pearson, D.L. 2000. Detecting and 

modeling spatial and temporal dependence in 

conservation biology. Conservation Biology 

14:1893–97.

Chaney, E.; Elmore, W.; Platts, W.S. 1990. Livestock 

grazing on western riparian areas. Eagle, ID: 

Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc., for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 45 p.

Clark, T.W.; Paquet, P.C.; Curlee, A.P. 1996. Introduction to special section: large carnivore 

conservation in the Rocky Mountains of the 

United States and Canada. Conservation Biology 

10:936–39.

Comer, P.J.; Hak, J. 2009. NatureServe Landscape 

Condition Model. Internal documentation for 
146 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

NatureServe Vista decision support software 

engineering. Boulder, CO: NatureServe. [Pages 

unknown].

Connelly, J.W.; Braun, C.E. 1997. Long-term changes 

in sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology 

3(4):123–28.

Connelly, J.W.; Browers, H.W.; Gates, R.J. 1988. Seasonal movements of sage grouse in southeastern 

Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:116–22.

Connelly, J.W.; Knick, S.T.; Schroeder, M.A.; Stiver, 

S.J. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished 

report. On file at Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. [Pages 

unknown].

Connelly, J.W.; Schroeder, M.A.; Sands, A.R.; Braun, 

C.E. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse 

population and their habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967–85. <http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov

/Docs/Sage_Grouse_Guidelines.PDF> [access date 

unknown].

Conner, R.; Seidl, A.; VanTassell, L.; Wilkins, N. 2001. 

United States grasslands and related resources: 

and economic and biological trends assessment. 

<http://twri.tamu.edu/media/256592/unitedstates

grasslands.pdf> [access date unknown].

Copeland, H.E.; Doherty, K.E.; Naugle, D.E.; Pocewicz, A.; Kiesecker, J.M. 2009. Mapping oil and gas 

development potential in the US Intermountain 

West and estimating impacts to species. Public 

Library of Science One 4:1–7.

Copeland, H.E.; Tessman, S.A.; Girvetz, E.H.; [and 

others]. 2010. A geospatial assessment on the 

distribution, condition, and vulnerability of Wyoming’s wetlands. Ecological Indicators 10:869–79.

Copeland, H.E.; Ward, J.M.; Kiesecker, J., 2007. 

Assessing tradeoffs in biodiversity, vulnerability and cost when prioritizing conservation sites. 

Journal of Conservation Planning (3):1–16.

Coupal, R.; Tayor, D.T.; McLeod, D. 2002. The cost of 

community services for rural residential development in Wyoming. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Open 

Spaces. 4 p. In: Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; and Koontz, L. 2012. Socioeconomic 

issues for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection Plan: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2012–1039. 15 p.

Crawford, J.A.; Olson, R.A.; West, N.E.; [and others]. 

2004. Synthesis paper—ecology and management 

of sagegrouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of 

Range Management 57: 2–19.

Crompton, J. 2001. The impact of parks on property 

values—a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Leisure Research 33(1):1–31.

D’Antonio, C.M.; Vitousek, P.M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and 

global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63–87.

Dark-Smiley, D.; Keinath, D.A. 2003. Species assessment for white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) in 

Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.

Davies, K.W.; Boyd, C.S.; Beck, J.B.; [and others]. 

2011. Saving the sagebrush sea: an ecosystem 

conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological Conservation 144:2573–84.

Degiorgio, J.; McCarthy, P.; Cross, M.S.; [and 

others]. 2010. Bear River Climate Change Adaptation Workshop Summary. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Southwest Climate Change Initiative. 

[Pages unknown].

DeKnijf, A. 2011. Preliminary plant species list for 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montpelier, 

Idaho. In: Dickerson, K.K.; Hubert, W.A.; Bergman, H.L. 1996. Toxicity assessment of water 

from lakes and wetlands receiving irrigation drain 

water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

15(7):1097–101.

Denton, C. 2007. Bear River: last chance to change 

course. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. 

[Pages unknown].

DeVol, R.C.; Bedroussian, A; Klowden, K. 2011. 

Best performing cities 2011. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Milken Institute. [Pages unknown].

Dickerson, K.K.; Hubert, W.A.; Bergman, H.L. 

1996. Toxicity assessment of water from lakes 

and wetlands receiving irrigation drain water. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

15(7):1097– 101.

