Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge

Oxford Slough

Waterfowl Production Area

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Volume 1
Our Vision for the Future

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, nestled in the Bear Lake Valley of southeastern Idaho, continues 

to be a paradise for wildlife. Native peoples, explorers, farmers, and ranchers were drawn to the valley’s 

plentiful natural resources: wildlife, land, and water. Today and tomorrow, visitors and residents alike 

enjoy a beautiful landscape that supports the modern-day dichotomies of small towns and rugged 

wilderness, farm fields and natural meadows, diversion canals and marshes, livestock and wildlife.

An integral part of this landscape, the future of the Refuge depends on the carefully managed waters 

of the Bear River and Bear Lake flowing through a system of man-made structures and providing 

sustenance for humans and wildlife. Visitors to the Refuge will always hear the laughter of coots and 

the trilling of marsh wrens, the soft wind through the grass before the ducks arrive and the crack of 

expanding ice that follows the exodus of geese.

People will see trumpeter swans escorting their broods through the emerald-green marsh and feel 

gratified that mule deer, moose, badger, beaver, trout, garter snakes, and leopard frogs will have homes 

for a long time to come here at Bear Lake NWR.

Thomas Fork Unit

The Thomas Fork Unit of Bear Lake NWR is located in the bucolic Thomas Fork Valley at the border 

of Wyoming and Idaho. This lovely valley, bordered by the Preuss and Sublette Ranges, harkens back to 

the days of rugged pioneers traveling the Oregon Trail, attempting to ford the Thomas Fork Creek, and 

trading goods and services with the Native Americans. Hay and willows, cranes and herons, chub and 

trout, cattle and pronghorn will ever be a part of this diverse panorama.

People who love the scenic beauty of the Thomas Fork Valley will continue to work together to improve 

the quality of the creek and its surrounding lands. Healthy waters and lands will always be the backbone 

of sustainable agriculture and ranching as well as key for providing food and home for wildlife. As part of 

the larger Bear River Watershed, the vigor of the Thomas Fork Unit will remain integral to the overall 

quality of the landscape.

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area is situated in a lush valley surrounded by the Caribou 

National Forest with Oxford Peak and the Bannock Range in the background. Oxford Creek is one of the 

many streams that flow into the valley to create the Oxford Slough, which acts as a natural catchment 

for runoff from the adjacent mountain ranges.

Oxford Slough will persist as a small but important part of the Bear River Watershed, providing water 

and well-being to wildlife and humans. Franklin’s gulls, sage-grouse, coyotes, and cattle continue to 

co-exist in this peaceful valley drenched in morning mist. Ducks and white-faced ibis decorate the skies 

on their feeding flights between the marsh and wet meadows. Land managers and landowners will 

collaborate for years to come to provide optimal water quality and quantity, understanding that what’s 

good for the critters is usually good for people too.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, 

and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans 

detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily 

for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing 

increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

This page intentionally left blank.
Finding of No Significant Impact iii 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

for the 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Bear Lake, Franklin, and Bannock Counties, Idaho 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) 

and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA). The CCP will guide management of the 

Refuge and WPA for 15 years. The CCP/EA describes our proposals for managing the Refuge and 

WPA, their effects on the human environment under three alternatives, including the no action 

alternative. 

Decision 

Based on our comprehensive review and analysis in the CCP/EA, we selected Alternative 3, the 

agency’s Preferred Alternative, for implementation, because it will guide management of the Refuge 

and WPA in a manner that: 

 Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the purposes, vision, and 

goals of the Refuge and WPA. 

 Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and populations of the Refuge 

and WPA. 

 Addresses the important issues identified during the CCP scoping process. 

 Addresses the legal mandates of the Service, the Refuge, and the WPA. 

 Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound wildlife management and endangered 

species recovery. 

 Facilitates priority public uses appropriate and compatible with the purposes of the Refuge 

and WPA, and the Refuge System mission. 

Summary of the Actions to be Implemented 

Management of the Refuge and WPA under the selected alternative (Alternative 3) will protect, 

maintain, and enhance habitat for priority species and resources of concern, and protect cultural and 

paleontological resources. The availability and quality of wildlife dependent recreation on the Refuge 

and WPA will increase over time under the selected alternative. Implementation of the CCP is subject 

to the availability of funding and any additional compliance requirements. 

Under Alternative 3, the Service and partners will: 

 Manage Bear Lake NWR to continue to provide habitat for waterfowl breeding and fall 

migration, but use water level manipulations and other strategies to provide a variety of 

wetland habitats that benefit a wide range of priority species. Water in the individual wetland 

units of Bear Lake NWR would be managed to simulate natural hydrologic variability 
iv Finding of No Significant Impact 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(normal, drought, and flood conditions), while providing a consistent annual acreage of 

wetland habitat types across the Refuge. 

 Work with PacifiCorp (which owns and manages the water control systems that divert the 

Bear River through the Refuge into Bear Lake and then release water through the Outlet 

Canal) to manage water levels on the Refuge for wildlife and habitat while abiding by the 

stipulations of the Bear River Compact and the 1968 Agreement between PacifiCorp and the 

Service. 

 Protect, restore, and enhance deep marsh, shallow marsh, riparian, instream, and upland 

habitats of Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA. 

 Over the 15-year lifespan of the CCP, gradually reduce haying of wet meadow and grassland 

habitat at Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA by 44%, from 3,554 acres (current) to 

1,492 acres, to provide late successional wet meadow habitat for nesting waterfowl and 

waterbirds. 

 Pursue increased reliability of late season water at Oxford Slough WPA. 

 Work in partnership with PacifiCorp and other stakeholders to study and consult on the 

effects, desirability, and feasibility of reducing sediment loading in the Mud Lake Complex 

of Bear Lake NWR. 

 Analyze feasibility of, and make recommendations on techniques to exclude carp and nonnative game fish within the Mud Lake Complex of Bear Lake NWR. 

 Work in partnership with PacifiCorp and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to study 

and consult on the effects of fish passage at irrigation diversions and water control structures 

within the Refuge. 

 Manage water at the Thomas Fork Unit to simulate natural hydrologic variability (normal, 

drought, and flood conditions). 

 Restore stream habitat on the Thomas Fork Unit for spawning Bonneville cutthroat trout. 

 Manage invasive species and State- and county-listed noxious weeds. 

 Survey and protect paleontological and cultural resources. 

 Increase inventory and monitoring efforts. 

 Provide for additional public use opportunities, including wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, interpretation and fishing. Current hunting programs on the Refuge 

and WPA would continue, with enhancements to improve access. 

 Develop a plan for a Refuge office and visitor contact point on or near Bear Lake NWR. 

 Increase outreach to local residents, school children, and tourists. 

Public Involvement and Changes Made to the Selected Alternative Based on 

Comments 

We provided a variety of opportunities for the public to be involved in the development and review 

of the CCP. This included an open house meeting at the start of the planning process, meetings with 

adjacent landowners, three planning updates, and a 30-day public comment period for the Draft 

CCP/EA, which was extended to provide additional opportunities for comment. The details of our 

public involvement program are described in the CCP, Appendix L. The Service received a total of 14 

comments (13 letters and 1 verbal comment) during the public comment period. Based on the public 

comments we received, the CCP has been slightly modified. These changes are: 

 In the summary of alternatives (page 2-28) and on page 2-58, the strategy under Alternatives 

2 and 3 “In partnership with PacifiCorp, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and other 

vi Finding of No Significant Impact 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Supporting References 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 2012. Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford 

Slough Waterfowl Production Area, Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough 

Waterfowl Production Area Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table of Contents i 

VOLUME 1 

CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Purpose and Need for the CCP ............................................................................................... 1-5

1.4 Content and Scope of the CCP ............................................................................................... 1-6

1.5 Refuge Planning and Management Guidance ........................................................................ 1-7

1.6 Establishment and Purposes of the Refuge and WPA .......................................................... 1-13

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals ................................................................... 1-23

1.8 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .................................................................................... 1-35

1.9 Refuge Vision ....................................................................................................................... 1-38

1.10 Refuge and WPA Goals ....................................................................................................... 1-40

1.11 Planning Process .................................................................................................................. 1-40

Chapter 2. Management Direction ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Management Directions Considered but Not Developed ....................................................... 2-1

2.3 Description of Management Direction ................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ......................................................................................... 2-28

Chapter 3. Physical Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 3-15

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry ................................................................................................ 3-37

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology .............................................................................................. 3-38

3.5 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 3-45

3.6 Fire ....................................................................................................................................... 3-48

3.7 Environmental Contaminants ............................................................................................... 3-51

3.8 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-53

3.9 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-53

3.10 Visual Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3-60

3.11 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 3-61

Chapter 4. Biological Environment ................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ................................................... 4-1

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern ......................................................................... 4-28

4.3 Habitat Types ....................................................................................................................... 4-32

4.4 Major Species Groups .......................................................................................................... 4-48

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .................................................................. 4-63

4.6 Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species ............................................................................... 4-64

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory and Monitoring .................................................. 4-72
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ii Table of Contents 

Chapter 5. Human Environment ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Refuge Facilities ................................................................................................................... 5-21

5.3 Public Use Overview ............................................................................................................ 5-25

5.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation ............................................................................................. 5-28

5.5 Non-wildlife-dependent Recreation ..................................................................................... 5-38

5.6 Illegal Uses ........................................................................................................................... 5-38

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ......................................................... 5-39

5.8 Social/Economic Environment ............................................................................................. 5-45

Maps 

Map 1. Bear River Watershed, Land Ownership and Status .............................................................. 1-3

Map 2. Land Status, Bear Lake NWR .............................................................................................. 1-17

Map 3. Land Status, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA ................................................. 1-21

Map 4. Bear Lake NWR, Habitat Types, Current with Comparison to CCP Management 

Direction ........................................................................................................................................... 2-13

Map 5. Oxford Slough WPA and Thomas Fork Unit, Current Habitat Types with Comparison 

to CCP Management Direction ......................................................................................................... 2-15

Map 6. Bear Lake NWR, Hay Unit Retirement Plan ........................................................................ 2-17

Map 7. Bear Lake NWR, Public Use Facilities ................................................................................ 2-19

Map 8. Bear Lake NWR, Public Use Facilities ................................................................................ 2-21

Map 9. Hydrology, Bear Lake NWR ................................................................................................ 3-19

Map 10. Hydrology, Oxford Slough WPA and Thomas Fork Unit .................................................. 3-35

Map 11. Distribution of Invasive Plants at Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the 

Oxford Slough WPA. ........................................................................................................................ 4-66

Figures 

Figure 3.1. Bear Lake watershed and historic marsh function. ......................................................... 3-17

Figure 3.2. Utah Power water levels reported at Lifton Pump Station 1915-2005. ......................... 3-21

Figure 3.3. Bunn Lake levee construction, March 2006. .................................................................. 3-32

Figure 3.4. Panoramic aerial view of Bear Lake, looking to the northwest. ..................................... 3-39

Figure 3.5. The Cache Valley of Utah-Idaho looking north. Oxford Peak, the Twin Lake 

Reservoir and Oxford Slough are visible in the left center of the view. The Bear River Range 

and Bear Lake are to the west. .......................................................................................................... 3-41

Figure 3.6. Phosphorus concentrations for Bear Lake 2003-2004. ................................................... 3-55

Figure 3.7. Nitrogen concentrations for Bear Lake 2003-2004. ....................................................... 3-56

Figure 3.8. Distribution of total phosphorus loads by month and excess total phosphorus for all 

inflows into Bear Lake. ..................................................................................................................... 3-57

Figure 4.1. Duck use at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-1987. ..................................................................... 4-50

Figure 4.2. Goose use at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-1987. .................................................................... 4-51

Figure 4.3. Swan use at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-1987. ..................................................................... 4-51

Figure 4.4. Diving duck production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. .............................................. 4-53

Figure 4.5. Dabbling duck production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. .......................................... 4-53
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table of Contents iii 

Figure 4.6. Canada goose production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. ........................................... 4-54

Figure 4.7. Total waterfowl production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. ........................................ 4-54

Figure 5.1. Rich Cabin (Bear Lake NWR). ....................................................................................... 5-19

Figure 5.2. Annual number of hunters using the Bear Lake Refuge, 1969-2009. ............................ 5-29

Figure 5.3. Annual number of hunter visits to Bear Lake Refuge, 1969-2009. ................................ 5-30

Figure 5.4. Annual harvest of birds per hunter at Bear Lake NWR, 1969-2009. ............................. 5-30

Figure 5.5. Annual number of birds harvested at Bear Lake Refuge, 1969-2009. ........................... 5-31

Figure 5.6. Composition of ducks and geese harvested at the Refuge, 1969-2009. ......................... 5-32

Tables 

Table 1.1. Bear Lake NWR Established through Public Land Orders.............................................. 1-19

Table 1.2. Bear Lake NWR Managed Lands through Easements/Agreements ................................ 1-19

Table 1.3. Bear Lake NWR Acquired Lands through Fee Title Purchase ........................................ 1-19

Table 1.4. Thomas Fork Unit ............................................................................................................ 1-23

Table 1.5. Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area .................................................................... 1-23

Table 2.1. Summary of Future Management .................................................................................... 2-23

Table 3.1. Summary of Projected Climate Changes in the Rocky Mountains and Upper 

Columbia Basin (based on McWethy et al. in press). ....................................................................... 3-10

Table 3.2. Fuel Model Composition Bear Lake NWR ..................................................................... 3-50

Table 3.3. Fuel Model Composition for Oxford Slough WPA ......................................................... 3-51

Table 3.4. Water quality data for Bear Lake in years 1993 and 1995 as determined in Utah’s 

Lakes and Reservoirs Classification and Inventory (Judd 1997). ..................................................... 3-55

Table 3.5. Average (1975-1998) Water quality data for selected parameters at the Bear Lake 

Causeway and Lifton Pumping Station (Ecosystems Research Institute 2005). .............................. 3-58

Table 3.6. Visibility and PM Particulates (from Story et al. 2005) .................................................. 3-60

Table 4.1. Priority Resources of Concern for Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the 

Thomas Fork Unit. ............................................................................................................................ 4-29

Table 4.2. Waterfowl Use Day Estimates for Bear Lake NWR, Idaho from 1968-1987. ................ 4-49

Table 4.3. Annual waterfowl production estimates at Bear Lake NWR, Idaho, 1968-2000. ........... 4-52

Table 4.4. Colonial waterbird colony counts at Bear Lake NWR, 2005 .......................................... 4-56

Table 4.5. Colonial waterbird colony counts at Oxford Slough WPA, 2005 .................................... 4-56

Table 4.6. Colonial waterbird colony counts for Bear Lake NWR, 2006. ........................................ 4-56

Table 4.7. Changes in colony counts at Bear Lake NWR, 2005 to 2006. ......................................... 4-56

Table 4.8. Releases of Biological Control Agents at Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, 

and Thomas Fork Unit ...................................................................................................................... 4-71

Table 5.1. Tribal Affiliations with Lands Now Part of Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough 

WPA .................................................................................................................................................. 5-12

Table 5.2. Recorded Prehistoric Resources ...................................................................................... 5-17

Table 5.3. Historic Resources ........................................................................................................... 5-18

Table 5.4. Cultural Resource Surveys on the Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and 

Thomas Fork Unit (by year) ............................................................................................................. 5-20

Table 5.5. Number of Bear Lake NWR Recreation Visitors (2010) ................................................. 5-26

Table 5.6. Participation Rates for Selected Outdoor Recreational Activities in Idaho and 

Region 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 5-41

Table 5.7. Participation in Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities in Idaho, 2006 ................... 5-42
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

iv Table of Contents 

Table 5.8. Participation Projections for Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities in the Rocky 

Mountain Region .............................................................................................................................. 5-43

Table 5.9. Idaho SCORTP Statewide Trends in Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities, 2005 ...... 5-43

Table 5.10. Estimated Waterfowl Harvest Numbers from USFWS’s Waterfowl Hunter Survey 

for Idaho, 1988-2006 ........................................................................................................................ 5-44

Table 5.11. Summary of Population and Per Capita Income ............................................................ 5-46

Table 5.12. Selected Demographic and Social Statistics for Idaho .................................................. 5-46

Table 5.13. Selected Demographic and Social Statistics for Utah .................................................... 5-47

Table 5.14. Summary of Employment (in thousands), 2008 ............................................................ 5-48

Table 5.15. Industry Summary for the Study Area (thousands) ....................................................... 5-49

Table 5.16. Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2009 $,000) .............................................................. 5-50

Table 5.17. Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2009 $,000) .................... 5-51

Table 5.18. Local Economic Effects Associated with 2010 Refuge Budget (2009 $,000) ............... 5-51

Appendices 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations ............................................................................. A-1

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................. B-1

VOLUME 2 

CONTENTS 

Appendices 

Appendix C. Implementation ....................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D. Wilderness Review .................................................................................................. D-1

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities ........................................................... E-1

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan ........................................................................... F-1

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan ............................................................................................ G-1

Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan ...................................................................... H-1

Appendix I. Glossary .................................................................................................................... I-1

Appendix J. Statement of Compliance ......................................................................................... J-1

Appendix K. CCP Team Members ............................................................................................... K-1

Appendix L. Public Involvement ................................................................................................. L-1

Appendix M. Refuge Decrees and Agreements ........................................................................... M-1

Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets ................................................................................................ N-1

Appendix O. References ............................................................................................................... O-1

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses ............................................................... P-1
Chapter 1

Introduction

and Background

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementDirection

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

Forster’s tern/© Bill Bouton

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

The Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex consists of four national wildlife refuges: 

Grays Lake, Bear Lake, Camas, and Minidoka, and the Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area. 

This CCP applies only to Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) and Oxford Slough 

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA). The Grays Lake, Camas, and Minidoka CCPs will occur under 

separate planning efforts. 

1.1.1 Bear Lake NWR 

Bear Lake NWR, which was established in 1968, is located within Bear Lake County, near the 

community of Montpelier, Idaho. The 18,169-acre Refuge lies in Bear Lake Valley at an elevation of 

5,925 feet and occupies a portion of the historic Dingle Swamp along the Bear River and north of 

Bear Lake (Map 1). The Refuge is surrounded by mountains, most notably the 6,800-foot rocky slope 

of Merkley Mountain to the east. Bear Lake NWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) for the protection of Dingle Swamp and to provide resting and feeding habitat for migrating 

waterfowl. The Refuge is composed of a 16,000-acre emergent marsh, 500 acres of wet meadows, 

1,250 acres of uplands, and 5 miles of riparian corridor. Approximately 100 species of migratory 

birds nest at Bear Lake NWR, including large concentrations of colonial waterbirds. Other species of 

non-migratory wildlife use the Refuge throughout the year. Bear Lake NWR has been designated as a 

Globally Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society based on its contributions to colonial 

nesting waterbird habitat. 

Historically the Shoshone, Ute, and Bannock tribes used the Bear Lake Valley as an important 

hunting ground and often camped in the area. The first Euro-American settlers to inhabit the Bear 

Lake Valley were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who arrived in 1864. 

They established farming and ranching operations nourished by the waters of the Bear River. Today 

agriculture, along with tourism, still fuels the local economy; there are a number of small cattle 

ranches and farms that produce barley, alfalfa, and wild hay. 

Water diversion from the Bear River to produce meadow hay likely occurred on a small scale during 

the late 1800s; however, it was in the early 1900s that substantial modification to the river system 

began. In 1911 the Telluride Power Company completed its diversion of water from the Bear River 

into Bear Lake, where a significant portion of flow could be stored for future irrigation needs. This 

single event greatly altered the hydrology and natural processes of the historic Dingle Swamp and 

Mud Lake system. 

The Thomas Fork Unit is located along U.S Hwy 30, 20 miles east of Montpelier, at an elevation of 

6,060 feet. It is a 1,015-acre, rectangular tract of land bordered on its east boundary by the Wyoming 

state line and was transferred from the Farm Services Agency (FSA), Department of Agriculture, to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995. It provides breeding habitat for greater sandhill cranes, 

and high quality stream habitat for Bonneville cutthroat trout. Settlers traveling along the Oregon 

Trail often used the area in and around the Thomas Fork Unit as they attempted to ford the Thomas 

Fork Creek. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1.2 Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Oxford Slough is situated in the Cache Valley and is the drainage for Oxford and Deep Creeks as 

well as other smaller streams that cascade down from the surrounding mountains. The Oxford Slough 

WPA was established in 1985 to preserve an important wetland for waterfowl production. WPA 

lands are purchased with funds generated by the sale of Federal Duck Stamps, and managed by the 

Service to establish and protect waterfowl breeding and nesting habitats. Oxford Slough WPA is one 

of nearly 7,000 WPAs nationwide, and the only WPA in Region 1. The 1,878-acre WPA is located 

10 miles north of Preston, Idaho, abutting the small town of Oxford, where it provides valuable 

foraging habitat for species such as cranes, geese, Franklin’s gulls, and white-faced ibis, and nesting 

habitat not only for waterfowl, but white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gulls, and other waterbirds. Oxford 

Slough WPA has been designated as a Globally Important Bird Area by the National Audubon 

Society based on its contributions to colonial nesting waterbird habitat. 

Native Americans, including the Shoshone, Ute, and Bannock, made use of the Cache Valley for its 

rich natural resources. The town of Oxford was settled in 1864 by members of the Church of Jesus 

Christ of Latter Day Saints and it served as the first seat of Franklin County, Idaho. Not far from 

Oxford, the Battle of Bear River occurred on January 29, 1863, when the United States Army 

attacked Shoshone Indians assembled at the junction of the Bear River and Beaver Creek (now Battle 

Creek). The site of the attack was designated a massacre site in 1990. 
UT M Z O NE 12 N

NA D 8 3

U t a h U t a h

I d a h o I d a h o

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

Afton

Logan

Ogden

Layton

Evanston

Kemmerer

Bountiful

Mountain View

Salt Lake City

West Valley City

B ear L ake N W R Tho m as F ork U nit

O xford S loug h W PA

B e a r R iv e r W a te rs h e d : L a n d O w n e rs h ip a n d S ta tu s

Bear River 

Migratory Bird 

Refuge

Cokeville 

Meadows

NWR

Bear R

vi er

B

e

ar Ri v er

Great Salt 

Lake

Bear 

Lake

Legend

National Wildlife Refuges

State Department of Land

US Forest Service 

Bureau of Land Management

M ap 1.

UT M Z O NE 12 N

NA D 8 3

0 12.5 25 M iles

0 10 20 5

K ilom e ter s

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5 

1.2 Proposed Action 

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, manage the Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and 

Oxford Slough WPA as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We propose to adopt and 

implement this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for these refuge units. This document is the 

Refuge’s CCP for these refuge units. A CCP sets forth management guidance for a refuge for a 

period of 15 years, as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 

U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The Refuge Administration Act requires 

CCPs to identify and describe: 

 The purposes of the refuge unit; 

 The fish, wildlife, and plant populations, their habitats, and the archaeological and cultural 

values found on the refuge unit; 

 Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to 

correct or mitigate those problems; 

 Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities; and 

 Opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) planning policy (Service Manual Part 602, 602 

FW 3, June 21, 2000) states that the purpose of CCPs is to “describe the desired future conditions of 

a refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes; 

help fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore 

the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System;... and meet other mandates.” 

The Service developed and examined alternatives for future management of Bear Lake NWR and 

Oxford Slough WPA through the CCP process. These were presented in the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2012). The various alternatives address 

the major issues and relevant mandates identified during the process and are consistent with the 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management. We evaluated three alternatives for the CCP for 

the Refuge and WPA, and selected Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. 

The draft preferred alternative represents the most balanced approach for achieving the purposes, 

vision, and goals for Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA; contributing to the Refuge System’s 

mission; addressing relevant issues and mandates; and managing the Refuge and WPA consistent 

with the sound principles of fish and wildlife management. The preferred alternative was slightly 

modified between the draft and final documents based upon comments received from the public, 

other agencies, and organizations. The Service’s Regional Director for the Pacific Region made the 

final decision about the alternative to be implemented. For details on the specific components of 

management direction for the Refuge and WPA over the next 15 years, see Chapter 2. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the CCP 

The purpose of the CCP is to provide the Service, the Refuge System, partners, and the public with a 

15-year management plan for improving habitat conditions and infrastructure for fish, wildlife, and 

public use on the Refuge and WPA. An approved CCP will ensure that the Service manages the 

Refuge and WPA to achieve their purposes, vision, goals, and objectives; and help fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

The CCP will provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for the long-term conservation of 

native plants and animals, with emphasis on migratory birds and improving wetland, riparian, and 

upland habitats on the Refuge and WPA. The CCP will identify appropriate actions for protecting 

and sustaining the cultural and biological features of the Refuge and WPA; the migratory waterfowl, 

waterbird, and landbird populations that use the Refuge and WPA; and threatened, endangered, or 

rare species. A final purpose of the CCP is to provide guidance and evaluate the priority public use 

programs on the Refuge and WPA, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these is the need to provide breeding and 

migration habitat for waterfowl and waterbirds in southeast Idaho, including the Bear River and Bear 

Lake Valley and the northern Cache Valley. There is a need to improve habitat conditions on the 

Refuge and WPA, since many habitats are degraded by invasive plants and animals. There is a need 

to address the contributions of the Refuge and WPA to the future persistence of sensitive, rare, and 

declining species of concern native to southeastern Idaho. Finally, there is a need to protect and 

restore habitat values of the Bear River and Bear Lake Valley, the northern Cache Valley, and the 

Thomas Fork of the Bear River. 

There is a need to analyze public use programs on the Refuge and WPA for the Refuge System’s 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses and to determine what improvements or alterations should be 

made in the pursuit of compatible, higher quality programs, and to accommodate increasing numbers 

of visitors while providing for the needs of wildlife. The Refuge and WPA also include 

archaeological and historical sites, and there is a need to address both protection of cultural resources 

and cultural resources education. 

1.4 Content and Scope of the CCP 

This CCP provides guidance for management of Refuge habitats and wildlife and administration of 

public uses on lands and waters of the Refuge and WPA. This CCP is intended to comply with both 

the Refuge System Administration Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The CCP includes the following information: 

 An overall vision for the Refuge and WPA, and their roles in the local ecosystem (Chapter 1). 

 Goals and objectives for specific habitats, research, inventory, monitoring, and public use 

programs, as well as strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2). 

 A description of the physical environment of the Refuge and WPA (Chapter 3). 

 A description of the wildlife species and species groups identified as priority resources of 

concern on the Refuge and WPA and their habitats; their condition and trends on the Refuge 

and WPA and within the local ecosystem; the desired ecological conditions for sustaining 

them, and a short analysis of threats to resources of concern and their habitats (Chapter 4 and 

Appendix E). 

 A description of the human environment of the Refuge and WPA (Chapter 5). 

 Evaluations of existing and proposed public uses for appropriateness and compatibility with 

the purposes of the Refuge and WPA (Appendices A and B). 

 A comprehensive list of plants and vertebrate species known or suspected to occur on the 

Refuge and WPA (Appendix E). 

 An outline of the projects, staff, and facilities needed to meet goals and objectives outlined in 

this CCP (Appendix C). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

1.5 Refuge Planning and Management Guidance 

Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA are managed as part of the Refuge System within a 

framework provided by legal and policy guidelines. This CCP is primarily guided by the provisions 

of the mission and goals of the Refuge System, the purposes of the Refuge and WPA as described in 

their acquisition authorities, Service policy, and Federal laws. The following summaries are provided 

as background for the CCP. 

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Refuge and WPA are managed by the Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior. 

The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the 

Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. 

The mission of the Service is “working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Although we share 

this responsibility with other Federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific 

trust responsibilities for migratory birds, endangered and threatened species, and certain anadromous 

fish and marine mammals. The Service has similar trust responsibilities for the lands and waters we 

administer to support the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

The Service also enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties for importing and exporting 

wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife 

conservation programs. 

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

The Service manages the 150-million-acre Refuge System. The Refuge System is the world’s largest 

network of public lands and waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting 

ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, the Refuge System has grown to encompass more than 550 

national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas, and 

millions of acres of islands and their surrounding marine environments in remote areas of the Pacific 

Ocean. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to other public lands 

that are managed for multiple uses. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals. The mission of the Refuge System is: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended)(16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) 

Wildlife conservation is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The goals of the Refuge 

System, as articulated in the Mission and Goals and Purposes Policy (601 FW 1) are to: 

 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation). 

 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

Law and Policy Pertaining to the Refuge System. Refuges are guided by various Federal laws 

(Acts) and Executive Orders, Service policies, and international treaties. Fundamental to the 

management of every refuge are the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the designated 

purposes of the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other 

documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. WPAs are considered units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System derive from the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (Refuge Administration Act) as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee); the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4); Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations; and the Service Manual. The Refuge Administration Act is implemented through 

regulations covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter C of the Code of Federal 

Regulations and policies contained in the Service Manual. These regulations and policies govern 

general administration of units of the Refuge System. 

Many other laws apply to the Service and management of Refuge System lands. Examples include 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended (see sections 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 below). Brief descriptions of laws pertinent to Bear 

Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA are included in this chapter. A complete list of laws 

pertaining to the Service and the Refuge System can be found at http://laws.fws.gov. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4). The Refuge Recreation Act authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for 

recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It provided for 

public use fees and permits, and penalties for violating regulations. It also authorized the acceptance 

of donated funds and real and personal property to assist in carrying out its purposes. Enforcement 

provisions were amended in 1978 and 1984 to make violations misdemeanors in accordance with the 

uniform sentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Public Law 105-57). Of all the laws governing 

activities on national wildlife refuges, the Refuge Administration Act exerts the greatest influence. 

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

amended the Refuge Administration Act by defining a unifying mission for all refuges, including a 

new process for determining compatible uses on refuges, and requiring that each refuge be managed 

under a comprehensive conservation plan. Key provisions of the Refuge Administration Act follow: 

 Comprehensive conservation planning. A CCP must be completed for each refuge by the 

year 2012, as is required by the Refuge Administration Act. Each CCP will be revised every 

15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that changes are needed to achieve 

the refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The Refuge Administration Act also 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

requires that CCPs be developed with the participation of the public. Public comments, 

issues, and concerns are considered during the development of a CCP, and together with the 

formal guidance, can play a role in selecting the management direction. The CCP provides 

guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge programs, but may lack 

some of the specifics needed for implementation. Therefore, step-down management plans 

will be developed for individual program areas as needed, following completion of the CCP. 

The step-down plans are founded on management goals, objectives and strategies outlined in 

a CCP, and require appropriate NEPA compliance. 

 Wildlife conservation, biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health. The Refuge 

Administration Act expressly states that the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, and 

their habitats is the priority of Refuge System lands, and that the Secretary of the Interior 

shall ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands 

are maintained. House Report 105–106 accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘... the 

fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife 

conservation must come first.’’ 

 Refuge purposes. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission and the 

specific purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. The purposes of a refuge are 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land 

order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or 

expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. When a conflict exists between the Refuge 

System mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede 

the mission. 

 Priority public uses on refuges. The Refuge Administration Act superseded some key 

provisions of the Refuge Recreation Act regarding compatibility, and also provided 

significant additional guidance regarding recreational and other public uses on units of the 

Refuge System. The Refuge Administration Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. These uses include the following (not in priority order): hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The 

Service is to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration during 

planning for, management of, and establishment and expansion of units of the Refuge 

System. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six uses assume 

priority status among all uses of the refuge in question. The Service is to make extra efforts to 

facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. 

Compatibility and Appropriate Refuge Uses Policies (603 FW 2 and 1). With few exceptions, 

lands and waters within the Refuge System are different from multiple-use public lands, in that they 

are closed to all public access and use unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge use may be 

allowed or continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an 

appropriate use is one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, 

or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan. A compatible use is a use that in the 

sound professional judgment of the refuge manager will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the Refuge. 

The six wildlife-dependent recreational uses described in the Refuge Administration Act (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are 

defined as appropriate. When determined to be compatible, they receive priority consideration over 

other public uses in planning and management. Other nonwildlife-dependent uses on a refuge are 

reviewed by the refuge manager to determine if the uses are appropriate. If a use is determined 

appropriate, then a compatibility determination is completed. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and 

economic uses (even those furthering refuge habitat management goals) occurring or proposed on a 

refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. Updated appropriate use and compatibility 

determinations for existing and proposed uses for the Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA 

are in Appendices A (Appropriateness) and B (Compatibility) of this CCP. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3). The Refuge 

Administration Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans ...” The policy is an additional directive for refuge 

managers to follow while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for 

the consideration and protection of a broad spectrum of native fish, wildlife, and habitat resources 

found on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction 

for refuges (e.g., in compatibility determinations), refuge managers will use sound professional 

judgment to determine their refuge’s contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, 

knowledge of refuge resources, an understanding of the refuge’s role within an ecosystem, applicable 

laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the 

Service. The policy states that “the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations 

that existed during historic conditions.” 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation Policies (605 FW 1-7). The Refuge Administration Act states that 

“compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the 

System.” A series of recreation policies provide additional guidance and requirements to consider 

after a recreational use has been determined to be compatible. These policies also establish a quality 

standard for visitor services on national wildlife refuges. Through these policies, we are to 

simultaneously enhance wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, provide access to quality 

visitor experiences, and manage refuge resources to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

New and ongoing recreational uses should help visitors focus on wildlife and other natural resources, 

and provide an opportunity to display resource issues, management plans, and how the refuge 

contributes to the Refuge System and the Service’s mission. The policies also require development of 

a visitor services plan. 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area Management and Authorities. The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222), as amended (16 U.S.C. 715d, 715e, 715f, to 

715k and 715l to 715r), provides for the acquisition of lands determined to be suitable as an inviolate 

sanctuary for migratory birds. 

The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, was amended in 1958 and authorized the 

“... acquisition by gift, devise, lease, purchase, or exchange of, small wetland and pothole areas, 

interest therein, and right-of-way to provide access thereto. Such small areas to be designated as 

‘Waterfowl Productions Areas’, may be acquired without regard to the limitations and requirements 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act ...” Under the Act, Waterfowl Production Areas are subject 

to “... all of the provisions of such Act ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ....” (16 U.S.C. 

718(c), Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11 

Thomas Fork Unit. The mandate for management of Farmers Home Administration easements and 

fee title transfers to the Service is contained in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 

U.S.C. Stat. 2002) “... for conservation purposes ...” 

1.5.3 Biological Resource Protection Acts 

The plant and animal species of the Refuge and WPA are protected under several Federal laws, 

including the following: 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Through Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs, the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) provided 

for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, 

and plants depend. The ESA: 

 Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

 Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

 Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; 

 Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states that establish 

and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 

 Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or regulations; 

and 

 Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and 

conviction for any violation of the act or any regulation issued there under. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried 

out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or modify critical 

habitat. For candidate species and species of concern, refuge management activities are focused on 

protecting habitat and reducing threats so that these species do not need the protection of the ESA. 

Both the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement and enforce the 

ESA. The Service has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while NMFS 

has jurisdiction over most marine and anadromous fish listed under the ESA. No ESA listed species 

occur on the Refuge or the WPA, however several State of Idaho species of the greatest conservation 

need are found on the refuge and are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.4. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712). The framers of the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act were determined to put an end to the commercial trade in birds and their feathers that by the 

early years of the 20th century had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird species. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act decreed that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, 

and feathers) were fully protected. It is the domestic law that affirms or implements the United 

States’ commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for 

the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Each of the conventions between two nations 

protect selected species of birds that are common to both countries (i.e., they occur in both countries 

at some point during their annual life cycle). All of the native bird species found on the Refuge and 

WPA are protected under this act, with the exception of nonnative species (European starling, house 

sparrow, and rock dove). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.5.4 Historic Preservation Acts 

The cultural and historic resources of the Refuge and WPA are protected under several Federal laws 

and Executive Orders: 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470ll). The 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 for archaeological items. This act established detailed requirements for 

issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal or 

Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, 

or damage of any such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal or 

Indian land in violation of any provision of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported, or received in violation of any State or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988 (102 Stat. 2983), lowered the threshold value of 

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the act, from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit 

an action prohibited by the act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 469-469c). To carry 

out the policy established by the Historic Sites Act, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

directed Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find that a Federal or 

federally assisted, licensed, or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of significant 

scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The act authorized use of appropriated, donated, and/or 

transferred funds for the recovery, protection, and preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467). This act 

declared it a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including 

those located on refuges. It provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and 

protection of such sites. National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of 

this act. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n). This act provided 

for preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid 

program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching 

grants under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). This act 

established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent 

agency by Public Law 94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That act also created 

the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of their 

actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. As of September 2004, 

157 historic sites on national wildlife refuges had been placed on the National Register. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001-13) This Act 

establishes requirements for the treatment of Native American human remains and sacred or cultural 

objects found on Federal land. In any case where human remains or funerary objects can be 

associated with specific Tribes or groups of Tribes, the agency is required to provide notice of the 

item in question to the Tribe or Tribes. Upon request, each agency is required to return any such item 

to any lineal descendant or specific Tribe with whom such item is associated. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13 

Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. Signed May 

6, 1971, Executive Order 11593 requires that the Federal government provide leadership in 

preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation. Agencies 

of the executive branch of the government must: 

1. Administer the cultural properties under their control in a spirit of stewardship and 

trusteeship for future generations; 

2. Initiate measures necessary to direct their policies, plans, and programs in such a way that 

federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or archaeological 

significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the 

people; and 

3. In consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, institute procedures to 

assure that Federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of 

non-federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or 

archaeological significance. 

1.6 Establishment and Purposes of the Refuge and WPA 

The Refuge Administration Act directs the Service to manage refuges to achieve their purposes. The 

purposes for which a refuge is established form the foundation for planning and management 

decisions. Refuge purposes are the driving force in the development of the refuge vision statements, 

goals, objectives, and strategies in a CCP and are critical to determining the compatibility of existing 

and proposed refuge uses. As units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Waterfowl Production 

Areas (WPAs) are also covered under this Act. 

The purposes of a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. Unless these documents indicate 

otherwise, purposes dealing with the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and 

plants, and the habitats on which they depend take precedence over other purposes in the 

management and administration of any unit. 

Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more 

specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired 

under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition takes 

on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the 

newer addition. When a conflict exists between the Refuge System mission and the purpose of an 

individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the mission. The purposes for Bear Lake NWR 

and Oxford Slough WPA are described below. 

1.6.1 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Refuge and 

WPA 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

On May 9, 1968, 17,573 acres of land in Bear Lake County, Idaho, was set aside as Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge by Public Land Order 4415 (33 FR 7151). This was followed by Public 

Land Order 4545 (33 FR 19948), which withdrew an additional 48.81 acres on December 23, 1968. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

While no formal purposes were included within these Land Orders, withdrawn lands assumed the 

following purposes: 

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act). 

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... “ 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

“... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973). 

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956). 

Additional lands were added to Bear Lake NWR under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 (MBCA; 16 U.S.C. 715d). 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The Thomas Fork Unit was transferred in fee title to the Service from the Farm Home Administration 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture) on September 28, 1995. This 1,015-acre tract was acquired for: 

“... conservation purposes” under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 

U.S.C. § 2002). 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

The 1,878-acre Oxford Slough WPA was purchased in fee title from the Federal Land Bank on April 

25, 1985. Lands were purchased using Federal Duck Stamp Funds, allocated by the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, which provided that the area be managed under the following 

purposes: 

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

“... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15 

1.6.2 Acquisition History and Authorities 

Acreage within the Bear Lake NWR and the Thomas Fork Unit is included in the Real Property 

Management Information System. Total acreage of USFWS land or interests in and at Bear Lake 

NWR is 18,169, while total acreage of USFWS land at the Thomas Fork Unit is 1,015. 

Acreage within Oxford Slough WPA is also included in the Real Property Management Information 

System. To date 1,878 acres have been acquired in fee title. Maps 2 and 3 show current land status 

and tracts of Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough WPA. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
R 43E R 44E R 44E R 45E

T 14S

T 13S

Paris

Saint Charles

Bloomington

Mud Lake

Bunn Lake

Bloomington Rainbow

Alder

Dunford

North Dingle

St Charles

Red Slough

Rainbow Sub

South Dingle

Salt Meadow

Merkley Lake

89

30

Legend

National Wildlife Refuge, Acquired

National Wildlife Refuge, Approved

Refuge Management Units

BLM Ownership

State Ownership

Highways

OtherRoads

Township/Range

Map 2. Land Status

Bear Lake

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

0 1 2 Miles

0 0.5 1 2

Kilometers

Map Date: 04/26/2012 File:12-080-1.mxd

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19 

Table 1.1. Bear Lake NWR Established through Public Land Orders 

Tract 

Number 

Acquired Date Withdrawal of 

Public Land 

Interest of 

Acquisition 

Acres 

1 FR Notice 

05/09/1968 

PLO 4415 Withdrawal 16,959.12 

1 FR Notice 

12/23/1968 

PLO 4545 Withdrawal Included 

above 

Table 1.2. Bear Lake NWR Managed Lands through Easements/Agreements 

Tract 

Number 

Acquired Date Tract Owner Interest of 

Acquisition 

Acres 

16M 05/13/2010 PacificCorp Use Agreements 

(East Side 

Roadway, West 

Side Roadway 

and Land Use) 

~13.64 

Table 1.3. Bear Lake NWR Acquired Lands through Fee Title Purchase 

Tract 

Number 

Acquired Date Tract Owner Interest of 

Acquisition 

Acres 

17a, b 03/21/1979 Alder, Gerald and Sandra 

Alder, Alan and Jean 

FEE 344.15 

15 04/03/1979 Haslam, Ladell and Amarylis FEE 273.66 

17I, 17II, 

17aI 

10/29/1979 Alder, Gerald and Sandra 

Alder, Alan and Jean 

FEE 7.62 

42 08/15/1986 Nate, Harold E. FEE 147.78 

43 10/29/1986 Tri-State Bank and Trust FEE 116.25 

41 11/13/1986 Skinner; Kent, Emma Lou, 

and Golda 

FEE 78.18 

22 07/06/1989 Payne, Russell FEE 119.54 

20 6/10/2011 Elizabeth Hart Barnes Family 

LLC 

FEE 119.41 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
Land Status, Oxford Slough WPA and Thomas Fork Unit

91

Thomas Fork Unit

1:24,000

Idaho Wyoming

Legend

Approved Boundary

National Wildlife Refuge, Acquired

State Ownership

BLM Ownership

Highways

Other Roads

State Boundary

Township / Range

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

Map 3.

Oxford Slough WPA

1:60,000

ID WY

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.5 1 0.25

Kilometers

13 S 38 E

14 S 38 E

Map Date: 04/26/2012 File:12-080-2.mxd

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Kilometers

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23 

Table 1.4. Thomas Fork Unit 

Tract 

Number 

Acquired Date Tract Owner Interest of 

Acquisition 

Acres 

10 9/28/1995 U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Land transfer 1015.2 

11 11/12/1997 Esche, Rolf and Elizabeth Land Exchange Equal value 

exchange for 

Tract 10 

Parcel A and 

Tract 10 

Parcel A-C 

~17.4 acres 

Table 1.5. Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Tract 

Number 

Acquired Date Tract Owner Interest of 

Acquisition 

Acres 

10 04/25/1985 Federal Land Bank of 

Spokane 

FEE 1,878 

Total acreage 

including lots 

excessed 

below 

10b, 10c, 

10d 

1989 Disposed of as Excess 

Property 

 

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals 

1.7.1 Regional Setting 

Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA are located in the Intermountain West, a region that 

includes portions of eight states (eastern Washington and Oregon, northeast California, northern 

Nevada and Utah, western Wyoming and Montana, and Idaho). Due to its arid to semi-arid climate, 

wetlands are scarce in the region (Ratti and Kadlec 1992). Wetlands in the Intermountain West 

region account for about one percent of total surface area (1.6 million acres) compared to 6 percent 

(22.5 million acres) in the Midwest region (Dahl 1990). 

Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA all lie within the Bear Lake 

Watershed of the Bear River Basin, which includes all lands draining to the Bear River between 

Stewart Dam, below the Idaho-Utah border, and Alexander Dam, near the town of Soda Springs, 

Idaho. The highest point in the watershed is Meade Peak (9,957 feet). The lowest elevation is below 

Alexander Reservoir (5,712 feet). Bear Lake is the centerpiece of this watershed. The Thomas Fork, 

a tributary to the Bear River, drains the 150,100-acre Thomas Fork watershed. The Thomas Fork 

Watershed is a part of the Central Bear River Watershed, the smallest watershed in the Bear River 

Basin, draining 523,800 acres. Oxford Slough is considered part of the Middle Bear Watershed, 

which includes all land that drains to the Bear River from below Alexander Dam in Idaho to Cutler 

Dam in Utah. Oxford Reservoir, just north of Oxford Slough, is a major waterbody of the Middle 

Bear watershed (BRWIS 2010). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

During the hundreds of thousands of years of Bear Lake’s existence, the Bear River has, on multiple 

occasions, connected to the lake during high water periods. However, in the last 11,000 years, the 

river has not been naturally connected to Bear Lake. About 35,000 years ago, a volcanic debris slide 

cut off its original, northerly route and deflected the river to the south. The result of these events is 

the river’s current, near-circular, route to the Great Salt Lake. Before this volcanic event, the Bear 

River was a tributary of the Snake River. 

In 1911, the Dingle inlet canal was constructed, which diverted almost all the water in the Bear River 

southward to Mud Lake. (Later, Stewart Dam and the Rainbow inlet canal were constructed to divert 

the Bear River water. The Dingle inlet canal is now used as an irrigation canal.) From there, when 

spring runoff water is being stored, the water flows through Mud Lake to enter Bear Lake. The rest 

of the year it flows through Mud Lake and out the Outlet Canal to rejoin the original Bear River 

channel. The upper 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) of Bear Lake function as a reservoir. The Lifton Pumping 

Station releases water from Bear Lake to the Bear River during the summer for irrigation. 

The Bear Lake watershed encompasses parts of Bear Lake and Caribou counties in Idaho, and Rich 

County in Utah. It includes the towns of Montpelier and Soda Springs in Idaho and Garden City in 

Utah. The population in this watershed is about 10,500. The largest employment sectors include 

agriculture, government, retail, and tourism. Future economic growth in this watershed is expected to 

occur in agriculture, energy, tourism, and manufacturing. Population in the entire Bear River Basin, 

in and around existing municipalities, is expected to increase significantly by 2050. Development 

within and near Garden City, Utah, is moving outward from the lakeshore and up the sides of the 

foothills. Second homes and summer cabins account for most of the growth. 

Almost half the watershed is privately owned. The U.S. Forest Service manages about one-third of 

the public land. Approximately half of the land is used as rangeland. Managed forests and 

agricultural lands account for most of the remaining land uses. The Georgetown Summit and 

Montpelier Wildlife Management Areas, managed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 

provide a migratory pathway for many shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl heading south to 

Bear Lake and Great Salt Lake. The Nature Conservancy manages Formation Springs and Cave as a 

nature preserve a few miles outside of Soda Springs, Idaho. The preserve was established to protect 

the crystal-clear pools and a unique wetland complex at the base of the scenic Aspen Mountains. The 

cold springs that feed the terraced pools and creek system deposit high concentrations of travertine 

(calcium carbonate), which gives the site its unique geology. 

Other regional areas of special biological significance include the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 

located in the northeast arm of the Great Salt Lake known as the Bear River Bay. The Bay 

encompasses 112,000 acres of the Bear River delta (Kadlec and Adair 1993). The delta is a mosaic of 

freshwater marshes, river channels, and alkali salt flats. The Migratory Bird Refuge encompasses 

about 71,000 acres of the Bear River delta. The Bear River delta interrupts the shrub lands of the arid 

Great Basin acting as a freshwater oasis that hosts high populations of nesting waterbirds and attracts 

large flights of migrant grebes, waterfowl, and shorebirds. 

1.7.2 Regional Conservation Plans 

A brief summary of the major regional conservation plans we considered in the development of the 

CCP follows: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-25 

Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: In 2001, the U. S. Congress began to 

appropriate Federal funds through the State Wildlife Grants program (SWG) to help meet the need 

for conservation of all fish and wildlife. Along with this new funding came the responsibility of each 

state to develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Idaho has embraced this 

program by developing a comprehensive strategy that will serve to coordinate the efforts of all 

partners working toward conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats across the State. The Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) coordinated this effort in compliance with its legal mandate to 

protect and manage all of the State’s fish and wildlife resources. 

The aim of Idaho’s CWCS is to provide a common framework that will enable conservation partners 

to jointly implement a long-term approach for the benefit of Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

(SGCN). To this end, this strategy promotes proactive conservation to ensure cost-effective solutions 

instead of reactive measures enacted in the face of imminent losses. 

Specifically, the Idaho CWCS: 

(1) Identifies 229 SGCN (103 invertebrates, 126 vertebrates) and associated habitats; 

(2) Provides an ecological, habitat-based framework to aid in the conservation and management 

of SGCN; 

(3) Recommends actions to improve the population status and habitat conditions of SGCN; 

(4) Describes an approach for long-term monitoring to assess the success of conservation efforts 

and to integrate new information as it becomes available; 

(5) Complements other conservation strategies, funding sources, planning initiatives, and 

legally mandated activities; 

(6) Incorporates public participation throughout development and implementation to provide an 

opportunity for all conservation partners and Idaho residents to influence the future of 

resource management; 

(7) Provides guidance for use of SWG funds and fulfills Federal requirements associated with 

these funds; and 

(8) Provides a clear process for reviewing and revising the Strategy to address changing 

conditions. 

An objective rule-based process was used to evaluate all animals thought by experts to be a candidate 

for SGCN. This process was designed specifically to reduce subjectivity and to obtain an objective 

state rank for species considered for inclusion as SGCN. Factors included, but were not limited to, 

information about population size, trend, viability, environmental specificity, threats, and protection 

status. A total of 229 animals (103 invertebrates, 126 vertebrates) were identified as SGCN. Of these, 

64 species (44 invertebrates, 20 vertebrates) lacked essential information pertaining to their status 

(i.e., SRank) in Idaho. Therefore, their primary conservation need is more basic population 

information. For the remaining 165 species (60 invertebrates, 105 vertebrates) there is enough 

information to determine their status in the State, identify conservation issues, and recommend 

conservation actions. 

Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA are within the Bear River Ecoregion of the Idaho CWCS. 

Thirty-three SGCNs were identified in the Bear Lake Section of the Idaho CWCS. An additional 20 

CWCS species with State rankings of S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), or S3 (Vulnerable) 

are known to inhabit Bear Lake NWR, but were not identified as SGCN for the Bear Lake Ecoregion. 

Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho: The 2006 Plan was designed to provide 

guidance, tools, and resources to Local Working Groups (LWG) to facilitate the development of their 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

plans, while also encouraging a level of statewide consistency among the LWG plans. The primary 

goal of the Plan is to maintain, improve, and where possible, increase sage-grouse populations and 

habitats in Idaho, while considering the predictability and long-term sustainability of a variety of 

other land uses.

Under the framework outlined in this Plan, the LWG plans will identify and prioritize local threats, 

and identify appropriate conservation measures at the mid- and fine scale, while this State Plan 

identifies and prioritizes threats at the broad-scale. This Plan also provides a toolbox of fine-scale 

conservation measures for use and/or adaptation by LWGs (as appropriate to local population and 

habitat conditions), and for use in cases where a LWG plan has not been completed, or where no 

LWG currently exists.

Bear Lake NWR is within the Eastern Idaho LWG. The Eastern Idaho LMG plan is currently in 

process, with no specified target date for completion. Where appropriate, the Bear Lake NWR CCP 

will incorporate the guidance provided within the Idaho Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse 

toolbox of fine-scale conservation measures. 

Idaho Mule Deer Management Plan 2008-2017: The Mule Deer Management Plan (IDFG 2008a) 

tiers off the IDFG strategic plan, functioning as the action plan or mule deer management in the 

State. Major issues affecting mule deer management are identified, setting overall direction for mule 

deer management during the next 10 years and providing performance targets and management 

strategies for management actions. 

Bear Lake NWR and the Thomas Fork Unit are within the Caribou Population Management Unit 

(PMU) (Game Management Units 66, 66A, 69, 72, 76). Oxford Slough WPA is in the Bannock PMU 

(Game Management Units 56, 57, 70, 71, 73, 73A, 74, 75, 77, 78). Each PMU has multiple habitat 

and population-based management direction, performance targets, and strategies. Relevant 

management direction identified in the plan for incorporation into Bear Lake NWR and Oxford 

Slough WPA CCP includes habitat improvements to key winter, summer, and transitional mule deer 

habitats and the minimization of population impacts from road and highway mortality. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP): Few direct specific habitat guidelines are provided by 

the USSCP, which instead, seeks to identify key shorebird regions throughout the continent, and 

allow regional committees to determine the best locations for shorebird restoration initiatives. Bear 

Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA contain small, but significant populations of key shorebird 

species including American avocet, Wilson’s phalarope, willet, and black-necked stilt. Both areas 

also serve as a secondary migration corridor for migrants traveling between National Priority Areas 

27 and 28. 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (IWRSP): The IWRSP maintains a series of habitat 

restoration objectives centered around delineating regionally important sites, and incorporating 

restoration activities into a landscape scale design. Independent water management capabilities at 

Bear Lake NWR provide a critical breeding and stop-over habitat for shorebirds in the larger 

landscape. This allows the wetlands to be managed as a complex of habitats, which basically means 

that mud flat, perennial emergent, and breeding habitat can be simultaneously provided within the 

same area to help meet the needs of waterbirds with very different life history requirements. 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan: The ultimate goal of the plan is “To protect, 

restore, and manage sufficient high quality habitat and key sites for waterbirds throughout the year to 

meet species and population goals.” Focusing primarily on colonial nesting waterbirds, the plan seeks 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-27 

to develop cross-cultural partnerships to encompass waterbird habitat across the Americas. Bear Lake 

NWR and Oxford Slough WPA serve as primary nesting sites for several colonial nesting waterbird 

species, highlighted by the largest white-faced ibis colony in Idaho at Bear Lake NWR; typically 

3,000-5,000 nests but more than 12,000 nests in 2008 (IDFG 2008b). 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan: The IWWCP is the regional step-down plan, 

which provides more specific guidance for the Bear River Valley. As general habitat conservation 

objectives, target restoration areas should consider: 

1. Areas rich in priority birds and habitats 

2. Opportunities for conservation and partnerships 

3. Threats to priority species and habitats 

4. Areas large enough in scale to achieve meaningful conservation and small enough to capture 

local working groups. 

The Bear Lake Valley contains colonial waterbird breeding habitat for one of two high concern 

species (snowy egret), and eight of ten moderate concern species, and includes large nesting colonies 

of California gull, Forster’s tern, Franklin’s gull, black-crowned night heron, black tern, and eared 

grebe. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP): The NAWMP states that the goal is 

“to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.” 

This will be accomplished through a combination of a solid “Biological Foundation, Landscape 

Approach, and Partnerships.” Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA lie between two National 

priority sites and maintain a nexus with each through provision of quality breeding and migration 

habitat for waterfowl (Priority Area 27 – Great Salt Lake and Bear River Marsh) and provision of 

quality breeding habitat for trumpeter swans and overwater nesting waterfowl species such as 

redhead and canvasback (Priority Area 28 – Yellowstone-Intermountain Wetlands). National 

breeding population objectives for key waterfowl species include the northern pintail (5.6 million; 

decreasing), mallard (8.2 million; no trend), and greater and lesser scaup (6.3 million; decreasing) 

among which only the mallard population has satisfied this objective (8.64 million). Current Bear 

Lake Valley populations for these species are relatively small compared to these National Objectives; 

however, they are regionally significant considering proximity to NAWMP high profile sites. The 

plan also lists breeding population objectives for redhead (640,000) and canvasback (540,000), both 

of which are currently above the population objective on a National basis, but, with insufficient data 

to estimate trend information. The remaining three plan-listed priority species–wood duck (200,000 

western population), American wigeon (3.1 million total population), and ring-necked duck (2 

million)–are all considered to be either increasing or to have stable populations. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture Habitat Conservation Objectives (IWJV): The IWJV lists 

the following habitat objectives in their 1995 implementation plan: 

1. To protect 1.5 million public and private acres through facilitation of conservation easements, 

management agreements, incentive programs, and stewardship programs. 

2. To restore and enhance 1 million acres of wetland habitat through direct habitat improvement 

programs. 

3. To enhance all bird habitat through direct habitat improvement programs, public education, 

and cooperation with our partners. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

More recently, the IWJV has developed a coordinated implementation plan to consolidate regionspecific information from each of the four National Plans. The 2005 update to the IWJV Coordinated 

Bird Conservation Implementation Plan describes goals and objectives for two priority habitat types, 

which occur at Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA. The following sections include a synopsis 

of this plan, and subsequent plans used in the development of the IWJV Coordinated Implementation 

Plan for Bird Habitat in Idaho. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Habitat in 

Idaho (IWJVCIP): Prepared for the Intermountain West Joint Venture, the coordinated 

implementation plan seeks to address and consolidate National Plan habitat objectives into one 

document. The plan lists the Bear Lake Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) as one of 23 

priority sites in Idaho, primarily for its importance in meeting wetland and riparian habitat restoration 

objectives. Bear Lake NWR includes three of the five most critical habitat types (wetlands, riparian, 

and agricultural) and has been designated a priority A1 BHCA for its contributions to diving ducks, 

colonial nesting waterbirds, sandhill cranes, and trumpeter swans. The IWJVCIP further lists overall 

restoration or enhancement of 1.6 million acres of wetland habitat as a priority objective. 

More specifically, the Southeast Idaho Wetland Focus Area, Wetland Conservation Plan, lists the 

mallard and northern pintail as priority species. According to the plan, mallards are the most 

abundant duck species in Southeast Idaho, while northern pintail breeding populations continue to 

decline. Other important waterbird groups include colonial nesting waterbirds, of which five species 

are recognized as National species of low or moderate concern (American white pelican, California 

gull, white-faced ibis, western grebe, and Clark’s grebe). Plan authors used a habitat based, as 

opposed to population objective approach, and described the desired future condition; “wetlands 

should be protected/maintained/enhanced/restored in such condition that the hydrology of a site 

remains intact.”

Concept Plan for Preservation of Redhead Breeding Habitat in Idaho: In response to declining 

population numbers, the Service conducted an evaluation to document the extent of redhead breeding 

habitat in the Great Basin and formulate a strategy to maximize habitat restoration efforts. Private 

wetlands in Bear Lake County ranked number 1 in Idaho for their importance to redhead production 

based on a complex set of ranking factors. Primary among these factors were the contributions of 

perennial emergent marsh for redheads, the importance of these habitats for other waterfowl species, 

and the increasing threat of agricultural water distribution during the breeding season. 

Conservation Strategy for Southeast Idaho Wetlands: Through funding provided by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted a study 

to characterize and rank wetland importance in southeast Idaho. This initiative resulted in the Class I 

ranking of Bear Lake NWR (only one of four wetland areas), primarily for its “high quality, large 

expanses of emergent marsh.” Oxford Slough WPA was given a Class II rating, one of 10 such sites 

in SE Idaho. The study further identified one State sensitive plant community (category S1; 

Salicornia rubra) and 10 sensitive waterbird species (categories S1 or S2). 

Audubon Society Globally Important Bird Area: Both Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA 

have been designated as Globally Important Bird Areas by the National Audubon Society. As two of 

503 such sites in Idaho, selection was based on the areas’ contributions to colonial nesting waterbird 

habitat. At present, 13 species of concern have developed colonies on BLNWR and Oxford Slough 

WPA. Bear Lake NWR is recognized for its exceptional diversity and concentrations of waterbirds. 

In 2008 more than 12,000 white-faced ibis nests and 29,000 Franklin’s gull nests were observed on 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-29 

the Refuge. Oxford Slough WPA contains large colonies of white-faced ibis (more than 4,700 nests 

in 2010) and Franklin’s gulls (more than 6,600 nests in 2010) (NAS 2012). 

Other regional plans include The Southeast Idaho Wetland Focus Area, Wetland Conservation 

Plan which recognizes Bear Lake NWR as an area that supports the largest emergent wetland area 

and largest waterbird breeding population in the Great Basin Habitat complex. The Trumpeter Swan 

Implementation Plan identified a habitat objective specifically for the proposed project’s contribution 

to Rocky Mountain trumpeter swan nesting (“Task 3, Subtask A, 2. Develop a restoration proposal 

for the Bunn Lake wetland enhancement project at Bear Lake NWR.”). And finally, the Service, 

Idaho Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program recognizes the Bear River/Bear Lake region as one of 

seven priority sites for use of Partners funds, primarily focusing on benefits to Bonneville cutthroat 

trout and migratory birds. 

1.7.3 Pacific Flyway Management Plans 

The Pacific Flyway Council is an administrative body that forges cooperation among public wildlife 

agencies for the purpose of protecting and conserving migratory game birds in western North 

America. The Council has prepared numerous management plans to date for most populations of 

ducks swans, geese, and sandhill cranes in the Pacific Flyway (www.pacificflyway.gov). These plans 

typically focus on populations, which are the primary unit of management, but may be specific to a 

species or subspecies. Management plans serve to: 

 Identify common goals; 

 Coordinate collection and analysis of biological data; 

 Establish the priority of management actions and responsibility for them; and 

 Emphasize research needed to improve management. 

The Council creates flyway management plans to help state and Federal agencies cooperatively 

manage migratory game birds under common goals. Management strategies are recommendations, 

but do not commit agencies to specific actions or schedules. Fiscal, legislative, and priority 

constraints influence the level and timing of implementation. Pacific Flyway plans generally guide 

management and research for a five-year planning horizon. Several of these plans pertain to species 

found on the Refuge. A brief summary of the flyway management plans we considered in the 

development of this CCP follows. 

Management Plan of the Pacific and Central Flyways for the Rocky Mountain Population of 

Greater Sandhill Cranes (2007). 

This plan is a revision of the July 1997 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane plan. Its 

purpose is to establish guidelines for managing RMP sandhill cranes. The plan addresses habitats 

(breeding range, fall staging areas, migration routes, fall and spring stop-over areas, and winter 

areas), status, uses, current management, problems associated with the population, and crane hunting 

guidelines. 

The primary objective of the plan is to manage the RMP for numbers and distribution that will 

provide maximum direct benefit to the public and for the intrinsic values of the birds themselves. 

Objectives include: A) Manage for a stable population index of 17,000-21,000 cranes determined by 

an average of the three most recent reliable September (fall pre-migration) surveys; B) Maintain and 

protect suitable habitats in sufficient quantity and quality to support population objectives and spatial 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-30 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

distribution, while encouraging populations expansion where desirable; C) Provide for recreational 

uses of RMP cranes; and D) Minimize crop depredations by RMP cranes. 

The plan recommends several management procedures. The degree and timing of their 

implementation by the various lead agencies will be influenced by manpower and fiscal and 

legislative constraints. The following procedures within the plan are the most pertinent to CCP 

development for Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA: 

1. The IDFG, in cooperation with other state and Federal agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and private parties, will work to annually provide 600-1,000 acres of 

supplemental feed crops in strategic locations to help alleviate crop damage. Funding for this 

program will come primarily from the interest earned by a Lure Crop Endowment established 

from private contributions. 

2. Encourage to identify, classify, rank, and catalog habitats used by the RMP throughout its 

range to facilitate the protection of important habitat through acquisition, easement, cooperative 

agreements, special-use permits, and mitigation exchanges and developments. 

3. Promoting increased awareness and understanding of cranes was deemed essential to the well 

being of the RMP cranes. Individual state wildlife agencies and the FWS will cooperatively 

develop and distribute information on the life history of RMP cranes and important 

management issues. 

4. The plan calls on the Subcommittees to consider problem situations and recommend options 

to the appropriate state agencies for reducing or eliminating crop damage. Various 

individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies will be encouraged to 

suggest solutions. 

5. Population surveys are to be done each September when peak numbers of cranes are present 

on pre-migration staging areas in summer range states. 

6. As appropriate, the Subcommittees will develop research proposals, recommend needed 

research, and review research proposals. In these actions, the Subcommittees will give 

priority to research conducted on the RMP or regional flocks/subpopulations, rather than 

local projects. 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Western Canada 

Geese (1983; revised 1992, 2000). 

The purpose of this plan is to improve coordinated management of western Canada geese by 

providing goals and objectives to guide wildlife agencies responsible for management programs for a 

five-year period (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Canada Geese 2000). 

The western Canada goose (Branta canadensis moffitti) occurring within the Pacific Flyway is 

currently recognized for management purposes as consisting of two populations: the Pacific Population 

(PP) and the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) (Krohn and Bizeau 1980). The RMP population is 

primarily migratory with geese undertaking spring and fall migrations between breeding and wintering 

areas. Due to interstate and international distribution of certain flocks and shared management 

concerns, management of this resource requires interstate and international coordination. 

Sixteen reference areas are used in this plan to facilitate management and tabulation of population 

and harvest data. These areas were delineated on the basis of band recovery distribution and are 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-31 

defined in detail by Krohn and Bizeau (1980). The four NWRs of the Southeast Idaho NWR 

Complex fall within Southeast Idaho Reference Area 3. 

The goal of this management plan is to maintain numbers and distribution of RMP Canada geese to 

optimize recreational opportunity while controlling depredation and nuisance problems. 

Objectives of this plan are to: 

A. Maintain a breeding population index of 117,000 birds, while considering desired levels of 

regional breeding and wintering flocks within individual reference areas. For Reference Area 

3 (Southeastern Idaho) there is a Breeding Population Index of 5,040 and an Objective 

Breeding Population Index of 5,550; 

B. Maintain seasonal breeding, wintering, and molting distributions; 

C. Maintain suitable breeding and wintering habitats to support distribution objectives; 

D. Maintain optimum hunting opportunities and provide for viewing, educational, and scientific 

pursuits; 

E. Evaluate current population and reference area boundaries to determine if they reflect true 

demographic differences among neighboring Canada goose populations (PP, Hi-Line 

Population (HLP), and RMP); 

F. Evaluate depredation and nuisance issues and implement management practices where 

appropriate. 

The plan recommends several management procedures. The degree and timing of their 

implementation by the various lead agencies will be influenced by manpower and fiscal and 

legislative constraints. The following procedures within the plan are the most pertinent to CCP 

development for Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA: 

1. Annual Breeding Population Index: Breeding population surveys will be conducted within 

each reference area throughout the breeding range of RMP Canada geese. These surveys may 

be either breeding pair or breeding population surveys. 

2. Banding Needs Assessment: Banding for monitoring recovery distribution, derivation of 

harvest, harvest, and survival rates for individual flocks, will be considered as part of a needs 

assessment. 

3. Annual Production Trend Survey: Nesting and/or brood surveys are encouraged in all 

reference areas throughout the breeding range of RMP Canada geese. 

4. Annual Midwinter Waterfowl Survey: RMP Canada geese will be counted in all reference 

areas that support concentrations of wintering geese during the MWS, which is normally 

conducted during the first week in January. 

5. Research: The Subcommittee will, as needed, recommend research and review proposals for 

research. The Subcommittee will establish priorities for research based on the needs of the 

RMP. Areas of identifiable needed research include Harvest Information and Range 

Delineation. 

6. Depredation and Nuisance Problems: Increasing problems with depredation and nuisance 

Canada geese facilitated the development of a Flyway Depredation Policy. The plan asks all 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-32 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

agencies to implement programs to assist in the deployment of management actions to assist 

landowners. 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans 

(2008). 

The goal of this management plan is to restore the RMP of Trumpeter Swans as a secure and 

primarily migratory population, sustained by naturally occurring and agricultural food resources in 

diverse breeding and wintering sites. Management objectives are: 

A. Continue to encourage swans to use wintering areas outside of the core Tri-state Area while 

reducing the number of wintering swans in the core Tri-state Area to a maximum of 1,500; 

B. Rebuild U.S. nesting flocks by year 2013 to at least 165 nesting pairs (birds that display 

evidence of nesting) and 718 adults and subadults (white birds) that use natural, diverse 

habitats. For Idaho, the plan identifies a target of 30 nesting pairs and 175 adults and subadults, by 2013. Furthermore, the plan calls for specific nesting and adult/sub-adult 

objectives for: Bear Lake NWR (5 and 25 respectively); Grays Lake NWR (10 and 30 

respectively); and Camas County (1 and 5 respectively). 

C. Expand the breeding range in order to enhance the connectivity of breeding flocks; 

D. Increase the abundance of desirable submerged macrophytes in the Henrys Fork of the Snake 

River in and near Harriman State Park (HSP); 

E. Promote the restoration and development of high quality wetland habitats for breeding and 

wintering swans; and 

F. Monitor the population. 

Important management strategies to achieve the objectives include: 

1. Reduce the attractiveness of Harriman State Park (HSP); by manipulating water levels; 

2. Provide habitat to attain population objectives; 

3. Identify potential breeding and winter expansion areas; (4) evaluate the effectiveness of 

raising cygnets from eggs collected in Canada to increase the availability of swans for release 

and to increase genetic heterozygosity; 

4. Identify, fund, and implement new wetland projects; 

5. Translocate flightless U.S. and Canadian cygnets as appropriate; 

6. Continue to monitor submerged macrophytes in the Henrys Fork of the Snake River; 

7. Develop and implement an effective public information program; and 

8. Maintain trumpeter-swan-compatible, tundra swan sport hunting opportunities in the Pacific 

Flyway. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-33 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Western Population of Tundra Swans (2001). 

The goal of the tundra swan plan is to ensure the maintenance of the western population (WP) of 

tundra swans, at a size and distribution that will provide for all their benefits to society (Pacific 

Flyway Council 2001). 

Objectives of this plan are to: 

A. Maintain a population of at least 60,000 swans to provide suitable public benefits. 

B. Maintain current patterns of distribution throughout the WP tundra swan range; 

C. Provide breeding, migration, and wintering habitats of sufficient quantity and quality to 

maintain the desired numbers and distribution of swans; and 

D. Provide for aesthetic, educational, and scientific uses of swans. 

E. Provide for sustainable sport and subsistence harvests of WP swans. 

Surveillance for Early Detection of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 in 

Wild Migratory Birds (2006). 

The overall goal for this strategy is to provide guidance to Pacific Flyway wildlife agencies in 

planning and implementing surveillance to detect Asian H5N1 in wild migratory birds. The plan was 

intended as a step-down approach from the draft U.S. Interagency Strategic Plan (Interagency HPAI 

H5N1 Early Detection Working Group 2006) to articulate flyway-level objectives, recommend 

surveillance strategies, and support further planning in each state to assess available and needed 

agency resources. 

The goal of the national strategy and this Pacific Flyway strategy is early detection of Asian H5N1 in 

wild migratory birds—not to assess its prevalence over time, monitor its rate of movement, or 

investigate the ecology of the disease. 

This strategy did not intend to provide detailed implementation plans for each Pacific Flyway state. 

The strategy also does not dictate rigid sampling objectives—the intent is to provide a sense of 

priorities, but not to constrain sampling of species or areas deemed important by the states or other 

cooperators. Surveillance efforts for Asian H5N1 will involve, by necessity, extensive cooperation at 

state and local levels among wildlife agencies, agriculture agencies, public health systems, and other 

entities—efforts best left to adaptive approaches by our member agencies. Thus, the scope of this 

strategy is focused on a flyway-level framework for surveillance of wild migratory waterbird 

populations that are shared and cooperatively managed throughout the Pacific Flyway. 

Objectives of the plan include: 

A. Prioritize waterbird species to be sampled for Asian H5N1 in the Pacific Flyway. 

B. Recommend a suite of sampling approaches to effectively establish an Asian H5N1 detection 

system in wild migratory birds. 

C. Provide guidance to states and cooperators to develop state-specific implementation plans. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-34 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

D. Recommend procedures to integrate detection efforts within the Pacific Flyway and with 

national programs. 

E. Describe additional planning efforts and coordination necessary to establish and maintain an 

effective Asian H5N1 detection system in the flyway. 

1.7.4 Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plans 

The Partners in Flight (PIF) long-term strategy document commonly referred to as “The Flight Plan,” 

lists the following set of goals: 

1. Conservation should be done before species become endangered 

2. Conservation that stresses both healthy ecosystems and wise management of natural 

resources 

3. Conservation in breeding, migration, and wintering habitat 

4. Groundbreaking partnerships that foster voluntary cooperation among public and private 

landowners. 

Their proactive stance is to “keep common birds common.” 

The Bear Lake Valley is located at the confluence of three physiographic regions (PR) including the 

Utah Mountains (69), Wyoming Basin (86), and Basin and Range (80). Key wetland-dependent 

species found on Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA include long-billed curlew (PR 69); 

Wilson’s phalarope (PR 86); and American white pelican, Franklin’s gull, and American avocet (PR 

80). Primary habitats and species specific to the project area are further detailed in the State Specific, 

Idaho Partners in Flight Conservation Plan. 

Idaho Partners in Flight, Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (IBCP): The Idaho Bird Conservation 

Plan (Ritter 2000) stresses the importance of four primary habitats, two of which are located on the 

Refuge riparian and non-riverine wetlands. The plan only recognizes the Basin and Range 

physiographic region, but further delineates critical species and habitat objectives specific to the 

State. Objectives for these key habitats include: 

 Riparian – By 2025, restore at least 10 percent of the historical extent of each riparian 

system. 

 Non-riverine wetland – Obtain a net increase in the number of acres (hectares) of wetlands 

in Idaho, focusing on the same types and amounts that historically occurred. 

The IBCP lists protection of non-riverine wetlands as a high priority task and the project area 

contains two of the three, priority wetland sites; lacustrine and depressional. While mallard, northern 

pintail, and lesser scaup are all considered important species using non-riverine wetland sites, only 

lesser scaup maintains a moderate priority status ranking. The plan focuses on actions that benefit 

wetlands as a whole, rather than on individual species, thus population objectives are not provided. 

The plan further lists hydrologic modification and subsequent water level fluctuations during the 

breeding season as primary threats. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-35 

1.7.5 Recovery Plans 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 

1976-1982, 1984 and 1988) states in SEC. 8A.(a) that “The Secretary of the Interior ... is designated 

as the Management Authority and the Scientific Authority for purposes of the Convention and the 

respective functions of each such Authority shall be carried out through the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service.” The Act also requires that “all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to 

conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall use their authorities in furtherance of 

the purposes of this Act.” 

No federally listed endangered or threatened species occur within or immediately adjacent to Bear 

Lake NWR. There are no goals, objectives, strategies, actions, or tasks identified in any regional 

ESA recovery plans applicable to Bear Lake NWR or Oxford Slough WPA. 

1.8 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

1.8.1 Major Issues to be Addressed in the CCP 

The core planning team evaluated and presented issues and concerns for Bear Lake NWR and Oxford 

Slough WPA during public scoping. Issues are defined as matters of controversy, dispute, or general 

concern over resource management activities, the environment, land uses, or public use activities. 

Issues are important to the planning process because they identify topics to be addressed in the CCP, 

pinpoint the types of information to gather, and help define alternatives for the Draft CCP/EA. 

Additional issues, concerns, and opportunities were raised during the public scoping process; we 

addressed them all in some manner in the CCP. It is the Service’s responsibility to focus planning 

and the EA analysis on the major issues. Major issues typically suggest different actions or 

alternative solutions, are within the Refuge’s jurisdiction, and have a positive or negative effect upon 

the resource. The following issues, concerns, and opportunities were considered during the 

development of this CCP. 

Habitat Management (All Units) 

Water level management is the overriding factor affecting most refuge habitat management 

strategies, specifically to provide waterbirds nesting, loafing, and feeding areas and to manage 

muskrat winter habitat. Management efforts focus on maintaining a given ratio of emergent marsh to 

open water habitat using water level manipulations, prescribed fire, and mechanical disturbance. 

Riparian habitats comprise a small, but important, component of refuge ecosystems. However, these 

creeks do not originate on Refuge lands and significant portions of the watersheds lie outside the 

Refuge therefore, upstream activities have major impacts on Refuge water quality and quantity. 

Native fishes of concern were historically present within the refuge waters and included Bonneville 

cutthroat trout. Widespread population and habitat declines have been projected for numerous 

sagebrush associated species. A growing sense of urgency over the outlook for sagebrush-dependent 

wildlife has spawned sagebrush planning and restoration efforts within Idaho. 

Agricultural small grains and short-cover areas at the Refuge provide valuable foraging habitat for 

key bird species such as cranes, geese, and curlews. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-36 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Sedimentation (Bear Lake NWR) 

Bear Lake NWR’s Mud Lake serves as the turning basin for the entire Bear River system, which has 

led to high quantities of sediment entering the lake over time. Because the Refuge serves as a storage 

basin for irrigation use in the lower Bear River, water quantity is not a problem. Allen (2011) found 

that the majority of total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) loading entered the 

Refuge from the Bear River. As flows moved across the Refuge marsh (Dingle Swamp), the loading 

of TSS and TP was greatly reduced. Allen (2011) cites studies on the impacts of TSS on the aquatic 

food web, on fish gills, and on the channelization of wetlands. The study also notes that TSS can also 

be a pathway for other pollutants and that excess nutrients (like phosphorus) can cause overfertilization (eutrophication) of water bodies. Allen’s 2011 thesis can be consulted for references on 

several past efforts to study the potential impacts of Bear River water on Bear Lake proper and on the 

Refuge. 

The Refuge maintains an agreement with PacifiCorp (the primary water rights holder), through 

which target elevations are maintained within one-half foot of the 5,920.5-foot elevation, subject to 

the Bear River Compact, irrigation needs, and flood control. Unfortunately, this is not a solution 

toward solving the habitat quality issues. Redirection of the Bear River has resulted in excessive 

sediment deposition throughout the Mud Lake system. This sediment load primarily consists of silt 

and fine clay particles which ultimately deposit in the marsh bottom. Unlike clay, silt particles do not 

bind to each other and do not create the stable marsh bottom required by some plants. Instead, the silt 

particles tend to accumulate in loose horizons that have attained depths of greater than four feet in 

some locations. At these locations, the existing plant community is either relatively homogenous, or 

in most cases, non-existent (Bundy 2007). 

Carp (Bear Lake NWR) 

Carp (Cyprinus carpio) were introduced to the Bear River system in 1882 and are now widespread in 

the region. The foraging action of carp contributes to turbidity issues at Bear Lake NWR. Turbid 

water tends to limit photosynthesis, and therefore both seed germination and plant growth. Those 

plants that do survive are uprooted by carp. The combination of turbid water and carp creates a 

relatively sterile wetland ecosystem. Currently, only impounded units that have recently received 

carp control have high water quality that allows submerged aquatic plants to thrive. In other units, 

including Mud Lake, water clarity, and therefore aquatic plant growth, is low.

Questions to Consider 

 What are the best means to attain productive marsh habitats for wildlife on the Refuge and 

WPA? 

 How can the Service protect and improve the quantity and quality of water for fish and 

wildlife resources on the Refuge and WPA? 

 What can the Service do to prevent the introduction and dispersal of invasive plants and 

animals and facilitate their removal from the Refuge and WPA? 

 What should be the Refuge’s role in supporting native fish and riparian habitat restoration? 

 What are the most appropriate management techniques for the wet meadow and upland 

habitats on the Refuge and WPA to maximize habitat values for key wildlife species (e.g., 

sandhill cranes, Canada geese), while assuring other native wildlife cover and forage 

requirements are still satisfied? 

 What is the appropriate role of prescribed fire in habitat management and fuels reduction? 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-37 

 Should the Refuge attempt cooperative and joint watershed management strategies within 

Bear Lake and Bear River watershed? 

 How can we engage or adaptively manage the Refuge and WPA in response to predicted and 

unpredicted challenges faced by climate change? 

 Given limited budgets and manpower, how can we most appropriately assess the efficacy of 

management actions at the appropriate scale? 

Public Use of the Refuge 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identified six priority refuge uses: 

hunting; fishing; wildlife observation and photography; and environmental education and 

interpretation. These uses receive enhanced consideration in planning and management over all other 

general public uses on refuges. When compatible, these wildlife-dependent recreational uses are to be 

strongly encouraged. These uses, as well as other current or proposed uses, receive an extensive 

compatibility review in the CCP before being allowed. Under FWS compatibility policy (603 FW 2), 

Refuges with limited staffing and funding are required to make efforts to obtain additional resources 

or outside assistance to provide wildlife-dependent recreational uses, and to document those efforts 

before determining that any of these uses are not compatible. 

Bear Lake NWR must manage an ever-increasing request for visitation and demand for visitor 

services programs with a very small staff of three permanent employees. From 1999 to 2004, annual 

recreation visits to Bear Lake NWR averaged 4,280 annually (not including visitors viewing the 

Refuge from roads running through or adjacent to the Refuge). In 2010, total visitation was estimated 

to be 12,360, but visitation figures also included those viewing the Refuge from roads. When the 

visitation figure is adjusted by removing this category, the Refuge still had 7,360 visitors in 2010, a 

substantial increase. Currently, the visitor services and public hunting programs at the Refuge are 

mostly “self serve”, with informational kiosks and interpretive displays. To date the visitor services 

emphasis is placed on maintaining visitor and hunter facilities, welcoming and orienting visitors, 

answering information requests, and law enforcement during the hunting season. The Thomas Fork 

Unit is closed to public use, and the Oxford Slough WPA receives minimal visitation, mostly for 

hunting. 

Questions to Consider 

 Should existing public uses on the Refuge and WPA be continued, reduced, or eliminated?

 Should the Refuge improve its visitor services program?

 What actions should be taken to minimize wildlife disturbance issues from public visitation and 

recreation?

1.8.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP 

While CCPs are very comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. The planning team 

compiled a list of issues that are currently considered to be outside the scope of this CCP. 

Livestock Grazing. Reassessing the use of cattle grazing on Bear Lake NWR to improve habitat was 

suggested during public scoping. Livestock grazing is an economic use that must support 

achievement of refuge purposes and System Mission in accordance with 50 CFR 29.1. Livestock 

grazing was not included in the management direction, because under current management domestic 

livestock grazing as a management tool is not required to meet Refuge objectives and was deemed 

incompatible with Bear Lake NWR purposes in 1995. Therefore, grazing appropriateness and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-38 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

compatibility will not be re-evaluated in the development of the CCP as a future management 

strategy on the Refuge. 

Expanding Off-Refuge Recreational Opportunities. Suggestions were made for the Refuge to 

work with Bear Lake County to increase off-Refuge wildlife observation opportunities along the 

south and east boundaries of the Refuge for pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. The Service has no 

jurisdiction over adjacent land at Bear Lake NWR or Oxford Slough WPA. While the CCP does 

assess alternatives to increase access and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation on the 

Refuge, persons interested in off-refuge outdoor activities and visitation will need to work with the 

State of Idaho, Bear Lake County, or private landowners. The Refuge will continue to work with 

adjacent private landowners and the County to provide improved hunting access to the Refuge. 

Impounding the Thomas Fork Unit. The Thomas Fork Unit will be managed primarily as an 

independent riparian unit. It is currently partially impounded to provide wetland habitat and hayed to 

provide short grass habitat. No increase in impoundment will be pursued in the CCP. 

Restoration of the Dingle Marsh to Pre-Settlement Conditions. Although it is uncertain how the 

Bear Lake NWR marsh (locally referred to as Dingle Swamp) functioned prior to development of the 

Bear River irrigation system on lands surrounding the Refuge, it is likely that local topography 

restricted the Bear River to an isolated flood plain with no major inflow connection to Bear Lake. 

Current hydrological alterations to the historic system have been substantial and include the diversion 

of the Bear River by the Telluride Canal Company in the early 1900s. This project led to three major 

structural changes to the Bear River/Bear Lake system including: 

1. Construction of Stewart Dam across the Bear River, which ultimately redirected flow to the 

south. 

2. Construction of the Rainbow inlet canal to carry, which redirected flows into Dingle Swamp. 

3. Development of Lifton Road and Pump Station, which separated the natural connectivity of 

the Dingle Marsh to Bear Lake, in an effort to enhance the storage and delivery capabilities 

of Bear River water. 

Because the Refuge is the only remnant marsh in Bear River valley, migratory birds and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife species will remain a primary focus of Refuge management. However, 

restoring the natural hydrology of the Bear River and Bear Lake ecosystems is not feasible or 

practical at this time. A project of this magnitude on and off-refuge lands would require major 

alterations that would affect many outside interests. That said, the refuge staff will assess 

management options to mimic the natural hydrologic processes and variable extents of wetland 

habitats representative of the historic Dingle Marsh. 

1.9 Refuge Vision 

The refuge vision statements are broad general statements that describe the fundamental attributes 

and required contributions for the management of Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA. The 

vision statement will serve as a challenging and worthwhile long-range target toward which people 

can direct their energies. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-39 

1.9.1 Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, nestled in the Bear Lake Valley of southeastern 

Idaho, continues to be a paradise for wildlife. Native peoples, explorers, farmers, and 

ranchers were drawn to the valley’s plentiful natural resources: wildlife, land, and water. 

Today and tomorrow, visitors and residents alike enjoy a beautiful landscape that 

supports the modern-day dichotomies of small towns and rugged wilderness, farm fields 

and natural meadows, diversion canals and marshes, livestock and wildlife. 

An integral part of this landscape, the future of the Refuge depends on the carefully 

managed waters of the Bear River and Bear Lake flowing through a system of man-made 

structures and providing sustenance for humans and wildlife. Visitors to the Refuge will 

always hear the laughter of coots and the trilling of marsh wrens, the soft wind through 

the grass before the ducks arrive and the crack of expanding ice that follows the exodus 

of geese. 

People will see trumpeter swans escorting their broods through the emerald-green marsh 

and feel gratified that mule deer, moose, badger, beaver, trout, garter snakes, and 

leopard frogs will have homes for a long time to come here at Bear Lake NWR. 

1.9.2 Thomas Fork Unit 

The Thomas Fork Unit is located in the bucolic Thomas Fork Valley at the border of 

Wyoming and Idaho. This lovely valley, bordered by the Preuss and Sublette Ranges, 

harkens back to the days of rugged pioneers traveling the Oregon Trail, attempting to 

ford the Thomas Fork Creek, and trading goods and services with the Native Americans. 

Hay and willows, cranes and herons, chub and trout, cattle and pronghorn will ever be a 

part of this diverse panorama. 

People who love the scenic beauty of the Thomas Fork Valley will continue to work 

together to improve the quality of the creek and its surrounding lands. Healthy waters 

and lands will always be the backbone of sustainable agriculture and ranching as well as 

key for providing food and home for wildlife. As part of the larger Bear River Watershed, 

the vigor of the Thomas Fork Unit will remain integral to the overall quality of the 

landscape. 

1.9.3 Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area is situated in a lush valley surrounded by the 

Caribou National Forest with Oxford Peak and the Bannock Range in the background. 

Oxford Creek is one of the many streams that flow into the valley to create the Oxford 

Slough, which acts as a natural catchment for runoff from the adjacent mountain ranges. 

Oxford Slough will persist as a small but important part of the Bear River Watershed, 

providing water and well-being to wildlife and humans. Franklin’s gulls, sage-grouse, 

coyotes, and cattle continue to co-exist in this peaceful valley drenched in morning mist. 

Ducks and white-faced ibis decorate the skies on their feeding flights between the marsh 

and wet meadows. Land managers and landowners will collaborate for years to come to 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-40 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

provide optimal water quality and quantity, understanding that what’s good for the 

critters is usually good for people too. 

1.10 Refuge and WPA Goals 

1.10.1Wildlife and Habitat Goals 

Goal 1: Wetland Management 

Provide high quality wetland habitat at Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough 

WPA that provides for the life history requirements of focal wildlife species. On Bear Lake NWR, 

simulate the ecological processes and functional values of the historic Dingle Marsh. 

Goal 2: Riparian Management 

Provide high quality riparian habitat within the watershed for focal wildlife species life history 

requirements, while simulating natural environmental processes. 

Goal 3: Native Upland Management 

Maintain and protect the existing integrity of functional early successional upland habitat and restore 

the natural range of variability and resiliency to late successional upland habitat. 

Goal 4: Non-Native Agriculture Management 

Provide a supplemental on-Refuge forage base for carbohydrate and protein requirements of 

migratory waterfowl and landbirds within the Pacific and Bear River migratory corridor. 

1.10.2 Public Use Goals 

Goal 5: Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Public Use 

Increase public understanding and appreciation of wildlife, and build support for Bear Lake NWR, 

the Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough WPA by providing opportunities for visitors to 

participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreation and education programs, while minimizing 

wildlife disturbance. 

1.11 Planning Process 

A core planning team, consisting of a Project Leader, Deputy Project Leader, Refuge Manager, 

Refuge Biologist, Complex Planner, and a Regional Planner, began developing the CCP in January 

2010. An extended team assisted in CCP development, particularly in reviewing preliminary goals, 

objectives and strategies, and in developing alternatives. The extended team consisted of various 

professionals from other agencies and divisions within the Service. A list of core and extended team 

members is located in Appendix K. 

Early in the planning process, the core team identified 63 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern for 

the Refuge and WPA, their associated habitats, and other species that would benefit from managing 

the focal species. These Priority Refuge Resources of Concern are listed in Chapter 4 and Appendix 

E. Wildlife and habitat goals and objectives were designed directly around the habitat requirements 

of species designated as priority resources of concern. The analytical framework for analyzing the 

resources of concern and for devising appropriate conservation objectives and strategies was based 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-41 

on the Service’s Draft Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities: A 

Handbook (USFWS 2009). 

Public use planning centered on developing goals, objectives, and strategies around the “Big Six” 

wildlife-dependent public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation—and the transportation and infrastructure needs 

associated with those uses. 

Public scoping began in the summer of 2010. In July a scoping meeting was held in Montpelier, 

Idaho. Public commentary was also solicited through distribution of a planning update to the refuge 

mailing list. A summary of public involvement to date is in Appendix L. An internal draft was 

distributed to Service Region 1 reviewers in March 2012. All changes requested by reviewers and 

extended team members and actual changes made were documented. 

The Bear Lake NWR Draft CCP/EA was issued for public review and comment on September 28, 

2012. The plan was provided on CD to a mailing list of approximately 200 recipients, and was made 

available on the FWS Region 1 planning website. Printed copies of the Draft CCP/EA were available 

at local public libraries, and upon request. All changes made as a result of public and agency 

comments were documented. A summary of public involvement is included in Appendix L; public 

comments on the Draft CCP/EA and the Service’s responses to comments are included in Appendix 

P. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-42 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Chapter 2

Management

Direction

Canada goose/© Greenheron47

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementDirection

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-1

Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.1 Overview 

During development of the management direction for this CCP, the Service reviewed and considered 

a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for managing the 

Refuge. These background conditions are described more fully in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. As is 

appropriate for a National Wildlife Refuge, resource considerations were fundamental in designing 

the management direction. House Report 105-106 accompanying the Improvement Act states “...the 

fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must 

come first.” 

The Refuge planning team reviewed available scientific reports and studies to better understand 

ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for species and habitats. The team met 

with staff from local, State, Native American Tribes, Federal agencies, and elected officials to 

ascertain priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff met with Refuge users, 

nonprofit groups, and community organizations to ensure that their comments and ideas were 

considered during CCP development. 

2.2 Management Directions Considered but Not Developed 

The details of public participation can be found in Appendix L. During development of the CCP, the 

planning team considered the actions detailed below. All of these actions were ultimately eliminated 

for the reasons provided. 

Livestock Grazing. Reassessing the use of cattle grazing on the Refuge to improve habitat was 

suggested during public scoping. Livestock grazing is an economic use that must support 

achievement of refuge purposes and the System Mission in accordance with 50 CFR 29.1. Livestock 

grazing was not included in the management alternatives in the Draft CCP/EA, because under current 

management, domestic livestock grazing as a management tool is not required to meet refuge 

objectives and was deemed incompatible with Bear Lake NWR purposes in 1995. Therefore, grazing 

appropriateness and compatibility were not re-evaluated during the development of the CCP as a 

future management strategy on the Refuge. 

Expanding Off-Refuge Recreational Opportunities. Suggestions were made for the Refuge to 

work with Bear Lake County to increase off-refuge wildlife observation opportunities along the south 

and east boundaries of the Refuge for pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service has no jurisdiction over adjacent land at Bear Lake NWR or Oxford Slough WPA. While the 

CCP does assess alternatives to increase access and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation 

on the Refuge, persons interested in off-refuge outdoor activities and visitation would need to work 

with the State of Idaho, Bear Lake County, or private landowners. The Refuge will continue to work 

with adjacent private landowners and the County to provide improved hunting access to the Refuge. 