Dion, N.P. 1969. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the 

Bear River basin in southeastern Idaho. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Idaho Department of Water 

Resources. Water Information Bulletin 13. 66 p.

Dobler, F.C.; Elby, J.; Perry C.; [and others]. 1996. 

Status of Washington’s shrub–steppe ecosystem: 

extent, ownership and wildlife/vegetation relationships. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program. 

[Pages unknown].

Dobson, A.; Ralls, K.; Foster, M. 1999. Connectivity: maintaining flows in fragmented landscapes. 

In: Soulé, M. E.; Terborgh, J.; editors. Continental conservation—scientific foundations of regional 

reserve networks. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

129–70.

Dodds,W.K.; Wilson, K.C.; Rehmeier, R.L.; [and 

others]. 2008. Benefits of ecosystem goods and services associated with restored lands compared to 

native lands. BioScience 58(9):837–45.

Doherty, K.E.; Naugle, D.E.; Walker, B.L.; Graham, 

J.M. 2008. Greater sage-grouse winter habitat 

selection and energy development. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 72:187–95.
Bibliography 147

Doherty, K.E.; Tack, J.D.; Evans, J.S.; Naugle, D.E. 

2010. Breeding densities of greater sage-grouse: 

a tool for range-wide conservation planning 

[Bureau of Land Management completion report]. 

Agreement No. L10PG00911. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages 

unknown].

Downard, R. 2010. Keeping wetlands wet: the human 

hydrology of wetlands in the Bear River basin 

[master’s thesis]. Logan, UT: Utah State University. [Pages unknown]. <http://digitalcommons.usu

.edu/etd/829> [access date unknown].

Ehrlich, P.R. 1986. The loss of diversity. In: Wilson, E.O.; editor. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 21–27.

Ewing, K.L. 1978. Riparian ecosystems: conservation 

of their unique characteristics. In: Johnson, R.R.; 

McCormack, J.F.; editors. Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and 

other riparian ecosystems. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report WO–12. [Pages unknown].

Field, C.B.; Lobell, D.B.; Peters, H.A.; Chiariello, 

N.R. 2007. Feedbacks of terrestrial ecosystems to 

climate change. Annual Review of Environment 

and Resources 32:1–29.

Foster-Willfong, J.M. 2003. Census methodology 

and habitat use of long-billed curlews (Numenius 

americanus) in Saskatchewan. [master’s thesis] 

Regina, SK, Canada: University of Regina. [Pages 

unknown].

Friedman, J.M.; Scott, M.L.; Auble, G.T. 1997. Water 

management and cottonwood forest dynamics 

along prairie streams. In: Knopf, F.L.; Samson, 

F.B.; editors. Ecology and conservation of Great 

Plains vertebrates. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

49–71.

Gammonley, J.H. 2004. Wildlife of natural palustrine 

wetlands. In: McKinstry, M.C.; Hubert, W.A.; 

Anderson, S.H.; editors. Wetland and riparian 

areas of the Intermountain West. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 130–54.

Geoghegan, J.; Lynch, L.; 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 32(1): 33–45. In: 

Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, 

L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection 

Plan. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2012–1039. 15 p.

Giesen, K.M.; Connelly, J.W. 1993. Guidelines for 

management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21(3):325–33.

Gregory, S.V.; Swanson, F.J.; McKee, W.A.; Cummins, 

K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian 

zones: Focus on links between land and water. Bioscience 41(8):540–49.

Gude, P.H.; Hansen, A.J.; Jones, D.A. 2007. Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land 

use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone. Ecological 

Applications 17:1004–18.

Haak, A.; Williams, J.; Colyer, W. 2011. Developing a 

diverse conservation portfolio for Bonneville cutthroat trout. [Place of publication unknown]:Trout 

Unlimited. [Pages unknown]. <http://tucsi.tu.org

/Documents/Portfolios/bct-3r-summary_final.pdf> 

accessed February 9, 2012.

Haddad, N.M. 1999. Corridor use predicted from 

behaviors at habitat boundaries. American Naturalist 153:215–27.

Haddad, N.M.; Baum, K.A. 1999. An experimental 

test of corridor effects on butterfly densities. Ecological Adaptations 9:623–33.

Hagen, C.A.; Jamison, B.E.; Giesen, K.M.; Riley, 

T.Z. 2004. Guidelines for managing lesser prairiechicken populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32(1):69–82.

Hagen, C.A.; Sandercock, B.K.; Pitman, J.C.; 

Roberl, R.J. 2009. Spatial variation in lesser prairie-chicken demography: a sensitivity analysis 

of population dynamics and management alternatives. The Journal of Wildlife Management 

73(8):1325–32.

Hansen, A.J.; Knight, R.L.; Marzluff, J.M.; [and others]. 2005. Effects of exurban development on 

biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research 

needs. Ecological Applications 15:1893–905.

Hanser, S.E.; Knick, S.T. 2011. Greater sage-grouse 

as an umbrella species for shrubland passerine 

birds: a multi-scale assessment. In: Knick, S.T.; 

Connelly, J.W.; editors. Greater sage-grouse ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its 

habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38:473–87.

Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest. Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago Press. [Pages unknown].

Haws, F.W.; Hughes, T.C. 1973. Hydrologic inventory 

of the Bear River study unit. Logan, UT: Utah 

State University, Utah Water Research Laboratory. [Pages unknown].

Headwaters Economics. 2011. Economic profile system–human dimensions toolkit (EPS–HDT). 

[Pages unknown]. <http://headwaterseconomics

.org/tools/eps-hdt> accessed September 5, 2011. 

In: Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, 

L. 2012, Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection 

Plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2012–1039. 15 p.

Higgins, K.F.; Woodward, R.O. 1986. Comparison 

of wetland drainage during and after protection by 20-year easements. Prairie Naturalist 

18(4):229–33.
148 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

Holloran, M.J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural 

gas field development in western Wyoming. [Ph.D. 

dissertation]. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and Physiology. 

[Pages unknown].

Hughes, M.K.; Diaz, H.F. 2008. Climate variability and change in the drylands of Western North 

America. Global and Planetary Change. [Place 

of publication unknown]: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Research, 

Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division. [Pages unknown]. <www.esrl.noaa

.gov/psd/pubs/2008/> [access date unknown].

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 

2011. Idaho GAP analysis. Moscow, ID: University 

of Idaho. <www.wildlife.uidaho.edu/idgap/Report

/Chapter3.pdf> [access date unknown].

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Conservation strategy for southeastern Idaho wetlands 

by Mabel Jankovsky-Jones. Boise, ID: Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data 

Center. [Pages unknown].

———. 2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, Idaho Conservation Data Center. 

[Pages unknown]. <http://fishandgame.idaho.gov

/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm> [access date unknown].

———. 2007. Idaho Transportation Department—

Districts 3, 4, and 5 fish and wildlife linkage 

project GIS layers final report. Missoula, MT: 

Geodata Services, Inc. [Pages unknown]. <http

://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/collision

Report345.pdf> accessed December 14, 2011.

Ilya, M.D.; Maclean, M.M.; Rehfisch, S.D.; Robinson, R.A. 2008. The effects of climate change on 

migratory waterbirds within the African–Eurasian 

flyway: Proceedings, 8th meeting of the technical 

committee, African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement 

United Nations Environment Programme; [Date 

unknown]; [Place of proceedings unknown]. [Place of 

publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages 

unknown].

Ingelfinger, F.; Anderson, S. 2004. Passerine response 

to roads associated with natural gas extraction in 

a sagebrush steppe habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64:385–95.

Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated bird conservation plan, version 1.1. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Pages unknown]. <http://iwjv.org/567/science

.html> [access date unknown].

———. 2010. The ecological value of agriculture managed wetlands for migratory and wetland birds 

within the Bear Watershed. Unpublished report. 

On file at Intermountain West Joint Venture, Missoula, MT. [Pages unknown].

Jibson, W.N. 1991. History of the Bear River Compact. Salt Lake City, UT: Bear River Commission. 

[Pages unknown].

Johnson, A.S. 1989. The thin green line: riparian corridors and endangered species in Arizona and New 

Mexico. In: Mackintosh, G.; editor. In defense of 

wildlife: preserving communities and corridors. 

Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 35–46.

Johnson, G.D.; Boyce, M.S. 1990. Feeding trials with 

insects in the diets of sage grouse chicks. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 54:89–91.

Johnson, R.; McCormack, J.; technical coordinators. 