Impounding the Thomas Fork Unit. The Thomas Fork Unit will be managed primarily as an 

independent riparian unit. It is currently partially impounded to provide wetland habitat and hayed to 

provide short grass habitat. No increase in impoundment will be pursued in the CCP. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-2 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Restoration of the Bear Lake Marsh to Pre-Settlement Conditions. Although it is uncertain how 

the Bear Lake NWR marsh (locally referred to as Dingle Swamp) functioned prior to development of 

the Bear River irrigation system on lands surrounding the Refuge, it is likely that local topography 

restricted the Bear River to an isolated flood plain with no major inflow connection to Bear Lake. 

Current hydrological alterations to the historic system have been substantial and include the diversion 

of the Bear River by the Telluride Canal Company in the early 1900s. This project led to three major 

structural changes to the Bear River/Bear Lake system including: 

1. Construction of Stewart Dam across the Bear River, which ultimately redirected flow to the 

south. 

2. Construction of the Rainbow inlet canal to redirect flows into Dingle Swamp. 

3. Development of North Beach Road and Lifton Pump Station, which separated the natural 

connectivity of the Dingle Marsh to Bear Lake, to enhance the storage and delivery 

capabilities of Bear River water. 

Because the Refuge is the largest remnant marsh in Bear Lake valley, migratory birds and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife species will remain a primary focus of refuge management. However, 

restoring the natural hydrology of the Bear River and Bear Lake ecosystems is not feasible or 

practical at this time. A project of this magnitude on and off-refuge lands would require major 

alterations that would affect many outside interests. That said, the refuge staff will assess 

management options to mimic the natural hydrologic processes and variable extents of wetland 

habitats representative of the historic Dingle Marsh. 

2.3 Description of Management Direction 

2.3.1 Summary of Management Direction 

Actions described in this CCP will be implemented over 

the life of the plan as funding becomes available. Project 

priorities and projected staffing/funding needs are 

included in Appendix C. 

A brief description of the management direction follows. 

Maps displaying management direction for Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford 

Slough WPA follow this description. Maps 4 and 5 display the current habitat areas on these units 

and the change in distribution of habitats under this CCP. Map 6 displays the retirement of hay units 

on Bear Lake NWR proposed under this CCP. Maps 7 and 8 display changes to public use facilities 

proposed under this CCP. 

Management actions described under this CCP will increase the ecological integrity of the Bear Lake 

NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA and increase opportunities for wildlifedependent public uses at Bear Lake NWR. Management actions will restore refuge habitat integrity 

and watershed sustainability; provide hunting opportunities; and increase opportunities for wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and fishing. 

Wildlife and habitat. Refuge objectives focus on partially restoring long-term habitat function, 

providing an acceptable range of natural variability, increasing habitat resilience in the face of 

external stress, and increasing long-term wildlife population vigor. Management will simulate 

seasonal natural processes by mimicking variation within “drought,” “normal,” or “flood” scenarios, 

The CCP sets priorities for 

implementation. Actions will be 

implemented over a period of 15 years 

as funding becomes available.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-3

while providing an approximately equal annual acreage of wetland habitat types across the Refuge. 

This management will provide waterfowl breeding and fall migration habitat, but the predominant 

emphasis is on having a representative natural range of habitat variation for not only waterfowl, but 

also for other migratory waterbirds. In comparison to current management, a moderate increase in 

spring and fall seasonal and moist soil wetland habitats will occur under this CCP. Management 

actions and water-level manipulations will provide a variety of permanent, semi-permanent, seasonal, 

and temporary habitats with irregular spatial occurrence among units, but approximately equal annual 

extents of wetland habitats across the Refuge. In other words, the total refuge acreage of each habitat 

will remain approximately the same in any year but will vary by unit. The Refuge will study the 

feasibility of further reducing sediment loading within the Mud Lake Complex and make 

recommendations by 2020 to reduce the sedimentation rate of Bear River water diversions and better 

facilitate carp and non-native game fish exclusion. The Thomas Fork Unit will be managed for 

variable wetlands by simulating natural “drought” and “normal” hydrologic regimes, but spring 

runoff will be retained, and “flood” scenarios will be simulated in years of excess snowpack. The 

Service will pursue strategies to increase the reliability of late-season water on the Oxford Slough 

WPA to benefit breeding waterfowl and waterbirds. In addition we will set back succession in deep 

emergent marshes through controlled burns and/or mechanical means, and increase topographic 

variability in areas previously leveled for farm fields. 

Under this CCP, approximately 154 acres (72 percent of current 214 farmed acres) of small grain and 

legume crops will continue to be cultivated for waterfowl and other key wildlife species on Bear 

Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA. Haying within meadow and grassland 

habitats on the Refuge and WPA will be reduced to 1,492 acres (44 percent of current 3,554 hayed 

acres) by 2027. Haying rotations and incremental reductions will occur every five years, over three 

five-year cycles: 2013-2017; 2018-2022; 2023-2027 (see Map 6). An approximate 60:40 ratio of 

hayed-to-unhayed meadow will exist by 2027. Short-stature habitat will be managed for highly 

productive goose brooding and foraging areas, while medium- and tall-stature habitat will be 

managed for meadow or upland nesting species (e.g., Wilson’s phalarope, northern pintail, black 

tern). A total of 2,041 acres of previously hayed habitats will be restored or rehabilitated on the 

Refuge and Oxford Slough WPA by 2027. 

Upland and riparian management activity will increase considerably from current management. We 

will maintain and protect the existing function of early successional uplands, while restoring 

resiliency to late successional uplands. We will protect the existing function of early successional 

uplands by increasing structural height and density of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Improvements will be made to the continuity of on and off-refuge in-stream corridor habitats to 

benefit Bonneville cutthroat trout and other wildlife. This will be accomplished through the 

promotion of off-refuge collaborative partnerships that attempt to optimize both the productivity of 

wildlife habitat and the sustainability of land uses. Causal factors for riparian habitat degradation will 

be minimized, removed, or mitigated. 

Hunting and fishing. Under this CCP the Service will continue current waterfowl and upland game 

hunting programs at Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA. The Thomas Fork Unit will 

remain closed to all public use. 

Bear Lake NWR: 7,450 acres (40 percent) of Bear Lake NWR are open for waterfowl hunting during 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)-established seasons. The hunt area includes the Salt 

Meadow, Rainbow Sub-Impoundment, Rainbow, and Merkley Lake Units, and the Mud Lake Unit as 

far south as the buoys (see Map 7). Two Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)-accessible hunting blinds 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-4 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

are available at Bear Lake NWR from October to January. To facilitate waterfowl hunting, motorized 

and nonmotorized boats are allowed in the hunt area September 20 to January 15. Upland game 

hunting of gray partridge, sharp-tailed and ruffed grouse, sage-grouse, ring-necked pheasant, and 

cottontail is also allowed in the hunt area in accordance with State seasons and regulations; however, 

only 300 acres of the hunt area support upland game species. 

On Bear Lake NWR, the Outlet Canal north of the former Paris Dike is open to bank fishing (poleand-line for carp, perch, and trout, and bow fishing for carp). Fishing opportunities at Bear Lake 

NWR will be expanded by opening the banks along Merkley Lake Road to fishing, and through 

construction of improved signage and small piers or fishing platforms to provide a safer and more 

comfortable fishing experience along the Outlet Canal north of the Paris Dike. The area north of the 

Lifton Pumping Station will be closed to fishing.

Oxford Slough WPA: The Oxford Slough WPA will remain open to hunting of waterfowl, upland 

game and furbearers, and big game, and trapping in accordance with State regulations. There is no 

fishery at the WPA, and therefore no fishing opportunities. 

Wildlife observation/photography and environmental education/interpretation. 

Bear Lake NWR: The 2.4-mile Auto Tour Route is open year-round, although it may be impassable 

at times in winter. An ABA-accessible walking trail, with two accessible wildlife 

observation/photography blinds, is open March 15 to September 20. Roads open to vehicular traffic 

from July 1 to January 20 are available to visitors for walking and hiking. A Canoe Trail is available 

for nonmotorized craft only from July 1 to September 20. The 7,450-acre seasonally open (hunt) area 

will be closed to boating, other than boats used to access waterfowl hunting opportunities. Pedestrian 

access (including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing) will be allowed on service roads and dikes 

within this area from July 1 to February 28. The Refuge will work with the State and County to 

develop displays along overlooks on Highways 89 and 30 to interpret the Thomas Fork Unit. The 

Thomas Fork Unit will remain closed to public use. 

Additional opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education will be available under this CCP, by provisions for providing diverse wetland habitats that 

allow a wide variety of waterbirds and associated species to flourish, development of additional 

facilities, and increased staffing and volunteer programs. Two vehicle turnouts will be constructed 

along the Merkley Lake Road to provide wildlife viewing and interpretation of the Mud Lake Unit. 

Additionally, a boardwalk and wildlife-viewing platform with interpretive panels will be constructed 

on the southeast border of the Refuge along North Beach Road. 

Oxford Slough WPA: At the Oxford Slough WPA, a new brochure and interpretive panels located at 

strategic sites for viewing the WPA will be developed to educate visitors about the role of WPAs in 

conserving wildlife. Volunteer-led educational programs will be provided with support from Bear 

Lake NWR. The WPA will be closed to public access (except for trapping in accordance with State 

regulations) from April 1 to August 1 to reduce disturbance to colonial nesting birds. 

Southeast Idaho Complex: A full-time volunteer coordinator position in the Southeast Idaho NWR 

Complex Office will oversee recruitment and training of volunteers and develop education programs 

on all four refuges within the Southeast Idaho Complex. Interns from university education programs 

will be used to design and conduct environmental education programs. New refuge staff will work 

with Scouting groups to develop programs and earn merit badges. New refuge staff will also work 

with partners to develop citizen science programs. Within five years of CCP completion, plans for a 

combined refuge office and small visitor contact station, with a small environmental education 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-5

classroom on or near the Refuge, will be completed, and funding will be sought to construct these 

facilities. 

State coordination. The Service will continue to maintain regular discussions with the IDFG. Key 

topics of discussion will include habitat management for waterfowl and other migratory birds; 

updates of waterfowl management plans; wildlife monitoring; hunting and fishing seasons and 

regulations, and management of Federal and State-listed species. 

Tribal coordination. The Service will coordinate and consult with the Northwestern Band of 

Shoshone and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Idaho on a regular basis regarding issues of shared 

interest relating to traditional resources. The Service will also seek assistance from the Tribes, as 

needed, on issues related to cultural resources education and interpretation, special programs, and the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

PacifiCorp coordination. PacifiCorp owns and manages the water control systems that divert the 

Bear River through the Refuge into Bear Lake and then release water through the Outlet Canal. The 

Refuge and PacifiCorp work together to maintain optimal water levels for wildlife and habitat on the 

Refuge while abiding by their 1968 agreement and applicable laws that constrain PacifiCorp’s 

operations (Appendix M). In this context, management defines “optimal” as those water levels 

providing the most favorable conditions for the target habitat and species. For example, for 

waterfowl production, water levels should remain relatively stable throughout the breeding season 

and be neither so low that predators have easy access to nests, nor so high that suitable nesting 

habitat is reduced. 

Maintain waterfowl habitat in support of Pacific Flyway planning efforts. The Pacific Flyway 

Council (PFC) prepares management plans for populations of swans, geese, and sandhill cranes in 

the Pacific Flyway (www.pacificflyway.gov). These plans help State and Federal agencies 

cooperatively manage migratory game birds under common goals. Defining the role and extent of 

waterfowl habitat, including sanctuary areas (areas closed to hunting and significant disturbance from 

other public uses) is a component of Pacific Flyway waterfowl management plans. Bear Lake NWR 

and Oxford Slough WPA will continue to manage waterfowl habitat, and will make adjustments as 

needed, in support of these plans (see Chapter 1). 

Cooperative Land Management agreements (CLMA). The Refuge will evaluate cooperative 

agreements with persons for crop cultivation, haying, or the harvest of vegetative products, including 

plant life, growing with or without cultivation on wildlife refuge areas on a share-in-kind basis when 

such agreements are in aid of or benefit to the wildlife management of the Refuge (50 CFR 29.2).

Adaptive management. The Refuge will be using an adaptive management (AM) decision making 

process to implement management strategies authorized in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP). Adaptive management is a science-based public participation process for evaluating and 

adjusting a conservation effort relative to goal achievement as experience and knowledge are gained 

through implementation, study, and discussion. The Refuge and its collaborative partners support the 

fact that AM promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as 

outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. As the CCP is 

implemented, AM would help the Refuge achieve diverse goals while enhancing wildlife benefits, 

advancing scientific knowledge, and improving working relationships among stakeholders. 

The principle of AM is based on the recognition that ecosystem function is inherently complex which 

often results in knowledge gaps. AM implementation means a firm commitment to the development 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-6 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

of measurable outcomes and the application of rigorous evaluation and monitoring methods to 

determine whether management goals are being met. Careful monitoring of these actions advances 

scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an on-going learning 

process. This is not a “trial and error” process but rather emphasizes “learning while doing,” which 

recognizes the importance of incorporating new information as it becomes available. AM requires 

flexibility and an ability to acknowledge risks/failures while using new knowledge in a constructive 

manner to make adjustments while building a foundation for ongoing learning/adjustment. 

The Refuge is committed to a rigorous and inclusive AM approach to enhance public confidence in 

the ability of the Refuge to transfer the theory to practice. The Refuge recognizes as it moves forward 

with CCP implementation that there is a critical need for transparency. This transparency, as it 

pertains to AM, needs to include both the learning and decision making processes. The following 

discussion describes how the Refuge will move forward through AM. 

INFORMATION SHARING/LEARNING – The Refuge is committed to an AM process that will 

bring diverse interests together through various forums to share information and site-specific results 

so that all those engaged, including the Refuge, can learn together. These forums will evolve through 

time but will include mechanisms such as the Highlands Cooperative Weed Management Area, Bear 

Lake Regional Commission, and working groups formed as needed. The timing and frequency of 

information sharing/learning will be determined by how rapidly new information is being acquired, 

level of partners’ interest/engagement, ecological cycles and the forum being used. The Refuge will 

share the results of its inventory and monitoring work. Additionally, the Refuge will be responsive to 

partners’ requests for open discussion and collaboration in assessing the need for adaptive changes in 

management. 

DECISION MAKING – As the Refuge and partners learn through the AM process, new information 

may show the need for adjustments, confirm existing strategies or identify additional information 

needs. Based on the best information available at the time, the Refuge will make decisions for future 

management actions. As with the sharing/learning aspects of AM, the Refuge recognizes the 

importance of transparency for decisions made during the AM process. The Refuge is committed to 

bringing together interested parties to assist with the evaluation of available information and 

consultation about management options and their implications prior to making course changing 

decisions. This process does not diminish the Refuge’s legal authority to make decisions, but rather 

serves to enhance the decision making process by enabling the Refuge to approach issues from 

multiple perspectives, thereby finding creative solutions to complex challenges. 

Inventory and monitoring. Current and proposed new inventorying and monitoring (I&M) policy 

(863 FW 1 to supersede 701 FW 2) requires refuges to prepare I&M plans. Refuge I&M plans have 

two sequential phases (parts): 

1. A prioritized list of surveys for approval by the refuge supervisor. 

2. Individual protocols based upon the finalized list of surveys. 

An I&M step down plan will be developed for Bear Lake NWR within three years of the CCP’s 

completion. The Refuge I&M Plan will consist of three components. The first is a prioritized list of 

surveys and methods for the Refuge. The second provides a justification regarding how each survey 

informs refuge resource management decisions. The third focuses on time frames (calendar) to 

complete training, field work, data management and analyses, and reporting for each survey. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-7

Carp control. Carp control is an essential element to ensure adequate habitat functions at Bear Lake 

NWR. Through IPM strategies (Appendix F) the Refuge will maintain carp screens on all water 

control structures and periodically draw down water in specific refuge impoundments for sustained 

periods in the winter to facilitate carp control with chemical applications of rotenone. 

Invasive species control and integrated pest management (IPM). In accordance with 517 DM 1 

and 569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach will be used, where practicable, to 

eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on 

refuge lands. IPM will involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological 

disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to non-target species and the refuge 

environment. Pesticides may be used where physical, cultural, and biological methods or 

combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or 

containment. If a pesticide is needed on refuge lands, the most specific (selective) chemical available 

for the target species will be used unless considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or 

biotic hazards preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide usage will be further restricted 

because only pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in full 

compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and as provided in 

regulations, orders, or permits issued by USEPA may be applied on lands and waters under refuge 

jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in 

environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors including declines in native 

species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered 

ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species 

including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from 

reproducing or killing their young; out-competing them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites or other 

vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations, truly native 

individuals are scarce. Environmental harm can also be the result of an indirect effect of pest species. 

For example, decreased waterfowl use may result from invasive plant infestations reducing the 

availability and/or abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during the winter. 

Environmental harm may involve detrimental changes in ecological processes. For example, 

cheatgrass infestations in shrub steppe can greatly alters fire return intervals, displacing native 

species and communities of bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Environmental harm may also cause or 

be associated with economic losses and damage to human, plant, and animal health. For example, 

invasions by fire-promoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal communities by eliminating or 

sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal species can also greatly increase firefighting costs. 

See Appendix F for the Refuge’s IPM program documentation to manage pests for this CCP. Along 

with a more detailed discussion of IPM techniques, this documentation describes the selective use of 

pesticides for pest management on refuge lands, where necessary. Throughout the life of the CCP, 

most proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands will be evaluated for potential effects to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality. These potential effects will be documented in 

“Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix F). Pesticide uses with appropriate and practical best 

management practices (BMPs) for habitat management as well as cropland/facilities maintenance 

will be approved for use on refuge lands where there likely will be only minor, temporary, and 

localized effects to species and environmental quality based upon non-exceedance of threshold 

values in Chemical Profiles. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-8 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Hazard analysis and critical control point plan. Hazard analysis and critical control points 

planning (HACCP) is a tool to aid natural resource managers identify critical control points in their 

activities to decrease the spread of invasive species. The HACCP Wizard Version 2.04 

(http://www.haccp-nrm.org/Wizard/default.asp) will be used to construct plans for staff, contractors, 

volunteers, and other users of the Refuge to evaluate their activities and address ways to conduct 

their activities to limit the chance of spreading invasive species. 

Fire management. Wildland fire management on Camas, Bear Lake, Grays Lake, and Minidoka 

NWRs are governed by the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management 

Plan (Appendix G). The Fire Management Plan (FMP) is written to meet Department and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service requirements that every area with burnable vegetation must have an approved 

FMP. It complies with a FWS requirement that refuges review and/or revise FMPs at a minimum of 

five-year intervals or when significant changes are proposed, such as might occur if significant land 

use changes are made on or adjacent to FWS lands (621 FW 2). 

The goal of wildland fire management is to plan and implement actions that help accomplish the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. That mission is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans (095 FW 3.2). 

The FMP enables the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex to consider a full range of 

appropriate suppression strategies and to conduct prescribed fires; without it, prescribed fires cannot 

be conducted and only wildfire suppression strategies may be implemented. This FMP identifies and 

integrates all wildland fire management and related activities. It defines a program to manage 

wildland fires and to ensure that wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated. 

The FMP identified six fire management objectives and constraints: 

 Use prescribed fire and mechanical manipulation to annually simulate natural environmental 

processes (return to early successional status) in emergent wetland and wet meadow habitats. 

 Eliminate or control invasive plant species by using a combination of mechanical, prescribed 

fire, and chemical treatments. 

 Fire Management Unit (FMU) Appropriate Management Response objectives include 

managing wildfires to meet fuels and habitat objectives and to benefit migratory bird habitat. 

 The waterfowl nesting season at the refuges ranges from mid-April to late summer. 

Prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction treatments will typically not take place during 

this time to avoid disturbing nesting habitat. 

 Due to constraints such as nesting season, water level fluctuation, and fire season the Refuge 

will have two prescribed burn windows in spring and fall. As determined from past years’ 

burn experiences the approximate burn windows will be: Spring-March 1 to April 15; FallSeptember 20 to October 30. During these windows the above constraints can be mitigated 

and vegetation is cured out enough to meet prescribed burn objectives. 

 General Appropriate Management Response strategy (AMR) – AMR strategy will range 

from full suppression to confine contain on isolated bulrush islands surrounded by water. The 

majority of the Refuge will use AMR full suppression, especially adjacent to private 

property. However there are some isolated pockets of bulrush in the Mud Lake area 

(southeast corner of the Refuge) that are surrounded by water. These areas will be very 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-9

difficult to access for fire suppression and a wildfire could potentially provide a resource 

benefit. 

The FMP identified four fire management values to protect: 

 High priority will be given to any wildfire on the Refuge threatening private property: the 

federally designated Communities at Risk, Dingle, Paris, and Bloomington are adjacent to the 

Refuge. 

 The northeast Mud Lake colonial nesting areas used by white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gulls, 

herons, and egrets. 

 Refuge structures. 

 High voltage power lines running across the southwest corner of the Refuge. 

Participation in Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA). The Service has proposed 

to work with private landowners to conserve the natural resources and working landscapes of the 

Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA). This project will help conserve important 

habitat for a variety of fish, mammals, and migratory birds, including major migration corridors 

connecting the northern and southern Rockies, and protect vital farm and ranch lands by acquiring 

conservation easements from willing sellers. Over the past several decades, the Service has 

developed a highly effective voluntary conservation easement program, working with landowners, to 

protect wildlife habitat on private lands. We recognize that conservation requires a collaborative 

effort across the landscape and that we must partner with private landowners to be successful. As a 

voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and the Service, a conservation easement is a 

perpetual agreement that the Service purchases from willing landowners. Conservation easements 

typically include habitat protection measures that prohibit development but allow for the continuation 

of traditional activities such as livestock grazing and haying. Land ownership and other property 

rights, including control of public access, remain with the landowner. Easement properties remain on 

the local tax rolls. 

The Service has had great success using this collaborative approach in many other areas. Based on 

our preliminary analysis and comments we received during public scoping meetings, the Bear River 

Watershed should be an ideal location for this “working lands” approach to conservation. Such a 

collaborative approach only works when there is buy-in at all levels. The BRWCA project enjoys a 

high level of support from local landowners, land trusts, conservation organizations, and other 

agencies. However, we have recently learned that not everyone fully understands the details of the 

BRWCA project and that there are concerns to be discussed and resolved. Therefore we have 

postponed the project to allow sufficient time to meet with individuals, explain project details, and 

incorporate feedback into the planning document. 

If the proposed BRWCA project is approved, the Service will purchase conservation easements with 

funds generated primarily through 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. Easement prices offered to willing sellers will be determined by an 

appraisal completed by an appraiser familiar with the local market. Funding is appropriated by 

Congress to use for a specific project, such as the proposed BRWCA. 

Land protection planning. Land protection as part of the NWRS may include fee title acquisition, 

conservation easements, and cooperative agreements. It is anticipated that landowners adjacent to the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-10 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Refuge will participate in the easement program offered by the BRWCA program, should that 

program be approved. This will afford protection to high-quality habitats surrounding the Refuge. 

Attempts will continue to be made to acquire the remaining 4,461 acres of private lands within the 

approved refuge boundary. All lands will be purchased from willing sellers at fair market price. The 

Service will expand the boundary of Bear Lake NWR to include the Thomas Fork Unit. Additionally, 

the refuge staff will continue to evaluate the conservation needs and priorities of lands adjacent and 

near the existing refuge units, and the possibility of developing a new Land Protection Plan, which 

could expand the refuge boundary. If developed, the Plan would prioritize fee title acquisition of 

adjoining lands that are most critical for protection of refuge water quality and quantity; have the 

highest quality mixed-shrub and wetland habitat; and provide the best opportunities for habitat 

restoration. As with acquisition of lands within the existing boundary, any lands acquired within an 

expanded refuge boundary will be purchased only from willing sellers. 

Participation in fish passage projects. The Refuge will work in partnership with PacifiCorp and the 

IDFG to study and consult on the effects of fish passage at irrigation diversions and water control 

structures within the Refuge. 

Cultural resource protection and compliance. Cultural resource management is an integral part of 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge management, not just because the law mandates it but for the 

unique information it can bring to understanding our environment. 

Actions with the potential to affect cultural resources will undergo a thorough review before being 

implemented, as is consistent with the requirements of cultural resource laws. All ground-disturbing 

projects will undergo a review and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The following cultural resource issues are addressed in the goals and objectives of the Refuge 

Cultural Resource Management Plan (Appendix H): 

1. Maintaining the integrity of the Refuge’s cultural resources while managing and restoring 

wildlife habitat. 

2. Consulting with federally recognized tribes on the management of Native American cultural 

resources in a manner that facilitates the mission of the Refuge and addresses issues of 

importance to Tribes. 

3. Working and consulting with federally recognized tribes on the disposition of human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony as defined under 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

4. Incorporating cultural resources into an interpretive and recreation program that illustrates 

humankind’s interaction with the natural world. 

Monitor effects of public use programs on wildlife. Monitoring to assess the effects of public use 

on wildlife will be conducted. Area, timing, and/or conduct of public use will be modified if 

disturbance to wildlife or habitat degradation reaches unacceptable levels. 

Reduce the Refuge’s carbon footprint. The Service has developed a Strategic Plan for Responding 

to Accelerating Climate Change in the 21st Century (2010), and a five year Action Plan outlining 

specific actions needed to implement the Strategic Plan. The Action Plan calls for the Service to 

make its operations carbon-neutral by 2020. The Refuge will work toward this goal by replacing its 

current vehicles with more fuel-efficient vehicles, and by building appropriately sized, energyefficient facilities, as funding becomes available. The Refuge will also reduce the carbon footprint of 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-11

land management activities by using energy-efficient techniques, where feasible, in line with 

management goals. The Refuge will also explore ways of offsetting any remaining carbon balance, 

such as carbon sequestration. 

Management of non-wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Minor recreational activities that are 

occasionally pursued on the Refuge are included in the appropriateness and compatibility 

determinations found in Appendices A and B. 

Participation in planning and review of regional development activities. The Service will 

actively participate in planning and studies pertaining to future industrial and urban development, 

transportation, recreation, contamination, and other potential concerns that may affect refuge 

resources. The Service will continue to cultivate working relationships with county, State, and 

Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments, and will use outreach and 

education as needed to raise awareness of refuge resources and dependence on the local environment. 

Volunteer opportunities and partnerships. Volunteer opportunities and partnerships are key 

components of the successful management of public lands, and are vital to refuge programs, plans, 

and projects, especially in times of static or declining budgets. In the future, successful 

implementation of native habitat restoration, inventory and monitoring, and environmental education 

and interpretation programs will likely require the use of partnerships and volunteers. 

Wilderness review. The Service’s CCP policy requires that a wilderness review be completed for all 

CCPs. If it is determined that the potential for wilderness designation is found, the process moves on 

to the wilderness study phase. The planning team completed a wilderness review, which can be found 

in Appendix D. This review concluded that Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford 

Slough WPA are not suitable for wilderness designation. 

Maintenance and updating of existing facilities. Periodic maintenance and updating of refuge 

buildings and facilities will be necessary. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for safety and 

accessibility, reducing the Refuge’s carbon footprint, and to support staff and management needs. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-12 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
R 43E R 44E R 44E R 45E

Saint 

Charles

loomington

Bear Lake

30

Legend

National Wildlife Refuge, Acquired

National Wildlife Refuge, Approved

Open Water

Submerged Aquatic

Deep Emergent

Shallow Emergent

Wet Meadow

Alkali Meadow

Riparian

Alkali Upland Meadow

Meadow Grass

Mixed Shrub

Forage Crops

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

Map 4. Bear Lake NWR, Habitat Types, Current with Comparison to CCP Management Direction

Not Assessed

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.6 1.2 0.3

Kilometers

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-13
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-14 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 
Oxford Slough WPA and Thomas Fork Unit, Current Habitat Types

Thomas Fork Unit

(1:16,000)

Legend

National Wildlife Refuge, Approved

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

Map 5.

Oxford Slough

(1:24,000)

Open Water

Submergent

Deep Emergent

Shallow Emergent

Wet Meadow

Alkali Meadow

Riparian

Alkali Upland Meadow

Meadow Grass

Shrub

Ag Field

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.15 0.3 0.6

Kilometers

0 0.3 0.6

Miles

0 0.25 0.5 0.125

Kilometers

with Comparison to CCP Management Direction

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-15
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-16 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 
Hay Unit Retirement Plan

Bear Lake

Legend

National Wildlife Refuge, Acquired

National Wildlife Refuge, Approved

Retired Hay Unit

Retire First

Retire Second

Retire Third

Retire Fourth

Continue Cooperative Farming

Continue to Hay for Wildlife Benefits

Map 6

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

0 1 2 Miles

0 0.5 1 2

Kilometers

Map Date: 04/26/2012 File:12-080-5.mxd

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-17
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-18 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
Bear

Lake

Public Use Facilities

Map Date: 04/26/2012 File:12-080-8.mxd

Map 7.

Hunting, Boating, and Viewing (Seasonal)

Fishing Area

Legend

Current Facilities (2012)

New Facilities (CCP)

Boat Launch

Fishing

Info

Kiosk

Restroom

Parking Lot

Vehicle pull-out and Interpetation

Inset Area,

see next 

map

Buoy Line

Fishing area 

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.6 1.2 0.3

Kilometers

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-19
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-20 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
Public Use Facilities

Map Date: 04/26/2012 File:12-080-8.mxd

Map 8.

Bear

Lake

Current Facilities (2012)

New Facilities (CCP)

Boat Launch

Canoe Trail

Foot Bridge

Hiking

Parking Lot

Vehicle Turnout

Spotting Scope

Wildlife Viewing

Photo Blind

 Hunting/Photo Blind

Auto Tour Route

Hiking Trail

Canoe Trail

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

0 0.125 0.25 Miles

0 0.1 0.2 0.05

Kilometers

Current Facilities (2012)

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-21 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-22 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-23 

Table 2.1. Summary of Future Management 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

THEME INCREASE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, INCREASE PUBLIC USE

Restore refuge habitat integrity and watershed sustainability. 

Variable wetlands 

Restore native uplands 

Restore native riparian 

Decrease agriculture 

Maintain hunting opportunities; 

Increase opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, interpretation, and fishing.

REFUGE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

WILDLIFE HABITAT  Dynamic management to partially restore/mimic ecological 

function and variability and improve resilience of habitats to 

climate change and stochastic events 

WILDLIFE POPULATIONS  Increase long-term wildlife population productivity and 

viability for all species 

REFUGE MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

WETLANDS  Simulate seasonal natural processes by mimicking variation 

within “drought”, “normal”, or “flood” scenarios, while 

providing consistent annual acreage of wetland habitat types 

across the Refuge (Drought/normal/flood scenarios will be 

rotated among different wetland management units.) 

 Group 13 individual units, into five managed wetland 

Complexes to manage natural variations in hydrology 

RIPARIAN  Maintain on-refuge habitat structure and minimize stream bank 

erosion 

 Strategic restoration to improve continuity of stream corridor 

habitat and remove and minimize causal factors of stream 

impairment, both within the Refuge, and outside the Refuge by 

working cooperatively with adjacent landowners. 

UPLANDS  Maintain and protect the existing function of early successional 

uplands by increasing height and density of native grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs, while restoring resiliency to late successional 

uplands by reducing shrub dominated states and increasing 

grass and forbs 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-24 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

GOAL 1: WETLANDS

TALL EMERGENT WETLANDS

1.1 TALL EMERGENT WETLANDS 

Comprising Deep Hemi-Marsh (Open Water, 

Submerged Aquatic, Deep Emergent) and 

Shallow Emergent habitats

 Provide an average 15,773 acres 

DEEP HEMI-MARSH 

Comprising Open Water. Submerged Aquatic, 

and Deep Emergent habitats 

 Provide an average 11,599 acres

 50:50 Open Water/Submerged Aquatic: Deep Emergent ratio 

1.1A OPEN WATER HABITAT  Provide an average 2,650 acres of Open Water 

 By 2020, make recommendations on techniques to reduce 

sediment loading and populations of carp and non-native game 

fish within the Mud Lake Complex. 

1.1B SUBMERGED AQUATIC HABITAT  Provide an average 3,090 acres of Submerged Aquatic 

1.1C DEEP EMERGENT HABITAT  Provide an average 5,859 acres of Deep Emergent 

1.1D SHALLOW EMERGENT  Provide an average 4,174 acres of Shallow Emergent 

GOAL 1: WETLANDS 

EPHEMERAL WETLANDS

EPHEMERAL WETLANDS

Comprising Wet Meadow and Alkali Meadow 

habitats. 

 Provide an average 2,593 acres of Ephemeral Wetlands 

1.2A WET MEADOW HABITAT  Provide an average 1,932 acres of Wet Meadow 

1.2B ALKALI MEADOW HABITAT  Provide an average 661 acres of Alkali Meadow 

GOAL 2. WOODED RIPARIAN AND IN-STREAM WETLANDS

WOODED RIPARIAN AND IN-STREAM 

HABITAT

 Protect and maintain 134 acres of Wooded Riparian habitat 

 Restore 42 acres of Wooded Riparian habitat by 2027

 Restore 5 miles of In-Stream Aquatic Riparian habitat for 

spawning Bonneville cutthroat trout by 2027

 Throughout the lifetime of the CCP, the Refuge will work in 

partnership with PacifiCorp and the IDFG to study and 

consult on the effects of fish passage at irrigation diversions 

and water control structures within the Refuge 

THOMAS FORK PARTNERSHIP  Formulate water management agreement with the Thomas 

Fork Irrigation Company by 2017

GOAL 3. NATIVE UPLANDS 

NATIVE UPLANDS

(ALL HABITATS) 

 Protect and maintain 2,143 acres of Native Uplands 

 Restore 317 acres of Native Uplands 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-25 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

ALKALI UPLAND MEADOW HABITAT  Protect and maintain 467 acres of Alkali Upland Meadow 

 Restore 25 acres of Alkali Upland Meadow 

MEADOW GRASS HABITAT  Protect and maintain 1,134 acres of Meadow Grass 

 Restore 214 acres of Meadow Grass 

MIXED-SHRUB HABITAT  Protect and maintain 542 acres of Mixed-Shrub 

 Restore 79 acres of Mixed-Shrub 

GOAL 4. UPLAND CROPS AND HAYING

CROPS  Provide 154 acres of small grains and green browse annually 

for migratory waterfowl in upland areas. 

 Restore two agricultural fields totaling 11 acres of cropland to 

native upland or meadow habitat by 2016

HAYING  Provide 1,492 acres of hayed meadow 

 Discontinue haying 2,041 acres (58% of current 3,533 hayed 

acres) by 2027. 

 Maintain no more than a 60:40 hayed-to-un-hayed ratio in 

meadows 

 At Bear Lake NWR: Hay 1,127 acres (39% of the current 2,896 

hayed acres) comprising 810 acres in rotational haying and 318 

acres annually hayed by 2027. 

 Phase in 1,769 acres in haying reductions (61% of current 

2,896 hayed acres) over the life of the CCP. 

o Discontinue haying on 554 acres (19% of the current 2,896 

hayed acres) in the first year of CCP implementation in 

2013. 

o Discontinue haying approximately 400-410 acres (14% of 

the current 2,896 hayed acres) every five years, in three 

five-year cycles. 

 At Thomas Fork: Rotationally hay 215 acres (64% of the 

current 337 hayed acres) by the year 2017. 

 Phase in 122 acres of haying reductions (36% of current 337 

hayed acres) over a five-year period. 

 At Oxford Slough: Rotationally hay 150 acres (50% of the 

current 300 hayed acres) by the year 2017. 

 Phase in 150 acres of haying reductions (50% of current 300 

hayed acres) over a five-year period. 

HAY RESTORATION  Restore 2,041 acres of previously hayed meadow, upland, and 

shallow emergent habitat by 2027 

GOAL 5. PUBLIC USE

WELCOME AND ORIENT VISITORS  Enhance public safety, sanitation, comfort, and orientation over 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-26 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

the life of the CCP 

 Within five years of CCP completion, develop plan for refuge 

office/visitor contact point located on or near Refuge 

 Develop outreach program 

 Staff a Volunteer Coordinator Position in the Southeast Idaho 

NWRC Office in Pocatello, ID 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND 

PHOTOGRAPHY (BEAR LAKE NWR) 

 Maintain opportunities for self-guided wildlife observation and 

photography on:

 2.4 mile Auto Tour Route (open year-round) 

 1.9 mile ABA-accessible pedestrian trail with two accessible 

photography blinds (March 15-Sept 20)

 1.5 mile seasonal Canoe Trail (July 1-Sept 20)

 Develop boardwalk and observation platform along North 

Beach Road

 Develop two vehicle turnouts along Merkley Lake Road

 Provide at least one guided wildlife observation/photography 

tour per month May-Sept. 

 Boating prohibited in 7,450-acre hunt areas, except to access 

hunting

 Pedestrian access allowed on service roads and dikes in 7,450-

acre hunt area, July 1-Jan 20 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION (BEAR LAKE NWR) 

 Conduct up to three annual staff-led interpretive programs by 

2017. 

 Develop refuge-based EE program for area schools 

 Develop outreach program to expand public awareness of 

species diversity and ecology, habitat management actions, 

and the NWRS mission 

 Hire a full-time volunteer coordinator position in the Southeast 

Idaho NWR Complex Office and refuge position dedicated to 

public outreach, and developing and delivering on-site 

interpretive and environmental education programs. 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION,

PHOTOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENTAL 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

(OXFORD SLOUGH WPA, THOMAS 

FORK UNIT) 

Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Develop interpretive panels located at strategic sites for 

viewing the WPA. 

 Provide volunteer-led educational programs 

 Close WPA to public access (except for trapping in accordance 

with State regulations) from April 1-August 1 to reduce 

disturbance to colonial nesting birds. 

Thomas Fork Unit closed to public use except: 

 Develop displays along overlooks on Highways 89 and 30 to 

interpret the Thomas Fork Unit. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-27 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

WATERFOWL HUNTING (BEAR LAKE 

NWR) 

Bear Lake NWR: 

 7,450-acre Bear Lake NWR (40% of refuge) open to waterfowl 

hunting in accordance with State seasons and regulations 

 Two ABA-accessible hunting blinds and associated trail 

 Obtain easements for hunter access to Rainbow Unit and 

Merkley Lake Unit. 

 Provide refuge youth hunting opportunity the weekend prior to 

opening weekend and develop additional programs to attract 

and educate youth hunters 

WATERFOWL HUNTING (OXFORD 

SLOUGH WPA, THOMAS FORK UNIT) 

 All 1,840 acres of Oxford Slough open to waterfowl hunting. 

 All 1,004 acres of Thomas Fork Unit closed to waterfowl 

hunting.

UPLAND GAME HUNTING, BIG GAME 

HUNTING, AND TRAPPING

 Provide upland game hunting opportunities (gray partridge, 

sharp-tailed and ruffed grouse, sage-grouse, ring-necked 

pheasant, and cottontails)

 Maintain closure of Bear Lake NWR to big-game hunting

 All 1,840 acres of Oxford Slough WPA open to hunting of 

upland game and furbearers, big game, and trapping of 

furbearers.

 Thomas Fork Unit closed to upland game and big game 

hunting.

FISHING (BEAR LAKE NWR)  Bank fishing allowed on the Outlet Canal north of the former 

Paris Dike. 

 Close area north of the Lifton Pumping Station to fishing. 

 Increase quality of fishing program by constructing 

piers/fishing platforms. 

 Open fishing from refuge banks along Merkley Lake Road. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-28 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful management of National Wildlife 

Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas. They identify and focus management priorities, resolve 

issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the Refuge System mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly 

reflects the purposes of the Refuge or WPA, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory 

requirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of 

the vision, followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward 

achieving those goals. Strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives 

(USFWS 2002). 

The goals for Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough WPA for the next 15 

years, following completion of the CCP, are presented on the following pages, in tables. Each goal is 

followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and 

have simply been placed in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple 

objectives. 

The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are identified in the staffing 

and funding analysis (Appendix C). 

Readers, please note the following: 

Below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to accomplish the 

objectives. Symbols used in the following tables include: 

% percent sign 

> greater than 

< less than 

> greater than or equal to 

< less than or equal to 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-29

2.4.1 Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA Wildlife, Habitat, and 

Natural Resource Goals and Objectives 

GOAL 1: Provide high-quality wetland habitat at Bear Lake NWR and Oxford 

Slough WPA that provides for the life history requirements of focal wildlife species. 

On Bear Lake NWR, simulate the ecological processes and functional values of the 

historic Dingle Marsh. 

Objective 1.1 Tall Emergent Wetlands (Permanently and Semi-permanently Flooded) 

Annually provide a total of 15,773 acres of Tall Emergent wetlands on Bear Lake NWR 

and Oxford Slough WPA*, comprised of 11,599 acres Deep Hemi-Marsh (open water; 

submerged aquatic; deep emergent habitats) and 4,174 acres of Shallow Emergent 

habitat, with a ratio of Open Water/Submerged Aquatic: Deep Emergent of 51:49 at 

Bear Lake, 33:67 at Thomas Fork, and 19:81 at Oxford Slough, distributed among the 

following attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

*The totals included in this objective are a summation of five management complexes of Bear Lake 

NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA. 

Refuge Tall Emergent Wetland Target (All Units):

Decrease from 17,110 acres to a target of 15,773 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Tall Emergent Wetlands – Decrease from 16,073 acres to a target of 14,742 acres, acceptable 

range 62%-84% 

o Deep Hemi Marsh – Increase from 10,211 acres to a target of 10,967 acres, acceptable 

range 32%-80% 

o Ratio of Open Water/Submerged Aquatics: Deep Emergent – Increase from 49:51 to 

51:49 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Tall Emergent Wetlands – Decrease from 273 acres to a target of 241 acres, acceptable range 

19%-33% 

o Deep Hemi Marsh – Decrease from 63 acres to a target of 60 acres, acceptable range 4%-

8% 

o Ratio of Open Water and Submerged Aquatics: Deep Emergent – Decrease from 44:56 to 

33:67 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Tall Emergent Wetlands – Increase from 764 acres to a target of 790 acres, acceptable range 

33.5%-55.5% 

o Deep Hemi Marsh – Increase from 554 acres to a target of 571 acres, acceptable range 

23.5%-40.5% 

o Ratio of Open Water and Submerged Aquatics: Deep Emergent – Increase from 4:96 to 

19:81 

The attributes and acreages for the individual habitat types of Tall Emergent Wetlands are comprised of 

objectives for Deep Hemi-Marsh (Open Water; Submerged Aquatic; and Deep Emergent habitat) and 

Shallow Emergent habitat. Each of these habitats is considered under separate sub-objectives (1.1 a; b; 

c; and d) and will be managed as individual targets for each of the five management complexes and 13 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-30 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

impoundments of Bear Lake NWR to attain this refuge objective. 

Definition: Tall Emergent Wetlands-Comprised of permanently flooded open water (Objectives 1.1a, 

1.1b) and submerged aquatic vegetation (Obj. 1.1c) immediately proximate to semi-permanently 

flooded deep emergent hardstem-bulrush vegetation (Obj 1.1d) and semi-permanent to seasonally 

flooded shallow emergent alkali-bulrush/cattail vegetation (Obj. 1.1e). The two major components of 

tall emergent wetlands are: 

 Deep Hemi-Marsh-Classified as the deeper portion of palustrine emergent wetlands. The habitat 

types within the “hemi-marsh” system include: 

- permanently flooded open water (Obj’s 1.1a,b); 

- submergent aquatic vegetation habitats (Obj 1.1c); and 

- semi-permanently flooded deep emergent bulrush habitat (Obj. 1.1d). 

The Hemi-Marsh stage occurs when an equal 50:50 mix of deep emergent bulrush and open 

water/submergent habitat are present, and is considered critical to fulfilling the life history strategies 

of numerous wetland dependent wildlife species (Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

 Shallow Emergent Marsh-Shallow emergent bulrush/cattail and alkali bulrush habitats (Objective 

1.1e) are extensive semi-permanently to seasonally flooded habitats. While the shallow emergent is 

structurally similar to the deep bulrush emergent marsh, it is buffered by dense stands of deep 

emergent hardstem bulrush and therefore lacks immediate connectivity to open water/submerged 

aquatic habitats. Therefore, shallow emergent habitats are not considered a tall emergent component 

of the “hemi-marsh.” 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

All Units 

Use complex-specific habitat tolerance thresholds in conjunction with management prescriptions, consisting primarily of 

water control and secondarily of summer prescribed fire, mechanical disturbance, and chemical control, to meet predetermined 

annual wetland habitat objectives in any given year.

Establish long-term wetland vegetative trend monitoring sites and annually measure abiotic response to climatic variability 

and management strategies and techniques. 

Every five years, reevaluate habitat distribution in habitat type, using GIS to determine current proportionality, and shifts by 

seven wetland and 4 upland habitat types.

Between five-year geospatial evaluations of habitat distribution, use sound professional judgment to annually assess habitat 

condition and associated percentages in habitat threshold categories for each habitat type. Where surpassed or deficient, target 

for prescriptive management individual units that can best meet habitat type thresholds; include in the Bear Lake NWR and 

Oxford Slough Annual Work Plan. 

Bear Lake NWR

Simultaneously simulate “drought” (<5,915.5'), “normal” (5,920.5'), and “flood” (>5,921.5') hydrologic scenarios by 

manipulating Bear Lake NWR water level regimes in individual wetland impoundment units, such that an approximately equal 

proportion of refuge habitat is managed under high water, normal, and low water conditions across the entire refuge.

During drought cycles incorporate periodic drawdowns of deeper marsh areas to improve wetland productivity. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Simulate Thomas Fork “drought” and “normal” hydrologic regimes in combination with management prescriptions and 

strategies formalized in the Thomas Fork Unit Annual Work Plan. 

Provide “Flood” scenarios at Thomas Fork through years of excess snowpack on an unpredictable basis.

Retain spring runoff by annually setting boards at or above 6,015.0' MSL (15.0' on water staff gauge) in the Thomas Fork 

center structure by March 15 (or as soon as possible thereafter depending on weather conditions).

To best manage for variable wetlands and meet in-stream habitat requirements for Bonneville cutthroat trout on the Thomas 

Fork Unit, simulate “extreme drought” regime every seven to twelve years, by setting boards at a much lower elevation (e.g., 

13.0') or pulled entirely to allow flow through the system. 

Annually meet with adjacent downstream landowner on the Thomas Fork Unit to discuss applicable fisheries, water flows, and 

stream management concerns. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-31

Protect refuge water rights by annually working with the Thomas Fork Irrigation Company to ensure delivery of refuge shares 

in the irrigation system (500 shares at present). 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Maintain at least one functional historic slough channel by periodically dredging or excavating sediment or established 

vegetation at Oxford Slough.

Approach the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) as to the efficacy of exchanging water shares in the Oxford 

Creek Irrigation District for Storage rights in Oxford Slough for wildlife purposes.

Sub-Objectives for Permanently and Semi-Permanently Flooded Habitats to attain “Hemimarsh” component of Tall Emergent Wetland Objective:

Sub-Objective 1.1a: Open Water (Permanently Flooded) Habitat 

Annually provide an average of 2,650 acres of Open Water habitat across all refuge units 

(2,612 acres Bear Lake NWR, 20 acres at Thomas Fork, and 18 acres at Oxford Slough), 

with > 50% of high water clarity (NTU <10) at Bear Lake NWR and >90% high water 

clarity at Thomas Fork and Oxford Slough, distributed among the following attributes and 

defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Foraging: Western grebe; American pelican; bald eagle; Forster's tern; black tern; double-crested 

cormorant 

 Other: Mallard (molting); and muskrat (winter) 

Habitat Attributes:

 Permanently flooded >12” in depth, more frequently 24-36” through the growing season, with 

potentially increased depths in spring due to snowmelt. 

 Without emergent aquatic vegetation 

 The undesirable presence and activity of carp may increase open water habitat, but the Refuge will 

attempt to keep open water habitat at ≤50% where low water clarity (wetland bottom cannot be easily 

observed (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit [NTU] >10). 

 Carp controlled through chemical applications when undesirable presence of carp and/or silt as 

demonstrated to occur to the detriment of wetland habitat. 

 When open water permanently flooded habitat is drawn down, approximately 880 acres of moist-soil 

annuals will replace extensive open water within the Mud Lake Unit. 

Refuge Open Water Habitat Target (All Units):

Decrease from 4,632 acres to a target of 2,650 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Open Water – Decrease from 4,568 acres to a target of 2,612 acres, acceptable range 

901-4,503 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Open Water/Submergent – Decrease from 28 acres to a target of 20 acres, acceptable range 

10-30 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Open Water – Decrease from 36 acres to a target of 18 acres, acceptable range 19-56 ac. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-32 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Bear Lake NWR

Occasionally perform a complete drawdown over summer to increase productivity of submergent plant community. Drawdown 

over one growing season every five to seven years or as needed, within the irrigation storage demands and flood abatement 

purposes of the Bear River system.

During drought or drawdown phase, use mechanical, cultural, fire, and chemical means to re-open areas that have become 

vegetated with persistent emergent vegetation in order to set back succession and maintain open, shallow water areas. 

Maintain the Merkley Lake Unit in custodial maintenance over the 15-year period covered under this plan, due to a lack of access 

and water control capability.

Pursue mutually beneficial water management solutions or refuge acquisition from willing sellers of private lands surrounding 

the Merkley Lake Unit.

Work in partnership with PacifiCorp and other stakeholders to study and consult on the effects, desirability, and feasibility of 

reducing sediment loading in the Mud Lake Unit. By 2020, provide recommendations to better facilitate carp and non-native 

game fish exclusion.

Restore incised and downcut streambeds within riparian habitat with material appropriate for protecting streambanks from 

further erosion.

Use IPM techniques to limit European carp damage to submerged aquatic vegetation (see Appendix F, IPM Plan).

Rationale: Open water habitat is a permanently flooded habitat >12” in depth without emergent aquatic vegetation. Due to 

presence of carp and turbid Bear River inflow diversions, open water habitat can be further subdivided into high and low clarity 

categories. High clarity open water habitat occurs where the wetland bottom (substrate) can be easily observed (NTU readings 

<10), while low clarity open water habitat occurs where the wetland bottom (substrate) cannot be easily observed (NTU readings 

>50). Open water habitat currently covers approximately 22% of all refuge lands and >25% of Bear Lake NWR. High clarity 

open water habitat is only present in impounded wetland units on Bear Lake NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough 

WPA. Low clarity open water habitat is currently found on Mud Lake and impounded units which have not recently received 

carp control. 

While the refuge desired condition is to convert approximately 50% of baseline open water habitat to submergent aquatic 

habitat, this objective cannot be achieved until mechanisms to control sediment deposition and carp movement in Mud Lake are 

developed. Management believes that as technology advances, techniques are and will become available to exclude carp and 

sediment while allowing passage of Bonneville cutthroat trout and other desirable fish species. Therefore the more realistic 

desired condition proposed in this CCP is to promote 100% coverage in high clarity open water habitat in impounded wetland 

units, at the Thomas Fork Unit, and at Oxford Slough WPA, while accepting <50% coverage in Mud Lake. Ideally, the optimal 

“Hemi-Marsh” relationship would be realized through a greater number of smaller open pools (1-25 acres) within emergent 

vegetation; however, at present, most refuge hemi-marsh habitat is comprised of a few large pools (>100 acres) ringed by 

emergent vegetation 

Mud Lake serves as the turning basin for the entire Bear River system, which has led to high quantities of sediment entering the 

unit over time. Mud Lake and Bear Lake proper are operated as one unit by PacifiCorp and together they serve as a storage basin

for irrigation use in the lower Bear River. The Refuge maintains an agreement with PacifiCorp (the primary water rights holder), 

through which target elevations are maintained within one-half foot of the 5,920.5-foot elevation, subject to the Bear River 

Compact, irrigation needs, and flood control. Unfortunately, this is not a solution toward solving the habitat quality issues. 

Currently we maintain a stable average water elevation of 5,920.5 feet ±0.5 feet UP&L datum across the entire Bear Lake NWR 

marsh complex through the breeding and nesting period (March-June) for waterfowl pair and brood habitat. During seasons with 

high runoff, it can be difficult to maintain a stable water level. Over the past several years, a minimum elevation (app. 5,920.5 

feet UP&L datum) has been stabilized by April 1 and maintained to ensure hydration in the Refuge’s historic white-faced ibis 

colony. Coincidently, it was discovered during a recent drought (2002-2005) that desiccation led to annual plant establishment 

on the sediment-laden mud flats, which has led to increased fall migration use by shorebirds when water levels are returned to 

the unit (Casanova and Brock 2000, van der Valk 1981). 

While sediment deposition and widespread carp infestation have dramatically reduced habitat quality within the 8,017-acre Mud 

Lake Unit, anecdotally, several species appear to select the Mud Lake Unit over other units to fulfill certain life history events. 

These observations warrant further study. For example, the wide open water areas provide ideal protection for molting birds, 

unit size provides isolation for colonial nesting waterbirds, and carp provide an ideal food source for piscivorous species (e.g., 

western or Clark’s grebe, double-crested cormorant, American white pelican, bald eagle). Perennial emergent hemi-marsh 

quality is difficult to maintain in the Mud Lake Unit; however, interim proposed drawdowns result in a moist-soil management 

response. The degraded substrate is desirable to annual plant communities and is also advantageous in concentrating carp for 

piscivorous bird utilization. The Refuge will work in partnership with PacifiCorp and other stakeholders to study and consult on 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-33

the effects, desirability, and feasibility of reducing sediment loading in the Mud Lake Unit. 

At present, 25% of Bear Lake NWR habitat falls under the open water category, with a target open water objective of 25% on 

the Mud Lake Complex. The CCP will assess the feasibility and perform engineering studies to design infrastructure to further 

reduce sediment loading within the Mud Lake Complex by 2020. If suitable infrastructure can be designed and developed to 

reduce the sedimentation rate of Bear River water diversions, the Refuge will be able to better facilitate carp and non-native 

game fish exclusion and dramatically decrease open water habitat within Mud Lake. Ideally, the percentage of open water would 

decrease to less than 10% for Bear Lake NWR through the possible development of a levee system in the Mud Lake Unit and 

subsequent improvement in carp control and/or sediment filtration capabilities. 

There are currently no water control capabilities in the Merkley Lake/Mud Lake Unit. Water supply in the 82-acre Merkley Lake 

Unit primarily comes in the form of geothermal discharge from the adjacent Hot Springs mountain range. Additionally, carp 

have infested the unit (presumably following a flood period in Mud Lake) which has led to few management options to restore 

quality habitat for wildlife. The unit is hydrologically disconnected from the rest of the marsh, but does serve a minimal 

molting/migration function during certain years. Trumpeter swan pairs have been observed using the unit during molt and when 

displaced from other portions of the Refuge, thus, there is some benefit to retaining the unit. Lack of management capabilities

has led to custodial maintenance as the primary management strategy; using the existing geothermal groundwater supply to 

maintain the open water wetland on Merkley Lake. 

The Merkley Lake Unit is completely surrounded by private land and not directly connected to other refuge units. The Merkley 

Lake Unit has been under a custodial maintenance regime since Refuge establishment in 1968—a regime that will continue over 

the 15-year period covered under this plan. By pursuing strategies within the CCP to cooperatively manage water levels or 

acquire the lands surrounding the Merkley Lake Unit, the Refuge will remedy the identified water management and isolation 

challenge and decrease open water habitat within the unit. 

Sub-Objective 1.1b: Submerged Aquatic (Permanently Flooded) Habitat 

Annually provide an average of 3,090 acres submergent habitat across all refuge units 

(2,998 acres at Bear Lake NWR and 92 acres at Oxford Slough), comprising greater than 

80% early successional seed and tuber species and less than 20% late successional leafy 

browse species, distributed among the following attributes and defined unit acreage 

ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Foraging: Trumpeter swan; canvasback; redhead; northern pintail; western/Clark’s grebe; muskrat 

Habitat Attributes:

 Permanently flooded >6”, but <36” in depth 

 Early successional submerged habitat comprised of seed and tuber producing submerged vegetation 

such as pondweeds and chara. 

 Late successional submerged habitat comprised primarily of leafy vegetation such as water milfoil, 

coontail, and mare’s tail. 

 ≥50% of open water habitat is of high water clarity (i.e., wetland bottom [substrate] can be easily 

observed [Nephelometric Turbidity Units or NTU <50]). 

Refuge Submerged Aquatic Habitat Target (All Units):

Increase from 437 acres to a target of 3,090 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Submerged Aquatic – Increase from 430 acres to a target of 2,998 acres, acceptable range 

360-3,602 ac. 

2) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Submerged Aquatic – Increase from 7 acres to a target of 92 acres, acceptable range 46-139 ac. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-34 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Bear Lake NWR

In all practicable units, periodic complete drawdown over summer to increase productivity of submergent plant community. 

Drawdown over one growing season every five to seven years or as needed.

During drawdown phase, use mechanical, cultural, and chemical means to re-open areas that have become vegetated with 

persistent emergent vegetation in order to set back succession and maintain open, shallow water areas. 

Initiate inventory and monitoring efforts and control points for quagga and zebra mussel infestations.

Instigate carp removal when ≥50% of open water habitat is of low 

water clarity (i.e., wetland bottom [substrate] cannot be easily 

observed [NTU >50]). 

All Units

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, cultural, biological, fire and chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain 

invasive and undesirable plants (see Appendix F, IPM Program).

Use IPM techniques to control beaver and muskrat damage to water control structures and dike systems, in compliance with 

50 CFR 3.14, Animal Control Operations, and 7 RM 14.9, Pest Control Policy (see Appendix F, IPM Program).

Rationale: Submergent habitat provides the desirable forage base in emergent marsh wetlands but is presently the most 

limiting component on the Refuge. Covering only 2.1% of all refuge lands, it is a primary goal of the CCP to increase the 

extent of this habitat type. Submergent Habitat is permanently flooded habitat >6" but <36" in depth which is primarily 

comprised of aquatic submergent vegetation species such as pondweed, coontail, or water milfoil. Submergent habitat can be 

further subdivided into early and late successional communities. Early successional submergent habitat is comprised of seed 

and tuber producing submergent vegetation species such as pondweeds and Chara. Late successional submergent habitat 

comprised primarily of leafy vegetation such as water milfoil, coontail, and mare’s tail. At present, <60% of refuge 

submergent habitat is comprised of early successional seed producing species while >40% of refuge submergent habitat is 

comprised of late successional leafy browse species. 

The general premise of the “hemi-marsh” is that overwater nesting waterbirds require habitat to fulfill two primary life history 

requirements during the breeding season; nesting and brood rearing. The hemi-marsh stage provides a viable food source, 

diverse cover types, and vegetative structure that are used by a variety of wetland-dependent wildlife. The high biodiversity on 

these wetlands provide valuable invertebrate food for developing ducklings, while the emergent vegetation provides good 

cover from predators and bad weather. Nesting habitat (comprised of deep and shallow emergent vegetation) provides plant 

material necessary to construct floating or elevated nest structures, while brood rearing habitat (comprised of open water and 

submergent vegetation) provides the forage base for fledgling waterbirds. During spring and fall migration, hemi-marshes 

provide exceptional resting and stop-over sites for large flocks of waterfowl. Maximum nesting densities are realized where 

the deep emergent marsh component retains a complex edge, relative to the open water component, and there is a 50:50 mix of 

these two components within any given management unit. Ideally, this optimal relationship would be realized through a higher 

number of smaller open pools (1-25 acres) within emergent vegetation; however, at present, most refuge hemi-marsh habitat is 

comprised of a few large pools (>100 acres) ringed by emergent vegetation. 

In this CCP, the desired condition is to convert approximately 50% of baseline open water habitat to submergent habitat, while 

maintaining a minimum of 5% of all refuge area comprised of this habitat type. Within successional stages, it will be desirable

to maintain between 60%-80% of submergent habitat comprised of early successional seed producing vegetation while 

maintaining 20%-40% of submergent habitat in a late successional stage comprised of leafy browse dominant vegetation. 

Maintenance of long-term productivity of this wetland type requires the identified strategy for periodic drawdown because 

long-term flooding can result in the accumulation of organic material that creates low-oxygen environments unfavorable to 

many submerged aquatic plant species (Ponnamperuma 1972, Carpenter and Lodge 1986). In addition, unconsolidated 

wetland bottoms reduce water clarity, which can reduce growth of submergent plants (Keddy 2010, Robel 1961). 

Carp negatively impact refuge habitats by directly uprooting submerged aquatic plants, competing with native species for 

limited food supplies, and stirring up sediments, which increases turbidity, reduces photosynthesis, and subsequently, integrity 

of wetland plant communities (Miller and Crowl 2006, Badiou 2005). Carp are the single biggest threat to refuge wetland 

health, and thus, warrant special consideration in the management of both submerged aquatic and open water habitat. Carp 

control is an essential element to ensure adequate habitat functions at Bear Lake NWR. Through proposed IPM strategies 

(Appendix F), the Refuge will maintain carp screens on all water control structures and periodically draw down water in 

specific refuge impoundments for sustained periods in the winter to facilitate carp control with chemical applications of 

rotenone. Rotenone is a piscicide (fish specific pesticide) known and works by binding with oxygen, thus, depleting oxygen 

availability in the water, which in effect, suffocates the carp. Rotenone is non-persistent, usually only present in the water for a 

few days following treatment, so the wetland impoundment can then be reflooded, with carp control screens in-place on 

appropriate water control structures. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-35

Sub-Objective 1.1c Deep Emergent (Semi-Permanently Flooded) Habitat 

Annually provide a target of 5,859 acres of deep emergent habitat across all refuge units 

(5,358 acres at Bear Lake NWR, 40 acres at Thomas Fork, and 461 acres at Oxford 

Slough), with no more than 20% early successional (<30% residual coverage from 

previous year’s growth), 60% mid-successional (30-90% residual coverage from previous 

year’s growth), or 20% late successional (>90% residual coverage from previous year’s 

growth), distributed among the following attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Breeding: Franklin's gull; Forster's tern; white-faced ibis; canvasback; redhead; western/Clark’s 

grebe; American Bittern; black tern; Caspian tern; Canada goose 

 Foraging: muskrat; eared grebe 

 Breeding and Foraging: yellow-headed blackbird 

Habitat Attributes:

 Semi-permanently flooded or permanently flooded water 0”-36” in depth 

 Emergent vegetation community comprised primarily of hardstem bulrush, but also containing cattail.

 <60% of deep emergent habitat is at mid successional stage (i.e., 30-90% residual coverage) 

Refuge Submerged Aquatic Habitat Target (All Units):

Increase from 5,759 acres to a target of 5,859acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Deep Emergent – Increase from 5,213 acres to a target of 5,358 acres, acceptable range 4,503-

6,304 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Deep Emergent – Increase from 35 acres to a target of 40 acres, acceptable range 30-51 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Deep Emergent – Decrease from 511 acres to a target of 461 acres, acceptable range 371-556 ac. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Maintain 24-30'' of water by late January through winter to decrease deep emergent marsh through seasonal water level 

manipulations. 

Protect double-crested cormorant and Franklin’s gull nesting islands from disturbance and maintain the water barrier areas 

around them. 

During drawdown phase, use mechanical, cultural, fire, and chemical means to re-open areas that have become vegetated with 

persistent emergent vegetation in order to set back succession and maintain open, shallow water areas. 

Trigger an increase in water levels or the use of mechanical or physical disturbance when ≥60% of deep emergent habitat is at 

mid successional stage (30-90% residual coverage). 

When conditions exceed 20% coverage of late successional residual emergent vegetation, use residual burns to remove 90-

100% of the residual biomass.

Apply mechanical disturbance following a burn to increase the potential to set back succession to early or mid-successional 

states.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-36 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain invasive and 

undesirable plants (see Appendix F, IPM Program).

Oxford Slough WPA 

At Oxford Slough, perform an annual prescribed burn of 50-100 acres to set back succession in deep emergent communities. 

At Oxford Slough, following prescribed burns, mechanically disturb to the root zone to re-establish topographic variation in 

associated deeper portions of the Slough that were previously leveled through agricultural practices. 

Rationale: The emergent marsh is the core element of the historic Dingle Marsh and comprises approximately 80% of 

available habitats at Bear Lake NWR. A core element of the emergent marsh is semi-permanently flooded deep emergent 

habitat comprised primarily of hardstem bulrush, but also containing cattail. Semi-permanent emergent wetlands are 

characterized by the presence of minimum water depths between 1 and 20'' for at least four growing season months. This water 

regime favors the establishment of emergent plant species such as common cattail, hardstem bulrush and various 

native/desirable sedges and spike rushes. Emergent vegetation at varying levels of residual coverage provides: nesting habitat 

and cover for a variety of wetland dependent wildlife species (Baldassare and Bolen 2006); overwater nesting sites for wetland 

dependent bird species; invertebrate substrate for foraging waterbirds and fish; lodge materials and loafing sites for aquatic 

mammals:, and shade and cover for all species., Emergent vegetation forms the “housing” requirement within the hemi-marsh 

environment. (Weller and Spatcher 1965, Weller and Fredrickson 1973, Weller 1981). 

In wetlands, emergent vegetation structure and interspersion (i.e., habitat diversity on a horizontal plane) have been 

demonstrated to be associated with diversity and abundance of breeding-bird species in the northern prairies (Weller and 

Spatcher 1965, Weller and Fredrickson 1974, Kaminski and Prince 1981, Murkin et al. 1982). Specifically, northern prairie 

wetlands with a 50:50 ratio of interspersed emergent vegetation and open water have a higher diversity and abundance of 

breeding wetland bird species than those wetlands containing more or less interspersed emergent vegetation (Kaminski and 

Prince 1981, Murkin et al. 1982). However, since inception the term “Hemi-marsh” has usually been far too stringently 

interpreted and managed at too small of a spatial scale (L. Fredrickson, personal communication). Attempts at prescriptive 

management, similar to current management, to maintain a consistent interspersion of open water and submerged to deep 

emergent vegetation has too frequently resulted in invariable wetland hydroperiods. While unsustainable high short-term 

productivity may result from this management, it is usually followed by static habitat conditions and long-term reductions in 

wetland productivity. Therefore the more dynamic management of the CCP, coupled with a clear understanding of both the 

spatial and temporal relationships of managing natural variability in a “Hemi-Marsh”, remains essential to ensure long-term 

productivity of the perennial emergent marsh (Smith et al. 2004). 

At Bear Lake NWR, the construction of dikes and water control structures now allow for improved hydrology and wetland 

function through precise manipulation of water levels. Adjustments in the timing and amount of drawdown in a unit or 

complex, as described in this CCP, will allow for increased hemi-marsh stage (diverse stands of emergent vegetation intermixed 

with equal areas of open water). Although a 1:1 ratio of open water to wetland vegetation may be desirable, it is not practical or 

attainable on all units at all times. Additional activities such as fire management and manipulation of muskrat populations also 

aid in achieving hemi-marsh conditions. From a management perspective, prescriptive and consistent marsh habitat is not 

desirable. Over time, consistent wetlands can become completely dominated by continuous stands of cattails, with little or no 

value to wildlife. On the other hand, if water levels are too deep the wetland can become devoid of emergent vegetation. Per 

this CCP, by attempting to mimic a natural range of variability, the Refuge’s hemi-marshes would experience periodic drying or 

drawdown cycles that regulate vegetation growth and promote viable muskrat populations that would assist in curtailing 

emergent vegetation growth. 

At Bear Lake NWR, deep emergent habitat can be further subdivided into three successional stages: Early Successional (Deep 

emergent habitat comprised of <30% residual vegetation coverage from previous years growth), Mid Successional (Deep 

emergent habitat comprised of 30%-90% residual vegetation coverage), and Late Successional (Deep emergent habitat 

comprised of >90% residual vegetation coverage). Different levels of residual vegetation are desirable to different resources of 

concern based on seasonal life history requirements. (Smith and Kadlec 1986, Barker and Fulton 1979). When deep emergent 

stands have diverse successional interspersion, they provide countless ecosystem functions for wildlife (Beule 1979). The 

CCP’s approach for shifting deep emergent management toward a successional stage of 20% early, 60% mid, and 20% late 

would decrease late successional residual dominance. Applied water control and active manipulation and disturbance (e.g., 

mechanical, chemical, physical) strategies in the CCP are vital to maintaining this ratio. 

Early Successional deep emergent habitat is a direct result of prescribed fire and typically lasts < two years following a burn. 

Only 10% of refuge units fall under this category at present. Mid Successional Deep emergent habitat falling within 30%-90% 

residual cover is a typical mid-successional response and currently covers approximately 40% of refuge deep emergent habitat 

(those burned between three to seven years prior). Late Successional Deep Emergent Habitat has greater than 90% residual 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-37

cover and typically occurs >7 years following disturbance (mechanical or prescribed fire). The remaining 50% of refuge deep 

emergent habitat falls under this category at present. The desired condition, to maintain between 10% and 20% of refuge deep 

emergent habitat in an early successional seral stage (<30% residual cover), between 60% and 80% in a mid-successional stage 

(30%-90% residual cover), and between 10% and 20% of refuge deep emergent habitat in a late successional stage (>90% 

residual cover). 

As time goes by without some form of physical disturbance, the percentage of residual coverage increases, often to a point 

where the existing community is nearly 100% residual vegetation. While used by some wildlife species, this habitat condition is

mostly undesirable when exceeding 20% coverage within the habitat type. When this occurs, residual burns, or burns targeted to 

remove 90-100% of the residual biomass, are applied. Through this action, all residual coverage is eliminated and new growth 

vegetation begins to emerge. In this way, late successional deep emergent habitat is converted to early successional, which 

typically lasts about two years before it reenters a mid-successional phase (30-90% residual cover). When combined with water 

level control, prescribed fire is likely the most effective tool for directing widespread succession in Palustrine Emergent Marsh 

habitat types. Although fire has been used in upland grass areas, its primary utility is in altering residual vegetation coverage in 

deep and shallow emergent marsh habitats, or more simply, setting back vegetative succession. 

While physical manipulations using mechanical disturbance techniques are longer lasting, burning covers a greater area in a 

shorter period. The Refuge will apply mechanical disturbance following a burn to increase the successional benefits of the tool. 

For example, most controlled burns at Bear Lake NWR are conducted during spring while snow cover is still on the ground. 

This keeps the root mass wet so that it remains unharmed by fire. As such, emergent vegetation returns quite rapidly and moves 

toward late successional status in a period of seven to ten years. By including disking or dredging in sections of the burn area, 

open pools can be maintained following reflooding. In residual burns the objective is to remove all extant vegetation and allow

the community to completely regenerate. This type is most appropriate in areas such as Oxford Slough, where fire has not been 

a major formative process since the Refuge acquired the land in 1985. 

Sub-Objective 1.1d: Shallow Emergent (Semi-permanently and Seasonally Flooded) 

Habitat 

Annually provide a target of 4,174 acres of shallow emergent habitat across all refuge 

units (3,774 acres at Bear Lake NWR, 181 acres at Thomas Fork, and 219 acres at Oxford 

Slough), with no more than 20% containing either <30% or >90% residual coverage and 

no less than 10% comprising alkali tolerant species, distributed among the following 

attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Breeding and Foraging: Northern leopard frog; American bittern. 

 Foraging: White-faced ibis; eared grebe; northern pintail; mallard; black-crowned night-heron; 

marbled godwit 

 Other: Northern leopard frog (Winter)

Habitat Attributes:

 Semi-permanently to seasonally flooded 0”-18” in water depth 

 <90% Freshwater shallow emergent habitat comprising primarily hardstem bulrush 

 >10% Alkali bulrush established in water typically >1,000 parts per million (ppm) Total Dissolved 

Solids (TDS) 

 <90% of freshwater shallow emergent habitat is at mid successional stage (i.e., 30-90% residual cover) 

Refuge Shallow Emergent Habitat Target (All Units):

Decrease from 5,759 acres to a target of 4,174 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Shallow Emergent – Decrease from 5,862 acres to a target of 3,774 acres, acceptable range 

3,602-6,304 ac. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-38 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Shallow Emergent – Decrease from 210 acres to a target of 181 acres, acceptable range 

152-254 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Shallow Emergent – Increase from 210 acres to a target of 219 acres, acceptable range 

185-278 ac. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Increase water flooding depths when ≥90% of freshwater shallow emergent habitat is at mid successional stage (30-90% 

residual coverage).

During drawdown phase, use mechanical, cultural, fire, and chemical means to re-open areas that have become vegetated with 

persistent emergent vegetation in order to set back succession and maintain open, shallow water areas. 

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain invasive 

and undesirable plants (see Appendix F, IPM Program).

Rationale: Shallow wetlands can be highly productive for waterfowl (Smith et al. 1964) even though production fluctuates 

widely from year to year with wetland conditions (Dzubin 1969; Crissey 1969). Evans and Black (1956), Drewien and 

Springer (1969), and Jenni (1956) stressed the importance of small seasonal wetlands to dabbling ducks during spring and 

early summer. Kantrud and Stewart (1977) compared pair densities on a series of glacial pond types of varying permanence 

and found some of the highest densities of dabblers occurred on temporary ponds; in the case of blue-winged teal, extremely 

high densities occurred on ephemeral wetlands. Similarly, Ruwaldt et al. (1979) found unusually high densities of blue-winged 

teal pairs on ephemeral wetlands in South Dakota and generally high densities of waterfowl on temporary wetlands. 

Semi-permanently to ephemerally flooded habitat comprised primarily of hardstem bulrush, but also containing shallowly 

flooded cattail and alkali bulrush, is typically flooded to a depth of 3”-24”. The primary difference between deep and shallow 

emergent habitat is water permanence. Shallow emergent habitats are occasionally dewatered during summer months, while 

deep emergent habitats are permanently wet. Shallow emergent habitat can be further subdivided by water quality with two 

different types found on the Refuge at present; Alkali (Shallow emergent habitat comprised primarily of alkali bulrush and 

established in water typically >1,000 ppm TDS) and Fresh Water (Semi-permanent to seasonally flooded habitat comprised 

primarily of hardstem bulrush in water typically <1,000 ppm TDS). Significant stands of alkali dominant (e.g., alkali bulrush) 

shallow emergent marsh currently exist only in the Rainbow Complex (Bear Lake NWR) and Oxford Slough WPA. 

Approximately 90% of the shallow emergent community is currently dominated by hardstem bulrush which covers 

approximately 30% of all refuge units. 

During the summer, when seasonal wetlands are dry, resident wetland wildlife are highly dependent on semi-permanent and 

permanent wetlands. Basically, the two primary habitat requirements of wetland wildlife during this time period are: 1) 

sufficient cover and protection from predators, and 2) an abundant food supply of aquatic invertebrates. Such invertebrates are

the primary source of dietary protein for ducks and other wetland birds during the breeding season (Swanson and Meyer 1977, 

Murkin and Kadlec 1986). Most species of wetland wildlife are dependent upon invertebrates as a direct or indirect food 

source during the spring and summer. For example, breeding ducks and shorebirds eat invertebrates almost exclusively, but 

herons eat other direct consumers of invertebrates such as fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Refuge preferred strategies for 

managing deep marsh habitats in semi-permanent and permanent wetlands would provide ample protection from predators, 

and by dewatering seasonal wetlands in the summer months, the Refuge will be able to provide an abundant food supply 

through a much greater abundance of invertebrates (De Szalay and Resh 2000, Euliss et al. 2004). Since invertebrate 

populations decline with prolonged flooding, the proposed dry period of at least two months each year in seasonal wetlands is 

essential for maintaining abundant populations of invertebrates (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982, Reid et al. 1989). 

Shallow emergent vegetation is similar to deep emergent vegetation except that depths within this zone are typically shallower 

resulting in less permanency. Additionally, this habitat type contains plant species such as alkali bulrush and annual plants 

which provide an additional food reserve function within the hemi-marsh complex. While deep emergent vegetation forms the 

concentric ring around open water/submergent habitats, shallow emergent vegetation provides the interface with the 

ephemeral wet meadow zone. As such, the shallow emergent zone functions similarly to the deep emergent zone for wetland 

dependent wildlife species that require wet meadow and adjacent uplands to fulfill their life history strategies (Galatowitsch 

and van der Valk 1996). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-39

Objective 1.2. Ephemeral Wetlands (Seasonally and Temporally Flooded) Wetlands 

Annually provide a refuge total* of 2,593 acres coverage of shallow Ephemeral Marsh 

wetlands, comprised of 1,932 acres of Wet Meadow and 661 acres of Alkali Meadow 

habitat across all refuge units, distributed among the following attributes and defined 

unit acreage ranges: 

*The Refuge totals included in this objective are a summation of five management complexes of Bear 

Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA. 

Sub-Objectives for the individual habitat types (Wet Meadow and Alkali Meadow) will collectively 

need to be managed as individual targets for each of the five management complexes and 13 

impoundments of Bear Lake NWR to attain this refuge objective. 

Ephemeral Wetlands-Classified as ephemeral emergent wetlands, these shallow marshes range from 

moist soil during late summer to flooded as much as 2' during spring; it is this seasonal fluctuation that 

produces and then concentrates food reserves for most wetland dependent wildlife species. 

Refuge Ephemeral Wetland Target (All Units):

Increase from 1,556 acres to a target of 2,593 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Ephemeral Wetlands – Increase from 553 acres to a target of 1,613 acres acceptable range 

581-2,223 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit:

 Ephemeral Wetlands – Decrease from 390 acres to a target of 373 acres acceptable range 325-

447 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA:

 Ephemeral Wetlands – Decrease from 613 acres to a target of 607 acres acceptable 

range 463-741 ac.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

All Units

Use complex specific habitat tolerance thresholds and management prescriptions, primarily water control and secondarily 

prescribed fire, mechanical disturbance, and chemical control, to meet predetermined annual wetland habitat objectives in any 

given year.

Establish long-term wetland vegetative trend monitoring sites and annually measure abiotic response to climatic variability 

and management strategies and techniques. 

Every five years, reevaluate habitat distribution in habitat type, using GIS to determine current proportionality, and shifts by 

seven wetland and 4 upland habitat types.

Use sound professional judgment to annually assess habitat condition and associated percentages in habitat threshold 

categories for each habitat type. Where surpassed or deficient, target for prescriptive management individual units that can 

best meet habitat type thresholds and include in the Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough Annual Work Plan. 

Bear Lake NWR

Simultaneously simulate “drought” (<5,915.5'), “normal” (5,920.5'), and “flood” (>5,921.5') hydrologic scenarios by 

manipulating Bear Lake NWR water level regimes in individual wetland units, such that an approximately equal proportion of 

refuge habitat is managed under high water, normal, and low water conditions across the entire Refuge.

Properly manage marsh levels and improve water quality where possible for waterfowl production by simulating “drought” 

(<5,915.5') and “normal” (5,920.5'), hydrologic scenarios by manipulating Bear Lake NWR water level regimes in individual 

wetland impoundment units.

During drought cycles incorporate periodic drawdowns to improve wetland productivity. 

Establish long-term wetland vegetative trend monitoring sites and annually measure biotic response to climatic variability and 

management strategies and techniques.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-40 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Use complex specific habitat tolerance thresholds and management prescriptions, primarily water control and secondarily 

prescribed fire, to meet predetermined annual wetland habitat objectives in any given year.

Thomas Fork Unit 

Retain spring runoff by annually setting boards at or above 6,015.0' MSL (15.0' on water staff gauge) in the Thomas Fork 

center structure by March 15 (or as soon as possible thereafter depending on weather conditions).

Simulate Thomas Fork “drought” and “normal” hydrologic regimes in combination with management prescriptions strategies 

formalized in the Thomas Fork Unit Annual Work Plan. 

Provide “flood” scenarios at Thomas Fork through years of excess snowpack on an unpredictable basis.

As necessary to meet habitat objectives, simulate “extreme drought” regime every seven to twelve years, by setting boards at a 

much lower elevation (e.g., 13.0') or pulled entirely to allow flow through the system. 

Annually meet with adjacent downstream landowners on the Thomas Fork to discuss applicable fisheries, water flows, and 

stream management concerns. 

Protect refuge water rights by annually working with the Thomas Fork Irrigation Company to ensure delivery of refuge shares 

in the irrigation system (500 shares at present). 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Maintain at least one functional historic slough channel by periodically dredging or excavating sediment or established 

vegetation at Oxford Slough.

Approach the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) as to the efficacy of exchanging water shares in the Oxford 

Creek Irrigation District for Storage rights in Oxford Slough for wildlife purposes.

Objective 1.2a: Wet-Meadow (Seasonally and Temporally Flooded) Habitat 

Annually provide a target of 1,932 acres of wet meadow habitat across all refuge units 

(1,344 acres at Bear Lake NWR, 349 acres at Thomas Fork, and 239 acres at Oxford 

Slough), with greater than 60% late successional (containing >90% residual vegetation) 

and distributed among the following attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Breeding and Foraging: Greater sandhill crane; Wilson’s phalarope; willet 

 Breeding: Canada goose; black-necked stilt 

 Foraging: Long-billed curlew; Franklin’s gull; white-faced ibis; California gull; great egret; cattle 

egret; snowy egret; long-billed dowitcher; red-necked phalarope; marbled godwit; solitary sandpiper; 

semipalmated plover 

Habitat Attributes:

 Ephemerally to semi-permanently flooded marsh dominated by low stature, flood tolerant, annual and 

perennial plants 

 Typical aquatic emergent species include spikerush, Baltic rush, and flood tolerant grasses such as 

foxtail barley, saltgrass, and rabbitfoot. 

 Early successional (low residual) wet meadow class occurs where <20% of the community contains 

dense residual cover. 

 Late successional (high residual) wet meadow class occurs where >90% of the community contains 

dense residual cover and>20% of the community is forb dominant 

 <40% of wet meadow habitat is of late successional-high residual. 

Refuge Wet-Meadow Habitat Targets (All Units):

Increase from 1,095 acres to a target of 1,932 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Wet Meadow – Increase from 500 acres to a target of 1,344 acres, acceptable range 360-1,441 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-41

 Wet Meadow – Decrease from 358 acres to a target of 349 acres, acceptable range 305-406 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Wet Meadow – Increase from 237 acres to a target of 239 acres, acceptable range 185-324 ac. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

By 2027, reduce haying operations from 3,533 to 1,492 acres. Slowly phase in haying reductions over a 15-year period (2013-

2027) (see Haying Objective 4.2).

Until haying operations are phased-out in 2027 (see Haying Objective 4.2), manage early (low residual) and late (high-residual)

successional wet meadow for <20% of the community as dense residual cover and >90% of the community as late successional 

wet meadow and >20% of the community is forb dominant.

Under “normal” and “drought” scenarios for ephemeral wetlands (See Objective 1.2), seasonally re-flood wet meadow areas for 

Fall foraging migratory birds. 

Rationale: While the vast majority (89%) of available habitats at Bear Lake NWR is tall emergent and “hemi-marsh”, 

approximately 1,500 acres of shorter stature and seasonally or temporally flooded ephemeral marsh are a vital habitat 

component for breeding and foraging wildlife. The diversity and complexity of plant species within ephemeral marsh habitats 

provides ideal substrate for invertebrates which comprise 90% of most waterbird diets during summer months (Euliss et al. 

1999, Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). However, with fall flooding during migration, the annual seeds produced by these plants 

provide additional forage for migratory waterbirds as well (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982, Greer et al. 2007, Brasher et al. 2007).

Wet Meadows are seasonally and temporally flooded marsh dominated by low stature, flood tolerant, annual, and perennial 

plants. For the majority of waterbirds, this habitat type would provide the seasonal food reserves to fulfill specific phases in 

their life history strategies (Pyrovetsi and Crivelli 1988, Garay et al. 1991, Kaminski and Prince 1984). Wet meadow habitats 

are distinguished from alkali meadows primarily by the quality of water typically hydrating the marsh. Where freshwater 

(<1,000 ppm TDS) input is the norm, wet meadow plants become established. Ranging from Baltic rush and annual grasses, to 

forbs such as curly dock, plant diversity of wet meadows is the highest of all habitat types found on Bear Lake NWR, the 

Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough WPA. Wet meadow habitats can be further subdivided by successional stage with 

either early successional or late successional communities found on all refuge units. Early successional status includes wet 

meadow habitat where less than 20% of the community contains dense residual cover. Approximately 80% of wet meadow 

habitat is maintained in early successional status through the Refuge’s haying program. Late successional status is defined as 

wet meadow habitat where greater than 90% of the community contains dense residual cover and/or greater than 20% of the 

community is forb dominant. Less than 20% of wet meadow habitat is maintained in late successional status. 

Currently, a high amount of short-cover (early successional) habitat type occurs on the Refuge and private lands adjacent to all 

refuge units. Conversely, it would be desirable to increase the coverage of late successional wet meadow habitat to a minimum 

of 60% coverage. By implementing hay management strategies to reduce the coverage of early successional wet meadow 

habitat to less than 40%, the Refuge will improve refuge native meadow grass structure and composition. The integrated 

approach in this CCP strikes a balance between managing short-cover habitat through haying, and providing dense, late 

successional wet meadow habitat. This approach acknowledges the factors that determine the foraging preferences of different 

wildlife species. Management practices under the CCP will produce habitats that are suitable for not only species who readily 

adapt to anthropogenic changes in habitat, but a diverse suite of species. By offsetting current agricultural haying practices on 

2,041 acres, while still providing short-cover on 1,492 acres, the Refuge will provide a diverse realm of nesting and foraging 

habitats for both breeding and migrating wildlife during several key times in their annual life histories (Rollins 1981, Heitmeyer 

et al. 1989) in meadow grass habitat. 

While increased access to invertebrate forage bases is the principal advantage cited for short-cover management practices 

(Schekkerman and Beintema 2007), an unanticipated effect of short-cover haying operations is that little vegetative complexity 

for hosting invertebrate substrate remains. Temporally flooded meadow wetlands are so productive because the base of the 

biotic pyramid is large and diverse and nutrient cycling is dynamic (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Because energy flows from 

the lowest levels of the pyramid in unhayed or mowed habitat, detritus sustains much of the biomass and structure of the 

community (van der Valk 1989). Excessive litter removal from haying objectives under current management affects the balance 

between litter removal and accumulation in the shallow habitat wetlands, causing unwanted effects upon primary and secondary 

wetland productivity. Small litter accumulations may not provide adequate substrate for invertebrates; however, large 

accumulations may alter surface hydrology through peat formation or nutrient binding (Magee 1993). Where litter accumulation 

is scant (current management) or heavy (Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA, which was not selected for implementation), 

invertebrate production may be impeded because of unfavorable conditions associated with hydrology, substrate, and nutrient 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-42 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

availability (Magee 1993). The CCP will reduce haying moderately from current levels, thereby providing a more diverse litter 

layer in wet meadows and various stages of litter size and decay. In comparison to the current management, the CCP optimizes 

management of invertebrates for a more diverse array of foraging waterbirds and wildlife. 

High consumption residual burns are most effective in wet meadow habitats where residual biomass (which typically consists of 

past years’ Baltic rush growth) has accumulated. In most situations mosaic burns are a practical and beneficial tool to apply in 

wet meadows. Topographic variation in meadows (often referred to as microtopography) results in small depressions where 

water stands for longer periods of time. These depressions are often adjacent to higher elevation areas that may not get saturated 

at all. This produces differing levels of residual growth which allows the fire to carry through some patches and bypass others

due to lack of fuel. By applying mosaic burns in wet meadow habitat the Refuge will remove up to 70% of the residual biomass 

and still leave some areas of dense residual vegetation unburned. This strategy will add to the diversity of the wet meadow 

community. 

Objective 1.2b. Alkali Meadow (Temporarily Flooded) Habitat 

Annually provide a target of 661 acres of alkali meadow habitat across all refuge units 

(269 acres at Bear Lake NWR, 24 acres at Thomas Fork, and 368 acres at Oxford Slough), 

with no more than 40% of the coverage containing >90% residual vegetation and 

distributed among the following attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Breeding and Foraging: American avocet; Wilson’s phalarope 

 Breeding: Willet 

 Foraging: Black-necked stilt; red-necked phalarope; marbled godwit; semipalmated plover; sanderling

Habitat Attributes:

 Ephemerally to semi-permanently flooded alkali (>1,000 ppm TDS) marsh dominated by low stature, 

flood tolerant, annual and perennial plants 

 Typical species include pickleweed, red goosefoot, oakleaf goosefoot, and alkali sacaton. 

 Early successional (high heterogeneous diversity) alkali meadow class occurs where alkali meadow 

contains >1 halophytic plant species (e.g., red glasswort) sharing dominance within the plant 

community. 

 Late successional (low diversity) alkali wet meadow class occurs where red glasswort is dominant 

within the plant community. 

 <40% of wet meadow habitat is of late successional-low diversity. 

Refuge Alkali Meadow Habitat Targets (All Units):

Increase from 461 acres to a target of 661 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Alkali Meadow – Increase from 53 acres to a target of 269 acres, acceptable range 36-360 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Alkali Meadow – Decrease from 32 acres to a target of 24 acres, acceptable range 20-41 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Alkali Meadow – Decrease from 376 acres to a target of 368 acres, acceptable range 278-417 ac.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Phase-in haying reductions (see Haying Objective 4.2).

Until haying operations are phased-out (see Haying Objective 4.2), manage for dynamic hydrology and early successional (high 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-43

heterogeneous diversity) alkali meadow; late successional (low diversity) alkali wet meadow class occurs where red glasswort 

is dominant within the plant community.

Initiate pilot study to test direct seeding and container plantings to restore target halophytic vegetation and alkali habitat 

function. 

Under “flood” scenarios for ephemeral wetlands (See Objective 1.2), seasonally re-flood alkali meadow areas for Fall foraging 

migratory birds. 

Rationale: Ephemeral to semi-permanently flooded alkali marsh (>1,000 ppm TDS) is dominated by low stature, flood 

tolerant, annual and perennial plants. Typical species include pickleweed, red goosefoot, oakleaf goosefoot, and flood/alkali 

tolerant saltgrass. Red glasswort, site specific to the alkali meadow habitat type, is a listed as sensitive by IDFG (JankovskyJones 1997, IDFG 2005a) and a Type 4 Species of Concern by BLM (BLM 2003). This plant’s sensitive status merits inclusion 

as a refuge focal species and its relative abundance and contribution to wetland diversity provides a suitable adaptive 

management threshold for alkali meadows. 

Alkali meadow habitats can be further subdivided by successional stage with either early successional or late successional 

communities found on all refuge units. Residual cover is typically very low in alkali meadow communities, thus, successional 

stage is rated based on diversity of the established plant community. Early successional status is comprised of a heterogeneous

alkali meadow community where more than one halophytic plant species shares dominance within the plant community. Early 

successional alkali meadow communities are dominant where water quality input is <1,000 ppm TDS and where water 

management has fluctuated over time. Approximately 60% of all refuge alkali meadow is currently in early successional status. 

Late successional status includes a relatively homogenous alkali meadow habitat where red glasswort is dominant within the 

plant community. Late successional alkali meadow communities are dominant where water quality input is >1,000 ppm TDS or 

where water management has favored natural evaporative drawdowns over time. 

During the late 1980s through mid-1990s, it was recognized that portions of the larger Rainbow Unit were more conducive to 

management for shallower habitat values. The northern sections of the unit retained alkali soils and thus, halophytic (salt 

tolerant) plant species, while the middle segment had considerable topographic variation which provided an ideal situation to 

manage for ephemeral wetland pools adjacent to upland nesting habitat.

Bear Lake NWR alkali meadows have been heavily impacted by altered hydrology, haying, mowing, and grazing. When 

subjected to such anthropogenic stresses as groundwater pumping and cattle grazing, alkali meadows are vulnerable to invasion 

by shrubs and conversion to alkali shrub communities (Elmore et al. 2006, West and Young 2000). Native seed germination and 

plant growth is stimulated by soil disturbance and is influenced by key soil characteristics and hydrologic conditions inherent to 

the site. Most formerly grazed alkali and meadow grass uplands were transformed to hay meadows in the Bear Lake Valley to 

provide winter forage for livestock. Continual historic disturbance (e.g., grazing, haying) in upland meadows results in more 

homogeneous vegetation structure (Török et al. 2011). Additionally, continual early dewatering of hay units in under current 

management decreases important alkali meadow grasses and increases saltbush or rabbitbrush shrubs (Manning 1999). Active 

seeding of alkali meadow species is warranted and required in the proposed action, as depleted seed-banks have been 

determined to be an initial limiting factor for alkali community re-vegetation and restoration (Jiang et al., 2009, Yan and Yang 

2007). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-44 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

GOAL 2: Provide high-quality riparian habitat within the watershed for focal 

wildlife species life history requirements, while simulating natural environmental 

processes. 