1978. Strategies for protection and management 

of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service GTR–WO–12. Washington, DC: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Jordan, N.; Boody, G.; Broussard, W.; [and others]. 

2007. Sustainable development of the agricultural 

bio-economy. Science 316:1570–71.

Kaczor, N.W.; Herman-Brunson, K.M.; Jensen, K.C.; 

[and others]. 2011. Resource selection during 

brood-rearing by greater sage-grouse. In: Sandercock, B.K.; Martin, K.; Segelbacher, G.; editors. 

Ecology, conservation, and management of grouse. 

Studies in Avian Biology 39: 169–77.

Kaiser, R.C. 2006. Recruitment by greater sagegrouse in association with natural gas development in western Wyoming. [master’s thesis]. 

Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and Physiology. [Pages unknown].

Kiesecker, J.M. 2002. Synergism between trematode 

infection and pesticide exposure: a link to amphibian limb deformities in nature? Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences 99: 9900−04.

Knick, S.T.; Dobkin, D.S.; Rotenberry, J.T.; [and 

others]. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? 

Conservation and research issues for avifauna of 

sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611–34.

Knick, S.T.; Rotenberry, J.T. 1995. Landscape characteristics of shrubsteppe habitats and breeding 

passerine birds. Conservation Biology 9:1059–71.

Knight, D.H. 1994. Mountains and plains: the ecology of Wyoming landscapes. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press. 338 p.

Knight, R.L.; Wallance, G.N.; Riebsame, W.E. 1995. 

Ranching the view: subdivisions versus agriculture. Conservation Biology 9:459–61.

Knopf, F.L.; Johnson, R.R.; Rich, T.; Samson, F.B.; 

Szaro, R.C. 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 

100:272–84.

Kroger, T. 2008. Open space property value premium analysis. Washington, DC: National Council 

for Science and the Environment, Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program; Washington, DC: 

Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation Economics 
Bibliography 149

Program. In: Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, 

W.; Koontz, L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues for the 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area 

Protection Plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2012–1039. 15 p.

Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology [Washington DC] 

74:1659–73.

Lemly, A.D.; Finger, S.E.; Nelson, M.K. 1993. Sources 

and impacts of irrigation drainwater contaminants 

in arid wetlands. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 12:2265–79.

Lemly, A.D.; Kingsford, R.T.; Thompson, J.R. 2000. 

Irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation: 

conflict on a global scale. Environmental Management 25: 485–512.

Leonard, K.M.; Reese, K.P.; Connelly, J.W. 2000. Distribution, movements and habitats of sage grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus on the upper Snake 

River Plain of Idaho: changes from the 1950s to 

the 1990s. Wildlife Biology (6):265–70.

Lohman, K. 2004. Wildlife use of riverine wetland 

habitats. In: McKinstry, M.C.; Hubert, W.A.; 

Anderson, S.H. Wetland and riparian areas of the 

Intermountain West. Austin, TX: University of 

Texas Press. 319 p. (74–86).

Lovejoy, T.E.; Bierregaard, R.O.; Rylands, A.B.; 

[and others]. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments. In: Soulé, 

M.E.; editor. Conservation biology, the science of 

scarcity and diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 257–85.

Lyon, A.G.; Anderson, S.H. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and 

movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486–91.

MaClean, I.M.D.; Austin, G.E.; Rehfisch, M.M.; 

[and others]. 2008. Climate change causes 

rapid changes in the distribution and site abundance of birds in winter. Global Change Biology 

14: 2489–500.

Maestas, J.D.; Knight, R.L.; Gilgert, W.C. 2003. 

Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 17:1425–34.

Martin, J. W., and B. A. Carlson. 1998. Sage Sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. 

The birds of North America, no. 326. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc. [Pages 

unknown].

Mauk, R.L.; Henderson, J.A. 1984. Coniferous forest 

habitat types of northern Utah. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. General Technical 

Report INT–170. 89 p.

McConnell, V.; Walls, M. 2005. The value of open 

space: evidence from studies of non-market benefits. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 

79 p.

Mech, S.G.; Hallett, J.G. 2001. Evaluating the 

effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. 

Conservation Biology 15:467–74.

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

others]. 1996. Wyoming gap analysis: a geographic 

analysis of biodiversity. Final report. Laramie, 

WY: University of Wyoming, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. [Pages 

unknown].

Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment. 2005. 

Ecosystems and human well-being—synthesis 

report. Washington, DC: Island Press. In: Thomas, 

C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, L. 2012, 

Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection Plan: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–

1039. 15 p.

Milligan, M.R. 2000. Glad you asked [article]. Survey 

Notes 32(1). <http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes

/snt32-1.pdf> [access date unknown].

Montgomery, G.L. 1996. Riparian areas: reservoirs 

of diversity. Working Paper No. 13. Lincoln, 

NE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Northern Plains 

Regional Office. [Pages unknown].

Naiman, R.J.; Beechie, T.J.; Benda, L.E.; [and others]. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically 

healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest 

coastal ecoregion. In: Naiman R.J.; editor. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and 

environmental change. New York: Springer-Verlag. 127–88.

National Audubon Society. 2012. Important Bird 

Areas Program. <http://web4.audubon.org/bird

/iba/> [access date unknown].

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2011. 

Estimates of windy land area and wind energy 

potential by state. <www.windpoweringamerica

.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/wind_potential_80m

_30percent.pdf> [access date unknown].

The Nature Conservancy. 2010. Tri-state Bear River 

CAP. Revised February 22, 2010. <http://conpro

.tnc.org/1561/> accessed September 5, 2011.

Netusil, N.R.; Boyd, E.; Griffen, Z.V.; LaMerrill, 

M.; Rainsberger, E. 2000. Can open space be selffinancing? Choices 15( 2): 21–23. In: Thomas, C.C.; 

Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River Watershed 

Conservation Land Area Protection Plan: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1039. 

15 p.

Nicholoff, S.H.; compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan. Version 2.0. Wyoming Partners 

In Flight. Lander, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department. [Pages unknown].

Niemuth, N.D.; Reynolds, R.E.; Granfors, D.A.; 

[and others]. 2008. Landscape-level planning for 
150 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

conservation of wetland birds in the U.S. prairie 

pothole region. In: Millspaugh, J.J.; Thompson, 

F.R.; editors. Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Elsevier Science. 533–60.

Noss, R.; Wuerthner, G.; Vance-Borland, K.; Carroll, 

C. 2001. A biological conservation assessment for 

the Utah–Wyoming Rocky Mountains ecoregion. 

Corvallis, OR: Conservation Science. Report to 

the Nature Conservancy. [Pages unknown].

Noss, R.F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to 

maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700–06.

Noss, R.F.; Cooperrider, A.Y. 1994. Saving nature’s 

legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. [Pages unknown].

Noss, R.F.; Quigley, H.B.; Hornocker, M.G.; Merrill, 

T.; Paquet, P.C. 1996. Conservation biology and 

carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. 

Conservation Biology 10(4):949–63.

Omhart, R.D. 1994. The effects of human-induced 

changes on the avifauna of western riparian habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 15:273–85.

Omhart, R.D.; Anderson, B.W. 1982. North American 

desert riparian ecosystems. In: Bender, G.L.; editor. References handbook on the deserts of North 

America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 433–79.

Paige, C.; Ritter, S.A. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: 

managing sagebrush for bird communities. Boise, 

ID: Partners in Flight Western Working Group. 

47 p.

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia basin, Oregon. 

Condor 95:957–67.

Parrish, J.R.; Howe, F.P.; Norvell, R.E. 2002. Utah 

Partners in Flight avian conservation strategy 

version 2.0. Publication Number 02–27. Salt Lake 

City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Utah Partners in Flight Program. 302 p.

Parton, W.J.; Gutmann, M.P.; Williams, S.A; Easter, 

M.; Ojima, D. 2005. Ecological impact of historical 

land-use patterns in the Great Plains: a methodological assessment. Ecological Applications 

15:1915–28.

Parton, W.J.; Ojima, D.S.; Schimel, D.S. 1994. Environmental change in grasslands: assessment using 

models. Climatic Change 28:111–41.

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

In: Proceedings, McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N.; Borrie, 

W.T.; O’Loughlin, J. Wilderness science in a time 

of change conference—volume 2—wilderness in 

the context of larger systems; Missoula, MT; 

May 23–27, 1999. RMRS–P–15–VOL–2:258–267: 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. In: 

Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, 

L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection 

Plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2012–1039. 15 p.