Objective 2.1. Wooded Riparian and In-Stream Habitat 

By 2027, restore a refuge total of 134 acres of Wooded Riparian habitat and restore and 

protect a minimum of 5 miles of in-stream habitat across all refuge units, distributed 

among the following attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 In-Stream: Bonneville cutthroat trout; Green River pebblesnail; Bear River spring snail 

 Breeding: Black-crowned night heron; Swainson’s hawk 

 Foraging: Greater sage-grouse; sharp-tailed grouse; Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Habitat Attributes:

 Ephemeral spring flooding (0-12” in depth) 

 Natural stream bank and water course. 

 Predominately comprised of native willow species (>90% willow by canopy cover) with wet-meadow 

understory. 

 <10% of riparian habitat comprises non-native species. 

 Cold (9-12, max 22°C), clear (turbidity <35 ppm), oxygenated water (7-9+ mg/l), pH ~6.5-8.0, 

 No unnatural in-stream barriers that restrain fish passage 

 Pool: riffle ratios 1:1, with sufficient flows (10-22 cm/sec) and depth (15-45 cm) 

 Boulders, woody debris, undercut banks and/or over-hanging surface vegetation >25% total area to 

reduce predation by piscivores 

Refuge Riparian Targets (All Units):

Increase from 92 acres to a target of 134 acres 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Riparian – Increase from 49 acres to a target of 79 acres, acceptable range 36-108 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Riparian – Increase from 41 acres to a target of 51 acres, acceptable range 41-76 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Riparian – Increase from 2 acres to a target of 4 acres, acceptable range 4-7 ac. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

All Units

Fence naturally regenerating woodlands to exclude ungulate browsing. Fertilize if advantageous. 

If natural regeneration does not adequately meet objectives, plant woodland trees and shrub species on appropriate sites. 

Prepare sites for planting using normal agricultural practices and equipment (e.g., herbicide applications, scrape off reed canary 

grass to mineral soil). 

Protect from trespass ungulate browse with fencing. Avoid planting isolated individual trees. Use temporary irrigation (one to 

three years) as needed. 

Hardware cloth tubes buried 6''-1' to protect individual plants from meadow voles. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-45

Years 1-5: Fence and plant restoration areas, fertilize. 

Years 5-10: Measure survival rate, replant as necessary; maintain fence, fertilize and mow. 

Years 10-15: Control invasive species in tree/shrub plantings, remove fence at end of 15 years.

Ensure long-term refuge participation in the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA) project and work with private 

landowners to conserve the natural resources and working agricultural landscapes of the area.

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain invasive 

plants (see Appendix F, IPM Program).

Place large woody debris if needed, as identified in habitat inventories and surveys. 

Work with State of Idaho and Counties to ensure that road maintenance does not impact in-stream habitat.

Work with Forest Service watershed assessment teams to minimize erosion and sedimentation from roads and culverts on 

adjoining upstream USFS lands.

Bear Lake NWR

Throughout the lifetime of the CCP, the Refuge will work in partnership with PacifiCorp and the IDFG to study and consult on 

the effects of fish passage at irrigation diversions and water control structures within the Refuge. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

By 2017, formulate a mutually beneficial water management agreement with the Thomas Fork Irrigation Company to allow for 

complete in-stream water flows outside the irrigation period, after a minimum wetland elevation has been established and in 

conjunction with drought hydrologic scenario. 

Rationale: Refuge stream courses such as St. Charles Creek (Bear Lake NWR) and Thomas Fork Creek (Thomas Fork Unit) 

provide critical spawning access for the State threatened Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) (Colyer et al. 2005). Both of these 

spawning tributaries have been identified as critical to the long-term survival of BCT (IDFG 2007). Considering the emphasis 

on optimally managing remnant palustrine emergent marsh complexes on refuge units, it becomes critical to account for 

adjacent private lands in supplementing seasonal habitat shortfalls and adjacent upland habitats. Additionally, it is equally 

important to recognize that critical riparian habitats such as those found on Thomas Fork Creek, St. Charles Creek, and the Bear 

River are primarily on private land. Promoting environmentally and operationally sound management practices on these lands is 

mutually beneficial to the Service and private agricultural operations. Enhancing these habitats will remain a primary objective 

of the Service. 

Proactive riparian conservation strategies, such as attaining a mutually beneficial water management agreement with the 

Thomas Fork Irrigation Company to allow for complete in-stream water flow-through outside the irrigation period, and 

construction of additional fish passage ladder projects at Bear Lake NWR in cooperation with IDFG, would greatly improve 

habitat for Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) on Bear Lake NWR and the Thomas Fork Unit. Colyer et al. (2005) documented 

the existence of a fluvial component of BCT in the Bear River and Thomas Fork and suggest that successful efforts at 

conservation of these fish must focus on main-stem habitats and the maintenance of seasonal migration corridors. Cutthroat 

trout abundance is usually correlated to the previous year’s stream discharge, the quantity of cover, and pool area (Binns and 

Remmick 1994). Consideration of actions to increase in-stream flow for spawning Bonneville cutthroat trout, after a minimum 

wetland elevation has been established, would greatly increase productivity and upstream spawning distribution (Teuscher and 

Capurso 2007) and protect the structural integrity of irrigation diversions and facilitate passage by greater numbers of fluvial 

spawning Bonneville cutthroat trout.

Although refuge riparian woodlands comprise only a small proportion of habitat within the extensive tributaries of the Bear River 

proper, proposed strategies to actively restore refuge woodland habitat are vital to the conservation of riparian wildlife. 

Restoration of over 40 acres of native willow woodlands, while managing suitable areas for increased recruitment and 

regeneration of woodlands would represent a 46% increase in refuge woodland habitat. The increased acres would provide 

nesting habitat for many additional pairs of riparian dependent passerines and stop-over habitat for hundreds of migrants 

annually. Even small gains in riparian habitat are important, as riparian systems may attract up to 10.6 times the number of 

migratory birds found in surrounding upland sites in the spring (Stevens et al. 1977) and 14 times the number of species recorded 

during fall migration (Hehnke and Stone 1979). These differences occurred almost exclusively in the insectivorous bird foraging

guild, with granivorous species being associated more with upland (Stevens et al. 1977) or altered (Heller 1978) sites. However, 

granivorous species do use riparian sites extensively during winter for foraging and thermal cover (F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, 

unpublished data). The disproportionately high value of restored riparian habitat values extends beyond birds to other vertebrates, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-46 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

such as amphibians and reptiles (Brode and Bury 1984, Bury 1988), small mammals (Cross 1985, Doyle 1990), and big-game 

(Collins 1983). 

Refuge involvement in community-based environmental planning and the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (BRWCA) 

project will conserve the natural resources and working landscapes of the area. Management and conservation strategies 

(Holling and Meffe 1996, Dale et al. 2000), including those involving aquatic organisms (National Research Council 1996, 

Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team 1999), require consideration of large spatial and temporal extents and the 

conservation of biophysical processes rather than just individual biological and physical elements (Saab 1999). In the case of 

fish, such as anadromous salmon and even adfluvial Bonneville cutthroat trout, this necessitates a transition from the current 

focus on relatively small spatial extents with little or no consideration of temporal dimensions, to larger spatial extents 

(ecosystems and landscapes) over longer (i.e., 10-100 years) time periods (Reeves et al. 1995, Poff et al. 1997, Naiman and 

Latterell 2005). For example, Williams et al. (1989) found that no fish species listed under the ESA was ever recovered after 

listing and attributed this failure to the general focus of recovery efforts on habitat attributes rather than on restoration and 

conservation of ecosystems. To protect riparian habitat at the watershed scale, it is essential the Refuge engage and cooperate

with private landowners on conservation matters of mutual interest (Bakermans 2006, Womack 2008) as proposed. 

GOAL 3: Maintain and protect the existing integrity of early successional upland 

habitat and restore the natural range of variability and resiliency to late 

successional upland habitat. 

Objective 3.1. Native Upland Community 

Annually provide a refuge total of 2,143 acres of native uplands, comprised of 467 acres of 

Alkali Upland Meadow, 1,134 acres of Meadow Grass, and 542 acres of Shrub habitat 

across all refuge units, distributed among the defined unit acreage ranges: 

*The refuge totals included in this objective are a summation of five management complexes of Bear 

Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA. 

Sub-Objectives for the individual habitat of this objective (Obj 3.1a, Alkali Upland Meadow; Obj 3.1b, 

Meadow Grass; and Obj 3.1c, Shrub) will collectively need to be managed as individual targets for each 

of the five management complexes and 13 impoundments of Bear Lake NWR to attain this refuge 

objective. 

Refuge Native Upland Target (All Units):

Increase from 1,826 acres to a target of 2,143 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Native Uplands – Increase from 1,236 acres to a target of 1,489 acres acceptable range 901-

1,981 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Native Uplands – Increase from 257 acres to a target of 295 acres, acceptable range 226-356 

ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Native Uplands – Increase from 333 acres to a target of 359 acres, acceptable range 258-432 

ac. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-47

Sub-Objectives to attain Native Upland Community Objective:

Objective 3.1a: Alkali Upland Meadow (Intermittently Flooded) Habitat 

Annually maintain an average of 467 acres coverage by Alkali Upland Meadow habitat 

across all refuge units (343 acres at Bear Lake NWR, 5 acres at Thomas Fork, and 120 

acres at Oxford Slough), with no more than 40% of the coverage as late successional 

habitat containing ≥90% residual vegetation and ≥10% forbs, and distributed among the 

following attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Breeding and Foraging: American avocet 

 Foraging: Snowy egret 

Habitat Attributes:

 Alkali (pH>9) habitat primarily comprised of halophytic grass species (e.g., alkali sacaton, saltgrass) 

 Intermittent hydrologic regime with seasonal flooding less than 3” for less than 10 days annually. 

 >60% Early successional Alkali Upland comprised of ≤10% forbs and ≤90% residual vegetation. 

 <40% Late successional Alkali Upland comprised of ≥10% forbs and ≥90% residual vegetation. 

 Initiate mechanical or physical disturbance to habitat when >40% of the community is ≥10% forbs 

and/or ≥90% residual vegetation 

Refuge Alkali Upland Meadow Target (All Units):

Increase from 442 acres to a target of 467 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Alkali Upland Meadow – Increase from 313 acres to a target of 343 acres, acceptable range 

180-540 ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Alkali Upland Meadow – Increase from 2 acres to a target of 5 acres, acceptable range 2-5 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Alkali Upland Meadow – Decrease from 127 acres to a target of 120 acres, acceptable range 

93-185 ac. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Use high saline fall tailwater (as opposed to freshwater spring inflows) to flood units and allow to evaporate on-site to increase 

alkali upland habitats. 

At Bear Lake NWR and Thomas Fork Unit, apply early seasonal shallow irrigation to alkali upland soils to increase the 

seasonal extent and density of alkali habitat. 

At Bear Lake NWR and Thomas Fork Unit, judicially apply prescribed fire in a mosaic pattern to establish early successional 

alkali habitat. 

At Bear Lake NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA, plant alkali sacaton and saltgrass, etc., to increase acreage, if 

needed. 

Rationale: Alkali Upland Meadow is defined as alkaline (pH >9) habitat primarily comprised of halophytic grass species 

(e.g., alkali sacaton, saltgrass) subject to an intermittent hydrologic regime with seasonal flooding less than 3" for less than 10 

days annually. It can further be subdivided into early or late successional stages based on residual material and forb content.

Early successional alkali upland meadow habitat is comprised of less than 10% forbs and less than 90% residual vegetation 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-48 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

coverage. At present, approximately 60% of refuge alkali upland meadow habitat contains less than 10% forb content and the 

majority retains less than 90% residual vegetation coverage. Late successional alkali upland meadow habitat is comprised of 

more than 10% forbs and/or more than 90% residual vegetation coverage. Approximately 40% of refuge alkali meadows contain 

a significant forb component; however, the majority retains less than 90% residual vegetation coverage. 

Similar to the relationship between wet and alkali meadows, alkali and meadow grass uplands vary by soil pH and conductivity. 

Alkali uplands are typically sparsely vegetated with grass species such as alkali sacaton and saltgrass, and provide a vital nesting 

area for sensitive species such as American avocet and long-billed curlew (Plissner et al. 1999, Dechant et al. 2003) Without the 

close juxtaposition of alkali uplands to alkali wet meadows, these sensitive species would no longer frequent the Refuge because 

these habitats, in combination, provide the components necessary to fulfill their life history strategies. 

Proposed strategies to purposefully redirect different water sources through water control structures to alter abiotic conditions 

of intermittently flooded uplands would have a dramatic influence on wetland and upland plant succession. Most on-refuge 

water sources would be considered fresh (<1,000 ppm TDS); however, tailwater from some of the irrigation companies can 

exceed this level and thus, contribute to increased salinity. The CCP’s strategies will alter salinity levels by redirecting different 

water sources as conditions require in attaining identified alkali and meadow habitat objectives. For example, by flushing fresh 

water through a unit, a lowering of soil salinity can occur, fostering conditions for freshwater upland meadow vegetation to 

establish. However, when higher saline source tailwater is used and allowed to evaporate in place instead of flowing through a 

target unit, salinity levels will increase, thus pushing the vegetation community toward more alkali tolerant species (McKee and 

Mendelssohn 1989). Timing (spring inflow vs. fall tailwater) and distribution (flow through vs. evaporate in place) are water 

quality management prescriptions the refuge will use effectively to meet diverse upland meadow habitat type objectives. 

Objective 3.1b: Meadow Grass (Intermittently Flooded) Habitat 

Annually maintain an average of 1,134 acres meadow grass upland habitat across all 

refuge units (748 acres at Bear Lake NWR, 240 acres at Thomas Fork, and 146 acres at 

Oxford Slough), with no more than 20% of the coverage as late successional, containing 

>90% residual vegetation and/or >10% forbs, and distributed among the following 

attributes and defined unit acreage ranges: 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Breeding and Foraging: Grasshopper sparrow; long-billed curlew; Canada goose; Wyoming ground 

squirrel; Uinta ground squirrel; Idaho pocket gopher 

 Breeding: Short-eared owl; mallard 

 Foraging: American widgeon; California gull; burrowing owl; Swainson’s hawk; ferruginous hawk; 

merlin; Franklin’s gull 

Habitat Attributes:

 Grassland habitat comprised of native grass species, such as Great Basin wildrye and tall wheatgrass 

 Intermittent hydrologic regime with seasonal flooding less than 3” for less than 10 days annually 

 >80% Early successional meadow grass habitat comprised of ≤10% forbs and ≤90% residual 

vegetation. 

 <20% Late successional meadow grass comprised of ≥10% forbs and ≥90% residual vegetation. 

 <20% of community is late successional and comprised of ≥10% forbs and ≥90% residual vegetation 

Refuge Meadow Grass Target (All Units):

Increase from 920 acres to a target of 1,134 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Meadow Grass – Increase from 570 acres to a target of 748 acres, acceptable range 540-901 ac.

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Meadow Grass – Increase from 231 acres to a target of 240 acres, acceptable range 203-305 ac. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-49

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Meadow Grass – Increase from 119 acres to a target of 146 acres, acceptable range 93-148 ac.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Assess options and cooperative farming agreements that are still economically viable for Refuge cooperative farmers, to delay 

haying further until late August.

Use freshwater spring inflows (as opposed to high saline fall tailwater) to flow-through flood meadow units to increase meadow 

grass habitats. 

By 2016, restore 11 acres of previously farmed and cultivated agriculture fields to meadow grass habitat.

Rationale: Upland meadow grass habitat differs from wetland habitat based on the seasonal periodicity of hydration. While 

typically dry, upland meadows can be seasonally flooded to as much as 3” during spring. Upland habitats serve a vital function 

within the marsh complex by providing nesting sites for numerous upland nesting waterbird species; thus, without adjacent 

upland habitat within the marsh complex, far fewer waterbird species would frequent refuge habitats. 

Meadow grass habitats are characterized by pH neutral soils and less dissolved salt, thus, a wider range of plant species can 

grow within this habitat type. Typically, meadow grass is taller in stature and has considerably more structural complexity than 

alkali uplands and is, therefore, used by a wider range of wildlife species. Similar to the juxtaposition of alkali uplands with 

alkali meadows, meadow grass in close proximity to wet meadow is also vitally important to a different complement of wildlife 

species. Upland nesting waterfowl and shorebird species such as Wilson’s phalarope are just a few of the examples. 

Meadow grass habitat is comprised of native grass species such as Great Basin wildrye and tall wheatgrass, subject to an 

intermittent hydrologic regime with seasonal flooding less than 3” for less than 10 days annually. Similar to Alkali upland 

meadow habitat, meadow grass habitat can be further subdivided into early and late successional stages by the same ratio of 

forb and residual canopy coverage (<10% forb and/or <90% residual vegetation). Approximately 60% of meadow grass habitat 

is currently in an early successional stage due to periodic prescribed burns, while approximately 40% of refuge meadow grass 

habitat is in a late successional stage due to lack of disturbance. The current extent of meadow grass is desirable at the Thomas 

Fork Unit and Oxford Slough WPA. Efforts to convert additional cropland at Oxford Slough may be undertaken to increase this 

habitat percentage to approximately 5%. At Bear Lake NWR (3.2%), it would be desirable to increase this percentage to 5%. 

Approximately 36% and 53% of agricultural fields existing at refuge acquisition were restored back to native meadow grass 

habitat at Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA, respectively. Considering the minimal coverage of quality upland nesting 

habitat on Bear Lake NWR, it is necessary to reassess the importance of small grain production within meadow grass habitats 

when compared to the relative lack of upland meadow grass habitat (see objective 4.1). 

Changes in hay management practices outlined in Objective 4.2 will improve refuge native meadow grass structure and 

composition. The integrated approach in this CCP strikes a balance in managing short-cover habitat through haying by 

acknowledging the factors that determine birds forage preference for dense native habitat and managed short habitat structure. 

Strategies for management practices to produce habitats that are suitable for not only species who readily adapt to 

anthropogenic changes in habitat, but a diverse suite of species is preferred over current management. By offsetting current 

agricultural haying practices on 2,041 acres, while still providing short-cover on 1,492 acres, the Refuge will provide a diverse 

realm of nesting and foraging habitats for both breeding and migrating wildlife during several key times in their annual life 

histories (Rollins 1981, Heitmeyer 1989) in meadow grass habitat. 

Objective 3.1c: Mixed Shrub (Rabbitbrush, Greasewood, and Sagebrush) Habitat 

Annually maintain an average of 542 acres coverage by Shrub habitat across all refuge 

units (398 acres at Bear Lake NWR, 50 acres at Thomas Fork, and 94 acres at Oxford 

Slough), while using active management techniques to maintain greater than 60% in early 

successional status for nesting wildlife.

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Breeding and Foraging: Greater sage-grouse; Merriam’s shrew; Brewer’s sparrow; Wyoming ground 

squirrel; Uinta ground squirrel; Idaho pocket gopher; ferruginous hawk; loggerhead shrike; sharp-
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-50 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

tailed grouse; merlin; burrowing owl 

 Breeding: Swainson’s hawk; northern pintail; long-billed curlew 

Greasewood Habitat Attributes:

 <25% canopy cover of mature, tall (>3') shrubs with patchy distribution 

 <20% herbaceous cover 

 >20% bare ground 

 <10% invasive species 

 <25% of community is mature tall (>3') 

Sagebrush Habitat Attributes:

 50% of the habitat retaining less than 30% canopy coverage by big sagebrush 

 Sagebrush 10-28” in height 

 < 10% invasive species 

 <50% of community is late successional (>30% shrub cover) 

Refuge Shrub Target (All Units):

Increase from 463 acres to a target of 542 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Shrub – Increase from 352 acres to a target of 398 acres, acceptable range 180-540ac. 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Shrub – Increase from 24 acres to a target of 50 acres, acceptable range 24-51 ac. 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Shrub – Increase from 87 acres to a target of 94 acres, acceptable range 74-94 ac. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

All Units 

Initiate upland shrub inventories to determine which sagebrush communities are currently resistant and resilient, versus those 

that have low resistance and resilience, as well as those with characteristics intermediate to these extremes.

Adaptive management triggered when >25% of community is mature tall (>3’).

Initiate mechanical or physical disturbance to habitat when >50% of community is late successional (>30% shrub cover).

Bear Lake NWR 

At Bear Lake NWR, restore small areas interspersed throughout the wetland areas and along wetland management levees and 

dikes by mechanically disturbing late successional shrub islands and planting native grass and forbs by 2022.

Thomas Fork Unit 

At Thomas Fork, restore 26 acres of sagebrush shrub habitat through mechanical, chemical, or restorative plantings in areas 

impacted by past livestock grazing and now dominated by late successional sagebrush by 2022.

Oxford Slough WPA 

At Oxford Slough WPA, initiate active sagebrush restoration along the periphery of agricultural areas as required to stabilize rill 

erosion sites by 2022.

Rationale: Shrub uplands are comprised of either early successional (rubber rabbitbrush), late successional alkali (big 

greasewood), or late successional climax (big sagebrush) shrub species with the dominant overstory canopy covering at least 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-51

50% of the community. Shrub habitats typically contain a native grass understory comprised of either meadow grass or alkali 

upland species. Shrub habitats can be divided by canopy cover percentage as an index of habitat quality with the threshold of at 

least 90% of the habitat type containing greater than 50% canopy coverage by the dominant shrub species. Refuge units 

currently contain approximately 2.2% shrub habitat by aerial coverage, roughly equally distributed among units. Oxford Slough 

shrub habitats are more greasewood dominant, while Bear Lake NWR and the Thomas Fork Unit have a higher proportion of 

big sagebrush. Due to long-term livestock grazing prior to refuge acquisition in 1995, the sagebrush community at the Thomas 

Fork Unit typically has less than 50% canopy coverage. The desired condition is to increase canopy coverage at the Thomas 

Fork Unit to a condition where greater than 90% of the coverage has greater than 50% canopy coverage by big sagebrush. All 

other units are within threshold. 

Shrub habitat is the least variable of all refuge habitat types but serves a complementary function in the wetland complex by 

providing additional habitat for upland nesting wildlife. Additionally, shrub habitats provide winter cover for big game species 

such as moose and mule deer, while serving as the primary habitat type used by specialists such as sage grouse. Compared to 

sagebrush habitat surrounding refuge lands, the proportional distribution on the Refuge is quite low; however, the quality of 

refuge shrub habitat is far superior to any adjacent shrub habitat. 

Before undertaking broad restorative efforts, the CCP calls for inventories to determine which sagebrush communities are 

currently resistant and resilient, versus those that have low resistance and resilience, as well as those with characteristics 

intermediate to these extremes (Wisdom et al. 2005a). Healthy sage-steppe communities are defined as resistant when the 

ecosystem maintains its structural and functional attributes in the face of stress and disturbances. Resilience entails the ability of 

an ecosystem to regain structural and functional attributes that have suffered harm from stress or disturbance. Current 

knowledge suggests that little can be done to restore vast areas of sagebrush that have already been lost and experienced 

threshold effects that are impossible, or highly improbable, to reverse (Bunting et al. 2002). On the other hand, many areas of

existing sagebrush may be close to transitioning to undesirable habitat conditions that may be difficult to reverse (e.g., 

cheatgrass) and might be prevented from transitioning through management intervention. Still other areas of sagebrush are 

highly resistant and resilient to most human disturbances, and currently require less management intervention to retain native 

components and processes. 

The Thomas Fork Unit is closed to the public and livestock grazing no longer occurs on the unit, which greatly enhances quality

within upland habitat types, facilitates regeneration in previously disturbed areas, and minimizes the need for active 

management and restoration of upland habitats. Some areas of Thomas Fork sagebrush shrub habitat was particularly impacted 

by past livestock management and were historically dominated by late successional sagebrush. The area is now at risk of being 

converted to annual cheatgrass or other invasive species and active restoration is required. The benefits of the CCP in increasing 

plant diversity shrub monocultures include improved habitat, greater species richness and community diversity, improved 

aesthetics, more soil cover (Stevens 1994), and increased diversity of birds, mammals, reptiles, and insects (Reynolds 1980, 

Wisdom et al. 2005b). 

Crop fields surrounding the northeast hillside of Oxford Slough are subject to rill erosion during summer rain events. When 

fallow, these erosion impacts can be particularly severe. The effects are loss of quality topsoil and water quality in the Slough as 

soil is transported down gradient. Active sagebrush restoration along the periphery of these agricultural areas is required to 

stabilize the site. 

GOAL 4: Provide a supplemental on-refuge forage base for carbohydrate and 

protein requirements of migratory waterfowl and landbirds within the Pacific and 

Bear River migratory corridor. 

Objective 4.1 Upland Forage Crops 

Annually maintain a refuge total of 154 acres within 19 farm fields of upland habitats as 

agriculture across all refuge units, while restoring two agricultural fields totaling 11 acres 

to native meadow grass habitat by 2016, distributed among the following attributes and 

defined unit acreage ranges (see detail of each unit below). 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Foraging: Greater sandhill crane; Canada goose; Swainson’s hawk; short-eared owl 

Habitat Attributes:

 Supplemental and artificial habitat maintained through agricultural management to provide small 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-52 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

grain and leafy browse forage for wildlife use. 

 >65% Small grain such as fall wheat or spring barley on a three year plant/one year fallow rotation 

 <15% Summer fallow crop turned under the soil and left idle 

 >15% Legumes (annual clover) crop turned under the soil and clover planted. 

 <5% Legumes (alfalfa) planted in a 10-year cycle. 

Refuge Non-Native Upland Crop Target (All Units):

Decrease from 214 acres to a target of 154 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Crops – Decrease from 91 acres to a target of 80 acres 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Crops – Maintain 44 acres 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Crops – Decrease from 79 acres to a target of 30 acres 

Sub-Objectives to attain Non-Native Upland Agriculture Objective:

Objective 4.1a: Bear Lake NWR Forage Crops 

Annually farm 80 acres in eight Bear Lake NWR farm fields in an approximate ratio of 

70% small grain (split between fall wheat and spring barley) and 30% summer 

fallow/leguminous cover crop, while restoring two agricultural fields (11 acres) to native 

meadow grass habitat by 2016. 

Bear Lake NWR Non-Native Upland Crop Target 

 Crops – Decrease from 91 acres to a target of 80 acres 

Defined Bear Lake NWR Targets:

 Bloomington Complex – Red Slough North Field (14.7 ac.) 

 Bloomington Complex – Red Slough Center Field (14.6 ac.) 

 Bloomington Complex – Red Slough South Field (10.8 ac.) 

 Bloomington Complex – Alder West Field (7.6 ac.) 

 Bloomington Complex – Alder East Field (7 ac.) 

 Bunn Lake Complex – Spring Creek South Field (14.2 ac.) 

 Bunn Lake Complex – Spring Creek NW Field (7.7 ac.) 

 Bunn Lake Complex – Spring Creek NE Field (3.2 ac.) 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Seek and develop partnership opportunities, and associated grant acquisition, to minimize overhead costs of agriculture 

management and infrastructure.

Use Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMA) as an alternative to force account farming, fencing, and weed control.

On five year intervals, coordinate with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Farm Services Agency (FSA) and 

the USFWS Migratory Birds Program to (1) assess geographic distribution and acreage of small grain operations in Bear Lake 

and Franklin Counties, Idaho, and (2) determine population trends and grain requirements to sustain greater sandhill crane and 

western Canada goose populations. Both factors should be critically examined before deciding to convert existing agricultural 

fields to meadow grass.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-53

Annually evaluate workforce needs as indicated in the Bear Lake NWR Annual Work Plan, to determine the efficacy and/or 

need to develop or continue CLMAs on refuge farm ground.

Annually track cropping patterns as listed in the Bear Lake NWR Annual Work Plan to determine appropriate planting 

strategies for the following year. Cropping strategies may be adjusted as necessary; however, final planting should be recorded

in the Bear Lake NWR Annual Work Plan. 

Restore 10.7 acres of native meadow grass habitat in the following agricultural fields to minimize bird power line strikes by 

2022: 

 North Meadows Complex – Entrance Field West (5.6 ac.). 

 North Meadows Complex – Entrance Field Center (5.1 ac.) 

Increase public viewing opportunities of wildlife by assessing crop planting in part of the North Dingle field when it is no 

longer hayed.

Objective 4.1b: Thomas Fork Unit Forage Crops 

Annually farm 44 acres within four Thomas Fork Unit farm fields through a rotation of 

70% small grain (split between fall wheat and spring barley) and 30% summer 

fallow/leguminous cover crop. 

Thomas Fork Unit Non-Native Upland Crop Target 

 Crops – Maintain 44 acres (4.4%) 

Defined Thomas Fork Unit Targets:

 Thomas Fork – Thomas Fork Unit Center Field (19.9 ac.) 

 Thomas Fork – Thomas Fork Unit East Field (12.3 ac.) 

 Thomas Fork – Thomas Fork Unit Lower West Field (6.2 ac.) 

 Thomas Fork – Thomas Fork Unit Upper West Field (5.8 ac.) 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Annually track cropping patterns as listed in the Bear Lake NWR Annual Work Plan to determine appropriate planting 

strategies for the following year. Cropping strategies may be adjusted as necessary; however, final planting should be recorded

in the Bear Lake NWR Annual Work Plan. 

Develop strategy to plant annual clover on fields scheduled for summer fallow to restore soil nitrogen, prevent erosion, and 

provide leafy browse for western Canada geese.

Gradually phase production to a higher percentage of fall wheat. 

Objective 4.1c: Oxford Slough WPA Forage Crops 

Annually farm 30 acres within two Oxford Slough WPA farm fields through a rotation of 

70% small grain (split between fall wheat and spring barley) and 30% summer 

fallow/leguminous cover crop. 

Oxford Slough WPA Non-Native Upland Crop Target 

 Crops – Decrease from 79 acres to a target of 30 acres 

Oxford Slough WPA Targets: 

 30 acres in the northwest corner of the unit 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-54 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Every one to three years evaluate grain and hay market value compared to the fuel and labor costs and negotiate farming 

CLMA. 

Reduce planted grain fields to 30 acres within the northwest grain fields by 2022. 

Develop strategy to plant annual clover on fields scheduled for summer fallow to restore soil nitrogen, prevent erosion, and 

provide leafy browse for western Canada geese.

Phase production gradually to a higher percentage of fall wheat. 

Implement rotational agricultural practices and reduce fall tillage to improve soil retention, reduce fertilizer costs, and reduce 

erosion. 

Update and approve the Refuge Cropland Management Plan by 2019.

Farming cooperators to apply only refuge approved herbicides and provide a written record of chemical name, amount used, 

date, location, and application rates. 

Farming cooperators will provide a written report and record of annual plantings to the Refuge. 

Actively control weeds in farmed units through IPM program using such methods as crop rotation, mechanical treatment, 

biological controls, and low toxicity approved pesticides (see Appendix F). 

Rationale: Most waterfowl are opportunistic feeders, and some species such as Canada geese, snow geese, mallard, northern 

pintails, and teal have learned to capitalize on the abundant foods produced by agriculture (Bellrose 1976). During the last 

century, migration routes and wintering areas have changed in response to availability of these foods (Fredrickson and Drobney 

1979). Some species have developed such strong migratory traditions that many populations are now dependent on agricultural 

foods for their migration or winter survival (Ringelman 1990). During breeding and molting periods, waterfowl require a 

balanced diet with high protein content. Agricultural foods, most of which are neither nutritionally balanced nor high in protein, 

are seldom used during these periods. However, during fall, winter, and early spring, when vegetative foods make up a large 

part of their diet, agricultural foods are preferred forage except in arctic and subarctic environments (Sugden 1971). Waterfowl 

management during these periods is often directed at providing small grain and row crops (Baldassare et al. 1983). 

At Bear Lake NWR croplands are managed, primarily for the benefit of waterfowl and sandhill cranes, but many other species 

benefit directly or indirectly (e.g., long-billed curlews, porcupine, sage-grouse, bald eagles). Croplands on the Refuge promote 

sustained use of these areas by migrating waterfowl by providing an accessible, high-energy food source during late fall and 

early winter as wetlands freeze up. This reduces waterfowl depredation on adjacent croplands. Currently, a total of 214 acres of 

planted agriculture are provided on the Refuge. The CCP will retain 154 acres of agriculture, needed to reduce wildlife 

depredation on adjacent private lands, and restore 11 acres of previously farmed upland habitat to native grasses and forbs. 

Bear Lake NWR currently retains eight small agricultural fields on the Bloomington and Bunn Lake Complexes. The 

juxtaposition of these fields in close proximity to other habitats required to meet the life history requirements of identified key 

species justifies the continued farming of these eight small agricultural complexes. Restoration of 10.7 acres of former 

agriculture to native meadow grass in the North Meadows Complex West and Center Entrance Fields would reduce the risk of 

bird power line collisions and increase limited meadow grass habitat on the Refuge. Considering the minimal coverage by 

quality upland nesting habitat on Bear Lake NWR, it is necessary to reassess the importance of small grain production when 

compared to the relative lack of upland meadow grass habitat. Five-year evaluations of the geographic distribution and acreage 

of small grain production operations will assist the Refuge in determining the need to either restore any additional agriculture 

habitats to native meadow grass or increase agriculture production on the Refuge. 

While agricultural crops are typically not limiting within the regional landscape, agricultural fields where all grain is produced 

and retained for wildlife use are. Additionally, landscape scale small grain production is beginning to experience a downward 

trend, which not only reduces grain availability for the referenced key species, but increases pressure on privately owned small 

grain fields (Mclvor and Conover 2003). Considering recent off-refuge conversions from small grain to alfalfa and meadow hay 

production, refuge agricultural crops provide a supplement as well as a depredation benefit to those local farmers still growing 

small grain crops. 

The juxtaposition of the four agricultural fields on the Thomas Fork are in close proximity to other habitats required by 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-55

identified key species, and the high number of fall migratory greater sandhill cranes justifies continuation of the program at its 

current level. The planting of annual clover on the Thomas Fork fields scheduled for summer fallow would restore soil nitrogen 

and prevent erosion (Doran et al. 1987). In the absence of irrigation water or fertilizer, spring crops must be planted following 

snowmelt and are then subject to annual rainfall patterns for grain production. By slowly phasing to fall planted wheat, crops 

would begin growing in fall, lie dormant through winter, and then take maximum advantage of snowmelt during early spring 

growth periods. Similar to spring planted crops, fall planted crops produce grain for the next fall migration; however, fall 

planted crops would provide additional refuge browse during spring/early summer for geese. 

 

At present, migratory needs of key wildlife species compared to the relative paucity of small grain production in the 

surrounding landscape justifies the continuation of a scaled-back farming program at Oxford Slough WPA. As the only 

Waterfowl Production Area in Region 1 of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the extent and quality of upland habitat for upland 

nesting waterfowl is also critical. To that end, the Refuge must balance agriculture forage crop production with suitable upland 

nesting cover. Previously, the Refuge restored approximately 53% of historic agricultural fields at Oxford Slough by planting 

native upland grasses to produce nesting cover. When judiciously applied, prescribed fire applications would continue to 

maintain native meadow grass communities to early successional status (<90% residual cover and <10% forb cover) to ensure 

restored habitats are in optimal conditions for wildlife nesting. A Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA) has been 

in effect since WPA acquisition in 1985. In exchange for a portion of refuge crops and haying rights in the west meadows area, 

the cooperative farmer assumes all farming, fencing, and weed control responsibilities. The amount of grain and hay to be 

removed is based on the amount of labor and materials provided by the cooperator. Annual evaluations of the grain and hay 

market in comparison to the fuel and labor costs would ensure the effectiveness of the CLMA. 

Fall tillage as an agricultural practice eliminates valuable winter food and cover for wildlife and causes soil nutrient loss. By 

implementing a refuge conservation tillage system in the CCP, the Refuge will improve soil retention, reduce fertilizer costs, 

and reduce erosion. Generally, as soil-conserving measures increase, upland wildlife habitat quality also improves (Lines and 

Perry 1978; Miranowski and Bender 1982). Among the benefits of the rotational practices proposed by the Refuge in CCP are 

higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil energy inputs, yields similar to those of conventional systems, and 

conservation of soil moisture and water resources, which is especially advantageous under drought conditions (Pimentel et al. 

2005). 

Objective 4.2 Haying 

By 2027, decrease refuge hayed habitat from 3,533 acres to 1,491 acres, to provide no 

more than a 60:40 hayed to unhayed ratio of short cover within refuge ephemeral meadow 

and shallow emergent habitats. 

Benefitting Refuge Species:

 Short-Cover foraging birds: 

o Meadow Foraging Guild (e.g., greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Canada goose, western 

meadowlark, American robin, cattle egret 

o Grazing Waterfowl Guild (e.g., American wigeon, American coot, gadwall, Canada geese) 

 Short-Cover Nesting birds: 

o Upland Nesting Guild (e.g., long-billed curlew, black-necked stilt, killdeer). 

 Dense cover nesting birds: 

o Upland Nesting Waterfowl Guild (i.e., northern pintail, mallard, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, 

gadwall) 

o Meadow Nesting Shorebird Guild (i.e., Wilson’s phalarope, willet, common snipe) 

o Secretive Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., American bittern, Virginia rail, sora rail) 

o Shallow Over-water Nesting Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., black tern, marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, 

yellow-headed blackbird, northern harrier). 

Habitat Attributes:

 Un-hayed alkali upland meadows and meadow grass habitats. 

 Low density herbaceous grass and forbs mowed 2-4'' in height with bare ground, or a light vegetative 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-56 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

litter. 

 Taller native or non-native herbaceous cover, at least 10-12'' in height, dense enough to effectively 

conceal a passerine, shorebird, or duck nest from overhead or lateral view. 

Refuge Hay Target (All Units):

Decrease by 57.8% from 3,533 acres to a target of 1,492 acres. 

1) Bear Lake NWR: 

 Hay – Decrease by 61% from 2,896 acres to a target of 1,127 acres 

2) Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Hay – Decrease by 37% from 337 acres to a target of 214 acres 

3) Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Hay – Decrease by 50% from 300 acres to a target of 150 acres 

Sub-Objectives to attain Haying Objective:

Sub-Objective 4.2a: Bear Lake NWR Haying 

4.2a-1: By 2027, hay 1,127 acres of the current 2,896 hayed acres; comprised of 810 acres 

of rotational hayed habitat and 318 acres annually hayed habitat using CLMAs, 

negotiated sales, and bid units. 

4.2a-2: By 2027 modify refuge habitats hayed from 95% of wet meadow and 25% of 

shallow emergent habitats, to haying only 60% of wet meadow and 5% of shallow 

emergent habitats. 

4.2a-3: Implement a 1,769 acre haying reduction over 15 years, by: 

 Discontinuing haying 554 acres (in the first year of CCP implementation in 2013. 

 Discontinuing haying approximately 400-410 acres every five years, in three five-year cycles. 

Sub-Objective 4.2b: Thomas Fork Unit Haying 

4.2b-1: By 2017, hay 214 acres of the current 337 hayed acres; 

4.2b-2: By 2017 modify refuge habitats hayed from 94% of wet meadow habitat, to haying 

only 60% of wet meadow habitat 

4.2b-3: Implement a 123 acre haying reduction over five years 

Sub-Objective 4.2c: Oxford Slough WPA Haying 

4.2c-1: By 2017, hay 150 acres of the current 300 hayed acres; 

4.2c-2: By 2017 modify refuge habitats hayed from 92% of wet meadow habitat, to haying 

only 50% of wet meadow habitat 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-57

4.2c-3: Implement a 150 acre haying reduction over five years, by: 

 Discontinuing haying 30 acres every year for five years. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve All Haying Objectives

Bear Lake NWR

Phase in haying rotations and incremental reductions every five years, over a five-year cycle: 2013-2017; 2018-2022; 2023-2027.

Haying cooperators to apply only refuge-approved herbicides and provide a written record of chemical name, amount used, 

date, location, and application rates. 

Haying cooperators will provide a written report and record of annual hay harvest to the Refuge. 

Assess feasibility and benefits of delaying dewatering of hay units until after August 1 and hay removal operation initiation 

until mid-to-late August. 

At Bear Lake NWR, gradually convert negotiated sale units to CLMAs or bid hay units until objective target is attained. 

Develop a rotation of hayed areas among those units best suited for haying. Reduce dense stands of grass that have an 

abundance of accumulated litter by using prescribed fire or mechanical means prior to putting back into haying rotation. 

Monitor wildlife use on hayed and unhayed units to inform future management decisions regarding hay program. 

Assess local Bear Lake Valley hay values at least every three years, or more often if needed, to ensure CLMAs are being 

conducted at a fair market value. 

Actively control weeds in hayed units through IPM program using such methods as crop rotation, mechanical treatment, 

biological controls, and low toxicity approved pesticides (see Appendix F). 

Thomas Fork Unit 

At Thomas Fork, gradually reduce the CLMA hay units until objective target is attained; retain minimum acreage needed to 

reduce wildlife depredation on adjacent private lands. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

At Oxford Slough, maintain hayed acres along west edge of unit for wildlife and as fire protection for the adjacent town of 

Oxford. 

At Oxford Slough, rehabilitate fields of monotypic dense nesting cover (DNC) by interseeding native grasses and forbs and/or 

plowing/disking dense vegetation and abundant litter. 

Rationale: Approximately 3,533 acres (90% of wet meadow habitat and 10% of shallow emergent habitat) is currently 

maintained in early successional status through the Refuge’s haying program, comprised of negotiated sale, bid units, and 

CLMAs. These hayed areas provide short-cover habitat for wildlife such as greater sandhill cranes, long-billed curlew, and 

Canada geese (Eldred 2009, La Sorte and Boecklen 2005). At Bear Lake NWR, 2,896 acres are currently hayed. Among 

management complexes, these hay units cover between 1.2% (Mud Lake Complex) and 73% (North Meadows Complex) of the 

total habitat area. This is the dominant management activity in the ephemeral marsh and upland meadows. 

Upon refuge establishment, negotiated sale permits were awarded to individuals and entities that had previously hayed the lands

of Bear Lake NWR. When the Refuge was established, individual landowners adjacent to the hayed fields and with livestock 

operations in the Bear Lake Valley were given first priority to secure USFWS permits and continue their haying operations. 

These permits require that wetland units be dewatered annually during late summer/early fall for hay removal, regardless of 

habitat condition or necessity from a habitat management standpoint. Because of the hay unit distribution, entire units may need 

to be dewatered annually by August 1st to facilitate hay removal; often at a time when fledgling waterbirds require these 

shallowly flooded habitats to reach flight stage. The Refuge has increasingly favored the use of CLMAs and bid units to achieve

specific habitat management objectives. With this process, established early successional (i.e., short cover) wet meadow 

thresholds can be used to determine where and when hay management is appropriate. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-58 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Short stature, wet meadow hay ground provides open areas for sandhill crane foraging. Birds selecting short cover include the 

following guilds: the meadow guild represented by the sandhill crane, western meadowlark, and cattle egret; the grazing 

waterfowl guild represented by American widgeon, Canada goose, American coot, and gadwall; and the upland-nesting 

shorebird guild represented by the long-billed curlew, American avocet, black-necked stilt, and killdeer. When juxtaposed with 

dense cover late successional wet meadow habitat (unhayed) and other palustrine emergent marsh habitat types, short cover can 

provide seasonally valuable habitat for their use. Birds selecting dense cover for foraging and nesting include the following 

guilds: upland nesting waterfowl guild represented by northern pintail, mallard, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, and gadwall;

the wet meadow nesting shorebird guild represented by Wilson’s phalarope, willet, and common snipe; the secretive marsh bird 

guild represented by American bittern, Virginia rail, and sora rail; and the shallow over-water nesting marsh bird guild 

represented by black tern, marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, and northern harrier. Other species also 

benefit from haying; however, other management tools, such as mowing and burning, provide the same habitat characteristics, 

and additionally, leave nutrients within the unit and in the case of mowing, provide invertebrate substrate. While hayed wet 

meadow habitat is certainly not in limited supply throughout the Bear Lake Valley, it does provide some habitat benefits for 

wildlife. 

The Refuge recently evaluated the haying program at the Bear Lake NWR and Thomas Fork Unit. Large and medium sized 

units with native plants of short stature or low growth form that creates a short cover aspect to the unit would be very similar to 

a mowed field. Small hay units with relatively robust, tall vegetation adjacent to areas already being hayed were deemed to be 

of more value in an unhayed state to provide tall and/or dense cover. These units, comprised of 554 acres, were not determined 

to benefit wildlife from haying and are slated for cessation of haying within one year of CCP implementation. 

Hay units that could benefit from a reduction in haying or a rotation of the areas hayed were inherently very large or adjacent to 

extensive hayed fields on private property. In these units, a rotation or reduction of hayed area would provide more diversity in 

characteristics of vegetation height and cover. The reduction-rotation will be phased in over three five-year cycles (see Tables 

above). Hay units of medium and small size adjacent to dense and/or tall cover vegetation or units that were hayed in irregular

patterns, were determined to provide adequate diversity of height and cover. These units will continue being hayed as they are 

currently. 

Approximately 337 acres or roughly 94% of all wet meadow habitat on the Thomas Fork Unit are currently hayed. Based on the 

overall hay management goal to maintain a roughly 60:40 split of hayed vs. unhayed wet meadow habitat, the CLMA will be 

gradually reduced in five years. The Thomas Fork Unit hayed area is east of the Thomas Fork Creek and constitutes a mosaic of 

large hayed expanses interspersed with areas of tall emergent vegetation that are essentially sloughs and marsh that are too wet 

to hay. The Thomas Fork Unit is an important migration habitat for sandhill cranes, so providing short cover through the haying

program is a reasonable management strategy. As well, the short cover can be valuable to Canada geese and long-billed 

curlews. The species that select dense nesting cover are currently restricted to the tall emergent unhayed areas. By reducing and 

rotating hayed areas, thereby creating a higher diversity of habitat on the unit, the overall wildlife value could be increased. 

Approximately 300 acres or roughly 92% of all wet meadow habitat on Oxford Slough WPA are currently hayed. A total 

reduction of 150 acres of hayed habitat by CLMA in future agreement cycles will maintain a roughly 60:40 split of hayed-tounhayed wet meadow habitat. At Oxford Slough WPA, the 227 acre West Meadows area presently contains the only fresh 

water, wet meadow habitat on the Refuge. As such, conditions are conducive to establishing seasonally flooded meadow 

grasses as well as the typical, wet meadow complement of species. At present, a majority of this habitat is hayed annually, 

leaving little habitat for wildlife use, and more importantly, corridors with suitable cover for wildlife access to and from the 

WPA. Through an equitable distribution of hayed vs. unhayed area (60:40), the distribution of early and late successional 

habitat threshold will be met and all wildlife species using the area would benefit. The Refuge will continue to hay along the 

west border abutting the town of Oxford to maintain a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fire break. 

Early successional wet meadow habitats created through hay management provide optimal open foraging areas for several 

wetland dependent wildlife species such as greater sandhill cranes, Canada geese, and white-faced ibis. However, this short 

statured habitat provides little vegetative complexity for invertebrate substrate, the principal food resource produced through

this management practice. While increased access to invertebrate forage bases is the principal advantage cited for short-cover 

management practices (Schekkerman and Beintema 2007), an unanticipated effect of short-cover haying operations is that little 

vegetative complexity for hosting invertebrate substrate remains. Temporally flooded meadow wetlands are so productive 

because the base of the biotic pyramid is large and diverse and nutrient cycling is dynamic (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). 

Because energy flows from the lowest levels of the pyramid in unhayed or mowed habitat, detritus sustains much of the 

biomass and structure of the community (van der Valk 1989). Excessive litter removal from current haying practices negatively 

affects the balance between litter removal and accumulation in the shallow habitat wetlands, causing unwanted effects upon 

primary and secondary wetland productivity. Small litter accumulations may not provide adequate substrate for invertebrates; 

however, large accumulations may alter surface hydrology through peat formation or nutrient binding (Magee 1993). Where 

litter accumulation is too scant (under current management) or heavy (Alternative 2 of the Draft CCP/EA, which was not 

selected for implementation), invertebrate production may be impeded because of unfavorable conditions associated with 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-59

hydrology, substrate, and nutrient availability (Magee 1993). By moderately reducing haying from current levels the Refuge 

will provide a more diverse litter layer in wet meadows and various stages of litter size and decay. In comparison to current 

management, the management direction optimizes management of invertebrates for a more diverse array of foraging waterbirds 

and wildlife. A 60:40 mix between hayed:unhayed habitat provides an ideal mix to promote production and availability of food 

reserves when combined with optimal water level management (i.e., flooding during spring to enhance invertebrate use and 

drawdown during summer to concentrate invertebrates). 

A confounding indirect effect in current hay operations requires the Refuge to dewater wetland units annually during late 

summer to facilitate hay removal. This type of annual drawdown must currently happen out of necessity, regardless of wetland 

habitat condition or objectives, in order to accommodate hay operators and permit hay removal. Because of the hay unit 

distribution wetland units are dewatered annually by August 1st to facilitate hay removal and provide short-stature grasses; 

often at a time when fledgling waterbirds require these shallowly flooded habitats to reach flight stage. The CCP will 

moderately reduce meadow and upland haying operations to maintain inundation of wetland shallow marsh and wet meadow 

habitat through the summer. By decreasing haying operations and regaining as much as possible of the former hydrograph, 

refuge management will increase temporary and seasonally flooded habitats through properly timed inundation to provide an 

adequate hydrologic regime for wet meadows and the invertebrate insects migratory waterbirds are dependent upon.

Goal 5: Increase public understanding and appreciation of wildlife, and build 

support for Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA by providing 

opportunities for visitors to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreation 

and education programs, while minimizing wildlife disturbance. 

Objective 5.1 Conduct Outreach 

Conduct outreach to community, conservation, and outdoor recreation groups by 2014 to expand 

public awareness of wetland and upland species diversity and ecology, habitat management of 

Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Staff a full time volunteer coordinator position in the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex Office to oversee recruitment and 

training of volunteers and develop education programs on all four refuges within the Southeast Idaho Complex, and the Oxford 

Slough WPA.

Staff an additional Refuge Law Enforcement Officer position in the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex Office to assist in law 

enforcement on all four refuges within the Southeast Idaho Complex, and Oxford Slough WPA.

Develop Outreach and Communications Plan for the Refuge, including key messages and audiences, and communication 

strategies.

Providing at least three annual guided wildlife-based refuge tours to youth groups and the public by 2017, that deliver key 

messages described in Objective 5.1. 

Participate in at least one community event annually (e.g., 4th of July Parade, Bear Lake County Fair, or Raspberry Days).

Hire a full time volunteer coordinator position in the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex Office and refuge position dedicated to 

public outreach, and developing and delivering on-site interpretive and environmental education programs.

Rationale: Outreach is crucial to distinguish the Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System, the only national system of 

lands and waters managed to benefit wildlife and prioritize wildlife-dependent public uses, from other public lands. When the 

public knows and understands the role of the Service, the Refuge System, Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA, it 

results in several benefits. By increasing public understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s wildlife and habitat resources, 

the Refuge expects increased public support for protecting and enhancing refuge lands, thereby achieving the overall goal of 

protection and stewardship of wildlife. A greater understanding of refuge regulations and policies, and the reasons behind them, 

reduces violations necessitating Law Enforcement. Outreach programs must be carefully designed in order to be successful. 

Design of outreach programs begins with identification of key messages and target audiences, and culminates in the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-60 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

development and delivery of specific tools or programs. 

Bear Lake NWR has a very small staff with only three permanent employees, and limited on-site presence. The Thomas Fork 

Unit and Oxford Slough WPA are unstaffed and there is little public awareness of the benefits these units provide. Small staff 

size not only limits refuge interaction with the public, but also limits opportunities to conduct outreach. Currently the refuge 

relies primarily on its Web site and brochures as outreach tools. However, there are opportunities to improve outreach about the 

Refuge and WPA, through both print and electronic media and direct interaction with the public. Hiring a full-time Volunteer 

Coordinator for the SE Idaho Refuge Complex will allow the Refuge to leverage partnership and volunteer opportunities in 

order to develop new programs (e.g., interpretation, environmental education, and guided tours). Hiring one position dedicated 

to visitor services will allow the Refuge to conduct outreach, and improve visitor services programs on Bear Lake NWR and the 

Oxford Slough WPA. 

Objective 5.2 Welcome and Orient Visitors 

Within the lifetime of the CCP, improve existing operational capacity of refuge publicvisitor contact and orientation to better serve the visiting public, including people with 

disabilities, by enhancing the visiting public’s safety, sanitation, comfort, orientation, and 

ease of access to the Bear Lake Refuge and Oxford Slough WPA. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Within five years of CCP completion, develop a Visitor Contact Point and Site Plan to determine the best site location for the 

refuge office, contact points, and possible Visitor Contact Station and other considerations (e.g., access, parking, utilities,

ownership, disturbance, cultural resources, public safety concerns).

Place directional signs to the Refuge at the junction of Highways 30 and 89 in Montpelier and at the junction of W. Center Road

and Dingle Road in Dingle.

Provide visitor information at refuge entrance and headquarters.

Revise the Refuge’s general brochure with improved text, maps, and photographs. 

Revise the Refuge’s Web site with improved photos, navigation aids, and maps. Provide interactive Web capability for visitors to 

electronically post wildlife observations/photos. Post PDF files of all publications on refuge Web site.

Continue to obtain base-line data on visitation; conduct counts/observations to back up/calibrate traffic counter data.

Provide visitor sign-in/comment stations at trail heads and photography/hunting blinds. Develop means for visitors to “sign in”

and record wildlife observations electronically (directly to Web site or social media).

Thomas Fork Unit: Develop off-refuge visitor orientation facilities, signage, and interpretive panels at areas strategic for wildlife 

viewing on seasons and species of wildlife that could be seen (see Objective 5.4 below).

Thomas Fork Unit: Develop and provide to the public an informational brochure specific to the Thomas Fork Unit.

Oxford Slough WPA 

Improve visitor orientation facilities, signage, and interpretation.

Develop and provide to the public an informational brochure specific to Oxford Slough WPA.

Rationale: Bear Lake NWR has a very small staff with only three permanent employees, and limited on-site presence (the 

office is located 8.5 miles north of the Refuge in Montpelier, and few visitors stop by the office. A maintenance building is located 

on-site.) The Thomas Fork Unit is unstaffed and closed to the public. The Oxford Slough WPA is also unstaffed, and is managed 

through the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex. Small staff size not only limits refuge interaction with the public, but also limits 

opportunities to conduct outreach and develop and deliver visitor services programs. It is envisioned that the Refuge will continue 

to rely on “self-serve” facilities in order to limit any additional work load, and improve/enhance these facilities to make them as 

user-friendly as possible. However, there are opportunities to improve outreach about Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, 

and the Oxford Slough WPA, through both print and electronic media. As noted in Objective 5.1, hiring refuge complex and/or 

refuge positions dedicated to volunteer and visitor services management will allow the Refuge to conduct outreach, improve 

visitor services programs and leverage partnership and volunteer opportunities in order to develop new programs (e.g., 

interpretation, environmental education, and guided tours). 

Most visitors do not stop by the refuge office, which is located 8.5 miles to the north in Montpelier. It is desirable to have an 

office/visitor contact station on or near the Refuge, which will increase opportunities to conduct outreach with visitors and 

increase staff presence on the Refuge. Potential sites include the Dingle Bottoms Road, the current refuge maintenance building, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-61

the southern portion of Merkley Lake Road that passes through the eastern portion of the Refuge (Bear Lake County hopes to 

secure funds to pave this road), the southwest area of the Refuge along North Beach Road and Power Line Road, and off-refuge 

in the city of Paris near the junction of Highway 89 and East 2nd North Street. In the CCP, these sites will be evaluated in the 

step-down Visitor Contact Point and Site Plan within five years of CCP completion. 

Objective 5.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

5.3.a. Increase opportunities at Bear Lake NWR for guided and self-guided wildlife 

observation and photography by annually maintaining a 2.4 mile year-long accessible auto 

tour loop, 1.9 mile seasonally accessible pedestrian trail with two accessible photography 

blinds, a 2-mile year-long accessible boardwalk, a 1.5 mile seasonal Canoe Trail, and two 

vehicle pullouts/observation areas. 

5.3.b. Provide wildlife viewing and photography opportunities at Oxford Slough WPA. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Bear Lake NWR 

Maintain the 2.4-mile long Auto Tour Route in its current configuration.

Auto Tour Route open year-round to auto, foot, dog walking, and bicycle traffic, as weather and road conditions permit, 

including on hunt days.

Allow winter use of the Auto Tour Route (when road closed to vehicle traffic due to weather/road conditions) by snowshoers, 

cross-country skiers, and walkers.

Provide up to two additional pullouts/wide spots/passing areas for vehicle passage on the Auto Tour Route.

Provide seasonal spotting scope along Auto Tour Route turnout.

Maintain the 1.9-mile accessible pedestrian trail, with two accessible wildlife observation/photography blinds, in its current 

configuration.

Accessible 1.9-mile pedestrian trail open March 15-Sept 20.

Provide a seasonal spotting scope on the accessible pedestrian trail with a view of the cormorant and gull breeding islands.

Pedestrian access (including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, as conditions permit) allowed on service roads and dikes 

only within the 7,450-acre seasonally open area (hunt area), July 1-Feb 28.

Nonmotorized boats allowed on the 1.5-mile Canoe Trail, July 1-Sept 20. Motorized and nonmotorized boats are allowed in the 

7,450-acre seasonally open area (hunt area) for waterfowl hunting access only, Sept 20-Jan 15.

Bicycling allowed on roads open to vehicle traffic year-round, including the Auto Tour Route.

Dog walking will be allowed on the 2.4-mile Auto Tour Route and 1.9-mile seasonal pedestrian trail (open March 15-Sept. 20) 

of Bear Lake NWR. Dog walking will also be allowed on 2-mile North Beach Road boardwalk. Dogs must be leashed at all 

times and remain on roads and trails.

Develop a boardwalk and an elevated wildlife viewing platform along the southeastern side of the Refuge adjacent to North 

Beach Road.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-62 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Develop one turn-out and one major vehicle turn-off with a small parking area, interpretive/informational panels and seasonal 

spotting scope, on refuge property along the southern portion of Merkley Lake Road.

Conduct at least one guided wildlife-based refuge tour per month from May-September. Tours will be advertised on the refuge 

Web site, Complex Friends Group website and newsletter, and Audubon and local tourism bureau websites. Guided tours will 

be limited to 15 visitors and slots will be filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. 

Develop and manage a website that provides a “virtual tour” of the Refuge with images of wildlife in their natural settings 

throughout the seasons. 

Periodically monitor and evaluate public-use sites and programs to determine if objectives are being met and the refuge 

resources are not being degraded. 

Monitor disturbance to waterfowl and waterbirds by public use on the Auto Tour Route, walking trails, and Canoe Trail.

Restrict use to daylight hours and do not allow camping, overnight use, or fires. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Allow free-roam access by foot (including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing) and nonmotorized boats August 1-March 31. 

Between April 1 and July 31, visitors must remain on the access road, parking area, or designated viewing area(s).

Provide one or more viewing areas with information on seasons and species of wildlife that could be observed and 

photographed (see Objective 5.4).

Restrict use to daylight hours and do not allow camping, overnight use, or fires. 

Rationale: In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1996, as amended, refuges are 

encouraged to provide wildlife observation and photography opportunities wherever they are compatible with refuge purposes. 

Bear Lake NWR currently has a very small staff with only three permanent employees. Therefore, it is important that facilities 

developed to facilitate all public uses, including wildlife observation, hunting, and fishing, are mostly “self-serve” in order to 

limit any additional work load. Currently facilities for self-guided wildlife observation and photography include a 2.4-mile auto 

tour route, a 1.9-mile accessible walking trail. According to the CCP, we will enhance the auto tour route with additional 

turnouts, enhance the walking trail with a spotting scope and photography blind, and add two vehicle turnouts/observation 

platforms along the Merkley Lake Road on the southeast side of the Refuge. We also propose to develop an approximately 2-

mile boardwalk trail along North Beach Road. Initially the work load will increase to develop facilities proposed in the CCP, 

but once established we anticipate only minimal periodic maintenance will be required. 

From 1999 to 2004, annual recreation visits averaged 4,280 annually. Later estimates include off-refuge visitor using North 

Beach Road and Merkley Lake Road, which run adjacent to or thorough the Refuge. In 2010, total visitation was estimated to 

be 12,360 but this included 4,000 off-refuge visitors using North Beach Road and 1,000 visitors using Merkley Lake Road. 

Therefore, visitors using refuge facilities will be 7,360, still a substantial increase in recent years. The Auto Tour Route was the 

most popular activity; 20% of visits were for photography; less than 10% of visitors used pedestrian facilities. Most visitation 

occurs in the spring and summer months. When cold weather arrives in the fall, visitor use drops significantly. 

Most visitors to the Refuge at this time are waterfowl hunters. Currently, wildlife disturbance should be minimal due to the low 

visitor numbers and the fact that most visitors stay on the Auto Tour Route, but it could be anticipated to increase with the 

projected uptick in summer tourists and second home construction in the Bear Lake Valley. We propose to monitor visitor use 

and wildlife disturbance and make adjustments to the program if disturbance issues are documented. 

The Auto Tour Route (ATR) is currently open to vehicle traffic (vehicles licensed for highway use only), bicycling, walking, 

dog walking (under control of owner), cross-country skiing, and snow shoeing. The ATR is open to vehicles year-round 

(dependent upon presence of snow/ice). Based upon data gathered from a vehicle traffic counter installed on the ATR the 

summer of 2010, from 44 to 130 vehicles used the ATR per month with the peak occurring in September. Few visitors are seen 

to walk the ATR, and generally no one walks their dogs on the ATR. Dogs on the Refuge are generally concurrent with their 

use as retrievers during waterfowl hunting season. Perhaps as many as five visitors per year ride bicycles on the Refuge. Given

these low numbers, conflicts between vehicles, people walking (with or without dogs), bicyclists, or any other visitor uses on 

the Auto Tour Route are negligible to nonexistent. 

In addition to roads and trails, pedestrian access (including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing as conditions permit) and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-63

both motorized and nonmotorized boating are allowed within the 7,450-acre seasonally open area (hunt area). The original 

intent of allowing foot and boat access to this area was to facilitate waterfowl hunting. At this time, most if not all, visitors that 

use this area are waterfowl hunters. Because all but about 300 acres of this area is wetland or open water, chest waders are 

needed to access the area on foot. However there are concerns about safety, wildlife disturbance, and user group conflicts 

associated with allowing the concurrent use of the area by both hunters and non-hunters. Therefore, in the CCP we propose to 

allow pedestrian access (including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, as conditions permit) on service roads and dikes 

within this area, from July 1-February 28. 

While self-serve programs can work well, opportunities to observe and learn about wildlife are greatly enhanced though guided 

programs. Although more staff-intensive, these programs increase visitor success in seeing wildlife, provide greater opportunities 

to convey key messages (e.g., wildlife and habitat conservation, viewing techniques/ethics), and have the potential for high return 

for effort (e.g., volunteer recruitment.) At Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, their guided tour program is their most popular 

program, and slots are always filled to capacity. Guided tours provide opportunities to serve a targeted audience while 

minimizing undesirable impacts to wildlife. At Bear Lake there are approximately five months when weather is good enough, 

demand high enough, and birds are reliably present, to warrant regular guided tours. However additional staffing and volunteers

will be required to develop this program, as well as interpretive and educational programs (see Objectives 5.1, 5.4). 

Oxford Slough WPA is currently open year-round to hiking and nonmotorized boating. This has the potential to cause 

disturbance to nesting colonies of Franklin’s gulls and white-faced ibis. Franklin’s gulls are particularly sensitive to human 

disturbance early in the breeding cycle and again during the chick phase, and would abandon with excessive human exposure 

(Guay 1968). Abandonment of nests is less likely with young than eggs but may still occur with repeated disturbance (Burger 

and Gochfeld 1994). White-faced ibis are also susceptible to colony abandonment resulting from human intrusion into colonies 

during the early nesting period (Ryder and Manry 1994). Oxford Slough WPA is considered a globally important bird area due 

to the presence of large colonies of these species. Although visitation is low (estimated at 150 annually), the WPA is currently 

unstaffed, making it impossible to monitor disturbance to nesting colonies or adequately enforce regulations such as setback 

areas from colonies. Consequently, we propose closing the WPA to access by foot or boat during the nesting and rearing season 

for these species, April 1-July 31. Access by foot (including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing) and nonmotorized boat will 

be allowed from August 1-March 31. 

Objective 5.4 Environmental Education and Interpretation

By 2020, develop formal environmental education programs for K-12 students, which 

serves 300 students annually and delivers messages about wetland values and functions 

and watershed health, with emphasis on Bear River watershed and the life histories and 

habitat needs of waterfowl and waterbirds. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Bear Lake NWR 

Hire permanent staff to develop refuge-specific curricula for environmental education and interpretation programs that meet 

State standards, deliver teacher training, and oversee EE 

Conduct teacher training workshops based on programs at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. In the interim, encourage local 

teachers to attend workshops at Bear River Refuge. 

Host at least one Field Day event at Bear Lake NWR for 4th and 5th grade students annually. 

Use interns from university education programs (ISU, USU) to design and conduct EE programs (e.g., field trips and/or teacher 

training workshops). 

Provide opportunities for Scouts to earn Canoeing badges on the 1.5-mile Canoe Trail.

Develop additional on-refuge opportunities for Scouting programs (Birding Badge, Conservation Badge, and “leave no trace”). 

Working with partners, develop citizen science programs that involve students from multiple grade levels in monitoring 

activities, e.g., water quality monitoring, macrobiotic surveys. 

Provide interpretive signs along the Auto Tour Route in order to orient visitors to the larger landscape and the NWRS mission.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-64 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Thomas Fork Unit: work with Idaho State and Bear Lake County to develop displays along overlooks on Highways 89 and 30 

to interpret the Thomas Fork Unit’s role in the NWRS, its importance in the Bear River Watershed, and as part of the OregonCalifornia Trail.

Oxford Slough WPA 

Provide volunteer-led educational opportunities for youth groups (schools and scouts) and the general public. The focus at 

Oxford Slough WPA will be on waterfowl and colonial nesting birds, and the importance of reliable water supplies to 

successful waterfowl production.

Develop one or more viewing areas at strategic areas that will allow visitors to enjoy wildlife from a distance, with interpretive 

panels describing seasons and species of wildlife that could be observed and photographed (see Objective 5.4).

Rationale: Environmental education and interpretation play a key role in encouraging current and future generations to 

engage in environmentally responsible behavior like supporting the protection of habitat for wildlife through the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Currently, with no visitor services staff for the Refuge or the refuge complex, there is no active EE program on the Refuge. The 

refuge manager accommodates requests from school and Scout groups on an as-needed basis. Generally, the Refuge has 

historically served K-8th grade students. 

A half-time SCEP ORP conducted EE programs and teacher training from 2002-2005. This included hosting 200 4th and 5th 

grade students (three buses at approximately 75 each) for a Field Day event. Between 2002 and 2005, the “Project Wild” 

curriculum was used. Funding for the position was lost and as a result formal EE activities were discontinued. With limited staff 

and time available, the most feasible way for the Refuge to offer high-quality EE and interpretive programs is to hire a full-time 

Visitor Services Manager who would also recruit and oversee volunteer staff to implement the program. The former SCEP ORP 

suggested that the “Flying Wild” curriculum be used in the future. 

Strategically placed interpretive media including information panels, brochures, and posters and the refuge Web site are 

currently used by the Refuge, and will continue to be developed and used to educate the public about wildlife and habitat while

reducing wildlife disturbance. 

Objective 5.4 Provide Quality Waterfowl and Upland Game Hunting Opportunities 

Objective 5.4a Provide a quality and safe waterfowl hunting program (ducks, geese, coots, and 

snipe) on 7,450 acres (40% of the Refuge including the Salt Meadow, Rainbow Sub-impoundment, 

Rainbow, and Mud Lake Units) of Bear Lake NWR Refuge that includes youth and disabled 

hunters, and minimizes conflicts between hunters, adjacent landowners, and other user groups. 

Objective 5.4b Provide a quality, safe hunt for upland game (gray partridge, sharp-tailed and 

ruffed grouse, sage-grouse, ring-necked pheasant, and cottontails) on 300 acres of Bear Lake 

NWR.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Retain hunting closures on the Thomas Fork Unit. 

Allow hunting of waterfowl (ducks, geese, mergansers, and coots), common snipe, and upland game (gray partridge, sagegrouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, pheasants, and cottontail rabbits) on designated areas of the Refuge in accordance 

with State seasons and regulations.

Hunters may possess only approved nontoxic shot while in the field.

Allow hunting of waterfowl and upland game on 7,450 acres of the Refuge on the following units: Salt Meadow, Rainbow subimpoundment, Rainbow, Mud Lake north of the buoy line and east of the County Road, and Merkley Lake. 

Nonmotorized and motorized boats to aid waterfowl hunting are permitted on the designated waterfowl hunting area (Salt Meadow, 

Rainbow sub-impoundment, Rainbow, Merkley Lake units, and the Mud Lake Unit north of the buoy line) from September 20-

January 15.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-65

Motorized and Nonmotorized boats and boaters must be in compliance with all applicable refuge, U.S. Coast Guard, and Idaho 

State laws.

Air thrust boats are prohibited.

Post a speed limit for boats of 15 mph in the waterfowl hunting area.

Provide five boat ramps for use by waterfowl hunters: Paris, Rainbow West (two ramps), Rainbow East, and from Merkley 

Lake Road.

Provide two ABA-accessible hunting blinds and associated trails at Bear Lake NWR. Give first priority of ABA-accessible 

blinds to disabled hunters. 

Provide a Youth Hunt at Bear Lake Refuge one weekend prior to the opening of the regular waterfowl hunt season.

Retain the youth hunt weekend prior to opening of the regular waterfowl hunt season and develop additional programs to attract 

and educate youth hunters.

Create a tear sheet with map for hunters and post printable PDF file of refuge Web site.

Sign hunter access points, parking areas, and boat ramps. Hunt areas and no hunting zones will be posted at least two weeks 

before the hunting season begins.

Obtain a secure easement for hunters to access the Rainbow Unit.

Obtain a secure easement for hunters to access the Merkley Lake Unit.

Only portable blinds or temporary blinds constructed of natural vegetation can be used in the waterfowl hunting area. Blinds 

will be available for general use on a first-come, first-served basis. Portable blinds must be removed from the Refuge at the end 

of each day.

All personal property, including decoys and boats, must be removed from the Refuge at the end of each day.

Hunters must obey all State, Federal, and refuge-specific hunting regulations.

Hunting dogs do not have to be leashed but must be under hunter control at all times. 

No camping, overnight use, or fires.

Conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting facilities, and monitor wildlife disturbance or impacts. 

Rationale: The term “quality” refers to a reasonable opportunity to shoot waterfowl or other game on a hunt visit. 

In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1996, as amended, refuges are encouraged to 

provide hunting and fishing opportunities where compatible with refuge purposes. Hunting, trapping and fishing are considered 

by many to be legitimate, traditional recreational uses of renewable natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et 

seq.) provides authority for the Service to manage the Refuge and its wildlife populations and permits hunting on a National 

Wildlife Refuge when it is compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established and acquired. National Wildlife 

Refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat preservation. The word “refuge” includes the idea of 

providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System), therefore refuges are considered “closed until open” to recreational hunting. However, the Service 

habitat that normally supports healthy wildlife populations produces harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. 

Hunting and fishing, as practiced on Bear Lake NWR since its inception, does not pose a threat to the wildlife populations. The

decision to permit hunting and fishing on national wildlife refuges is made on a case-by-case basis that considers biological 

soundness, economic feasibility, effects on other refuge programs, and public demand. The results of those decisions can be 

found in Appendix B (Compatibility Determinations). 

Hunting is currently allowed on Bear Lake NWR in accordance with State seasons and regulations. There are currently 7,450 

acres of Bear Lake Refuge open to waterfowl (duck, goose, coot, and snipe) hunting. The Thomas Fork Unit is closed to 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-66 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

hunting. The Refuge has two ABA-accessible hunt blinds and is the only facility in the local area that provides waterfowl 

hunting opportunities to disabled hunters. Hunt blinds are allocated on a first-come, first serve basis, with disabled hunters 

taking priority. No reservations, refuge permits, or fees are required. There is currently little hunting pressure on the Refuge. 

Waterfowl hunt visits are estimated at 185 annually. 

Hunters may access the hunt area on foot from parking areas, or by boat (motorized or nonmotorized, with the exception of air 

thrust boats). Five boat launches are available at Bear Lake NWR. Hunters can access the Refuge one of three ways: 

a) via the main entrance road, which leads to three boat launches; 

b) the Merkley Lake Road on the east side of the Refuge provides access to an unimproved launching area, and 

c) from a gated private road that runs north-south along the Rainbow Canal. This unimproved “road” is a two-track through 

pasturelands. Hunters must get permission from the landowner to use the road. This road leads to a mowed parking area and 

primitive boat launch within the refuge boundary. Both the road and parking area can become wet and muddy. 

The south boundary of the hunting area within Mud Lake is delineated by a row of orange buoys. Disturbance to wildlife 

caused by motorized boats used during the hunting season can be a concern. The refuge waters are shallow overall, so hunters 

use relatively smaller boats and engines. Hunters generally come in small groups of two to four people. The size of a boat motor 

is in proportion to the size of the boat and the number of hunters it is carrying. Although putting a limit on the size of motors 

would be easier to enforce (and get compliance on) than posting speed limits or no wake zones, this might not be practicable 

due to the variation in size of boat and number of passengers. Hunters are wary of disturbing waterfowl as they navigate to their 

preferred sites to prepare for hunting, so they are generally motoring quietly and slowly. Posting a speed limit of 15 mph may 

be harder to enforce, but will serve as a reminder to hunters to proceed safely. This will be an effective means of limiting noise, 

wildlife disturbance, and disturbance to other hunters caused by larger boats and motors. 

Hunting for upland game birds (gray partridge, sharp-tailed grouse, sage-grouse, ruffed grouse, and ring-necked pheasant) and 

cottontail rabbits is allowed on 7,450 acres of the Refuge in accordance with State seasons and regulations. However numbers 

of these upland game species are low on the Refuge and their distribution is limited to 300 acres of upland habitat along the 

Merkley Lake Road. Therefore opportunities to hunt upland game on the Refuge are limited. Although hunting of sage-grouse 

will continue to be allowed in accordance with State regulations, in recent years more restrictive regulations have been put in

place due to declining sage-grouse populations. In 2011, the State-designated Area 1 (which includes Bear Lake NWR) was 

closed to sage-grouse hunting. The Thomas Fork Unit is closed to hunting. 

5.4c Provide quality, safe waterfowl, upland game, and big game hunting, and trapping programs 

on 1,840 acres (100%) of the Oxford Slough WPA that includes youth and disabled hunters; and 

minimizes conflicts between hunters, adjacent landowners, and other user groups. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Hunting of waterfowl and other migratory game birds, upland game, furbearers, and big game is allowed in accordance with 

Idaho State seasons and regulations. 

Recreational trapping of furbearers is allowed in accordance with State seasons and regulations.

Hunters may possess only approved nontoxic shot while on the WPA, with the exception that lead shot and slugs may be used 

to hunt turkey and deer.

Nonmotorized boating to aid waterfowl hunting is permitted. No motorized boats are permitted on the WPA.

Temporary blinds of natural vegetation may be constructed, but such blinds are available for general use on a first-come, first

served basis. Construction of permanent blinds is prohibited. 

Develop and provide an information panel and brochure or tear sheet describing hunting and trapping opportunities and 

regulations.

In conjunction with Bear Lake NWR efforts, develop and administer a youth waterfowl hunt program.

Develop an ABA-accessible hunter access trail and parking area.

Hunters must obey all State, Federal, and refuge-specific hunting and trapping regulations.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-67

Hunting dogs do not have to be leashed but must be under hunter control at all times. 

No camping, overnight use, or fires.

Post Hunting and No-Hunting signs at least two weeks before hunting season begins.

Conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting facilities, and monitor wildlife disturbance or impacts. 

Southeast Idaho Complex staff will monitor colonies of white-faced ibis and Franklin’s gulls. If disturbance caused by trapping

is documented, seasonal restrictions would be instituted.

Rationale: The term “quality” refers to a reasonable opportunity to shoot waterfowl or other game on a hunt visit. 

The Oxford Slough WPA is administered by the Southeast Idaho NWRC in Pocatello, ID, to preserve small natural wetlands 

and their associated uplands. Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) are public lands purchased by the Federal government for 

the purpose of increasing the production of migratory birds, especially waterfowl. WPAs are wetlands or grasslands critical to 

waterfowl and other wildlife, acquired pursuant to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act or other statutory 

authority. Federal Duck Stamp revenues are the primary funding source for the purchase of these lands. Every dollar spent for 

the purchase of a Federal Duck Stamp goes directly toward the acquisition of waterfowl habitat. Waterfowl production areas are 

administered by National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) or Wetland Management Districts (WMD). Unlike National Wildlife 

Refuges, Waterfowl Production Areas are subject to all of the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act except the 

inviolate sanctuary provisions (16 U.S.C. 718(c)). By regulation, all Waterfowl Production Areas are open to public hunting, 

provided that all forms of hunting or entry on all or any part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon

occasions of unusual or critical conditions of, or affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. All of the Oxford 

Slough WPA (1,878 acres) is open to hunting on a first-come, first serve basis (see Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations). 

No blinds are provided. Facilities are limited to a small parking lot which is accessed via a County road (Oxford Road) that 

leads to a gravel refuge entrance road. No reservations, refuge permits, or fees are required. Currently the WPA receives low 

hunting use, mostly from local residents. 

Hunting for waterfowl and upland game (ruffed grouse, gray partridge, sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasants, 

mourning doves, Eurasian collared-doves, sandhill cranes, turkeys, American crow, cottontail rabbits, and snowshoe hares) and 

hunting for big game (deer, elk, moose, pronghorn, black bear, and mountain lion) is currently allowed on Oxford Slough WPA 

in accordance with State seasons and regulations, except that by Federal regulation, hunters may possess only approved 

nontoxic shot; with the exception that lead shot and slugs may be used to hunt turkey and deer (50 CFR 32.2 (k), amended May 

12, 2000). Although hunting of sage-grouse is permitted in accordance with State regulations, in recent years the State has 

enacted more restrictive seasons and limits due to declining sage-grouse populations. In 2011, Area 1 (which includes the 

Oxford Slough WPA) was closed to sage-grouse hunting.

Trapping of resident furbearers (northern river otter, American beaver, muskrat, mink, American badger, red fox, and bobcat) 

by the public is allowed on the WPA in accordance with State and Federal regulations. The entire WPA is open to trapping (see 

Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations). By regulation (50 CFR 31.16), lands acquired as WPAs are open to public 

trapping unless closed under the authority of 50 CFR 25.21. Animals classified by Idaho as “predators” or “unprotected” can be 

taken (via hunting or trapping) year-round. Coyotes, raccoons, jackrabbits, skunks, weasels, Columbian ground squirrels, 

starlings, feral pigeons, and others, are included in this category. While most trapping occurs after the breeding and rearing 

seasons for waterfowl and waterbirds, trapping seasons for certain species (American beaver, muskrat, and mink, October 22-

April 15, and American badger and red fox, July 1-June 30) overlap with the breeding season for waterfowl and colonial 

nesting waterbirds (Franklin’s gull and white-faced ibis.) At current levels, the impact of trapping activity on waterfowl is low 

because waterfowl disperse during the nesting and brood rearing periods. Trapping does however, have the potential to impact 

colonial nesting birds, which are extremely sensitive to disturbance. To date no disturbance of nesting colonies due to trapping 

activity has been documented on the WPA. Colonies will be monitored and if disturbance is documented, seasonal restrictions 

on trapping will be instituted. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-68 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Objective 5.5 Provide Quality Fishing Opportunities 

Provide a quality, safe fishing program for trout, yellow perch, suckers, chub, and carp and 

bowfishing opportunities for carp on Bear Lake NWR 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Sport fishing is allowed on designated areas of Bear Lake NWR in accordance with State regulations subject to the following 

conditions: 

1. Boats are prohibited in the fishing area. 

2. Use and possession of lead weights or sinkers is prohibited.

Allow bank fishing in the Outlet Canal north of the former Paris Dike. Close the area immediately north of the Lifton Pump 

Station to fishing.

Improve access to bank fishing (including bow fishing) by constructing one or two piers or platforms in those areas already open 

for fishing.

Open banks along Merkley Lake Road for fishing, in conformance with State fishing regulations.

Rationale: The term “quality” refers to a reasonable opportunity to catch fish. 

In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1996, as amended, refuges are encouraged to 

provide fishing opportunities where compatible with refuge purposes. Only two small areas of the Refuge are currently open to 

fishing. Because so many quality opportunities to fish are available in the surrounding area (Bear Lake proper is considered a 

blue ribbon fishery), use of the Refuge for fishing is low. However, we still want to provide a safe and enjoyable opportunity to 

fish on Service lands for those desiring the activity. Visitors currently fish from riprap; we propose adding fishing platforms to 

improve visitor safety and comfort. The area along Merkley Road is closed to fishing; we propose to open this area to bank 

fishing since pockets of water stay open late in the season, probably due to hot springs. Improved water quality would not result 

in increased fishing opportunities over time. 

In some areas bow fishing for carp is a popular activity, and the potential to develop a bow fishery for carp exists on the Refuge. 

Bow fishing is unlikely to significantly reduce the carp population, and would therefore have limited value in habitat restoration. 

However, it does create an opportunity for the Refuge to provide youth with wildlife-dependent recreation and to educate visitors 

about water quality and invasive species issues. Bowfishing classes could be aimed at a youth audience (e.g., Scout groups) and

paired with education about habitat and water quality, and the impacts of invasive species.

Objective 5.6 Volunteers and Partnerships 

Develop partnerships, a strong volunteer base, and a Friends Group to assist with developing and 

delivering visitor services programs at Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Create new position for the SE Idaho Refuge Complex to oversee environmental education and volunteer programs. The 

Complex staff position will be responsible for recruiting volunteers, covering logistics, and overall training. Refuge staff will 

then be responsible for on the job training and day to day supervision. 

Develop and build Friends Group to support the SE Idaho Refuge Complex.

Develop partnerships with regional universities to develop and deliver EE programs and teacher training, and conduct surveys 

and monitoring to support refuge biological goals and objectives (also see Environmental Education, Objective 5.4).

Rationale: The Refuge has had a small cadre of volunteers who have helped with Christmas Bird Counts and mid-winter eagle 

surveys. Youth Conservation Corps crews in 2009 and 2010 performed a variety of important services such as facilities 

maintenance, fence construction, and weed control. However, the Refuge’s small staff limits its ability to recruit, train, and 

manage volunteers. A Visitor Services Manager position at the SE Idaho Refuge Complex will allow the Refuge to grow its 

volunteer program to perform a variety of tasks in important areas, including building and maintaining visitor facilities, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-69

conducting visitor services programs, and habitat restoration and management.

Friends Groups within the National Wildlife Refuge System have become numerous over the past 10 years. Friends Groups 

essentially “adopt” individual refuges or complexes, advocate for their needs, and provide both financial and volunteer support to 

accomplish many essential tasks and projects. Friends Groups not only directly benefit refuges, but also empower members to 

become advocates for refuges, and conduct outreach that increases public awareness of, and involvement with, National Wildlife 

Refuges. This occurs both through direct contact and increasingly, through the Web and social media. Currently there is a 

fledgling friends group dedicated to Camas NWR. Members of this group have agreed to support other refuges within the 

Complex, as needs and opportunities arise, but their primary focus would be on Camas. Working to establish new friends groups 

within the Complex will broaden the support base and provide more benefits to each refuge. Bear Lake NWR would support 

these new Friends Group since they would play a critical role in providing volunteer support for the Refuge’s biological and 

public use programs, and as an advocate for protecting refuge wildlife and habitat within Southeast Idaho.

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-70 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Chapter 3

Physical Environment

Spring storm over Oxford Slough/USFWS

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementDirection

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.1 Climate 

3.1.1 General Climate 

The climate of Idaho is largely influenced by the Rocky Mountains, lying far to the east, and the 

maritime winds of the Pacific Ocean, more than 300 miles to the west. The Rocky Mountains present 

a barrier to the westerly flow of the atmosphere carrying moisture from the Pacific Ocean. However, 

southeast Idaho has a more continental climate than the rest of the State. Summer winds from the 

south bring moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, along with thunder, lightning, and 

rain. Summer monsoonal moisture intrusions are infrequent and significantly modified by the arid 

Great Basin of Utah and Nevada (NWS 2010). 

According to the Köppen climate classification system, the Bear Lake watershed is made up of three 

predominant climate types: Mediterranean (Csa), Humid Continental, Mild Summer (Dfb), and 

Highland (Visher 1966). The Humid Continental, Mild Summer (Dfb) Climate covers the majority of 

the watershed’s lowlands and valleys, including the Bear Lake NWR. The Dfb climate type clearly 

experiences all four seasons (Gabler et al. 1997). Summers are mild; on occasion warm tropical air 

will invade from the south but rarely lasts more than a few days at a time. Winters are long, cold, and 

moderately severe. The Dfb climate type receives approximately the same amount of rainfall as the 

Csa climate type, but almost all of it comes as snow during the winter months (Roylance 1982). 

Spring months are normally wet and windy. Winds of 20 to 30 mph may persist for days at a time. 

Weather conditions fluctuate quickly during the spring. Afternoon temperatures in the 30s and 40s 

with precipitation in the form of rain or snow may occur after a period of sunny skies and afternoon 

temperatures in the 60s or 70s. Thunderstorms are not uncommon, and are usually accompanied by 

rain showers and occasional snow. Low elevation snowpack usually melts quickly during the spring, 

but high elevation snowpack can persist into late June (NWS 2010). 

Summer may begin suddenly with a rapid change to warm and dry weather. Home heating is usually 

not required after the first week in June, but chilly nights can persist into early July. Showers and/or 

thunderstorms are common from late spring through summer. These storms often produce very 

localized precipitation. Thunderstorms are seldom severe, and tornadoes occur infrequently in the 

area. Brief heavy rain, lightning, small hail, and gusty winds may cause very localized damage at 

times. Long periods of excessively hot weather in July and August are uncommon. Afternoon 

temperatures often rise into the 90s, however low humidity usually results in overnight temperatures 

in the 50s or even cooler. The average growing season is around 120 days, extending from late May 

to late September (NWS 2010). 

During especially cold outbreaks, snowfall may accumulate to a depth of several feet or more. 

Cloudy and unsettled weather is common during the winter with measurable precipitation occurring 

on about one-third of days (NWS 2010). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Temperature 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough Waterfowl 

Production Area (WPA) are all part of the Bear River Basin and have typical mountain continental 

temperatures with a wide range between summer and winter, and between day and night. 

Autumn ushers in cooler weather with daytime highs generally in the 70s in early fall dipping into 

the mid-40s by mid-November with generally dry conditions. Autumn storms are usually very fast 

moving, and seldom persist for more than a few days. Continuous home heating is seldom needed 

until mid-October. The first cold wave with highs below 20 and lows around 0 or lower may arrive 

anytime between late November and Christmas (NWS 2010). During winter, brisk southwesterly 

winds often persist for days or weeks. These winds may moderate cold winter conditions, producing 

unusually mild temperatures compared to surrounding areas. There are usually a number of days each 

winter when temperatures remain below freezing. Sub-zero temperatures usually occur only a few 

days each winter. However, arctic air masses periodically invade the region, bringing temperatures 

well below zero for extended periods of time (Toth et al. 2005). 

Bear Lake NWR 

Bear Lake NWR is located in a mountain-ringed valley at an elevation of approximately 5,925 feet. 

Data at the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) station 105275 (Lifton Pumping Station) from 

1919-2010 indicate that a maximum temperature of 99 ̊F occurred on July 27, 1931, while the record 

low was -41 ̊F on February 2, 1985 (WRCC 2010a). High temperatures range from 84-97 ̊F mostly 

in July and August. Low temperatures range from -7 ̊ F to -41 ̊ F from December to March, but 

mostly in January and February. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The Thomas Fork Valley, at the border of Wyoming and Idaho, is at an elevation of 6,060 feet. 

Temperature data from the WRCC station 480915 at Border, Wyoming, reveal that a record low 

temperature of -60 ̊ F occurred on February 8, 1929, and a record high of 102 ̊ F on July 30, 1934. Mean 

winter temperature is 14.5 ̊ F; spring, 37.3 ̊ F; summer, 60 ̊ F; and fall, 40.6 ̊ F (WRCC 2010c). 

Oxford Slough WPA 

At the 4,750-foot elevation, Oxford Slough WPA is situated in a north-south trending valley at the 

foot of Oxford Peak, immediately to the west. Data from the closest WRCC station (station 107346 

in Preston, ID, 10 miles from Oxford Slough) show a record high temperature of 101 ̊F on July 10, 

1985, and a record low of -31 ̊ F on February 2, 1982. Mean temperature for winter is 23.9 ̊ F; 

spring, 45.2 ̊ F; summer, 66.7 ̊ F; and fall, 46.6 ̊ F (WRCC 2010b). 

Precipitation 

Bear Lake NWR 

Refuge weather data from 1968-2002 indicate that the average annual rainfall is 11.56 inches. Data 

from the Lifton Pumping Station record an annual precipitation high of 19.17 inches in 1982 and a 

low of 4.36 inches in 1988. Mean precipitation for winter is 2.07 inches; spring, 3.10; summer, 2.47; 

and fall, 2.71. Mean snowfall for winter is 24 inches; spring, 9.7 inches; summer, 0 inches; and fall, 

6.3 inches. A record snowfall of 67.5 inches occurred in 1982 (WRCC 2010a). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Mean annual precipitation from 1902-1993 was 13.53 inches, with a high of 23.25 inches in 1983 

and a low of 6.18 inches in 1910. Mean winter precipitation is 3.47 inches; spring, 3.61; summer 

2.93; and fall, 3.52. Mean annual snowfall for this same time period is 67.1 inches, with a high of 

149.6 inches in 1936. Mean snowfall in winter is 107.2 inches; spring 17.3; summer, 0 inches; and 

fall, 11.1 inches (WRCC 2010c). 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Mean annual precipitation from 1964-2010 was 16.68 inches with a high of 25.60 in 1983 and a low 

of 12.61 in 1969. Mean precipitation for winter is 4.24 inches; spring, 4.94; summer, 3.24, and fall, 

4.26. Mean annual snowfall for this same time period is 46.6 inches. Record high snowfall was 92 

inches in 2005. Mean snowfall in winter is 36.1 inches; spring, 6.5; summer, 0 inches; and fall, 3.9 

inches (WRCC 2010b). 

Wind and Severe Weather Events 

Windstorms are fairly common in Idaho and have resulted in disruptions of power, but usually only 

minor damage to structures. Summer brings the strongest windstorms to the refuge along with 

thunderstorms, lightning, rain, and hail. 

Waterspouts observed over Bear Lake in 1996 and 1998 were accompanied by wind gusts of up to 80 

mph. The waterspouts lifted some of the lake water a short distance into the air, but caused no serious 

damage nor inflicted any injury. Small tornados touched down over open land around Bear Lake in 

1954, 1965, and again in 2004. In each instance the tornado remained on the ground for only a short 

time with a path mostly over open fields. Small outbuildings and trailers were damaged in the 1954 

and 1965 instances but no damage was reported in 2004 (National Weather Service, Western 

Regional Headquarters in Palacios et al. 2007a). The Tornado Project (1999) reported only one 

tornado in Bear Lake County between 1880 and 2000, on June 10, 1998, with a F0 rating. No deaths 

or injuries were reported. Three tornadoes were reported in Franklin County, where Oxford Slough 

WPA is located, during this same period. These tornadoes occurred on June 30, 1982, May 21, 1986, 

and May 5, 1995. The severity of these storms on the Fujita Tornado Scale ranged from F0 (40-72 

mph) to F1 (73-112 mph). 

Bear Lake NWR 

From December 2007 to August 2010, Montpelier’s weather station (MAS719) recorded high winds 

ranging from 6 to 29 mph mostly originating from the southwest. Average wind gusts for this same 

time period ranged from 8 to 54 mph, with the strongest gusts occurring February through August 

and originating from the southwest. Average wind speeds range from 0.1 to 2.8 mph, again 

originating primarily from the southwest (WUI 2010a). 

From January 1, 1950 to April 30, 2010, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported 22 

storm events in Bear Lake County. No deaths or injuries were recorded in this 60 year interval from 

severe weather. The most severe event measured was 2 miles from Georgetown and occurred on 

March 25, 2006, with winds reaching 88.61 mph. Several downed power lines and poles and power 

outages were reported and property and crop damage was recorded at $125,000 and $14,000, 

respectively (NCDC 2010). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Thomas Fork Unit 

From December 2007 to August 2010, the Border, WY weather station (MITD35), adjacent to the 

Thomas Fork Unit, recorded high winds ranging from 10 to 41 mph mostly originating from westnorthwest. Average wind gusts range from 12 to 47 mph, with the strongest gusts occurring 

anywhere from winter through summer, and originating from the northwest. Average wind speeds 

range from 1.2 to 5.9 mph, originating mostly from the southwest (WUI 2010b). 

Oxford Slough WPA 

From December 2004 to August 2010, the Preston, ID, weather station (KIDPREST1) recorded high 

winds ranging from 14 to 35 mph, originating primarily from the south-southwest to the westsouthwest. Average wind gusts range from 20 to 57 mph, with the strongest gusts coming from the 

northwest to the west-southwest and occurring mainly in April through October (WRCC 2010b). 

From January 1, 1950 to April 30, 2010, the NCDC reported 29 storm events with the most severe 

winds clocked at 93.21 mph on March 25, 2006 in the Preston area, about 10 miles from Oxford 

Slough WPA. One injury, no deaths, $59,000 of property damage, and crop damage of $50,000 was 

reported (NCDC 2010). 

Climate Cycles in the Intermountain West 

In addition to the familiar daily, seasonal, and yearly fluctuations in weather, there are longer term 

natural variations in the Earth’s climate. Past variation in the Earth’s climate has been cyclical, as 

opposed to being random or following linear trends. Cycles in the Earth’s climate are nested and on 

multiple time scales, from year to year (interannual) to decades, centuries, and millennia. Various 

cycles are caused by independent physical mechanisms. Thus, for example, there are major glacial 

(cold) and interglacial (warm) periods on multimillennial time scales, caused by changes in the Earth’s 

orbit around the Sun. Other cycles in the Sun’s activity drive climate variations at the century scale. 

Cyclical patterns in circulation of the oceans and atmosphere lead to decadal (30 to 40 year) patterns, 

such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which affects the west coast of North America. Cycles 

in the ocean-atmosphere system also lead to interannual variations in climate, such as the El-Niño/La 

Niña cycle (ENSO, for El-Niño Southern Oscillation). Climate at any one time is an expression of all of 

these nested mechanisms and cycles operating together (USFS 2010a). El Niño/La Niña Southern 

Oscillation (ENSO) events are linked to ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific and last six to18 

months. In El Niño years, ocean temperatures are warmer than average; in La Niña years, cooler. A 

single warm or cool PDO phase lasts 20-30 years, and the strongest signal for the PDO is in the north 

Pacific. The triggering cause of the PDO phase shift is not understood. The potential for temperature 

and precipitation extremes increases when ENSO and PDO are in the same phases and thereby 

reinforce each other. This additive effect is also seen in the region’s streamflow and snowpack. When 

ENSO and PDO are in opposite phases, their opposite effects on temperature and precipitation can 

cancel each other out, but not in all cases and not always in the same direction (CIG 2009). 

During La Niña events, winters in the northwestern U.S. tend to be colder and wetter than average, 

and winters in the southwestern U.S. tend to be dryer and warmer than average (Goodrich 2007). The 

changes in storm tracks and weather events associated with ENSO can also influence other climate 

patterns. However, the teleconnections between ENSO and the other patterns are not as well 

understood as ENSO itself. During El Niño events, winters in North America tend to be warmer than 

average in the north and wetter than average in the south. The Intermountain West region is in an 

area that does not show a distinct anomaly due to El Niño (CPC 2005). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

The PDO reflects decadal changes in sea surface temperatures (SST) in the northern or “extratropical” Pacific Ocean (Mantua 2001; Goodrich 2007). When the PDO is positive, the SSTs in the 

northern Pacific Ocean are colder than average, and when the PDO is negative, the SSTs in the 

northern Pacific Ocean are warmer than average precipitation tends to be above average in the 

southwestern United States and portions of the Intermountain West region. When La Niña and the 

positive PDO are in phase, and SSTs in the Pacific are below average, winter precipitation tends to 

be below average in the southwestern United States, including parts of Utah. Finally, during a 

negative PDO event and a neutral ENSO, winter precipitation is above average for most of the west 

(Goodrich 2007). 

3.1.2 Climate Change 

Note: Much of the following section is derived from Ashton, I. W. (2010), “Observed and projected 

ecological response to climate change in the Rocky Mountains and Upper Columbia Basin: A 

synthesis of current scientific literature” and Rieman and Isaak (2010), “Climate change, aquatic 

ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management.” 

A growing body of scientific evidence has emerged supporting the theory of human-caused global 

climate change. During the 20th century, the global environment experienced increases in average 

worldwide temperatures, sea levels, and chemical concentrations. Average annual air temperatures 

on the earth’s surface have increased by 1.3°F since the mid-19th century (Solomon et al. 2007). 

Furthermore, the increasing trend in global temperatures over the last 50 years is approximately twice 

the trend of the previous 50 years (IPCC 2007). Globally, during 11 of 12 years from 1995 to 2006, 

surface temperatures are the warmest on record since 1850 (IPCC 2007). 

Climate change is having significant effects on organisms and ecosystems worldwide. Changes in the 

western United States have been particularly noticeable in the last century, with increases averaging 

0.5-2 ̊C (0.9-3.6 ̊F) in mean annual temperatures, depending on elevation (Diaz and Eischeid 2007, 

Pederson et al. 2010). Warmer winters and springs have resulted in more precipitation falling as rain 

instead of snow, reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, earlier streamflow from snowmelt, an eight- to 

ten-day advance in the onset of spring on average across the West, more frequent large fires, and 

possibly an increase in insect outbreaks and plant mortality (Cayan et al. 2001, Stewart et al. 2005, 

Breshears et al. 2005, Mote et al. 2005, Knowles et al. 2006, Westerling et al. 2006, Raffa et al. 2008, 

Pederson et al. 2010). Important changes for fishes and their habitats will be driven by two factors 

that are the principal components of climate: air temperature and precipitation. Air temperatures 

across the Rocky Mountain West are warming faster than global averages and have increased by 

about 1 ̊C (2 ̊F) over the last century. Changes in precipitation are less consistent, but slightly drier 

summers and wetter winters are anticipated in the northern Rocky Mountains while the southern 

Rockies will probably experience generally drier conditions (Rieman and Isaak 2010). 

The preponderance of evidence suggests that the magnitude of these changes has been influenced by 

human activity. Barnett et al. (2008) used nested climate and hydrological models to attribute most of 

these changes in the West to greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on global and regional 

climate. Another modeling study suggests that these changes are caused by a blend of anthropogenic 

forcing and Pacific and Atlantic decadal variability (Wang et al. 2008). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Predicted Future Ecological Trends in the Intermountain West 

Projected temperature increases for the coming century are expected to increase the proportion of 

winter precipitation falling as rain, increase the frequency of winter flooding, reduce snowpack, 

increase winter streamflow, result in earlier peak streamflow, and decrease late spring and summer 

streamflows (Mote et al. 2005, Hamlet et al. 2007). Unless otherwise noted, projected trends were 

abridged from Ashton (2010). Climate has been changing across the Rocky Mountains in association 

with global patterns. However instrumental records suggest that mean annual air temperatures during 

the 20th century increased by approximately 1 ̊C (2 ̊F) (Saunders et al. 2008 in Rieman and Isaak 

2010), which is considerably more than the 0.6 ̊C increase in global temperatures for the same period 

(IPCC 2007). The larger increase is due to warming rates that are faster over land masses than over 

the ocean (the global average includes both), but the Rocky Mountain West also has been warming 

more rapidly than other areas of the conterminous United States (Saunders et al. 2008 in Rieman and 

Isaak 2010). 

Temperature and Precipitation 

Since 1900, temperatures have increased 0.5-2 ̊C (0.9-3.6 ̊F) in most areas of the western United 

States (Pederson et al. 2010, Ray et al. 2008) but cooling has occurred at some sites (Ray et al. 2008, 

CIG 2010). The rate of change varies by location and elevation but is typically a 1oC (2 ̊F) increase 

since the early 20th century (Hamlet et al. 2007). Temperature increases are more pronounced during 

the cool season (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007). In the northern U.S. Rockies, annual rates of 

increase are roughly two to three times that of the global average (Vose et al. 2005, Bonfils et al. 

2008, Pederson et al. 2010, Hall and Fagre 2003), a pattern that is evident at northern latitudes and 

higher elevation sites throughout the West (Diaz and Eischeid 2007, National Assessment Synthesis 

Team 2001). Rises in temperature appear to be accelerating where mean regional spring and summer 

temperatures for 1987 to 2003 were 0.87 ̊C (1.57 ̊F) higher than those for 1970 to 1986, and were the 

warmest since 1895 (Westerling et al. 2006). 

Trends in precipitation in the Intermountain West Region are far less clear. Instrumental data from 

the last century show modest increases for much of the northwestern United States (Mote et al. 1999, 

Mote 2003, Mote et al. 2005), but no directional trends for parts of the southern Rockies (Ray et al. 

2008). Natural variability in precipitation is evident in the instrumental record for all of the climate 

regions, and long-term drought conditions during the last century impacted large areas within the 

region. Although 20th century droughts had substantial socioeconomic and ecosystem impacts, there 

is ample evidence that they were not as severe, in terms of duration and magnitude, as a number of 

drought events that occurred during the last millennium (Cook et al. 2007, 2004; Meko et al. 2007). 

Temperatures in the region are generally expected to increase by approximately 1-2 ̊C (2-4  ̊F) 

during the next 50 years with natural variation over years to decades. Precipitation is less well 

understood, but the projection for total annual precipitation suggests that the dominant pattern in 

North America will be a wetter climate in the northern tier and a drier climate in the southwestern 

United States. These and other predicted changes for the Rocky Mountains and Upper Columbia 

Basin are outlined in Table 3.1 below. 

Air Quality 

A warmer climate will make it more difficult to meet U.S. air quality standards, particularly for 

ozone (Field et al. 2007, Karl et al. 2009). Changes in climate affect air quality by changing wind 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

patterns and ventilation rates, precipitation, dry deposition, chemical production and loss rates, 

natural emissions, and background concentrations (Jacob and Winner 2009). For instance, higher 

temperatures increase the oxidation of sulfur and nitrous oxides, and precipitation changes will 

influence the distribution of acids deposited across the landscape (Bernard et al. 2001). 

Some of the better understood effects from a warmer climate include increased ground-level ozone 

formation and increased particulate matter derived from forest fires. Ozone formation generally 

increases at higher temperatures due to increased gas-phase reaction rates (Aw and Kleeman 2003). 

The rate at which volatile organic compounds are produced from natural sources, such as trees, will 

also increase with increasing temperatures (Guenther 2002). This may be somewhat offset by the 

inhibitory effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) on isoprene production (Young et al. 2009), as isoprene is 

one of the more significant ozone precursors emitted by vegetation. Most models find that even with 

current emission rates, there will be a widespread increase in ground-level ozone during the summer 

over the next century (Jacob and Winner 2009). This is consistent with historical data that show a 

consistent increase in ozone with temperature in polluted areas (Jacob and Winner 2009). In the 

West, however, decreases in background concentrations of ozone (due to increased water vapor) may 

offset increases in ozone due to temperature (Jacob and Winner 2009). 

Biodiversity 

With a 1 ̊C (2 ̊F) increase in average global temperature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) estimates that up to 30 percent of all species will be at increased risk of extinction 

(Field et al. 2007). While such models and estimates include uncertainties, there is little or no 

evidence that climate change will slow species loss (SCBD 2003). The Secretariat for the Convention 

on Biodiversity (2003) predicted four impacts on biodiversity as a result of climate change: (1) the 

climatic range of many species will move poleward or upward in elevation; (2) many species that are 

already vulnerable, such as rare endemics and threatened and endangered species, are likely to 

become extinct; (3) changes in the frequency, intensity, extent, and locations of climatically and nonclimatically induced disturbances will affect how and at what rate existing ecosystems will be 

replaced by new plant and animal assemblages; and (4) some ecosystems, such as high mountain 

ecosystems, arid ecosystems, remnant native grasslands, and ecosystems underlain by permafrost, 

will be particularly vulnerable to climate change. Diversity will decline where habitats are found in 

small discrete patches, such as alpine tundra and lakes, and where warming contributes to habitat 

loss. 

Productivity 

Although primary productivity is projected to increase moderately due to longer growing seasons and 

elevated CO2 concentrations, net ecosystem and biome productivity may decline due to increased 

disturbance, drought, and changes in community structure. While models project that a modest 

warming will lead to greater tree growth in the United States (Ryan et al. 2008), there will be spatial 

and temporal variations depending on other factors that limit productivity at a given site (Ryan et al. 

2008). This may result in a pattern of initial gains in productivity followed by declines. The areal 

extent of drought-limited ecosystems is expected to increase by 11 percent for each 1 ̊C (2 ̊F) of 

warming in the continental United States (Bachelet et al. 2001). For widespread species such as 

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), a 3 ̊C (5 ̊F) temperature increase would increase growth in the 

northern part of its range, decrease growth in the middle range, and decimate southern forests 

(Rehfeldt et al. 2001). Where climate change leads to conversions of vegetation type (e.g., woodland 

to grassland), strong impacts on productivity will occur (Izaurralde et al. 2005). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Phenology 

With continued warming, we should expect to see a continued advance of spring in the Intermountain 

West Region. Compared to 1950 to 1970, streamflow and peak snowmelt are occurring one to four 

weeks earlier (Stewart et al. 2005). Lack of good phenology data make predictions difficult, but 

changes in the timing of spring will likely affect the timing of reproduction, emergence, and 

migration of numerous species, which may affect community structure and function. On the other 

hand, phenological events that are tied to day length, such as the emergence of many plants, are not 

expected to change. While evolutionary adaptations to climate change can be rapid, it is generally 

thought that they are not rapid enough to counter the negative effects that climate change will have 

on many species (Parmesan 2006). One concern is the development of asynchronies among 

interacting and dependent species. For instance, there is the potential for increased stress for marmots 

in the early spring because while marmots are emerging earlier, there has been no change in the 

emergence of food plants in the area (Inouye et al. 2000). Mismatches in the phenology of birds and 

their prey have been documented in other parts of the United States and the globe and have been 

linked to population declines (Both et al. 2006, Wormsworth and Mallon 2008). 

The key uncertainties in understanding the response of phenology to climate change lie in the rate at 

which phenological changes occur and how fast species will adapt to new seasonal regimes. 

Manipulative experiments suggest that other global changes, such as changing CO2 concentrations 

and increased nutrient availability, may dampen the phenological response to warming (Cleland et al. 

2006). As a result, it will be difficult to predict the magnitude and direction of response for many 

species. There are also apparent contradictions between individual species and ecosystem level 

responses (Steltzer and Post 2009). Moreover, it remains unknown how often and how many species’ 

interactions will be affected by the development of asynchronous life histories. Finally, the largest 

changes to date are related to earlier spring onsets; less is known about phenological changes to 

climatic trends in other seasons. 

Wildland Fire 

Most evidence supports the hypothesis that future climate changes will cause increases in the 

frequency, intensity, severity, and average annual extent of wildland fires (Field et al. 2007, Ryan et 

al. 2008). Models project that numerous aspects of fire behavior will change, including longer fire 

seasons, more days with high fire danger, increased natural ignition frequency and fire severity, more 

frequent large fires, and more episodes of extreme fire behavior (Brown et al. 2004, Bachelet et al. 

2007, Westerling and Bryant 2008). The best evidence, however, is for increases in the average 

annual area burned (McKenzie et al. 2004, Flannigan et al. 2006, Bachelet et al. 2007). For instance, 

McKenzie et al. (2004) predict that a mean temperature increase of 2.2°C (4.0°F) will increase the 

annual area burned by wildfire by 1.5 to 5. In another study, it is predicted that the median annual 

acres burned in the Upper Columbia Basin and northern Rockies would increase from about 0.5 

million acres (0.2 million ha) in 1916 to 2006 to 0.8 million acres (0.3 million ha) in the 2020s, 1.1 

million acres (0.4 million ha) in the 2040s, and 2.0 million acres (1 million ha) in the 2080s (Littell et 

al. 2009). 

While there is strong evidence that climate change will increase the number of fires, and particularly 

the area burned each year, uncertainties remain. First, historical patterns of precipitation are linked to 

fire and synoptic weather features that drive fire growth, such as high pressure ridges and wind patterns, but models differ in their projections for these climate variables. Other factors, such as 

increases in non-native, annual grass invasions, may alter fire dynamics, making predictions based on 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

climate alone difficult. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if fires and other stand-replacing 

disturbances occur more frequently, the resulting landscape pattern may limit the size of future fires 

and total area burned (Collins et al. 2009). 

Plant and Wildlife Disease 

Climate change will likely increase the range, frequency, severity, and impact of plant and wildlife 

disease (Harvell et al. 2002). The IPCC states with very high confidence that climate change will 

increase the risk and geographic spread of vector-borne infectious diseases, including Lyme disease 

and West Nile virus, and changes in precipitation will increase water-borne disease (Field et al. 

2007). Diseases will likely move farther north and into higher elevations. For example, the tick that 

causes Lyme disease, Ixodes scapularis, is limited by cold temperature, and models suggest that its 

range limit could shift north by 200 kilometers (124 mi) by the 2020s and 1,000 kilometers (621 mi) 

by the 2080s (Ogden et al. 2006). In some cases, climate change may adversely affect the disease 

rather than the host. For instance, fungal diseases dependent on moist conditions may decrease in a 

warmer, drier future (Harvell et al. 2002, Frankel 2008). 

Invasive Species 

The spread and impact of invasive species is driven mainly by changes in land use, increasing 

urbanization, disturbance, and alteration in management practices, but climate change may 

exacerbate the extent of invasions. Climate change is generally expected to increase the spread of 

invasive species through direct effects on habitat suitability and the indirect effects of altered nutrient 

availability and disturbance regimes (Dukes and Mooney 1999). The IPCC has very high confidence 

that disturbances such as wildfire will continue to increase and this will facilitate invasions (Field et 

al. 2007). In general terms, invasive species are expected to differ in their response to climate change 

from native species because they possess traits such as broad climatic tolerances and robust dispersal 

mechanisms that enable them to better adapt to changing conditions. Hellman et al. (2008) identified 

five consequences of climate change on invasion dynamics: altered invasion pathways, changes in 

environmental constraints, altered distribution of existing invasive species, altered impacts of 

invasive species, and a change in management effectiveness. An example of an altered invasion 

pathway would be an increase in recreational boat traffic as a result of warmer temperatures in 

previously snow-covered areas resulting in an increase in the spread of nuisance species. 

Here are some examples of how climate change is expected to alter invasion dynamics in the region. 

 Stream temperatures are expected to warm with warmer air temperatures and lower flows, 

increasing the amount of suitable habitat for warm-water fishes by an estimated 31 percent 

nationwide (Mohseni et al. 2003). 

 Warmer temperatures may increase the impact of invasive species. In the Columbia River, 

for example, increasing temperatures have caused smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)

to consume more native salmon (Petersen and Kitchell 2001), and whirling disease is more 

virulent in warmer streams (Rahel and Olden 2008). 

 Earlier melting of snowpack will alter streamflows, may increase disturbance and flood 

events, and favor invasive species. It is predicted that such changing conditions may increase 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) invasions in Colorado (Fausch et al. 2001). However, 

native species such as cottonwoods could benefit from larger spring flood events that facilitate establishment and recolonization (Scott et al. 1999). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

 Bradley et al. (2009) examined the current and potential distributions of five problematic 

plant invaders in the West (cheatgrass, knapweed, yellow star thistle, tamarisk, and leafy 

spurge) based on the current climatically suitable habitat and maps of future habitat based on 

an ensemble of global climate models. They found that precipitation was the most important 

predictor of plant distribution and that warming temperatures alone may have little effect on 

range expansion. Most species were expected to expand in some areas while contracting in 

others. For example, they predict that the risk of cheatgrass invasion will increase in 

Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado, but decrease in parts of Nevada and Utah. 

Table 3.1. Summary of Projected Climate Changes in the Rocky Mountains and Upper Columbia 

Basin (based on McWethy et al. in press). 

Climate 

Variable 

General Change 

Expected 

Range of Change 

Expected 

General pattern Confidence 

Temperature Increase 1.5-2.1 ̊C 

(2.7 ̊-3.4 ̊F) 

Increases slightly 

greater in the 

summer 

High 

Precipitation No change 2-5% increase in 

winter, 0-4% 

decrease in summer 

Increase in 

winter, decrease 

in summer 

Moderate for 

winter; low for 

summer 

Drought Increase in 

frequency and 

severity 

Varies with 

magnitude of 

temperature and 

evaporation change 

Greatest impact in 

summer 

High 

Temperature 

Extreme Events 

Increase of warm 

events, decrease of 

cold events 

Varies with 

magnitude of temperature change 

Increase in 

frequency and 

length of hot 

events 

High 

Precipitation 

Extreme Events 

Potential for 

decreased frequency 

coupled with 

increased intensity 

Uncertain Potential for more 

intense spring and 

summer floods 

Uncertain 

Effects of Climate Change upon Intermountain West Communities 

Warming temperatures and changing precipitation regimes will likely alter plant and animal 

communities throughout the region. Since the timing and magnitude of response to climate change is 

certain to vary by species, future community assemblages may not have current analogs. Below are 

concepts that are common across all communities and discuss some of the more specific observed 

and projected responses to climate change for wildlife species and sagebrush, grassland, and wetland 

ecosystems. 

Sagebrush and Grasslands 

Over the short term, the greatest threats to grasslands and sagebrush ecosystems come from oil and 

gas development, increasing urban and agricultural development, and invasive species. However, 

wildfires are increasing and likely to intensify in a warmer future with drier soils, longer growing 

seasons, and more severe droughts (Field et al. 2007), and these may cause large changes in 

grassland and sagebrush ecosystems. Direct impacts on big sagebrush, a keystone species throughout 

its range, may also be severe (Smith et al. 1997). The species is not fire tolerant and once removed 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11 

from large disturbances, is very slow to recover (Smith et al. 1997). Weed invasion typically follows 

removal of sagebrush (Prevey et al. 2010), and this disturbance will likely be exacerbated by 

drought-induced stress on the species (e.g., Poore et al. 2009). 

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). 

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. Changes in grassland cover are more subtle, but cover is generally predicted to decrease 

(Bachelet et al. 2001). Cremer et al. (1996), who used an earlier generation of downscaled global 

circulation models to predict the response of warming and reduced precipitation scenarios in eastern 

Washington, suggested that native sagebrush would decline and a less productive, invasive-annual 

dominated grassland would persist or increase. Such a shift has major implications for sagebrushobligate vertebrates such as certain bird species (Knick et al. 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 due to climate change; regions in southwestern Wyoming will be at 

less risk (Bradley 2010). 

There are a number of uncertainties in projecting the response of grasslands and sagebrush to climate 

change. First, regional, elevational, and grassland type may strongly influence response. A recent 

estimate of the velocity of climate change across biomes found that temperature changes will occur 

much more quickly in xeric shrublands and flooded grasslands than in other biomes, and much more 

slowly in montane grasslands (Loarie et al. 2009). Second, the magnitude and velocity of changes 

caused by the strong link between invasive species, fire, and grasslands and sagebrush is difficult to 

estimate. Third, precipitation and drought rather than temperature will likely drive changes in 

grasslands, and they are more difficult to predict. Fourth, the future impact of grazers is difficult to 

estimate, particularly as grassland fragmentation increases. Finally, many grassland and sagebrush 

systems are actively managed through livestock grazing, invasive species control, and prescribed and 

suppressed fire. 

Aquatic Resources and Wetlands 

Climate change will significantly impact regional aquatic resources and will likely make it more 

difficult to achieve water quality standards nationwide (Field et al. 2007). While there are likely to be 

regional variations, projected effects across the West include loss of glaciers, less snow, earlier peak 

flows, less streamflow, warmer water temperatures, more frequent droughts, and more intense 

storms. 

At the current rate of melting, it has been suggested that Glacier National Park’s remnant glaciers 

will be gone in the next 25 to 30 years (Hall and Fagre 2003) due to increases in summer 

temperatures and a reduction in winter snowpack. Streamflow may increase during this initial period 

of melt, but flows will decline when the glaciers disappear (Morris and Walls 2009). Total winter 

precipitation may increase but overall snowpack is projected to decline throughout the West. For 

example, with a 4 ̊C (7 ̊F) temperature increase and doubling of atmospheric CO2 in Loch Vale 

Watershed at Rocky Mountain National Park, models predict a 50 percent reduction in snowpack and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

four to five weeks earlier increases in soil moisture and runoff compared to mean onset of spring 

conditions from 1984 to 1998 (Baron et al. 2000). Rieman and Isaak (2010) summarized: “These 

changes also diminish recharge of subsurface aquifers that support summer baseflows (Hamlet et al. 

2005) (Mote et al. 2005), and flow declines during this period are also apparent across many Rocky 

Mountain Streams (Rood et al. 2008; Stewart et al. 2005). In watersheds with densely forested 

vegetation, these declines may be exacerbated as warmer climate increases water loss through 

evapotranspiration (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999; Hamlet et al. 2007).” 

The loss of winter snowpack will greatly reduce the major source of groundwater recharge and 

summer runoff, resulting in a potentially significant lowering of water levels in streams, rivers, lakes, 

and wetlands during the growing season (Mote et al. 2005; Barnett et al. 2008). With warmer 

temperatures and increasing droughts, municipal and agricultural demands for water are likely to 

increase, drawing down freshwater resources even further (National Assessment Synthesis Team 

2001). Lower summer base flows reduce the amount of instream habitat for invertebrates and fish 

and cause a reduction in stream-side groundwater tables which are important for sustaining riparian 

vegetation communities (Stromberg et al. 1996; Scott et al. 1996). Reduced water depths may also 

increase the vulnerability of sensitive species (e.g., amphibians) to harmful ultraviolet radiation 

(Kiesecker et al. 2001). 

In addition to the shift in the quantity of water, climate change may reduce water quality due to 

increased erosion and decreased dilution of pollutants. Decreases in snow cover and more winter rain 

on bare soil are likely to lengthen the erosion season (Walker et al. 2001), which could lead to 

average phosphorus concentrations in streams increasing 25 to 35 percent (Walker et al. 2001). 

Predicted increases in the severity and frequency of floods may also contribute to increases in 

erosion, as well as affect ecological processes that are sensitive to changes in the probability 

distributions of high flow events such as habitat stability, biodiversity, and trophic structure (Konrad 

and Booth 2005, Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007). Degradation of water quality will likely lead to a 

reduction in or loss of sensitive stream species (Waters 1995). 

Warming air temperatures and a reduction in glacial inputs will lead to warmer water temperatures 

across the West. Surface and bottom water temperatures of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and estuaries are 

projected to increase from 2 to 7 ̊C (4-13 ̊F) (Fang and Stefan 1998, 1999; Hostetler and Small 1999; 

Gooseff et al. 2005). Warmer waters may lead to oxygen depletion, a change in fish distribution, an 

increase in algae and zooplankton in coldwater lakes, and a loss of some species. Species that are 

isolated in habitats near thermal tolerance limits or that occupy rare and vulnerable habitats like 

alpine wetlands may become extinct (Williams et al. 2007), and fish such as trout that are dependent 

on cool waters will likely decline (Williams et al. 2009; Pederson et al. 2010). In contrast, many fish 

species that prefer warmer water, such as largemouth bass and carp, may expand their ranges if 

surface waters warm (Battin et al. 2007). Warmer waters may also cause aquatic diseases and 

parasites to become more widespread (Hari et al. 2006). 

Wetlands are among the most significantly altered ecosystems in North America due to stressors 

such as changes in hydrology from flow regulation, groundwater pumping, fill placement, 

overgrazing by domestic and native ungulates, atmospheric deposition, and biological invasion 

(Patten 1998, Zedler and Kercher 2005). Over the last 200 years, wetland areas have declined 

approximately 56 percent in Idaho, 50 percent in Colorado, 38 percent in Wyoming, and 27 percent 

in Montana (OTA 1993). Like other freshwater ecosystems, wetlands are considered extremely 

vulnerable to climate change, which is projected to diminish their number and extent and cause a 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13 

decline in associated flora and fauna (Field et al. 2007). Wetlands are already facing widespread 

degradation so that even small reductions in precipitation could exacerbate wetland loss. 

A few of the wetland types considered at greatest risk globally are found in the Intermountain West 

Region including riparian wetlands in arid zones, peatlands, and alpine wet meadows (OTA 1993, 

Burkett and Kusler 2000). But despite the recognition of the increasing role of climate change in 

altering wetland functions (e.g., Baron et al. 2000), there is a paucity of studies in the Rocky 

Mountain-Columbia Basin region that document climate-driven declines in wetland function or 

extent. One exception is a recent article describing changes in hydrology leading to wetland 

desiccation in Yellowstone National Park (McMenamin et al. 2008). Currently, the biggest losses are 

in the marshes on Yellowstone’s northern range. It is expected that loss of wetlands will result in a 

corresponding loss in biodiversity and critical functions such as carbon storage in peat and water 

storage (OTA 1993). 

Warmer temperatures will affect the growth and reproduction of wetland species by increasing 

decomposition rates and evaporation from wetlands and their water supplies, reducing peat 

accumulation, and thawing upper layers of permafrost in alpine wetlands (Burkett and Kusler 2000, 

OTA 1993). Where warmer temperatures lead to increased fire severity and extent, peat bodies, 

particularly those in a matrix of forest, will be at risk. Where warmer temperatures cause an increase 

in wetland decomposition rates and reduce peat accumulation, carbon storage will be reduced. 

Greater changes in wetlands are expected to result from altered precipitation as it affects soil and 

vegetation conditions (Winter 2000). Many models project wetter winters in the Region, but any 

positive effect of increased winter flows for wetlands is expected to be outweighed by drier summers 

and warmer temperatures. It is predicted that wetlands response will first become evident in water 

table changes and alterations in the formation and duration of soil anoxic conditions. Alterations in 

the composition of short-lived and then longer-lived perennial plants will follow. Soils may be 

altered after many decades unless fire occurs. Alterations of plant cover and soil permeability may 

act in a feedback loop to further modify the hydrological cycle. Some wetlands, such as forest 

wetlands and wet meadows, are particularly sensitive to hydrological changes and a reduction in the 

water table of a few inches could convert wetlands to upland habitats (Kusler 2006). 

Reduced groundwater flow due to lower snowpack, earlier melt dates, or reduced summer 

precipitation could result in lower water tables in wetlands dependent on groundwater inputs (Poff et 

al. 2002). Riparian wetlands will be sensitive to precipitation because changes in the timing and 

magnitude of flooding will affect the flux of water, nutrients, sediment, and biota between main river 

channels and riparian wetlands (Hauer et al. 2007). 

Wildlife 

There are numerous uncertainties involved in predicting wildlife responses to climate change, the 

largest being that associated with vegetation change. Shifts in vegetation and habitat availability, 

whether caused by climate or land use change, will have strong impacts on wildlife populations. 

Another uncertainty results from the lack of the basic life-history data needed to estimate vulnerability. How biotic interactions will be altered and to what degree this will affect populations remains 

unknown. Phenotypic plasticity and behavior adaptations may allow species to respond to change in 

unpredictable ways. The responses of wildlife to non-climate stressors such as fire, disease, and 

invasive species may dampen or strengthen responses to climate change. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

There is evidence that warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation have caused range shifts, 

asynchronies, altered migration and hibernation patterns, increases in disease prevalence, and 

ultimately a reduction in the population size of many species (Walther et al. 2002, Root et al. 2003). 

Moreover, climate change can strongly affect animal populations through its effects on disturbance 

regimes, disease, land use, and invasive species. The predicted responses of wildlife to climate change 

are that: 

 Many species’ ranges will move northward and upward in elevation. 

 Species will respond differentially, creating non-analog communities and asynchronies 

among interacting species.

 In most cases, climate changes will be more rapid than evolutionary adaptations.

 Species that are mobile, genetically diverse, show wide physiological tolerances, and have 

generalist diets will respond the most positively.

 Temperature-limited and snow-adapted species are at particular risk to a changing climate.

 Wildlife associated with habitat types and communities such as spruce-fir, alpine and 

sagebrush that are expected to decline are at greater risk.

 The effects of climate change could be particularly profound for native fishes and aquatic 

ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains because those systems often lack resilience and are 

strongly dependent on temperature and streamflow regimes that are already documented to be 

changed (Rieman and Isaak 2010). 

Potential Changes to the Refuge 

There have been no specific studies documenting potential effects to the Refuge from future climate 

change. There have already been major and irreversible changes to refuge habitats and wildlife due to 

Bear River diversions, flow regulation, diking, introduced species, land conversion to agriculture, and 

surrounding land uses. The impacts of climate change will be difficult to distinguish from these other 

impacts, at least in the near term. However based on the various climate modeling scenarios for the 

Pacific Northwest, several potential problems are envisioned. For example, populations of Bonneville 

cutthroat trout, which occur in St. Charles Creek on Bear Lake NWR and on the Thomas Fork Unit, are 

projected to be at increased risk of extirpation due to climate change. Williams et al. (2009) assessed 

the extirpation risk to local populations of native cutthroat trout, including Bonneville cutthroat trout, 

based on the combined stressors of habitat fragmentation and climate change. An upper thermal limit of 

24°C (75.2°F) was applied to Bonneville cutthroat trout. Temperatures at or above these limits were 

considered “unsuitable.” Marginal habitat range for Bonneville cutthroat trout was defined as 22.1-

24.0°C (71.8-75.2°F). They applied a 3° C (37.4°F) temperature increase to 1970-2000 mean July air 

temperatures. This increase has been projected as the most likely scenario for the western United States 

within this century (CIG 2004). 

Although the Bear Lake and the Thomas Fork subwatersheds were considered at low risk for winter 

flooding and summer temperatures above the maximum limit for Bonneville cutthroat trout, the 

Thomas Fork subwatershed is considered at high risk for wildfire, while the Bear Lake subwatershed 

is considered at medium risk. The Thomas Fork area is of particular significance because it contains 

some of the most abundant and well distributed populations of BCT in Idaho, and is considered a 

stronghold for this subspecies (Teuscher and Capurso 2007). In the Bear Lake NWR area, which is 

included in IDFG’s Pegram management unit for BCT, BCT have been extirpated from Bloomington 

Creek, which flows into the Refuge from the west (see Figure 3.1) but persist in low numbers in Paris 

Creek, St. Charles Creek, and the Bear Lake outlet (Teuscher and Capurso 2007; see Chapter 4). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-15 

The Oxford Slough area, which is included in the IDFG’s Riverdale management unit for BCT, is at 

high risk for wildfire and winter floods, and at medium to high risk for summer temperature (see 

Williams et al. 2009, Figs 3-5). However, current status of BCT in tributaries on the west side of the 

Bear River in this management unit (including Oxford Slough) is unknown (May and Albake 2005). 

3.2 Hydrology 

The Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA are all within the Bear Lake 

Watershed of the Bear River Basin. This watershed encompasses all lands draining to the Bear River 

between Stewart Dam, below the Idaho-Utah border, and Alexander Dam, near the town of Soda 

Springs, Idaho. The highest point in the watershed is Meade Peak (9,957 feet). The lowest elevation 

is below Alexander Reservoir (5,712 feet). Bear Lake and Bear Lake NWR are the major hydrologic 

features of the Idaho portion of this watershed. 

3.2.1 Bear River 

The 500-mile Bear River originates in the mountains of Utah’s High Uintas Wilderness Area, 

meanders through Wyoming and Idaho, and reenters Utah, emptying into the Great Salt Lake. The 

Bear River is the largest river, with respect to discharge, in the Western Hemisphere whose water 

does not flow to an ocean (Dion 1969). Although the Bear River is the major river in the watershed, 

it does not directly feed Bear Lake itself. It enters Idaho near Border, Wyoming, enters the Bear Lake 

Valley transversely just north of the lake, but then flows northward. Sediments in the lake indicate 

that the Bear River flowed naturally into Bear Lake several times in the past (Dean et al. 2006 in 

Colman 2006); however, the lake and river have been separated for the past 8,000 years. 

The 7,500-square-mile Bear River Watershed (see Chapter 1, Map 1) is divided into six sections: the 

Upper Bear, Central Bear, Bear Lake, Middle Bear, Middle Bear-Logan, and Lower Bear-Malad. 

Two thousand seven hundred acres of the watershed are in Idaho, 3,300 in Utah, and 1,500 in 

Wyoming. The watershed is encircled by mountains, ranging in elevation from over 13,000 to 4,211 

feet, creating a closed basin that does not drain to the ocean (BRWIS 2010). The Bear Lake 

watershed section is shown in Figure 3.1 below. 

Major tributaries to the Bear River in Idaho include Thomas Fork, Montpelier Creek, and 

Georgetown Creek, which drain the Preuss and Aspen Ranges; St. Charles Creek, Bloomington 

Creek, Paris Canyon Creek, Liberty Creek, and Eight-mile Creek, which drain into the Refuge from 

the eastern slopes of the Bear River Range; Soda Creek, which drains the Five-mile Meadows area; 

Cottonwood Creek, which drains the Portneuf Range; Mink Creek and Cub River, which drain the 

western slope of the Bear River Range; and Bear Lake, which in turn is fed by springs and streams 

originating in the Bear River Range and on Bear Lake Plateau (Dion 1969). 

While the Bear River historically connected to the Dingle Marsh (currently Bear Lake NWR) 

through side channels and flooding overflows, the marsh and river remained separated from Bear 

Lake by a natural sand bar. At the turn of the 20th century, the Bear River was artificially reconnected to Bear Lake. Man-made dams and canals now divert the Bear River through the marshes 

of Bear Lake NWR and into Bear Lake to store Bear River water for irrigation, which is also now 

used for flood control. When irrigation demands increase during the summer, water flows back into 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

the marsh from Bear Lake and then again into the Bear River downstream from the diversion dam 

(see Bear River and Bear Lake Hydropower Operations, below). 

3.2.2 Bear Lake 

Bear Lake, which lies just south of the Refuge, has a surface area of 112 square miles and a volume 

of 6,550,871 acre-feet. The lake is stratified in summer-spring where warmer, lighter water overlies 

colder, denser water. During the winter months the mixing processes of winds and surface cooling 

break down the layers, and the lake freezes over. Typically, Bear Lake freezes over three out of five 

years. 

Historically, Bear Lake was a closed basin, fed by relatively small local streams and groundwater 

input. The Bear River Range, to the west of the lake, is mostly underlain by Paleozoic carbonate 

rocks, in which a karst drainage is well developed, containing probably the most reliable aquifers in 

the area (Bear Lake County Planning and Zoning Commission 2002). Presumably this aquifer 

contributes large amounts of groundwater to the lake. Significant groundwater throughflow 

presumably accounts for the lake’s oligotrophic, mesosaline character (Colman 2006). 

The melting of the winter snowpack provides the primary source of streamflow in the Bear Lake 

basin. A long-term streamflow record starts in 1927 for the Bear River at Stewart Dam, where the 

Rainbow Canal diverts river water into Bear Lake. In high runoff years, water flows past Stewart 

Dam and continues down the river. Average annual observed streamflow at Stewart Dam is 356,900 

acre-feet from 1971 through 2000. Seventy-three percent of the annual streamflow, 261,100 acrefeet, occurs from March through July, the snowmelt runoff season. Monthly volumes are the highest 

in May and June, averaging over 70,000 acre-feet each month. Low streamflow levels occur from 

August through February, with monthly average volumes in the 11,000 to 16,000 acre-feet range. 

Seasonal streamflow volumes vary and depend on winter snowfall and saturation of the basin. March 

through July runoff volumes have ranged from less than 10 percent of average during consecutive 

dry years to over 260 percent of average during consecutive wet years (USACE 1989). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-17 

Figure 3.1. Bear Lake watershed and historic marsh function. 

The key inflow tributaries for the Lake are North and South Eden Creeks from the east; Fish Haven, 

St. Charles, Cheney, and Swan Creeks from the west; and Spring and Big Creek from the south. 

These four major and three minor tributaries to the lake, excluding the Bear River, drain a 228 square 

mile watershed (Fig. 3.1). An average of 66,000 acre-feet (106 million cubic yards) of water per year 

enters the lake from this watershed. In an average year, total tributary input to Bear Lake during the 

spring runoff period is approximately 580 cubic feet/second, causing the Lake to rise approximately 

4.5 feet between April and July (Lamarra et al. 1986). The total tributary input in 2004, one of the 

driest years in this watershed, during the spring runoff period was 164 cubic feet/second. During this 

year Bear Lake’s elevation rose only 1.5 feet during spring runoff. The total tributary input in 1997, a 

wet year, during the spring runoff period was 638 cubic feet/second, causing the lake to rise 7.5 feet 

during spring runoff (USGS 2006). 

Today, water diverted from the Bear River accounts for the majority of the waters entering Bear 

Lake (Lamarra et al. 1986). The remaining water enters from streams in the endemic (all surface 

waters except Bear River) Bear Lake drainage, in-lake springs, or through direct precipitation on the 

Lake itself. Water levels of Bear Lake have fluctuated annually since use as a reservoir began; 2.8 

billion cubic yards of water were diverted from the Bear River into Bear Lake during the years of 

1975 and 1984. During the same time period, low and high annual Bear River inputs were 15.8 and 

450 million cubic yards for 1977 and 1980 respectively (Lamarra et al. 1986). Much of the water 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

entering Bear Lake through its tributaries and Bear River diversions is evaporated during the 

summer months: over 55 inches on average (5 percent of the lake’s total mean volume, or 528 

million cubic yards) (Palacios et al. 2007a). 

Bear River and Bear Lake Hydropower Operations 

Bear Lake, the Dingle Marsh, and the Bear River have been connected to each other at various times 

throughout prehistory. Their most recent separation occurred about 8,000 years ago and endured until 

the Bear Lake project came to fruition. This project, consisting of inlet and outlet canals, control 

structures, and pumps, was begun around 1907 and completed in 1918. The modifications of the Bear 

River and Bear Lake to provide for irrigation and power production forever altered the natural 

hydrology of the river, marsh, and lake. The refuge marsh, particularly Mud Lake, now serves as a 

water storage and transfer facility. The effects of alterations of the historic hydrologic system to the 

habitats of Bear Lake NWR are described in Chapter 4. 

At the turn of the century, irrigators wishing to use Bear Lake as a storage reservoir conceived a plan 

to divert the Bear River into Bear Lake (Gagstetter and Mesner 2006). In 1898, diverting water from 

Bear River to Bear Lake was considered a viable solution to overly abundant natural flows in the 

early summer followed by late summer low flows, inadequate for irrigation. In 1902, Telluride Power 

Company (later called Utah Power and Light) constructed inlet and outlet canals in an effort to divert 

Bear River water into the lake for later release during the agricultural growing season. 

The point of diversion of the Bear River is located approximately 5 miles south of Montpelier, Idaho, 

at Stewart Dam. The Bear River water enters via a canal that enters Mud Lake, and then Bear Lake. 

The purpose of the Rainbow and Dingle Inlet Canals was to more efficiently divert Bear River water 

through Dingle Marsh into Bear Lake. The mixed lake and river water exits just west of Mud Lake 

with the help of Lifton Pumping Station. Map 9 shows location and configuration of the canal 

systems on the Refuge. 
Map 9. Hydrology

Map Date: 04/26/2012 File:12-080-4.mxd

Mud Lake

Bunn Lake

Bloomington Rainbow

Alder

Dunford

North Dingle

St Charles

Red Slough

Rainbow Sub

South Dingle

Salt Meadow

Merkley Lake

Stewart Dam

Bear Lake Causeway Lifton Pump Station

Lifton Road

National Wildlife Refuge, Approved

 Water Mgt. Units

Flows into Refuge

Bear Lake Outlet

Canal/Ditch

Streams

Water

Major Water Diversions

Water Control Structures

Bear Lake

Ream Crockett Cana

Rainbow Canal

l

Spring Creek

Bloomington Cree k

Paris Creek

Bear River

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

0 1 2

Miles

0 0.4 0.8 1.6

Kilometers

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-20 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-21 

Water is returned to the river below the Bear Lake outlet with an annual average of 776.9 cubic feet 

per second due to inputs from other tributaries. Figure 3.2 (from Lamarra et al. 1986) documents 

water levels in Bear Lake proper as a reservoir from 1915 to 2005. The highest annual input from the 

Bear River occurred in 1980 at 450 million cubic yards; the lowest occurred in 1977 at 15.8 million 

cubic yards (Palacios et al. 2007a). Water entering the Bear Lake system is primarily from diversion 

of the Bear River, with some water coming from streams, springs, and precipitation (Palacios et al. 

2007a). 

Figure 3.2. Utah Power water levels reported at Lifton Pump Station 1915-2005. 

Flat line indicates “full pool” at 5,923.65 feet above sea level (From Lamarra et al. 1986; in Palacios et al. 2007a). 

During an extended drought, PacifiCorp uses over 20 vertical feet of Bear Lake for supplemental 

irrigation downstream. Hydroelectric power is produced incidentally, as a secondary benefit, after the 

water is released from Bear Lake for irrigation or flood control. This release, along with the natural 

flow of the Bear River, passes through five on-river hydropower stations along the Bear River below 

Bear Lake, providing 94 percent of the hydroelectric generating capacity in the Bear River Basin. A 

sixth plant, the Cove Dam, was decommissioned and removed in 2006. The five remaining 

hydroelectric developments are Last Chance, Soda, Grace, Oneida, and Cutler. These are all part of 

the Bear River Hydro Project. 

During the 40 years following completion of the Lifton complex, extensive litigation occurred to 

decide the water allocations and distribution of Bear River waters. Today, PacifiCorp regulates the 

flow of the Bear River through the Refuge and south into Bear Lake proper. Water use is governed, 

in part, by the Bear River Compact of 1958 (as amended in 1978). The Bear River Compact is a 

collaborative effort by the states of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming that provides for the distribution of 

water on the Bear River and a reserved portion of the storage capacity in Bear Lake. In 1958, the 

Bear River Commission was created to manage water use along the entire length of the Bear River. 

However, the Commission is not directly involved in the operation of the river unless conditions 

exist that trigger provisions of the Compact. Rights to direct flow in the three administrative 

divisions of the Bear River are administered by the states under state law. General watermasters are 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

appointed by the respective state engineers to operate the river reaches and canal diversions in their 

region (Palacios et al. 2007a). 

PacifiCorp merged with UP&L in 1989; the resulting company is currently called PacifiCorp and 

controls the operation of Bear Lake. The lake is operated with two main goals: water storage for 

irrigation and flood control along the Bear River. Power generation is considered a by-product of the 

main goals (UDWR 2000). Recognizing the extreme high and low water elevations that can occur in 

Bear Lake, the Compact reserved all Bear Lake waters below 5,914.61 feet to be maintained for 

irrigation, and that water could not be released for the sole purpose of hydropower generation (Bear 

River Compact 1963). Water levels are not allowed to go above the historic high water elevation of 

5,923.65 feet or below the historic low of 5,902.00 feet. Since the mid 1960s, UP&L, and later 

PacifiCorp, operated Bear Lake to a target elevation of 5,918 feet for flood control purposes (BRC 

1997; Bear River operations agreement, 2000). 

The 1968 agreement between PacifiCorp and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stipulated that the 

water level in Mud Lake (a portion of Bear Lake NWR) would be maintained at an elevation of 

5,920.50 plus or minus a half foot, subject “to all prior commitments, including particularly the terms 

of the Bear River Compact and provided, nevertheless, that the maintenance of said level is 

dependent upon the availability of water and acts and occurrences over which the Power Company 

has no control.” 

Downstream water users, citizen groups around Bear Lake, and PacifiCorp signed the “Bear Lake 

Settlement Agreement” in 1995. The agreement provides, among other things, that starting at a lake 

elevation of 5,914 feet, downstream users will restrict their call for Bear Lake stored water. This 

reduction in use added additional stabilization of lake levels and encouraged conservation within the 

provisions of the Compact and the parameters of the states (BRC 1997). 

Currently, less than half (about 40 percent) of the total flow of the Bear River is allocated and 

controlled under the Bear River Compact. Taking into consideration current uses and existing water 

rights in all three states, only a portion of the non-allocated water in the Bear River (i.e., water that is 

not “assigned” to or “owned” by any one user) can be put to new uses. In Utah, for example, there is 

an average annual flow of about 275,000 acre-feet left in the Bear River that can be put toward new 

uses. The State of Utah sees unallocated water in the Bear River as an untapped water source. After 

years of study, the Bear River Development Act was passed in 1991 by the Utah State Legislature 

(Gagstetter and Mesner 2006). This plan allocates 220,000 acre-feet of the 275,000 acre-feet of nonallocated water in Utah. Part of the plan includes: 

1. Connecting the Bear River to a pipeline and/or canal to Willard Bay; 

2. Constructing a conveyance and treatment facility to deliver water from Willard Bay to the 

Wasatch Front, including the Jordan Valley and Weber Basin Water Conservancy Districts; 

3. Building a new dam or enlarging existing dams in the Bear River Watershed. 

Hydrology of Refuge Wetlands 

Bear Lake NWR is within the Intermountain West, a region comprised by portions of eight states 

including eastern Washington and Oregon, northeast California, northern Nevada and Utah, western 

Wyoming and Montana, and Idaho. Due to its arid to semi-arid climate, wetlands are scarce in the 

region (Ratti and Kadlec 1992). Wetlands in the Intermountain West region account for about 1 

percent of the surface area (1.6 million acres) compared to 6 percent (22.5 million acres) in the 

Midwest region (Dahl 1990). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-23 

Bear Lake NWR 

While it is uncertain how the Bear Lake NWR marsh (locally referred to as Dingle Swamp) 

functioned prior to development of the Bear River irrigation system, it is apparent that for the last 

8,000 years or so the local topography restricted the Bear River to an isolated flood plain, with no 

major inflow connection to Bear Lake. This does not rule out the possibility that in extreme high 

flow conditions, side channels could have formed, thus creating an inflow mechanism to Bear Lake; 

however, most researchers agree that this was never a dominant process within the Bear Lake Valley. 

Conversely, it is likely that Bear Lake occasionally contributed to flow within the Bear River system. 

As snowmelt from the adjacent Wasatch and Hot Springs mountain ranges began to fill Bear Lake, 

Dingle Swamp would have received excess inflow, which ultimately, may have hydrated portions of 

the estimated historic extent of the 25,000-acre Dingle Marsh. Water levels would have increased to 

an as yet unknown critical elevation, with additional flow following an outlet channel back to the 

Bear River system (Bundy 2007). One such possible outlet channel can still be delineated on present 

day aerial imagery. 

The Bear River, historically referred to as the “white mud river,” would have received a freshwater 

influx at the Bear Lake outlet channel confluence, which likely would have improved downstream 

water quality. This influx would have been seasonal (mid-April through June) and highly dependent 

on annual snowpack amounts and spring temperature variation. The process would have led to 

increasing water levels in the Dingle Swamp through the spring and early summer months, followed 

by rapid desiccation through summer as the outlet channel removed water to the Bear River (Bundy 

2007). Therefore, water level fluctuation in the marsh system may have been extreme (3-5 feet 

during high runoff years) and occurred within an abbreviated two- to three-month window. 

The primary difference between current and historic conditions is that historically these fluctuations 

would have occurred over and above a 30-35,000-acre base wetland. Natural barriers such as a long 

sand bar at the Bear Lake/Dingle Swamp interface and at the Bear River near the present-day town of 

Bennington, would have retained an extensive marsh system in most years (Bundy 2007). Thus, it is 

assumed that large historical marsh water level increases would have occurred during spring and 

early summer, followed by relatively stable conditions as water levels dropped below the natural 

berm elevation. Among year variation, related to periods of low snowpack, may have led to 

prolonged desiccation of the marsh. 

This variation is supplemented by relatively stable peripheral wetlands created by the Valley’s 

unique soil stratigraphy. Groundwater movement from adjacent mountain ranges would have created 

a variety of perennial and ephemeral habitats around the marsh fringe where heavy, impenetrable 

clays rise near the surface. Water is pushed up at these points, creating relatively stable wetlands. 

During spring runoff, these wetlands would have been flooded, and the heavy clay bottom would 

have retained this water within depressions. Groundwater movement would have maintained the 

wetlands through high evaporative periods in summer. 

The diversion of the Bear River via the Rainbow Inlet Canal and construction of the Outlet Canal 

permanently changed the historic Dingle Marsh. Currently, the Outlet Canal has drained portions of 

the refuge marshes while the Rainbow Canal has caused significant siltation. The canal system and 

storage of Bear River water has resulted in seasonal fluctuations that did not occur historically. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-24 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

The 8,017-acre Mud Lake Unit serves as a storage basin (along with Bear Lake proper) for irrigation 

use in the lower Bear River Watershed. The Refuge maintains an agreement with PacifiCorp (the 

primary water rights holder), through which target elevations are set, at the Refuge’s request, to meet 

wildlife requirements. PacifiCorp controls and manages five major water control structures that affect 

the Refuge: Stewart Dam, Rainbow Dam, the Lifton Pump Station, the Causeway, and the Paris 

Dike. The Stewart and Rainbow Dams divert the Bear River into the Mud Lake Unit of the Refuge 

through the Rainbow Inlet Canal, the Causeway funnels water from the Refuge into Bear Lake 

proper, the Lifton Pump Station moves water from the lake back into the Refuge via the Outlet 

Canal, and the Paris Dike is the last mechanism (associated directly with the Refuge) to regulate 

flows to downstream irrigators. 

Bear Lake NWR Water Management and Infrastructure 

Today, the lands that comprise the Bear Lake NWR are the only remaining segment of the once 

historically extensive marsh. Following natural environmental fluctuations, overall wetland levels 

may have fluctuated historically from valley-wide coverage in flood years to only a few hundred 

wetland acres during drought years. These processes were important in developing the wetland 

habitats that exist on the Refuge today, but historic hydrologic periodicity has been dramatically 

altered and these wide fluctuations are no longer desirable, considering the loss of wetland habitat 

throughout the Bear Lake Valley, and the wildlife species that depend on the annual availability of 

wetlands (Bundy 2007). Current management is intended to simulate these natural environmental 

processes, while retaining roughly the same wetland acreage on an annual basis. 

The Service has developed a vast infrastructure of wells, pumps, ditches, dikes, and water control 

structures capable of providing wetland habitats within these highly modified hydrologic conditions. 

The Refuge’s infrastructure allows for independent water management within a series of nine 

compartmentalized wetland units (see Map 9 above). Wetland units can be rotated based on the 

condition of habitat in a given year. The infrastructure allows for independent water management 

within series of two to three wetland units, arranged as complexes throughout the Refuge (Bundy 

2007). Rotation of wetland complexes maintains overall marsh health by setting back succession as 

units become dense with emergent vegetation. 

Prior to refuge establishment, conservationists recognized that creation of impoundments would be 

beneficial to migratory waterbird use (see Chapter 4). Initially, several low-level levees were 

constructed to create “small impoundments” for waterbird use during low water periods. However 

this strategy was not applied widely, since many of these levees would be underwater during high 

water periods, and thus subject to extreme erosion and high annual maintenance costs. 

During the 1980s, refuge managers adopted a more aggressive approach, and developed permanent 

levees capable of withstanding flood conditions. Construction of the 2,113 acre Rainbow Unit was 

initiated in 1980 to isolate the northeast portion of Mud Lake from the combined effects of sediment 

deposition and carp movement. Established at an elevation of 5,925’ UP&L datum (5,923.65’ is 

considered flood condition), the levee was constructed along the west and north banks of the 

Rainbow inlet canal, and along the east bank of the Bear Lake outlet canal. Completion of the 

Rainbow Unit allowed for effective carp control, improving water quality and habitat conditions in 

the unit (see Chapter 4). 

During the late 1980s through mid-1990s, it was recognized that portions of the larger Rainbow Unit 

should be managed independently for different habitat values. The northern sections of the unit 

retained alkali soils and thus, should be managed for halophytic (salt tolerant) plant communities, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-25 

while the middle segment had considerable topographic variation which provided an ideal situation 

to manage for ephemeral wetland pools adjacent to upland nesting habitat. The southern half was 

comprised of a deeper water zone more suitable for perennial (permanent) water maintenance. 

Through the construction of the northern Salt Meadow and central Rainbow Unit sub-impoundment 

levees, water could be managed to provide the most desirable water levels to maintain these different 

habitats. Four more impoundments were developed on the west side of the outlet canal from the late 

1990s to present (Bloomington, Bunn Lake, Dunford, and St. Charles Creek). 

Management Complexes on Bear Lake NWR 

Four management complexes currently exist on Bear Lake NWR: the North Meadows Complex, the 

Bunn Lake Complex, the Bloomington Complex, the Rainbow Complex, and the Mud Lake 

Complex (see Map 9 above). These total 18,050 acres, of which 92 percent is considered wetland 

habitat. Management of the complexes is described below. 

North Meadows Complex (1,792 acres; three units.) Historically this complex has been managed 

for hay production by maintaining ephemerally flooded habitats for upland nesting waterfowl, 

shorebird and greater sandhill crane use, and foraging waterbirds that nest on other parts of the 

Refuge. Hydrologically isolated from Bear River inflow, water levels are maintained through a 

combination of snowmelt, groundwater influx, and water rights associated with Paris Creek, Dry 

Lake Canal, and Black Otter ditch companies (Bundy 2007). Water levels have followed a typical 

historic hydrograph with high spring flows, followed by rapid summer drawdown, and a slight 

increase in wetland water levels during fall. This simulates a natural abbreviated flood-drought 

scenario. 

The Alder Unit (592 acres) receives a large proportion of fall/winter Paris Creek flows outside of the 

irrigation season. Past management has focused on holding these flows and increasing water levels to 

a full pool stage by April 1. At this point, water levels are maintained for breeding waterbirds 

through mid-July, when water is then released to facilitate hay removal. Normal-flood hydrologic 

regimes are maintained in most years. Long-term management of the Alder Unit has been focused on 

producing ephemeral wet meadow habitat for sandhill cranes, as well as breeding and migratory 

waterfowl/shorebird use. The unit also contains several hay permits, thus, the typical annual cycle 

has been spring flood followed by August 1 desiccation. These permits have dictated drawdown 

schedules for the Alder Unit; however, spring and fall water levels can still be used to simulate 

natural hydrologic periodicity using Paris Creek tail water (Bundy 2007). Changes to the haying 

program (see Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations) may enhance the Refuge’s ability to 

simulate natural hydrologic periodicity on this unit. 

The North Dingle Unit (794 acres) receives a large proportion of spring flows from Black Otter 

Irrigation Company tailwater, which can either be received through Keetch Drain at the north end of 

the unit, or removed to the Bear Lake outlet canal. These flows typically arrive during two seasonal 

periods; early-mid May and mid-late June. Water timing concurrently stimulates and then 

concentrates invertebrate resources during these two pulse periods, which greatly benefits foraging 

waterbirds. Management will be focused on opportunistically pulsing water during these periods 

unless habitat tolerance thresholds are surpassed, requiring either drought or flood regimes to correct 

the habitat imbalance. Long-term management of the North Dingle Unit has also been focused on 

producing ephemeral wet meadow habitat for sandhill cranes, as well as breeding and migratory 

waterfowl/shorebird use. The unit also contains several hay permits, thus, the typical annual cycle 

has been spring flood followed by August 1 desiccation. These permits will continue to dictate 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-26 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

drawdown schedules for the North Dingle Unit; however, spring and fall water levels can still be 

used to simulate natural hydrologic periodicity using Black Otter Irrigation Company tail water 

(Bundy 2007). Changes to the haying program (see Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations) may 

enhance the Refuge’s ability to simulate natural hydrologic periodicity on this unit. 

The South Dingle Unit (405 acres) is currently managed within the North Dingle Unit and is not yet 

completely constructed. However, over the next 10 years, modifications to the haying program may 

lend to independent management capabilities within the southern third of the unit (see Appendix B, 

Compatibility Determination Haying). This provides an opportunity to fulfill a deficiency in 

perennially flooded habitat in the North Meadows Complex. As conditions change, an increasing 

emphasis will be placed on managing the South Dingle Unit for palustrine emergent hemi-marsh 

habitat. Long-term management of the proposed South Dingle Unit has been identical to the North 

Dingle Unit, which has also been focused on producing ephemeral wet meadow habitat for sandhill 

cranes; as well as breeding and migratory waterfowl/shorebird use. The unit currently contains one 

hay permit. The South Dingle Unit can be managed for the full range of natural hydrologic regimes 

and permanent water can be provided throughout the year (Bundy 2007). See Appendix B, 

Compatibility Determinations, Haying. 

The Bunn Lake Complex (3,526 acres, 3 units) is currently being completed. It is designed to fulfill 

three separate management functions; fisheries restoration (St. Charles Creek Unit), quality hemimarsh for over-water nesting birds (Bunn Lake Unit), and semi-permanent marsh with adjacent 

uplands (Dunford Unit). In combination, these three units provide an optimal mix of habitat for a 

wide diversity of wetland dependent wildlife needs (Bundy 2007). However, more so than in any 

other complex, the needs fulfilled are specific to the individual management units. 

Wetland management within the Bunn Lake complex is dependent on three separate water sources; 

Bear River inflow/Mud Lake storage (Bunn Lake Unit and secondary source for Dunford Unit), St. 

Charles Creek flow (primary source for St. Charles Creek Unit), and Bloomington Creek flow 

(Dunford and Bunn Lake units). While historic hydrologic regimes including flood, normal, and 

drought cycles can still be simulated, each unit is more conducive to maintaining a specific regime, 

as opposed to simulating all three. For example, the St. Charles Creek Unit can be fluctuated between 

the three simulated regimes, but in-stream flow must be retained in all years for Bonneville cutthroat 

trout passage. Therefore, flood and normal cycles will be the desired regimes in most years. 

Conversely, the Dunford Unit is currently subject to annual hay removal and must be at least partially 

dewatered to facilitate access; thus, normal-drought cycles would be better simulations in most years. 

Seasonal acreage will be maintained through rotation of hydrologic simulations, with emphasis 

placed on the most appropriate rotation to meet individual unit needs (Bundy 2007). 

The Bunn Lake Unit (2,448 acres) is situated immediately adjacent to the Bear Lake outlet canal 

and Mud Lake, thus, it is the deepest unit in the complex and most conducive to maintaining hemimarsh habitat. Prior to construction, this unit was subject to carp infestation, which greatly inhibited 

aquatic submergent plant growth. Surprisingly, very little sediment appears to have been deposited 

within the unit. This leaves the substrate in good condition to stimulate growth within this limiting 

habitat type. Carp removal, as is proposed under the Bunn Lake project, will ensure that new growth 

submergent plants are not uprooted through their activity. The Bunn Lake Unit will be managed to 

maintain hemi-marsh habitat with emphasis on simulating normal and flood hydrologic regimes. 

Drought will only be applied when existing conditions, based on habitat tolerance thresholds, require 

adaptive management treatment (Bundy 2007). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-27 

Prior to construction, Bunn Lake was managed concurrent with Mud Lake, which has historically 

been managed as much to meet irrigation demands as for wildlife habitat requirements. Through a 

1968 agreement with PacifiCorp, water levels have been raised until April 1, stabilized through the 

waterbird nesting season, and then consistently lowered prior to August 1 to meet terms of hay 

permits on the periphery of the unit (Bundy 2007). Through construction of the Bunn Lake levee, this 

unit can now be independently managed to simulate natural hydrologic periodicity, with an emphasis 

on maintaining perennial emergent hemi-marsh around the core Bunn Lake area. 

Initially, the proposed Dunford Unit (568 acres) was a part of the Bunn Lake Unit. Higher 

elevations found within the northern portions of Bunn Lake provided a unique opportunity to isolate 

and independently manage the Dunford Unit for upland nesting and migratory waterbirds (Bundy 

2007). Combined with the Bunn Lake and St. Charles Creek units, the Dunford Unit provides the 

missing upland and ephemeral marsh components of the complex. To maintain this component, the 

overall management emphasis will be to promote normal and drought conditions in most years, with 

periodic flood regime simulation to stimulate the seed bank. Unlike the Bunn Lake Unit, the Dunford 

Unit is situated at a higher elevation, and thus, is conducive to independent management to provide 

more adjacent upland nesting habitat (Bundy 2007). 

The 510-acre St. Charles Creek Unit is a direct result of a local community-based working group 

developed to promote restoration of the Bear Lake Bonneville cutthroat trout fishery (BCT). Through 

a fish ladder located at the southeast comer of the unit, spawning BCT could access the St. Charles 

Creek Unit, and ultimately, the upper reaches of the creek for spawning. Therefore, an emphasis on 

managing the unit to meet BCT life history requirements is required. Normal and flood hydrologic 

simulations will be the desired course in most years; however, drought conditions will be applied as 

necessary to meet habitat tolerance thresholds when conditions dictate. During drought simulation, a 

minimum elevation of 5,919.5' UP&L datum will be maintained to facilitate spawning access during 

late spring and returning fry access during fall (Bundy 2007). 

The local community-based St. Charles Creek Working Group was able to cooperatively develop and 

fund a 14 grant, multiple benefits project for fish passage, water quality improvement, private lands 

irrigation, and wetlands restoration. The Group was able to develop a watershed scale initiative to 

restore 14,619 wetland/riparian acres (14,119 Federal, 500 private) and improve water quality on 6-

11 miles (2 Federal, 4-9 private) of the middle Bear River system. This was largely due to leadership 

provided by the IDFG (Richard Scully; Region 5 fisheries biologist), the Bear Lake County 

Commission (Conrad Michaelson; County Commissioner), the Service, and the 62-member St. 

Charles Creek Working Group. 

The Group examined mechanisms and restoration strategies to perpetuate natural spawning of Bear 

Lake, BCT in St. Charles Creek, Idaho. Over the three years since December 2002, the Group met 20 

times, developed four independent focus groups, and expanded their vision to create the following set 

of goals: 

 1. St. Charles Creek Fisheries and Riparian System Restoration 

 2. Irrigation System Delivery and Efficiency Improvements 

 3. Wetlands Protection and Enhancement 

 4. Bear Lake Water Quantity and Quality Enhancements 

To complete all restoration actions described in the Group’s proposal, the overall price tag was 

$4,820,586 of which $2,151,000 were grant funds and $2,669,586 were Federal, State, corporate, and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-28 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

local community cash/in-kind matches. In order to secure the necessary funding, a series of 14 grant 

applications to complete 13 projects, involving contributions from 36 separate partners, was initiated. 

The overall initiative involved construction of 16 new water control structures; 4.85 miles of levee; 

development or renovation of six St. Charles Creek System irrigation structures; restoration of 6-11 

miles of riparian habitat on St. Charles Creek, Spring Creek, and the Middle Bear River; and 

irrigation delivery improvement/wetland restoration on approximately 600 acres of private ranch 

land. From an ecological perspective, this equates to restoration or enhancement of 14,619 

wetland/riparian acres in12 separate Federal and private management units, as well as direct water 

quality improvements on approximately 6-11 miles of the middle Bear River system. 

Granting Agencies: 

 Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) 

 IDFG - Habitat Improvement Program (HIP) 

 Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation (OSC) 

 Intermountain West Joint Venture - Cost Share (IWJV) 

 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service - Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) 

 North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) 

 PacifiCorp - Environmental Coordination Committee (ECC) 

 PacifiCorp - Green Fund 

 Rhodia North America 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Mitigation 

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Challenge Cost Share (CCS) 

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) 

Partners: Bear Lake County Commission, Bear Lake County School District, Bear Lake Regional 

Commission, Bear Lake Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Bear Lake Watch, Dahl 

Warren, Franklin County SWCD, Glenn Transtrum, Martin Mast, Monte Transtrum, St. Charles 

Creek Working Group, St. Charles Creek Irrigation Company, Various Private Landowners, Rod 

Drewien, Boy Scouts of America, Bridgerland Audubon Society, Portneuf Audubon Society, Ducks 

Unlimited, Idaho State University Museum of Natural History, LIFE Inc., Paris Lions Club, 

Trumpeter Swan Society, Trout Unlimited, Utah State University, Aquascreen Inc., PacifiCorp, 

Rhodia North America, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Idaho Transportation Department, Idaho Office of Species Conservation, Fisheries 

Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act, Intermountain West Joint Venture, Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Bloomington Complex (2,521 acres, two units). Only one of the Bloomington Complex’s two 

management units is capable of intensive water level management. However, this unit provides the 

most equitable mix of upland through wetland habitats of any complex on the Refuge (Bundy 2007). 

The northwest comer of the Bloomington Unit, combined with the Red Slough Unit, provides an 

optimal mix of upland and emergent hemi-marsh habitats for use by a maximum diversity of wildlife 

species. Alkali upland habitats in Red Slough may require intensive treatment to provide suitable 

dense nesting cover, but water rights in the Dry Lake Canal Company and easy access for fire 

equipment allow these treatments to be applied. A focus of the complex will be restoration of upland 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-29 

habitats and maintenance of the extensive hemi-marsh habitat in the Bloomington Unit (Bundy 

2007). 

Prior to construction, the 2,040 acre Bloomington Unit was subject to sediment deposition from the 

Bear Lake outlet canal and unregulated carp movement, which resulted in poor quality habitat 

throughout the unit (see Chapter 4, History of Refuge Management). Following completion of the 

project in 2000, aquatic plant communities responded immediately followed by increased nesting use 

by the overwater nesting waterfowl guild. Water levels in the unit have been fluctuated, following a 

spring flood/summer drawdown to facilitate hay removal. This strategy has been successful and will 

remain the emphasis for water management on the Bloomington Unit. The simulation of all defined 

hydrologic regimes (i.e., flood, normal, and drought cycles) will be used in accordance with defined 

thresholds for individual habitat types (Bundy 2007). 

The Red Slough Unit (481 acres) is hydrologically isolated from remaining refuge habitats, and is 

tied to groundwater discharge from adjacent farmlands, as well as delivery of limited water rights in 

the Dry Lake Canal Company. As a result, the unit can become almost entirely desiccated during 

extreme drought periods. While this may be desirable under extreme circumstances, in most years a 

minimum of 4 percent permanent water and 8 percent ephemeral water should be maintained. 

Because the Red Slough Unit functions more as a terminal basin, there is a direct tie to irrigation use 

in the Dry Lake Canal system. As such, irrigation/groundwater inflows occur throughout May and 

June which results in maximum wetland acreage in mid-late June, similar to the estimated historic 

pattern. This condition has resulted in establishment of the sensitive red glasswort plant community, 

one of a few alkali marsh systems on the Refuge. Other than to supplement water supplies through 

water rights in the Dry Lake Canal Company through low water years, the emphasis will be on 

retaining the current hydrograph (Bundy 2007). 

Rainbow Complex (2,113 acres, three units). The Rainbow Complex contains three hydrologically 

independent units using either water from the Bear River/Mud Lake system or irrigation tail water 

from the Black Otter Irrigation Company. Recent improvements within the complex allows for fully 

independent water management capabilities and the opportunity to divert tail water into one of three 

separate areas. Based on this capability, the Rainbow Complex has the most management flexibility 

of any complex on Bear Lake NWR and can be managed for nearly all identified key resource guilds 

(Bundy 2007). Additionally, the Rainbow Complex contains all identified habitat types and plant 

communities that exist on Bear Lake NWR at present (Bundy 2007). 

Wetland management is regulated by 18 separate, existing or proposed water control structures, 

which can be used in one of three capacities; using Bear River inflow, passing water from unit to 

unit, or optimizing use of tail water from the Black Otter Irrigation Company. This provides the 

opportunity to manage each unit for its primary capacity, or simulating various hydrologic 

periodicities as necessary to fulfill identified habitat attribute thresholds. More than any other 

complex, the capability to rotate simulations among management units is provided, which allows this 

public use area complex to provide a showpiece for the visiting public (Bundy 2007). 

Situated at the southern end of the Complex, the 1,437 acre Rainbow Unit maintains the deepest 

depressions, and thus the best capability to maintain palustrine emergent hemi-marsh. The Rainbow 

Unit has the best ratio of open water to emergent and the widest diversity of submergent plant 

communities within the open water zone (Bundy 2007). This provides the best opportunity to 

maintain hemi-marsh habitats for overwater and colonial nesting waterbirds, with a management 

emphasis on using flood or normal hydrologic regimes in most years. Drought will be used to meet 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-30 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

habitat type requirements; more specifically, residual coverage thresholds within the deep emergent 

habitat type (Bundy 2007). 

The Refuge’s first large wetland restoration effort, the Rainbow Unit has served as the template for 

successive wetland impoundment developments on Bear Lake NWR (see Chapter 4, History of 

Refuge Management). Prior to development, it was managed concurrent with Mud Lake which has 

historically been managed as much to meet irrigation demands as for wildlife habitat requirements. 

Additionally, proximity to the Rainbow inlet canal resulted in heavy sediment deposition throughout 

open channels and pools within the unit, which continues to inhibit marsh management for a diverse 

and healthy wetland ecosystem. Removal of carp led to increased water clarity and water level 

fluctuation has provided opportunities to use mechanical disturbance to alleviate the effects of 

sediment accumulation (see Chapter 4). Through construction of the Rainbow levee, this unit can 

now be independently managed to simulate natural hydrologic periodicity, with an emphasis on 

maintaining perennial emergent hemi-marsh (Bundy 2007). 

Following construction of the Rainbow Unit, it was recognized that the northern portions of this unit 

were at a slightly higher elevation, and thus, conducive for managing semi-permanent and ephemeral 

habitats adjacent to uplands for foraging and upland nesting wildlife. This unique juxtaposition led to 

the concept of managing individual wetland complexes, but required independent water management 

capabilities provided through the 2004 Rainbow Complex enhancement project (Bundy 2007). 

Through development of a new water control structure on the 434 acre Rainbow Unit Subimpoundment, water could now be independently controlled to maintain the ephemeral nature of 

this unit, while further providing opportunities to simulate flood and drought to maintain overall 

ecosystem health. 

The Rainbow Unit Sub-impoundment ranges from an alkali ephemeral wetland in the east, to a 

perennial emergent hemi-marsh in the western portion of the unit. Construction of a wildlife 

observation trail effectively divided the unit into an eastern and western half, which allows semiindependent management of the alkali and hemi-marsh components. When combined with the 

adjacent alkali upland and meadow grass habitats, it provides the best opportunity to provide habitat 

for upland nesting waterbirds. Management emphasis will be on maintaining a normal hydrologic 

regime in most years, with flood simulation dependent on snowpack/seasonal runoff and drought 

simulation as required, to meet specific habitat management thresholds (Bundy 2007). 

The 242-acre Salt Meadow Unit was the first impoundment constructed on Bear Lake NWR (see 

Chapter 4, History of Refuge Management) and currently serves as the focus of the Refuge’s auto 

tour loop. Similar to the Rainbow Unit subimpoundment, it also maintains an alkali eastern half and a 

shallow emergent hemi-marsh to the west. Continual flood/drought cycles over the unit’s life history 

has led to establishment of unique, alkali tolerant plant communities, which provides added diversity 

within the Rainbow complex ecosystem (Bundy 2007). 

Situated at a higher elevation than other Rainbow complex units, Salt Meadow has an added 

challenge in maintaining water levels throughout the growing season. Snowmelt tends to raise annual 

spring water levels. However, depths are typically inadequate to maintain through summer 

evaporative periods. A pump in the Bear Lake outlet canal has been proposed to subsidize water 

during high summer evapotranspiration periods, and thus, minimize this problem in the future 

(Bundy 2007). With the pump in place, it additionally provides an opportunity to partner with the 

State of Idaho, to manage a State-owned playa section immediately adjacent to the eastern border. 

Water maintained in this section would greatly enhance habitat availability for migrating and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-31 

breeding shorebirds and hydrating the northern segment of the sub-impoundment. Therefore, a more 

artificial regime is proposed for the Salt Meadow Unit, to maintain perennial habitat for migratory 

birds. This will require an emphasis on normal/flood hydrologic simulations, with drought simulation 

used to accomplish specific habitat tolerance objectives (Bundy 2007). 

Mud Lake Complex (8,099 acres, two units). The Mud Lake Complex retains the highest acreage of 

upland/shrub habitat (eastern boundary) and riparian habitat along the northern boundary 

(immediately adjacent to the Rainbow inlet canal). Unfortunately, wetland habitat within this 

complex is subject to extreme sediment transport from the Bear River, and is subject to unregulated 

carp movement. Nearly 90 years of sediment deposition has led to poor germination substrate for 

most wetland plants, which is further exacerbated by carp movement into, activity within, and the 

associated turbidity throughout the unit (See Chapter 4, Invasive Species). The Merkley Lake Unit 

retains a proportionally high acreage of upland/shrub habitat but the lake itself suffers from equally 

challenging water quality issues (Bundy 2007). 

Mud Lake and Bear Lake proper are operated by PacifiCorp as one unit in terms of water storage. 

Mud Lake serves as the turning basin for the entire Bear River system, which has led to high 

quantities of sediment entering the unit over time. Because it serves as a storage basin for irrigation 

use in the lower Bear River, water quantity is not a problem. However, water quality is an issue, and 

there are no easy solutions to meeting the obvious management challenge. The Refuge maintains an 

agreement with PacifiCorp (the primary water rights holder), through which target elevations are set, 

at the Refuge's request, to meet wildlife requirements. Unfortunately, this is not a solution toward 

solving the habitat quality issues. Over the past several years, a minimum elevation (app. 5,920' 

UP&L datum) has been stabilized by April 1 and maintained to ensure hydration in the Refuge’s 

historic white-faced ibis colony. During the previous four drought years (2003-2007), this was 

desirable in sharing the burden with the rest of the system. Coincidently, it was discovered during 

this period that desiccation led to annual plant establishment on the sediment-laden mud flats, which 

has led to increased fall migration use when water levels are returned to the unit (Bundy 2007). 

Sediment deposition and widespread carp infestation have dramatically reduced habitat quality 

within the 8,017 acre Mud Lake Unit, but surprisingly, several species have adapted to these 

conditions and preferentially select the Mud Lake Unit to fulfill certain life history events. For 

example, the wide-open water areas provide ideal protection for molting birds, the unit’s large size 

provides isolation for colonial nesting waterbirds, and carp provide an ideal food source for 

piscivorous species. Perennial emergent hemi-marsh quality is difficult to maintain in the Mud Lake 

Unit; however, facilitated drawdown results in a moist-soil management response. This has led to a 

change in management philosophy. The degraded substrate is desirable to annual plant communities 

and is also advantageous in concentrating carp for piscivorous bird use. Therefore, it appears that 

normal/drought simulations will be the more appropriate management strategy for the Mud Lake 

Unit, while working within the constraints of irrigation storage demands and flood abatement 

purposes within the Bear River system (Bundy 2007). 

Water supply in the 82-acre Merkley Lake Unit primarily comes in the form of geothermal 

discharge from the adjacent hot springs in the mountain range to the east. Additionally, carp have 

infested the unit (presumably following a flood period in Mud Lake) which has led to few 

management options to restore quality habitat for wildlife. The unit is hydrologically disconnected 

from the rest of the Refuge, but does serve a minimal molting/migration function during certain 

years. Trumpeter swan pairs have been observed using the unit during molt and when displaced from 

other portions of the Refuge, thus, there is some benefit to retaining the unit. Lack of management 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-32 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

capabilities has led to custodial maintenance, using the existing geothermal groundwater supply to 

maintain the open water wetland on Merkley Lake (Bundy 2007). 

Dingle Marsh 

Tributaries

Three major tributaries 

(all on the west side of 

the Bear Lake Valley) 

feed Mud Lake and the 

Dingle Marsh, now part 

of Bear Lake NWR: 

from north to south, 

Paris Creek, 

Bloomington Creek, 

and St. Charles Creek. 

St. Charles Creek is a 

perennial stream, while 

Paris Creek and 

Bloomington Creek are 

seasonal streams. 

However, during 

drought cycles and low 

precipitation years all of 

these streams seasonally 

dry up, or are diverted for irrigation purposes (Palacios et al. 2007a). From late July thorough midApril, total tributary flows into Mud Lake are low, between 100-200 cubic feet/second. Thereafter, 

flows increase with spring snowmelt. The first week of June typically has the highest rates of runoff 

and then falls off rapidly over the next seven weeks. In an average year, streamflow of St. Charles 

Creek during the spring runoff period is approximately 130 cubic feet/second (Lamarra et al. 1986). 

In 2004, one of the driest years in this watershed, streamflow during the spring runoff period was 

39.9 cubic feet/second, while in 1997, a wet year, streamflow was 179.0 cubic feet/second (USGS 

2006). 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Thomas Fork Watershed

The Thomas Fork is a fourth order tributary to the Bear River that drains the 150,100-acre Thomas 

Fork watershed. The Thomas Fork Watershed is a part of the Central Bear River Watershed, the 

smallest watershed in the Bear River Basin, draining 523,800 acres. On its 45-mile northward 

journey through the open sagebrush valleys of this watershed, the Bear River drops just under 200 

feet (BRWIS 2010). The main tributaries of the Thomas Fork in Idaho are Preuss, Dry, and Raymond 

Canyon Creeks. Diversions exist on all these streams preventing water from reaching the main stem 

of the Thomas Fork except during spring runoff (USFS 2001). 

Water Management

The existing riparian/marsh complex on the Thomas Fork Unit historically expanded and receded 

according to snowpack in the adjacent mountain ranges and subsequent flows in both the Bear River 

and Thomas Fork Creek. In periods of high snowmelt, the Bear River would exceed its banks and flood 

Figure 3.3. Bunn Lake levee construction, March 2006. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-33 

lands within the Thomas Fork Unit. Conversely, in low flow periods, wetlands would become 

desiccated following flow and subsequent transfer to the River (Bundy 2007). These processes were 

instrumental in developing the proportional habitat coverage existing at present and the current 

hydrologic periodicity (when supplemented with refuge water rights) is conducive to continuing this 

regime. 

The unit can be further divided into two management units; the Center Unit and Thomas Fork Creek.

Thomas Fork Creek (2.75 miles) streamflow patterns are essentially the same as occurred 

historically until the irrigation season begins around the 1st of May. This allows for the natural 

hydrologic periodicity to function from roughly September 30 until May 1 when irrigators begin 

flooding agricultural fields. The Refuge maintains approximately 500 shares in the Thomas Fork 

Irrigation Company which allows the Refuge to artificially maintain both wetland levels and instream 

flow during critical late spring/early summer months necessary to support spawning by Bear River 

Bonneville cutthroat trout, as well as nesting and brood-rearing by a wide variety of nesting and 

migratory, wetland and riparian dependent wildlife species (Bundy 2007). 

During the irrigation season, spring flows subside rapidly, depleting wetland acreage during a period 

when waterbirds need it the most. Water rights within the Thomas Fork Irrigation Company are 

usually adequate to maintain desirable levels during summer months, that when combined with levee 

construction at the south end of the 335 acre Center Unit, allow for simulation of various elements 

of the natural hydrology (Bundy 2007). Mimicking these natural seasonal variations provides an 

opportunity to use some of the seasonal allocation to supplement instream flow, either by direct use 

of the water right during simulated drought periods, or by associated wetland groundwater discharge 

during simulated flood periods (Bundy 2007). Map 10 (below) shows water management 

infrastructure on the Thomas Fork Unit. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Oxford Slough is considered part of the Middle Bear Watershed, which includes all land that drains 

to the Bear River from below Alexander Dam in Idaho to Cutler Dam in Utah. Oxford Reservoir, just 

north of Oxford Slough, is a major waterbody of the watershed (BRWIS 2010). 

The Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) was acquired to protect remaining portions 

of Oxford Slough, a natural catchment for runoff from the adjacent mountain ranges to the west. 

Oxford Slough is located on the northern end of the Cache Valley approximately 6 miles southeast of 

Red Rock Pass, the division between the Bear River drainage to the south and the Snake River 

Drainage to the north. The Slough sits in a large wetland basin that spans from the Bannock Range 

on the west to the Portneuf Range on the east. The primary source of water for Oxford Slough is 

Swan Lake, which lies about 2 miles north of the slough. The sources of Swan Lake water are 

drainages from two mountain ranges: the Bannock range to the west and the Bear River range to the 

east. Secondary sources of water for Oxford Slough are Davis, Michael, and unnamed creeks 

draining off Oxford Ridge to the west. Oxford Slough is perched above, and is the source of water 

for Deep Creek, which drains south from the slough into the Bear River (Jankovsky-Jones 1997). 

While historic records were not available for the Oxford Slough area, basin geomorphology and 

associated streamflow would suggest a widespread flood scenario, followed by a flowthrough system 

during the remainder of the year. Heavy spring flows from Oxford Creek, northwest of the WPA, and 

Stockton Creek, spilling from the north, would have exceeded Deep Creek’s outlet capacity, likely 

resulting in flooding during spring runoff in most years. As flows subsided during the summer, it is 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-34 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

assumed that streamflow would maintain the basin and flow through to the Deep Creek outlet. Thus 

in most years, the Slough is assumed to have been semi-permanently to permanently flooded, with 

relatively little fluctuation in levels throughout the year. The palustrine emergent marsh complex 

likely covered most of the present valley seasonally. Oxford Slough probably did not become 

desiccated except during extreme drought conditions. 

Land use changes and associated increasing demands on limited water resources have dramatically 

altered flow patterns and extent of Oxford Slough. Land use demands and over-appropriated water 

rights result in virtually no semblance of a natural hydrologic periodicity. The slough is mostly 

dependent on runoff and irrigation return flows from the Oxford Creek Ditch Company; annual 

streamflow in Oxford Creek and surrounding tributaries is insufficient to support wetland habitat 

during critical summer months. The historic palustrine emergent marsh complex has been reduced to 

a fraction of its former size and becomes desiccated much more rapidly than the historic hydrologic 

regime would have allowed (Bundy 2007). Further, demands on water often result in complete 

desiccation of the 580 acre Oxford Slough system by mid to late summer, when fledgling waterbirds 

depend on the wetlands. The current situation necessitates seeking alternative solutions to making the 

most of the limited water currently available. It is also necessary to evaluate the need for agricultural 

and meadow hay water rights, which the WPA retains through the Oxford Creek Irrigation District, 

and evaluate mechanisms to develop these rights for wetland storage/wildlife purposes (Bundy 

2007). Map 10 shows water management infrastructure on the Oxford Slough WPA. 
Hydrology

Thomas Fork

Etcheverry Ditch

Raymond Canal

09 10

04 03

11

02

08

24

05

25

13

Idaho Wyoming

Streams and Creeks

Canals and Ditches

Fish Ladder

UTM ZONE 12N

NAD 83

Map 10.

Legend

Water Control Structures

Dams

Irrigation Pipe

Dikes

Acquired Refuge Land

Oxford Slough WPA

1:45,000

Thomas Fork Unit

1:24,000

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.25 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.15 0.3 0.6

Kilometers

Swan

Lake

Slough

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-35
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-36 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-37 

Floods 

The probability of flooding in Idaho occurs generally during the spring snowmelt, especially in April 

and May. Small streams feeding Bear Lake, Mud Lake, and the Dingle Marsh may experience 

flooding during years of high mountain precipitation or rapid snowmelt. Rapid snowmelt and 

associated runoff can increase silt-loads and turbidity, which can persist into the summer (Palacios et 

al. 2007a). 

Flooding of Bear Lake itself is not an issue. PacifiCorp’s regulation of water levels is stipulated to 

remain at or below flood stage. To accomplish this PacifiCorp has established a late winter lake 

target elevation of 5,916 to 5,920 feet to assist in spring flood mitigation, leaving a buffer of 5.56 feet 

or 390,000 acre-feet for basin flood control each year at the typical elevation of 5,918 feet. The Utah 

Comprehensive Emergency Management team (2000) has not identified any areas of large flood 

potential adjacent to Bear Lake that are not associated with the Bear River (Palacios et al. 2007a). 

In 1993 major flooding occurred from the headwaters of the Bear River in Wyoming and Idaho all 

the way to the Great Salt Lake in Utah. In May a large spring storm dumped 8 inches of wet snow 

and rain in the Bear Lake watershed. Preceded by several weeks of cool wet weather, the saturated 

soils around UP&L’s structure between the refuge marsh and Bear Lake failed and the entire 60 foot 

wooden structure was washed out, dumping thousands of acre feet of water and tons of silt into Bear 

Lake. This event essentially drained over 80 percent of the Refuge’s 13,200-acre Mud Lake and West 

Canal units in a 24-hour period. The water also washed away the approaches to the county bridge 

that provided access to North Beach State Park and the east side of Bear Lake. The original causeway 

channel was 60-80 feet wide. The washout moved 3,900 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water through 

this opening at its peak, eroding the banks severely and increasing the width of the channel to 200-

300 feet (Gagstetter and Mesner 2006). 

The Rainbow Inlet Canal was flowing around 2,000 cfs of Bear River runoff at this time, adding to 

the problem. While 3,900 cfs roared through the failed causeway, the Lifton pumping facility was 

running wide open, moving 5,900 cfs of water through it and into the Bear Lake. An estimated 

25,000 to 30,000 acre-feet of water drained from Mud Lake and with it thousands of tons of silt 

washed into Bear Lake. The high rates of flow were due to the 14.2 foot gradient difference between 

Mud Lake (5,921.54 feet) and Bear Lake (5,907.34 feet). 

Flooding impacts downstream were severe. Shoreline flooding on the Great Salt Lake caused an 

estimated $240 million in damages to Interstate 80, mineral industries, railway systems, sewage 

treatment plants, wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and public and private property (UDWR 2010). 

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry 

The topography of Bear Lake NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA are all very 

similar because they are situated in relatively flat valleys shaped by the dynamics and erosive ability 

of various large and small water courses. Bear Lake NWR has very little noticeable difference in 

elevation throughout the majority of its extent, and generally slopes very gently downward from 

north to south. Although the Refuge units are lowland marshy areas, they are surrounded by the high, 

rugged mountain ranges. The eastern edge of Bear Lake NWR partially extends up the steep slope of 

Merkley Mountain. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-38 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

The main portion of the Thomas Fork Unit is very flat, but slopes slowly upward about 20 feet at its 

western boundary. The Oxford Slough WPA is generally level but has a perceptible slope, higher in 

the northern portion of the unit and inclining downward to the south. Within these mostly flat units, 

variations in water depth and soil type exist to create a variety of habitats favorable to a wide range 

of wildlife. 

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology 

3.4.1 Bear River Watershed 

The Bear River Watershed includes both the northwestern section of the Basin and Range 

Physiographic Province, and the Bear Lake and Overthrust sections of the Middle Rocky Mountain 

Province (MRMP). The Basin and Range Province is characterized by uplifted block-faulted 

mountain ranges and down-dropped basin valleys created by extensional tectonism initiated during 

the last 10 to 20 million years (IDDEQ 2007; USDA/NRCS 2010). In Bear Lake County, these 

features form a series of gently sloping terraces and alluvial fans along steep uplands and mountain 

slopes. The mountain ranges are roughly parallel and trend north to northwest. The Bear River Range 

is part of an older thrust-fault complex related to formation of the Rocky Mountains. The range has 

since been block-faulted as part of the Basin and Range Province (USDA/NRCS 2010). The eastern 

part of the county, including the Thomas Fork Unit, is in the Middle Rocky Mountains Province, 

characterized by low-angle thrust faults and cyclic folding. The Preuss Range and Bear Lake Plateau, 

to the east of Bear Lake NWR, formed in a series of north-trending anticline and syncline folds that 

are part of the Rocky Mountains overthrust (compressional folding and faulting) (USDA/NRCS 

2010). 