Poff, B.; Koestner, K.A.; Neary, D.G.; Henderson, V. 

2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western 

North America: an analysis of existing literature. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47:1241–54.

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T.L.; Renner, R.W.; Newton, 

W.E.; Batt, B.D.J. 2001. Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on duck recruitment in the 

U.S. prairie pothole region. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 65:765–80.

Rissman, A.; Lozier, L.; Comendant, T.; [and others]. 2007. Conservation easements: biodiversity 

protection and private use. Conservation Biology 

21(3), 709–18. In: Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues 

for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land 

Area Protection Plan: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2012–1039. 15 p.

Ritter, S. 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, version 1. Hamilton, MT: Idaho Partners in Flight. 

[Pages unknown].

Robles, M.D.; Enquist, C. 2010. Managing changing 

landscapes in the Southwestern United States. 

Tucson, AZ: The Nature Conservancy. 26 p.

Rood, S.B.; Mahoney, J.M. 1990. Collapse of riparian 

poplar forests downstream from dams in western 

prairies: probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Environmental Management 14:451–64.

Rood, R.; Thatcher, L. Brief history of Utah. <http:

//historytogo.utah.gov/facts/brief_history/index.

html> accessed January 8, 2012.

Rotenberry, J.T.; Wiens, J.A. 1980. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities in North 

American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228–50.

Rowland, M.M.; Wisdom, M.J.; Suring, L.H.; Meinke, 

C.W. 2006. Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella 

species for other sagebrush-associated vertebrates. Biological Conservation 129:323–35.

Royster, W.; Gearino, J. 2006. Squeezed in Star Valley. Casper Star Tribune. October 15: [Section and 

column unknown].

Saalfeld, S.T.; Warren, C.; Conway, W.C.; [and 

others]. 2010. Multiscale habitat selection by longbilled curlews (Numenius americanus) breeding 

in the United States. Waterbirds 33(2):148–61.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2005. The North 

American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966–2004. Version 2005.2. Laurel, MD: U.S. 

Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center. <www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html> 

accessed February 17, 2012.
Bibliography 151

Sawyer, H.; Kauffman, M.J.; Nielson, R.M. 2006. 

Influence of well pad activity on winter habitat 

selection patterns of mule deer. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 73:1052–61.

Schroeder, M.A.; Young, J.R.; Braun, C.E., 1999. 

Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In: 

Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The birds of North 

America, number 425. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The 

American Ornithologists Union. [Pages unknown].

Schwartz, M.K.; Copeland, J.P.; Anderson, N.J.; [and 

others]. 2009. Wolverine gene flow across a narrow 

climatic niche. Ecology 90:3222–32.

Slater, S.J. 2006. Wyoming’s riparian bird communities: issues of scale and human-caused vegetation 

and landscape change. [Ph.D. dissertation]. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of 

Zoology and Physiology. [Pages unknown].

Snyder, W.D.; Miller, G.C. 1992. Changes in riparian vegetation along the Colorado River and Rio 

Grande, Colorado. The Great Basin Naturalist 

52:357–63.

Steele, R.; Cooper, S.V.; Ondov, D.M.; Roberts, D.W.; 

Pfister, R.D. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho—western Wyoming. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. General Technical 

Report INT–144. 122 p.

Svejcar, T. 1997. Riparian zones: what they are and 

how do they work? Rangelands 19(4): 4–7.

Syphard, A.D.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hawbaker, T.J.; 

Stewart, S.I. 2009. Conservation threats due to 

human-caused increases in fire frequency in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems. Conservation 

Biology 23:758–69.

Syphard, A.D.; Radeloff, V.C.; Keeley, J.E.; [and 

others]. 2007. Human influence on California fire 

regimes. Ecological Application 17:1388–402.

Taylor, D.T.; Coupal, R.H. 2000. The cost of rural 

community services in Laramie, Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics. In: Thomas, 

C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, L. 2012. 

Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection Plan: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–

1039. 15 p.

Teuscher, D; Capurso, J. 2007. Management plan 

for conservation of Bonneville cutthroat trout 

in Idaho. [Place of publication unknown]: Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game; U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. [Pages unknown].

Theobald, D.M.; Crooks, K.R.; Norman, J.B. 2011. 