3.4.2 Bear Lake NWR 

Bear Lake NWR, at elevation 5,925 feet, is part of the Bear Lake Basin (Valley), bordered on the 

west by the Bear River Range (part of the Wasatch Range), and on the east by the Bear Lake Plateau 

and the Merkley Mountains. Prominent features of the Bear River Range include Paris Peak (9,573 

feet), Bloomington Peak (9,314 feet), and Swan Peak (9,081 feet). Alluvial fans and small flood 

plains soften the grade at the base of the range (BRC 1983). 

Although the Bear Lake Valley lies within the Basin and Range Province, it is not a typical “basin 

and range” structure, but rather it is a graben (a basin formed by an elongate block of rock downdropped between roughly parallel faults). The elongated north-south trending basin lies between two 

active fault systems at the boundary between the Basin and Range Province and the Colorado 

Plateau. The Bear Lake graben is about 5 miles long and 4.3-8.6 miles wide, and extends across the 

Utah-Idaho border (Palacios et al. 2007b). 

The overall structure of the basin is that of an eastward-tilting half graben, controlled by a master 

normal fault along the east margin of Bear Lake (Colman 2006). This fault, the East Bear Lake Fault, 

is a high-angle normal fault with mostly vertical slip, where a mountain block moves upward relative 

to an adjacent downward-moving valley block. With a total vertical displacement of nearly 10,000 

feet (Link and Phoenix 1996), the East Bear Lake Fault is the dominant geologic feature that created 

the scenery and topography of the area. The down dropped (west) side of the fault is the deep 

sediment-filled basin that contains Bear Lake, while the up thrown (east) side of the fault is a steep, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-39 

linear mountain front of exposed bedrock. The highly fractured rock of the steep mountain front 

erodes and is deposited on the narrow, rocky beaches of Bear Lake’s eastern shore (Utah Department 

of Natural Resources 2005). 

Bear Lake, which is approximately 20 miles long and 8 miles wide, covers more than 112 square 

miles and straddles the Idaho-Utah border. It is 208 feet at its deepest point with an average depth of 

94 feet. The north and south shores are natural beach bars. Beyond the bar at the north end is Dingle 

Marsh, whose open-water portion is called Mud Lake and is the home of the Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge (Palacios et al. 2007b). 

Figure 3.4. Panoramic aerial view of Bear Lake, looking to the northwest. 

The steep face of Merkley Ridge, the upthrown east side of the East Bear Lake Fault, is visible on the east shore of 

the lake. The Bear River Range lies to the west of the lake. Mud Lake and the Dingle Marsh (Bear Lake NWR) lies 

to the north of the lake. Courtesy Dr. William Bowen, Idaho Atlas of Panoramic Aerial Images, 2006 

(http://130.166.124.2/idaho_panorama_atlas/index.html). 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-40 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.4.3 The Thomas Fork Unit 

Located in the Thomas Fork Valley at the border of Wyoming and Idaho, this narrow valley runs 

north to south and is bordered on the east by the Sublette Range (highest point is Wyoming Peak at 

11,363 feet), on the north by the Gannet Hills, and on the west by Sheep Creek Hills (6,506 feet) and 

the Preuss Range with Meade Peak its highest point at 9,957 feet (USFS 2001). 

The Thomas Fork Unit occurs in an area midway between the Middle Rocky Mountain Province 

(MRMP) and Basin and Range Provinces. The mountains around the valley are representative of the 

overthrust’s folds and faults, while the valley itself is characteristic of the Basin and Range’s downthrown blocks (USFS 2001). A down-thrown block is the side of a fault that appears to have moved 

downward relative to the other side. 

3.4.4 Oxford Slough WPA 

Oxford Slough WPA lies in the Cache Valley of Idaho-Utah, at the foot of Oxford Peak (9,282 feet), 

immediately to the west. The northern part of the Cache Valley is surrounded by three mountain 

ranges. The Bear River range comprises the mountainous, eastern edge of the Cache Valley with 

most of its tributaries flowing west into the lower elevations of the basin within Cache Valley. The 

crest of this range lies about 20 miles to the east of Oxford Slough WPA. The Portneuf Mountain 

Range lies to the north of the Cache valley with Bear River entering Cache Valley through a narrow 

canyon between the Portneuf Range and the Bear River Range. The northwestern edge of the Cache 

Valley is bounded by the Bannock Range, which lies about 15 miles northwest of Oxford Slough. 

Elevations in northern Cache Valley range from 9,328 to 4,434 feet where the Bear River enters 

Utah. The elevation difference, slope, and southwest aspect allows the subbasin to have two runoff 

periods, a low valley runoff in April and May and a highland runoff in June and July (IDDEQ 2006). 

Oxford Creek is one of the many streams that flow into the valley to create the Oxford Slough, which 

acts as a natural catchment for runoff from the mountains to the west. It drains into Deep Creek, 

which flows south to meet the Bear River (IDDEQ 2008). 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-41 

Figure 3.5. The Cache Valley of Utah-Idaho looking north. Oxford Peak, the Twin Lake 

Reservoir and Oxford Slough are visible in the left center of the view. The Bear River Range 

and Bear Lake are to the west. 

Courtesy Dr. William Bowen, Idaho Atlas of Panoramic Aerial Images, 2006 

(http://130.166.124.2/idaho_panorama_atlas/index.html). 

Geologic History 

For roughly 500 million years, during much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods, the Bear Lake 

Basin was inundated by an inland sea. This sea would retreat and then advance, leaving limestone 

and sandstone deposits scattered around the valley. Marine deposits from the Permian period created 

the Phosphoria Formation, centered in southeast Idaho, but extending into northeastern Nevada, 

northern Utah, western Wyoming, and southwestern Montana. This formation contains both the 

thickest and richest phosphate deposits in the western United States, and production of phosphorus 

and its byproducts (such as fertilizer) contributes significantly to Idaho’s economy. While phosphaterich water may have originated and upwelled from deeper ocean waters, phosphate-rich sediment 

accumulated, was reworked and deposited as sediment in the relatively shallow waters of an 

embayment at the edge of the continental shelf (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2000). 

This abruptly changed during the Laramide Revolution some 70 million years ago, when the land 

experienced violent earthquakes that buckled the surface and forced the sea bottom upward to 20,000 

feet. Sea bottom limestone was now in direct contact to quartzite layers that had been formed 

millions of years earlier (Parson 1996 in Palacios et al. 2007b). This period created the present-day 

landscape of the Bear Lake Valley, with evidence of the over thrusting evident along the cliffs 

surrounding the basin. These forces continue to shape the land today. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-42 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Bear Lake NWR is located in the Idaho-Wyoming-Utah Overthrust belt, which extends from the 

Snake River Plain to near Salt Lake City and is part of the Cordilleran Foreland thrust belt that 

extends from Alaska to Mexico. Folding and thrusting occurred during the late Jurassic to early 

Cretaceous, when movement began on the Paris Thrust, the westernmost thrust plate. Compressional 

tectonics ended in the Cretaceous Period. Subsequently, the area underwent a period of extensional 

tectonics in the Miocene Epoch, during which high-angle normal faults cut across the older rocks and 

Mesozoic folds and thrusts. These large and extensive block fault systems formed the north-trending 

ranges and valleys of the Basin and Range province. 

The major thrust plates in the Bear Lake area is the Paris Overthrust, containing the Bear River 

Range on the west of the Bear Lake Valley, and the Meade Overthrust, containing the mountains of 

the Preuss and Aspen Ranges to the northeast of the Bear Lake Valley (IDDEQ 2007). The Bear 

River Range contains Lower Paleozoic and Late Proterozoic rocks of the Paris thrust plate. The Paris 

thrust extends along the east side of the Bear River Range and places these older rocks over younger 

Paleozoic rocks of the Meade thrust plate. The Meade thrust plate contains the rich phosphate 

deposits of the Permian Phosphoria Formation (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2000). 

Geologic History of the Bear River

Historically, the Bear River flowed to the north and was a tributary of the Snake River. About 

140,000 years ago, lava flows near present-day Soda Springs, Idaho blocked the Bear River channel 

and diverted the river to the south into the Great Basin. Erosion of the lava dam probably allowed the 

Bear River to eventually drain oceanward again; however, about 35,000 years ago, another volcanic 

debris slide cut off this northerly route and deflected the river to the south through present day Soda 

Springs and into the Great Basin instead of westward toward present day Pocatello, resulting in its 

current almost circular route to the Great Salt Lake. 

Bear River flows into the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville (which at its maximum extent covered an area 

12 times the size of the Great Salt Lake) greatly increased the ancient lake and contributed to the 

causes of the Bonneville Flood 14,500 years ago. With the increased pressure of waters from the 

Bear River, failure of the natural dam at Red Rock Pass near Downey, Idaho occurred. Lake 

Bonneville broke free, spilling northward through the Snake River Plain at the rate of 935,000 cubic 

yards of water per second and almost completely emptying the lake in about 20 days. The remnant of 

this ancient lake is the current day Great Salt Lake in Utah (Link and Phoenix 1996). 

The Bear River has, on multiple occasions, connected to the Bear Lake during high water periods. 

Estimates of Bear Lake water levels during the last 30,000 years indicate that the Bear River has 

flowed intermittently into Bear Lake. Dominant sediments in cores indicated that Bear River water 

flowed into Bear Lake from 30,000-17,000; from 14,000-11,000; and from 9,000-8,000 years ago 

(Rosenbaum 2004). 

Geologic History of Bear Lake 

Approximately 10 million years ago, the Bear Lake Basin was formed through the crustal extension 

and subsequent faulting of the area, when the East Bear Lake Fault began dropping the valley 

downward and tilting it eastward with respect to the Bear Lake plateau. 

The age of Bear Lake itself is uncertain, but a 1975 seismic study revealed 380 m of lake sediments 

above bedrock along the eastern side of Bear Lake (Skeen 1975). This trend was confirmed in an 

acoustic survey completed by the USGS in 1997. Their radiocarbon dates indicated a sedimentation 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-43 

rate varying from 0.85 mm/yr on the east side to 0.215 mm/yr on the west side of the lake. At that 

rate, 380 meters (1,247 feet) of lake sediment means the lake is at least 455,000 years old (USGS 

2001a). Using land-based deep seismic data, Evans et al. (2003) estimated that lacustrine sediments 

in the Bear Lake basin are approximately 3 km deep. Assuming this 3 km sediment thickness and the 

sedimentation rate of 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) per 1,000 years for the 2000 drill core (Colman et al., in 

press) near the center of the present lake, then the basin and its oldest sediments are at least 6 million 

years old (Colman 2006). 

Unlike pluvial lakes Thatcher and Bonneville, which formed in closed basins and were therefore 

regulated by climatic fluctuations, the early conditions within the Bear Lake Valley remained open, 

with a northward drainage along the Bear River. The Bear River flowed into Bear Lake, creating 

beaches and other shoreline features (e.g., terraces) well above today’s lake level. The town of 

Garden City is just above one of these terraces, formed about 7,700-8,200 years ago (USGS 2001b). 

At times of high water, Bear Lake’s length increased from 30 km (about 18 miles) to 82 km (51 

miles), almost all to the north. The higher lake levels have been estimated at 25 feet above today’s 

level (Williams et al. 1962), but USGS surveys in 1998-1999 suggested that the lake may have 

reached as high as 75 feet above present levels. These very high levels may have occurred early on, 

about 130,000-600,000 years ago (USGS 2001b). 

Bear Lake expanded again 28,000 years ago, when earthquakes triggered landslides that dammed the 

north end of the valley near present-day Georgetown, Idaho, blocking drainage of the Bear River to 

the north. Water from the Bear River flooded the valley (USGS 2001a). Early conditions within the 

lake indicated a widespread bay and marsh ecosystem. At its maximum extent, the lake extended as 

far north as Pescadero, Idaho (Palacios et al. 2007b). Most of the lake was shallow with deeper water 

impounded at the southern end of the valley. (Although prehistoric Lake Bonneville covered much of 

Utah during this period, it never actually connected to Bear Lake but at times was as near as 30 miles 

to the west.) 

Over the last 28,000 years, the major water level fluctuations in the Bear Lake Valley have been the 

result of downcuttings of the northern valley outlet and two periods of faulting within the southern 

Bear Lake Valley. Eventually the river eroded down through the landslide, allowing more and more 

of the lake to drain out, until only an isolated pool of water was left in the deepest basin (USGS 

2001a). 

The lake took its present-day configuration approximately 8,000 years ago, when faulting along the 

east and west shores isolated the lake from its major drainage networks (primarily the Bear River). 

Thereafter, the only water sources entering the lake were from springs, local runoff, and 

precipitation. Tectonic activity lowered the valley differently, resulting in two distinctly different 

wetlands: 1) marshes and shallow bays (historically the Dingle Marsh, now Bear Lake NWR) in the 

northern Bear Lake Valley and, 2) deep Bear Lake to the south (Robertson 1978). 

The Holocene era (10,000 years ago to present) was a time of large fluctuations in water cycles in the 

intermountain west. Drought cycles and disconnection from Bear River waters led to low Bear Lake 

water levels that would have averaged 45 feet lower than historic averages. Similar hydrological 

regimes during this era have been documented from other regions of the west by using tree ring 

analysis (Rosenbaum 2004). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-44 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Geologic Hazards 

The Basin and Range Physiographic Province has been undergoing active tectonic uplift since the 

middle Miocene Age (approximately 10 million years ago). Faults are generally located at the base of 

the ranges and are considered active in a geological sense. In this border area of the Basin and Range 

province, there are faults scattered throughout the mountain areas as well. The return period for 

major earthquake events is between 450 and 5,000 years for these faults. Earthquakes can vary from 

those not felt to a Modified Mercalli rating of VIII that would be destructive. Major earthquakes have 

occurred in this area during historic time, with at least 43 measurable events recorded between 1880 

and 1983. This active geologic process has been responsible for the uplifting of the mountains and 

consequent maintenance of alluvial fan building processes in the region (USDA/NRCS 2010). 

The Bear Lake basin (graben) developed from fault subsidence that continues today, slowly 

deepening the lake along the eastern side. McCalpin (1993, 2003) reviewed the tectonic history of the 

Bear Lake Basin and showed that the area is seismically active, as evidenced by displaced Holocene 

strata and several historical earthquakes (Colman 2006). The East Bear Lake Fault has experienced 

four to six episodes of normal faulting in the last 40,000 years, the most recent of which occurred 

about 2,500 years ago. The western margin of the graben is largely flexural, but it is also marked by 

normal faults (the West Bear Lake Fault zone), which experienced movement as recently as about 

7,000 years ago (McCalpin 2003 in Colman 2006). The West Bear Lake Fault zone is thought to be 

the source of the November 10, 1884, magnitude 6.3 Bear Lake earthquake (with a Modified 

Mercalli rating of VII), which resulted in considerable damage to structures (Evans et al. 2003 in 

Colman 2006; USDA/NRCS 2010). 

The faults around the lake are still active, but large magnitude earthquakes are relatively infrequent. 

Three quakes of magnitude 7+ on the eastern fault and 2 on the western fault have shifted the valley 

floor by as much as 18.4 feet in the last 6,500 years (USGS 2001a). The most recent earthquake of 

that size was about 2,000 years ago (Palacios et al. 2007b). A severe earthquake along the Bear Lake 

fault would almost certainly trigger landslides in the area. Most of the resulting slides and slumps 

would occur in unconsolidated material along the east shore of the lake. Additionally, long periods of 

shaking caused during earthquake episodes create ground cracking and movement along the 

established fault lines (Kaliser 1972 in Palacios et al. 2007b). 

Both consolidated and unconsolidated materials are frequently subject to failure and slippage on 

slopes. Clear evidence indicates that slides occurred in the past in the Bear Lake area and that today 

there is not complete stability. Old slides around the periphery of the lake are responsible for 

damming the outlet of Bear River and for the rising of the Bear Lake level (Williams 1962 in 

Palacios et al. 2007b). The west side of the lake gives evidence to having slid in several places 

leaving areas of exposed fracturing. The bedrock formations in the area are either inherently weak or 

have been weakened through subsequent earth movements and pressures. The same is true on the 

talus slopes along the east shore of the lake. Cobbles and boulders at the road’s edge, along with dead 

trees on the slope, indicate recent rock movement (Kaliser 1972 in Palacios et al. 2007b). Seiche 

waves generated by landslides or an earthquake in the North and South Eden deltas could potentially 

submerge, with destructive force, the opposite slopes (Kaliser 1972 in Palacios et al. 2007b). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-45 

3.5 Soils 

The valley bottoms on the Bear Lake, Thomas Fork, and Oxford Slough areas are comprised of 

nearly level to gently sloping flood plains and stream terraces that formed in recent alluvial material. 

Bear Lake Valley is a broad alluvial and lacustrine (lake) basin filled with fine- to coarse-grained 

lake and river deposits. The valley sides are comprised of gently sloping to moderately sloping fan 

remnants. The upper fans and lower slopes are covered with Tertiary Age volcanic tuff, sedimentary 

sandstone, limestone, siltstone, and conglomerate. These features grade into steep and very steep hills 

and/or mountains (USDA/NRCS 2010). Percentages of soil types on refuge units are from the NRCS 

Web Soil Survey (USDA/NRCS 2011). 

3.5.1 Bear Lake NWR 

The following soil types cover more than 99 percent of Bear Lake NWR: 

 Dinswamp mucky peat, 0 to 2 percent slopes, found in marshes, 31.5 percent of unit 

 Bloomington mucky silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, found in lakebeds, 20.3 percent of unit 

 Water, 17.7 percent of unit 

 Bear Lake-Bear Lake complex, ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes, found in floodplains, 15.6 

percent of unit 

 Bear Lake-Chesbrook-La Roco complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, found in floodplains, 9.5 

percent of unit 

 Dingle muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes, found in marshes, 4.5 percent of unit 

The Dinswamp, Bloomington, and Dingle soil types are nearly level, very poorly drained, very deep 

soils formed in organic matter over silty alluvium, found on marshes and lakebeds. With high water 

tables, the major use of all three soil types is for wildlife habitat. As noted above (page 21), 

groundwater movement from adjacent mountain ranges historically created a variety of perennial and 

ephemeral habitats around the marsh fringe where heavy, impenetrable clays rise near the surface. 

Water is pushed up at these points, creating relatively stable wetlands. During spring runoff, these 

wetlands would have been flooded, and the heavy clay bottom would have retained this water within 

depressions. Groundwater movement would have maintained the wetlands through high evaporative 

periods in summer. 

Dingle Series

Dingle series soils are very poorly drained; runoff is slow or very slow; and permeability is 

moderately slow. These soils have a water table two feet above the surface (ponded) to 0.5 feet below 

the surface at some time from October to July. Ponding is frequent or occasional for brief to very 

long periods. These soils are used mainly for wildlife habitat. Vegetation is bulrush, sedges, and 

cattails (National Cooperative Soil Survey 2008). Dinswamp soils and Dingle muck are found in 

marshes and composed of herbaceous organic material over mixed silty lacustrine deposits. The 

typical profile of Dinswamp soil is mucky peat to a depth of 12 inches, silty clay loam to 40 inches, 

and fine sandy loam from 40 to 60 inches (page 26). The profile of Dingle muck is muck to 23 

inches, and silt loam from 23 to 60 inches. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-46 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Bear Lake Series

The Bear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly to very poorly drained soils on low terraces and 

bottomlands. They formed in alluvium from lake sediments. Permeability is moderately slow to slow. 

They are poorly to very poorly drained; slow or very slow runoff; moderately slow or slow 

permeability; with frequent, occasional, or rare flooding for brief periods January through June. They 

are used mainly for hayland or meadow pasture. Vegetation is mainly sedges, rushes, cattails, alkali 

cordgrass, inland saltgrass, alkali bluegrass (National Cooperative Soil Survey 2008). Within the 

Bear Lake-Bear Lake complex, ponded soil type, Bear Lake ponded soils have a parent material of 

mixed silty and clayey alluvium and are poorly drained. The seasonal high water table minimum 

depth ranges from soil surface to 10 inches. The typical soil profile is silty clay loam to a depth of 63 

inches. Marshes occur on Bear Lake ponded soils. Bear Lake soils have a parent material of mixed 

silty and clayey alluvium. They are poorly drained. The seasonal high water table minimum depth is 

about 10 to 18 inches. The typical soil profile is slightly decomposed plant material to 2 inches, and 

silty clay loam from 2 to 63 inches (USDA/NRCS 2010). 

Bear Lake-Chesbrook-La Roco complex

The Bear Lake series is described above. The Chesbrook series consists of very deep, poorly drained 

soils formed in silty alluvium on flood plains, stream terraces or lake terraces. They are poorly 

drained, with slow runoff and moderately slow permeability. Occasional or rare flooding occurs for 

brief periods April through June. Chesbrook soils are used for non-irrigated and irrigated pasture. 

The potential natural vegetation is sedges and reeds (National Cooperative Soil Survey 2008). 

Chesbrook soils have a parent material of mixed silty alluvium, and are poorly drained, with a 

seasonal high water table minimum depth is about 8 to 25 inches. The typical profile is slightly 

decomposed plant material 0 to 2 inches; and silt loam, 2 to 62 inches (USDA/NRCS 2010). 

The La Roco series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in mixed 

alluvium. La Roco soils are on flood plains and flood plain steps and have slopes of 0 to 2 percent. 

Permeability is moderate. They are somewhat poorly drained, with negligible to low runoff and 

moderate permeability. They are frequently flooded for short durations during April through May in 

most years, and at other times following periods of intense rainfall. They are mainly used for 

cropland, pastureland and hayland. The potential natural vegetation is mainly saltgrass, bluegrasses, 

cheatgrasses, and in places rabbitbrush, shrubby cinquefoil, bluebunch wheatgrass, western 

wheatgrass, sedges, rushes, giant wildrye, alkali cordgrass, willow, basin big sagebrush, threetip 

sagebrush, and/or forbs (National Cooperative Soil Survey 2008). They have a parent material of 

mixed alluvium over sandy and gravelly alluvium, and are somewhat poorly drained. Dry meadows 

are typically found on this soil type. The typical soil profile is silty clay loam, 0 to 20 inches; silt 

loam, 20 to 42 inches; fine sandy loam, 42 to 49 inches; very fine sandy loam, 49 to 59 inches; and 

extremely gravelly loamy sand, 59 to 62 inches (USDA/NRCS 2010). 

Bloomington Series

The Bloomington series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in lacustrine 

sediments. These soils are found on lakebeds and are comprised of lacustrine deposits. They are very 

poorly drained; runoff is slow or very slow; permeability is moderately slow. These soils have a 

water table one foot above the surface (ponded) to 10 inches below the surface at some time from 

October to July. Ponding is frequent to occasional for brief to very long periods. The primary use is 

for wildlife habitat. Vegetation is Baltic rush, bluejoint reedgrass, and sedges (National Cooperative 

Soil Survey 2008). The typical soil profile of Bloomington mucky silt loam is muck and mucky silt 

loam to 10 inches, silty clay loam from 10 to 48 inches, and silt loam from 48 to 60 inches 

(NRCS/USDA 2010). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-47 

Other soil types are found on 1 percent or less of the Refuge. Soils found on steeper slopes on the 

east side of the Refuge include Cedarhill gravelly silt loam, dry, 10 to 40 percent slopes, 1.0 percent 

of unit; Buist gravelly silt loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes, 0.3 percent of unit; Mumford-Sprollow 

complex, dry, 50 to 75 percent slopes, 0.1 percent of unit; and Wursten silt loam, dry, 4 to 12 percent 

slopes, 0.1 percent of unit. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The following soil types cover more than 97 percent of the Thomas Fork Unit: 

 Bear Lake-Bear Lake, ponded complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, 51.1 percent 

 Bear Lake-Chesbrook-La Roco complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, 24.2 percent of unit 

 Lago-Bear Lake complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, 21.9 percent of unit 

Bear Lake and Lago soils are nearly level, somewhat poorly to very poorly drained, very deep soils 

formed in mixed silty alluvium; on flood plains (Bear Lake) and low stream terraces (Lago). Their 

major uses are for pastureland, hayland, irrigated grain, and wetland wildlife habitat. 

The Lago series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in silty alluvium. They 

occur on flood plains, drainageways, and floodplain steps. Runoff is slow and permeability is 

moderately slow. Lago soils are rarely to occasionally flooded for brief periods from April through 

June in most years, and at other times following periods of intense rainfall. Lago soils are used for 

non-irrigated cropland and rangeland. Typical crops consist of grass hay. The current vegetation is 

annual bluegrass and clovers (National Cooperative Soil Survey 2008). The typical Lago soil profile 

is silt loam to 19 inches, silty clay loam from 19 to 38 inches, silt loam from 38 to55 inches, and fine 

sandy loam from 55 to 60 inches. The Bear Lake soil profile is slightly decomposed plant material 

from 0 to2 inches and silty clay loam from 2 to 63 inches. Typical plant associations on this soil type 

are wet and dry meadows. Characteristics of the other major soil types are described under Bear Lake 

NWR above (NRCS/USDA 2010). 

Small amounts of Merkley silt loam (1.4 percent of unit); Ovidcreek silt loam (0.6 percent of unit); 

Bezzant gravelly silt loam (0.3 percent of unit); and Lago silt loam (0.5 percent of unit) also occur on 

the unit.

Oxford Slough WPA 

The following soil types cover approximately 99 percent the Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Bear Lake-Downata complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, 41.5 percent of unit 

 Bear Lake-Downata-Thatcherflats complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, 25.5 percent of unit 

 Picabo-Thatcherflats complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, 22.9 percent of unit 

 Oxford-Banida complex, 4 to 12 percent slopes, 4.8 percent of unit 

 Oxford-Banida complex, 2 to 4 percent slopes, 4.1 percent of unit 

Soil descriptions below are from the National Cooperative Soil Survey (2008). The Bear Lake series 

is described above. The Downata series consists of very deep, poorly and very poorly drained soils 

that formed in silty alluvium derived from mixed sources. Permeability is moderately slow. These 

soils are on flood plains and low stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 1 percent. They are poorly to 

very poorly drained; runoff is very slow to ponded; permeability is moderately slow. These soils are 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-48 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

frequently flooded and/or ponded from January through June for brief periods of three to five days. 

They are used mainly for meadow hay and pasture. Most Downata soils have been drained so that 

hay can be harvested. Potential natural vegetation is grasses, sedges, and rushes. 

The Thatcherflats series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in silty alluvium 

on stream terraces. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Permeability is slow. They are moderately well 

drained, with slow runoff and slow permeability. Rarely, flooding for brief periods (March through 

July) occurs. Thatcherflats soils are used for nonirrigated and irrigated pasture. The potential natural 

vegetation is greasewood and other vegetation adapted to saline soils. 

The Picabo series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in mixed 

alluvium. Picabo soils are on stream terraces and flood plains and have slopes of 0 to 2 percent. They 

are somewhat poorly drained and moderately permeable. The water table is at 2 to 4 feet from 

October to May. They are mainly used for cropland and pastureland. Natural vegetation includes 

shrubby cinquefoil, wildrose, redtop, saltgrass, and sedges. 

The Oxford series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils that formed in lacustrine 

deposits and alluvium derived from mixed sources. Oxford soils are on dissected lake terraces. They 

are moderately well drained, with medium to very high surface runoff and very slow permeability 

(low or moderately low saturated hydraulic conductivity). Oxford soils are used dominantly for 

dryland cropping. Natural vegetation is assumed to have been basin big sagebrush, bluebunch 

wheatgrass, and sod-forming grasses. 

Small amounts of Parleys silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (0.3 percent of unit) and Yeates HollowManila-Softback complex, 12 to 40 percent slopes (0.9 percent of unit) also occur on the WPA. 

3.6 Fire 

The fire season for the State of Idaho runs from May 15 to October 20. However, the season may 

vary according to local conditions and fire is possible as early as late February. Generally, spring 

moisture reduces the fire potential early in the season. Fall rains, followed by snowfall in November, 

end the fire season. 

The Bear Lake Valley experiences infrequent wild land fires due to its high elevation, cool 

temperatures, high relative humidity, and abundance of water and wetlands. The valley floor is a 

fairly benign fire environment with flat topography and fuel types of primary Type III bulrush 

emergents and short grass wet meadows (hayed) Type I (see section on fire models below). There are 

small areas of grassland shrub fuel types as well. Fires are caused by human activity and by spring 

and summer thunderstorms. Most of these are small and quickly burn themselves out in the wetland 

vegetation. Especially during drought years, fires in surrounding foothills (grassland, sage-steppe, 

and forests) off-refuge can be significant at times (August-September), requiring considerable 

resources to control. 

We assume that the historic role of fire on Oxford Slough WPA is very similar to the Bear Lake area 

except that the elevation of the Preston/Oxford area is some 1,300 feet lower, with drier conditions 

during the summer months. Historically, and continuing to the present day, farmers and ranchers 

have periodically burned some of the emergent sloughs and ditches during the spring to improve 

water movement to their lands. Summer lightning strikes and human caused fires (e.g., fires along the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-49 

Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way on the east side of Oxford Slough WPA) occurs infrequently, 

but can result in significant grassland and shrub fires (100-1,000 acres in size) in and around Oxford 

Slough WPA. 

3.6.1 Pre-settlement fire history 

Houston (1973 as cited in Wright and Bailey 1982) stated that fire return intervals in mountain big 

sage brush (as found at Grays Lake, Bear Lake and Oxford Slough) in Yellowstone National Park 

was 20 to 25 years. Since these refuges are lower in elevation than the Park, the fire return interval 

was probably a little shorter, somewhere between two to 25 years. 

3.6.2 Post-settlement fire history 

Not much is known about fire history at Bear Lake NWR prior to refuge establishment, except that 

ranchers settling in the valley during the late 1860s used spring burns through marsh and grassland 

vegetation to improve forage for their livestock. At times, fall fires set by ranchers created problems 

by igniting peat areas in the wetlands and burning meadows and stacked hay.

The fire history of Bear Lake NWR between 1971and 2001 was one of infrequent wild land fires. 

Most of these were human caused or lightning caused. Spring thunderstorms sometimes will ignite 

small marsh fires within the Refuge in dead emergent vegetation prior to June green regrowth. These 

fires are small in size (<200 acres) and quickly burn themselves out against water channels or green 

vegetation. Fires number from none in wet years to three to four in drier years, particularly during 

springs with more thunder cell activity. 

Wild land fires in mid- to late-summer can grow quickly in the steep, brushy terrain of the Merkley 

Ridge area along the southeast side of the Refuge. With a wind, fires can move quickly off-refuge on 

to BLM, State, or private range lands, sweeping to the top of Merkley Ridge. The area has burned 

several times in the past at various locations along the county road. There have been approximately 

six to eight eastside fires over the past 15 years. During drought years there have been two to three of 

these types of fires along the East County Road. Many of these fires appear to have been human 

caused (both deliberately set along the county road, and accidental, caused by a careless smoker), 

while some were started by lightning. Most were well under 2,000 acres in size overall, and refuge 

lands burned was less than 200 acres. 

3.6.3 Prescribed fire history 

The typical valley fire season is considered to be May 15 through October. Prior to 1990 little 

planned burning was done. Between 1988 and 1990 several small controlled burns were initiated in 

bulrush strands by the Complex Biologist. These burns were conducted in order to gather data from 

fire effects on invertebrate populations and on water chemistry. A total of nine burns were conducted 

and none was larger than 1⁄4 acre. 

Since 1992, the Refuge has had a fairly active, but small prescribed burning program. Approximately 

16 prescribed burns have been completed since 1992. Approximately 6-8 percent of the Refuge’s 

emergent habitat is burned each year in early March or October, while the marsh water levels are 

lower and the dead bulrush more exposed. During this time marsh burning is relatively easy with 

snow and ice on meadows and channels acting as the control points. The burn effort usually involves 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-50 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

a total burn acreage of 20-2,140 acres depending on the year. Burn areas are carefully selected with 

the objective of burning expansive dense bulrush areas of the marsh in a patchwork of un-burned 

emergent stands intermixed with burned areas that are immediately flooded with 1-2 feet of water. 

This creates an excellent interspersion of open water and nesting bulrush for waterfowl and other 

marsh wildlife to use. This condition lasts through two growing seasons. The marsh burns are rotated 

to new areas of the marsh needing treatment each year. 

Two prescribed burns have been conducted at Oxford Slough WPA by the FWS since its purchase in 

1985, a 55-acre burn in April 2003 and a 67-acre burn in April 2004. The 2003 burn was conducted 

to control weeds and increase grass vigor, while the 2004 burn was intended to remove residual 

vegetation in dense bulrush areas. 

Bear Lake NWR fuel models and fire risk 

Fuel Models 1 and 3 are those represented on Bear Lake NWR (about 20 percent and 80 percent, 

respectively). If a fire were to burn off an area of the marsh during a dry period, the peat layers of the 

marsh could burn for a long period of time or until the water table rises. 

Table 3.2. Fuel Model Composition Bear Lake NWR 

Fuel Model Percentage 

Fuel Model 1 Drier Grasslands and Hayed Wet Meadow 15% 

Fuel Model 3 Emergent Vegetation and Un-hayed Wet Meadow 65% 

Fuel Model 5 Grassland and Shrub 3% 

Open Water 17% 

(Fuel Model descriptions are taken from Anderson 1982) 

The refuge terrain is flat with the exception of the refuge lands that extend 0.25 mile up the steep 

slopes of Merkley Ridge along the East County Road. Wild land fire in the Refuge’s heavy bulrush 

stands with a strong wind can become very large fires that quickly move across the marsh. The 

marshes numerous open water areas and two large canals create fire control points that limit fire 

movement. 

The wet meadow and grassland areas of the Refuge vary between Type 1 and 3 fuels on flat terrain. 

Many of these wet meadows are hayed and/or grazed to short grass stubble by August. The drier unhayed grasslands along the northwest part of the Refuge have heavy fuels, which have the potential 

for significant wild land fire activity. Roads and private grazed lands adjacent to these areas may 

limit fire movement on or off-refuge. 

A large percentage of the habitat at Bear Lake NWR consists of heavy emergent (primarily bulrush) 

residual cover in the large marsh. This type 3 fuel model burns easily during the early spring (prior to 

green up) and fall periods (after frosts kill the stems). The main marsh area of the Refuge is some 

14,000 acres in size with 3,000 acres of this being open water. The bordering wet meadows areas 

around the edge of the marsh total around 2,500 acres in size and would be classed as Type 1 fuel in 

a hayed condition and Type 3 fuel in an un-hayed condition. The wet meadows consist of Juncus 

spp., Carex spp., and a variety of water tolerant grasses. The Refuge also has some drier habitats of 

grasslands (1,300 acres, Type 1 fuel) and shrub/grassland mixes (300 acres, Type 5 fuel). The drier 

grass species include: saltgrass, alkali sacaton, several species of wheatgrass, and basin wildrye. 

Some of this shrub (sagebrush, greasewood) and grassland habitat is located on the steep slopes of 

Merkley Ridge on the east side of the Refuge. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-51 

Oxford Slough WPA fuel models and fire risk 

Oxford Slough WPA’s main marsh area is some 710 acres size and is primarily bulrush emergents, 

with some cattail (a Type 3 fuel model). The WPA has expansive drier type grasslands with some 

wetlands along its east and southwest regions that are more alkali in nature (saltgrass, alkali sacaton, 

small alkali playas and some taller type grasses). Within this 830 acre area are also scattered patches 

of greasewood and sagebrush patches. These grasslands are primarily Fuel Type 1, grading into Type 

3-5 in some areas of brush and grass. The north end of Oxford Slough WPA is dominated by hilly 

cropland area, 80 acres of DNC planting and irrigated crops along the northwest area of the WPA. 

Croplands total 180 acres. The west side vegetation consists of wet meadow grasslands, some brush, 

areas of reed canary grass, Juncus spp., and other water tolerant grasses. Much of this area is hayed 

each year providing a mix of short and taller cover types. 

Table 3.3. Fuel Model Composition for Oxford Slough WPA 

Fuel Model Percentage 

Fuel Model 1 alkali grasslands: 44% 

Fuel Model 1 hayed wet meadow: 9% 

Fuel Model 3 wetland emergents: 38% 

Cropland: 9% 

The WPA marsh does not have significant amounts of open water control areas and should lightning 

strike the main marsh area in late summer most of the slough would burn off. The Union Pacific 

railroad has a track that runs from north-south along the east boundary of the WPA and train activity 

has caused wild land fires in the past that have moved onto the WPA and burned several hundred 

acres of grasslands on the east side. These types of fires are infrequent. The wet meadow areas along 

the west side are hayed annually under a cooperative farming agreement. The small town of Oxford 

lies is adjacent to the WPA and is considered to be a critical control area to prevent any wild land fire 

movement close to Oxford’s scattered residences and meadow lots. Most of this area is hayed to 

short stubble in July which would reduce flame lengths and rate of spread. 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants 

3.7.1 Bear Lake NWR 

Burch et al. (2004) conducted a study at Bear Lake NWR to ascertain if contaminants from 

agricultural and mining activities in the area might be impacting the habitat and wildlife on the 

Refuge. Three inactive phosphate mine sites were identified that might affect the Refuge: 

Bloomington Canyon Mine, Paris Canyon Mine, and the Hot Springs Mine. Organochlorine 

concentrations in sediment, plants, fish, and bird eggs were not found at levels harmful to aquatic 

resources. No organochlorine compounds (OC) were detected in sediment or plant samples, two OCs 

were detected at low concentrations in fish tissues, and four OCs were detected at low concentrations 

in eggs. Inorganic concentrations were analyzed in sediment, water, invertebrates, fish, and bird eggs. 

As with OCs, bird egg tissue had low levels. However, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, 

manganese, and strontium, were elevated in sediments and exceeded guidelines and/or effects 

thresholds. Concentrations of lead in invertebrates sampled from Paris Creek were within the range 

known to cause dietary effects to fish, and zinc levels in fish tissue were well above what is 

considered to be background levels and exceeded concentrations reported to cause effects in birds 

(Burch et al. 2004). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-52 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

The Hot Springs Mine is a historic phosphate mine that is currently owned by Rhodia, Inc., and is 

located east of the Refuge near the Bear Lake Hot Springs. The original property consisted of 12 

patented lode claims, four unpatented lode claims, and one unpatented mill site. There are two 

locations of adits and tunnels that occur within the mined area. The location of concern is the North 

Lake Area, which lies on Federal Lands. The North Lake Area consists of one adit (the North Lake 

Tunnel) located on the west face of Merkley Mountain, and lies approximately 65 feet up the face of 

the mountain. A waste rock spoil pile lies between the adit and Bear Lake County Road. The adit was 

partially filled in by Rhodia in 2003. At the east end of the adit, there is a 1,200 foot vertical shaft 

that rises to the surface of the east side of the mountain. 

Burch et al. (2004) found that contaminants from the Hot Springs Mine continued to migrate into 

Mud Lake. The Service met with personnel from Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 

Rhodia, Inc., and the Bureau of Land Management to discuss reclamation options. The Hot Springs 

Mine Reclamation Plan was completed in September 2004, and the associated reclamation 

construction was conducted in the fall of 2005. Post reclamation monitoring was not conducted in 

2006 because the fall seeding of the waste rock dump covers didn’t allow for vegetation growth until 

the 2006 season (MWH 2010). 

The Reclamation Plan states that environmental monitoring will be performed once a year for five 

years, initiating the first year after the implementation of the alternative. The first year of post 

reclamation monitoring occurred in 2007, the second year of monitoring was conducted July 17, 

2008, and the third was conducted May 28, 2009. The fourth round of sampling was conducted on 

May 14, 2010 (MWH 2010). The fifth year of monitoring occurred in the summer of 2011, but 

results have not been received to date. 

Over the last four sampling events, surface water has never exceeded either the preliminary riskbased benchmark (PRBB) or the background level for selenium in water (MWH 2010). However, 

sediment sample results for the last four years have been inconsistent. In 2007, one of the two 

sediment samples had a detectable level of selenium at 2.9 mg/kg, which is above the current 

background and preliminary risk-based benchmark level of 2.6 mg/kg dw. However, the other 

sample collected in 2007 was below these benchmarks at 1.4 mg/kg dw. In 2008, no sediment sample 

exceeded the PRBB or the background levels for selenium. In 2009, one sample exceeded these 

selenium benchmarks at 7.1 mg/kg dw. However, the other sample had a selenium level of 1.2 

mg/kg. This year neither of the two sediment samples exceeded the sediment benchmarks. The area 

where sediment samples are collected is immediately down gradient of the North Lake Area 

reclamation and adjacent to Mud Lake. The main road is located between Mud Lake and the North 

Lake Area reclaimed mine dump and serves to block any overland flow of water/sediments into the 

lake. There is no evidence of surface erosion on the reclaimed area and the windblown component of 

tailings transport has been eliminated by the vegetative cap (MWH 2010). 

Based on the 2010 vegetation data at the North Lake Area, the 95 percent upper confidence limit of 

the mean for selenium in vegetation is 17 mg/kg, which is above background (3.0 mg/kg) and the 

preliminary risk-based benchmark (5 mg/kg). In the past the North Lake Area has shown little or no 

selenium in vegetation. In 2010 however, levels of selenium in vegetation in the North Lake Area are 

elevated in three of the five samples (MWH 2010). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-53 

3.8 Air Quality 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDDEQ) monitors air and water quality at several 

locations around the State. Landowners burn irrigation ditches to reduce vegetation that can block 

water flows; sometimes they burn crop residue; and they regularly burn rubbish piles. Both Bear 

Lake and Franklin Counties are subject to temperature inversions when air movement is restricted, so 

poor air quality can be exacerbated at these times. Wildfires can also impact air quality, especially if 

they occur during an inversion. Due to the rural nature of the area, there are many unpaved roads and 

fields that might be laying fallow. High winds can blow dust and dirt from these areas, negatively 

impacting air quality (IDDEQ 2007). 

IDDEQ records for annual emissions of particulates measured in tons per year (TPY) in Bear Lake 

County are as follows: oxides of sulfur: 34 TPY; oxides of nitrogen: 2,103 TPY; ammonia: 361 TPY; 

volatile organic compounds: 2,380 TPY; and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

micrometers or less: 359 TPY. 

Oxford Slough WPA is located in Franklin County, which is in the Idaho portion of the Cache 

Valley. The Utah portion of the Cache Valley contains the city of Logan. The Cache Valley has 

violated the 24-hour particulate matter standards. IDDEQ has air quality monitors in both Franklin 

and Preston, ID, that show the air in the Cache Valley being reasonably consistent throughout. 

Therefore IDDEQ believes that as data are collected, the Franklin and Preston monitors will also 

show a violation of the particulate matter standards. For Franklin County, these data are as follows: 

oxides of sulphur: 57 TPY; oxides of nitrogen: 851 TPY; ammonia; 1,221 TPY; volatile organic 

compounds: 2,290 TPY; and particulate matter: 447 TPY (IDDEQ 2007). 

3.9 Water Quality 

3.9.1 Bear River 

Since 2006, the main stem Bear River has been monitored quarterly at 21 locations as part of a 

collaborative Tri-State monitoring agreement amongst Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho (IDDEQ 2011). 

IDDEQ has divided the Idaho portion of the Bear River Watershed into Management Reaches and 

Receiving Water Reaches (IDDEQ 2006). 

Management Reach 1 extends from the Idaho-Wyoming state line to the Causeway at Bear Lake. 

This Reach is designated as water quality limited for flow, nutrients, and sediment. Coldwater 

aquatic life and salmonid spawning are beneficial uses being affected by water quality. Pollutant 

sources include background loads received from Wyoming. Sheep Creek and Thomas Fork feed into 

this stretch of the reach (see Thomas Fork Unit, below). The Bear River is diverted at Stewart Dam 

into Bear Lake NWR’s marsh and into Bear Lake proper through a causeway. Total phosphorus (TP) 

and total suspended solids (TSS) data at the state line station reveal that the river has exceeded the 

TP target 30 percent of the time and the TSS target 33 percent of the time. An increase in TP loading 

occurs up to Stewart Dam, however, for the entire reach TP decreased due to the filtering action of 

the wetland vegetation in Bear Lake NWR’s marsh. During low basin runoff the excess load of TP is 

22 kilograms per day; and during upper basin runoff the excess is 51 kg/day (IDDEQ 2006). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-54 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Management Reach 2 begins at the Bear Lake NWR outlet to Alexander Reservoir. Nine tributaries 

enter this Management Reach and contribute 5-25 percent of the load gain; the rest is from nonpoint 

sources. Total phosphorus exceeds targets in this reach during all hydrologic periods. Base winter 

flows were 21 kilograms of TP per day, and upper basin runoff was 319 kilograms of TP per day. For 

TSS the excess was 2,300 kg/day during upper basin runoff and 27,900 kg/day for summer base flow 

(IDDEQ 2006). Management Reach 3 goes from Alexander Reservoir to the Oneida Narrows. None 

of the Service’s units covered under this CCP occur in this Management Reach (IDDEQ 2006). 

Management Reach 4 extends from the Oneida Reservoir to the Idaho-Utah state line. This reach is 

on the §303(d) list for flow, nutrients, and sediment. The beneficial uses affected by too much 

sediment are salmonid spawning and cold-water aquatic life. Livestock grazing, agriculture, and 

urban activities could be sources of pollutants. Extreme stream bank erosion can contribute an 

overabundance of sediment. Tributaries to this reach frequently exceeded phosphorus targets 

contributing up to 75 percent during high runoff and from 6-30 percent during the rest of the 

hydrologic periods. The upper basin runoff hydrologic period resulted in 62 kilograms of TP per day. 

The lower basin runoff resulted in TP of 272 kg/day. Base flow exceedance was 80 kg/day of TP 

(IDDEQ 2006). 

3.9.2 Bear Lake and Bear Lake NWR 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality classifies Bear Lake as a Receiving Water Reach. It 

is not on the §303(d) list. The water quality flowing out of the Causeway and into Bear Lake 

exceeded targets for TP in two out of four hydrologic periods. These periods occur when Bear River 

water is filling Bear Lake and are a major phosphorus source. Upper basin runoff produces 51 kg 

TP/day and lower basin runoff is 22 kg TP/day. In the summer and winter base flow periods, no 

excess phosphorus enters Bear Lake. The total suspended solids mass does not exceed the TMDL 

(total maximum daily load) limits established at the Causeway station (IDDEQ 2006). 

Bear Lake NWR’s marsh is located immediately upstream from the Causeway station and removes 

up to 70 percent of the TSS and TP prior to reaching this station and entering Bear Lake. However, 

Bear Lake NWR’s marsh is a source of sediment and phosphorus when water is sent downstream out 

of Bear Lake back to the Bear River. This results in an excess mass of 219 kg TP/day and 27,900 kg 

TSS/day at the Receiving Water Reach of Management Reach 2, Alexander Reservoir (IDDEQ 

2006). 

Water Quality 

The following analysis of water quality in Bear Lake is from Palacios et al. 2007(a): 

The completion of the pumping station inevitably modified Bear Lake’s physical and chemical 

characteristics. The water quality discussed in this section is based on conditions as they have existed 

since the pumping station began operating in 1918. The water flowing into Bear Lake from both its 

Utah and Idaho tributaries were in compliance with state mandates for designated uses during their 

last review (USEPA 2002). The waters within Bear Lake are also in compliance with the State of 

Utah beneficial use designation. Designations for these waters are for primary contact recreation, 

secondary recreation contact, coldwater fish and aquatic life, and for irrigation and stock watering 

(Utah Division of Administrative Rules 2006). Water chemistry according to Judd (1997) and 

recognized by the Utah Division of Water Quality is outlined in Table 3.4. The measurements are 

annual averages for the given years. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-55 

Table 3.4. Water quality data for Bear Lake in years 1993 and 1995 as determined in Utah’s Lakes 

and Reservoirs Classification and Inventory (Judd 1997). 

Water Quality Data 

Parameter 1993 Surface Column 1995 Surface Column 

Transparency (feet) 15.4 14.8 

Total Phosphorus (ug/L) 20.0 18.0 5.0 6.0 

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 1.7 2.0 

Total Hardiness (mg/L) 289.0 294.0 

Total Alkalinity (mg/L) 247.0 241.0 

Ammonia (mg/L) .03 .03 

Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/L) .02 .01 

The Clean Lakes Program, established in 1972 as section 314 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, sampled Bear Lake in 1982 to set a baseline assessment for future inventory 

and classification. Monitoring stations are available at the North Beach Idaho State Park and by 

Garden City for ongoing data sampling. These original studies determined that phosphorus, 

potassium, and nitrogen, although sparse in the shallow water, are adequate enough in the deep-water 

to support varied plant growth. 

Specific studies designed to determine which nutrient limits growth of algae indicated that 

phosphorus and/or nitrogen almost always were the limiting factors. Sigler (1972) found nitrogen to 

be limiting more than half the time, whereas Birdsey Jr. (1989) suggests that phosphorus limited 

algal growth more often. In 2004, however, the Ecosystems Research Institute conducted a water 

chemistry analysis that showed relatively low levels of nitrogen and phosphorous throughout the 

year. Figures 3.6 and 3.7 on the following pages illustrate this trend. 

Figure 3.6. Phosphorus concentrations for Bear Lake 2003-2004. 

Epilimnion= shallow water, metalimnion=mid water and hypolimnion= deep water. Orthophosphorus is phosphorus 

that is usable by biological organisms (Ecosystems Research Institute 2005). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-56 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Nitrogen to phosphorus ratios indicated that the lake is likely to be phosphorous limited. The 

Ecosystem Research Center further determined there is significant nutrient loading by Bear River 

water as it enters the Lake through the Marsh. Smoak and Swarzenki (2004) claim that despite 

increased nutrient loading since the diversion of Bear River waters, chemistry does not appear to 

have changed significantly likely due to binding of nutrients to calcium in the water column and 

subsequent precipitation to and storage in sediment. The amount of biologically available nutrients is 

not associated with increased input of total nutrients. 

The Ecosystems Research Institute (2005) produced a data summary, a report listing the Total Mass 

Daily Load (TMDL), and a report of the water quality for the Bear River drainage in Idaho. An 

excerpt from that report describes the conditions of concern for Bear River waters as they enter into 

Bear Lake proper: 

“[T]he outflowing water quality at the Causeway station exceeds the TMDL criteria for total 

phosphorus in two of the four hydrologic periods. Because these periods occur during the filling 

cycle for the lake, these exceedances represent a significant source of phosphorus to Bear Lake. The 

largest exceedance occurs during upper basin runoff (51 kg TP/day) followed by lower basin runoff 

(22 kg TP/day). In the summer and winter base flow periods, no excess phosphorus enters Bear Lake. 

The total suspended solids mass does not exceed the TMDL limits established at the Causeway 

station.” 

Figure 3.7. Nitrogen concentrations for Bear Lake 2003-2004. 

Epilimnion= shallow water, metalimnion=mid water and hypolimnion= deep water (Ecosystems Research Institute 

2005). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-57 

Figure 3.8 and Table 3.5 (below) express visually the levels of phosphorus loading in the marsh 

during inflow and outflow from the lake. Excess loadings are based upon a criterion of 0.05 mg TP/l 

and 60 mg TSS/l during runoff season and 35 mg TSS/l during base flows. A total of 276 data points 

are represented in these figures. 

Non-point pollution sources include the following: grazing, urban runoff, agricultural runoff, and 

feedlots. Natural inflows to the reservoir have deteriorated since the valley has been used for 

intensive agriculture. In addition, winter feedlots for livestock have destroyed streams that once were 

spawning grounds for cutthroat trout. The valley floor is composed of lake deposits in the form of 

layers of permeable sand and impermeable clay, which drain agricultural runoff directly into the lake 

rather than allow them to disperse. There are no discharging point sources of pollution in the 

immediate watershed. However, there are point source discharges into the Bear River prior to its 

diversion into the lake. One major discharger is the Evanston Wastewater Treatment Plant in 

Evanston, Wyoming (Judd 1997). 

Figure 3.8. Distribution of total phosphorus loads by month and excess total phosphorus for all 

inflows into Bear Lake. 

(Ecosystems Research Institute 2005). 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-58 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3.5. Average (1975-1998) Water quality data for selected parameters at the Bear Lake 

Causeway and Lifton Pumping Station (Ecosystems Research Institute 2005). 

Month Average 

Concentration mg/L) 

Average Mass 

(kg/day) 

Excess Mass over 

Criteria (kg/day) 

Total Phosphorus 

January 0.015 8.16 -20.60 

February 0.061 14.70 -3.51 

March 0.073 41.70 21.50 

April 0.061 74.90 22.90 

May 0.067 128.00 39.90 

June 0.072 188.00 82.40 

July 0.044 33.70 6.12 

August 0.029 1.15 -10.30 

September 0.051 0.001 0.00 

October 0.043 10.40 -3.04 

November 0.040 10.80 -1.57 

December 0.038 14.10 -7.30 

Total Suspended Solids 

January 7.74 7,880 -9,470 

February 6.31 1,230 -11,300 

March 30.90 16,000 -6,110 

April 21.40 31,400 -19,000 

May 30.40 75,700 -31,700 

June 23.00 64,700 -52,900 

July 16.70 12,500 -17,400 

August 16.30 0.363 0 

September 12.40 0.3 0 

October 12.10 6,690 -5,260 

November 26.10 5,910 -2,740 

December 19.00 13,000 -1,920 

Note: Negative values under heading “Excess mass over Criteria” indicates kg/day lower than threshold criteria. 

3.9.3 St. Charles Creek 

St. Charles Creek, which flows through the Refuge, is on the §303(d) list for nutrient and sediment 

problems. Beneficial uses for this creek are cold-water aquatic live, salmonid spawning, secondary 

contact recreation, agricultural supply water, industrial water supply, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. 

The St. Charles Creek is notable for its use by Bonneville cutthroat trout (see Chapter 4). IDDEQ 

considered this creek to meet its beneficial uses after assessment with the Beneficial Use 

Reconnaissance Program (Smith and Banks 2008). 

3.9.4 Thomas Fork of the Bear River 

Based on data from 1999-2000, estimated sediment and nitrogen loads in the Thomas Fork did not 

exceed the targets, while total phosphorus did. IDDEQ felt that more sampling sites and more 

frequent sampling would improve their data set and take into account load allocations by hydrologic 

period—base flow vs. runoff at a minimum. Seasonal variations may show that load allocations are 

exceeded at certain times of the year. Having a more reliable data set will improve water quality 

management, which is important for the Thomas Fork in and of itself, but also important since the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-59 

Thomas Fork contributes nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids to the Bear River. Livestock 

and agricultural practices may be sources of pollutants. In addition, riparian condition and bank 

stability should be evaluated for their impacts on sediment loads. As with the Bear River, the primary 

beneficial uses of this reach are for cold-water aquatic life and salmonid spawning. Thomas Fork is 

particularly important for the presence of Bonneville cutthroat trout. In 2006, the BRC completed 

streambank restoration work on the Thomas Fork and the main stem Bear River near the 

Idaho/Wyoming border, contributing to improved water quality (IDDEQ 2011). 

Dry and Preuss Creeks are tributaries to the Thomas Fork. Preuss Creek (which includes Beaver 

Creek and Fish Creek) is on the §303(d) list for habitat alteration and sediment, while Dry Creek is 

§303(d) listed for nutrients and sediment. (Habitat alteration is not a pollutant as defined by CWA 

Section 502(6). TMDLs will be developed for pollutants such as sediment or nutrients.) The 2006 

TMDL reported that more data were needed for analyses of sediment and nutrient loads, but 

preliminary indications were that these creeks were not supporting their beneficial uses (IDDEQ 

2006). The 2011 TMDL (IDDEQ 2011) reported that adequate data have been collected to complete 

an assessment and development of load allocations for these streams. TMDLs for Sediment and Total 

Phosphorus have been developed for Dry Creek, and for sediment for Preuss Creek. 

Dry Creek was listed for nutrients (total phosphorus) and sediment. Water chemistry was measured 

on Dry Creek in June and October 2006. Based on those data, a 1 percent reduction in total 

phosphorus is recommended during spring runoff and a 0 percent reduction is prescribed during base 

flow. Streambank and substrate conditions indicated that sediment was a pollutant of concern in Dry 

Creek. Streambank erosion inventories conducted in 2008 showed that streambanks on Dry Creek 

were 44 percent erosive and depth fines yielded a result of 48.66 percent fine material in streambed 

substrate where salmonid spawning is most likely to occur. Therefore, a 54 percent reduction in 

streambank erosion is recommended in this TMDL (IDDEQ 2011). 

Preuss Creek was listed on the §303(d) list for habitat alteration and sediment. In 2008 IDDEQ staff 

collected data on the condition of streambanks on Preuss Creek and determined that the banks were 

76 percent unstable, well below the established target of 80 percent stable. A load allocation of 437 

tons per year was assigned, which calls for a 74 percent reduction in sediment from streambank 

erosion (IDDEQ 2011). 

3.9.5 Oxford Slough and Deep Creek 

Oxford Slough is part of the Southern Middle Bear sub basin area delineated by IDDEQ to facilitate 

water quality monitoring (IDDEQ 2008). Deep Creek drains the Oxford Slough, flows into the Bear 

River, and is considered its own small watershed. Deep and Mink Creeks are the sources of water for 

the Twin Lakes Irrigation System that is part of this sub basin. These creeks feed into the Twin Lakes 

Reservoir. Deep Creek is on the §303(d) list for unknown pollutants. Evaluations of the Beneficial 

Use Reconnaissance Program data indicate the stream is not supporting its primary beneficial use of 

cold-water aquatic life. Sampling indicates excessive suspended solids and phosphorus. Livestock 

grazing, agriculture, eroding stream channels and banks may be contributing to these exceedances 

(IDDEQ 2006). The required load reduction for Deep Creek to meet the TMDL is 6,492 lbs total 

phosphorus per year and 4,252,611 lbs total suspended sediment per year (IDDEQ 2008). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-60 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.10 Visual Quality 

Bear Lake, immediately south of the Refuge, is well known for its scenic beauty. The water quality 

of Bear Lake itself is key to the visual quality of the region and the lake’s economic uses, which are 

centered on tourism (recreational boating, fishing, and beach use). The Refuge’s Mud Lake 

contributes to maintaining the water quality of Bear Lake by acting as a settling basin for Bear River 

sediments; however this creates water quality and habitat issues on the Refuge itself (Palacios et al. 

2007a). For more information on factors affecting water quality in Bear Lake, see sections on 

Hydrology and Water Quality, above. 

Air quality also has major impacts on visual quality. Prescribed burning has the potential to impact 

the visual quality of both the Refuge and surrounding areas. The Smoke NEPA Guidance Describing 

Air Resources Impacts from Prescribed Fire (Story et al. 2005) addressed the effects of burning on 

visibility, and was intended to guide the user in selecting and preparing the appropriate level of air 

quality analysis related to prescribed fire activities. After the appropriate level of modeling is 

completed, air quality and visibility impacts can be described qualitatively including the expected 

duration of impacts. This can be based on meteorology and best professional judgment regarding the 

transport of pollutants to Class I areas, downwind communities, and other sensitive areas. The risk to 

humans and Visibility PM Particulates from prescribed burning is outlined in the table 3.6. 

Table 3.6. Visibility and PM Particulates (from Story et al. 2005)

Categories 24hr PM2.5 

(μg/m

3

) 

8hr PM2.5 

(μg/m

3

) 

1 hr PM2.5 

(μg/m

3

) 

Visibility 

(miles) 

Good 0-15 0-22 0-40 >11 

Moderate 15-40 22-58 40-80 6-11 

Unhealthy for sensitive people 40-65 58-93 80-175 3-6 

Unhealthy for all people 65-150 93-215 175-300 1.5-3 

Very unhealthy 150-250 215-358 300-500 0.9-1.5 

Hazardous >250 >358 >500 <0.9 

EPA’s 1980 visibility rules (40 CFR 51.301-307) were developed to protect mandatory Class I areas 

from human-caused impairments reasonably attributable to a single or small group of sources. In 

1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308-309), which calls for states to 

establish goals for improving visibility in mandatory Class I areas and to develop long-term 

strategies for reducing the emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment. 

The regional haze regulations apply to all states, including those states that do not have any Class I 

areas. Plans in states without Class I areas must address the emissions from any sources that may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment of any Class I area outside 

that state. The Regional Haze regulations require states to demonstrate reasonable progress for 

improving visibility in each Class I area over a 60-year period during which visibility should be 

returned to natural conditions (Story et al. 2005). 

Due to the effects of prescribed burning on the environment, the Refuge will follow guidelines, law 

and policy when planning for the use of such management activities. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-61 

3.11 Surrounding Land Uses 

The Idaho portion of the Bear River Watershed is about 1,785,380 acres. Of this area 751,420 acres 

are rangeland, 599,180 acres are in agriculture, forests take up 300,324 acres, 61,902 acres is water, 

while wetlands occupy 44,774 acres, and lastly urban areas comprise about 10,964 acres. Land 

ownership acreage is about 1,021,867 privately owned; the U.S. Forest Service owns 462,350 acres; 

Bureau of Land Management, 165,692; Bureau of Reclamation, 2,543; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 16,960; the State of Idaho, 76,607; and water, 39,362 (IDDEQ 2006). 

In the Idaho portion of the Bear Lake sub basin, five primary uses occur on private land (389,003 

acres). About 27 percent (183,275 acres) of land is in crops, 21 percent (144,061) is rangeland, 5 

percent (36,064 acres) is reservoirs, 1 percent (3,195 acres) is streams, and the remaining 3 percent 

(22,408 acres) is urban and roads. The total area in this sub basin is 642,359 acres. Federal land 

ownership is as follows: Bureau of Land Management has 32,649 acres (5 percent); U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, about 16,932 acres (~3 percent); and U.S. Forest Service, 223,654 acres (35 

percent). The State of Idaho owns about 2 percent or 14,602 acres (Smith and Banks 2008). 

Around Bear Lake itself, land use in the high mountains is for grazing, watershed protection, and 

recreation. The foothills are also used for grazing, as well as dry land farming, and recreation, 

including vacation homes. The valleys are the primary residential areas while providing cattle 

grazing and haying, irrigated farming, and native grass pastures (Palacios et al. 2007a). 

Land use in the Southern Middle Bear sub basin includes recreation, urban and roads (6,052 acres), 

rangeland (90,442 acres), dry cropland (51,534 acres), irrigated cropland (66,544), open water (1,475 

acres), and rivers, creeks, and riparian areas (2,987 acres) for a total of 218,944 privately owned 

acres. Developed areas include summer homes or ranchettes. Recreation occurs in the surrounding 

mountains and on streams and reservoirs. State lands total 9,949 acres, Bureau of Land Management 

owns about 9,585 acres; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 1,878 acres; and the U.S. Forest Service 

has 291,965 acres (Smith 2008). 

Land use categories in the Thomas Fork watershed analysis area (which includes part of Wyoming) 

are urban, agricultural, rangeland, forested land, water, wetlands, barren land, and tundra. Of the total 

150,100 acres that make up the watershed, 33 percent is private land, 63 percent is Federal land, and 

4 percent is State land. Approximately 4 percent of the watershed is being used for irrigated 

cropland, 3 percent for non-irrigated cropland, 5 percent for irrigated pastureland, 2 percent for nonirrigated pastureland, 19 percent for private rangeland and forestland, and 67 percent for public 

rangeland and forestland (USFS 2001). 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-62 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Chapter 4

Biological Environment

Immature black-crowned night-heron/© Mike Baird

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementDirection

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats found on the Refuge. However, it is not 

an exhaustive overview of all species and habitats. The chapter begins with a discussion of biological 

integrity (historic conditions and ecosystem function), as required under the Refuge Administration 

Act, as amended. The bulk of the chapter is then focused on the presentation of pertinent background 

information for habitats used by each of the Priority Resources of Concern (ROCs) and other 

benefitting species designated under the CCP. That background information includes descriptions, 

conditions and trends of habitats and threats (stresses and sources of stress) to the habitats and/or 

associated ROCs. This information was used to develop goals and objectives for the CCP. 

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, directs the Service to ensure 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the Refuge System are 

maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. In simplistic terms, 

elements of BIDEH are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats as well as those 

ecological processes that support them. The Refuge System policy on BIDEH (601 FW 3) also 

provides guidance on consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat 

resources found on the refuges and in associated ecosystems, that represents BIDEH on each refuge. 

Water level management is the overriding factor affecting most refuge habitat management strategies 

for nesting birds and wildlife, particularly water birds and muskrats. Management efforts focus on 

maintaining a given emergent-marsh-to-open-water habitat ratio using water level manipulations, 

prescribed fire, and mechanical disturbance. Currently, agricultural small grains and native and hayed 

short-cover areas at the Refuge complement wetland habitats by providing foraging habitat for key bird 

species such as sandhill cranes, Canada geese, and long-billed curlews. Restoration of native grasses 

and short-cover vegetation could also provide foraging and cover habitats adjacent to wetlands. 

Riparian habitats comprise a small but important component of refuge ecosystems. Native fishes 

historically present within the refuge waters included Bonneville cutthroat trout. Since the creeks that 

historically supported Bonneville cutthroat trout do not originate on refuge lands and significant 

portions of the watersheds lie outside the Refuge, upstream activities have major impacts on refuge 

water quality and quantity. 

Sage-steppe is a small component of refuge lands. Widespread population and habitat declines have 

been projected for numerous sagebrush associated species. A growing sense of urgency over the 

outlook for sagebrush-dependent wildlife has spawned sagebrush planning and restoration efforts 

within Idaho. 

The Bear Lake watershed, of which Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge is a part, has undergone 

dramatic alteration over the past century which has ultimately affected the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the region’s ecosystems. There were three separate periods 

which led to the wetlands succession and current habitat conditions at Bear Lake NWR: 

 Pre-1900: Historic conditions were characterized by high spring fluctuation and summerwinter stabilization of water levels in the marsh; freshwater discharge to the Bear River; a 30-

35,000 acre core-marsh base, and an extensive, stable peripheral marsh complex. These 

conditions are described in section 4.1.1 below. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

 1900-1968: Characterized by a dramatic annual fluctuation in marsh water levels to achieve 

irrigation purposes; a highly turbid through-flow system; a 17,000 acre core marsh base; and 

a reduced peripheral marsh and wetland function (see section 4.1.2 below). 

 1968-Present: Characterized by stabilized water levels in the marsh through the breeding 

season to achieve wildlife and irrigation purposes; late summer drawdown for hay removal; a 

highly turbid through-flow system; a 17,000 acre core marsh base; a further reduced 

peripheral marsh and wetland function (see section 4.1.2 below). 

The most significant changes to the region’s ecosystems include: 

 The diversion of the Bear River into Bear Lake via the Rainbow Inlet Canal in the early 

1900s; 

 Changes in the hydrology of the Bear River due to irrigation diversions and dam operations; 

 Conversion of bottomlands to agricultural lands (including diking and draining) and major 

loss and/or degradation of wet meadow and riparian habitats; and 

 Loss of native species, accompanied by a large influx of nonnative and invasive plants and 

animals into the system. 

This section discusses the connection between these landscape level changes and the current 

vegetation and wildlife on the lands and waters occupied by the Bear Lake NWR, the Oxford Slough 

WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit. This summary is not a complete analysis of all factors related to 

changes in native vegetation, fish and wildlife. Much of the information presented here is based upon 

the planning team’s knowledge of the area. 

4.1.1 Historic Descriptions of Habitat and Wildlife 

Bear Lake NWR 

The marshes constituting what is now Bear Lake NWR are the southern remnant of a wetland system 

that was historically much larger and more extensive (Bundy 2007). Depending on natural water 

fluctuations, an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 acres of the immediate area was historically open water 

and marsh, with nearby sites consisting of upland grasslands, wet meadows, and shrub-steppe 

vegetation. 

Historically the Bear Lake marsh was fed to varying degrees by (1) spring overflow from the Bear 

River (which flows to the northeast of the marsh proper), (2) feeder streams from the Wasatch Range 

west of the marsh, (3) underground seepage from Bear Lake proper, and (4) springs. On a large scale, 

the marsh would have likely been flooded early in the year, for several months, by spring runoff, and 

been subjected to late summer desiccation (Bundy 2007). Wetland plant communities change with 

the depth, duration, timing, and frequency of flooding (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). This spatially 

and temporally variable hydrology, influenced by surface and groundwater, precipitation, snowpack, 

and runoff, would have resulted in a diverse, ever-changing complex of wetland types and extent, 

ranging from linear or patchy woody riparian habitats to temporary, seasonal, semi-permanent, and 

permanent wetland types. This habitat diversity would have in turn supported a wide variety of 

wetland-dependent plant and animal species. 

While it is uncertain how the Bear Lake NWR marsh (locally referred to as Dingle Swamp) 

functioned prior to development of the Bear River irrigation system, it is possible to infer historic 

function, based on examination of local geography (see Bundy 2007). For example, it is likely that 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

local topography restricted the Bear River to an isolated floodplain, with no major inflow connection 

to Bear Lake. This does not rule out the possibility that in extreme high flow conditions, side 

channels could have formed, thus creating an inflow mechanism to Bear Lake. However, there is no 

evidence to suggest that this was ever a dominant process within the Bear Lake Valley (Bundy 2007). 

Conversely, it is likely that Bear Lake contributed to flow within the Bear River system. As 

snowmelt from the adjacent Wasatch and Hot Springs mountain ranges began to fill Bear Lake, 

Dingle Swamp would have received excess inflow, which ultimately, would have hydrated the entire 

marsh complex. Water levels would have increased to an as yet unknown critical elevation, with 

additional flow following an outlet channel back to the Bear River system. This outlet channel can 

still be seen on present-day aerial imagery. 

The Bear River, historically referred to as the “white mud river,” would have received a freshwater 

influx at the Bear Lake outlet channel confluence, which likely would have improved downstream 

water quality. This influx would have been seasonal (mid-April through June) and highly dependent 

on annual snowpack amounts and spring temperature variation. The process would have led to 

increasing Dingle Swamp water levels through the spring and early summer months, followed by 

rapid desiccation through summer as the outlet channel removed water to the Bear River. Therefore, 

water level fluctuation in the marsh system would have been extreme (3-5 feet during high runoff 

years) and abbreviated within a two- to three-month window (Bundy 2007). 

The primary difference between historic and current conditions is that these fluctuations would have 

occurred over and above a 30-35,000-acre base wetland. In most years, the extensive marsh system 

would have retained water in spring due to natural barriers such as a long sand bar at the Bear 

Lake/Dingle Swamp interface, and at the Bear River near the present-day town of Bennington 

(Bundy 2007). Thus, it is assumed that large marsh water level increases would have occurred during 

spring and early summer, followed by relatively stable conditions as water levels dropped below 

natural berm elevations. Year to year variation, related to periods of low snowpack, may have led to 

prolonged desiccation of the marsh. 

Freshwater input and widely fluctuating spring water levels, as are estimated in the historic system, 

led to greater plant diversity and overall environmental health. The benefits of water level fluctuation 

include: 

1. Periodically inundating traditionally dry areas; 

2. Periodically desiccating traditionally wet areas; 

3. Stimulating migratory bird food resources such as invertebrates and the seeds of annual 

plants; and 

4. Facilitating nutrient processing through creation of a diverse plant community. 

Each plant is adapted to a different set of environmental characteristics, primarily driven by the depth, 

duration, timing, and frequency of flooding. Where conditions remain stable, only a few plants survive; 

however, where conditions vary, more plants can adapt to the conditions. These plants produce seeds, 

tubers, rhizomes, and other reproductive components which in turn, are deposited within the soil. Often 

referred to as “the soil seed bank,” these seeds and other propagules remain viable for many years and 

are ready to germinate or regrow when the right conditions return (Bundy 2007). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Other natural processes such as fire and grazing by native herbivores, e.g., bison (Bison bison), 

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and elk (Cervus elaphus), 

would likely have been infrequent, but intense during periods when they were in effect. Tied to 

annual variation in marsh hydrologic cycles, fires were most likely to occur during late summer, 

particularly hot, dry summers during drought periods, presumably triggered by lightning strikes from 

summer thunderstorms. Such late summer fires would have reduced residual cover in emergent 

communities, most likely across the entire marsh. These fires would have been intense, and would 

have resulted in peat burns in areas of high residual cover accumulation. These long burning root 

mass fires could have lasted from several days to several weeks and likely would have created deep, 

open pools within the marsh once high water returned. While the frequency of these widespread fires 

is uncertain, they would have provided a valuable stimulus to marsh succession, and ultimately, 

promoted overall marsh health (Bundy 2007). 

Hydrologic periodicity would also have been linked to grazing intensity. Considering the traditional 

grazing patterns of native ungulate species, it is likely that grazing animals had little influence on 

marsh vegetation. Heavy snowfall during winter would have made marsh vegetation relatively 

inaccessible to these large herbivores. The exception to this would have been localized winter 

concentrations throughout the entire Valley. 

Through the estimated hydrologic extremes, seasonally deep water habitat used by migratory birds 

such as common loon (Gavia immer) would have occurred within the marsh during peak spring 

runoff, followed by the variety of habitats existing on the present marsh as drawdown occurred 

through the summer. However, these seasonally variable wetlands were supplemented by relatively 

stable peripheral wetlands created by the Bear Lake Valley’s unique soil stratigraphy. Groundwater 

movement from the adjacent mountain ranges would have created a variety of perennial and 

ephemeral habitats around the marsh fringe where heavy, impenetrable clays lie near the surface. 

Water is pushed up at these points, creating relatively stable wetlands. During spring runoff, these 

wetlands would have been flooded, and the heavy clay bottom would have retained this water within 

depressions. Groundwater movement would have maintained the wetlands through high summer 

evaporative periods. Thus, with the exception of deep water habitat, the same wetland types and 

associated wildlife species seen today were likely present historically. The primary difference 

between historic and current conditions is the seasonal availability and distribution of habitats. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

While historic records are not available for the Oxford Slough area, basin geomorphology and 

associated streamflow would suggest a widespread flood scenario, followed by a flow-through 

system during the remainder of the year. Oxford Slough sits in a large wetland basin that extends 

from the Bannock Range on the west to the Portneuf Range on the east, and is perched above the 

Deep Creek system located to the south and emptying into the Bear River. Heavy spring flows from 

Oxford Creek (located northwest of the WPA) and Stockton Creek (spilling from the north) would 

have exceeded Deep Creek’s outlet capacity, likely resulting in flooding during spring runoff in most 

years. As flows subsided during the summer, it is assumed that streamflow would have maintained 

the basin and flowed through to the Deep Creek outlet. Thus in most years, Oxford Slough is 

assumed to have been semi-permanently to permanently flooded, with relatively little fluctuation in 

levels throughout the year. Oxford Slough probably did not become desiccated except during 

extreme drought conditions (Bundy 2007). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The riparian/marsh complex on the Thomas Fork Unit historically expanded and receded depending 

on snowpack in the adjacent mountain ranges and subsequent flows in both the Bear River and 

Thomas Fork Creek. In periods of high snowmelt, the Bear River would overtop its banks and flood 

lands within what is now the Thomas Fork Unit. Conversely, in low flow periods, wetlands would 

become desiccated following flow and subsequent transfer to the Bear River. These processes were 

instrumental in developing the proportions of habitat types existing at present. The current 

hydrologic periodicity (when supplemented with refuge water rights) is conducive to continuing this 

regime (Bundy 2007). 

Vegetation Communities 

Bear Lake NWR 

The natural (native) wetland types that would have historically been present at Bear Lake NWR 

included perennial emergent hemi-marsh (open water, submerged aquatic plants, shallow and deep 

emergent habitat), ephemeral marsh (wet meadows, alkaline meadows), and palustrine forested 

wetlands (riparian willow and cottonwood) (Bundy 2007). 

Adjacent to these wetlands, the native upland habitat types that would have historically been present 

include alkali upland meadow, meadow grass, and shrub. Upland vegetation included salt grass, 

various wheatgrass species, alkali sacaton, and wild rye (Bundy 2007). Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and 

various wheatgrasses occurred on the east side of the Refuge near Merkley Mountain, with 

greasewood dominated habitats on uplands to the south and west. As is still the case today, these 

uplands were interspersed with numerous small wetlands. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

The natural (native) wetland types that would have historically been present at Oxford Slough WPA 

included perennial emergent hemi-marsh (open water, submerged aquatic plants, shallow and deep 

emergent habitat), ephemeral marsh (wet meadows), and alkali upland meadows (See Appendix E for 

detailed descriptions of these habitat types.) 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The natural vegetation that would have historically been present on the Thomas Fork Unit included 

instream habitat, riparian habitat (primarily willow), and mixed sagebrush upland and meadow grass 

habitat along the western boundary. (See Appendix E for detailed descriptions of these habitat types.) 

Birds 

Bear Lake NWR 

Dingle Swamp (now the Refuge) has historically provided an extensive and important area of marsh 

habitat that serves the needs of ducks, geese, and other migratory waterbirds. It is a major nesting 

area for the Great Basin Canada Goose and the Greater Sandhill Crane. Duck production is important 

and Dingle Swamp is a major resting and feeding area for waterfowl during spring and fall migration 

periods (USDOI 1966). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Bird records are sparse, but one might expect that the birds common on the Refuge today were also 

present historically. These include pied-billed and western grebe; American bittern; snowy egret; 

great blue heron; white-faced ibis; Canada goose; mallard, canvasback, green-winged teal, northern 

shoveler, etc.; northern harrier; American coot; sandhill crane; common snipe; Franklin’s gull; and 

Forster’s tern. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Although historic records are scanty, it is likely that historically the Oxford Slough area supported 

large numbers of nesting ducks (mallard, gadwall, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, and northern 

pintail), Canada geese and sandhill cranes, and nesting colonies of white-faced ibis, snowy egrets, 

black-crowned night-herons, and Franklin’s gulls. The area would also likely have supported large 

numbers of migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Historical records for the Thomas Fork Unit area are also in short supply. Populations of migratory birds 

that use riparian habitat, especially willow habitats, would have been higher than they are at present due 

to the large expanse of willows that occupied the valley bottom. Riparian habitat has been reduced 

through pasture development and the elimination of willows, straightening of Thomas Fork and Salt 

Creek, settlement, livestock grazing, water diversions, and noxious weed introductions (USFS 2001). 

Sage grouse populations have observed to decrease as the red fox population increased (USFS 2001). 

Mammals 

Bear Lake NWR 

Historically, intense but infrequent grazing by native herbivores (bison, pronghorn, mule deer, and 

elk) occurred within the Bear River and Bear Lake valleys. Bison bones found in the Bunn Island 

area of Bear Lake NWR suggest that bison may have frequented this area as flood water subsided 

through the Bear Lake outlet channel. This would have produced lush wet meadow grasses along the 

channel length, which runs immediately adjacent to Bunn Island. Bison may have grazed this area at 

high intensity during the short growing season. 

The discovery of bison bones on Bunn Island provides further evidence of the extreme environmental 

fluctuations in the historic system, as one theory suggests that this herd was isolated and likely 

drowned during an unusually high water period. Regardless, it is assumed that if grazing were a 

formative process within the marsh, it likely occurred as either a high intensity/short duration event 

as bison moved from one location to the next, or as a late growing season or possibly, winter event. 

Bison and pronghorn no longer exist in the Bear Lake Valley. Inventory and monitoring should be 

conducted to determine the diversity and density of the ungulate species remaining on the Refuge. 

Bear Lake was originally named Black Bear Lake due to the abundance of black bear in the area. 

These are rarely seen today. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Records of mammals at the slough are virtually nonexistent. As at Bear Lake and the Thomas Fork, it is 

likely that elk, mule deer, moose, bison, grizzly, Canada lynx, wolves, and wolverine roamed the area. 

Beaver and muskrat were undoubtedly more abundant before extensive trapping of these species 

occurred. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Bison, grizzly bear, wolf, and lynx are some of the wildlife species that have been extirpated from 

the area, primarily due to man (USFS 2001). Elk and deer populations were low approximately 40-50 

years ago and moose populations were lower 20 years ago (USFS 2001). Size estimates of preEuropean beaver populations in North America were 60-400 million animals or the equivalent of 10-

60 animals per mile of stream and river (USFS 2001). Trapping nearly eliminated the beaver 

population and the subsequent quantity and quality of riparian habitat declined (USFS 2001). Today, 

population size estimates are 6-12 million animals, a fraction of the original numbers (USFS 2001). 

4.1.2 Changes to Wildlife and Habitat Since 1800 

The area surrounding what is now Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit 

was inhabited seasonally by pre-Shoshonean and Shoshone peoples for thousands of years 

(Hutchison and Jones 1993). These peoples used a variety of wildlife (Derig 1996) and plant 

resources in a subsistence lifestyle, without any discernable long-term negative impacts. The 

introduction of the horse among the Northern and Eastern Shoshone increased grazing impacts in 

certain areas (e.g., river bottoms in the vicinity of winter camps), and also increased use of certain 

wide-ranging species, such as bison. However, the Bear Lake, Oxford Slough, and Thomas Fork 

areas were used only seasonally, and therefore these impacts would have been relatively minor. 

Between approximately 1812 and 1845, hundreds of fur trappers used this area, trapping beaver and 

other fur-bearers (otter, muskrat, mink) (Russell 1965, Wishart 1979, Utley 1997, Gowans 2005) and 

hunting big game (bison, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, elk and mule deer) in an unsustainable manner 

(Wuerthner 1986a, 1986b). For example, in the 1820s bison and other large game was abundant in 

the Snake River Plain, but by 1834 trader Warren Ferris was already noticing declines (Wuerthner 

1986b). By the late 1840s, the Shoshone and Bannock had to leave the Snake River Plain and hunt 

bison near Bear Lake and in present day Montana, and by 1860 bison were nearly extirpated from 

Idaho (Wuerthner 1986a, 1986b). Other large game declined apace. The large scale fur trade ended 

by 1845 as beaver were trapped out (Wishart 1979), but trapping for other furbearers (mink, otter) 

and subsistence hunting for mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk continued in the region through the 

1860s (Anderson 1940). 

The Oregon Trail came through the area beginning in 1840. The trail crossed both above and below the 

Thomas Fork Unit (Hutchison and Jones 1993). By 1841, Oregon Trail travelers began crossing the 

Bear Lake valley. They entered the valley near the point of the present community of Border about 

where U. S. Highway 30 enters Idaho, generally parallel the line of the Bear River as it journeys 

northwest. The banks of Clover Creek, now known as Montpelier Creek, were favored camping places 

for the travelers (see Chapter 5). Much of the traffic on this segment of the trail occurred between early 

and late July. Livestock grazing and hunting by emigrants were noted as causes of decline in traditional 

plant and animal food sources used by the region’s Shoshone bands (see Chapter 5). 

Bear Lake NWR--Grazing and agricultural development 

Thomas L. “Peg-leg” Smith had oxen, beef and dairy cattle, and a herd of 300-500 horses at his trading 

establishment near “Big Timber” (present day Dingle) during 1848-1850 (Derig 1996), marking the 

first year-round livestock pasturing in the Bear Lake area. After Congress passed the Homestead Act of 

1862, settlers were offered 160 acres of land in exchange for a minor filing fee and a promise to reside 

on the land and improve it. This led to rapid settlement of the region. Paris was established in 1863, and 

Montpelier and Oxford in 1864. The first permanent farming and ranching settlements in the Thomas 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Fork area were settled about the same time (Hutchison and Jones 1993). Farming and grazing, with the 

associated landscape alterations (e.g., draining wetlands and digging canals for irrigation) occurred 

early in the settlement period and continued unabated through the early 1900s (see below). 

The fertile lowlands of the Bear Lake watershed support productive farms and livestock, and three 

fourths of the land is used for agriculture, primarily grazing. Livestock and haying operations 

account for the greater part of the Bear Lake County, Idaho revenues. 

Livestock grazing had major effects on wildlife and habitat. Native grasses and forbs were not 

adapted to heavy grazing pressure; grazing therefore opened the door to the spread of non-native 

plant species. Non-native pasture and forage grasses were also intentionally introduced. These 

grasses had a competitive advantage under heavy grazing pressure, and permanently altered many 

plant communities. Livestock grazing in riparian areas allowed non-native bromes and reed 

canarygrass to invade and largely replace the native understory plant community in adjacent 

sagebrush and greasewood communities. 

Bear Lake NWR--Alteration of the Bear River-Bear Lake hydrologic system 

As described by Palacios et al. (2007a), increased agricultural development in the area occurred with 

the completion of the Federal land surveys in the late 1870s. The transcontinental railroad passed 

through the basin during this same period and brought significant numbers of new settlers into the 

area. Since the easily irrigated land had already been claimed, the irrigation of new land required 

more sophisticated construction techniques and a great increase in the amount of water to be used. 

While small scale diversion from the Bear River to produce meadow hay likely occurred during the 

late 1800s, it was not until 1909 to 1918 that the Stewart Diversion Dam, the Rainbow Inlet Canal, 

the Outlet Canal, and the Lifton Pumping Plant were built. Several large canals were built in the 

basin below Bear Lake around the turn of the century. Experiments in raising beets proved highly 

successful and the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company bought stock in several existing canal companies that 

were having financial problems. The Utah-Idaho Sugar Company secured rights to the Bear River for 

power production as well as for irrigation. In 1912, Utah Power and Light Company purchased the 

hydroelectric property and the accompanying water rights, ensuring virtual control of the Bear River 

waters below Bear Lake. 

The Bear River was joined and disconnected to Bear Lake, Mud Lake, and the Dingle Marsh several 

times throughout the geologic history of the system. During the last 8,000 to 12,000 years, the Bear 

River has been separated from the lake and marsh. Bear River waters flowed into Mud Lake and 

Dingle Marsh (the present-day Bear Lake NWR), but were separated from Bear Lake itself by a 

natural sand bar. In the late 1800s developers conceived a plan to divert the Bear River into Bear 

Lake. Subsequently, the Telluride Power Company developed a diversion system within the Bear 

River, where a significant portion of flow could be stored in Bear Lake for future irrigation use. This 

project led to three major structural changes to the Bear River/Bear Lake system: 

1. Construction of Stewart Dam across the Bear River, which ultimately redirected flow to the 

south. 

2. Construction of the Rainbow Inlet Canal to carry redirected flows into Dingle Swamp. 

3. Development of Lifton Road and Pump Station which enhanced storage capabilities in Bear 

Lake and created an infrastructure capable of delivering stored water during summer months 

when water was more limited in the system. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

In 1911 the Telluride Power Company completed the water diversion on the Bear River and began 

water diversion into Mud Lake via the Dingle Canal (See Chapter 3, section 3.3, Hydrology, for a 

complete description of Bear River and Bear Lake hydrologic associations). In that first year, 40 

million cubic yards of water were diverted and stored for irrigation releases (USU 1995). 

The diversion of the Bear River via the Rainbow Inlet Canal and construction of the Outlet Canal 

permanently changed the historic Dingle Marsh. The Outlet Canal has drained portions of the refuge 

marshes while the Rainbow Canal has caused significant siltation, particularly in Mud Lake. Not only 

was Dingle Swamp isolated from Bear Lake through creation of Lifton Road on the north shore of 

Bear Lake, it now served as the turning basin for the entire Bear River system. Where once clean 

water flowed from the adjacent mountain ranges into the Bear River, the river now carried its heavily 

sediment-laden waters into the marsh and Bear Lake. This not only changed water quality and marsh 

bottom characteristics in the Dingle Swamp, but also altered the hydrologic periodicity (Bundy 2007). 

The canal system and storage of Bear River water resulted in seasonal fluctuations that did not occur 

historically. Where the marsh used to fluctuate widely during spring but remained relatively stable 

thereafter, it now fluctuated widely throughout the growing season. The intent of the new irrigation 

system was to retain all spring flows, which would subsequently be released throughout the year for 

combined irrigation and power generation use. The result on the wetland ecosystem was wide 

fluctuation with less seasonal stability, compounded by the introduction of turbid Bear River water. 

Turbid water tends to limit photosynthesis, and therefore both seed germination and plant growth. 

Those plants that do survive are uprooted by carp (Cyprinus carpio), which had been introduced in 

1882 and are now widespread (see section 4.6.2 below). The foraging action of carp further contributes 

to turbidity. The combination of turbid water and carp creates a relatively sterile wetland ecosystem, 

resulting in limited productivity of aquatic vegetation and waterfowl. 

An additional confounding factor is the effect of sediment deposition on germination substrate. Some 

plants require a stable marsh bottom comprised of clay materials. This is necessary to support plants 

with extensive root systems, as in the case of tall emergent plant species such as cattail and hardstem 

bulrush that attain heights in excess of six feet. Redirection of the Bear River has resulted in a 

reliable source of water for the Refuge, but also excessive sediment deposition throughout the Mud 

Lake system. This sediment load primarily consists of silt and fine clay particles, which ultimately 

deposit in the marsh bottom. Unlike clay, silt particles do not bind to each other and do not create the 

stable marsh bottom required by some plants. Instead, the silt particles tend to accumulate in loose 

horizons that have attained depths of greater than four feet in some locations. At these locations, the 

existing plant community is either relatively homogenous, or in most cases, non-existent (Bundy 

2007). 

Although grazing by native ungulates was not a major factor in development of the marsh, fire was. 

The natural frequency and intensity of fire in the Dingle Marsh has been all but eliminated through 

the absence of long-term drought and associated lack of residual material dry enough to carry fire. 

The natural role of fire in the Bear Lake Valley has been modified by human actions; however, 

Refuge management has attempted to mimic natural fire regimes, where appropriate, through 

prescribed burns. Elimination of fire results in increased accumulation of residual material in many 

wetland plant communities. While this is desirable to some wildlife species, continued accumulation 

inhibits new vegetative growth, which greatly impairs wetland succession. Additionally, lack of 

intensive “peat burns” has reduced the number of open water pools available for over-water nesting 

wildlife species. Without disturbance, emergent vegetation continues to encroach on these open 

water areas, which could ultimately result in a homogenous emergent vegetation community. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

In summary, alterations to the historic system have been substantial and include: 

1. The Bear River now flows to Bear Lake; 

2. Bear Lake and the refuge marsh (Dingle Swamp) have been separated and now serve an 

irrigation function; 

3. Water control structures in the new system are used to regulate water levels; and 

4. Carp have been introduced in the Bear River watershed. 

These modifications have altered the following historic marsh processes: 

1. The marsh now functions as a turbid, through-flow system as opposed to the historic, 

freshwater discharge system; 

2. Sediment deposition occurs at a greater frequency than before the system was modified; 

3. Excessive turbidity decreases plant germination and growth. The few species and individual 

plants that do germinate are further inhibited by carp activity; 

4. The natural spring high water runoff has been replaced with water levels that are regulated 

annually (rather than seasonally) by storage of spring runoff and release of this stored water 

in summer; and 

5. Absence of drought has led to less frequency of disturbance (e.g., fire) which has resulted in 

homogenous emergent communities with excessive residual vegetation that is not dry enough 

to carry fire. 

These modifications were noted during the early 1950s in a graduate study sponsored by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game that examined muskrat use and waterfowl breeding success on the 

Dingle Marsh (Reeves 1954). The author discovered that muskrat populations had been reduced to a 

fraction of their estimated historic density and that fluctuating water levels greatly diminished 

waterfowl nesting success. From an estimated historic population of 45,000-75,000 muskrats, only 

11,000 remained in 1952. Similarly, only 700 Canada geese (300 adults) and an estimated 2,275 

ducks were produced annually. Study recommendations were: 

1. To develop an agreement with Utah Power and Light (UP&L) to stabilize water levels during 

critical muskrat and waterfowl life history events; 

2. To develop strategies for silt control (at current deposition rates, it was postulated that the 

marsh would become a homogenous bulrush stand within 50-75 years); and 

3. To eliminate grazing and burning on upland sites. 

Through the remainder of the 1950s and early 1960s, an effort was made to manage the remaining 

marsh for waterfowl and muskrat production, initially through the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

However, it was recognized that because the State did not have the resources to effectively manage the 

marsh, and because waterfowl populations cross State boundaries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries (now 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) would be the more practical management entity. Despite initial 

opposition by adjacent landowners, Bear Lake NWR was established in 1968. Concurrent with refuge 

establishment, the Bureau entered into an agreement with Utah Power and Light (now PacifiCorp) that 

would stabilize water levels during the waterfowl and muskrat breeding seasons and maintain an 

elevation within 1⁄2 foot of 5,920.5 feet UP&L datum annually. This management practice continues to 

the present. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11 

Bear Lake NWR—Urban and Industrial Development 

Communities in the Bear River basin are presently encountering various intensities of growth and 

development due to new residential, commercial, and agricultural development. In general, the 

development is distributed unevenly throughout the basin with much heavier concentration occurring 

south of Grace, Idaho and continuing into Garden City. Around the Bear Lake area, development is 

spreading outward from the lake shore and up the sides of the foothills. The west and south shores of 

Bear Lake are primarily privately owned summer home sites, while the east shore is mostly State 

owned with multiple access points. Residential development includes about equal amounts of 

permanent housing and seasonal (summer and winter) residences. The commercial and service 

growth in the area is directed more toward the tourist/recreational growth of the region as opposed to 

support services for either the agricultural or year-round residential sectors (Toth et al. 2005). 