Assessing effects of land use on landscape connectivity: loss and fragmentation of western U.S. 

forests. In: Ecological Applications. Ecological 

Society of America 21: 2445–58.

Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, L. 

2012. Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection 

Plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2012–1039. 15 p.

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

building lots. Land Economics 78:426–41.

Toth, R.E.; Baker, J.B.; Bryner, C.L.; [and others]. 

2005. Alternative futures for the Bear River 

Watershed. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources. Final Project 

Report No. 2005–1. [Pages unknown].

Toth, R.E.; Edwards, T.; Lilieholm, R. 2004. The 

Great Salt Lake region: alternative futures. 

Logan, UT: Utah State University, Department 

of Environment and Society. [Pages unknown]. 

<www.cnr.usu.edu/envs/files/uploads/GSL_report

.pdf> [access date unknown].

Toth, R.E.; Edwards, T.J.; Perschon, A.; White, D. 

2010. The Bear River Watershed: its role in maintaining the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. 

Logan, UT: Utah State University, Department 

of Environment and Society, College of Natural 

Resources. [Pages unknown].

Trout Unlimited. 2010. Bonneville cutthroat trout 

species summary and conservation portfolio. 

<http://tucsi.tu.org/BonnevilleCutthroat_General

.aspx?SpKey=31> [access date unknown].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and County QuickFacts. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index

.html> [access date unknown].

———. 2011. American FactFinder. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Pages unknown]. <http:

//factfinder2.census.gov/main.html> accessed 

November 14, 2011.

(USDA Farm Service Agency) U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. 2007. Conservation reserve program: summary and enrollment 

statistics. <www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File

/annual_consv_2007.pdf> [access date unknown].

(USDA NRCS) U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010a. 

Easements, acres and dollars. <www.nrcs.usda

.gov/programs/frpp/2010_easements/acres-anddollars.html> [access date unknown].

———. 2010b. Easements: protecting and enhancing our natural resources. <www.nrcs.usda.gov

/programs/wrp/2010_contracts/contracts-and

-dollars.html> [access date unknown].

(USDA Forest Service) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Wasatch–Cache, 

Ashley, and Uinta National Forests lynx analysis. 

<www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS

/stelprdb5076927.pdf> [access date unknown].

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A 

system for mapping riparian areas in the Western 
152 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming

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

———. 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

draft recovery plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

———. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants; 990-day finding on a petition to list 

the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as threatened 

or endangered. Federal Register 71(224):[Pages 

unknown].

———. 2008a. 2006 national survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife—associated recreation. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and U.S. Census Bureau. 164 p.

———. 2008b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to 

list the Bonneville cutthroat trout as threatened 

or endangered. Federal Register 73(175):[Pages 

unknown].

———. 2010a. Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list 

the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal 

Register [Volume and number unknown]:[Pages 

unknown].

———. 2010b. Refuge profiles. <www.fws.gov

/bearriver/history.html> [access date unknown].

———. 2010c. Rising to the urgent challenge—strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Unpublished report. On file at U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 36 p. <www

.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan

.pdf> [access date unknown].

———. 2011a. Bear Lake and Thomas Fork Unit 

National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough 

Waterfowl Production Area: cultural resources 

review for comprehensive conservation planning. 

Sherwood, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 1. [Pages unknown].

———. 2011b. Draft land-based wind energy 

guidelines, September 13, 2011. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages 

unknown]. <www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG

September132011.pdf> [access date unknown].

———. 2011c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to 

list northern leatherside chub as endangered or 

threatened. Federal Register 76(197): [Pages 

unknown].

———. 2011d. Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list 

the northern leopard frog in the Western United 

States as threatened. Federal Register 76(193): 

[Pages unknown].

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. Public rangelands: some riparian areas restored, 

but widespread improvements will be slow. 

Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 

GAO/RCED–88–105. [Pages unknown].

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Southwest Regional 

Gap Analysis Project. <http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu

.edu/swregap/> accessed February 8, 2012.

Utah Center for Climate and Weather. 2012. [Utah’s 

climate]. <http://utahweather.org> accessed 

December 15, 2011.

Utah Division of Water Resources. 2002. Bear River 

basin planning for the future. Utah State Water 

Plan public review draft. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah 

Division of Water Resources. 107 p. <www.water

.utah.gov/planning/swp/bear/all.pdf> [access date 

unknown].