Oxford Slough WPA 

At Oxford Slough, land use changes and associated increasing demands on limited water resources 

have dramatically altered flow patterns and wetland acreage. Historically, the palustrine emergent 

marsh complex probably seasonally covered the majority of the present valley floor. This marsh 

complex has been reduced to a fraction of its former size, and becomes desiccated much more rapidly 

than the historic hydrologic regime would have allowed. As a result, Oxford Slough wetlands do not 

remain hydrated during the waterbird brood-rearing period during most years, which requires 

alternative solutions to making the most of the limited water currently available. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

On Thomas Fork Creek, streamflow patterns are essentially the same as occurred historically 

between September 30 until May 1st when the irrigation season begins, and irrigators begin flooding 

agricultural fields. After May 1, the Refuge artificially maintains both wetland levels and instream 

flow during critical late spring/early summer months, which mimics the natural regime before 

settlement and development for agriculture occurred. Agricultural diversions would have lowered 

wetland and stream levels below levels that the Refuge now maintains. 

4.1.3 History of Refuge Management 

Bear Lake NWR 

Bear Lake NWR was established in 1968. Prior to 1978 Bear Lake NWR was a satellite refuge of 

Grays Lake NWR, 35 miles north of Soda Springs, ID. One refuge manager was responsible for both 

refuges, with an assistant manager assigned to each station. The office for both refuges was in Soda 

Springs. However, Bear Lake NWR had a part time office in Montpelier. In 1977, the Refuge leased 

the office, shop, and yard at 370 Webster St., which they occupied in 1978 and continues in use 

today. On May 8, 1978, the Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex (SIRC) was established. The SIRC 

included four refuges, each with a manager, overseen by a Project Leader located in the SIRC office 

in Pocatello. 

Habitat and Water Management 

Calendar Year 1969 was the first full year of water management carried out under the 1968 

agreement between the Utah Power and Light Company and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), which required that UP&L maintain 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

water levels within 1⁄2 foot of 5,920.5feet UP&L datum annually whenever feasible, within control of 

irrigation water and storage programs as detailed by the Bear River Compact, which controls spring 

flows into Bear Lake proper. 

Managers immediately knew that the combination of widely fluctuating water levels and abundant 

carp was severely impacting the growth of submerged aquatic plants, even in permanent pools. They 

recognized that stabilization of water levels and rough-fish (carp) control would improve habitat, but 

hypothesized that there could also be problems with water quality or soil characteristics. Managers 

also saw that dense stands of hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), cattail (Typha spp.), and wiregrass 

(Juncus balticus) made for unproductive waterfowl habitat. However, in the Refuge’s early years, 

lack of resources (money, time, and staff) prevented managers from addressing these issues. 

Managers experimented with (unspecified) upland plantings to provide more food for waterfowl in 

particular, although they complained that not enough suitable uplands existed on the Refuge to 

expand the plantings if the experimental planting proved successful. In addition, diving ducks would 

receive no benefit from upland plantings. Managers felt that the Refuge would remain deficient in 

wildlife food supplies until impoundments could be constructed. Impoundments would provide 

control over water levels, turbidity, and carp populations, and would facilitate propagation of 

valuable submergent or emergent aquatic plants. 

Slowly managers began to construct impoundments on the Refuge by building up dikes and levees 

along naturally higher areas and controlling water flows with stop logs and screw gates. The Annual 

(Fiscal Year) Narrative for July 1, 1973-June 30, 1974 relates that a 15-acre carp exclosure was 

erected along the east side of the Refuge and that spring growth in the carp exclosure showed 

vigorous growth of alkali and three-square bulrush. 

In 1978, the only place the Refuge was able to control water levels was on the newly constructed Salt 

Meadow Unit (Annual Narrative). This dike enclosed approximately 280 acres, of which 240 acres 

was water and emergent vegetation. The Refuge opened the screwgates on the water control structures 

to fill the impoundment. When UP&L started to release water for downstream irrigators, the Refuge 

closed the screwgates to retain higher water in the impoundment. The water quality and waterfowl use 

of this new impoundment was greatly increased due mainly to the exclusion of carp. That year, the 

Refuge and YACC (Young Adult Conservation Corps) personnel transplanted alkali bulrush plants to 

the mudflat area in the southeast corner of the Salt Meadow impoundment. Plants were obtained 

between the east dike and the Refuge boundary and from a side channel of the Outlet Canal north of 

the Airport barley field. The bulrush was planted within six inches of the 1978 high water elevation. 

During August 1979, Mud Lake was lowered to 5,919.48 feet to permit dredging on the Outlet Canal 

by UP&L. Since the original dredging of the canal system in 1917, a large sandbar had formed at the 

confluence of the Rainbow and Outlet Canals. This hindered the movement of water in the canals and 

also presented an obstacle for hunters’ boats. 

In 1980, the Refuge received funding under the Bicentennial Land Heritage Program (BLHP) to 

construct the Alder and Rainbow dikes. However, a buried peat layer presented construction 

problems. Since construction of the canal and storage system in the earlier 1900s, two to 2 1⁄2 feet of 

silt were deposited in the construction area (and probably more in some areas of the Refuge). In order 

to keep the amount of peat in the dike to a minimum, the borrow depth was increased to get more 

clay while discarding some of the peat. 

While the discovery of the peat later slowed construction, it dramatically illustrated the role of silt in 

the loss of valuable wetland habitat. Two types of peat were found (for simplicity called black and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13 

yellow). The black peat was nearly 100 percent organic matter, 12-18 inches thick, and corresponded 

to the original emergent vegetation area of the marsh. The yellow peat was about 50 percent organic 

matter, 6-12 inches thick, and corresponded to the original open water habitat. Between 60-80 percent 

of previous shallow open water was covered with thick emergent vegetation due to siltation. 

The refuge manager attempted to completely dewater the Rainbow Unit during the fall of 1981 to 

remove carp, but was unsuccessful because construction activity delayed the effort. The water level 

was low enough during the winter to result in a partial winterkill of 3,000-5,000 carp throughout the 

unit. With the partial winterkill the water quality improved considerably compared to previous years. 

In 1983, the 1,800-acre Rainbow Unit was drawn down to apply rotenone for carp control after the 

nesting season was completed and the water began to recede. Subsequently, water quality in the 

Rainbow Unit was excellent. The blocked off portion of the old Rainbow Canal, borrow areas, and 

former mud bottom and mud flat areas, developed extensive stands of submergent vegetation, which 

included sago pondweed, watermilfoil, curly pondweed, white water buttercup, and yellow water 

buttercup. Numerous redhead pairs, singles, and broods were observed throughout these areas where 

few, if any, were observed in previous years. To aid the re-establishment of submergent vegetation 

within this unit as well as the Salt Meadow Unit, sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata) tubers were 

planted in late May of 1984 with the help of local Boy Scouts. 

The Rainbow Dike, which was begun in 1980, was finally completed in 1987. The dike was created 

by building up the edge of the Rainbow Inlet Canal, which had been constructed in the early 1900s to 

bring water from the Bear River into Bear Lake. Water control structures and fish barriers were 

installed to keep carp out of the new Rainbow Unit. In 1988, carp control was conducted on both the 

Rainbow and Dingle Units. 

The Annual Narrative for Calendar Year 1990 relates the challenges of managing the Refuge during 

a drought year. During the early summer, the Refuge marsh was kept at levels favorable for nesting 

birds despite the drought conditions. PacifiCorp (which merged with UP&L in 1989) did an excellent 

job using what runoff was available and pumping water from Bear Lake to maintain the Refuge at a 

productive level. This struggle to keep water levels in the marsh adequate for waterfowl needs while 

pumping from Bear Lake was very expensive kilowatt wise, and also required additional efforts to 

keep the inlet channel from Bear Lake to the Lifton pump station dredged free of silt and sand. 

Discussions were held in mid-August to determine the advantages and disadvantages of a complete 

drawdown of the refuge marsh, primarily the Mud Lake and West Canal units. (Note: The West 

Canal Unit has, as of 2010, been further subdivided into the Bloomington, Bunn, and Dunford Units.) 

Managers decided to move forward as quickly as possible in draining the marsh. The benefits of a 

drawdown during this severe drought cycle outweighed the negative impacts, and PacifiCorp was 

asked to pull boards at the Paris Dike and to lower marsh levels in a steady manner. The Mud Lake 

and West Canal Units comprise almost 14,000 acres of fairly permanent marsh. These units are rarely 

dry, except along the shallower edge areas. 

The objectives of the drawdown were as follows: 

1. To follow the natural weather pattern and allow the marsh to go through a much needed 

drying cycle. This would: 

a. Dry up bottom muck to allow aeration and nutrient cycling through deep cracking and 

vegetation decay. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

b. Consolidate 1.5-4-foot-deep soft bottom mucks into a firmer bottom substrate in the 

deeper portions of the marsh to produce better quality and quantities of aquatic plants in 

the future. 

c. Remove carp from large areas of the marsh by drying up areas, flushing fish 

downstream, and freezing out fish in shallow pools held low over the winter. 

d. Flush the stagnant and nutrient laden water in the Mud Lake and West Canal pools 

downstream, replacing it with fresher Bear River water during January. 

2. To cooperate with PacifiCorp on adjusting our water needs during the drought period. This 

puts the Refuge in-line along with the sacrifices made by other water users and helps reduce 

excessive PacifiCorp expenditures during this low water period. 

In late August several boards were pulled at the Paris Structure and the marsh levels began to drop. 

The elevation of Mud Lake at this time was 5,919.95 feet. The amount of area that could be drained 

and how quickly it would drain was uncertain, since this had never been done before. During this 

time the Rainbow Unit was receiving irrigation water from the Hogaeson Channel. Since this unit 

had good quality carp-free water, it was not drained so that the Refuge could provide for fall 

migratory bird use. 

In 1991, wet spring weather increased a poor winter snowpack to almost normal levels. Heavy rains 

during the May-June period allowed normal season meadow flooding and improved marsh elevations. 

In 1992, water flows were well below average. Normal flows in April are around 2,000 cubic feet per 

second (cfs), but only 146 cfs was recorded. The Lifton pumps were turned on April 24 to augment 

downstream flows to irrigators. This is the earliest recorded date for turning on the Lifton turbines. 

Bear Lake levels dropped to a low of 5,905.4 feet by November. Snowpack levels in December were 

much improved over this same time in 1991. Although flows from the Bear River into the refuge 

marsh were minimal, the winter filling schedule set up with PacifiCorp brought marsh levels in Mud 

Lake to 5,921.3 feet by April. This was a good operating level for migratory bird use, especially 

waterfowl, and PacifiCorp attempted to minimize any substantial drops over the short term. 

On May 6, 1993, a large spring storm dumped 8 inches of wet snow and rain on the Bear Lake area. 

This was preceded by several weeks of cool wet weather. At approximately 7:30 AM, the saturated 

soils around PacifiCorp’s causeway between the refuge marsh and Bear Lake failed and the entire 60-

foot wooden structure washed out, dumping thousands of acre feet of water and tons of silt into Bear 

Lake. This event essentially drained over 80 percent of the Refuge’s 13,200-acre Mud Lake and West 

Canal units in a 24-hour period. The water also washed away the approaches to the County bridge that 

provided access to North Beach State Park and the east side of Bear Lake. The original Causeway 

channel was 60 to 80 feet wide. The washout moved 3,900 cfs of water through this opening at its peak, 

eroding the banks severely and increasing the width of the channel to 200-300 feet. 

The Rainbow Inlet Canal was flowing around 2,000 cfs of Bear River runoff at this time, adding to the 

problem. While 3,900 cfs roared through the failed Causeway, the Lifton pumping facility was wide 

open, moving 5,900 cfs through it into Bear Lake. An estimated 25,000 to 30,000 acre-feet of water 

drained from Mud Lake, and with it, thousands of tons of silt. The high rates of flow were due to the 

high gradient difference between Mud Lake at 5,921.54 feet (PacifiCorp datum) to Bear Lake’s low 

level of 5,907.34 feet, a difference of 14.2 feet. Although marsh levels were quickly falling in the 

vicinity of the Causeway failure, the staff gauge at north end of the marsh still read 5,921.59 feet at 

noon on May 6. By the morning of May 7, water levels had dropped to a drained level of 5,918.5 feet. 

At this point the Refuge still had full water levels in the flooded Alder and Dingle Units and the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15 

Rainbow and Salt Meadow Units were also nearly full. These areas were protected from drainage by 

impounding dikes and totaled some 3,000 acres. In addition to this, the Mud Lake area, which was 

impacted the most, did not completely drain. The northern third of Mud Lake retained sheet water to 

several inches over much of the bulrush encircled wetlands. Also, many of the channels and ponds 

within the expansive West Canal area of the marsh retained water. 

During this time of year the refuge marsh was at its optimal level for migratory waterfowl, and marsh 

and waterbird use and production. Of particular concern were the impacts that this rapid dewatering 

of a large portion of the marsh would have on the peak of the substantial Canada goose hatch that 

occurs at this time each year. PacifiCorp and the Refuge discussed impacts and immediate needs, and 

PacifiCorp proceeded quickly to minimize the Refuge’s potential biological losses. Bear Lake 

County reacted initially to calls for assistance, blocking off the washed out roads and beginning haul 

operations on a coffer dam to restore the marsh and provide one lane access across the eroded 

channel. As work progressed on the coffer dam, the marsh level began to rise and by May 26 the 

main marsh level was back to a near full level of 5,920.85 feet. 

Also in 1993, two rehabilitation and enhancement projects were completed. The first was the 

Hoageson Slough project, which involved the construction of meandering channels and five islands 

in a 30-acre bulrush-choked wetland. The second project was in the north Red Slough area to 

improve water availability near adjacent grasslands. Solid emergent stands of vegetation were opened 

up and a defined channel into Red Slough to the south was developed as well as five small ponds and 

islands. During November, all islands and spoil areas were seeded to native grasses and legumes. 

In late March 1994, cottonwood starts were cut along the Bear River and planted in small groupings 

around the Refuge where the water table could be easily penetrated. The objective was to provide a 

few additional loafing, nesting, and roosting areas. There were only a few cottonwoods on the 

Refuge in 1994. The 30 cottonwood starts did well initially, but as the dry summer wore on most new 

growth dried up due to the drought conditions and the lowering groundwater level. 

A new dike project was also begun in 1995 to further partition the Rainbow Unit, the 1.1-mile dike of 

the sub-impoundment. In 1996, a two-mile portion of Bloomington Creek was cleaned. Silt had built 

up in this stretch over the last 60 years causing problems with water backing up on areas where 

haying occurred west of the Refuge. The project also allowed construction (using the cleaning spoil) 

of a low level dike/road that would follow the creek meanders to refuge uplands within the marsh, 

allowing access for management purposes such as haying or prescribed burns. The dike would also 

be the southern leg of the proposed 1,900-acre Bloomington Impoundment, a project working with 

Ducks Unlimited and the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

In 1996, the Rainbow, Alder, and Dingle Units were drawn down for carp control. Production of 

aquatic plants (sago pondweed and muskgrass, Chara spp.) in the Rainbow Unit during the following 

summer was excellent. The carp exclosures placed within the proposed Bloomington Unit (the dike 

was under construction at this time) in 1996 showed good regeneration of muskgrass, Richardson’s 

pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii), and other species. 

In 1997, Ducks Unlimited and the Refuge received a North American Waterfowl Conservation Act 

(NAWCA) grant for $468,000. This grant, along with new partnerships, allowed completion of the 

1,900-acre Bloomington Unit Restoration Project. With matching funding, the total project value was 

$560,000. In 1998, the Refuge completed the two-mile dike and channel cleaning along Bloomington 

Creek. This new dike was the southern leg of a five mile dike that surrounded the 1,900-acre 

Bloomington Unit. In September 2000, with the 1,900-acre Bloomington Unit 98 percent dry, the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Refuge and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted carp control operations in the 

remaining borrow areas and shallow channels. 

A major improvement critical to the success of the restored Bloomington Unit was the repair and 

improvement of the water management system along the Refuge’s boundary with the Ward Ranch. 

Since the Ward Ranch moved water across their property from Bloomington Creek ditches to flood 

irrigate their meadows, and this water eventually moved into the refuge marsh, improvements to this 

area were needed to prevent carp movement from flooded private meadows into the Bloomington 

Unit in spring 2001. This project involved replacing rusted culverts and structures, improving 

existing levee height, and installing prefabricated carp-screened structures over the slide gate 

structures in seven locations. The Refuge toured the work area three times with Dean and Philip 

Ward, who provided much needed advice on how and where the water moved across their property. 

Work on this continued through January 2001. New walkways and slide gate pullers were built and 

installed in March 2001. A dedication was held in June to celebrate the completion of the 1,900-acre 

Bloomington Unit Restoration Project. 

During November and December 2002, refuge staff completed the final stages of the Bloomington 

Dike project by installing the Bloomington Crossing. This levee project involved installing two 64-

inch pipes and stoplog structures across Bloomington Creek to allow refuge access to the east side of 

the Bunn Lake Unit, commonly referred to as the Dunford Uplands. This project provided the 

capacity to allow spring flows to pass through the structure while allowing refuge personnel to raise 

the level of Bloomington Creek during fall to pass water into the Bloomington Unit via Structure #4. 

The project was completed using materials provided by the Bloomington Dike NAWCA project and 

force account labor by the Refuge. 

In 2003, the Rainbow Unit (historically the highest swan use unit) was maintained throughout the 

summer at a 3/4 full level with a 24-inch Crisafulli pump. Abnormally high August temperatures 

would have caused most available habitat to dry up if the pump had not been used. It is important for 

successful swan nesting to maintain a certain level of water throughout the summer. Other 

impoundments could be allowed to fluctuate more “naturally” with the existing drought conditions in 

2003. The Bloomington Unit (likely to provide several potential nesting territories) was maintained 

through early July and then allowed to slowly recede through natural evapotranspiration. Mud Lake 

(where most of the swans molted through late July-August), was slowly dropped to meet irrigation 

demands through this period. The Refuge requested and PacifiCorp granted the opportunity to bring 

Mud Lake and our management units to a full pool level by the 1st of October. This provided 

additional shallowly flooded habitat for swan and other waterbird foraging while allowing the Refuge 

to maintain full pool levels through winter as a hedge against a very short irrigation season in 2004. 

This would allow the Refuge to maintain water levels adequate to maintain existing swan breeding 

territories through August 2004 if the drought persisted. 

With diminished water supplies and record setting temperatures, the Refuge installed a new culvert 

on the 242-acre Salt Meadow Unit on July 9, 2003. The culvert allowed refuge personnel to use our 

20 cfs capacity Crisafulli pump to transfer water from the Dingle Unit to the Salt Meadow Unit in 

order to maintain remnant submergent vegetation. Overall, the pump was operated for 10 days 

providing over one foot (200 ac/ft) of additional water into the rapidly drying unit. 

In 2004, refuge staff worked on the Rainbow Complex Restoration Project which was funded 

through a $53,000 Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) small grant. The project entailed 

construction of one new water control structure and replacement of five existing structures with carp 

control hardware. Over the summer of 2004, refuge staff completed construction of the new structure 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17 

and replacement of two existing 36-inch structures to facilitate independent water management 

capabilities within the three-unit, 2,114-acre Rainbow Complex. The final stage, replacement of three 

existing structures, was completed during summer 2005; however, the 2004 construction elements 

greatly enhanced water distribution capabilities in the 234-acre Salt Meadow and 434-acre Rainbow 

Unit Sub-impoundment during a narrow October flooding window. All units were in exceptional 

condition going into 2005. 

During summer 2004, the Refuge applied for and received $250,000 through the Fisheries 

Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) program to complete the 14,800-foot St. Charles 

Creek Fish Passageway project on the proposed, 510-acre St. Charles Creek Unit. When completed, 

the passageway would provide unimpeded spawning access for Bear Lake Bonneville cutthroat trout 

from Bear Lake to spawning redds located in the upper St. Charles Creek. Persistent drought in the 

Bear Lake Valley and associated record low water levels in Bear Lake had nearly eliminated natural 

spawning of Bear Lake Bonneville cutthroat trout for the preceding seven years. As such, the project 

was placed on a fast track to complete within one year. 

Survey and design were conducted during September/October, and approximately 7,800 feet of levee 

construction was bid and the contract was awarded to Western Watersheds in November 2004. 

Permitting was completed through December, and initial ground breaking was slated for the first part 

of January. Refuge staff worked feverishly to meet this aggressive schedule and actually exceeded 

construction expectations through the winter. Analogous to the east meets west continental railroad 

design, the Refuge worked from opposite ends with a hired contractor and met in the middle on April 

1st, 2005. While the schedule did not produce a fully operational product until September, it was 

recognized that the passageway was made functional for the 2005 spawning season (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2005). 

Prescribed Fire 

A prescribed burning program was begun on the Refuge in 1992 with a 200-acre burn completed in 

the Salt Meadow Unit on April 20. Ninety percent of litter and vegetation was consumed in the fire. 

Migratory bird use of the area in June and July was high, especially white-faced ibis foraging in the 

growing bulrush and Juncus wetlands. 

Emergent bulrush transects from the 1992 Salt Meadow burn unit were monitored again in 1993. 

Residual bulrush is an important nesting material for redheads and other divers at the Refuge. 

Regrowth of burned bulrush was tracked as it regained more attractive nesting densities in 

subsequent years. This provided information about how long it takes for bulrush burns to fully 

recover in terms providing habitat for diving ducks, and if these selective burns are meeting the burn 

objective of stimulating growth and increasing future bulrush densities. 

On April 21, 1993, a prescribed fire was planned for 430 acres in the northeast corner of the Rainbow 

Unit. The actual acreage burned was about 340. From 1994-1998, no prescribed fires were 

undertaken. In the spring of 1999 four prescribed burns were conducted by the Malheur NWR fire 

staff; NE Rainbow (163 acres), Bloomington 1 and 2 (432 acres), Dunford 2 (95 acres). In 2000, a 

crew of seven completed prescribed burns from March 8-12. Two hundred acres in the South Dingle 

Unit, 200 acres in the West Rainbow Unit, and 300 acres in the northern portion of the Mud Lake 

Unit were completed for a total of 700 acres burned. Despite the cold weather and frequent snow 

squalls the burns went well, burning 80 percent of the bulrush within the fire perimeters and creating 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

some very good open ponds and channels when re-flooded later in March. The 4th burn (South Big 

Creek) was not done due to a lack of time to properly prepare the control lines near power lines. 

On March 14, 2001, a prescribed burn of 500 acres was completed in the southern portion of the 

Bloomington Unit. On March 15, a 310-acre prescribed burn on the northeast portion of the Mud 

Lake Unit was completed. The prescribed burn was implemented by the Malheur NWR fire staff and 

local US Forest Service fire personnel. On May 11, 2002, a 20-acre grassland prescribed burn was 

conducted in the triangle north of the maintenance shop. A prescribed fire intended for spring 2003, 

an approximately 1,000-acre marsh burn in the St. Charles Creek area of the Bunn Lake Unit, was 

aborted because of weather conditions. 

One prescribed burn was conducted during 2004, a 400-acre marsh burn in the Dingle Unit. The 

resource objectives were to create a 70 percent burn mosaic on the Dingle Unit, primarily to set back 

vegetative succession and create additional openings within this ephemeral water management unit. 

In April 2005 the 2,140-acre N St. Charles prescribed burn was completed in bulrush west of Bunn 

Lake. In April 2007 the 567-acre Dunford Unit was burned; the unit was a combination of wet 

meadow and bulrush. In October 2009 the South Dingle Unit (403 acres) was burned in same area as 

in 2000. In nine years the bulrush had re-grown to the same densities seen in 2000. 

Haying and Grazing 

Upon Refuge establishment in 1968, haying and grazing were initially retained because these uses 

were traditional on the lands now designated as a National Wildlife Refuge as well as the 

surrounding private lands. At the time the Service used haying and grazing, along with other 

techniques, as habitat management tools. In 1966, at a public meeting regarding possible 

establishment of the Refuge, John D. Findley, Associate Regional Director of the Service, made an 

introductory statement that included the following: “Important to the waterfowl management 

program will be a continuation of the haying and grazing uses which now occur in the Dingle Swamp 

area. These uses when properly regulated are compatible with the waterfowl management program. 

Grazing and haying are management tools needed to maintain openings in cover for improving 

nesting conditions and to allow an economic return to be realized from forage produced on the area 

(USDOI 1966).” 

In 1968, five special use permits for haying, grazing, or haying and grazing were issued to expire 

April 1, 1969, extending the use of the land as practiced in the past to complete the season’s work. 

Future permits would be established in accordance with refuge policies within a grazing and haying 

program. 

Both haying and grazing of refuge lands was used to open up dense bulrush stands and to provide a 

succulent green browse for waterfowl use. The type of vegetation cut for hay was mostly wet 

meadow plants such as spike and wire rushes, sedges, and even hardstem bulrush. Management felt 

that if it were not for haying, these units would eventually become solid, impenetrable stands of 

hardstem bulrush or cattail. This could be demonstrated by looking at the old hay stackyards that had 

grown up to solid stands of emergents. The haying program also provided areas of green browse for 

waterfowl and many miles of edge habitat between cover and open water. 

Managers retained grazing in eight refuge units because they felt that certain areas of the Refuge 

were too difficult to hay and still required some manipulation of wet meadow grasses and emergents 

for good waterfowl use. Cattle were helpful in opening the dense stands of emergents that extended 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19 

right up to the refuge boundary fence in several areas. During fall/winter storms, bedding by cattle in 

bulrush patches formed openings which in turn formed spring potholes for migrant and breeding 

waterfowl. In units with drier upland grasses and sagebrush, grazing was limited or prohibited. 

The grazing program was intended to accomplish the same end as the haying program—to keep the 

areas open and not overgrown with emergents. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, refuge staff 

recognized some interference of grazing with wildlife production and damage to habitat (USFWS 

1994a). In many cases the same unit was being hayed and grazed and managers felt that this might 

have been detrimental to the vegetation. These concerns were addressed by reducing grazing permits 

and changing the amount and timing of grazing. 

On October 22, 1992, The National Audubon Society; the Wilderness Society; Defenders of 

Wildlife; Black Hills Audubon Society; and Alan D. Riley filed a complaint for declaratory judgment 

and injunctive relief against Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior; John F. Turner, Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The complaint challenged the 

actions of the Service in authorizing and allowing secondary uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, such as grazing, military air exercises, motorboating, and watersports, without ensuring that 

such uses are compatible with the purposes of the National Wildlife Refuges on which they occur 

(NAS 1992). The Service agreed to a settlement of the “compatibility lawsuit on October 21, 1993. 

The settlement agreement required that the Service “review all secondary uses on all national wildlife 

refuges to ensure that they are compatible with the major purposes for which the respective units 

were established” (USFWS 1994a). 

In 1993, the Refuge reexamined grazing as a habitat management tool to determine if it met the 

criteria for a compatible refuge use. Managers concluded that it was not compatible, and grazing 

permits were phased out with 1994 being the last year of issuance. Problems documented from the 

existing grazing program were: increased nutrient loading in wetlands, reduction of residual nesting 

cover that reduced nest success, and direct mortality to nesting sandhill cranes from impacts with 

grazing allotment fences (USFWS 1996). 

Haying was considered to be compatible with refuge purposes and permits continued to be issued. 

Permits are issued as Special Use Permits with either a negotiated or bid rate per ton of hay 

harvested, or as Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMA). CLMAs stipulate that the 

cooperator plants grains and/or legumes for wildlife in exchange for harvesting refuge hay. 

Cooperators also fallow fields in rotation, conduct weed control, repair water control structures, and 

perform various other duties as negotiated. From 1968 to 2011, the Refuge issued from 12 to 20 hay 

permits annually, and 994 to 2,054 tons of hay were harvested on 2,117 to 2,896 acres annually. 

Management currently issues two CLMAs that allow haying on up to 779 acres annually in exchange 

for planting 91 acres of grain or legumes annually. 

Since about 2003, managers had begun to retire hay units that permit holders no longer wanted to 

hay, especially if these units were notably wet and difficult to dewater to allow haying. As the 

planning team began examining soils, vegetation, and wetland data for development of this CCP, it 

became clear that the Refuge was haying almost all of its wet meadow habitat, as well as some 

shallow emergent habitat. Short stature vegetation provided by haying occurs all over the Bear Lake 

Valley, whereas wet meadow habitat is in shorter supply. It makes sense to try to provide more 

natural wet meadow adjacent to short stature vegetation, dense nesting cover, and open pools (see 

Chapter 2, Management Direction). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Farming 

In 1969, about 80 acres of uplands along the west boundary of the Refuge were cleared of brush and 

grass and cultivated for planting the following spring to wheat and barley. Depredations on local 

cereal crops by sandhill cranes and waterfowl were becoming a problem and it was hoped that this 

first grain field would help alleviate the situation. In 1970, these 80 acres of barley planted produced 

a fair crop of green browse and seed. Green browse was little used, but when seed began to ripen, 

sandhill cranes spent a great deal of time in the field. As many as 100 cranes were observed there at 

one time, and throughout August and September crane use averaged 40 to 50 birds per day. After 

cranes departed on their fall migration in the first week of October, increased use of the field by 

Canada geese and ducks was noted. 

Barley and/or wheat have been planted every year since the Refuge was established. The Annual 

Narrative for 1976 notes that two main refuge objectives were being met by the farming program. 

First, the farming program provided a needed food source for brooding Canada geese. Second was 

the high priority objective of alleviating depredation to the crops of neighboring land owners. 

In 1984 and 1985, waterfowl and cranes consumed 100 percent of the lure crops. Therefore, it was 

decided to increase the crop acreage in 1986. From 1988 to 1994, the farming program entailed a dry 

farm rest rotation with small acreages of barley and alfalfa grown for migratory bird use through the 

migration and nesting periods. Mallard, Canada goose, and sandhill crane use on these areas was 

high, with close to 100 percent use by November of each year. Summer fallowing was used as part of 

the rotation to build up soils and combat noxious weeds. No chemical fertilizers were used. Areas of 

the farm fields were planted to alfalfa for goose/crane browse and to fix nitrogen in the soils for later 

rotation to barley a few years later. In 1990 a subsoiler for deep cultivation was obtained and 

repaired. It was used extensively in that year to improve soil moisture retention in the spring. 

Managers planned to use the subsoiler on a three-year rotation. 

In 1995 farming was done with shared equipment from Grays Lake NWR, 60 miles to the north. 

Summer fallowing was used as part of the rotation to build up soils and combat noxious weeds 

(primarily Russian knapweed, Canada thistle, and whitetop) in problem areas. Legumes were used to 

fix nitrogen, build soil tilth, and provide annual browse for Canada geese and sandhill cranes. 

Around 60 acres of barley was raised each year as a food crop for refuge waterfowl and cranes. 

During the spring, a revised Cropland Management Plan was developed for the Refuge along 

Regional guidelines. This afforded the opportunity to reexamine the farming program and improve 

the existing biological farming effort. All five farm units were scrutinized and most were redivided 

into three, more equally proportioned subunits and set up for rotation using barley, a legume crop, 

and summer fallow. 

In 1998, barley planting was reduced in some units due to the presence of fairly abundant barley 

from the previous year. At that time the Refuge had 170 acres of croplands used as part of the 

farming rotation. The rotation helped minimize the use of herbicides for controlling weeds; the grain 

units were sprayed once in June for weed control. In addition, no chemical fertilizers were used. 

The farming program continues today, except that cooperators do the work instead of refuge staff 

under CLMAs (see above). Currently cooperators farm approximately 91 acres annually, producing 

mostly winter wheat along with rotations of legumes. Cooperators are also beginning to reintroduce 

barley rotation since the seed bank from previous plantings is now depleted. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21 

Depredation Reduction 

From 1970 to 1985, refuge staff assisted local landowners to alleviate depredations by wildlife, 

mostly cranes and geese, on private grain fields. Refuge personnel, in cooperation with State 

conservation officers, distributed scaring devices, including cracker shells and rockets, to farmers 

who complained of migratory bird depredations. Heavy sandhill crane use and moderate goose and 

duck use of the refuge grain field contributed to depredation relief activities. In 1971 and 1972, 

several truckloads of barley were dumped at suitable locations in Bear Lake Refuge to attract birds. 

Again, rockets, cracker shells, and other devices were distributed to farmers that complained in 

writing of migratory bird depredations. It was felt that this effort was moderately successful in 

preventing depredations. 

Many staff hours were spent to place and service propane powered exploders, as well as traveling 

from field to field shooting SCRAM rockets and teleslot in an effort to move the birds. When moved, 

they usually flew to another farmer’s field so the whole process would start over again. This 

consistent harassment by refuge personnel and the farmers usually started about mid-July and 

continued until the grain was harvested in September. 

From 1978 to 1985, from eight to 11 farmers each year would lodge formal complaints about 

depredations. In 1986, the migratory bird depredation program was turned over to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture-APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service); however, the 

Refuge continues to provide “lure” crops to alleviate depredations, as noted in the “Farming” section 

above. 

Goose nesting platforms 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game had already placed several goose-nesting platforms in the marsh 

prior to 1968 when the land was still under the jurisdiction of the BLM. From 1968 to 1974, the 

Refuge continued to maintain and add goose-nesting platforms, and at one point had close to 100. 

Although maintenance and preparation for nesting season were very labor intensive activities, the 

Refuge continued to do so at least through 1991. With the rebound of goose populations, the Refuge 

decided not to continue maintaining the platforms and has been allowing them to disintegrate into the 

marsh over time. 

Protecting Nesting Areas 

From 1987 to 1996, electric fences were erected on the Rainbow Dike to reduce predation on 

waterfowl nests. In 1988, the Refuge also excavated water barriers to prevent predators, primarily 

skunk, from accessing two nesting areas: one at the northwest end of the Rainbow Dike, and the 

other on the inside of the east dike of the Salt Meadow Unit. Between 1,500 and 2,000 cubic yards of 

material was removed and used to rebuild and enlarge two nesting islands in the Rainbow Unit. The 

Annual Narratives contain no reports of erecting electric fence from 1997 to present. 

Preventing bird strikes on power lines 

In 1988, UP&L (which merged with PacifiCorp in 1989) agreed to modify power lines and poles to 

prevent bird strikes and electrocutions. On April 17, 1995, an immature peregrine struck a power line 

along Paris Dike. This incident, as well as a pending trumpeter swan release the following April, 

presented an opportunity to get 6,000 feet of problem power line outfitted with avian diverters. 

Installation of avian diverters on the power lines was completed by PacifiCorp in July of 1996. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Wildlife Surveys 

From 1968-1987, waterfowl day use estimates were prepared for the Refuge, and from 1968-2000 

waterfowl production (ducks, geese, and swans) was also estimated. From 1968-2004, estimates of 

waterbird and marshbird populations were made, usually based on guesswork, but sometimes 

augmented by ground or aerial surveys. Species surveyed and the level of survey effort varied from 

year to year. Data from these surveys have been used to assess populations and their response to 

management actions. 

In 2005, the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex began cooperating with Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game’s Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) Program (Moulton and 

Sallabanks 2006). Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys for five Idaho target species (sora rail, 

Virginia rail, American bittern, pied-billed grebe, and Wilson’s snipe) were conducted from 2005 to 

2010. Colonial waterbird colony counts were conducted by IBIS at Bear Lake NWR and Oxford 

Slough in 2005 and 2008, and Bear Lake NWR only in 2006 and 2009. For detail on survey results, 

see Section 4.4.1 below. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

The 1,878-acre Oxford Slough WPA (elevation 4,750 feet) was acquired by the Service in 1985, and 

is the only waterfowl production area in Region 1. This WPA is located 10 miles north of Preston, 

ID, next to the small town of Oxford, ID. The extensive Oxford Slough (711 acres of deep wetlands 

with bulrush and other emergent plants) dominates the unit. Oxford Slough also has a diversity of 

wet meadows and drier alkali uplands (988 acres), with farm units (179 acres) on its north end. The 

first mention of Oxford Slough WPA in the Annual Narratives is in 1990. At that time, the unit was 

managed from the SE Idaho Complex office. Bear Lake NWR staff provided support and they made 

four trips to the slough in 1990. From at least the year 2000-2007, the Oxford Slough WPA has been 

managed from Bear Lake NWR. From 2007 to present, the Oxford Slough WPA has been managed 

jointly by staff in the Complex office and Bear Lake NWR. 

Water Management 

Oxford Slough receives its water from runoff from surrounding fields and hills, and irrigation canal 

flows during the summer through fall/winter period. Late summer water is usually a problem in this 

unit, with much of the WPA drying up by October in normal to dry years. This was the case in 2000, 

a year with adequate spring and early summer water. Water levels dropped quickly during the dry 

summer, leaving little water available for migratory birds by September. Late fall irrigation return 

flows began refilling the unit in November, offering good habitat for late season mallard use. 

Below average precipitation and above average temperatures in 2002 resulted in completely dry 

wetlands by late August, leaving no water available for migratory birds in September. Late fall 

irrigation return flows began refilling the unit in early November, offering good habitat for late 

season mallard use until the unit completely froze in early December. 

During 2003, below average precipitation and above average temperatures resulted in completely dry 

wetlands by early August, leaving no water available for migratory birds in September. While this 

situation provided extremely poor habitat conditions for late nesting and fall migratory waterbirds, 

the Refuge took advantage of the situation by initiating a channel cleaning project to divert water 

away from agricultural drains and to spread limited water throughout the slough. Prior to this project, 

water entered at the northeast corner of the slough, seasonally spread throughout the marsh, but then 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23 

was limited to the eastern portion of the slough adjacent to the drains as water receded during 

summer. It was hoped that the channel cleaning project would allow even distribution throughout the 

slough, ultimately increasing water retention in critical summer months when fledgling water birds 

were reaching flight stage. 

During September and October of 2003, Heavy Equipment Operator Alexander and Maintenance 

Worker Kelsey shifted operations to the Oxford Slough WPA to begin a channel cleaning and island 

creation project. Through examination of aerial images of the slough, it was discovered that three 

separate drains had been dredged on WPA lands prior to Service acquisition in 1985. These drains 

tended to move water rapidly through the slough for downstream irrigation use. In this extended 

period of drought, this drainage resulted in adverse consequences to spring produced waterbirds 

because the slough tended to dry before they reached flight stage. 

To complete the project, the historic channel of the slough was identified and a course plotted using 

ArcGIS. Through use of the excavator and a handheld GPS, this course was followed in the field to 

open the historic channel to divert water away from the drains. The entire project was completed 

force account with fuel comprising the only project cost. As of December, the project appeared to be 

successful as the new channel was flooded while the drains remained dry. 

Qualitative observation in 2004 suggested that the 2003 channel cleaning operation was fully 

successful. Water retention during July and August, when fledgling water birds were reaching flight 

stage, was increased. Water appeared to have remained in the unit well into September; the first year 

water was available for the entire breeding season over the last three years. Additionally, water 

reflooded the Slough beginning in early October, providing at least a minimal amount of migration 

habitat for fall migratory birds. Channel cleaning, combined with the first marsh burn in the last 20 

years (see “Prescribed Fire” below), improved conditions on the WPA for migration and breeding 

pair use. 

Also during 2004, the 1,200-foot Oxford Slough Safety Levee was replaced using MMS funds. The 

levee had blown out during a mid-1990s flood leaving only the Union Pacific railroad base to access 

the southern and eastern portions of Oxford Slough WPA. Because of safety concerns associated 

with active railroad access only, the levee was rehabilitated and outfitted with a 48" water control 

structure to allow spring water to flow through the system. The finished levee provides access to 

accomplish future habitat restoration activities (e.g., prescribed burns and invasive species control) 

on the WPA’s eastern boundary as well as providing water management capabilities. 

Farming 

The 1998 Annual Narrative reported that 179 acres of farm units on Oxford Slough WPA were being 

farmed under a Cooperative Farming Agreement (CFA), which provided 47 acres of cut and uncut 

barley, 52 acres of mowed alfalfa, and 80 acres of dense nesting cover (DNC). Approximately 180 

acres of wet meadow areas were hayed as well. The farming agreement was set up with a local 

farmer, Mr. Stanton Yearsley, who had been part of this unit’s management since Oxford Slough 

WPA was acquired in 1985. The five-year agreement ran through December 31, 2000. Under the 

CFA, Mr. Yearsley was also responsible for water management, any water assessment fees, and 

noxious weed control as prescribed by refuge policy. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

As of 2003, the 168 acres of farm units on Oxford Slough WPA were being farmed under a 

Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA), which provided 43.2 acres of cut and uncut 

barley, 24.2 acres of mowed alfalfa, and 89 acres of dense nesting cover (11.7 acres were summer 

fallowed in 2003). Approximately 180 acres of wet meadow areas were hayed as well. The CLMA 

was set up with the same farmer who held the previous CFA (Mr. Yearsley). Under the CLMA Mr. 

Yearsley was also responsible for water management, any water assessment fees, and noxious weed 

control as prescribed by refuge policy. The CLMA for 2004 was the same as in 2003 with the 

addition of mowing strips within barley fields, which yielded dramatic bird use increases. Mr. Lynn 

Garner has held the CLMA from 2007 to the present. He plants winter wheat, fallows fields, repairs 

fences, controls weeds, and manages refuge water rights in exchange for harvesting hay and winter 

wheat. 

Prescribed Fire 

A 55-acre upland burn was set off on April 9, 2003, with the intention of restoring native grass vigor 

while decreasing annual weed coverage. Pre-burn data were collected to document vegetation 

response. The objectives of the burn were met, but below average precipitation following the burn 

resulted in poor regrowth of native grasses. It was anticipated that snowpack during winter 

2003/2004 would be adequate to allow for extensive regrowth of native grasses the following spring. 

A 67-acre prescribed burn in the Oxford Slough marsh was conducted on April 7, 2004. The marsh 

burn was intended to completely remove nearly 20 years of residual hardstem bulrush in perennial 

water portions of the Slough, and that resource objective was met. 

Wildlife Surveys 

In 2000, a duck nesting survey and a duck brood count was conducted (see Section 4.4.1 below). In 

2005, the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex began cooperating with Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game’s Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) Program (Moulton and 

Sallabanks 2006). Colonial waterbird colony counts were conducted by IBIS at Oxford Slough in 

2005 and 2008. For detail on survey results, see Section 4.4.1 below.

Thomas Fork Unit 

In 1988, the Service proposed that the 926 acres of wetlands on the 1,015-acre DeWitt-Feller 

property be turned over to the Refuge System. Idaho Farm Bill Coordinator Peggy Guillory, 

Ecological Services, Boise, persistently resubmitted fee title transfer proposals, after initial 

rejections, through the State office to FmHA in Washington, D.C. In June 1990, Bear Lake NWR 

signed an interim management agreement with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) pending 

the sale of the DeWitt-Feller property and recording of the conservation easement on the property, 

with the Service as manager. Finally, after many years of effort, the FmHA approved the fee title 

transfer of the entire 1,015-acre DeWitt-Feller property to the FWS in November of 1995, when it 

was named the Thomas Fork Unit. 

The Refuge began management planning for 1996. During the fall, the Regional Land Surveyor 

made a field reconnaissance of the property in preparation for a spring boundary line survey. Prior to 

the fee title transfer, the Refuge did another Level I Contaminant Survey. Planning was also 

underway for fencing, posting boundary signs, noxious weed control, farming, and water 

management efforts. At that time, the objectives for this tract were preserving the 2-mile riparian 

corridor along Thomas Fork Creek, management of the wetlands for migratory waterfowl, improving 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25 

the habitat for late summer/fall sandhill crane staging, and protecting that portion of the property 

where the Oregon Trail crossed the Thomas Fork. 

In 1996, 4 miles of the east boundary fencing was completed by a contractor as well as old fence 

removed and boundary signs posted. Water crossings were also repaired with new culverts and 

gravel, the east water control structure was replaced with a larger stoplog type with pipe, metal gates 

were installed at access points, the existing trail/road through the interior of the unit was improved 

with gravel, and an old farm field was rehabilitated into summer fallow. 

During the summer of 1996, a land exchange for 18 acres of valuable riparian habitat along the 

Thomas Fork was worked out with then neighbor Rolf Esche. As part of the exchange Mr. Esche 

received an 18-acre farm field that the Service owned adjacent to his land. As part of the agreement, 

the property has a permanent Conservation Easement along the stream bank protecting the riparian 

zone in the southern portion of the Thomas Fork. The additional riparian habitat includes willow and 

stream bank with adjacent seasonal oxbow wetlands. The exchange was finalized in 1997. 

In 1997 the 5.3-mile boundary fence was finally completed, and more work was done to improve 

water delivery and infrastructure. The center structure wooden deck was replaced with concrete deck, 

allowing larger and wider machinery to cross. New railings, walkways, and slide gates were installed 

as well. Rock was hauled in to protect key areas of eroding stream bank along the Thomas Fork’s 

main channel. 

A study of Bonneville cutthroat trout movement on the Thomas Fork Creek system conducted from 

July 1999 to April 2001 found that three diversion structures appeared to be hindering reproductive 

success (Colyer et al. 2005). In 2006, the Service partnered with the Ducks Unlimited, Trout 

Unlimited, US Forest Service, the Bear Lake Regional Commission, and a private landowner in the 

Thomas Fork system to create fish friendly diversion structures with ladders to allow for Bonneville 

cutthroat trout passage. 

Sagebrush Habitat Restoration 

The Thomas Fork Unit contains approximately 80 acres of mixed sagebrush upland and meadow 

grass habitat along its western boundary. This portion of the unit was subject to heavy livestock 

grazing prior to Service acquisition in 1995. While livestock grazing was discontinued upon 

acquisition, most of the extant vegetation consists of old-growth sagebrush with very little native 

understory vegetation. To supplement regeneration of this important community, the Refuge worked 

with the SE Idaho Complex fire crew to plant 250 big sagebrush seedlings during spring 2003, and 

an additional 400 seedlings in fall 2003. It was hoped that these supplemental plantings would 

eventually provide an enhanced seed bank so that the community could regenerate at an accelerated 

pace. Due to limited staff, assessments of the success of these plantings have not been conducted. 

Habitat assessments are included in inventory and monitoring objectives in this CCP (Chapter 2). 

Farming 

Currently, the Thomas Fork has about 44 acres of croplands used as part of the farming rotation. In 

June 1996, the old farm units were rehabilitated and barley was planted for migratory bird use via 

force account. Use of these new food crop areas was high in the fall, with good carryover barley for 

the spring of 1997. In 1997, 22 acres of barley and 10.5 acres of winter wheat were planted as food 

crops for waterfowl and cranes. The Thomas Fork Unit had an additional 22 acres of barley planted 

in the west grain field and 10.5 acres of winter wheat planted in the east unit. In 1998, the Refuge 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

planted 5 acres of barley. Barley planting in some units was reduced due to the presence of fairly 

abundant carry over barley crops from the previous year. 

In response to continued drought, the Refuge attempted to incorporate winter wheat into the rotation 

during 2003. The rationale was to have a crop ready to take advantage of snowmelt, instead of 

depending on summer precipitation as is the case with spring planted barley. The response was better 

than anticipated with over 700 sandhill cranes using Thomas Fork Unit wheat fields during fall 2004. 

Under the current CLMA, about 44 acres of crops for wildlife in exchange for approximately 337 

acres of refuge hay. The cooperator also manages water levels, maintains the water control 

infrastructure, and sprays for weeds when needed. 

Haying 

Haying, planting grain, and fallowing fields in rotation were all done by refuge staff until special use 

permits were issued in 1998. Two to three permits were issued to local landowners each year. In 

2007 the permits were phased out, and haying continued under a Cooperative Land Management 

Agreement (CLMA) with a local landowner. From 1996 through 2011, between 49 and 340 tons of 

hay were harvested on 337 acres of the Thomas Fork Unit. 

4.1.4 Changes in Wildlife Populations after Refuge Establishment 

Birds 

Continental passerine, waterfowl, and waterbird populations have changed considerably since 1965. 

Refuge populations have fluctuated widely through time. In some cases species abundance has 

declined, due to habitat changes and other causes. The loss of many habitats, including breeding 

wetlands, increases the importance of remaining areas like Bear Lake NWR. 

Trumpeter swans, Canada geese, and many species of breeding waterfowl have either increased or 

remained roughly stable on Bear Lake NWR since its establishment, due to more intensive habitat 

and population management. Data are provided in section 4.4.1 below. There are few data to quantify 

population size. Early reports on wildlife were primarily extrapolations based on limited field 

observations. Assumptions upon which these extrapolations were based could not always be verified. 

To be fair, this was the standard procedure for that time, and all that was generally possible to do 

given other refuge management priorities, limited staff and funding, and generally less robust 

standards for biological data. Therefore these figures do not provide “reliable knowledge” 

(Romesburg 1981, 1991) with which to make comparisons with newer data. More recent studies 

provide more robust data on populations of waterfowl and colonial nesting birds on the Refuge, but 

substantial gaps remain (see section 4.4.1). 

Mammals 

The annual muskrat harvest from the Bear Lake marshes was estimated at 75,000 animals in the 

“early 1900s.” Estimates of muskrat populations between 1968 and 1984 ranged from 2,000 to 9,500, 

with most estimates around 3,000-4,000. There are no reliable estimates of muskrat populations on 

any of the units at present, but clearly muskrat populations have declined from peak historic and 

probably early refuge levels. Beaver numbers have always been estimated at <20, and usually <15 

animals. Muskrats and beaver have important roles as potential “ecosystem engineers” on these 

refuge units. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27 

The elk population in this general area has increased dramatically from early historical records. 

Accounts of trappers in the mid-1800s suggest that elk were common, though buffalo and bighorn 

sheep were more numerous. Unregulated harvest in the late 1800s and early 1900s maintained or 

reduced populations to relatively low levels. By 1952, elk were believed to be numerous enough to 

warrant the first hunting season. Elk populations are now very high in this area (Compton 2008a), 

and they use the Thomas Fork Unit extensively during certain seasons. 

Mule deer populations have declined from 1992-2002, not only in southeast Idaho but across the 

western states (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2010), while elk, moose, and pronghorn herds 

have been stable, or increased since the same time period. Idaho’s mule deer population has 

fluctuated widely at least since the early 1800s, and likely previous to that time. Early accounts from 

that period indicated that deer were less numerous than buffalo, bighorn sheep, and elk. Deer 

declined through the early 1900s, probably due to unregulated harvest. By 1920 deer were quite rare. 

From 1920 to the early 1970s, deer numbers increased dramatically, interrupted briefly by significant 

winter mortality. Following a significant decline in numbers beginning in 1972, numbers again 

increased until the late 1980s. More conservative management has led to fluctuating but more-or-less 

stable mule deer numbers in this area (Compton 2008b). Mule deer winter in varying numbers (< 10 

to >200) on Merkley Mountain, Bear Lake NWR, and have occasionally been seen in the marsh (Carl 

Mitchell, Refuge Complex Biologist, personal observations). There are no data for mule deer use on 

Thomas Fork or Oxford Slough. 

Prior to the 1950s, there were few moose (Alces alces) in this region. With continued growth of the 

population, portions of the region continue to be colonized by moose, and populations apparently are 

increasing (Toweill 2008). Moose occur commonly on Bear Lake, and occasionally on Thomas Fork 

and Oxford Slough units. 

There is a small herd of about 50-60 pronghorn (T. Boudreau, pers. comm.) that uses the WyomingIdaho boundary area, including Thomas Fork Unit. On one occasion in 2010, the Complex Biologist 

saw 150 pronghorn on the Thomas Fork Unit. A lone pronghorn is seen year after year in a field with 

horses in the town of Dingle near the Refuge. 

Coyotes (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), raccoons (Procyon 

lotor), river otter, mink, and weasels (Mustela spp.) occur, but reliable population estimates are not 

available. Occasionally populations are mentioned as “high” or “low”, but these are subjective 

assessments at best. Red fox were first observed on the Bear Lake NWR in 1970. Mountain lion 

(Felis concolor) and black bear have both been observed on Bear Lake Refuge, but their occurrence 

is very rare. 

Fish 

Native fishes, especially Bear River populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout, have declined from 

historic populations, mostly due to declines in water quality, and alterations to historic hydrology of 

the Bear River system (Teuscher and Capurso 2007). There are few data on other fishes on Bear 

Lake NWR, Thomas Fork, or Oxford Slough. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern 

4.2.1 Selection Process 

Early in the planning process, the planning team identified 29 priority species (resources of concern) 

for the Refuge, as recommended under the Service’s Policy on Habitat Management Plans

(620 FW 1). In this policy, resources of concern (ROCs) are defined as: 

“all plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in 

refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem 

conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of 

concern on a refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ 

Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource 

of concern under terms of the respective endangered species acts (620 FW 1.4G).” 

The Service’s Draft Identifying Resources of Concern and Management Priorities for a Refuge: A 

Handbook (USFWS 2009) states that “Habitats or plant communities are resources of concern when 

they are specifically identified in refuge purposes, when they support species or species groups 

identified in refuge purposes, when they support NWRS resources of concern, and/or when they are 

important in the maintenance or restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health.” Therefore, resources of concern for a refuge may be a species or species group, or the 

habitat/plant community that supports a priority species/species group. (Resources of concern are called 

conservation targets in conservation planning methodologies used by other agencies and NGOs). 

These priority resources of concern (ROCs) frame the development of goals and objectives for 

wildlife and habitat. Resources of concern may be species, species groups, or features that the Refuge 

would actively manage to conserve and restore over the life of the CCP; or species that are indicators 

of habitat quality for a larger suite of species (see “Other Benefitting Species,” Table 4.1). Negative 

features of the landscape, such as invasive plants, may demand a large part of the refuge management 

effort, but are not designated as resources of concern. The main criteria for selection of the resources 

of concern included: 

 consideration of the Refuge’s establishing purposes and the Refuge System mission; 

 species that may be used as an indicator of the health of one of the main natural habitat types 

found at the Refuge; 

 recommended as a conservation priority in the Refuge’s draft Habitat Management Plan 

(Bundy 2007); and 

 Federally or State listed, candidate for listing, or species of concern. 

Other criteria that were considered in the selection of the resources of concern included: 

 Species groups and/or refuge features of special management concern; 

 Species contributing to the biological diversity, integrity and environmental health of the 

ecosystem; and 

 Species where it is feasible to estimate population size (needed for future monitoring and 

adaptive management). 

Table 4.1 lists the priority resources of concern for Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the 

Thomas Fork Unit. Additional tables that support this chapter are located in Appendix E and include 

a Comprehensive List of Resources of Concern (both species and habitat types), and Biological 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-29 

Integrity, Diversity, Environmental Health tables that describe habitat types, key ecological 

processes, and limiting factors. In Section 4.3, we consider the condition and trends of the habitat 

types that support these focal wildlife species. In Section 4.4, we consider condition and trends of 

populations of key species and species groups on the Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and 

Thomas Fork Unit. 

Table 4.1. Priority Resources of Concern for Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas 

Fork Unit. 

Focal Resources Habitat Type Other Benefitting Species 

Western/Clark’s grebe 

Open Water 

American white pelican 

Double-crested 

cormorant 

California gull, Forster’s tern, black tern, American 

white pelican, western/Clark’s grebe 

Black tern California gull, Forster’s tern, American white 

pelican, western/Clark’s grebe, barn and cliff 

swallows 

White-faced ibis 

Permanent to SemiPermanent wetlands: 

Dense Marsh with Tall 

Emergent Plants 

Franklin’s gull, Forster’s tern, marsh wren, sora rail 

Black tern Franklin’s gull, Forster’s tern, red-winged and 

yellow-headed blackbird, marsh wren, sora rail, 

muskrat, mink 

Canada goose (B. 

canadensis moffitti) 

Canvasback, redhead, mallard, marsh wren, redwinged and yellow-headed blackbirds, muskrat, mink 

American bittern Sora rail, red-winged blackbird 

Yellow-headed blackbird Red-winged blackbird, marsh wren 

Muskrat 

Permanent to 

Semi-Permanent 

Wetlands: 

Hemi-Marsh (Open 

Water/Dense Marsh) 

Mink 

Trumpeter swan Canada goose (on muskrat houses or floating 

platforms), canvasback, redhead, lesser scaup 

Canvasback American coot, mallard, muskrat, mink, western 

grebe, American wigeon, cinnamon teal, gadwall, 

northern shoveler 

Redhead American coot, mallard, muskrat, mink, western 

grebe, American wigeon, cinnamon teal, gadwall, 

northern shoveler 

Greater sandhill crane 

(G. canadensis tabida) 

Shallow marsh: 

seasonal wetlands 

Virginia rail, sora rail, yellow-headed and red-winged 

blackbirds, American bittern 

Northern leopard frog Red-headed blackbird, muskrat 

American bittern Sora rail, red-winged blackbird 

Mallard Canada goose, northern pintail, American wigeon, 

canvasback, redhead, cinnamon and green-winged 

teal 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Wet Meadow 

(Temporary Wetlands)

Canada goose, mallard, northern shoveler, American 

avocet 

Greater sandhill crane Canada goose, long-billed curlew (foraging) 

Canada goose Long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, American coot, 

mallard, gadwall, American wigeon 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-30 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Focal Resources Habitat Type Other Benefitting Species 

Marbled godwit Long-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope 

Purple meadow-rue 

(Thalictrum dasycarpum) 

Long-billed dowitcher Marbled godwit, Wilson’s phalarope 

Long-billed curlew Willet, yellow-legs 

White-faced ibis Snowy egret, Franklin’s gull, Virginia rail, greater 

yellow-legs (migration) 

Red glasswort 

(Salicornia rubra) 

Alkaline Meadow and 

Alkali Upland 

Meadow 

(Seasonal and 

Temporary wetland 

and Upland) 

Wilson's phalarope, black-necked stilt, willet 

American avocet Wilson's phalarope, black-necked stilt, willet 

Long-billed curlew 

Meadow Grass 

(Uplands) 

Greater sandhill crane, vesper sparrow, killdeer, 

Swainson’s hawk, short-eared owl 

American wigeon Mallard, long-billed curlew, lesser scaup, short-eared 

owl, Swainson’s hawk 

Mallard American wigeon, greater sandhill crane, short-eared 

owl, Swainson’s hawk 

Canada goose Horned lark, bobolink 

Grasshopper sparrow Lesser scaup (nesting), short eared owl (nesting) 

Greater sage-grouse 

Sagebrush steppe 

(uplands) 

Sharp-tailed grouse, sage sparrow, ferruginous hawk, 

merlin, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, prairie 

falcon, Brewer’s sparrow, Merriam’s shrew, Idaho 

pocket gopher, Wyoming ground squirrel, burrowing 

owl 

Loggerhead shrike Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sage grouse, golden 

eagle, Wyoming ground squirrel 

Northern pintail White-crowned sparrow, lazuli bunting 

Bonneville cutthroat trout 

Riparian 

Mink, muskrat, beaver, mallard, yellow-rumped and 

orange-crowned warblers, yellowthroats, Empidonax

flycatchers 

Swainson’s hawk Great horned owl, yellow-rumped warbler 

Bear Lake springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis pilsbryana) 

Greater sandhill crane 

Agriculture 

Canada goose, mallard, red-winged and Brewer’s 

blackbirds, Swainson’s hawk 

Canada goose Sandhill crane, mallard, red-winged and Brewer’s 

blackbirds 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-31 

4.2.2 Analysis of Priority Resources of Concern 

Wildlife and habitat goals and objectives were designed directly around the habitat requirements of 

species designated as priority resources of concern. In developing objectives, the team followed the 

process outlined in the Service’s Draft Identifying Resources of Concern and Management Priorities 

for a Refuge: A Handbook (USFWS 2009). 

In developing its listing of Priority Resources of Concern, the team selected not only species 

identified in refuge purposes and international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation 

plans, but also species that captured the key ecological attributes of habitats required by larger suites 

of species. A key ecological attribute of an ROC is defined as: 

“a characteristic of the resource’s biology, ecology, or physical environment that is so 

critical to the resource’s persistence, in the face of both natural and human-caused 

disturbance, that its alteration beyond some critical range of variation will lead to the 

degradation or loss of the resource within decades or less” (Unnasch et al. 2009). 

The team analyzed the key ecological attributes of habitats that are necessary to meet the life history 

requirements of ROCs, and are therefore critical to sustain the long-term viability of the ROC and 

other benefitting species (see Appendix E). Key ecological attributes include habitat patch size; 

adjacency to or contiguity with other habitats; vegetation structure, species composition, age class, 

and seral stage; frequency and duration of flooding; and frequency and intensity of fire. These key 

ecological attributes provide measurable indicators that strongly correlate with the ability of a habitat 

to support a given species. For most attributes, the team developed “desired” conditions that were 

based partly on scientific literature review and partly on team professional judgment. These desired 

conditions for specific attributes were used to help design measurable habitat-based objectives, as 

presented in Chapter 2. Not all key ecological attributes or indicators were deemed ultimately 

feasible or necessary to design an objective around. In addition, while the key ecological attribute 

identifies a desired condition for most indicators, other factors, such as feasibility and the ability to 

reasonably influence or measure certain indicators, played a role in determining the ultimate 

parameters chosen for each objective. Thus the key ecological attributes should be viewed as a step 

in the planning process, but the ultimate design of objectives was subject to further discussion and 

consideration. Appendix E serves as a supporting appendix to Chapter 2. 

The team analyzed limiting factors for the habitats that support the ROCs. A limiting factor is a 

threat to, or an impairment or degradation of, the natural processes responsible for creating and 

maintaining plant and animal communities (see Appendix E). In developing objectives and strategies, 

the team gave priority to mitigating or abating limiting factors that presented high risk to ROCs. In 

many cases limiting factors occur on a regional or landscape scale and are beyond the control of 

individual refuges. Therefore objectives and strategies may seek to mimic, rather than restore, natural 

processes. For example pumps and water control structures may be used to control water levels in 

wetlands in areas where natural hydrology has been altered. The structure of plant communities used 

by ROCs can be created, rather than restoring native species composition. For example, haying may 

be used to maintain a desirable vegetation structure, when restoring native grassland communities 

may be impractical. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-32 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.3 Habitat Types 

A baseline inventory of Bear Lake NWR habitats was completed by Utah State University during 

summer 2000 (USU 2001). The effort resulted in characterization of 33 plant communities at Bear 

Lake NWR, and 19 communities at the Thomas Fork Unit, based on 1998 aerial imagery. For ease of 

interpretation, these communities were incorporated into a common set of wetland and upland habitat 

types, applicable to all areas evaluated, and corresponding to wetland habitat types as characterized 

in “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States” 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). Primary types occurring on Fish and Wildlife Service Lands include: 

Palustrine Emergent Marsh (PEM; persistent and non-persistent), Palustrine Forested Marsh (PFO; 

riparian), and associated adjacent uplands. Combined, this classification contains seven wetland 

habitats, three upland habitats, and agricultural habitat; these eight habitats were used for further 

evaluation in this analysis. Database elements of the USU GIS effort were incorporated into a 

spreadsheet analysis to determine baseline acreages within each habitat type. Map 4 (Chapter 2) 

shows current distribution of habitat types on Bear Lake NWR. 

4.3.1 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats

Overview 

Palustrine Emergent Marsh is a nationally decreasing wetland habitat type, characterized by a mix of 

wetland plant associations subject to perennial and ephemeral (permanent to seasonal) water 

availability. In combination, the two primary components, perennial emergent hemi-marsh and 

ephemeral wet meadow, provide for the seasonal needs of all wetland-dependent resources of 

concern, and currently cover approximately 92 percent of the Bear Lake NWR habitat base, and 65 

percent and 74 percent for the Thomas Fork Unit and Oxford Slough WPA, respectively. A detailed 

description of each habitat type is included in the following sections. 

1. Perennial Emergent Hemi-Marsh can be defined as a roughly equal mix of emergent and open 

water/submergent habitat, and is critical to fulfilling the life history strategies of numerous wetlanddependent wildlife species (Weller and Spatcher 1965). While the term is somewhat antiquated and 

rarely used today, a clear understanding of the general concept is essential to effective perennial 

emergent marsh management. The general premise is that overwater nesting waterbirds require 

habitat to fulfill two primary life history requirements during the breeding season; nesting and brood 

rearing. Nesting habitat (comprised of deep and shallow emergent vegetation) provides plant material 

necessary to construct floating or elevated nest structures, while brood rearing habitat (comprised of 

open water and submergent vegetation) provides the forage base for fledgling waterbirds. Maximum 

nesting densities are realized where the deep emergent marsh component retains a complex edge, 

relative to the open water component, and there is a 50:50 mix of these two components within any 

given management unit. Ideally, this optimal relationship would be realized through a large number 

of smaller open pools (1-25 acres) within emergent vegetation; however, at present, most refuge 

hemi-marsh habitat is comprised of a few large pools (>100 acres) ringed by emergent vegetation. 

Habitat types within the hemi-marsh system include 

(a) open water, 

(b) submergent wetlands, 

(c) deep emergent wetlands, and 

(d) shallow emergent wetlands. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-33 

a) Open Water Habitat is defined as permanently flooded habitat >12 inches in depth which is 

devoid of any aquatic vegetation. Due to presence of carp and turbid Bear River inflow, open water 

habitat can be further subdivided into High and Low clarity categories. High clarity open water 

habitat occurs where the wetland bottom (substrate) can be easily observed (NTU readings <10), 

while Low clarity open water habitat occurs where the wetland bottom (substrate) cannot be easily 

observed (NTU readings >50). Open water habitat currently covers approximately 22 percent of all 

refuge lands and >25 percent of Bear Lake NWR. High clarity open water habitat is only present in 

impounded wetland units on Bear Lake NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA. Low 

clarity open water habitat is currently found on Mud Lake and impounded units which have not 

recently received carp control. The desired condition is to convert approximately 50 percent of 

baseline open water habitat to submergent habitat. This goal cannot be achieved until mechanisms to 

control sediment deposition and carp movement in Mud Lake are developed. The more realistic 

desired condition is to promote 100 percent coverage in high clarity open water habitat in impounded 

wetland units, at the Thomas Fork Unit, and at Oxford Slough WPA, while accepting <50 percent 

coverage in Mud Lake. 

b) Submergent Habitat can be defined as permanently flooded habitat >6" but <36" in depth 

which is comprised primarily of aquatic submergent vegetation species such as pondweed, 

coontail, or water milfoil. Submergent habitat provides the desirable open water condition in 

palustrine emergent marsh wetlands, but is presently the most limiting component. Covering only 

2.1 percent of all refuge lands, it is a primary goal to increase the extent of this habitat type. 

Submergent habitat can be further subdivided into early and late successional. Late successional 

submergent habitat consists primarily of leafy vegetation such as water milfoil, coontail, and 

mare’s tail. At present, <60 percent of refuge submergent habitat comprises early successional seed 

producing species such as pondweeds and muskgrass (Chara), while >40 percent of refuge 

submergent habitat is comprised of late successional leafy browse species. The desired condition is 

to convert approximately 50 percent of baseline open water habitat to submergent habitat, while 

maintaining a minimum of 5 percent of all refuge area comprised of this habitat type. Within 

successional stages, it would be desirable to maintain between 60-80 percent of submergent habitat 

comprised of early successional seed producing vegetation, while maintaining 20-40 percent of 

submergent habitat in a late successional stage dominated by leafy browse vegetation. 

c) Deep Emergent Habitat can be defined as semi-permanently flooded habitat comprised 

primarily of hardstem bulrush, but also containing cattail. Similar to submergent habitats, deep 

emergent habitat can be further subdivided into three successional stages: early successional (deep 

emergent habitat comprised of <30 percent residual vegetation coverage from previous year's 

growth), mid successional (deep emergent habitat comprised of 30-90 percent residual vegetation 

coverage), and late successional (deep emergent habitat comprised of >90 percent residual 

vegetation coverage). Different levels of residual vegetation are desirable to different resources of 

concern based on seasonal life history requirements. 

Early successional deep emergent habitat is a direct result of prescribed fire and typically lasts <2 

years following a burn. No refuge units fall under this category at present. Mid successional deep 

emergent habitat falling within 30-90 percent residual cover is a typical mid-successional response 

and currently covers approximately 50 percent of refuge deep emergent habitat (those burned 

between 3-7 years prior). Late successional deep emergent habitat has greater than 90 percent 

residual cover and typically occurs >7 years following disturbance (mechanical or prescribed fire). 

The remaining 50 percent of refuge deep emergent habitat falls under this category at present. The 

desired condition is to maintain between 10 percent and 20 percent of refuge deep emergent habitat 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-34 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

in an early successional seral stage (<30 percent residual cover), between 60 percent and 80 

percent in a mid-successional stage (30-90 percent residual cover), and between 10 percent and 20 

percent of refuge deep emergent habitat in a late successional stage (>90 percent residual cover). 

d) Shallow Emergent Habitat is defined as semi-permanently to ephemerally flooded habitat 

comprised primarily of hardstem bulrush, but also containing shallowly flooded cattail and alkali 

bulrush, typically flooded to a depth of 3 to 24 inches. The primary difference between deep and 

shallow emergent habitat is water permanence. Shallow emergent habitats are occasionally 

dewatered during summer months, while deep emergent habitats are permanently wet. Shallow 

emergent habitat can be further subdivided by water quality with two different types found on 

refuge at present; alkaline (shallow emergent habitat comprised primarily of alkali bulrush and 

established in water typically >1,000 ppm TDS) and fresh water (semi-permanent to seasonally 

flooded habitat comprised primarily of hardstem bulrush in water typically <1,000 TDS). 

Significant stands of alkali dominant (e.g., alkali bulrush) shallow emergent marsh currently exist 

only in the Rainbow Complex (Bear Lake NWR) and Oxford Slough WPA. Approximately 90 

percent of the shallow emergent community is currently dominated by hardstem bulrush which 

covers approximately 30 percent of all refuge units. With the exception of the lack of numerous 

small open water and/or submergent habitat pools intermixed within this habitat type, the current 

condition is desirable. 

2. Ephemeral Marsh is the palustrine emergent marsh component that is subject to an ephemeral 

hydrologic regime. Water depths range from moist soil during late summer to as much as two feet 

during spring. It is this seasonal fluctuation that produces and then concentrates food reserves for 

most wetland-dependent wildlife species. The diversity and complexity of plant species within 

ephemeral marsh habitats provides ideal substrate for invertebrates, which constitute 90 percent of 

most waterbird diets during summer months. With fall flooding during migration, the seeds produced 

by annual plants additionally provide forage for migratory waterbirds. Ephemeral marsh is comprised 

of two habitat types including (a) wet meadow and (b) alkaline meadow, either of which can be 

treated as moist-soil habitat with the appropriate water management strategy.

a) Wet Meadow is defined as ephemeral to semi-permanently flooded marsh dominated by low 

stature, flood tolerant, annual, and perennial plants. Typical species include spikerush, Baltic rush, 

and flood tolerant grasses such as foxtail barley, saltgrass, and rabbitfoot grass. Wet meadow habitats 

can be further subdivided by successional stage with either early successional or late successional 

communities found on all refuge units. Early successional status wet meadow includes habitat where 

less than 20 percent of the community contains dense residual cover. Approximately 80 percent of 

wet meadow habitat is maintained in early successional status through the Refuge’s haying program. 

Late successional status wet meadow is defined as habitat where greater than 90 percent of the 

community contains dense residual cover and/or greater than 20 percent of the community is forb 

dominant. Less than 20 percent of wet meadow habitat is maintained in late successional status. The 

desired condition would be to reduce the coverage of early successional wet meadow habitat to less 

than 60 percent. A high amount of this habitat type occurs on private lands adjacent to all refuge 

units. Conversely, it would be desirable to increase the coverage of late successional wet meadow 

habitat to a minimum of 20 percent to 40 percent coverage. Virtually no late successional wet 

meadow habitat occurs on private lands adjacent to all refuge units. 

b) Alkaline Meadow is defined as ephemeral to semi-permanently flooded alkali marsh (>1,000 

ppm TDS) dominated by low stature, flood tolerant, annual and perennial plants. Evaporation during 

hot summer months leads to accumulations of salts in certain wetlands at Bear Lake NWR and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-35 

Oxford Slough WPA. Several plants and plant communities have adapted to the high salt 

concentrations and occur exclusively in, or are often associated with, saline depressions. Typical 

species include glasswort (pickleweed), red goosefoot, oakleaf goosefoot, and inland saltgrass. 

Alkaline meadow habitats can be further subdivided by successional stage with either early 

successional or late successional communities found on all refuge units. Residual cover is typically 

very low in alkaline meadow communities, thus, successional stage is rated based on diversity of the 

established plant community. Early successional status alkaline meadow is comprised of a 

heterogeneous plant community where more than one halophytic plant species shares dominance 

within the community. Early successional alkali meadow communities are dominant where water 

quality input is >1,000 ppm TDS and where water management has fluctuated over time. 

Approximately 60 percent of all refuge alkali meadow is currently in early successional status. Late 

successional status alkali meadow includes a relatively homogenous plant community where red 

glasswort (Salicornia rubra) is dominant within the community. Late successional alkali meadow 

communities are dominant where water quality input is >1,000 ppm TDS or where water 

management has favored natural evaporative drawdowns over time. In both cases, the current 

distribution is desirable. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Wetlands 

In Idaho an estimated 386,000 acres of wetland habitat (56 percent) were lost from 1780 to 1980 

(Dahl 1990). Many remaining wetlands have been degraded by actions such as hydrologic alteration 

and impacts to vegetation and soils. Wetlands, including deepwater habitat, cover approximately 

238,000 acres of southeastern Idaho (Bear Lake County and the majority of Bonneville, Caribou, and 

Franklin counties), or approximately 7 percent of the 3.4 million acres of land area. Lacustrine 

systems, which include mostly deepwater habitat, make up nearly 1/3 of this percentage. Excluding 

deepwater habitat, wetlands represent approximately 5 percent of the total land area in southeastern 

Idaho, and palustrine emergent wetlands make up 80 percent of these wetlands (National Wetlands 

Inventory in Jankovsky-Jones 1997). Bear Lake County has more wetlands proportionately than the 

other counties in southeastern Idaho (15 percent of land area) of which approximately 38 percent is 

deepwater habitat, and 54 percent is emergent wetland. Approximately 52,943 acres of southeast 

Idaho’s wetland and deepwater habitat are currently protected, representing approximately 22 percent 

of the region’s wetland and deepwater habitat. The majority (89 percent) of the protected wetlands 

are within four National Wildlife Refuges or Refuge units (Bear Lake NWR, Grays Lake NWR, the 

Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit). More than 80 percent of the protected wetlands 

are in the palustrine emergent class. 

Jankovsky-Jones (1997) identified the causes of wetland losses and functional shifts in southeast 

Idaho. Wetland losses occur when functions are eliminated and an area no longer meets the definition 

of a wetland. In southeastern Idaho, agriculture, mining, and urbanization account for wetland losses. 

Most of the permanent losses of wetlands in SE Idaho are due to drainage and land clearing for 

agriculture and mining. Road construction and home building account for minor losses in the area. 

Most wetlands in southeast Idaho have been impacted by human influences, resulting in a shift of 

wetland functions. Impairments are functional shifts that reduce wetland functions and include 

degradation and fragmentation. Degradation, the loss of one or more wetland functions, is indicated 

by shifts in species composition and may result in lowered water quality due to sediment input or 

increased water temperatures. Fragmentation occurs when functions are lost due to barriers 

restricting water or gene flow. Fragmentation of wetland habitat has occurred throughout SE Idaho as 

a result of water development, agriculture, road building, and development. The natural hydrographs 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-36 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

of all major rivers in southeastern Idaho have been altered by reservoirs and diversions. Type 

changes occur when a wetland is converted from one type to another (e.g., emergent to open water), 

while functional shifts improving wetland functions are considered enhancements. At Bear Lake 

NWR, enhancement projects have focused on improvement of channel conditions, maintenance of 

water levels for waterfowl, and control of exotic species. 

Shifts in species composition occur when native species such as shrubs and trees are removed and 

when exotic species invade or are introduced. Poor water quality often results due to loss of thermal 

cover, loss of filtering functions, and decreased bank or shore stability. The 1992 National Resource 

Inventory indicated that 25 percent and 21 percent of non-Federal wetlands in southeastern Idaho 

were being used for pasture and rangeland respectively (SCS 1992). Pasture development has 

included ditching, reseeding or interseeding with non-native pasture grasses, and removal of native 

trees and shrubs. Use of wetlands for rangeland affects species composition through the suppression 

of native woody species, introduction of exotic species, and compaction of soils. Introduction of 

exotic animal species (e.g., carp) can also reduce wetland functions. 

Bear Lake NWR 

Threats to wetland habitat on the Bear Lake NWR include: Sedimentation and reduced germination 

of wetland plants due to altered hydrologic regimes; unnatural herbivory and disturbance by carp, 

leading to excessive turbidity and reduced germination; excessive natural herbivory (waterbirds); 

disturbance and trampling from administrative or recreational boating and/or hunting; and invasive 

species introductions (Eurasian milfoil). 

The natural hydrologic regime has been altered within Bear Lake NWR through development of the 

Bear River irrigation system. Where the Bear River was functionally isolated from the Bear Lake 

system in the recent geologic past, flows are now almost entirely diverted into the Refuge prior to 

irrigation storage in Bear Lake, or release for irrigation use through the Bear Lake outlet canal. These 

have resulted in numerous changes to habitat structure and function, described in detail in section 

4.1.2 above, and Appendix E. 

The 1968 agreement between PacifiCorp and the Service stipulated that the water level in Mud Lake 

(a portion of Bear Lake NWR) would be maintained at an elevation of 5,920.50 feet, plus or minus a 

half foot, subject “to all prior commitments, including particularly the terms of the Bear River 

Compact and provided, nevertheless, that the maintenance of said level is dependent upon the 

availability of water and acts and occurrences over which the Power Company has no control.” 

Silt-laden Bear River waters now enter the Refuge, creating turbidity that inhibits plant germination; 

foraging carp uproot the plants that do survive. This combination creates a relatively sterile wetland 

ecosystem, resulting in limited productivity of aquatic vegetation and waterfowl. Not only does the 

silt create turbidity, but most of it settles into the Mud Lake area of the Refuge, making it shallower 

over time. Nitrogen and phosphorus also enter the Refuge and could create additional water quality 

issues (see Chapter 3). 

In southeastern Idaho, carp have been associated with declines in waterfowl production and loss of 

native fish habitat in wetlands. Carp were introduced in Idaho to the Bear River system in 1882. By 

the late 1890s the impact of carp to native species and habitat became apparent. Carp are bottom 

feeders whose activity reduces water quality by increasing turbidity, uprooting submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and decreasing invertebrate populations (Simpson and Wallace 1978). The presence of 

carp in wetland ecosystems leads to a higher proportion of open water habitat than would occur 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-37 

under natural processes. Carp control can lead to other impacts to wildlife and habitat, for example, 

improperly sustained low hydroperiod in carp-controlled units create significant sediment or peat 

accumulation, encroachment and expansion of bulrush/cattail, or annual winter freezing to marsh 

substrate, and lead to reduced over-winter muskrat survival. Low muskrat populations, in turn, lead 

to dense monocultures of bulrush and cattail. Isolation and management of carp populations is 

ongoing at Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (see Section 4.6.2). 

Wetland condition has generally improved since refuge establishment, due to construction of 

numerous impoundments, canals, and with water control structures. This has allowed managers to 

manipulate water flows and partition and manage discrete water bodies for specific goals and 

objectives, based on hydrology, soils, vegetation, and other ecological factors (see Chapter 2, 

Management Direction, and Chapter 3, Bear Lake NWR Water Management and Infrastructure). 

However, proper water management is difficult in this complex system, and requires considerable 

skill in monitoring and interpreting conditions at any given place or time. The Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan (Bundy 2007) provides an excellent summary of wetland 

ecology and management objectives for each habitat type and management unit. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

As noted in Chapter 3, Hydrology, due to land use changes and increasing demands on limited water 

resources, the historic palustrine emergent marsh complex at Oxford Slough WPA has been reduced to 

a fraction of its former size and becomes desiccated much more rapidly than the historic hydrologic 

regime would have allowed. In many years the Oxford Slough system is completely desiccated by mid 

to late summer, when fledgling birds depend on the wetlands (Bundy 2007). Although improvements to 

water management infrastructure (described in Section 4.1.3 above) have improved the WPA’s ability 

to hold water through the nesting season, it is prudent to evaluate the need for agricultural and meadow 

hay water rights, which the WPA retains through the Oxford Creek Irrigation District, and evaluate 

mechanisms to develop these rights for wetland storage/wildlife purposes. 

The 227-acre West Meadows area presently contains the only fresh water, wet meadow habitat on 

the WPA. As such, conditions are conducive to establishing seasonally flooded meadow grasses as 

well as the typical, wet meadow complement of species. At present, a majority of this habitat is 

hayed annually, leaving little habitat for wildlife use (Bundy 2007). 

Due to water shortages within Oxford Slough, ephemeral wetland habitat along the eastern edge of 

the slough is subject to periodic annual desiccation. Referred to as the East Alkali area (376 acres), 

this habitat is critical to migratory and breeding shorebird species and serves as primary foraging and 

secondary nesting habitat for waterfowl species. Without a mechanism to retain water in Oxford 

Slough, this habitat serves little value for the aforementioned species, and without a mechanism to 

seasonally flood this habitat, vegetation production is low and does not generally meet wildlife 

habitat requirements (Bundy 2007). 

Key Species Supported 

Birds 

Bear Lake NWR 

Wetlands at Bear Lake NWR host a wide variety of birds, including 30 species of waterbirds (e.g., 

loons, grebes, bitterns, terns, gulls, ibis, cranes), and 28 species of waterfowl (swans, geese, and 

ducks). Bear Lake NWR hosts significant numbers and species diversity of colonial and other 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-38 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

waterbirds. The most notable species include sandhill cranes, white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gulls, 

California gulls, pied-billed grebes, eared grebes, western grebes, Clark’s grebes, white pelicans, 

double-crested cormorants, great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, snowy egrets, cattle 

egrets, Forster’s terns, Caspian terns, black terns, American bitterns, American coots, sora rails, 

Virginia rails, and Wilson’s snipe. 

The most abundant waterfowl using the Refuge during spring and fall migration include Great Basin 

Canada geese, mallard, green-winged teal, canvasback, redhead, and ruddy ducks. Gadwall, northern 

pintail, cinnamon teal, and lesser scaup also occur in lower numbers. Some snow geese, trumpeter 

swans, and tundra swans migrate through the Refuge. Swans, geese, and ducks molt in large numbers 

on Mud Lake. The most common nesting waterfowl include mallard, canvasback, redhead, and ruddy 

duck. Trumpeter swans, lesser scaup, northern shoveler, cinnamon teal, green-winged teal, northern 

pintail, gadwall, and American wigeon also nest in lesser numbers. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

A wide variety of migratory birds use Oxford Slough WPA, including abundant nesting ducks, 

Canada geese, and sandhill cranes. The center of Oxford Slough is dominated by a large colony of 

white-faced ibis, snowy egrets, black-crowned night-herons, and Franklin’s gulls. 

Thomas Fork Unit

Birds seen on the Thomas Fork Unit include: Canada Geese, mallard, gadwall, canvasback, redhead, 

green-winged and cinnamon teal, white-faced ibis, American coot, sandhill crane, northern harrier, 

Swainson’s, red-tailed, and rough-legged hawks, black tern, black-crowned night heron, great blue 

heron, Virginia and sora rails, belted kingfisher, western wood-pewee, willow flycatcher, several 

swallow spp., marsh wren, mountain bluebird, yellow-rumped warbler, savannah sparrow, redwinged, Brewer’s, and yellow-headed blackbirds, and American goldfinch. 

Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians 

Mammals that occur in refuge wetlands include moose, beaver, muskrat, river otter, and mink. 

Predators such as coyote, red fox, raccoon, striped skunk, and long-tailed weasel forage 

opportunistically in wetlands. Reptiles and amphibians known to occur in wetland habitat are western 

terrestrial and common garter snakes, western chorus frogs, and northern leopard frogs (Annual 

Narrative 1971). Others undoubtedly occur, but there are no formal inventories. 

Fish 

Native fish known (or likely) to be present on the Bear Lake NWR and the Thomas Fork Unit include 

Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah), Utah sucker (Catostomous ardens), Paiute 

sculpin (Cottus beldingii), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), 

redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) and leatherside chub 

(Snyderichthys copei) (American Fisheries Society, Idaho Chapter 2011). More data are needed on 

native fish abundance and distribution. There is no known fishery on the Oxford Slough WPA. 

Invertebrates 

In August 1990, Mr. Peter Hovingh inventoried areas of the valley, including both carp-infested and 

carp-free areas of Bear Lake NWR, for mollusks, leeches, and amphibians (see Section 4.6.1 below). 

He found the following freshwater snails on the Refuge: Physa, Helisoma, Lymnaea stagnalis,

Lymnaea sp., and Oxyloma. Leopard frogs were also found in carp-free zones. The leech Erpobdella 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-39 

punctata was found in the refuge ponds (Refuge Annual Narrative 1990:48). Other than this study, 

there are no known checklists of any invertebrate species on Bear Lake NWR units. As these species 

have important ecological roles, these data are badly needed to ensure that any habitat management 

takes species life histories into account. 

Refuge Management Activities 

Considering overall wetland loss throughout the Bear River drainage and Great Basin in general, it is 

no longer desirable to maintain the historic natural processes of widespread flood/drought. Rather, it 

is imperative to retain functional wetland remnants at optimal levels. Where appropriate, these areas 

can be maintained through mimicking natural seasonal periodicity (e.g., Thomas Fork Unit, Bear 

Lake NWR); however, artificial water management strategies can also be used to simulate natural 

environmental process (Bear Lake NWR) while water rights can be used to supplement seasonal 

shortfalls (Oxford Slough WPA). 

Bear Lake NWR 

Water Management

Water management is used to simulate natural environmental fluctuations. Using rotation among 

management units and complexes, it is possible to simulate three scenarios (flood, normal cycle, and 

drought) within the same refuge and year, while seasonally maintaining roughly the same wetland 

acreage annually. The general management philosophy is to maintain hydrologic regimes such that 

an approximately equal proportion of refuge habitat is managed under high water, normal, and low 

water conditions using complex-specific habitat tolerance thresholds and subsequent management 

prescriptions to determine which units would be so managed in any given year. The history of water 

management on the Refuge to date is included in Section 4.1.3 above. A detailed description of 

current water management on Bear Lake NWR, by management unit, is included in Chapter 3, “Bear 

Lake NWR Water Management and Infrastructure,” pages 21-28. Current and proposed future 

wetland management is provided in the habitat objectives for Palustrine Emergent Marsh, Palustrine 

Forested habitat, and associated habitat types (Chapter 2, Management Direction). 

Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fire has been used on the Refuge since 1992, primarily to set back vegetative succession 

and create openings in dense emergent vegetation. The history of prescribed fire use on the Refuge to 

date is included in Section 4.1.3 above. Fire models and history are discussed in Chapter 3. 

Haying 

From 1968 to present, haying has been used on the Refuge to open up dense bulrush stands, create 

“edge” habitat between cover and open water, and to provide succulent green browse for waterfowl 

use. Currently, about 2,900 acres of upland meadow, wet meadow, and shallow emergent wetlands 

are hayed annually. This includes most of the Refuge’s wet meadow habitat. Currently haying is 

conducted under both permits and two Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMAs) that 

allow haying in exchange for planting grain or legumes (see Section 4.1.3 above for history of haying 

on the Refuge). Cooperators also fallow fields in rotation, conduct weed control, repair water control 

structures, and perform various other duties as negotiated. Since about 2003, managers had begun to 

retire hay units that permit holders no longer wanted to hay. The management direction of this CCP 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-40 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

(Chapter 2) proposes continuing this gradual retirement of hay units to achieve a 60 percent reduction 

in haying by 2027, combined with an increase in wet meadow habitat. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Oxford Slough receives its water from runoff from surrounding fields and hills, and irrigation canal 

flows during the summer through fall/winter period. Late summer water is usually a problem in this 

unit, with much of the WPA drying up by October in normal to dry years. Late fall irrigation return 

flows begin refilling the unit in November, offering good habitat for late season mallard use. 

Ideally, water at Oxford Slough WPA is managed to retain spring flows and maximize water retention 

during July and August, when fledgling water birds are reaching flight stage. When possible, Oxford 

Slough is reflooded beginning in early October to provide habitat for fall migratory birds. In 2003, the 

marsh was burned for the first time in 20 years to open up stands of dense emergent vegetation, and the 

historic channel of the slough was cleaned to divert water away from three drains that had been dredged 

prior to Service acquisition in 1985. In drought years these drains were causing the slough to dry out 

before young birds reached flight stage. In 2004 the Oxford Slough Safety Levee was replaced and a 

48" water control structure was installed to improve water management capabilities (see section 4.1.3 

above for history of management of Oxford Slough WPA). Despite these improvements, the Service 

currently has little control over water management of the Oxford Slough WPA. We are currently 

investigating methods to ensure water availability in the future. Possible solutions include establishing 

a well to supplement summer and early fall flows, establishing retention levees to make better use of 

the limited water supply, and evaluating the present farming program to determine if existing 

farming/water management strategies are facilitating the primary purpose of Oxford Slough WPA 

(waterfowl production). Any changes to WPA water rights must be initiated by the Oxford Creek water 

district, thus, present objectives are to develop stronger relationships with the district and surrounding 

landowners. About 300 acres are hayed and 80 acres of crops grown on the WPA annually. Prescribed 

fire has been conducted twice since the WPA was acquired, in 2003 and 2004. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The Thomas Fork Unit is used by greater sandhill crane pairs in spring, and provides nesting habitat for 

cranes, Canada geese, and several species of ducks. The Thomas Fork Unit is on the tail end of the 

Raymond Valley and water irrigation of meadows naturally collects on this unit via sloughs and ditches 

before entering the Bear River. The Thomas Fork Creek backs up from the Bear River during high 

water (April-June), filling side wetlands and sloughs along the unit’s west side. The center water 

control structure staff gauge is considered to be full at 15.60-15.80 feet. Usually the challenge with the 

Thomas Fork Unit is too much water at the wrong time of year (i.e., nesting season) when the Bear 

River immediately south of the Thomas Fork Unit floods and backs up into the unit’s wetlands. In 

years of high water flows, nest flooding can be a problem. In years with low snowpack (e.g., 2000-

2004), this does not occur, and the challenge then is managing water with very low levels. 

The Service is the majority water shareholder in the Thomas Fork Irrigation Company at 32 percent of 

the 1,565 shares in the company. Each 500 shares (or 500 miner’s inches) is worth a 10 cfs (50 miners 

inches per 1 cfs) flow to the Refuge and combined with the other water rights, would irrigate 979 acres 

of the Thomas Fork Unit's 1,015-acre total. The additional water right is for 3.6 cfs, so total Thomas 

Fork Unit water rights are for 13.6 cfs. 

Currently, approximately 330 acres of the Thomas Fork Unit are hayed annually. Haying provides 

crane and waterfowl pair habitat that is undisturbed by grazing that occurs on adjacent lands. In 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-41 

addition, approximately 44 acres of crops are grown on the Thomas Fork Unit. Hay and grain units are 

managed in a dry land rotation that minimizes the use of herbicides. Units that are not planted, and 

problem weed areas, are fallowed twice during the summer. No chemical fertilizers are used. 

Prescribed fire has not been used on the Thomas Fork Unit to date. 

4.3.2 Riparian and Instream Habitat 

Overview 

These habitats are limited to 49 acres on Bear Lake NWR, 41 acres on Thomas Fork Unit, and 2 

acres on Oxford Slough WPA. The Bear Lake riparian habitat is in two patches, one on the east side 

of the Bear Lake Canal and another patch on the south of the Alder Unit. The first patch comprises 

solely peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides) and sandbar (also called coyote) willow (Salix exigua), 

and the second consists of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), peachleaf willow, and sandbar 

willow. The Thomas Fork of the Bear River meanders through the Thomas Fork Unit for three miles. 

A preliminary assessment of the Thomas Fork Unit by Jankovsky-Jones (1997) found thick beds of 

Potamogeton in the Thomas Fork channel, and remnant stands of mostly Salix exigua and some S. 

boothii bordering the Thomas Fork creek. The Oxford Slough riparian area lies along the deepest 

parts of the main slough channel. 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands: Also referred to as riparian habitat, palustrine forested habitat (PFO) 

is a nationally decreasing habitat type found in small but important acreages at all three refuge units. 

While rivaling the diversity found in wet meadow habitats, it is the willow overstory above the mix 

of wet meadow plants that make palustrine forested habitats critically important for a variety of 

migratory and breeding landbird species. Willow communities support both terrestrial and semiaquatic insects that are an important forage base for both fish and passerine birds. Willow 

communities are also important in maintaining water quality for fish by stabilizing banks and shading 

water. Additionally, stream courses such as St. Charles Creek (Bear Lake NWR) and Thomas Fork 

Creek provide critical spawning access for the State threatened Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT). 

Both of these spawning tributaries have been identified as critical to the long-term survival of BCT. 

Riparian Habitat is defined as natural stream bank and artificial water course habitat predominately 

comprises native willow species with a wet meadow understory, typically subject to an ephemeral, 

spring flooding regime (>0"-12" in depth) (Bundy 2007). This habitat type can be further subdivided 

based on the prevalence of native species within the plant community. Communities where willow or 

other woody native species occupy >90 percent of the total canopy coverage occupy less than 60 

percent of all refuge riparian habitats (Bundy 2007). Approximately 40 percent of refuge riparian 

habitat either does not contain an adequate native willow component or greater than 10 percent nonnative/invasive species component (Bundy 2007). The desired condition would be to maintain 90 

percent of riparian habitat in the native dominant category; however, this plan would accept 10 

percent coverage by riparian communities where <90 percent of the canopy coverage is native 

dominant. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Riparian Habitat 

Riparian habitats are threatened by altered and insufficient flows to sustain native vegetation due to 

legal and illegal diversions, increased demands on surface and groundwater by exurban development 

and agriculture, vegetation removal, altered channel morphology and reduced water quality caused 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-42 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

by improper livestock grazing; beaver removal; over-browsing by moose and beaver (an unlikely 

threat given current population levels); and fire. 

Several creeks flow into Bear Lake NWR but do not originate there, and significant portions of the 

watershed lie outside the Refuge. Off-refuge upstream activities have major impacts on water quality 

and quantity. Restoring riparian habitats would require cooperative efforts between the Service, 

USFS, Trout Unlimited, NRCS, and landowners throughout the Bear River Watershed. 

During very high water years, the Bear River can flood, backing up Thomas Fork Creek and flooding 

the eastern meadows of this unit. The Thomas Fork is an Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality 303(d) stream due to sediment and nutrient loading likely caused by water diversions, 

degraded riparian vegetation, and irrigation and grazing practices. 

There have been no assessments of riparian vegetation on Bear Lake NWR or the Thomas Fork Unit. 

Quantitative assessment of condition and regeneration is required. Many of the willows on Thomas 

Fork Unit appear to be dead or dying. Furthermore, this appears to be human-caused, since upstream 

from the boundary fence the willow community appears to be healthy and thriving. At this writing 

we are uncertain as to the cause of the willow condition on the Thomas Fork Unit. 

Key Species Supported 

Willow overstory and a diverse mix of wet meadow related plant understory make palustrine forested 

habitats critically important for a variety of migratory and breeding landbird species. Species that 

nest in riparian habitat include great blue herons, black-crowned night herons, snowy egrets, great 

horned owls, Swainson’s hawk, numerous warblers, and other passerines. Riparian areas also provide 

important brood-rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse. Riparian areas have 

also been shown to be important foraging areas for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Fellers and Pierson 

2002). 

The primary native fish of conservation interest on Bear Lake NWR and Thomas Fork Unit is the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout. Bonneville cutthroat trout are considered a Game Fish by the State of 

Idaho and a Sensitive Species by the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) (Teuscher and Capurso 2007). Several non-governmental organizations have 

petitioned to list BCT under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There have been four petitions for 

listing since 1979 (Teuscher and Capurso 2007). 

Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) have greatly diminished range in southern Idaho, and efforts have 

been made, in cooperation with ID Department of Fish and Game and Trout Unlimited, to restore and 

conserve habitat at Bear Lake NWR and Thomas Fork. On Service lands, BCT only occur in St. 

Charles Creek on Bear River NWR, and in the Thomas Fork of the Bear River (Teuscher and 

Capurso 2007). They have been extirpated in Bloomington Creek. Thus management of these waters 

for BCT is critical. 

Stream courses such as St. Charles Creek (Bear Lake NWR) and Thomas Fork Creek provide critical 

spawning access for the State threatened Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT). Cutthroat trout pass 

through St. Charles Creek which provides a critical corridor between Bear Lake winter and upper 

headwater spawning habitats. St. Charles Creek has been identified by IDFG as “the most important 

natural spawning location for Bear Lake [Bonneville] cutthroat trout,” but cutthroat spawning 

numbers have declined from the thousands of fish observed in the creek in the 1950s, 60s and 70s to 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-43 

fewer than 100 fish in 2003 (Western Native Trout Initiative 2010). Recently, projects to improve 

fish passage on St. Charles Creek have been completed (see section 4.4.2 below). 

Leatherside chub probably occur in the Thomas Fork Creek in low numbers, but have not been 

documented as yet. Other aquatic species include two endemic mollusks, the Green River 

pebblesnail, and the Bear River spring snail. 

Refuge Management Activities 

Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA 

Monitoring of riparian condition and control of invasive plants is the only management currently 

occurring on riparian habitat on Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Thomas Fork Creek streamflow patterns are essentially the same as occurred historically until the 

irrigation season begins around the 1st of May. This allows for the natural hydrologic periodicity to 

function from roughly September 30 until May 1st when irrigators begin flooding agricultural fields. 

The Refuge maintains approximately 500 shares in the Thomas Fork irrigation company which 

allows the Refuge to artificially maintain both wetland levels and instream flow during critical late 

spring/early summer months necessary to support spawning by Bear River, Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, as well as nesting and brood-rearing by a wide variety of nesting and migratory wetland- and 

riparian-dependent wildlife species. 

During the summer of 1996, a land exchange for 18 acres of valuable riparian habitat along the 

Thomas Fork was worked out with then neighbor Rolf Esche. As part of the exchange Mr. Esche 

received an old 18-acre farm field that the Service owns adjacent to his land. As part of the 

agreement, the property has a permanent Conservation Easement along the stream bank protecting 

the riparian zone in the southern portion of the Thomas Fork. The additional riparian habitat is 

important willow and stream bank with adjacent seasonal oxbow wetlands. The exchange was 

finalized in 1997. 

4.3.3 Upland Meadows 

Overview 

Upland meadows differ from wet meadows based on the seasonal periodicity of hydration. Upland 

habitats can be seasonally flooded for as many as 30, but usually for less than 10 days in the spring. 

On the refuge units, two types of upland meadows occur: alkali upland meadows, and meadow grass 

uplands. Similar to the relationship between wet and alkali meadows, alkali and meadow grass 

upland distribution vary by soil pH and conductivity as influenced by site-specific evaporation rates. 

Alkali Upland Meadows are an uncommon habitat (314 acres on Bear Lake NWR, 2 acres on the 

Thomas Fork Unit, and 127 acres on the Oxford Slough WPA) located in isolated shallow pans; 

probably flooded in spring. Upland meadows often have a salt crust in summer, and are sparsely 

vegetated with patches of bare soil. Alkali upland meadows provide a vital nesting area for sensitive 

species such as American avocet and long-billed curlew. Without the close juxtaposition of alkali 

uplands to alkali wet meadows, these species would no longer frequent refuge habitat because these 

habitats in combination provide the components necessary to fulfill their life history strategies. On 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-44 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

the Oxford Slough WPA, Jankovsky-Jones (1997) found that drier hummocks were dominated by the 

Sarcobatus vermiculatus/Distichlis spicata var. stricta community type with non-native Bromus 

tectorum locally dominant. 

Meadow grasslands are comprised of native grass species such as Great Basin wildrye and tall 

wheatgrass. Typically, meadow grass species are taller in stature and have considerably more 

structural complexity than alkali uplands. Therefore, meadow grasslands are used by a wider range of 

wildlife species. Similar to the juxtaposition of alkali uplands with alkali meadows, meadow grass in 

close proximity to wet meadow is also vitally important to a different complement of wildlife 

species, including upland nesting waterfowl and shorebird species such as Wilson’s phalarope. About 

570 acres of meadow grass currently occurs on Bear Lake NWR, 231 acres on the Thomas Fork Unit, 

and 119 acres on the Oxford Slough WPA. 

Jankovsky-Jones (1997) found relatively high quality native wet meadow and grassland habitat on 

the Thomas Fork Unit, noting that the site is largely covered by a mosaic of native grass communities 

that cover nearly 4 square miles. She found that much of the site was composed of relatively high 

quality native vegetation. Extensive stands of Deschampsia cespitosa occur on alluvial terraces on 

the eastern half of the site. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Upland Meadows 

Threats to alkali upland meadows include extreme drought or flood conditions; groundwater 

depletion; grazing; development; conversion to agriculture; and invasive species. Threats to meadow 

grasslands include conversion to croplands, invasive species, fire, grazing, haying, disturbance, and 

development. In southeastern Idaho, both wet meadows and upland meadows are extensively used 

for haying and grazing (Jankovsky-Jones 1997). On the Oxford Slough WPA, nonnative species 

(Bromus tectorum, Agropyron repens, Tragopogon pratensis, Alopecurus pratensis (in large 

patches), Cirsium arvense, and Phleum pretense) compete with native vegetation. Native species 

predominate in upland meadows on the Thomas Fork Unit; however, non-native and invasive plants 

are present and currently pose the greatest threat. 

Key Species Supported 

Alkali upland meadow provides foraging and breeding habitat for American avocet, and foraging 

habitat for snowy egret. Meadow grass provides nesting habitat for short-eared owls and mallard, 

nesting and foraging habitat for long-billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Canada goose, and 

foraging habitat for American widgeon, California gull, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, 

ferruginous hawk, merlin, and Franklin’s gull. It also supports Wyoming ground squirrel, Uinta 

ground squirrel, and Idaho pocket gopher. 

Refuge Management Activities 

Bear Lake NWR, Thomas Fork Unit 

Haying and control of invasive plants are the only management activities currently occurring in 

upland meadow habitat on Bear Lake NWR. Monitoring of habitat condition and control of invasive 

plants is the only management currently occurring in upland meadow habitat on the Thomas Fork 

Unit.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-45 

Oxford Slough WPA 

As Region 1’s only Waterfowl Production Area, the extent and quality of upland habitat for upland 

nesting waterfowl at Oxford Slough is critical. To that end, the Refuge has restored approximately 53 

percent of historic agricultural fields by planting native upland grasses to produce nesting cover. 

Additionally, prescribed fire has been used sparingly to return native meadow grass communities to 

early successional status (<90 percent residual cover and <10 percent forb cover) which should create 

optimal conditions for wildlife nesting. 

4.3.4 Shrub Habitats 

Overview 

Shrub is defined as upland comprised of either early successional (rubber rabbitbrush), late 

successional alkali (big greasewood), late successional climax (big sagebrush) shrub species with the 

dominant overstory canopy covering at least 50 percent of the community. Shrub habitats typically 

contain a native grass understory comprised of either meadow grass or alkali upland species. Refuge 

units contain approximately 2.2 percent shrub habitat by areal coverage: 352 acres on Bear Lake 

NWR, 87 acres on Oxford Slough WPA, and 80 acres of mixed sagebrush upland and meadow grass 

on the Thomas Fork Unit (approximately 24 acres of which are sagebrush). Oxford Slough shrub 

habitats are more greasewood dominant, while Bear Lake NWR and the Thomas Fork Unit have a 

higher proportion of big sagebrush. Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and various wheatgrass 

species occur on the east side of Bear Lake NWR near Merkley Mountain. 

Jankovsky-Jones (1997) found that the highest terraces on the Thomas Fork Unit were dominated by 

“an odd mixture” of sagebrush species (Artemisia arbuscula, A. cana, A. tripartita, and a small 

amount of A. tridentata) occurring on the relatively fine textured alluvium. She noted that “these 

small areas do not fit existing vegetation classifications. Another odd cover type, also small in area, 

is dominated by Atriplex nuttallii and Sporobolus airoides.” 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Sagebrush and Greasewood Habitats 

Regionally, threats to sagebrush and other shrub habitats include conversion to agriculture, improper 

grazing practices, invasive species, increased severity of fire (exacerbated in part by invasive species 

such as cheatgrass), and (in the Bear Lake area) residential and resort development. Widespread 

population and habitat declines have been projected for numerous sagebrush associated species 

(Knick and Rotenberry 1999, Knick et al. 2003, Wisdom et al. 2000). A growing sense of urgency 

over the outlook for sagebrush-dependent wildlife has spawned numerous assessments and planning 

exercises at various scales (e.g., Partners in Flight Conservation Plans, Wisdom et al. 2000, Wisdom 

et al. 2003a and 2003b, NDOW 2004). As a result, hundreds of species associated with sagebrush 

habitats, including 28 species of birds, have been identified as being of conservation concern 

(Wisdom et al. 2002, Rich et al. 2005). 

While extensive areas of sagebrush habitat are adjacent to Bear Lake NWR, the quality of refuge 

shrub habitat is superior that of adjacent shrub habitat on private land. The 80 acres of mixed 

sagebrush upland and meadow grass habitat along the western boundary of the Thomas Fork Unit 

were subject to heavy livestock grazing prior to Service acquisition in 1995. While livestock grazing 

was discontinued upon acquisition, most of the extant vegetation consists of old-growth sagebrush 

with reduced sagebrush canopy coverage and very little native understory vegetation. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-46 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Key Species Supported 

Shrub habitat complements wetland habitat by providing habitat critical to fulfilling the seasonal life 

history requirements of upland nesting, wetland-dependent wildlife species such as northern pintail, 

long-billed curlew, and Swainson’s hawk. It also serves as the primary habitat type used by 

specialists such as greater sage-grouse. Shrub habitat on refuge lands has been identified as a 

potential reintroduction site for sage-grouse. Other birds strongly linked to sagebrush habitat for both 

breeding and foraging include Brewer’s sparrow, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, sharp-tailed 

grouse, merlin, and burrowing owl. 

Shrub habitats provide winter cover for big game species such as elk and mule deer. Pronghorn, 

carnivores (coyote, red fox, raccoon, badger, striped skunk, long-tailed weasel), and rodents 

(porcupine, meadow vole, deer mouse) also use sagebrush and associated upland habitats on the 

Refuge. The small mammal community is not well-documented but may include Merriam’s shrew, 

Wyoming ground squirrel, Uinta ground squirrel, and Idaho pocket gopher. Reptiles known to occur 

in sagebrush/greasewood habitats include the Great Basin rattlesnake, Great Basin gopher snake, 

kingsnake, and an unidentified “iguanid” lizard (Bear Lake NWR Annual Narrative report 1971). 

Refuge Management Activities 

Bear Lake NWR 

While shrub habitat adjacent to the Refuge may be used by upland nesting, wetland-dependent 

wildlife species, it is also acknowledged that associated land use practices often diminish or negate the 

value for nesting wildlife. As such, refuge upland habitats are managed to eliminate the negative 

impacts from livestock grazing and haying, and additionally, are managed consistent with a natural 

periodicity of ecological distubance through artificial active management techniques (e.g., prescribed 

fire). Upland habitats that become overly dense and decadent (late succession is defined as habitat 

with >90 percent residual coverage and/or >10 percent forb coverage) lose their value to nesting 

wildlife, but can be restored to early successional status using a variety of active management 

treatments such as prescribed fire, invasive species control, and seeding or planting of native 

sagebrush. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Other than prescribed fire and invasive species control, no active management of this habitat type 

occurs on the Oxford Slough WPA. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

To supplement regeneration of this important community, the Refuge worked with the SE Idaho 

Complex fire crew to plant 250 big sagebrush seedlings during spring 2003, and an additional 400 

seedlings in fall 2003. It is hoped that these supplemental plantings will eventually provide an 

enhanced seed bank so that the community can regenerate at an accelerated level. These habitats 

must be reassessed and the results used to develop long-term restoration procedures. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-47 

4.3.5 Agriculture (Crop Fields) 

Overview 

In all the Refuge currently manages up to 214 acres of agricultural land on all units of the Refuge, 

including 91 acres on Bear Lake NWR, 44 acres on the Thomas Fork Unit, and 79 acres on the 

Oxford Slough WPA. Of the total acreage about two-thirds is in crops and one-third fallowed in any 

given year. Although they comprise a small percentage of refuge lands, agricultural habitats (crop 

fields) can serve a critical function for migratory waterfowl and landbirds, and breeding Canada 

geese. Agriculture includes the following types: 

 Small Grain (wheat or spring barley) 

 Summer Fallow 

 Legumes (Annual Clover) 

 Legumes (Alfalfa) 

At a point where carbohydrates are required for migration, species such as Canada geese, greater 

sandhill cranes, and dabbling ducks can find abundant grain to fulfill this life history requirement. 

Additional benefits are provided for spring/summer grazing by geese and cranes as new growth 

shoots become available. Considering recent off refuge conversions from small grain to alfalfa and 

meadow hay production, refuge agricultural crops provide a necessary supplement for wildlife, as 

well as a depredation benefit to those local farmers still growing small grain crops. All crops are 

managed through CLMAs. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Agricultural Lands 

Threats to agricultural habitats in the Bear Lake area (both on and off refuge) include lack of 

funding, shortened growing season, low precipitation, weeds, non-refuge crop depredation, increased 

demand for hay leading to off refuge conversions from small grain to alfalfa and meadow hay 

production. As of 2008, alfalfa and wild meadow hay (meadow hay generally cut for first crop hay, 

and then grazed after it has the opportunity to re-establish itself), accounted for the majority of crops 

grown on private land in the Bear Lake subbasin. Approximately 66,000 acres of private lands were 

in grain crops vs. 72,000 acres of private grass, pasture, and hay (IDDEQ 2008). 

Key Species Supported 

Agricultural habitats (crop fields) comprise a small percentage of refuge lands but serve a critical 

function for fall migratory waterfowl and landbirds. At a point where carbohydrates are required for 

migration, species such as Canada geese, greater sandhill cranes, and dabbling ducks can find 

abundant grain to fulfill this life history requirement. Additional benefits are provided for 

spring/summer grazing by geese and cranes as new growth shoots become available. Agricultural 

lands are also used by raptors (Swainson’s hawk and short-eared owl) for foraging. 

Refuge Management Activities 

Bear Lake NWR 

From 1988 to present, a rotation of barley, alfalfa, and summer fallowing has been used. As of 2011, 

the Refuge had 91 acres of croplands in rotation, divided approximately equally between barley, 

alfalfa, and summer fallow. Barley is grown as a food crop for fall-migrating sandhill cranes and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-48 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

waterfowl. Legumes are used to fix nitrogen, build soil tilth, and provide browse for Canada geese 

and sandhill cranes. No chemical fertilizers are used. Summer fallowing is used as part of the rotation 

to build up soils and combat noxious weeds (primarily Russian knapweed, Canada thistle, and white 

top) in problem areas. Currently, all farming is done via CLMAs. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Since 1995, between 170 and 180 acres on the north end of the Oxford Slough WPA have been 

farmed under a Cooperative Farming Agreement (CFA) with a local farmer, which has been renewed 

approximately every five years. Under this agreement the farmer is responsible for water 

management, any water assessment fees, and noxious weed control as prescribed by refuge policy. 

Under this agreement, 40-50 acres of cut and uncut barley and/or winter wheat, 25-50 acres of 

mowed alfalfa, and 80-90 acres of dense nesting cover have been provided. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The Thomas Fork Unit lies on the migration route of the Rocky Mountain greater sandhill crane 

population. Upward of 2,000 cranes have been seen using this area on spring migration in 

March/April, and during the fall migration in September/October. About 30 acres of grain (barley 

and/or winter wheat) is grown annually on the Thomas Fork Unit to provide food for fall-migrating 

waterfowl and cranes. Crane depredation is a concern in this area of the State, and the importance of 

the Thomas Fork Unit in alleviating depredation along this portion of the flyway has been recognized 

by the State and the USFWS (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 2007). 

4.4 Major Species Groups 

4.4.1 Waterfowl and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 

Waterfowl 

Thousands of waterfowl use the Refuge during spring, summer and fall. Peak spring estimates run 

from 3,500 to 10,000 waterfowl, and fall estimates from 3,500 to 13,000 waterfowl present. The most 

abundant species include Great Basin Canada geese, mallard, green-winged teal, canvasback, 

redhead, and ruddy ducks. Gadwall, northern pintail, cinnamon teal, and lesser scaup also occur in 

lower numbers. Some snow geese, trumpeter swans, and tundra swans migrate through the Refuge. 

Swans, geese, and ducks molt in large numbers on Mud Lake. Waterfowl day use estimates from 

1968-1987 are shown in Table 4.2 below. 

Great Basin Canada geese are the only resident goose on the Refuge. Geese arrive in March and 

depart in November, depending on weather and ice conditions. Arrival and departure trends for 

migratory waterfowl are not closely monitored and are vary annually by species, regional and local 

weather patterns, and other climatic conditions. Typically the first permanent open water occurs in 

April, and freeze-up occurs in November. In exceptionally mild winters (e.g., 1971-1972) a few 

Canada geese would overwinter on the Refuge. 

Several species of ducks nest on the Refuge. The most common nesting species include mallard, 

canvasback, redhead, and ruddy duck. Trumpeter swans, lesser scaup, northern shoveler, cinnamon 

teal, green-winged teal, northern pintail, gadwall, and American wigeon also nest in lesser numbers. 

Waterfowl production estimates are shown in Table 4.3 below. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-49 

Colonial Waterbirds 

Bear Lake NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough all host significant numbers and species 

diversity of colonial and other waterbirds. The most notable species include sandhill cranes, whitefaced ibis, Franklin’s gulls, California gulls, pied-billed grebes, eared grebes, western grebes, Clark’s 

grebes, white pelicans, double-crested cormorants, great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

snowy egrets, cattle egrets, Forster’s terns, Caspian terns, black terns, American bitterns, American 

coots, sora rails, Virginia rails, and Wilson’s snipe. As of 2008, an estimated 12,700 pairs of whitefaced ibis, and 29,000 Franklin’s gulls, nested in colonies at Bear Lake NWR, and 4,600 pairs of 

white faced ibis, and 2,400 pairs of Franklin’s gulls, nested at Oxford Slough WPA (see Tables 4.4-

4.6 below). The presence of diverse and abundant waterbirds makes these refuge units critical for 

their conservation. 

Condition, Trends, and Threats to Waterfowl and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 

Waterfowl 

Goose and duck surveys have been conducted by refuge personnel since the 1970s. As of the mid 

1970s, census of waterfowl populations on the Refuge was being done almost entirely by use of 

aircraft (1977 refuge annual narrative report, page 12). Generally, two spring flights were conducted 

to determine the breeding bird populations and production, followed by one mid-summer flight and 

three fall flights. The fall flights, conducted in cooperation with IDFG, are usually made during the 

first week of September, October, and November. Regular refuge patrols contribute information to 

update the waterfowl census data. Data from these surveys have been used to assess populations and 

their response to management actions. Duck numbers counted fluctuate widely due to continental, 

regional, and local environmental, biological and management effects. Thus density estimates of 

various species or their annual production may not be the best metric to monitor management 

success. 

Peak numbers of waterfowl occur during fall and spring migration. Canada geese in the Bear Lake 

NWR and southern Idaho region have shown a significant change in numbers and distribution 

(Knetter 2009), but little attention has been given to monitoring specific life history parameters 

because the population is well above objective. Spring aerial surveys of goose pairs between 2004 

and 2008 counted goose pairs varying between 177 and 690 (Knetter 2009). Until 1987, Waterfowl 

Use Days were used as a measure of habitat use on National Wildlife Refuges. Data show a slight 

upward trend in waterfowl use of the Refuge between 1968 and 1987. 

Table 4.2. Waterfowl Use Day Estimates for Bear Lake NWR, Idaho from 1968-1987. 

Year Swan Use Days Goose Use Days Duck Use Days 

1968 742 242,760 1,059,877 

1969 63 251,251 918,855 

1970 1,043 331,890 1,312,245 

1971 0 131,740 519,500 

1972 92 91,742 628,956 

1973 30 123,050 724,317 

1974 600 250,170 881,520 

1975 1,189 398,355 974,369 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-50 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Year Swan Use Days Goose Use Days Duck Use Days 

1976 275 365,580 1,431,710 

1977 190 702,750 1,374,090 

1978 180 390,600 773,820 

1979 30 398,355 974,369 

1980 30 220,830 766,170 

1981 210 380,580 1,092,960 

1982 90 411,450 1,291,650 

1983 60 398,580 1,059,390 

1984 5,280 456,090 1,153,470 

1985 180 378,210 1,052,430 

1986 1,320 351,100 1,351,140 

1987 60 433,300 1,314,500 

Source: Annual Narrative Reports, refuge files. 

Figure 4.1. Duck use at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-1987. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-51 

Figure 4.2. Goose use at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-1987. 

Figure 4.3. Swan use at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-1987. 

Waterfowl Production 

According to recent waterfowl surveys and Annual Narrative Report data (1968-2000), annual 

waterfowl productivity is, and has always been, highly variable at Bear Lake NWR. Annual 

productivity is based largely on water conditions on the Refuge and in the immediate vicinity. In wet 

years wetlands are exceedingly abundant adjacent to the Refuge, and the finite population of 

breeding waterfowl scatters to exploit these habitats. In dry years breeding waterfowl concentrate on 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-52 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

the Refuge. Nest success also varies (7-75 percent depending on study and unit), as does brood 

survival. Inclement weather at high elevations, in addition to predation and lack of water and forage 

abundance in dry years, often drastically reduces cygnet, gosling and duckling survival. Some 

variation is also due to survey effort and technique, and observer experience (Carl Mitchell, Refuge 

Complex Biologist, pers. comm.). Most ground based survey techniques used show high levels of 

variation in sample data (Mitchell, pers. com.). Overall production of all major waterfowl groups 

(dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and Canada geese) shows a positive trend between 1968 and 2000. 

Table 4.3. Annual waterfowl production estimates at Bear Lake NWR, Idaho, 1968-2000. 

Year Canada Goose Dabbling Ducks Diving Ducks Total Ducks 

1968 704 1,537 

1969 840 1,652 

1970 1,420 1,910 

1971 900 920 

1972 500-750 1,180 

1973 750 1,780 

1974 910 ----- 

1975 1,480 3,130 

1976 2,500 7,855 

1977 2,150 4,744 

1978 1,000 ------ 

1979 1,300 3,165 820 3,985 

1980 770 1,820 1,080 2,900 

1981 1,480 1,790 1,035 2,825 

1982 2,200 4,520 1,650 6,170 

1983 1,550 3,285 1,430 4,715 

1984 2,000 2,775 2,300 5,075 

1985 1,550 880 2,815 3,695 (aerial count) 

1985 ------ 2,715 2,715 5,430 (ground 

count) 

1986 1,500 3,065 3,245 6,310 

1987 1,710 2,905 2,294 5,200 

1988 2,100 3,135 1,765 4,900 

1989 2,000 2,380 2,673 5,053 

1990 1,742 3,531 3,674 7,205 

1991 2,280 4,073 3,437 7,510 

1992 2,200 3,213 3,370 6,583 

1993 1,590 3,092 3,161 6,353 

1994 2,142 3,696 4,247 7,943 

1995 1,645 5,663 

1996 ------ 6,000 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-53 

Year Canada Goose Dabbling Ducks Diving Ducks Total Ducks 

1997 890 2,200 

1998 1,814 9,094 

1999 ------ ------ 

2000 1,704 6,839 

Figure 4.4. Diving duck production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. 

Figure 4.5. Dabbling duck production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-54 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Figure 4.6. Canada goose production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. 

Figure 4.7. Total waterfowl production at Bear Lake NWR, 1968-2000. 

Nest and Brood Surveys 

In 2000, a duck nesting survey using an ATV chain drag was conducted at Oxford Slough from April 

24 through June 9 on the 80 acres of Dense Nesting Cover (DNC). All nest coordinates were 

captured with a GPS for location and mapping. A total of 59 nests were located and monitored. 

Predation rates were low and nest densities were high making for some excellent Mayfield success 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-55 

figures as follows: mallard (26 nests) 48 percent, gadwall (10 nests) 38 percent, cinnamon teal (9 

nests) 51 percent, northern shoveler (6 nests) 73 percent and northern pintail (6 nests) 100 percent 

Mayfield success. Overall success was 53.1 percent Mayfield. Since Oxford Slough frequently 

suffers from lack of sufficient late season water, mortality of young ducks can be high at times. 

(Note: the Mayfield method of estimating nesting success removes potential sources of bias often 

associated with other estimates of this parameter.) 

A duck brood count was also conducted on Oxford Slough in July 2000 counting 54 duck broods. 

Duck production was estimated at around 2,100 birds (1,500 duck pairs, 35 percent average Mayfield 

success over all habitats and an average of four type III [fully feathered, but flightless] ducklings per 

brood). Scent station routes indicated that predator numbers were low. An estimated eight crane pairs 

were using the slough. About 100 cranes used the Oxford grain fields through the spring and fall 

periods in 2000. 

Marshbird and Waterbird Surveys 

Early marshbird or waterbird surveys were crude estimates usually based on guesswork, but sometimes 

augmented by ground or aerial surveys. Therefore, undue reliance on the actual numbers reported in 

Bear Lake NWR Annual Narrative reports is not warranted. Effort on individual species also varied 

with staff and other duties, so not all species were mentioned, let alone surveyed, each year. 

In 2005, the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex began cooperating with Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game’s Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) Program (Moulton and 

Sallabanks 2006). All data are taken from Moulton and Sallabanks 2006 and Moulton 2007; 2008; 

2009; 2010). 

Colonial Waterbird Colony Counts 

Many of the waterbird species at Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough 

WPA nest colonially. These species include white pelican, great blue heron, black-crowned nightheron, snowy egret, California gulls, Franklin’s gulls, white-faced ibis, double-crested cormorants, 

and eared grebes. Colonial birds are surveyed in a variety of ways. Details on methods used are given 

in Moulton and Sallabanks (2006) and Moulton (2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010), and are not repeated 

here. 

Colony counts on islands are successful at estimating colony size. Colony counts in marsh habitats 

are innately difficult, and the transect method used in 2005 was not an effective way to estimate 

colony size. This method gave a good indication of the numbers of birds along the transect but it did 

not give an index of density that could be extrapolated to the entire colony. Transects likely sampled 

the densest portions of the colony. Extrapolations from these transects would likely overestimate 

colony size. An alternative is to select a straight line transect through the colony but traversing a 

straight line transect is extremely difficult. In addition to sampling problems, delineating colony 

boundaries also was problematic, as navigation around the colonies was extremely difficult. Ideally, 

colony boundaries should be delineated from the air. However, this may not be financially possible 

for most years (Moulton and Sallabanks 2006). 

Colonial waterbird colony counts followed recommendations from the IMWWCP. In 2006 IBIS 

focused colonial waterbird efforts on island colonies, due to the inherent difficulty of conducting 

colony counts in marsh habitats. Surveys of heron rookeries were limited in both 2004 and 2005, due 

to time constraints and weather issues. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-56 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.4. Colonial waterbird colony counts at Bear Lake NWR, 2005 

California gull 99 nests 100% colony surveyed 

Caspian tern 21 100% colony surveyed 

Double-crested cormorant 64 100% colony surveyed 

White-faced ibis 339 Unknown 

Black-crowned night heron 63 Unknown 

Snowy egret 28 Unknown 

Forster’s tern 10 Unknown 

Table 4.5. Colonial waterbird colony counts at Oxford Slough WPA, 2005 

California gull 0 

Caspian tern 0 

Double-crested cormorant 0 

White-faced ibis 244 Unknown 

Black-crowned night-heron 18 Unknown

Cattle egret 3 100% colony surveyed 

Snowy egret 5 Unknown 

Great blue heron 1 100% colony surveyed 

Forster’s tern 3 100% colony surveyed 

Black tern 6 100% colony surveyed 

Table 4.6. Colonial waterbird colony counts for Bear Lake NWR, 2006. 

California gull 368 100% colony surveyed 

Ring-billed gull 367 100% colony surveyed 

Double-crested cormorant 84 100% colony surveyed 

Table 4.7. Changes in colony counts at Bear Lake NWR, 2005 to 2006. 

California gull 99 368 272% 

Ring-billed gull 0 367 N/A 

Caspian tern 21 0 −100% 

Double-crested cormorant 64 84 31% 

In 2008, IBIS surveyed colonial waterbirds only at Bear Lake and Oxford Slough. There was no 

detected change in Caspian tern nesting. Double-crested cormorants totaled 56, down 33 percent. 

During flight line evening counts at Bear Lake NWR, IBIS personnel counted 1,446 and 7,640 whitefaced ibis and 4,880 and 4,860 Franklin’s gulls. At Oxford Slough WPA they counted 3,690 and 

1,096 white-faced ibis on morning surveys, and 1,760 and 962 white-faced ibis and two and nine 

Franklin’s gulls. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-57 

Colonial waterbird colony nest estimates at Bear Lake for 2008 are summarized as follows. The 

colony was estimated at 391,842 square meters (4,217,752 square feet). Of this, 15,700 square meters 

(168,993 square feet) (4 percent) was surveyed. White-faced ibis nests totaled 0.032 nests/m2

, for an 

estimated nest total of 12,729. Franklin’s gull nests totaled 0.075 nests/m2

, for an estimated nest total 

of 29,326. 

At Oxford Slough WPA 5,024 square meters (54,077 square feet) (10 percent) of a 50,766-squaremeter (546,440-square-foot) colony was surveyed. They counted 0.091 white-faced ibis nests/m2

, for 

an estimated total of 4,608 nests. Franklin’s gulls nests totaled 0.047 nests/m2

, for an estimated total 

of 2,409 nests. 

In 2009 colonial waterbird colony counts at Bear Lake NWR totaled: Double-crested cormorant, 58 

nests; California gull, 339 nests; ring-billed gull, 112 nests; great blue herons, 15 nests. 

Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys 

Secretive marsh bird playback surveys for five Idaho target species (sora rail, Virginia rail, American 

bittern, pied-billed grebe, and Wilson’s snipe) were conducted from 2005 to 2010. In 2005, these 

surveys detected all the target species at 94 points (46 points in morning surveys, 48 points in 

evening surveys), with a mean of 2.54 birds/point/survey detected on morning surveys, and 4.63 

birds/point/survey detected on evening surveys. American coots were abundant at all locations, and 

were difficult to track individually during surveys. Since coots are generally detected quite well 

during monthly aquatic bird surveys, they were dropped from these surveys, and Wilson’s snipe 

added. Wilson’s snipe is another secretive marsh bird species that is not readily detected visually 

during aquatic bird surveys. 

During 2006 secretive marsh bird playback surveys, IBIS crews detected all five target species on 

132 points (66 points in morning surveys, 66 points in evening surveys) on six surveys, with a mean 

of 2.76 birds/point/survey on morning surveys, and 3.29 birds/point/survey on evening surveys. All 

secondary species (American coot, brown-headed cowbird, common yellowthroat, eared grebe, 

marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, yellow-headed 

blackbird, and yellow warbler) were also detected. The 2007 marsh bird playback surveys were again 

successful in detecting all target species. All secondary species except yellow breasted chat were also 

detected. Similar to the aquatic bird surveys, these surveys represented the completion of a 3-year 

inventory period. 

Surveys in 2008 surveys detected the target species on 132 points (66 a.m., 66 p.m.), with a mean of 

2.84 birds/point/survey during morning surveys, and 3.05 birds/point/survey during evening surveys. 

In 2009, surveys for 17 points on three surveys detected all target species with a mean of 4.66 

birds/point/survey. Most secondary species (American coots, Clark’s grebe, western grebe, Forster’s 

tern, long-billed curlew, marsh wren, and yellow-headed blackbird) were also detected. In 2010, 

surveys for 14 points on three surveys detected all target species with a mean of 3.99 

birds/point/survey. Secondary species detected were American coot, Forster’s tern, long-billed 

curlew, marsh wren, western grebe, and yellow-headed blackbird. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-58 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Passerine Surveys 

In 1992, bird surveys were conducted on the DeWitt-Feller property, which later became the Thomas 

Fork Unit. In 1996 refuge biologist Bill Pyle, along with a volunteer, set up a 10 point passerine 

transect and started collecting neotropical bird data on the Thomas Fork Unit riparian areas. 

The most frequently seen neotropical birds were willow flycatcher, eastern kingbird, yellow warbler, 

black-headed grosbeak, and Bullock’s oriole. 

Trumpeter Swan Reintroductions (1996-2005) 

In 1996, 20-25 wing-clipped subadult trumpeter swans were released on Bear Lake NWR as part of 

an effort to increase their breeding range to former nesting areas. Project Leader Reiswig, and 

Biologists Dr. Rod Drewien and Ruth Shea coordinated with the various state resource agencies and 

the flyway council to get approval for the transfer of swans to Bear Lake. During December 1995, 

biologists captured some of these swans (74) using night lighting techniques on the Snake River at 

Harriman State Park. These swans were then transported to the Oregon State Wildlife Management 

Area at Summer Lake to spend the winter. The birds would be recaptured and transferred to the 

Refuge the following spring. Local interest in this project was high, as were expectations of 

establishing nesting pairs of trumpeters at Bear Lake. 

Twenty-five wing-clipped trumpeter swans were re-introduced to the Bear Lake Refuge marsh in late 

April, 1996. On April 22, 1996 refuge staff drove to Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area to 

recapture the 25 wing-clipped trumpeters. Because of bad weather and low numbers of available 

swans they took the first 25 trumpeters captured, neck collared the swans that needed collars, and 

returned to Bear Lake, arriving there at 0300 hrs the next morning. The sex ratio of the captured 

swans was 15 males and 10 females, and the age ratio was 14 after hatching year (adults to subadults) to 11 juvenile (second year and hatching year) swans. The trumpeters were released at 0800 

hrs into the Rainbow Unit where there were good aquatic plant foods. The local media and TV 

station was on hand to cover the event and within a few days CNN and the USA Today newspaper 

mentioned the release. The Rainbow Unit was closed to the public at this time of year so disturbance 

to the swans was kept to a minimum. After two weeks, 22 of the swans could be accounted for. One 

dead swan was located May 17. The cause of death was unknown. By late July, most of the 

trumpeters could fly again and groups of swans were seen moving around the Refuge exploring the 

other marsh units. Well over 90 percent of the swan observations between the time they regained 

flight and marsh freezeup in late November were on the Refuge. After freezeup the trumpeters that 

remained in the valley were forced off the Refuge to adjacent open creek channels or left the area 

entirely. During the winter several Bear Lake swans could be seen on the open east end of Alexander 

Reservoir by Soda Springs. Some swans spent the winter on the south end of Bear Lake along Big 

Creek. Three trumpeters ended up in the vicinity of Kern NWR, CA. Four Bear Lake trumpeters 

were seen by Swan Biologist Ruth Shea in the Yellowstone-Jackson Hole region, evidently repairing with old separated mates on their traditional wintering areas. 

In 1997, a few trumpeters were observed during the early spring months passing through the area. 

Since about 1994, a pair of uncollared swans and sometimes a single swan had been hanging out at 

the Refuge through the spring and sometimes through the summer months. Refuge staff observed 

very few of the green neck-collared swans in spring 1997, but the usual unmarked pair (with leg 

bands) was back. In 1997 a pair of apparent sub-adult trumpeter swans nested on the Refuge for the 

first time. However, they did not hatch their four eggs. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-59 

The uncollared pair of trumpeter swans returned again in spring 1998 and nested in the Rainbow Unit 

hatching one leucistic (white phase) cygnet, around June 10. (This phase is fairly rare; typically 

cygnets are gray and turn white when they attain adult plumage.) Refuge staff believed this to be the 

first trumpeter swan produced in the Bear Lake Valley in 100 years or so. Data from 1999 are not 

available. 

In 2000, a pair (probably the same pair) again nested successfully at Bear Lake, raising two cygnets 

on their territory (Pond #4, Rainbow Unit). The previous year’s sibling hung out nearby in Pond #3, 

Rainbow Unit. The trumpeter swan pair was on the nest by late April and two cygnets were spotted 

in Pond #4 June 16, with an estimated hatch date of June 8-10. These cygnets grew rapidly through 

the summer and fledged in good shape. The pair returned to their territory in April 2002 and 

successfully hatched and raised two cygnets; one gray phase and one white phase (leucistic). 

On July 24, 2000, two yearling cygnets propagated by Bill Long were released into the Rainbow 

Unit. These sub-adults (green neck collar 5EO, female, leg band 619-24848; and collar 5E1, male, 

leg band 619-24849) originally came from Golden Pond, Harriman State Park. These swans hung 

around the Refuge until freeze up in November. The male 5E1 appeared smaller than normal and 

weak in late October and it is doubtful that this swan made it through the winter. 

In response to rapidly drying conditions on nearby Grays Lake NWR, it was decided to transplant 

two Grays Lake produced cygnets to Bear Lake NWR. These birds were released on August 22, 2002 

by Grays Lake NWR biologist Carl Mitchell, in Rainbow Unit pool #4, which was the established 

territory of a successful pair at Bear Lake NWR. The hope was that the Bear Lake pair would accept 

and adopt the Grays Lake cygnets and in turn, successfully fledge all four cygnets. 

Eleven swans were released on May 10, 2003. All received leg bands and various types of neck 

collars. A monitoring effort initiated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, used a variety of 

radio-transmitters affixed to the neck collars to determine behavioral impacts associated with the 

transmitters versus the distance at which birds could be relocated. Of the 11 birds, three received 

neck collars without transmitters, four received 4-inch whip antenna models, two received 2-inch 

whip antennae, and two received a recessed “whipless” design. Among the eight receiving 

transmitters, four were confirmed mortalities and one was relocated to a captive rearing facility to 

heal from wounds sustained from the 4-inch whip design. The three receiving neck collars only were 

observed on Bear Lake NWR until freeze up in early November. 

Eleven swans were released on July 14, 2004, and all received leg bands as well as yellow and black 

lightweight neck collars. All 11 2003 release birds, part of the IDFG radio telemetry study, 

disappeared from the Refuge during 2004. At least six were confirmed mortalities while the 

remaining fate of five was unknown. Among the 11 released during 2004, all were observed on or 

adjacent to the Refuge until late October, with six observed through the winter at the south end of 

Bear Lake. It was hoped that the birds would return to the Refuge during spring 2005. No swans 

were released on the Refuge after 2005, and no collared swans have been observed on the Refuge 

since October 2007. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-60 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Threats to Waterfowl and Waterbirds 

Southern Idaho, including units of Bear Lake NWR, provides important habitat for migrating and 

breeding waterfowl using the Pacific Flyway, and to colonial waterbirds. Threats associated with 

breeding and migration areas in Canada and Alaska are treated in detail in other documents. Threats 

to waterfowl and their associated habitats in this region include: 

 Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wetland and grassland habitat. 

 Development of grasslands or conversion to less suitable or unsuitable agricultural habitats. 

 Additional regional demands on surface and groundwater. 

 Wildlife diseases (especially Highly Pathenogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 and West Nile 

Virus). 

 Invasive and noxious weeds, which compete with or exclude desirable grasses and forbs used 

by waterfowl and compromise ecological integrity and function. 

Threats to waterbirds and their associated habitats in this region include: 

 Invasive carp, which degrade wetland habitats for breeding and foraging waterbirds (but 

which also provide some forage for piscivorous species). 

 Conflicts, real or imagined, between desirable sport fisheries and piscivorous birds. 

 Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wetland and grassland habitat (see section 4.4). 

 Development of grasslands or conversion to less suitable or unsuitable agricultural habitats. 

 Human disturbance to key foraging and roosting areas. 

 Wildlife diseases. 

 Invasive and noxious weeds, which compete with or exclude desirable plant communities 

used by waterbirds, and which compromise ecological integrity and function of their 

breeding and foraging habitats. 

4.4.2 Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 

Bear Lake NWR 

St. Charles Creek is the largest Bear Lake tributary, and one of a few tributaries to Bear Lake that 

provide spawning and rearing habitat for adfluvial Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT). A significant 

portion of the creek lies in the southwest corner of the Refuge. (The two remaining major tributaries 

of Bear Lake are Bloomington Creek, which flows into the Bunn Lake Unit of the Refuge, and Paris 

Creek, which flow into the Bear River outlet canal. Bonneville cutthroat trout populations in those 

creeks appear to be very low or non-existent.) 

There are few natural spawning runs to support the population, and because of the limited production 

from Saint Charles Creek, persistence of the Bear Lake cutthroat trout populations is dependent on 

hatchery supplementation. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources stocks 200,000 to 300,000 

Bonneville cutthroat trout in Bear Lake annually. Managers increase trout stocking when the lake is 

at full storage capacity. Those fish are collected at the egg stage from spawners that migrate from 

Bear Lake into Swan Creek, Utah. In good years, the run of adult Bear Lake cutthroat trout into Swan 

Creek is 300 to 500 adults. Utah also maintains a broodstock in one of their hatcheries to supplement 

stocking if the egg take at Swan Creek is insufficient to meet the minimum stocking goal of 200,000. 

In 2004, Idaho and Utah agreed to develop an interagency management plan for Bear Lake’s fishery 

management program (Teuscher and Capurso 2007). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-61 

Despite excellent potential, production of adfluvial cutthroat trout from Saint Charles Creek has been 

limited due to unscreened irrigation diversions and migration barriers near the confluence with Bear 

Lake. Adfluvial BCT must navigate several irrigation diversions as they move upstream to spawn, 

and downstream migrating fish often get entrained into irrigation diversion screens. Saint Charles 

Creek’s confluence becomes impassible to adult cutthroat trout at lake elevations below 5,912 feet. 

During 2003 and 2004, peak lake elevations were below 5,907 feet. As a result, juvenile production 

in the stream was very poor. Fish survey work showed that Saint Charles Creek’s fish community 

was dominated by resident rainbow trout, brook trout, and rainbow trout x cutthroat trout hybrids, 

with Bonneville cutthroat trout constituting less than 20 percent of the fish community (Teuscher and 

Capurso 2007). 

A 2003 graduate study regarding trout movement in St. Charles Creek suggested that spawning trout 

were being lost to the Bear Lake/St. Charles Creek system. Of 16 radio tagged fish entering the 

Refuge via the fish ladder located just west of the Lifton pump station, 14 ended up either distributed 

throughout the marsh, or worse, downstream in the Bear River with no possibility of reentering the 

Bear Lake system. Two fish attempted to spawn on Spring Creek; however, it is unknown whether 

these fish survived or if their fry were able to successfully return to the lake. Most of the fish were 

hatchery-reared and have no particular allegiance to the St. Charles Creek or Spring Creek systems. 

They appeared to move to the heaviest flows, either from the Rainbow inlet canal or the Bear Lake 

outlet canal, where flows in excess of 1,000 cfs are common. Among the 16 tagged fish, 14 were 

hatchery raised and two were native based on adipose fin clipping records. Only two attempted to 

spawn in the St. Charles Creek system (Burnett 2003). 

In 2005 a fish passage structure was constructed on St. Charles Creek to facilitate passage of 

spawning BCT. To minimize the effects of both the St. Charles Creek and Thomas Fork projects 

(below), refuge manager Bundy worked closely with the St. Charles Creek Working group, USFS, 

Trout Unlimited, and private landowners to help find creative solutions to these problems. The 

Refuge created a new wetland unit around St. Charles Creek in 2005-2006 to ensure that any trout 

entering the Refuge have only one way to go. By creating a levee around the creek, trout are forced 

into the St. Charles Creek system to spawn and returning fry would only be able to return to the lake. 

In 2008 Trout Unlimited and project partners installed a fish ladder funded by NFHAP through the 

Western Native Trout Initiative at the lowest irrigation diversion on St. Charles Creek so that 

migrating Bonneville cutthroat trout could reach upstream spawning and rearing areas. A new 

project, which was scheduled for completion in 2011, includes installation of a rotary drum fish 

screen at a diversion upstream from the previously installed fish ladder, and stabilization of adjacent 

stream banks through sloping, armoring with rock, and willow planting. This would improve fish 

passage past the diversion structure for both upstream and downstream migrating fish. The overall 

plan is to systematically work upstream and remove barriers and entrainment risks to restore a natural 

spawning run. It was expected that this project would be completed in 2011 following runoff in St. 

Charles Creek. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

The following is an excerpt from Teuscher and Capurso (2007): 

“The Thomas Fork of the Bear River is considered a stronghold for Bonneville cutthroat trout. Three 

tributaries of the Thomas Fork (Preuss, Giraffe, and Dry Creeks) were established as long-term 

monitoring streams for Bonneville cutthroat trout. To enhance those tributary populations, a 

conservation agreement was initiated in October 1994. The multi-agency agreement outlined cattle 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-62 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

management requirements of the Caribou Cattlemen Association, enforcement of those actions by the 

USFS, and Bonneville cutthroat trout population monitoring by IDFG. This agreement has recently 

been discontinued, but construction of structural improvements such as fences to decreased cattle 

impacts to the streams have continued. The Thomas Fork River supports resident stream populations 

and a run of fluvial BCT from the Bear River.” 

From July 1999 to April 2001, Colyer et al. conducted a study on Bonneville cutthroat trout 

movement on the Thomas Fork Creek system where the Thomas Fork Unit is located. In this case, 

three diversion structures appear to be hindering reproductive success. Irrigation water is typically 

first delivered from April 15-May 1st, which coincides with the time when trout are attempting to 

enter the creek to spawn. The water rights are such that no instream flow remains and any trout that 

do make it through the diversion are subject to being trapped as the diversion structures are closed 

(Colyer et al. 2005). In 2006, the Refuge partnered with the USFS, Idaho Division of Fish and Game, 

Trout Unlimited, the Bear Lake Regional Commission, and a private landowner in the Thomas Fork 

system to create fish friendly diversion structures with ladders to allow for Bonneville cutthroat trout 

passage. 

Threats to Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 

Threats to Bonneville cutthroat trout in the Bear River watershed include: 

 Habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation (including water quality and quantity) through 

presence of streamside grazing, invasive carp, increasing exurban development, low 

precipitation and low, warm, poorly oxygenated streamflows, and inadequate or improper 

management of refuge wetland units that function for fish passage; 

 Climate change (increased risk of drought and wildfire) (Williams et al. 2009, Haak et al. 

2010); 

 Unscreened irrigation diversions (Kershner 1995); 

 Inbreeding with non-native rainbow or brook trout (Teuscher and Capurso 2007); and 

 Uncontrolled angler harvest (Teuscher and Capurso 2007). 

Williams et al. (2009) assessed the extirpation risk to local populations of native cutthroat trout based 

on the combined stressors of habitat fragmentation and climate change. They first analyzed the current 

distribution of Bonneville cutthroat trout, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and westslope cutthroat trout 

to determine the likelihood of population persistence (under current conditions) based on relationships 

drawn from the literature between persistence and fish abundance, habitat connectivity and patch size 

for several trout species. They then analyzed climate change-driven environmental effects and 

combined these results with the results of the persistence analysis to provide a spatially explicit 

characterization of local extinction risk in the context of climate change. They characterized the 

thermal limits for each subspecies based on the relationship between each subspecies’ historical 

distribution and air temperature. An upper thermal limit of 24° C was applied to Bonneville cutthroat 

trout. Temperatures at or above these limits were considered “unsuitable.” Marginal habitat range for 

westslope cutthroat trout was defined as 22.1-24.0 ° C. They applied a 3° C temperature increase to 

1970-2000 mean July air temperatures. This increase has been projected as the most likely scenario 

for the western United States within this century (CIG 2004). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-63 

They concluded that in most areas of the Bear River Basin, especially those streams around Bear 

Lake and streams draining the Uinta Mountains, risk is low for winter flooding and increased 

summer temperature. Drought risk and wildfire risk, however, is high for most of this area. For 

example, 24 of 37 conservation populations (65 percent) in the Bear River drainage rate as having a 

high risk for wildfire, but 32 populations (86 percent) are rated as having a low risk for increasing 

summer temperature. 

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

One goal of the Refuge System is “To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species 

of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.” In the 

policy clarifying the mission of the Refuge System, it is stated “We protect and manage candidate 

and proposed species to enhance their status and help preclude the need for listing.” In accordance 

with this policy, the CCP planning team considered species with Federal or State status, and other 

special status species, in the planning process. 

At present there are no known threatened or endangered species occurring on Bear Lake NWR, 

Thomas Fork Unit, or Oxford Slough WPA. The Canada lynx is the only listed threatened species in 

the project area occurring in Bear Lake and Franklin Counties; however, it occurs in high elevation 

habitat (subalpine forest) and therefore would be unlikely to occur on the refuge units (USFWS 

ECOS website). 

Candidate species include the yellow-billed cuckoo in Bannock and Franklin Counties (the species 

does not occur in Bear Lake County), and the greater sage-grouse in Bear Lake and Bannock 

Counties. The wolverine is a candidate species that occurs in Bear Lake County, but in this southern 

portion of the species’ range its distribution is restricted to high elevations (USFWS ECOS website). 

Therefore, it would be unlikely to occur on refuge units. In cooperation with the State Ecological 

Services office, every effort will be made to remain current on any changes in status (e.g., sage 

grouse listing), and necessary monitoring and management will be implemented. 

The greater sage-grouse, northern leopard frog, Bear Lake springsnail (Pyrgulopsis pilsbryana) and 

red glasswort (Salicornia rubra) have a S2 State conservation status (imperiled; at high risk because 

of restricted range, few populations, rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it 

vulnerable to extirpation in the State of Idaho). Red glasswort is also listed as a Type 4 Species of 

Concern by BLM (BLM 2003). It is site specific to the alkali meadow (ephemeral wetland) habitat 

type. This plant’s sensitive status merits inclusion as a refuge focal species and its relative abundance 

and contribution to wetland diversity provides a suitable adaptive management threshold for alkali 

meadows. 

Bonneville cutthroat trout has a S3 State conservation status (vulnerable, at moderate risk). The 

breeding populations of a number of bird species that breed on Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough, and 

the Thomas Fork Unit are included in the list of Idaho Species of Greatest Conservation Need. 

Species with S1 status breeding populations include: trumpeter swan, common loon, great egret, 

Forster’s tern, and black tern, while species with S2 status breeding populations include: red-necked 

grebe, western grebe, Clark’s grebe, snowy egret, cattle egret, black-crowned night-heron, whitefaced ibis, Franklin’s gull, California gull, and Caspian tern (IDFG 2005b). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-64 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.6 Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

One of the most striking features of the Refuge is the extent to which invasive plants and animals 

have taken hold. Invasive plant species displace native vegetation, altering the composition and 

structure of vegetation communities, affecting food webs, and modifying ecosystem processes 

resulting in considerable impacts to native wildlife (Olson 1999). The term invasive species refers to 

a subset of introduced or non-indigenous species that are rapidly expanding outside their native 

range. A species is regarded as invasive if it: 

1. Has been introduced by human action to a location where it did not previously occur naturally; 

2. Becomes capable of establishing a breeding population in the new location without firther 

intervention by humans; and 

3. Spreads widely throughout the new location. 

Introduced species can become invasive for many reasons including: 

1. the insects, fungi, mammals or other fauna that kept the species in check within its native 

landscape do not exist in the region to which the species was introduced. 

2. the species is allelopathic (exudes chemicals which inhibit growth). Some species release 

chemicals which directly inhibit the growth of other plants, while others may release 

chemicals that negatively impact mycorrhizal fungi. 

3. the invasive species has a competitive advantage such as earlier leaf-out, asexual 

reproduction, deeper root system, etc. (Wildflower Association of Michigan 2007). 

Chemical, biological, or mechanical control of existing invasive species provides a competitive 

advantage for new growth of native species, which ultimately promotes healthy ecosystems through 

restoration of native plant communities. Early detection of new invasive species or new stands of 

existing invasive species greatly increases the efficacy of control measures (Bundy 2007). 

4.6.1 Exotic and Invasive Species 

Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit host a variety of exotic and 

invasive plants and animals. In some cases these species are well established and complete 

eradication is unlikely. 

Exotic Plants in Upland Habitats 

The spread of invasive plant species in upland habitats was facilitated by the rapid increase in land 

clearing and grazing that followed Euro-American settlement. By 1848 there was a small herd of 

oxen, cattle, and horses at Smith’s trading post. Herds expanded rapidly in the 1860s. Cattle were 

grazed on what are now refuge lands for more than 150 years. Grazing by domestic livestock has 

very different effects on plant communities than grazing by wild bison, or other native ungulates. It is 

often a major factor in habitat change, because many native grasses and forbs are not adapted to 

prolonged, season-long, heavy grazing pressure and soil disturbance and/or compaction. This gives 

exotic grasses and forbs a competitive advantage over native species. 

Exotic pasture and forage grasses were also intentionally introduced. Today, most grasses on the 

Refuge are introduced “tame” pasture grasses, for example perennial ryegrass, timothy, foxtails, 

bluegrasses, orchardgrass, and fescues. These grasses can however, provide some benefits to some 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-65 

native wildlife. Short grazed or mowed pasture grasses are extensively browsed by Canada geese and 

are also used by foraging sandhill cranes and other waterbirds. 

Exotic Plants in Riparian and Wetland Systems 

Bear Lake NWR 

Nine known invasive plant species have been found on Bear Lake NWR: Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), hoary cress (whitetop) (Lepidium draba ssp. draba), Russian 

knapweed (Acroptilon repens), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos), black henbane 

(Hyoscyamus niger), perennial pepperweed (Lepidum latifolium), common reed (Phragmites australis), 

and saltcedar (Tamarix spp). Phragmites is not currently listed as a noxious weed in Idaho, but is listed 

in Utah. Map 11 below shows the distribution of Canada thistle, hoary cress, Russian knapweed, 

spotted knapweed, and black henbane across 771 acres of refuge habitat as of 2007. While distributions 

are fairly accurate at present, this does not mean that new communities have not become established 

since these maps were prepared. As an objective, approximately 40 acres of known infested habitat 

should be treated annually (as refuge resources allow) while expansion of existing stands and 

identification of new species should remain a high priority (see Chapter 2, Management Direction). 

In addition to these invasive species, exotic grasses have been intentionally introduced to the area, 

and in some areas have become dominant species. Although reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea

L.), a circumboreal perennial grass species, is native to North America and the Pacific Northwest 

(Merigliano and Lesica 1998), a more aggressive European cultivar or hybrid has been widely used 

as a forage grass species. Seed for this cultivar has been commercially available since the late 1920s 

(Always 1931). Reed canarygrass, probably a non-native cultivar, was planted on the Refuge in the 

1960s as a forage grass, and for dike stabilization (Bear Lake NWR, Annual Narrative Reports, 

1965-1967). Once established, however, this aggressive non-native cultivar either displaces native 

plant species or prevents them from reestablishing on disturbed areas (Maurer et al. 2003, Kilbride 

and Paveglio 2000, Harrison et al. 1996, Emers 1990, Taylor 1990). Seasonal wetlands and wet 

meadow areas become a monotypic stand of this species. There are 100 species of native plants that 

should occur in habitats susceptible to invasion by reed canarygrass. 

Reed canarygrass dominated wetlands have fewer food resources, as a result of simplified structure, 

coarser less digestible detritus, and the density of accumulated plant material. For early spring 

migrants such as the mallard, northern pintail, and American wigeon, food resources and their 

availability are limited by a thick thatch layer covering the soil surface. This thatch layer limits 

wildlife access to important foraging strata and shades the soil surface maintaining cooler 

temperatures which delays emergence of invertebrates. These shallow flooded areas are also 

important pairing habitat for many species of dabbling ducks especially the cinnamon and bluewinged teal. Other waterbirds affected by invasion of reed canarygrass include several species of 

shorebirds: lesser and greater yellow-legs, long-billed dowitchers, Wilson’s snipe, and western, least, 

and Baird’s sandpipers; and marshbirds such as the sora and Virginia rail. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

White top, or hoary cress (Cardaria draba), was the primary weed infesting the Thomas Fork Unit 

since at least the 1990s when Bear Lake NWR took over management. In 1996, perennial 

pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) had just recently moved into the eastern portion of Bear Lake 

County by traveling down the Bear River from Wyoming. Besides white top and perennial 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-66 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

pepperweed, black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), Russian knapweed (Rhaponticum repens), and 

various thistles (Cirsium spp) are also a concern. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Weed distribution on Oxford Slough is poorly understood at present, except that most of the 

intermittent hydrologic zone is currently infested with varying concentrations of Canada thistle, and 

the uplands with dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria). 

Map 11. Distribution of Invasive Plants at Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the 

Oxford Slough WPA. 

From Bundy 2007. 

Introduced Birds 

Exotic birds present at Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit and Oxford Slough WPA include 

European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), Eurasian collared-dove 

(Streptopelia decaocto), rock dove (Columba livia), chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar), ring-necked 

pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), and occasional feral waterfowl (Anas spp.) (Mitchell 2010). 

Though not native to North America, pheasants and chukars are valued game birds. Collared-doves 

are a relatively recent immigrant to Idaho, with the first sighting near Pocatello in 2003, but have 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-67 

been rapidly expanding since then. Their impacts on native species is unknown. A recent study by 

Cornell University showed that native dove species were actually more common in areas where 

collared-doves were also present. However the results of this study may not be applicable to this 

region. Starlings and house sparrows compete with native cavity nesting birds (mountain bluebirds, 

Sialia currucoides; tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor; house wrens, Troglodytes aedon; and 

kestrels, Falco sparverius) for limited nest sites. Feral waterfowl may carry disease from captive 

flocks into wild ecosystems. All of these species could conceivably compete with native species for 

insect and seed forage, and all provide prey for native predators (e.g., merlins, Falco columbarius; 

peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus). Control of non-native birds has not been conducted on the Bear 

Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and Thomas Fork Unit. 

Introduced Mammals 

There are no known exotic mammals on Bear Lake NWR, although feral dogs, feral cats, and 

possibly house mice probably do occur, at least sporadically. None are known to be permanently 

present to any significant extent, although if house mice do occur they likely do so in large numbers 

at selected sites. Dogs and cats are potentially serious predators of native wildlife, although cats and 

house mice, if they occur, also may provide food for native predators, including red fox, coyote, great 

horned owls, and other medium-sized raptors. 

There are no known exotic or invasive amphibians or reptiles present on Bear Lake NWR. 

Exotic Animals in Riparian and Wetland Systems 

Introduced Invertebrates 

New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), and the 

quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) are a problem in Idaho waters, but have not yet been found on 

the Refuge. Likely invasion would occur from hunters’ equipment (e.g., uncleaned boats, boat 

trailers, decoys, or boots). 

Introduced Fish 

Common carp were introduced to Bear Lake and Oneida Counties by the U.S. Fish Commission in 

1882. Thus, they have been established in the Bear River and its wetlands long before the Refuge 

was established. Although young carp provide forage for piscivorous birds, e.g., white pelican, 

osprey, bald eagles, and mammals (mink), adult carp have significant long-term negative effects on 

wetlands by increasing turbidity, eliminating suitable habitat for native fish, birds, and other wildlife, 

and directly consuming submerged aquatic plants, thus harming the diverse native wildlife that 

depend on those aquatic plants or a clear water column. Rainbow and non-native brook trout from St. 

Charles Creek may occasionally stray into refuge waters, but are not present in significant numbers. 

4.6.2 Control Efforts 

In accordance with Service policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), wildlife and plant pests on 

units of the Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced wildlife and fish populations in 

support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management objectives. An Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) approach is used, which includes a variety of tools: prevention of new introductions or the 

spread of established pests to areas not infested, mechanical or physical control methods, cultural 

methods, biological controls, pesticides, and habitat restoration/maintenance. The current IPM program 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-68 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

for the Refuge is included as Appendix F. Control efforts are planned annually and Pesticide Use 

Proposals (PUPs) are submitted to regional and/or national IPM coordinators for approval. Chemical, 

biological, or mechanical control of existing invasive species provides a competitive advantage for new 

growth of native species, which ultimately promotes healthy ecosystems through restoration of native 

plant communities. Early detection of new invasive species or new stands of existing invasive species 

greatly increases the efficacy of control measures (Bundy 2007). 

Carp Control 

When the Refuge was established in 1968, managers immediately knew that the combination of 

widely fluctuating water levels and abundant carp was severely impacting the growth of submerged 

aquatic plants used by waterfowl, even in permanent pools. In 1972, Idaho State University students 

built carp exclosures on the Refuge as part of an ecology study. This graphically demonstrated that 

alkali bulrush (an important waterfowl food) was being destroyed by carp outside of the exclosures. 

In 1973 a 15-acre carp exclosure was built along the east side of the Refuge. By the spring of 1974, 

alkali and three-square bulrush was growing vigorously in the exclosure. While managers recognized 

that carp control would improve habitat, little could be done in the early years due to lack of 

resources. Managers acknowledged that the Refuge would remain deficient in wildlife food supplies 

until impoundments could be constructed, making carp control feasible. 

Slowly managers began to construct impoundments on the Refuge by building up dikes and levees 

along naturally higher areas and controlling water flows with stop logs and screw gates. Still, by 

1978 the only place where the Refuge could control water levels was on the newly constructed Salt 

Meadow Unit. Here, a dike enclosed approximately 280 acres, of which 240 acres was water and 

emergent vegetation. The effects of carp exclusion were immediately apparent. Inside the 

impoundment, turbidity was negligible and invertebrate life was much more abundant. At times, 

several hundred ducks were present in this impoundment while almost no ducks were present in the 

carp-infested waters on the other side of the dike. 

In 1980, construction of the Rainbow and Alder dikes was begun. The Alder dike was completed 

within the year, and the Rainbow dike, due to its size and complexity, was completed in 1987. The 

refuge manager attempted to completely dewater the 1,800-acre Rainbow Unit during the fall of 1981 

to remove carp, but was unsuccessful because construction activity delayed the effort. The water level 

was low enough during the winter to result in a partial winterkill of 3,000-5,000 carp throughout the 

unit. With the partial winterkill the water quality improved considerably compared to previous years. 

In 1983, the Rainbow Unit was drawn down to apply rotenone for carp control. After the nesting 

season was completed and the water began to recede, water was allowed to flow out of the unit. 

Between September 6 and October 7, Crisafulli pumps were used to reduce the volume to about 50 

acre feet (the unit holds about 3,500 acre feet of water when full). Rotenone was then applied on five 

segments in five different days. Water quality improved rapidly following carp control. The blocked 

off portion of the old Rainbow Canal, borrow areas, and former mud bottom and mud flat areas, 

developed extensive stands of submergent vegetation, and the unit got excellent use by redhead pairs 

and broods where few, if any, were observed in previous years. 

The Rainbow Dike, which was begun in 1980, was finally completed in 1987. Water control 

structures and fish barriers were installed to keep carp out of the new Rainbow Unit. In 1988, 

rotenone was applied to remove carp from both the Rainbow and Dingle Units. This removal effort 

was extremely successful. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-69 

In 1990, drought conditions made a complete drawdown of the refuge marsh (primarily the Mud 

Lake and West Canal units) feasible. In all, almost 14,000 acres of semipermanent and permanent 

marsh that otherwise rarely dried out, were drawn down. (The West Canal Unit was later subdivided 

into the Bloomington, Bunn, St. Charles, and Dunford Units.) While the objective was primarily to 

allow the marsh to go through a much needed drying cycle, another important benefit was removing 

carp from large areas of the marsh. This was accomplished by drying up areas, flushing fish 

downstream, and freezing out fish in shallow pools held low over the winter. 

In the summer of 1995, small schools of larger age class carp were observed in the borrow areas of 

the Rainbow Unit, and water quality was also beginning to deteriorate. In fall 1996, the Rainbow 

Unit was again drawn down for carp control. The water control structures remained open until midJanuary 1997, and then closed to prepare for snow melt in the spring. The Alder and Dingle Units 

were also drawn down for carp control in 1996. 

The Rainbow Unit drawdown for carp removal was very effective, and only a couple of small groups 

of carp were seen within the Rainbow Unit the following summer. Production of aquatic plants (sago 

pondweed and muskgrass) was excellent. The carp exclosures placed within the proposed 

Bloomington Unit (the dike was under construction at this time) in 1996 showed good regeneration 

of muskgrass, Richardson’s pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii), and other species. 

In September 2000, the Refuge and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted carp control 

on the 1,900-acre Bloomington Unit as part of a restoration project. Water was released from this 

unit over a period of two weeks. Fifty gallons of rotenone was then applied in the remaining 3.2 

miles of borrow areas and shallow channels using a small airboat. An estimated 4,500 carp were 

killed. The water management system along the boundary with the Ward Ranch was repaired and 

improved in 2001. This was crucial to prevent carp movement from flooded private meadows into 

the Bloomington Unit. This project involved replacing deteriorating culverts and structures, raising 

the existing levee height, and installing prefabricated carp-screened structures over the slide gate 

structures in seven locations. 

The Rainbow Complex Restoration Project, begun in 1994 and completed in 2005, entailed 

construction of one new water control structure and replacement of five existing structures with carp 

control hardware. These improvements allowed independent water management and carp control 

within the three-unit, 2,114-acre Rainbow Complex. 

Noxious Weed Control 

Control efforts, including water level management, hand pulling, and herbicide application began 

early after establishment of Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit. 

Refuge annual narrative reports document increasing numbers of exotic species, increased acreage 

and distribution of exotics, increased man-hours devoted to exotic plant control, and more use of 

chemicals and other control techniques over time. Due to personnel and budget constraints, efforts to 

control exotic plants have been intermittent and not demonstrably successful. 

Bear Lake NWR 

The Refuge uses IPM techniques to control noxious weeds, including crop rotation, rotary mowing, 

and summer fallowing to reduce the need for herbicide use. However, herbicides are used to control 

hoary cress (whitetop), perennial pepperweed (tall whitetop), black henbane, Russian knapweed, 

spotted knapweed, and the larger Canada thistle patches. Refuge barley fields are sprayed once, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-70 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

usually in June, for weed control. Weed spraying begins in May into June with black henbane and 

hoary cress. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Control of dyer’s woad and various thistle species occurs at OS. A combination of prescribed fire, 

hand pulling, herbicide, biological controls, deep disking, fallowing, and haying has been used. 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Weed control was an important management activity before the Service acquired the Thomas Fork 

Unit, and remains an important task. A combination of fallowing, deep disking, spraying, and 

releasing of biological controls has been used to manage weedy species. The unit is subject to 

sporadic infestations of hoary cress; the Refuge has conducted control of this species as time and 

funding allow. When tall white top or perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) was discovered on 

the Refuge in 1996, the county weed board was informed of the serious nature of this persistent and 

rapidly spreading tall weed. A total of 206 acres of the Thomas Fork Unit's 1,015 acres were treated 

with 102.5 gallons of herbicide. 

Over the past several years, distribution of perennial pepperweed on the Thomas Fork Unit has been 

dramatically reduced through establishment of “weed days” in partnership with the Highlands 

Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA). Established in 2001, the Highlands CWMA has 

made a commitment to control of perennial pepperweed on the Bear River system by annually 

holding a work day on and adjacent to the Thomas Fork Unit. In 2000, the Highlands CWMA group 

donated herbicide supplies to the Refuge to combat encroaching perennial pepperweed along the 

Bear River and at the Thomas Fork Unit. Almost every year since then, the Highlands CWMA has 

donated some supplies to the Refuge, not supplying all of the Refuge’s needs, but certainly making a 

contribution. 

Biological Control 

Between 1990 and 2004, the Refuge also used biological control agents (insects) to treat infestations 

of Canada and musk thistle (Carduus nutans) at Bear Lake NWR. Biological control agents were 

also released at Oxford Slough WPA in 1991 and at the Thomas Fork Unit in 1999 and 2000. 

Releases of biological control agents at Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork 

Unit between 1990 and 2004 are shown in Table 4.8 below. Impacts on Canada thistle by these 

insects have been minimal to date; however, there has been some reduction in musk thistle seed head 

production from past biological control releases. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-71 

Table 4.8. Releases of Biological Control Agents at Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and Thomas 

Fork Unit 

Date Biological Control Agent # Released Release Location/Notes 

5/23/90 stem mining weevil 

(Ceutorhynchus litura) 

 Marsh interior 

6/20/90 seed head weevil (Rhinocyllus 

conicus) 

 

1991 stem gall fly (Urophora cardui) 200 

1991 stem mining weevil 400 

1992 stem gall fly 

1992 leaf feeding beetle (Larinus 

planus) 

 

6/4/93 stem gall fly 1,000 4 sites (low survival) 

7/8/93 seed head weevil 300 2 sites 

6/22/94 stem gall fly 500 

7/94 seed head weevil 300 3 sites 

1995 seed head weevil 

1996 leaf defoliator beetle (Cassida 

rubiginosa) 

300 Only release in 1996 due to budget 

restrictions 

7/30/97 leaf defoliator beetle 300 Thistle patches near Paris Dike 

1998 leaf defoliator beetle 210 

1998 seed head weevil 210 

“similar to 2000” 

6/21/00 leaf defoliator beetle 500 

7/13/00 leaf defoliator beetle 500 

8/15/00 stem mining weevil 

leaf feeding beetle 

300 

200 

8/23/00 stem mining weevil 300 

2002 stem mining weevil 500 

2003 stem mining weevil 

2004 stem mining weevil 

Oxford Slough WPA 

1991 stem gall fly 

stem mining weevil 

100 

200 

Thomas Fork Unit 

1999, 2000 seed head weevil On musk thistle north and west of the 

west barley fields 

1999, 2000 stem mining weevil 

1999, 2000 leaf feeding beetle 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-72 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.6.3 Control of Nuisance Species

Refuges may control native species when necessary to protect refuge resources or infrastructure, 

restore habitat, or meet wildlife and habitat management objectives. Animal species 

damaging/destroying Federal property and/or detrimental to the management program of a refuge 

may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control Operations). Based upon 7 

RM 14.7E, a pest control proposal is required, in some cases, to initiate a control program on refuge 

lands. However, a pest control proposal is not required for the routine protection of refuge buildings, 

structures (e.g., dikes, levees, water control structures), and facilities that do not involve the use of 

prohibited chemicals; or for the use of routine habitat management techniques, selective trapping, onrefuge transfer, and physical and mechanical protection such as barriers and fences (including 

electric fences). Examples of control of native animal species include: control of beaver and muskrat 

that damage refuge dikes or other infrastructure; and control of predators that cause unacceptable 

levels of mortality to priority species. Control of such species is addressed in the Refuge’s IPM Plan 

(Appendix F.) On Bear Lake NWR, nuisance species can include mink, beaver, muskrat, raccoon, 

and weasel, but their status depends on population size and behavior. 

Predator Control 

Bear Lake NWR 

From 1988 to 1995, removal of several predator species (mostly skunk and raccoon) using both live 

and lethal trapping, and shooting, occurred in order to increase the nest success of migratory birds. 

The number of animals removed was relatively small (60 animals total between 1988 and 1995), and 

no animals have been removed since 1995. Electric fencing and water barriers have also been used to 

reduce impacts of predators on nesting migratory birds (see section 4.1.3, above). 

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring 

A number of research and monitoring projects have been conducted at the Refuge since it was 

established. Many are collaborative efforts between the Refuge and other Service programs, other 

agencies, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and universities. 

4.7.1 Bird Banding 

The first documented bird banding on Bear Lake NWR occurred in September 1974, when waterfowl 

was trapped using a cannon net on the salt flats southeast of the water control structure. Thirty-five 

mallards and 130 pintail were banded. In June 1975, 270 Canada geese were banded along Bear Lake 

Canal by use of a drive trap. In 1977, 227 Canada geese were trapped on the Bear Lake Canal and 

banded. No bird banding was done from 1978 through 1986. Banding resumed in 1987 with 191 

geese banded after being driven down the Outlet Canal to the Airport field. One hundred thirty nine 

of these geese were transported to northern Idaho for release on the Coeur d’Alene River near 

Harrison, ID. 

Preseason Waterfowl Banding 

In 1991, the Service and IDFG initiated banding for local mallards and pintails to gather data on 

survival rates, improve population estimates, and set hunting regulations. These preseason banding 

efforts ran from late July through late August. In 1991, 526 ducks, including 355 mallards and 150 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-73 

redheads, were banded. In 1992, 715 ducks were banded. 556 ducks were banded in 1993, 919 in 

1994, 605 in 1995, 247 in 1996, and 161 mallards in 1998. No banding was done in 1997 due to high 

water. No further banding of ducks or geese was conducted after 1998. 

Trumpeter Swan Reintroduction and Monitoring 

Reintroduction of trumpeter swans on the Refuge was conducted between 1996 and 2007. For a 

detailed history of the swan reintroduction program, see section 4.4.1 above. Swans released in 1996 

were neck-collared prior to release and monitored thereafter. During the following winter, biologists 

at other refuges and wildlife management areas, as far away as Kern NWR in southern California, 

observed collared swans from Bear Lake. 

Eleven swans released in May 2003 received leg bands and various types of neck collars. A 

monitoring effort initiated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, used a variety of radiotransmitters affixed to the neck collars to determine behavioral impacts associated with the 

transmitters versus distance birds could be relocated. All 11 2003 release birds disappeared from the 

Refuge during 2004. At least six were confirmed mortalities while the remaining fate of five was 

unknown. Eleven swans released in July 2004 received leg bands and lightweight neck collars. No 

swans have been released on the Refuge since 2005. 

4.7.2 Aquatic Waterbird Surveys 

In 2006 and 2007, IDFG conducted Aquatic Waterbird Surveys, as recommended by the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (Ivey and Herzinger 2006). These consisted of 

actual counts from specific sites, in order to document species occurrence, relative density, and 

diversity through time. This two-year inventory period provided a useful baseline of aquatic bird use 

at these sites. 

Aquatic Waterbird Surveys were conducted in May, June and July. In 2006, waterfowl species 

totaled 14, 11, and 13, for those months, respectively. Shorebird species totaled 4, 5, 4, respectively, 

and waterbird species totaled 17, 19, and 15. In 2007, Aquatic Bird Surveys detected 15, nine, and 13 

waterfowl species in May, June and July, respectively. Shorebird species totaled four, six, and seven, 

and other waterbirds 16, 20, and 12 species, respectively. 

Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys 

Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys for five Idaho target species (sora rail, Virginia rail, 

American bittern, pied-billed grebe, and Wilson’s snipe) were conducted in 2005-2010 using 

procedures outlined by Conway (2005). American coot was included in 2005 but this species was 

dropped as it was relatively abundant and easily counted in aquatic bird surveys. Wilson’s snipe was 

substituted for coot in subsequent surveys as it is secretive and not easily counted in aquatic bird 

surveys. The Idaho target species were detected in all surveys. Results are summarized in section 

4.4.1 above. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-74 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.7.3 Other Research Projects 

Research is encouraged at the Refuge. Professors and students, graduate and undergraduate, from the 

University of Idaho, Idaho State University, and Utah State University have conducted research at 

the Refuge. Research projects are vetted by refuge managers and biologists to ensure that the studies 

are relevant, well thought out, and that information gathered is useful to refuge management needs or 

otherwise justifiable. 

Before the lands of the Dingle Marsh were withdrawn to create the Refuge, a thesis project was 

conducted in 1954 by Henry Reeves titled “Muskrat and Waterfowl Production and Harvest on 

Dingle Swamp, Bear Lake County, Idaho.” Reeves was a graduate student at Utah State Agricultural 

College in Logan, Utah. 

In 1969, Doctorate student Rod Drewien, of the University of Idaho at Moscow, was selected to 

conduct research into the ecology of the greater sandhill crane in southeast Idaho (Annual Narrative, 

page 13). This studied continued through 1974 and Drewien published his dissertation “Status and 

Distribution of Greater Sandhill Cranes in the Rocky Mountains” in the Journal of Wildlife 

Management (Drewien and Bizeau 1974). A second paper, “The Breeding Biology of the Greater 

Sandhill Crane” also resulted from his studies on the Refuge. 

In 1971, the study of potential waterfowl food plants adaptable to conditions at the Refuge, which 

was begun in cooperation with USDA SCS, Plant Materials Center at Aberdeen, Idaho, continued 

through 1975. The researchers planned to expand the project in 1976. 

In 1973, William Mullins continued a project titled “Seasonal Movements, Chemical Residue and 

Summer Food Habits of the Greater Sandhill Crane.” This was completed in 1975. 

In 1979, Bryce Nielson at the USU Fishery Research Laboratory on Bear Lake set gill nets at two 

locations on the Refuge. He netted at the south end of the Outlet Canal next to Camp Lifton and at 

the north end of the Outlet Canal next to the control structure. As was expected, carp were very 

abundant with large numbers of Utah suckers, Utah chubs, and yellow perch also present. The perch 

were six inches and smaller, and Nielson felt that the population was stunted with the six-inch fish 

being breeders. One green sunfish and one Bonneville whitefish were also caught. 

Also in 1979, gizzards were collected from mallards and pintails shot by hunters on the Refuge. Only 

94 gizzards were collected and sent to the IDFG laboratory in Boise for analysis. Two percent of the 

sampled birds had ingested lead shot. 

In 1981, a Special Use Permit was issued to Doctors John Kadlec and Vince Lamarra and their 

graduate students to study the nutrient dynamics of the refuge marsh. This study was part of a larger 

study of the water quality of Bear Lake and its tributaries, including the Bear River. In 1983, Ph.D. 

candidate Rex Herron, USU, continued fieldwork on the Refuge for his study, “Phosphorus 

Dynamics in Dingle Marsh, Idaho, BLNWR.” This research was an offshoot of the water quality 

study that has been conducted on the Refuge for the previous two years to determine the sources and 

extent of the eutrophication of Bear Lake. In 1985, Herron completed his program and provided a 

copy of his dissertation to the Refuge. 

Also in 1985, a research team headed by Dr. Ted Bjornn, Idaho Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, 

began a study titled “Evaluation of Proposed Use of BLNWR as a Sediment and Nutrient Trap for 

Inflows to Bear Lake.” The team studied water flows and pathways, sediment movement and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-75 

deposition, nutrient dynamics, invertebrate populations, waterfowl and other migratory bird use and 

abundance, fish populations, and mapped plant communities. A second field season was scheduled 

for 1986. The investigators intended to use the data collected in the study to develop proposals, 

alternatives, and costs of using the Refuge as a nutrient and sediment trap. Results of the study were 

published in 1998 (Bjornn and Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 1998). The 

proposal to use the Refuge as a nutrient/sediment trap never moved forward, probably because of the 

cost involved and impacts of increasing sediment on refuge habitats. 

During late August of 1990, Mr. Peter Hovingh, a local expert on invertebrate fauna, inventoried 

areas of the valley including portions of the Refuge for mollusks, leeches, and amphibians. The 

Refuge requested that as part of his inventory, he make a comparison between carp infested and carp 

free zones. An excerpt from his work follows: 

“The second part of the survey – to determine the status of mollusk in carp-infested 

and carp-free areas of the Refuge revealed that only Physa gastropods were found in 

the carp-infested waters (although in some locations Lymnaea and Oxyloma were 

found associated with the wet areas of the bulrushes but not in the actual body of the 

waters). The carp-free zones contained both Helisoma (not so abundant) and 

Lymnaea stagnalis as well as Lymnaea sp., Physa, and Oxyloma. Leopard frogs were 

also associated with the carp-free zones and not with the carp-infested zones. The 

leech Erpobdella punctata was the only leech found in the Refuge ponds whereas 

Erpobdella dubia was associated with the streams and springs of the Bear Lake 

drainage. Erpobdella punctata seems to tolerate increased salinity and eutrophic 

conditions, although both leeches are found in lakes, streams, and springs.” 

“The lack of an abundant molluscan fauna in the carp-infested waters could be due to 

the substrate instability and the cloudiness of the waters. In desert springs which 

contain an abundance of carp, molluscan fauna are well represented. These desert 

springs generally have an abundance of aquatic flora and clear waters.” 

During the summer of 1991 a turbidity monitoring program was begun to provide the Refuge with 

baseline turbidity, conductivity, and other marsh water quality information on Bear River water as it 

moves through the marsh enroute to Bear Lake or downstream via the Outlet Canal. Turbidity and 

conductivity measurements were taken in June and in August at 30 locations around the marsh. 

These samples included control and non-control areas for carp. The highest turbidity was measured at 

peak in-flows down the Rainbow Canal in June. These measurements ranged from 55-60 Formazin 

Turbidity Units (FTU). Across the Rainbow Dike in the relatively carp-free Rainbow Unit, FTU 

levels dropped to 20. Turbidity and conductivity measurements were again taken in 1992. Annual 

Narratives from 1993 to 2000 had nothing to report on the research front. 

In 2002, the contaminants branch of the Boise and Pocatello Fish and Wildlife Offices (USFWS) 

initiated a three year study to ascertain contaminants levels of concern in refuge sediments and biotic 

components of Bear Lake NWR marsh habitats. Of primary concern was the selenium levels 

associated with past phosphate mining operations in the Bear Lake Plateau located on the eastern 

boundary of Mud Lake. Sediment samples collected during the initial phase (2003) have been 

analyzed and the results suggest that several contaminants are elevated in sediments associated with 

inflow points on the east and west sides of Mud Lake. The Rainbow inlet canal, source of all Bear 

River water entering Mud Lake, tends to be highest in most nutrients and contaminants sampled 

while Mud Lake sediments tend to retain the lowest concentrations. The final report titled 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-76 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

“Evaluation of Contaminant Concentrations in Water, Sediment, and Biota at Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge from Historical Phosphate Mining and Agricultural Return Flows” was completed in 

2004 by Burch, Arena, and Thomas. 

Jeffery S. Horsburgh, David K. Stevens, and Nancy O. Mesner, professors at Utah State University 

(USU) in Logan, Utah, undertook a study titled “Continuous Water Quality Monitoring of Mud Lake 

to Support Evaluation of Effects of Bear River Water Diverted into Bear Lake.” Their students, in 

particular Cody Allen for his Masters’ Thesis, began collecting data on the Refuge in 2007. They 

installed continuous monitoring equipment at four sites around the periphery of Mud Lake to monitor 

the water quality of its major inflows and outflows. 

The project was geared toward answering the following major science questions: 

1. What is the nutrient and sediment budget for Mud Lake? 

2. How does management of Mud Lake affect flow pathways and residence times within the 

system? 

3. Does the management of Mud Lake have a significant impact on sediment loading into Bear 

Lake and conversely from Bear Lake and Mud Lake to the Bear River as water is released for 

agricultural purposes from Bear lake? 

4. What are other exogenous factors that potentially affect these processes? 

In 2006 this project received a Water Initiative Research Initiation Award from USU. Project: Utah 

State University Water Initiative, State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Continuous 

Water Quality Monitoring of Mud Lake to Support Evaluation of Effects of Bear River Water 

Diverted into Bear Lake, J. S. Horsburgh, D. K. Stevens, N. O. Mesner, 2006-2009. Cody Allen’s 

thesis defense was scheduled to be completed by 2011. 

Wayne Wurtsbaugh, a professor in the Watershed Sciences Department at USU, Logan, conducted a 

study with his students. They conducted fieldwork on the Refuge in 2008, and produced a report 

dated February 17, 2009 titled “Comparative Limnological Analysis of Cutler Reservoir and Dingle 

Marsh with Respect to Eutrophication.” Dr. Wurtsbaugh and his students returned to collect more 

data in 2009 and produced another report submitted to the Refuge in March 2010 titled 

“Limnological Analyses of Cutler Reservoir and Dingle Marsh with Respect to Eutrophication.” 

David K. Stevens, professor at Utah State University in the Utah Water Research Laboratory, and his 

student, Hussein Batt, have been collecting data on the Refuge since 2008. Their study is titled 

“Management of Sediment Load to Enhance Water Quality and Promote Wildlife in Mud Lake.” 

Data collection was completed in 2010. Mr. Batt’s dissertation defense was scheduled for the 

summer of 2012. 

Karin Kettenring, a professor in the Watershed Sciences Department at USU Logan, and her student, 

Amanda Sweetman, collected data in 2009 at the Refuge for a study titled “The relative importance 

of geographic and environment variation in the intraspecific composition of Schoenoplectus 

maritimus across spatial scales.” Ms. Sweetman also collected data at the Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge in Brigham City, Utah. Her thesis defense occurred in December 2011 and the results of her 

study were schedules to be available in 2012. 
Chapter 5

Human Environment

Cinnamon teal/George Gentry, USFWS

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementDirection

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.1 Cultural Resources 

This section presents a brief outline of the rich history and cultural heritage of Bear Lake NWR, the 

Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough WPA. Archaeological and other cultural resources are 

important components of our nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to protecting valuable 

evidence of plant, animal, and human interactions with each other and the landscape over time. These 

may include previously recorded or yet undocumented historic, cultural, archaeological, and 

paleontological resources as well as traditional cultural properties and the historic built environment. 

Protection of cultural resources is legally mandated under numerous Federal laws and regulations. 

Foremost among these are the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, the 

Antiquities Act, the Historic Sites Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) as 

amended, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The 

Service’s Native American Policy (USFWS 1994c) articulates the general principles guiding the 

Service’s relationships with Tribal governments in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. 

Additionally, the Refuge seeks to maintain a working relationship and consult on a regular basis with 

the Tribes that are or were traditionally tied to lands and waters within the Refuge. 

Since cultural resources encompass many elements and time periods, the following simple temporal 

divisions were used to distinguish and categorize this brief review of the following resources. 

 Pre-recorded History 

 Pre-Contact Native American Traditions 

 Post-Contact Traditions (Native American, British and United States) 

 Recent U.S. Settlement and Economic Development Period 

 Historic and Prehistoric Sites on the Refuge 

5.1.1 Pre-recorded History 

Archaeological studies have documented the human use of the eastern Snake River Plain by hunting 

and gathering peoples for at least 13,500 years (USDOE 2009). Southeastern Idaho is in the Snake 

and Salmon River culture area of the northern Great Basin (Butler 1986). Butler divides the 

prehistory of the region into three broad periods: (1) PaleoIndian (ca. 12,000 to 7,800 years ago); (2) 

Archaic (ca. 7,800 to 300 years ago); and (3) Protohistoric (ca. 300 years ago to historic). These 

periods were marked by major changes in weapon systems and in the types of projectile points that 

were used by different cultures, and by different settlement and subsistence patterns, indicating the 

early human presence in this region. 

Large lanceolate and stemmed lanceolate projectile points typify the PaleoIndian Period in which 

hunters sought big game such as mammoth and bison. During the Archaic Period, large spear points 

were almost entirely replaced by smaller notched and stemmed forms, which may have been more 

effective in exploiting newly evolved species that survived the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. In 

the Early Archaic Period (ca. 7,800 to 4,500 years ago), there is no evidence of a substantial shift in 

subsistence practices, but the Middle Archaic (ca. 4,500 to 1,300 years ago) is marked by an increase 

in the frequency of bifurcate stemmed (Pinto and Gatecliff series), large corner-notched (Elko series), 

and lanceolate (Humboldt series) points; earth oven features are also commonly associated with sites 

of this period. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-2 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

The introduction of the bow and arrow, as indicated by small side-notched and corner-notched 

projectile points, and ceramics marks the beginning of the Late Archaic Period (1,300-300 years ago) 

in the eastern Plateau. Archaeologically, the Late Archaic Period is recognized by a general decrease 

in projectile point size and increase in small side- and trinotched arrow points, or Desert SideNotched points, from approximately 700 to 300 years ago when stone-tipped arrows began to be 

replaced by firearms of Euro-American manufacture. At least two cultural groups, the Fremont and 

the Shoshonean, are represented by these remains. Although ceramics are often thought of as a 

marker of sedentary horticulturalists, current evidence indicates that the northern Fremont were 

mobile hunter-gatherers. Shoshonean occupation is marked by brown-ware ceramics, desert 

sidenotched points, and Cottonwood triangular points. 