———. 2004. Bear River basin: planning for the 

future. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Water 

Resources. [Pages unknown].

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2005a. Blackfooted ferret. <http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2

/Search/Display.asp?FlNm=mustnigr> [access 

date unknown].

———. 2005b. Utah comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS). Salt Lake City, 

UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. [Pages 

unknown].

———. 2011. Utah’s watershed restoration initiative. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 West 

North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah. Salt Lake 

City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2 

p. <http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/fact_sheets/watershed_restoration.pdf> [access date unknown].

Utah Geological Survey. [No date]. Great Salt Lake, 

Lake Bonneville and Bear Lake. <http://geology

.utah.gov/utahgeo/gsl/index.htm> [access date 

unknown].

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. 2008. 

2008 Utah baseline—current conditions, trends, 

and projections. Salt Lake City, UT: Governor’s 

Office of Planning and Budget, Envision Utah, 

Utah Quality Growth Commission. In: Thomas, 

C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, L. 2012. 

Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection Plan: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–

1039. 15 p.

Utah State University Extension. 2006. Journey 

through the Bear River Watershed—Project 

Wet International Foundation. Logan, UT: Utah 

State University Cooperative Extension. [Pages 

unknown]. In: Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, 

W.; Koontz, L. 2012. Socioeconomic issues for the 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area 

Protection Plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2012–1039. 15 p.

Utah Water Research Laboratory. 2011. The Bear 

River Watershed information system. <www.bear

riverinfo.org> [access date unknown].
Bibliography 153

Vander Haegen, W.M;. Dobler, F.C.; Pierce. D. J.2000. 

Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and landscape variables in eastern Washington, U.S.A. 

Conservation Biology 14:1145–160.

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

phosphate mining resource area. Proceedings: The 

Rocky Mountain (56th annual) and Cordilleran 

(100th annual) joint meeting; Boise, ID; May 3–5, 

2004. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. 

<http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram

/abstract_71959.htm> accessed September 5, 2011.

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

American Journal of Economics and Sociology 

37(2):165–77.

Weiher, E.; Keddy, P.A. 1999. Relative abundance and 

evenness patterns along diversity and biomass 

gradients. Oikos 87:355–61.

Welsh, S.L.; Atwood, N.D.; Goodrich, S.; Higgins, 

L.C. 2003. A Utah flora. Third edition, revised. 

[Ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms]. Provo, UT: 

Brigham Young University. 912 p.

Wernick, B.G.; Cook, K.E.; Schreiber, H. 1998. Land 

use and stream water nitrate-N dynamics in an 

urban–rural fringe watershed. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 34:639–50.

West, N.E. 1988. Intermountain deserts, shrub 

steppes, and woodlands. In: Barbour, M.G.; Billings, W.D. North American terrestrial vegetation. 

First edition. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 209–64.

White, D. 2011. Great Salt Lake watershed: its role in 

maintaining the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake. 

<www.cnr.usu.edu/quinney/htm/collections/theses

-dissertations/publication=13328> [access date 

unknown].

Wiens, J.A.; Rotenberry, J.T. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in 

shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21–41.

Windell, J.T.; Willard B.E.; Cooper D.J.; [and others]. 1986. An ecological characterization of Rocky 

Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center. Biological Report 86(11):1–298.

Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation 

resources in riparian areas. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. General Technical 

Report RMRSGTR–47. 49 p.

Wisdom, M.J.; Rowland, M.M.; Suring, L.H.; editors. 

2005. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: 

methods of regional assessment an application in 

the Great Basin. Alliance Communications Group, 

Lawrence, Kansas.

World Resources Institute. Pilot analysis of global 

ecosystems: Grassland ecosystems <www.wri.org

/publication/content/8272> [access date unknown].

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2005. A comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for 

Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department. [Pages unknown]. <http://

gf.state.wy.us/SWAP2010/Plan/index.asp> [access 

date unknown].

———. 2010. A comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy for Wyoming. Wyoming State Wildlife 

Action Plan. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department. [Pages unknown]. <http://wgfd

.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SWAP

_2010_FULL_OCT0003090.pdf> [access date 

unknown].

Youngblood, A.P.; Padgett, W.G.; Winward, A.H. 

1985. Riparian community type classification of 

eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. R4–Ecol–85–01. 78 p.