The Protohistoric Period (ca. 300 years ago to historic) began with the first appearance of EuroAmerican trade goods in archaeological assemblages that still reflect a reliance on traditional 

practices of hunting and gathering. One of the most conspicuous influences on cultural change was 

the horse, which made new hunting techniques possible and increased the potential range of hunting 

forays. At the same time, the demands of horse herds for water and forage limited potential 

settlement locations. The Shoshonean horse cultures of the Protohistoric Period in this region were 

the predecessors of the historic Shoshone and Bannock (BLM 2009). 

Bear Lake Valley. The prehistoric record of Bear Lake Valley is not well documented, and few 

archaeological sites have been recorded. The southeastern corner of Idaho is topographically linked 

more to the Great Basin than it is the Snake River Plain. The area is on the margin of two rather well 

documented cultural traditions: the Desert Culture to the south with its roots in the Great Basin; and 

the Plains Big-Game Hunters to the north and east associated with the Snake River Plains (Butler 

1978). Additional archaeological investigations will be required to determine the predominant 

cultural influences on the Bear Lake Valley region of southeastern Idaho. 

The closest excavated archaeological site with any time-depth is the Weston Canyon Rockshelter, 

about 40-50 kilometers (25-31 miles) west of Bear Lake, with evidence of hunting dating from as 

early as 6000 years ago. D’Azevedo (1986) wrote, “It is reasonable to expect that Bear Lake Valley 

has been used by prehistoric peoples at least since ~6000 BP.” However, the nature and extent of that 

prehistoric occupation is still poorly understood. 

According to Harvey and Burnside, the two sites found during a 1995 refuge survey and the few 

previously recorded sites near the Refuge, “are not inconsistent with either of the two Archaic 

cultural traditions, and indicate the full time hunting and gathering of both animal and plant foods ... 

The single complete projectile point found on the Refuge, an Elko corner-notched point, broadly 

identifies a Middle Archaic occupation sometime between ~6000-1500 years BP.” 

5.1.2 Pre-Contact Native American Traditions 

Shoshone are suspected to have occupied southeastern Idaho as early as the fifteenth century 

(D’Azevedo 1986). At the time of major white settlement of the Great Basin and the Snake River 

areas in the 1840s, there were seven distinct Shoshone groups: 

1. The Eastern Shoshone, occupying the region from the Wind River Mountains to Fort Bridger 

and astride the Oregon Trail; 

2. The Goshute Shoshone, in the valleys and mountains west and southwest of Great Salt Lake; 

3. The numerous Western Shoshone in northern and western Nevada; and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-3 

4. Four remaining groups in southeast Idaho and northeastern Utah that are usually listed under 

the general name of the “Northern Shoshone” (Madsen 1980, 2010): The Fort Hall Shoshone

of about 1,000 people, who lived together with a band of about 800 Northern Paiute known 

as the Bannock at the confluence of the Portneuf and Snake rivers, but ranged widely into 

Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana; the Lemhi, numbering some 1,800 people, who ranged from 

the Beaverhead country in southwestern Montana westward to the Salmon River area, which 

was their main homeland; in western Idaho, along the Boise and Bruneau rivers, a third 

section of about 600 Shoshone followed a life centered around salmon as their basic food; 

finally, the fourth and final division of 1,500 people, the Northwestern Shoshone, resided in 

the valleys of northern Utah—especially Weber Valley and Cache Valley—and along the 

eastern and northern shores of Great Salt Lake. This group also ranged into the southeastern 

corner of Idaho (the northern Cache Valley and Bear Lake Valley). 

The Northern Shoshone are distinguished from the Western Shoshone mainly in having had many 

horses in late aboriginal times, and from the Eastern Shoshone in having had an economy based more 

on salmon fishing than on bison hunting. Today, most Northern Shoshone groups are included 

among the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho (Murphy and Murphy 

1986), but some Northwestern Shoshone are members of a separate recognized tribe, the 

Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation (Parry 2010). 

Historically, the Bear Lake Valley was within territory visited by both the Northern and Eastern 

Shoshone. Prior to the settlement of the Bear Lake Valley in the 1860s, the Shoshone and possibly 

the Bannock Indians used the valley for grazing horses and hunting. Buffalo herds used the valley’s 

lush meadows and took refuge in the old Dingle Swamp’s bulrush stands in winter. Buffalo bones 

and skulls have been found from time to time in the marsh and along eroded canal banks (USFWS 

2001a). 

Although the Fort Hall Shoshone and Bannock and the Northwestern Shoshone visited the Bear Lake 

area, their winter camps were in other more sheltered areas in the Fort Hall bottoms, Bannock Creek, 

and the Cache Valley. The Northwestern Shoshone had winter villages in the northern Cache Valley 

and therefore would have been most likely to hunt and gather in the vicinity of Oxford Slough. Both 

the Fort Hall Shoshone and the Northwestern Shoshone had friendly relations with the Eastern 

Shoshone and joined them for buffalo hunts in Wyoming and Montana, which may have taken them 

through the Thomas Fork area. Bear Lake was seasonally visited by both the Northern and Eastern 

Shoshone and at least on occasion by neighboring tribes (Crow and Blackfoot), but due to its severe 

winters it was not permanently inhabited. 

Round Valley, at the south end of Bear Lake, was a site for summer gatherings of various Shoshone 

bands. Used primarily during spring and summer periods, Round Valley was a prime hunting and 

fishing area for the Shoshone, Bannock, Ute, Sioux, and Blackfoot Indian tribes (Parson 1996 in 

Palacios et al. 2007a). It was customary for these Native Americans to spend many weeks on the 

shores of Bear Lake trading furs, ponies, and fish with other tribes and then eventually with EuroAmericans, who held fur trading rendezvous there in 1826 and 1827. The site was of sufficient 

significance to the Shoshone that in 1863, Chief Washakie of the Eastern Shoshone negotiated with 

Mormon leader Charles Rich to prohibit settlement there (see section 5.1.4 below). 

Fort Hall Shoshone and Bannock. Two linguistic groups, the Shoshone and the Northern Paiutespeaking Bannock, seem to have occupied the Fort Hall region since prehistoric times. They called 

themselves Bohogue (“people of sagebrush butte,” referring to the butte northeast of Fort Hall). The 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-4 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Bannock, a horse-owning group living in close association with the Shoshone, called themselves 

Bana'kwiit (Steward 1938). In contrast to the unmounted “foot Shoshone” who lived immediately 

below them on the Snake River, the Fort Hall Shoshone and Bannock acquired horses relatively early 

(about 1700). Their cultures were strongly stamped with Plains traits and had a comparatively high 

degree of political solidarity at an early period. 

Subsistence activities. In winter most of the Bannock and Shoshone camped in the vicinity of Fort 

Hall, where the lush bottomlands of the Snake River provided ample forage for their horses. In 

spring, groups of related families set out in search of various foods. Whether they went east for 

bison, south toward the Bear River for berries and for hunting, or west for salmon, camas, and 

trading depended upon individual circumstances and whether or not they had horses. Usually 

families set out first to Camas Prairie or to the Boise, Payette, and even Weiser Rivers to the west. 

Since Fort Hall is some distance above the limit of salmon in the Snake River, an important reason 

for these trips was to procure salmon, either directly from the river or by trade from the lower Snake 

River Shoshone. At Camas Prairie they usually scattered out to gather roots and seeds. They visited 

the Nez Perce and local Yahandiika Shoshone to dance and barter. They traded buffalo skins to the 

Yahandiika for seeds, roots, dried crickets, and salmon, and to the Nez Perce for horses. A few 

families remained in this region all summer, but most of them turned east in late summer to seek 

buffalo. However, some families remained in the vicinity of Fort Hall during the summer, or went to 

Bear Lake for roots, berries, mountain sheep, and other game. In the fall some families went south to 

the Grouse Creek region for pinyon nuts (Steward 1938). 

Formerly bison ranged along the Snake River plains, not far from Fort Hall, and in the Bear River 

Valley. After bison were extirpated from Idaho (by 1840), large parties of Indians went to Montana 

and Wyoming to hunt them, starting about when the leaves were turning in the fall. Even in 1811, 

however, Hunt’s party saw Shoshone, who were probably from Idaho, hunting bison somewhere near 

the headwaters of the Green River (Irving 1961:385-387). Fear of the Blackfeet as well as the greater 

efficiency of communal hunting compelled the main body of Fort Hall Shoshone and Bannock to 

travel as a unit, often joining Lemhi, Nez Perce, Flathead, and Wyoming (Eastern) Shoshone. On 

their way east they usually procured chokecherries and various seeds, roots, and berries in the 

mountains. Most people returned to Fort Hall late in the fall, transporting the dried buffalo meat and 

hides on their horses. 

Northwestern Shoshone. Madsen (1980, 2010) identified three major groups of Northwestern 

Shoshone at the time the first Mormon pioneers began settling northern Utah: Chief Little Soldier’s 

misnamed ‘Weber Ute’ group of about 400, who occupied Weber Valley down to its entry into the 

Great Salt Lake; Chief Pocatello’s band (‘Bannock Creek Shoshone’) of about 400 people, who 

ranged from Grouse Creek in northwestern Utah eastward along the northern shore of Great Salt 

Lake to the Bear River; and Chief Bear Hunter’s band (‘Cache Valley Shoshone’) of about 450 

people, who resided in Cache Valley and along the lower reaches of the Bear River. 

Cache Valley Shoshone. The Shoshone were noted for a “wide range of political organization and 

grouping” and a “looseness and diffusity of the social institutions” (Murphy and Murphy 1986). Not 

surprisingly, authors differ in their identification of various Shoshone bands, which were variously 

named for their core territories, the foods they ate, or in more recent times, their leaders. Madsen 

(1980) describes Bear Hunter’s band as Northwestern Shoshone, and noted that Mormon settlers 

regarded Bear Hunter as the principal leader of the Northwestern Shoshone, holding equal status with 

Washakie when the Eastern (Wind River) and Northwestern groups met in their annual get-together 

each summer in Round Valley, on the south end of Bear Lake, near present-day Laketown, Utah. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-5 

Steward (1938) describes them as “Cache Valley Shoshone” or Pangwidiika (“Fish Eaters”). Thomas 

et al. (1986) describe the Cache Valley Shoshone or Pangwiduka as “A band of the Western 

Shoshone ... historically located in the Cache Valley, at the extreme NE corner of Western Shoshone 

Territory.” While these authors refer to Cache Valley Shoshone as Pangwiduka, today the 

Northwestern Shoshone identify with the traditional name Kammadeka or “jackrabbit eaters.” This 

discussion follows both Madsen and descendants of the Cache Valley Shoshone, who refer to 

themselves as Northwestern Shoshone. From the available evidence, this band had the closest ties to 

the Bear Lake valley in historic times. 

The Idaho State Historical Society (1970) and Madsen (1980, p. 26) also mention a “Bear Lake” 

band of Northwestern Shoshone, separate from the “Cache Valley” band. The Bear Lake band ranged 

“from McCammon, Idaho to Bear Lake, or Logan River in Utah, to the continental divide. They were 

known as the Pengwideka (“Fisheaters”) under a chieftain Werasuape (“Bear Spirit”), a close friend 

of Washakie” (Idaho Historical Society 1970). Given that “Wirasuap” was another name of Bear 

Hunter (Christiansen 2007), the “Bear Lake” and “Cache Valley” Shoshone are probably one and the 

same, and various subgroups travelled between the northern Cache Valley and the Bear Lake Valley. 

Powell and Ingalls (1874, p. 11 in Steward 1938) listed two Cache Valley bands. One, numbering 

124 persons, was under San'-pits. The other, numbering 158, was under Sai'-gwits. They mention a 

third group, numbering 17 persons, at Bear Lake under Tav-i-wun-shear. This small band settled on 

the Wind River reservation (Madsen 1980). 

The Northwestern Shoshone lived in small and fluid family groups, hunting and gathering scarce 

resources throughout the spring, summer, and fall. During the winter, the small groups gathered 

together into larger camps in areas that provided cover, timber, and food sources to supplement the 

foodstuffs they had gathered and stored. Often they wintered near hot springs at Battle Creek near 

Franklin, Idaho or at Promontory Point or Crystal Springs in Utah, erecting brush or tipi homes. The 

Northwestern Band moved between bands of Northern Shoshone inhabiting the Snake River 

drainage, and the Western Shoshone of western Utah and eastern Nevada, and used the resources of 

both areas. They fished Bear Lake and the Bear, Weber, and Snake rivers, using spears, gill nets, and 

basket traps. They snared and shot waterfowl and small mammals, but also conducted communal 

drives for pronghorn and deer. Of all the plant foods, pinyon nuts were the most important. The band 

usually went to Grouse Creek, in northwestern Utah, to gather the nuts in the fall. After about 1840, 

at least some groups of Northwestern Shoshone had sufficient horses to hunt bison with the Eastern 

Shoshone in Wyoming. 

Bannock Creek Shoshone. Murphy and Murphy (1986) noted that “very temporary band associations 

grew up during hostilities with the Whites on the Oregon Trial in the 1860s ... One of the more 

important of these bands was formed under the leadership of Pocatello, a Bannock Creek Shoshone.” 

Pocatello, according to his daughter Jeanette, never used that name, but called himself Tondzaosha 

(Buffalo Robe) (Idaho State Historical Society 1984). 

Steward (1938) reported that “Though close to Fort Hall, the Kamudiika [Bannock Creek Shoshone] 

seem to have been independent of the Bohogue [Ft. Hall Shoshone] ... They had only occasionally 

banded with the Bohogue before moving to the Fort Hall Reservation in 1869.” Although Pocatello’s 

band maintained a separate identity from the Fort Hall Shoshone and Bannock, they gradually 

merged after moving onto the Fort Hall reservation. Most other Northwestern Shoshone, including 

the Cache Creek Shoshone, maintained a separate identity and residence, and today refer to 

Pocatello’s band as part of the Fort Hall Shoshone (Parry 2010). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-6 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Like other Shoshone bands, the Bannock Creek Shoshone were known by a number of different 

names. The Fort Hall Shoshone and Bannock referred to them as Hukundiika, “eaters of porcupine 

grass seed,” when they occupied lands around Bannock Creek and Promontory Caves, but also called 

them “pinyon pine nut eaters” as distinguished from their own economy as limber pine nut eaters 

(Idaho State Historical Society 1984). However one of Steward’s informants, a Promontory 

Shoshone, called his own people the Hukundiika and referred to the Bannock Creek Shoshone as 

Kamudiika (jack-rabbit eaters) (Steward 1938). Murphy and Murphy (1986) followed Steward in 

referring to the Bannock Creek Shoshone as “Kammedeka.” However, this name is used today by 

Northwestern Shoshone that settled off the Fort Hall reservation (see Cache River Shoshone, above). 

Territory. Prior to the 1860s, the Bannock Creek Shoshone were a dispersed population, and were 

largely unmounted until after 1850 (Murphy and Murphy 1986). Steward (1938) reported that they 

formerly occupied scattered winter encampments on Bannock Creek near the Snake River and on the 

Portneuf River between the present town of Pocatello and McCammon. The Kamudiika did not 

remain together as a single band during the summer, but scattered in small groups to gather foods, 

some going to Bear Lake, some to the Malad River in Utah, and some down the Snake River beyond 

Twin Falls, perhaps to Camas Prairie. 

Apparently there were several independent villages in this district in aboriginal days, but when the 

people acquired horses and Euro-Americans entered the country, they began to consolidate under 

Pocatello, whose authority was extended over people at Goose Creek to the west and probably at 

Grouse Creek. Murphy and Murphy (1986) note that the Bannock Creek Shoshone had “frequent 

contact” with the Western Shoshone of the Grouse Creek district of Utah, where both groups 

gathered pinyon nuts, and that “in this area it is difficult to draw a line between distinct Western and 

Northern Shoshone types of economy and settlement pattern.” Indeed, Pocatello was born in Grouse 

Creek territory, but moved to the Bannock Creek Shoshone’s main village of Biagamugep (near 

present-day Kelton, Utah) where he became chief (Steward 1938). Starting about 1860, Pocatello’s 

band began to commit depredations on the wagon trains. It was probably not until this time that his 

influence extended over the whole district of the Kamudiika and their neighbors to the west (Steward 

1938). 

Sven Liljeblad (Idaho State Historical Society 1984) reported that Pocatello’s band ranged from 

Upper Humboldt and Upper Goose Creek valleys past City of Rocks and Raft River to Promontory 

Caves, and Bannock Creek. Pocatello’s band also spent time with some Northwestern bands as well 

as Cache Valley Shoshone and Washakie’s Eastern Shoshone bands. Pocatello's band joined 

Washakie’s band for joint buffalo hunts on Green River, and at times had winter camps on Green 

River with Washakie. Pocatello’s band also fished at Salmon Falls. Although they ranged over 

extensive Northern and Eastern Shoshone lands, Pocatello’s “tough boys did not tolerate other 

[Indian] people or let them into Raft river” which was his central exclusive territory (ibid.). 

5.1.3 Post-Contact Traditions 

The Fur Trade Era. The fur trade had a profound impact on the traditional way of life for the 

Shoshone and Bannock peoples of Idaho and northern Utah. It had a major impact on wildlife 

resources—the fur trade eliminated bison from more marginal ranges in Idaho by about 1840 and 

reduced populations of other game animals as well. The fur trade, along with the introduction of 

horses and firearms, increased economic competition (and at times conflicts) between tribes. The 

alliance between the Shoshone and American and British fur traders is interpreted by some as a 

political necessity due to increasing pressures from increasingly powerful Plains tribes living to the 

east (Lohse 1993). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-7 

The first permanent fur trading establishment was Fort Henry, built by the Missouri Fur Company on 

the North Fork of the Snake River in the fall of 1810. In the fall of 1811, the Wilson Price Hunt 

Expedition or “Overland Astorians” encountered a Shoshone camp near the confluence of the 

Portneuf and Snake Rivers or near the present-day “bottoms” on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. 

This same expedition reached Astoria, and then returned back along the route they had pioneered. In 

fact, the route discovered and explored by the Overland and Returning Astorians was to become the 

Oregon Trail. The Astorians had established a link for the Upper Snake and Salmon River country to 

the Columbia River drainage and the Pacific Northwest that was never broken. Canadian and British 

companies began to establish posts on the Columbia River system that were to dominate trade in this 

region for the next half-century (Lohse 1993). 

The first Euro-Americans known to have visited the refuge area (the Thomas Fork Unit) were Robert 

Stuart’s party of Astorians, which started from Astoria in June 1812 and reached St. Louis on April 

30, 1813—a journey of nearly 3,800 miles. Stuart discovered the Bear River on September 9, 1812. 

They called it Miller’s River for Joseph Miller, a member of their party who thought he had hunted 

farther upstream the preceding fall. After meeting a trading party of Crow on the Bear River (near 

present-day Dingle in Idaho) they turned north on Thomas Fork Creek and into Salt Creek Canyon, 

Wyoming. Therefore, Stuart saw the outlet of Bear Lake, but if he or his men noticed the lake, he did 

not mention it. Eddins (2002) argues that Stuart’s discovery of the South Pass in Wyoming in 

November 1812—a practical wagon route to the Oregon Country—contributed more to American 

expansion than did the government-sponsored Lewis and Clark Expedition. 

In June 1816, Donald Mackenzie was assigned to head the newly created North West Company’s 

interior department of the Columbia. In 1818-1819 Mackenzie brought a large brigade across the 

Blue Mountains, down the Snake River on to the Bear River, and to the headwaters of the Snake. It 

was during this expedition, in 1819, that he became the first Euro-American known to have viewed 

Bear Lake. He named it “Black Bears Lake” (Morgan 1964). In 1821 the North West Company 

joined with the Hudson’s Bay Company, and Mackenzie left the Snake River country for Canada. 

In 1822, two American fur companies sent expeditions from St. Louis to join the Rocky Mountain 

fur trade. William H. Ashley of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company sent out a large group of 

mountain men. One of his parties crossed South Pass in the summer of 1824 and reached Bear Lake 

that fall. John H. Weber led this group, and is credited with being the first American to view Bear 

Lake. Bear Lake was called “Weaver’s Lake” by trapper Jim Beckwourth, suggesting Weber’s 

discovery of the lake. Weber continued on to establish a winter camp on the Cub River in Cache 

Valley. This campsite, located just north of what then was the Mexican boundary, now is in Idaho 

close to the town of Franklin (Fromm n.d.). It was a member of Weber’s party, Jim Bridger, who 

made the famous bullboat journey down the Bear River from Cache Valley to discover, at least for 

him and his party, the Great Salt Lake. 

The arrival of American fur brigades in the Snake River country prompted the Hudson’s Bay 

Company to appoint Peter Skene Ogden to head the HBC Snake brigades, and direct its agents to 

extract furs from the region as quickly as possible. The Columbia River and Snake River drainages 

would become a buffer against Russian and American expansion (Lohse 1993). 

From 1824 to 1828, the Cache Valley and Bear Lake served as a major base for the Rocky Mountain 

fur trade. The 1826 rendezvous was held in Cache Valley. There, on July 18, 1826, William H. 

Ashley sold out to a new firm of Jedediah Smith, David E. Jackson, and William H. Sublette. Ashley 

agreed to bring supplies to the next rendezvous at Bear Lake. When he came to Bear Lake with 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-8 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

supplies for the trappers’ rendezvous, in June 1827, Ashley brought along a small wheeled cannon 

for protection. In doing so, he proved that the route of what was to become the Oregon Trail—at least 

as far as the Bear River Valley—was suitable for wagons. He almost needed his cannon at Bear 

Lake. A band of 120 Blackfeet got into a fight with the Shoshone at Bear Lake, and six of the 

mountain men came to the aid of their Shoshone allies. Three Shoshone were killed in the fight; three 

more Shoshone and one American were injured. The rendezvous returned to Bear Lake in 1828. A 

Blackfoot band showed up again, attacking Robert Campbell’s party at the north end of the lake. 

Campbell obtained help from the rendezvous at the south end of the lake, and the Blackfeet were 

driven off after a sharp four hour fight. After this second Bear Lake rendezvous, fur hunting shifted 

to other areas (Fromm n.d.). 

Peter Skene Ogden brought his Hudson’s Bay Company Snake expedition back to Bear River in 

February 1829, without seeing any beaver. The Cache Valley was also trapped out. An 1831 

rendezvous (one of two or three for that year, because of failure of the supply train to arrive on time) 

assembled in Cache Valley. But systematic trapping of the Snake country had depleted the fur 

resources of the northwest, and several years of steady pressure had cut down the trade along Bear 

River also. The Rocky Mountain Fur Company dissolved in 1834, and the American Fur Company 

was left in control of the St. Louis based trade. 

In 1834, Nathaniel Wyeth established Fort Hall on the south bank of the Snake River above the 

mouth of the Portneuf to dispose of goods rejected at the 1834 rendezvous. As the fur trade was 

unprofitable, Wyeth thought he might trade with the Indians and recover some of his expenses 

(Lohse 1993). Shortly after the fort was established, it was visited by a large band of Shoshone and 

Bannock numbering at least 250 lodges. The “Fort Hall Bottoms” had long been an important site for 

the Shoshone and Bannock (see Section 5.1.2 above). Placing the fort in the bottoms simply 

amplified the importance of the area, and intensified Anglo-American and Shoshone-Bannock 

interaction in years to come (Lohse 1993). 

American Exploration 

The Bonneville Expedition (May 1, 1832-August 22, 1835). The first official exploration of southern 

Idaho was undertaken by Captain Benjamin L.E. Bonneville in the early 1830s. Granted a leave of 

absence from the military to enter the fur trade, Bonneville was carrying out instructions from the 

War Department to explore the Far West. Some historians believe that Bonneville was actually a spy 

for the cause of national expansion, assessing the British strength and operations in the Oregon 

country, contacting native tribes, and evaluating the region’s natural resources (National Park Service 

1999; Goetzmann 1966). Bonneville produced two maps of his journeys, and for their time, they 

ranked among the most important. In addition, his descriptions of the Snake River country, recorded 

in his journals and published by Washington Irving, offered some of the first portraits of the region. 

On May 1, 1832, Captain Bonneville, along with 110 men and 20 ox and mule wagons loaded with 

provisions, ammunition, and trade goods, left Fort Osage on the Missouri River for the Columbia 

River. On the 6th of November 1833, Bonneville encamped “at the outlet of a lake about 30 miles 

long, and from two to three miles in width, completely imbedded in low ranges of mountains, and 

connected with Bear River by an impassable swamp. It is called the Little Lake, to distinguish it from 

the great one of salt water ...” (Irving 1861). Bonneville’s “Little Lake” was Bear Lake. 

Over the winter and summer of 1833-1834, the main party of Bonneville’s expedition remained with 

the Bannock Indians at a camp on the Portneuf, while Bonneville and three other men explored the 

Snake and Columbia Rivers. On March 4, 1834, Bonneville reached the Columbia River at Fort 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-9 

Wallawalla. Here he hoped to collect information and establish trading connections; but, upon 

requesting some needed supplies, the superintendent of the British Hudson’s Bay Company informed 

him that he could do nothing officially to facilitate or encourage rival traders among the Indians of 

that region. Thwarted, Bonneville returned to his caches on the Portneuf, which he reached after 

much suffering, on May 18, 1834. He pursued his way up the Bear River, and on the 13th of June, 

1834 arrived “at the Little Snake Lake; where he encamped for four or five days ... Having finished 

his survey of the lake, Captain Bonneville proceeded on his journey, until on the banks of the Bear 

River, some distance higher up, he came upon the party which he had detached a year before, to 

circumambulate the Great Salt Lake, and ascertain its extent, and the nature of its shores. [This party 

was headed by mountain man Joe Walker, who discovered the only practical overland route to 

California, which would become critically important in later years.] [Walker’s party] had been 

encamped here about 20 days; and were greatly rejoiced at meeting once more with their comrades, 

from whom they had been so long separated.” (Irving, Adventures of Captain Bonneville, 384.)] 

The Fremont Expeditions. After Bonneville, the next major exploration of the area was made by John 

C. Fremont. From 1842 to 1846, Fremont led three expeditions of the Oregon Trail. His first 

expedition, in 1842-44, took him from St. Louis to Soda Springs and then down the Bear River 

through Cache Valley to the Great Salt Lake. Despite some errors, Fremont’s explorations proved 

enormously successful. Expedition cartographer Charles Preuss’s maps far outshone anything 

previously available. Fremont’s descriptions, publicized by Jessie Benton, became invaluable to 

travelers on the Oregon and California Trails. His 1842-1844 expedition was particularly influential. 

Sections of Fremont’s report found their way into Joseph E. Ware’s The Emigrant Guide to 

California, and lectures at the Royal Geographical Society in London summarized his work 

(Alexander 2010). 

Fremont’s expedition also chronicled changes that had come to the region. By 1840, both the fur 

trade and the buffalo were all but gone from the Shoshone and Bannock country. Charles Preuss 

observed in 1843 that “the white people have ruined the country of the Snake Indians [Shoshone] and 

therefore should treat them well. Almost all the natives are now obliged to live on roots, game can 

scarcely be seen any more” (Gudde and Gudde 1958:86). 

5.1.4 Recent Settlement and Economic Development Period 

The Oregon Trail brings emigrants through the Thomas Fork and Bear Lake Valley. As the fur trade 

ended, Americans turned to the West as a source of new land and opportunity. In 1846 Britain and 

the United States settled on the 49th parallel as the line dividing British and American possessions in 

the Pacific Northwest. Initially, Idaho was only an obstacle to be crossed enroute to Oregon or 

California, using routes pioneered by the fur traders and mapped by explorers like Bonneville and 

Fremont. The Oregon Trail received U.S. government recognition with Charles C. Fremont’s survey 

of 1842-43, which demonstrated that the Columbia River drainage provided the only practicable 

route across the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. 

Immigrants began using the Oregon Trail in large numbers in 1842, when Dr. Elijah White led an 

expedition of over 100 people to Oregon’s Willamette Valley. In 1843, a thousand emigrants crossed 

the trail in Applegate’s wagon train. A dramatic increase in immigrant use of the trail occurred started 

in 1848 and 1849. Many were headed for the gold fields in California, many to Oregon. This was the 

period of greatest impact on the Indian societies of the region. Permanent settlements in Idaho would 

be relatively rare for several decades yet, but the combined effects of fur trading activities and contact 

with migrating settlers were dramatic (Lohse 1993). With their large droves of stock, the emigrant 

trains caused major hardships for the Shoshone and Bannock living along the trails. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-10 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

In 1837, the Hudson’s Bay Company had bought Fort Hall. It became a primary stopover and supply 

point for “Forty Niners” enroute to California, and immigrants on the Oregon Trail. The HBC closed 

Fort Hall in 1856, with the onset of hostilities in the Yakima country that closed Fort Walla Walla 

and threatened lines of supply to the Snake country (Lohse 1993). 

The Oregon Trail crossed the Thomas Fork of Bear River (through the Refuge’s Thomas Fork Unit). 

Utah State University historian F. Ross Peterson located the crossing “pretty close to where Thomas’ 

Fork enters the Bear River ... there’s kind of a natural back up there and the channel is pretty deep” 

where the Highway 30 now crosses a deep channel. “[It] wasn’t originally a clean embankment going 

down ... it isn’t that wide. It’s at best 20 to 30 feet ... they hit it at a time of year when it was after 

the run-off but it still was a very difficult crossing because a lot of them talk about it” (Idaho Public 

Television 2010). 

In 1851, Thomas Bodwell built a toll bridge over the Thomas Fork, by means of which, according to 

his biographer, “he hoped to reap an income from the immigrants who were then going westward. 

Travel that year, however, proved exceptionally light, and after conducting the business for about a 

year, he gave it up. A better fortune awaited his successors, for the following year they made about 

$15,000 on the toll of immigrants” (Gregory 1911). After fording the Thomas Fork, emigrants 

headed west, crossing the Sheep Creek range and descended into the Bear Lake Valley. This was 

another difficult crossing; the harrowing descent of “Big Hill” was often mentioned by travelers, but 

it was still better than the alternative—dragging wagons through the swampy Bear River 

bottomlands. Shortly after leaving Big Hill, travelers passed by the small “post” operated by Thomas 

Long “Peg Leg” Smith, an old veteran of the fur trade era. Peterson places the site “right by the little 

town now called Dingle in between Ward burro [sic] and Dingle ... It’s not very far after they came 

off Big Hill” (Idaho Public Television 2010). Smith operated the post at what was variously called 

“Peg Leg Island,” “Big Timber,” or “Cottonwood” (after the huge cottonwood trees that once 

abounded in the area) from 1842 to 1857. Later the site was called “Oakey’s Grove,” and tradition 

has it that it was given its current name, “Dingle,” by Brigham Young during a visit to the valley 

(Ream and Nate n.d.). 

From Smith’s post, the emigrants followed the foothills, skirting the valley floor. They paused to rest 

and recruit their stock at Clover Creek (so named for its stands of wild clover), later named Montpelier 

Creek, north of the present-day Refuge. Peterson places the site “right near main street [in Montpelier] 

up against the hill before they cross the creek. Right below the Montpelier Hill” (Idaho Public 

Television 2010). From there, they travelled on to Soda Springs, Fort Hall and the Oregon country. 

Settlement of northern Cache Valley. Mormon settlers arrived at the Great Salt Lake in 1847. 

News of the Latter-day Saints’ wagon train reached Great Basin area tribes in advance of their arrival 

into the Salt Lake Valley. The reports characterized the LDS as friendly and as a result, the Mormon 

pioneers and their leaders were initially welcomed into the Shoshone country. On July 31, 1847, 

Northwestern Shoshone tribal leaders, including Chiefs Sagwitch and Bear Hunter, met with LDS 

leader Brigham Young in Salt Lake City to advance their territorial claims (Parry 2010). A policy of 

“feed rather than fight” with local tribes was decreed by Brigham Young in the earliest days of 

settlement and continued to be semi-official doctrine through the 1850s and 1860s (ibid.). However, 

the Mormon settlement of northern Utah and southeast Idaho had serious consequences for the 

Northwestern Shoshone. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-11 

By 1856, Mormon colonization extended to Cache Valley, when a drought plagued Utah and 

Brigham Young sent a group over the mountains with their cattle to take advantage of Cache 

Valley’s water and fertile ground (Preston, Idaho Chamber of Commerce 2007). Settlement of 

southeastern Idaho, including the Bear Lake Valley and the northern Cache Valley, began in the 

1860s. Historian Kristen Rogers wrote that “Fifteen years after the Mormon settlers arrived in Utah 

[ca. 1862], their livestock had so overgrazed the native grasses and seeds that the Indians were 

starving, noted Jacob Hamblin, one of those settlers” (Rogers 2010). 

The discovery of gold in Montana in 1862 increased freight and stock traffic through the Cache 

Valley, the homeland of the Northwestern Shoshone. This further increased tension brought about by 

an increasing scarcity of the resources the Shoshone had traditionally relied upon. The situation came 

to a head late in 1862, when a group of Shoshone killed two miners and took their horses and 

belongings into the area occupied by Pocatello’s band. According to Northwestern Shoshone oral 

tradition, the raiders were part of Pocatello’s band (Parry 2010), but Chief Bear Hunter’s band of 

Northwestern Shoshone was blamed. These murders, combined with a series of other incidents, were 

the catalyst for action. Chief Justice John F. Kinney of Utah Territory issued a warrant for the arrest 

of Chiefs Bear Hunter, Sagwitch, and Sanpitch (Madsen 1986). 

On the morning of 29 January 1863, Colonel Patrick Edward Connor and about 200 California 

Volunteers from Camp Douglas in Salt Lake City assaulted the winter camp of Bear Hunter’s group 

of 450 men, women, and children on Beaver Creek (later called Battle Creek) at its confluence with 

the Bear River, some 12 miles west of the Mormon village of Franklin in Cache Valley (just north of 

the Utah-Idaho border)]. As a result of the four-hour carnage that ensued, 23 soldiers lost their lives 

and at an estimated 350 Shoshone were slaughtered by the troops, including at least 90 women and 

children in what is now called the Bear River Massacre. It was the largest massacre of Indian people 

in U.S. history, but received little attention due to the Civil War raging in the East. Bear Hunter was 

killed, and the remnants of his band under Chief Sagwitch regrouped and drifted south into Utah, 

joining other Northwestern Shoshone that had camped near Brigham City. 

In early January, Pocatello’s band had been visiting Bear Hunter’s band for the Warm Dance 

celebration. Pocatello and part of his people learned of the approaching troops and reportedly fled a 

day before Connor arrived. Although they escaped the massacre, soldiers continued to pursue 

Pocatello (Reeve 1995). Not long after the Bear River Massacre, Washakie and the Eastern Shoshone 

signed the 1863 Fort Bridger Treaty. Soon after the signing Pocatello sent word that he wished for 

peace. On July 30, 1863, Colonel Connor and Superintendent Doty met with Chief Pocatello and 

eight other Northwestern Band chiefs and signed the 1863 Treaty of Box Elder at Brigham City, 

bringing peace to this Shoshone region. Pocatello signed the treaty first as the most prominent leader. 

The 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone and Bannock established the Fort Hall 

reserve for the Fort Hall Shoshone and Bannock. In 1873, a government commission recommended 

that the “Sanpits, Seigwitz and Pocatilla bands” be placed on a reservation on the Raft River, but 

later recommended that they all move to Fort Hall (Madsen 1980). 

Sagwitch’s people wanted to remain in their homeland, and appealed to Mormon leader Brigham 

Young for help. Young sent a man named George W. Hill to their aid. About this time, Chief 

Sagwitch had dreamed of a red-haired man who would come to show them the way. Hill had red 

hair, had learned the Shoshone language, and respected their ways. A settlement was established near 

Corinne, Utah where, under Hill’s direction, the Indians planted crops. All that was required to 

receive assistance was baptism into the Mormon faith. In 1875, news of the missionary farm reached 

Pocatello. He had consented to the move to Fort Hall, but saw his people suffer when promised 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-12 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

supplies did not arrive. Now the chief saw a solution to his people’s hunger. In May 1875 Pocatello 

and his band traveled to Utah and requested baptism. By August 1875, Hill had baptized 574 

Northwestern Shoshones (Madsen 1980). Many of these were members of Pocatello’s band. The 

influx of Indians did not sit well with Corinne residents, however, and townsfolk soon agitated for 

their removal. Federal troops responded and forced the return of the converts to Fort Hall (Reeve 

1995). After his return to the Fort Hall Reservation in 1876, Pocatello and some of his people settled 

into Bannock Creek, which was part of their homeland (Madsen 1986). Today their descendants are 

part of the Fort Hall Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. 

Some Northwestern Shoshone families also moved to Fort Hall, while others settled in nearby 

Elwood (Wadley 2007). But many stayed, and the LDS church helped them establish a new 

settlement between the Malad and Bear Rivers, east of what is now the city of Tremonton, Utah. In 

1876, using rights guaranteed under the Homestead Act, 14 Shoshone families applied for homestead 

patents. But in the process, these Shoshone abandoned their tribal allegiances and rights to 

government annuities. 

In 1880 the colony was moved to the southern end of the Malad Valley, about 20 miles south of 

Malad, Idaho, and about four miles south of Portage, Utah. For the next 80 years, the new settlement, 

Washakie, was home to the Northwestern Band of Shoshone. Several Indian agents visited the 

Shoshone settlements over the years, and finally recommended that the LDS Church be allowed to 

manage the settlement without much help or hindrance from the Office of Indian Affairs. During 

World War II most of them moved away, and in 1960 representatives of the LDS Church, mistakenly 

believing that Washakie had been abandoned, decided to sell the land and burnt down many of the 

houses. In 1984, the church gave the band 184 acres of land near Washakie, which enabled it to get 

aid and recognition from the government. The Northwestern Band of Shoshone received Federal 

recognition and adopted a constitution and created a seven-member governing board in 1987. In 

2002, there were 431 enrolled members of the Northwestern Shoshone in Idaho and Utah. The tribe 

owns 187 acres of land near Washakie, as well as some additional private lands. The Northwestern 

Shoshone have offices in Pocatello, Idaho, and Brigham City, Utah (University of Utah and Utah 

Deptartment of Community and Culture 2010). 

Tribal affiliations with lands now part of the Refuge are shown in Table 5.1. 

Table 5.1. Tribal Affiliations with Lands Now Part of Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA 

Tribe Treaties 

Fort Hall Shoshone-Bannock Tribe: 

Lands for Western Shoshone and 

Bannock allocated in the Fort Hall 

Reservation, Idaho. Fort Hall 

Reservation established by Treaty of 

Fort Bridger (1868). 

Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone (Sosoni) Tribe, 1863; Treaty 

with the Eastern Band of Shoshone and Bannocks, 1868 at 

Fort Bridger; Act to Ratify an Agreement, 1874; Act to Ratify 

an Agreement, 1889; Act to Ratify an Agreement, 1882; Act 

to Ratify an Agreement, 1888; Act to Ratify an Agreement, 

1889; Act to Ratify an Agreement, 1900. 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone 

Tribe: Recognized 1980. Selfgovernance form of government; 

constitution approved August 1987. 

Treaty of Box Elder, June 30, 1863; Act to Ratify an 

Agreement with the Eastern Shoshone. September 26, 1872, 

ratified in December 15, 1874; Act to ratify an Agreement 

with the Shoshone, Bannocks, and Sheepeaters of the Fort 

Hall Reservation, May 14, 1880, ratified February 23,1889; 

Act to Ratify an Agreement with the Shoshone Bannock 

Tribes at Fort Hall, July 18, 1881, ratified on July 3, 1882. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-13 

Settlement of the Bear Lake Valley. The first settlers in the area were members of the Church of 

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who settled the Bear Lake area in the 1860s. In 1863, Mormon 

settlers established Paris, Utah, the first settlement in Bear Lake Valley. They thought they were 

settling within the Utah Territory, but instead were on Shoshone land. Charles C. Rich and Chief 

Washakie of the Eastern Shoshone reached a cooperative, peaceful agreement that the settlers would 

be allowed in all parts of the valley except “Round Valley,” the traditional Shoshone gathering site at 

the southern end of the lake. In the spring of 1864, an additional 700 Mormon settlers established the 

towns of Bloomington, Fish Haven, Liberty, Montpelier, Ovid, and St. Charles. 

Tullidge (1889) reported: “Irrigation, by reason of the dry atmosphere and very light rainfall, has to 

be resorted to in order to carry on farming successfully ... Water was found in abundance for 

irrigating purposes and the now populous towns of Paris, Bloomington, St. Charles, Liberty and 

Montpelier were laid out and built up, Bishops were immediately appointed to preside over each 

place ... Fields were fenced, water ditches laid out and dug, bridges built and roads constructed.” 

Among the early canals constructed were the Dingle Irrigation, Ream-Grimmett (now ReamCrockett), Peg Leg, and Black Otter (Ream and Nate n.d.). 

Early conditions were difficult. A resident of Dingle, Idaho, just north of the Refuge, recalled, “In the 

early days frosts came a little early so that wheat was not a good crop. Most of it got frozen and the 

bread made from frosted wheat was black and sticky. Oats and barley made better crops ... The three 

deadly enemies of good crops were the squirrels, the grasshoppers, and the frost” (Ream and Nate 

n.d.). Tullidge (1889) reported: “Although these valleys (Cache and Bear Lake) lie contiguous and 

parallel to each other, they are separated by a belt of lofty and rugged mountains about 20 miles 

wide, over which the settlers of Bear Lake Valley had to make their annual visits in order to obtain 

breadstuffs for themselves and families to subsist upon.” At first, the only communication between 

the two valleys was via the Shoshone Indian Trail, which ran 25 miles from Franklin, through the 

Cub River Canyon, to Bear Lake. In 1864, mail was carried to Bear Lake on snowshoes. 

The Bear Lake Valley had another valuable resource: grazing lands. “On the north of Bear Lake is a 

tract of low land called Bear Swamp extending several miles northward, upon which grass grows 

luxuriantly, which furnishes abundant fodder for the horses and cattle during the long, cold winters” 

(Tullidge 1889). The lower foothills supported stands of “splendid grass” for summer grazing. In the 

1880s, these “beautiful ranges for pasture and the wild hay meadows” began to attract ranchers to the 

valley (Ream and Nate n.d.). On the current Montpelier and Soda Springs Districts cattle and horses 

had been grazing since the 1860s when settlers brought them in. Transient sheep herds also used the 

area, and were overrunning the territory by 1883 (USDA Forest Service 2003). Around 1905 an 

influx of sheep occurred and they dominated the use of the range prior to the establishment of the 

Caribou National Forest (ibid). One resident of the Bear Lake Valley recalled, “There used to be 

thousands of head of cattle pastured on the hills and mountains east and south of town [Dingle]. 

Rangeland was very good until sheep came. Together they over-ran and over-grazed the area” (Ream 

and Nate n.d.). 

Bancroft and Victor (1890) reported that “The valley of Bear Lake, called Mormon Valley, a fertile plain 

15 miles wide and 25 miles long, had a population, in 1885, of 4,000. By irrigating, large crops of wheat, 

oats, and barley, the finest potatoes in abundance, and the largest hay crop in the territory were raised, 

while herds of cattle and sheep covered the hillsides ... The manufacture of cheese was introduced, the 

product in 1883 being 200,000 pounds.” (p. 549). A new era of homesteading began when dry farming 

methods were introduced about 1890, allowing wheat to be raised successfully on the uplands. By 1914 

most of the range land in the Bear Lake Valley had been homesteaded (Ream and Nate n.d.). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-14 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Starting in the early 1900s, Bear Lake became an important recreation area. Lakota Bear, purchased 

around 1913, became the first successful resort with log cabins and a heated pool. About the same time 

the Ideal Beach Amusement Company began operation with cabins, concessions, dance pavilion, first 

class restaurant, and canoe rentals. Through the 1950s and 1960s the Rich County, Utah area felt an 

increased demand for recreational pursuits. The west shore of Bear Lake became interspersed with 

private cabins, motels, and the new Blue Water Beach. The Bear Lake Marina, north of Garden City, 

was constructed in 1965-66. In the 1970s the area around Bear Lake experienced a recreational boom. 

Five new enterprises appeared along the lake, including the Sweetwater Resort. As recreational activity 

steadily increased, State and Federal agencies began taking an interest in the region. Rendezvous Beach 

was designated a State park in the summer of 1978, complementing the Bear Lake marina (Palacios et 

al. 2007a). Five parks on the east side of the lake were obtained through a number of transactions from 

1962 through 1987 (Utah Division of Parks and Recreation 2005). 

Settlement of Oxford and the northern Cache Valley. A few years before the Bear Lake Valley 

was settled, the Cache Valley in southern Idaho was being settled. Franklin—Idaho’s first town—

was settled in 1860. In July 1864, a company of explorers was sent to Idaho by President Brigham 

Young to locate suitable places for settlements. The same year Noah Brimhall and John Boice built 

the first homes in Oxford. 

Among Oxford’s early settlers were Major Jefferson Hunt of the Mormon Battalion, Noah Brimhall, 

Philip Cardon, T. C. D. Howell (also of the Battalion) V. J. Cooper, Jesse Walker, Hyrum 

Henderson, A. N. Clements, Lyman Hawkins and Reuben Barzee (Tullidge 1889). Here they found a 

setting of real beauty, “... at the foot of Oxford Mountain, and overlooking the green meadows 

below ...” (Hawley 1920). These “green meadows” were good grazing lands, probably similar to 

what settlers described in nearby Preston, Idaho, with “an abundance of wild grasses such as the 

sand, blue and wheat grasses” (Hovey 1923-1925). A large marsh covered a portion of the valley 

floor. Even as late as 1916, the “big marsh” near Oxford was “one of the few areas in this part of the 

valley which is not yet much utilized” (Lee et al. 1916). 

The discovery of gold in Montana in 1862 was an economic windfall for the farmers of the Cache 

Valley, and the people of Franklin did a considerable trade, exporting butter, eggs, and grain to the 

mining district. This also, however, brought increased conflicts with the Indians along the wagon 

roads. Because of Indian raids, people who had settled north and south of Oxford were advised to 

move into Oxford in the fall of 1865. They built and lived in a fort of log houses during the winter of 

1865-66. Indian trouble increased and so these pioneers left their homes and moved to Franklin in the 

summer of 1865. All summer the men went back to Oxford and took care of their crops. In the fall 

they moved their families back. Indian difficulties were over by the spring of 1867 so people moved 

out of the fort into their city lots (Hart 1982). One woman who decided to try farming in the “new 

place,” Oxford, in the 1870s found it to be “less than fifty families and all houses but one log and 

dirt-roofed” (Jensen 2001). By 1876, the town of Oxford consisted of “log cabins, brush fences, a 

few cottonwood shade trees and a great deal of wild sage brush.” 

The coming of the Utah & Northern Railroad in 1879 transformed Oxford to what was described in 

1889 as “a small but very pretty town, with a mixed population of Mormon and Gentile. It can boast 

of fine residences, large barns, thrifty orchards; it is unexcelled for its shade and ornamental trees, is 

well watered by the mountain streams and is surrounded by vast meadows” (Tullidge 1889). Oxford 

aspired to replace Malad City as county seat of Oneida County. However, as Malad City was far 

from the railroad, more than half of the county-officers resided and had offices in Oxford, on the 

narrow gauge railway. Oxford obtained the public land office in 1879 (Link and Phoenix 1996). A 

newspaper, the Idaho Enterprise, was printed here from 1879 to 1883 (French 1914). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-15 

Oscar Sonnenkalb, who lived in Oxford from 1881 to 1889, reported: “there were several saloons, 

grocery stores, also a newspaper edited by Colonel Straight who, with the famous imagination of the 

western promoter, predicted a wonderful growth of our village into a second Chicago with the 

Oxford slough representing Michigan Lake” (Harstad, editor, 1972, in Link and Phoenix 1994). 

Railroads also stimulated economic investments in the West by eastern and foreign capitalists. Many 

of these investments were made in livestock and during the 1870s and 1880s the number of cattle 

increased dramatically in Idaho and neighboring Utah. The ranges of Idaho were considered fully 

stocked by 1875 (USDA Forest Service 2003). In the early 1880s, Henry Harkness grazed 

“mammoth herds of blooded cattle and sheep” on his 1,600 acre ranch near Oxford (French 1914, 

vol. 3). The term “blooded” refers to imported, purebred stock. Beginning in 1870, shorthorn cattle 

from Canada were imported to help improve the Utah cattle stock. During the 1880s Hereford cattle 

were imported and other breeds followed (Powell 2010). 

By the early 1880s cattle trailing numbers dropped off as forage declined and railroads provided 

better and quicker access. Disastrous winters in the 1880s killed so much stock in southern Idaho that 

the local cattle industry never quite recovered. In the winter of 1886-87, some ranchers in Utah lost 

half or more of their herds; figures for southern Idaho are probably similar. The late 1880s 

experienced decrease in rangeland productivity fueled partially by drought but mainly by the huge 

numbers of grazing animals (Spaeth et al. 1996). Sheep were moved into the grazing areas once 

dominated by cattle and flocks expanded rapidly. In what is now the Westside District of the Caribou 

National Forest, Basque herders brought in huge numbers of sheep, which peaked between 1895 and 

1905. Early estimates suggest more than 600,000 head of sheep in Oneida County trailed back and 

forth from the summer mountain ranges to the desert winter ranges (Valora 1996). By 1907, Idaho 

ranked third in the nation in amount of wool produced and fourth in size of flocks (Link and Phoenix 

1994). 

As had been the case in the Bear Lake Valley, sheep were blamed for degrading range conditions in 

the northern Cache Valley. “Large sheep men, who wintered their sheep in Utah and Nevada and 

summered them near Soda Springs, trailed back and forth through the valley until much of the valley 

grass was killed” (Wakley n.d.). The range began to depreciate between 1905 and 1910 (USFS 

2003). 

Besides stock raising, wheat farming was the major industry of the northern Cache Valley. By 1890, 

Bancroft wrote that “Round Valley, which is the upper end of Cache Valley, is the wheat granary of 

southern Idaho and northern Utah” (Bancroft and Victor 1890). About 1890, farmers in the valley 

learned that wheat could be grown by the dry farm method. The advent of dryland farming, along 

with the introduction of new wheat varieties, proved to be the turning point for the northern Cache 

Valley. Yields rose from 10 bushels per acre, to 20-30 bushels. Home seekers came in from other 

states, and it wasn’t long before all available land was taken. Grain elevators were built in every town 

on the railroad. In a short time there were seven elevators and three grist flourmills in the valley 

(Wakley n.d.). 

For many years, Oxford was the main trading center of the northern Cache Valley. But by the early 

20th century, due to the fact of the railroad building away from it and other towns like Pocatello and 

Preston going up on either side, Oxford lost its commercial importance, and became a “quiet little 

village in the hills” (Hawley 1920), which it remains to this day. Lee et al. (1916) reported that the 

“Mormon village” of Oxford had a population of 591. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-16 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Establishment of Oxford Slough WPA. The northern Cache Valley was considered as a location for 

National Wildlife Refuge as early as 1956 (USFWS 1965). The 4,693-acre Coulam Slough NWR 

near Oxford, ID was proposed in conjunction with the Bear River project. The Refuge proposal was 

scrapped due to a low probability of being able to acquire sufficient water to provide waterfowl 

habitat (USFWS 1965). The 1,878 acre Oxford Slough WPA was purchased in fee title from the 

Federal Land Bank, on May 16, 1985. Lands were purchased using Federal Duck Stamp Funds, 

allocated by the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. The MBCC stated that 

“Acquisitions of this type in the southeast Idaho area seek to improve and preserve important 

wetlands for waterfowl production, including redhead ducks.” 

Settlement of Thomas Fork. Thomas Fork was first settled by Cub Johnson and others (Tullidge 

1889). An 1884 survey (T14S R46E, Boise Meridian) showed three houses on the west side of the 

Thomas Fork, on section 9, just north of the ford; and one house on the east side, on section 4. A 

wagon road is shown heading west from the ford; a branch heads north along the Thomas Fork. To 

the south, the Oregon Short Line railroad crosses the Bear River, closely following a wagon road. As 

of 1889, Thomas’ Fork had a population of 300, “mostly ranchers” (Tullidge 1889). 

Establishment of Thomas Fork Unit. The Thomas Fork Unit was transferred in fee title, to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service from the Farm Home Administration (FmHA) on September 28, 1995. 

This 1,015 acre tract was acquired “... for conservation purposes ...” under the Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2002). Objectives for this tract included restoring and 

protecting the Thomas Fork Creek riparian zone for Bonneville cutthroat trout, managing wet 

meadows and deeper wetlands for waterfowl feeding and nesting and greater sandhill cranes, and 

preserving cultural resources. 

5.1.5 Prehistoric and Historic Sites 

As Federal property, stewardship of prehistoric and historic sites on the Refuge is mandated and 

guided by Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as well as other 

relevant Federal cultural resource laws. Although the Refuge has not had a complete cultural survey, 

there have been limited systematic archaeological surveys in response to specific ground-disturbing 

projects. Approximately 30 acres of the Refuge have been surveyed since 1980, representing 15 

Section 106 or Section 110 related projects. 

Prehistoric Background. D’Azevedo (1986) reported that “Few archaeological sites have been 

recorded in the Bear Lake Valley. Several sites were recorded during the 1960s prior to construction 

projects, of which, only two are prehistoric sites on or near the Refuge. These are sites 10BL14 [not 

on the Refuge] and 10BL2 [have not found anything in files about this site]. Both sites are only 

briefly recorded and characterized as small lithic scatters, with potsherds, and fire cracked stone.” 

In their 1995 survey report, by Harvey and Burnside concluded that the two sites found in their 

survey (10BL79 and 10BL80), and the few previously recorded sites near the Refuge, were not 

inconsistent with either of the two Archaic (Desert and Plains big-game hunting) cultural traditions. 

The presence of ground stone indicated plant/seed processing, possibly including cattail, tule, juncus, 

and camas. Projectile points and all stages of reduction flakes reflected tool manufacture, and 

strongly indicated hunting activities. The single complete projectile point, an Elko corner-notched 

point, broadly identified a Middle Archaic occupation sometime between ~6000-1500 years BP. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-17 

Known Prehistoric Sites. Archaeological evidence of Native American use is limited to just a few 

sites recorded around the edge of the current Bear Lake footprint (Table 5.2). The archaeological sites 

are described as lithic scatters or camps, no burials or large scale village sites have been recorded. 

Based on results of a small number of archaeological investigations conducted in the Bear Lake 

NWR, the Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit it appears likely that, at a minimum, the 

area was used for seasonal hunting trips that would have included hunting big game, fishing, and 

trapping waterfowl. Within the refuge boundaries the marshy conditions and potential for high-water 

events may have buried cultural remains or limited the use of much of the landscape. 

The number of surveys or acres surveyed on the three units is very limited. The small amount of data 

does not provide a statistically sound sample size to devise a research strategy or predictive model for 

the presence of prehistoric sites on refuge lands. Only three sites (10BL79 and 80 on Bear Lake NWR 

and 41-17885 on Oxford Slough WPA) have been formally recorded and none of them have been 

evaluated to the National Register of Historic Places. The prehistory of the Bear Lake area is not well 

understood, having been categorically lumped together within poorly defined cultural boundaries, 

based on aspects of its physical geography. The use of the area by Shoshone and Bannock people is 

well-documented during the ethnographic period. Recorded sites are summarized in Table 5.2. 

Table 5.2. Recorded Prehistoric Resources 

Site # Elev. Date 

Rec. 

Site Type Materials Condition 

(Integrity)

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Surveyed 

By 

Bear Lake NWR 

10-BL-2 1968 Camp site Lithic scatter, ground 

stone, pottery 

Poor Unevaluated T. Semilis 

10BL14 

Not on Refuge 

 1968 Camp at 

Hot 

Springs 

Lithic scatter, ground 

stone, fire cracked 

rock. 

Poor Unevaluated T. Semilis 

10BL16 

Not on Refuge 

 1968 Camp site Lithic scatter, ground 

stone, buffalo bone. 

Poor Unevaluated T. Semilis 

10-BL-79 5,925 1995 Small lithic 

scatter 

Lithic scatter, ground 

stone, large mammal 

bone. 

Good Unevaluated Harvey 

and 

Burnside 

10-BL-80 5,927 1995 Small lithic 

scatter 

Lithic scatter, ground 

stone, large mammal 

bone. 

Good Unevaluated Harvey 

and 

Burnside 

Oxford Slough WPA 

10FR30 

Not on Refuge 

 1993 Flakes Two obsidian flakes Poor Ineligible James 

Cullum 

Thomas Fork Unit – No recorded prehistoric sites. 

Known Historic Sites. Eight cultural resources are related to the water control and manipulation that 

occurred at the northern end of Bear Lake in the 1910s. The Bear Lake Outlet Canal, Bear Lake 

Outlet Bridge, and Ream-Crockett Canal have been evaluated and determined to be eligible to the 

NRPA under criterion A. The Bear Lake Outlet Water Control Structure was evaluated in 1995 and 

found to be ineligible. The remaining water control structures, canals, bridges, or pumping stations 

have not been recorded and no determination of eligibility has been submitted for SHPO review and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-18 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

concurrence. Two historic homestead sites are noted within the Refuge. The William Rich Cabin was 

recorded in 1972, but by 1968 when the Bear Lake NWR was established it had deteriorated 

substantially and was determined in consultation with the SHPO to be ineligible (Figure 5.1). 

Table 5.3. Historic Resources

Site # Date 

Recorded 

Site Name Site Type/ 

Features/Materials 

Condition 

(Integrity) 

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Evaluated By

Bear Lake NWR 

Love 

Tester’s 

Cabin 

1972 William Rich 

Cabin 

Log Cabin Good in 

1972; poor in 

1985 

Ineligible, 

1985 

Hoffman, 1972; 

Refuge Staff, 

1985 

07-17896 2002 William H. 

Smith 

Homestead 

Homestead cabin and 

barn, dates to ca. 

1920s. 

Removed 

(may not 

have been on 

Refuge land) 

Eligible, A Gray, 2002 

07-005183 2002 Bear Lake 

Outlet Canal 

Bridge 

1911 construction of 

the outlet canal. 

Good Eligible, A Gray, 2002 

07-017895 2002 Bear Lake 

Outlet Canal 

1911 construction of 

the outlet canal. 

Good Eligible, A Gray, 2002 

07-017882 1995 Bear Lake 

Outlet 

Control 

Structure 

 Poor Ineligible, 

1995 

Maureen 

Wilson 

(10BL129) 2002 Ream 

Crockett 

Canal 

1887 – ditch was to be 

20 ft wide and 4 ft 

deep. Canal ends in 

Dingle Swamp. 

Currently canal is 70 

ft wide. 

Good Eligible, 

criterion A 

(concurrence?) 

SWCA 

Environmental 

Consultants 

Dingle Canal Unevaluated 

Rainbow Canal Constructed in 1917-1918 Unevaluated 

Stewart Dam Constructed in 1916 by Utah Power & 

Light (UP&L) 

Unevaluated 

Camp Lifton pumping 

station 

Constructed in 1917-1918 Unevaluated 

07-000780 

Not on 

Refuge 

2002 Beckwourth 

Battleground 

1828 Battle site. Unknown Unevaluated 

Oxford Slough WPA 

41-17885 1992 Cabin, barn, house, farmstead Poor Ineligible, 

DOE 1992 

Dale Lish, 

FmHA 

Thomas Fork Unit – No recorded historic resources.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-19 

Figure 5.1. Rich Cabin (Bear Lake NWR). 

5.1.6 Surveys 

Previous Archaeological Research. Archaeological fieldwork on the Bear Lake NWR and Thomas 

Fork Unit have focused on compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) for a variety of undertakings including installing a boundary fence (Thomas Fork Unit), 

gravel borrow pits, levee/dike construction or maintenance, bridge repairs, powerline installation, 

mine reclamation, and the maintenance building? construction. Idaho Transportation Department and 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have investigated projects near the refuge 

parcels. Table 5.4 provides a summary of projects that have occurred on the Refuge. Reports 

generated by the surveys are cited, when applicable, in the References section of this document. Hard 

copies of the reports are on file at the office of the Region 1/Region 8 Cultural Resources Team 

Sherwood, Oregon. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-20 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5.4. Cultural Resource Surveys on the Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and Thomas 

Fork Unit (by year) 

Surveyor/ 

Report Author 

Report # Date Type Acres 

Surveyed

Notes/Findings within Survey Area 

Bear Lake NWR 

Gallaher 2003/44 2002 Survey 207 Bear Lake Fiber Optic Line. 

Thompson 2005/602 2005 Survey 50 Howard Creek and Targhee Creek Bridge 

Construction, Targhee NF 

Harding and 

Shelton 

2001/1026 2001 Survey 4 50 cell tower locations 

Harvey and 

Burnside 

1996/854 1995 Survey 275 Investigations at Bear Lake NWR; 

Negative Results 

Plew 1989/5467 1987 Survey 0 Survey of State Lands in Bear Lake and 

Franklin Counties. 

Butler 1989/1019 1986 Survey 57 Dike Improvement and Fencing Project. 

Burnside 2007/183 2005 Survey 8 Dunford Levee Project 

Gray 2003/544 2002 Survey 10 Bear Lake Outlet Bridge Project. 

Jacklin 1989/3091 1981 Survey 0 Reconnaissance of a Proposed 

Underground Power Line on the NE 

Corner of Bear Lake. 

Hauck 1994/909 1994 Survey 2 Evaluation of a Proposed Channel Corridor 

on the North Shore of Bear Lake in the 

Lifton Locality. 

Burnside 2004 Survey 1 Hot Springs Mine Reclamation Project. 

Burnside 2000 Survey 13 Bear Lake NWR Visitor Center and Shop 

Construction project. 

Butler 1979 Survey 0 Inventory of the Proposed Dike 

Improvements and Borrow Sources, Bear 

Lake NWR 

Butler 1980 Survey 0 Inventory of Proposed Fence Lines, Crop 

Fields and Dike and Road Improvements, 

Bear Lake NWR; three isolated flakes 

Butler 1984 Survey 0 Inventory of Five Potential Gravel Borrow 

Sources in Bear Lake County. 

Oxford Slough WPA 

Plew 1994/4 1994 Survey 300 FmHA Seth Coburn Property Inventory 

Bassett and Rings 1989/641 1989 Work 

Plan 

3,750 Work Plan for Cult. Res. Mitigation of the 

AT&T Comm, Fiber optic cable. 

Cates 1997/40 1996 Survey 1 James Roberts NRCS 

Gaston 1993/14 1992 Survey 122 Winder-Banida, Idaho DOT 

Thomas Fork Unit 

Harvey 1996 Survey 130 Thomas Fork Unit Boundary Fence. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-21 

5.2 Refuge Facilities 

5.2.1 Entrance and Access Points 

Bear Lake NWR. The administrative office for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge is in 

Montpelier, Idaho and can be accessed by Route 30. The main entrance to Bear Lake NWR is four 

miles west of Montpelier on Route 89 and south onto Airport Road, approximately halfway between 

Montpelier and Ovid. The refuge boundary is first encountered five miles south on Airport Road 

where visitors can access refuge facilities (auto tour route, Canoe Trail, three boat ramps, five 

parking areas, accessible walking trail, information kiosks and two accessible photography/hunting 

blinds). On the east side of the Refuge, off of Dingle Road, there is an access point for launching 

boats during the waterfowl hunting season. Another boat launch is available on the northeast corner 

of the Rainbow Unit. This area is accessed through private property, so prior permission from the 

landowner must be obtained by those desiring entry. 

Thomas Fork Unit. The Thomas Fork Unit is situated at approximately 20 miles east of Montpelier, 

Idaho, along Route 30, near Border, Wyoming. The Unit’s eastern boundary is the Wyoming State 

line. Thomas Fork Unit is surrounded by private property and is closed to the public. Staff can access 

the Unit through an easement over private property on the eastern border in Wyoming. Staff can also 

access the unit through adjacent private property on the southern border with permission from the 

landowner. 

Oxford Slough WPA. As are most Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA), Oxford Slough Waterfowl 

Production Area is open to the public for hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife observation. There 

is only one public entrance, along the northern boundary of the unit on Oxford Road. The entrance 

was renovated in 2002 and includes a graveled parking area and a primitive boat landing. 

5.2.2 Boundary Fences and Markers 

Bear Lake NWR. The Refuge encompasses 18,068 acres. Its boundary is marked with Service 

boundary signs. Generally, the Refuge’s perimeter borders sloughs, creeks, and marshes. It is the 

Service’s intent to accurately post the Refuge’s boundary; however, in certain locations the boundary 

may be posted slightly off of the actual property line on high ground or dikes to avoid the potential 

loss of a sign due to flooding and bank erosion. Periodically, boundary signage is checked to replace 

damaged and missing signs. Boundary fences are installed around most of the Refuge (50 miles. 

Fence is not erected in places where the Refuge’s perimeter borders large water bodies and steep 

mountainsides, but boundary signs are in place and maintained. Fencing around the Refuge is subject 

to additional maintenance and repair when it abuts private lands where cattle are grazed.

Thomas Fork Unit. The entire Thomas Fork Unit is fenced (7.5 miles of fencing) and boundary 

signs are posted. Some fencing goes across the Thomas Fork Creek and through wet, marshy areas 

and extra maintenance is required for these stretches of fence. Fencing around the unit boundary is 

subject to additional seasonal repair due to cattle grazing on adjacent properties.

Oxford Slough WPA. Oxford Slough WPA is fenced (9 miles of fencing) and signed on all sides 

except at the entrance. As at the Refuge and Thomas Fork Unit, fences pass through wetlands and 

adjoin private lands where cattle are grazed, which requires added fence maintenance and repair. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-22 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.2.3 Roads and Parking Areas 

Bear Lake NWR. The main entrance to the Refuge is via graveled County and refuge roads. The 

auto tour loop is 2.4 miles. Along the auto tour route are three pull-outs where cars can park while 

the occupants observe wildlife. A parking area large enough for three buses is located by the public 

comfort station, which contains vault toilets. Just south of the maintenance building complex is a 

mowed parking area for boats and trailers launching at the old Paris Dike boat ramp. Continuing 

down the main entrance road about 1.17 miles is a parking area for the Rainbow Sub-Impoundment 

hunting/photography blind and a kiosk with hunting information. The blind is about 420 feet from 

the kiosk. A little farther south is a parking area next to another informational kiosk, a bench, an 

interpretive panel, and the boat ramp for the Canoe Trail as well as access to a foot trail. The 

Hoageson spur of the foot trail can also be accessed from a road at the southeast corner of the autotour route with additional parking adjacent to the trail loop. From the Canoe Trail ramp off of the 

main entrance road and just before encountering the gate across the Rainbow Dike are two boat 

ramps, one accessing the Rainbow Unit and the other, the Outlet Canal. Parking for these ramps is 

along either side of the widened dike road. On the east side of the Refuge, off of Merkley Lake Road, 

is an entrance and parking area for hunters to launch boats during the hunting season. These roads 

and parking areas are open to the public year-round or as seasonal winter conditions dictate. 

Thomas Fork Unit. A 1.25 mile road traverses the Thomas Fork Unit from the eastern boundary 

right of way easement on the Feller property in Wyoming and heading west then northwest into the 

interior of the unit. The road was graveled soon after the unit was acquired. The road provides access 

to the three water control structures on the unit.

Oxford Slough WPA. The entrance to this unit is on the county-owned graveled Oxford Road, 

which is about 1.8 miles west of Highway 91. The graveled entrance road is 0.24 miles long and 

leads to a 354 square foot graveled parking area. A 1,667 square foot parking area on the western 

edge of the unit is used seasonally for equipment storage. 

5.2.4 Trails

Bear Lake NWR. A two mile walking path can be accessed from the main entrance road to the 

Rainbow Dike. This trail leads to several interpretive panels and resting benches, a spur trail to the 

Rainbow Unit hunting/photography blind, and a foot bridge over the Canoe Trail to the Hoageson 

portion of the walking trail with additional interpretive panels and resting benches. The Hoageson 

spur of the trail can also be accessed from a road at the southeast corner of the auto tour route with 

additional parking adjacent to the trail loop. Walking along the auto tour route and along the 

Rainbow Dike is allowed as well. 

Neither the Thomas Fork Unit nor Oxford Slough WPA has foot trails available. 

5.2.5 Administrative Facilities

Bear Lake NWR. The refuge administrative office is a leased space in the U.S. Forest Service suite 

of offices housed in the National California-Oregon Trail Center in the City of Montpelier, about 8.5 

miles from the Refuge. The office space was leased in June of 2011. Employee parking is located in 

the back of the building and visitor parking is conveniently located in the front of the Trail Center. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-23 

On the Refuge is a newly constructed maintenance compound containing a shop built in 2005 with 

two large vehicle or heavy equipment bays and one drive-through equipment bay. This building is 

used for most repairs on equipment and vehicles. The maintenance compound also contains an 

equipment storage building, a Hazmat building, a propane tank for heating, and an above ground fuel 

tank. A storage yard is located near the maintenance compound on the west side of the Outlet Canal, 

and can be accessed via the Paris Dike. 

The Refuge is considering the funding and development of a combination administrative office and 

visitor contact station with a multi-purpose room for environmental education and other activities to 

be located on or near the Refuge (see Chapter 2, Management Direction). 

Neither the Thomas Fork Unit, nor Oxford Slough WPA has administrative facilities; they are 

managed from the Refuge in Montpelier, Idaho and/or the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex Office in 

Chubbuck, Idaho. 

5.2.6 Easements and Rights-of-Way 

Bear Lake NWR. The Refuge currently has an agreement with PacifiCorp (UP&L) for access to the 

Refuge’s main entrance road on the east side of the Outlet Canal and for the Alder Dike Road leading 

to the Alder Unit on the west side of the Outlet Canal. The agreement stipulates that the Refuge will 

maintain the dike/road along this portion of PacifiCorp’s property in exchange for access to the 

Refuge. PacifiCorp is tasked with maintaining the Outlet Canal. PacifiCorp also has right-of-ways 

where their power lines cross the Refuge, namely on the Paris-Bloomington Dike road and north of 

North Beach Road, which is the southern boundary of the Refuge. Both these power lines run east to 

west. A power line also runs north to south along the entrance road of the Refuge up to the 

Maintenance Shop Compound and on the southeastern edge of the Refuge along Merkley Lake Road.

Thomas Fork Unit. At the Thomas Fork Unit, the Refuge has a perpetual right of way on the Feller 

property in Border, WY, for access to the east boundary of the unit. The right-of-way is 20 feet wide 

and 1,225 feet long. This right-of-way was acquired with the purchase of the unit in 1995.

The Refuge also holds a conservation easement on the adjacent Peterson property (formerly the 

Esche property) 20 to 80 feet wide running along the Thomas Fork. This easement was negotiated 

with an exchange of about 18 acres of land between Mr. Esche and the Refuge. 

Oxford Slough WPA. No right-of-way or easements exist at Oxford Slough WPA.

5.2.7 Dikes, Irrigation, and Water Control Structures

Bear Lake NWR. The refuge staff has access to many dike roads for control of water levels and 

maintenance of water control structures. All of the dike roads are wide enough to accommodate 

heavy equipment required for maintenance and repairs. 

Alder Unit. The Alder Unit is diked along the east and south perimeters. The east dike passes through 

the PacifiCorp easement. The Alder Unit receives its water from the Paris Creek, where the Refuge 

owns water shares. Three stoplog water control structures, the Paris Creek diversion, and north and 

south Alder help manage water in the unit. 

Dingle Unit. For the 794-acre North Dingle Unit, the Refuge has water rights in the Black Otter 

Irrigation Company and receives irrigation tailwater via the Keetch drain controlled by a screwgate. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-24 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

The Keetch drain passes underneath the Paris-Dingle county road. The Pugmire culvert, using 

stoplogs, drains the North Dingle Unit to the Outlet Canal as it passes under the entrance road. The 

405-acre South Dingle Unit culvert and screwgate, in the southwest corner of the unit, drains water to 

the Outlet Canal north of the Paris Dike via a screwgate. Bob’s Crossing (about midway between the 

North and South Dingle Units) has a culvert with stop logs. This controls water between the two 

units. 

Salt Meadow Unit. The 242-acre Salt Meadow Unit (the first impoundment constructed on the 

Refuge) has a screw gate and flat fish screen at the northwest corner of the unit where water is 

exchanged with the Outlet Canal. In the northeast corner of the unit is a culvert which exchanges 

water with the South Dingle Unit during extreme high water events, and allows water to be pumped 

between the units. 

Rainbow Unit. The Rainbow Sub-impoundment is 434 acres. Its dike, which is also the walking trail, 

has a screw gate and rotary fish screen from the Outlet Canal. There is a screw gate and rotary fish 

screen between the Rainbow Sub-Impoundment and the Rainbow units, and between the Salt 

Meadow and the Rainbow Sub-Impoundment units. The northeast portion of this unit has several 

culverts associated with the Hoageson Road (#1, 2, and 3) and the Hoageson inlet. There are three 

additional water control devices along the eastern border of the unit: Hoageson West, Hoageson Out 

#1, and Hoageson Out #2. One culvert passes underneath the Hoageson portion of the walking trail. 

The Rainbow Dike goes around the west, south, and east boundaries of the 1,437-acre Rainbow Unit. 

It has four water control structures: RB 1, 2, 3, and 4. All structures have screwgates; one and four 

have rotary fish screens; two and three have flat fish screens. Water comes into or out of the Outlet 

Canal for RB 1; and from the Rainbow Inlet Canal for RB 2-4. 

Bloomington Unit. The 2,040-acre Bloomington Unit has extensive dikes. The Paris Dike Road 

separates the Bloomington and Alder units and runs all the way to Power Line Road. The eastern leg 

of the Bloomington Dike (running north-south) has three water control structures with screwgates 

and rotary fish screens. Water is exchanged with the Outlet Canal. As the Bloomington dike jogs 

west and heads north again, another water control structure with a screwgate (Bloomington #4) is 

located just north of Bloomington Crossing. A stoplog/flat screen structure, Bloomington #5, occurs 

adjacent to the old Ward cabin on the western edge of this unit. Bloomington Crossing has two 

culverts with stop logs to provide flooding of hay units and to regulate the flow of Bloomington 

Creek south into the Bunn Lake Unit. From the Bloomington Crossing, the western dike is called the 

Dunford Dike. The Dunford Unit is 568 acres and is still under construction. Currently it has one 

culvert. The dike ends at Power Line Road. 

Red Slough Unit. The 481-acre Red Slough Unit is west of the Bloomington Unit. This unit receives 

groundwater discharge from adjacent farmlands, as well as delivery of limited water rights in the Dry 

Lake Canal Company. The Madsen levee and two water control structures manage water for this unit. 

Bunn Lake Unit. The Bunn Lake Unit is 2,448 acres. From the Bloomington Crossing the 

Bloomington Dike heads south and becomes the Bunn Lake Dike, which connects to North Beach 

Road (the southern boundary of the Refuge). The Bunn Lake Dike has three structures each with two 

culverts, and two rotary fish screens; one structure has stop logs and the other two have screwgates. 

St. Charles Unit. The 510-acre St. Charles Unit is in the southwest corner of the Refuge. It extends 

from North Beach Road to Power Line Road. The St. Charles Dike borders St. Charles Creek and has 

two water control structures each with two culverts, two rotary fish screens, and two sheet metal 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-25 

“stoplogs.” Across North Beach Road is a fish ladder to facilitate migration of Bonneville Cutthroat 

trout from Bear Lake proper and through the Refuge via the St. Charles Creek for spawning. 

Merkley Lake Unit. The 82-acre Merkley Lake Unit primarily receives its water in the form of 

geothermal discharge from the adjacent Hot Springs mountain range. This unit is hydrologically 

disconnected from the rest of the Refuge. 

Mud Lake Unit. The 8,017-acre Mud Lake Unit serves as a storage basin (along with Bear Lake 

proper) for irrigation use in the lower Bear River Watershed. The Refuge maintains an agreement 

with PacifiCorp (the primary water rights holder), through which target elevations are set, at the 

Refuge’s request, to meet wildlife requirements. PacifiCorp controls and manages five major water 

control structures that affect the Refuge: Stewart Dam, Rainbow Dam, the Lifton Pump Station, the 

Causeway, and the Paris Dike. The Stewart and Rainbow Dams divert the Bear River into the Mud 

Lake Unit of the Refuge through the Rainbow Inlet Canal, the Causeway funnels water from the 

Refuge into Bear Lake proper, the Lifton Pump Station moves water from the lake back into the 

Refuge via the Outlet Canal, and the Paris Dike is the last mechanism (associated directly with the 

Refuge) to regulate flows to downstream irrigators. 

Thomas Fork. The Thomas Fork Unit’s water control structures consist of the Center Structure, 

controlled with stoplogs, and Irrigation #1 and #2, culverts with water flow controlled by removable 

metal dams.

Oxford Slough WPA. Oxford Slough WPA has a reservoir (North Pond) with a culvert, screwgate, 

and 300-foot long levee located in a triangular plot of land at the northwest corner of the unit. A 

3,520-foot pipeline with risers is part of the irrigation system. There is a water control structure at 

Pool #1 in the north part of the unit; a structure at the 700-foot Safety Levee in the northeast unit; and 

two more culverts at West Marsh #1 and West Marsh #2. The last control structure is located midway 

along the western border of the unit and is called West Meadows and has a 200-foot levee.

5.3 Public Use Overview 

5.3.1 Open and Closed Areas 

Open Areas. The Bear Lake NWR auto tour route is open to vehicle and foot traffic year round. The 

entrance road is open to vehicle traffic all the way to the Rainbow Dike gate. These roads may be 

impassable at time due to harsh winter conditions. The entrance road is plowed in the winter to 

provide access for refuge and PacifiCorp staff. To provide snow-shoeing and cross-country skiing 

opportunities, the auto tour route is not plowed in the winter. 

Oxford Slough WPA is open year-round, but may be impassable in winter. The County’s Oxford 

Road, which leads to the unit, is not maintained in the winter. 

Seasonally Open Areas. The two accessible photography/hunting blinds at Bear Lake NWR are 

open March 15-September 20. Hiking is permitted July 1-January 20 on all roads open to vehicle 

traffic. The accessible walking trail is open March 15-September 20. The Canoe Trail (nonmotorized 

craft only) is open July 1-September 20. Motorized and nonmotorized boats are allowed September 

20-January 15 in the Salt Meadow, the Rainbow Sub-Impoundment, and the Rainbow Units, as well 

as the Merkley Lake Unit, and the Mud Lake Unit as far south as the buoys. Pedestrian access is also 

allowed in this area September 20-January 15. However since most of this area is deep marsh and 

open water, few visitors venture off the roads, trails, and dikes. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-26 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Oxford Slough WPA has no seasonal restrictions, but may be impassible in winter. 

Closed Areas. All areas west of the Outlet Canal at Bear Lake NWR are closed to public access. 

This includes the Alder, Bloomington, Red Slough, Bunn, Dunford, and St. Charles Units. The 

Dingle Unit (north and south) is also closed year round, as is the southern portion of the Mud Lake 

Unit. 

The Thomas Fork Unit is closed to the public. 

5.3.2 Annual Recreation Visitors 

Bear Lake NWR. Visitor numbers have been estimated over the years from a variety of sources: 

brochure counts, traffic counters at the entrance road and the auto tour route, number of cars parked 

during hunting season, etc. From 1981 to 2004, the estimated number of visitors to the Refuge ranged 

from 890 to 5,245. From 2000 to 2009, managers began including visitors that used off-refuge sites 

adjacent to the Refuge in visitor estimates. The North Beach State Park abuts the southern boundary 

of the Refuge and is clearly visible. Merkley Lake Road goes through or borders much of the 

southeast boundary of the Refuge. Unofficial turn-outs along that road afford the visitor spectacular 

views of the Refuge. Managers began estimating about 4,000 off-refuge visitors along North Beach 

Road and 1,000 visitors along Merkley Lake Road. Total visitor numbers for 2000 to 2009 range 

from 8,430 to 12,000. In 2010, total visitation was estimated to be 12,360 (Table 5.5). Visitors are a 

blend of both local residents and out-of-towners. Visitors from outside of the area usually visit the 

Refuge as a destination during the summer. As the Bear Lake Valley becomes more popular and 

populated, visitor numbers are expected to continue their trend and steadily increase. 

Table 5.5. Number of Bear Lake NWR Recreation Visitors (2010) 

Activity Rank Residents Non-Residents Total 

Non-Consumptive 

Auto Tour 1 1,620 6,480 8,100 

Photography 2 500 2,000 2,500 

Pedestrian 3 196 784 980 

Other Recreation (snowshoeing, 

cross-country skiing) 

4 60 240 300 

Interpretation 6 30 120 150 

Boat Trail/Launch Visits 7 24 96 120 

Environmental Education 9 6 20 26 

Bicycle Visits 11 1 4 5 

Hunting 

Waterfowl 5 53 212 265 

Upland Game 8 48 12 60 

Fishing 

Fresh water 10 16 4 20 

Total Visitation 2,250 9,840 12,360 

Oxford Slough WPA. As with most WPAs, public access is allowed for hunting, fishing, trapping, 

and wildlife observation. There is no staff on-site at Oxford Slough WPA, and as such there is 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-27 

currently no mechanism to estimate the number of visitors. Visitor statistics are sporadic and based 

on the manager’s educated estimate. The approximate number of visitors annually to Oxford Slough 

is 150.

5.3.3 Annual Recreation Visits 

Recreational visits differ from overall annual visitors. A visitor is a member of the public coming to 

the Refuge to participate in an activity. In most instances, a visitor may engage in multiple activities. 

For example, one visitor may watch birds along the auto tour route, talk a walk on the Rainbow Trail, 

and take pictures from the photography blind. In this example, the visitor actually visited three 

distinct locations. The activities of the visitor are considered visits. One visitor can register multiple 

visits in one trip and the annual sum of visits is always more than the number of visitors. Visits are 

measured by a variety of direct and indirect methods. Vehicular visits are measured by a counter 

installed at the entrance road. Hunting visits are measured by the number of vehicles parked where 

hunting areas are accessed. Scheduled tours and other special event visits are directly counted by 

staff conducting these activities. Other visit numbers may be estimated by staff via informal 

observations of the frequency of an activity. Also, the types of data and the methods to capture that 

data have changed over time so that information collected in the 1970s may not translate well into 

databases used currently. The majority of visitation (98 percent) occurs at the Refuge while minimal 

visitation occurs at Oxford Slough WPA. 

Bear Lake NWR. At the Refuge, the office is not located on the Refuge, so management is not 

present to make the types of observations that typically occur when staff has an on-refuge presence. 

From 1990 to 1998 total visits (for all activities, presumably including hunting and fishing) to the 

Refuge ranged from 2,776 to 4,204 and averaged 3,411 visits. From 1999 through 2004, the total 

number of visitors was tallied (also presumably including hunting, fishing, etc.) with a high of 5,245, 

a low of 3,914, and an average of 4,280 visitors. It is unclear whether managers were counting visits 

or visitors, but the numbers from 1990 through 2004 are fairly consistent, so probably one or the 

other was being counted throughout this time period rather than a change from counting visits to 

counting visitors. Managers estimated that 90 percent of visits (or visitors) were engaging in nonconsumptive wildlife recreation such as observation and photography. Peak visitation occurs in the 

summer months from July through September. 

Oxford Slough WPA. Refuge records indicate that in 1999 and 2000 the total visits per year was 

440. Records for 2005-2009 indicate total visits at 220 per year.

5.3.4 Recreation and Entrance Fee Program 

The Refuge does not charge entrance fees or other recreation fees. 

5.3.5 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs for People with 

Disabilities 

Bear Lake NWR. The Refuge has two accessible photography/hunting blinds. In addition to the 

blinds, the Refuge has Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)–compliant restrooms and an accessible 

walking trail with several interpretive panels and resting benches placed along the route.

Oxford Slough WPA. The facilities at this unit are minimal and very basic. No ABA-compliant 

facilities have been developed at this time. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-28 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.3.6 Law Enforcement 

Bear Lake NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit receive law enforcement coverage 

from a full-time officer stationed at the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex office in Chubbuck. This 

officer is also assigned to the Minidoka, Grays Lake, and Camas NWRs as well as special 

assignments at other refuges in the region. Refuge Law Enforcement Officers enforce special refuge 

regulations via periodic patrols of refuge lands, protect resources, and maintain public safety. The 

most common law enforcement issues encountered are trespass into closed areas, hunting violations 

(bag limit violations and poaching), hunting or fishing without the proper licenses, vandalism 

(defacing signs), and littering. 

5.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation

5.4.1 Waterfowl Hunting 

The Ntional Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was passed by Congress in 1997 and 

identified hunting as a wildlife-dependent, priority public use for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. At Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA the waterfowl hunting program is operated in 

a manner that is consistent and compatible with the units’ purposes and goals, and provides a quality 

experience for the hunter. This program contributes to the continuation of America’s traditions and 

heritage in wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation. 

The Thomas Fork Unit is closed to the public and has never been opened to hunting. 

Bear Lake NWR. The Refuge has several boat ramps: one at the Paris Dike; the Rainbow Dike has 

three boat ramps—two on the west dike with access to the Rainbow Unit and the Outlet Canal, and one 

on the east dike with access to the Rainbow Inlet Canal; and an undeveloped ramp at the Merkley Lake 

Road hunting area. Primary access for hunting is by boat along the canals, but walk-in access can occur 

from the Rainbow Dike. The Refuge also has two accessible hunting blinds and an information kiosk 

devoted to current hunting information. Hunting facilities additionally include parking areas at boat 

ramps, restrooms along the main access road, and a trail spur from the Rainbow Dike.

Oxford Slough WPA. Oxford Slough has an undeveloped boat ramp at the terminus of the parking 

area.

Hunt Program History 

Bear Lake NWR. Upon refuge establishment in 1968, hunting was allowed on the entire refuge as 

had occurred in the past, adhering largely to the rules and regulations set forth by the State of Idaho, 

but sometimes having additional refuge-specific regulations. Currently the Idaho State Department of 

Fish and Game sets the opening for waterfowl hunting as the first weekend in October, with a youth 

hunt on the weekend prior. Officially the hunting day spans sunup to sundown and the season runs 

through mid to late January, however Bear Lake NWR generally freezes up and the birds leave by 

the end of November. The first official public waterfowl hunting program on the Refuge was 

conducted in 1969, after refuge boundaries were established by surveys and the hunting areas 

delineated. An estimated 352 hunters harvested about 465 birds during the season for an average of 

1.3 birds per hunter. Approximately 55 percent of the birds taken were mallards or Canada geese. 

Estimated crippling losses were high, about one bird lost for every two retrieved. The dense emergent 

vegetation covering much of the area makes very good escape cover for a wounded bird and only a 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-29 

few hunters used dogs to retrieve their birds. Since the first hunt in 1969, a waterfowl hunt has 

occurred on the Refuge every year. 

Beginning in 1994, refuge managers noticed an increase in nonresidents hunting refuge waterfowl. 

To this day, the majority of refuge waterfowl hunters at the Refuge come from the Cache ValleyLogan area in Utah. In some years, drawdown of the waters in the Refuge for construction of dikes or 

management of carp has impacted the hunting experience. Those management activities may reduce 

the quality of the hunt over the short term, but should improve the habitat quality resulting in more 

use by waterfowl and a better hunting experience overall. In 2004, accessible hunting blinds were 

constructed on the Refuge with hunters using one or both blinds during 15 days of the season. 

Oxford Slough WPA. When OS was purchased in 1985, it was opened to all types of hunting and 

trapping as per the regulations governing WPAs. As well, the Service complies with Idaho State and 

other Federal regulations.

Number of Hunters and Harvest Statistics 

Bear Lake NWR. The Refuge kept records for the hunting program from 1969 to 2003. From 1969 

to 1978 and 1995 to 1996, the number of hunters was recorded. From 1969 to 1972, the number of 

waterfowl harvested and the average number of birds harvested per hunter were also recorded. From 

1973 to 2003, hunter visits, activity hours, waterfowl harvested per visit, and average number of 

birds harvested per visit were recorded. Not all parameters were recorded in every year. From 1969 

to 2003 the number of hunters ranged from 100 to 540, with the average being 273 hunters per 

season (Figure 5.2). From 2005-2010 total waterfowl hunter visitors are estimated at 185. 

Figure 5.2. Annual number of hunters using the Bear Lake Refuge, 1969-2009. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1969 1974‐75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006

Hunters

Year

Number of Hunters
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-30 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

The number of hunter visits is always greater than the number of hunters. During this time period, the 

number of hunter visits ranged from 90 to 654 with an average of 229 visits. This number is actually 

less than the average number of hunters (273), and is an artifact of having incomplete records. 

Hunters often make more than one visit to the Refuge during the hunting season. Figure 5.3 shows 

the number of hunt visits to the Refuge, and Figure 5.4 shows the number of birds per hunter ranged 

from 1.3 to 5.5 with an average of 2.9 birds per hunter. The graph shows particularly high visitation 

during the mid-1970s. Currently, the number of annual hunter visits is increasing, from 150 visits in 

2002 to 300 visits in 2004. 

Figure 5.3. Annual number of hunter visits to Bear Lake Refuge, 1969-2009. 

Note: There were no records available for 1990, 1999, 2001, and 2004. 

Figure 5.4. Annual harvest of birds per hunter at Bear Lake NWR, 1969-2009. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1969 1974‐75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006

Visits

Year

Number of Hunter Visits

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1969 1974‐75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Birds/Hunter

Year

Number of Birds per Hunter
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-31 

Mallard ducks and Canada geese comprise the greatest proportion of the refuge harvest. From 1969-

2009, the number of ducks harvested ranged from 167 to 1,000 with an average of 435. The number 

of Canada geese harvested ranged from 10 to 173 with an average of 62. The total number of 

waterfowl harvested (ducks and Canada geese) from ranged from 198 to 1,426 with the average 

being 570, with the highest number of birds harvested in the mid-1970s. In the late 1970s the harvest 

declined precipitously, and then rose modestly to about 550 birds annually in the mid 1980s. After 

another decline in the mid-1980s, harvests rose to about 450-500 birds annually. In 2004, the harvest 

rose to 1,000 birds; however, no data have been collected since that time, making it impossible to 

determine a trend. Figure 5.5 shows the annual harvest of birds at the Refuge gathered from multiple 

reports and narratives. 

Figure 5.5. Annual number of birds harvested at Bear Lake Refuge, 1969-2009. 

The refuge waterfowl hunt program harvests a variety of bird species. A majority of the ducks 

harvested from the Refuge are dabbling ducks, including mallard, northern shoveler, northern pintail, 

green-winged teal, and gadwall. Select diving ducks are harvested on the Refuge, including ringnecked, lesser scaup, and redhead. Canada goose is also a commonly harvested species. From 1969-

2009, mallard comprised roughly 30 percent of the birds harvested, and Canada goose comprised 

roughly 25 percent of birds harvested. Starting in 1972, green-winged teal comprised 17 percent of 

birds harvested. Data are inconsistent for other species. In 1989, the top species harvested were 

mallard, Canada goose, green-winged teal, northern pintail, and ring-necked ducks. In 1993, the top 

species were mallard, green-winged teal, and northern shoveler. In 1994, gadwall, lesser scaup, and 

redhead were harvested in addition to other common species, and in 1995 the top species were 

mallard, green-winged teal, gadwall, and northern shoveler. Figure 5.6 shows the composition of 

ducks and geese harvested on the Refuge during this time period. In 1972, coots accounted for about 

five percent of birds harvested; however, data for coots harvested in additional years are inconsistent 

and thus not included in the figure below. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1969 1974‐75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006

Birds Harvested

Year

Number of Birds Harvested
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-32 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Figure 5.6. Composition of ducks and geese harvested at the Refuge, 1969-2009. 

Oxford Slough WPA. Refuge records indicate that in 1999 and 2000, visits for waterfowl hunting 

were estimated at 120 per year. Records for 2005-2009 indicate visits at 80 per year for waterfowl 

hunting. 

Current Hunt Program 

Bear Lake NWR. Hunting of ducks, geese, coots, and mergansers is allowed on 7,000 acres of the 

Refuge, seven days per week, from sunrise to sunset, during the State waterfowl hunting season. 

Because of the high elevation at the Refuge, most hunting occurs in early October before 

temperatures drop. Freezing of the marsh usually occurs by the middle of November, so quality 

hunting usually ends early, even though the Idaho waterfowl hunting season remains open into 

January. The Refuge allows a youth hunt according to Idaho State regulations, which is usually the 

weekend prior to the regular hunting season opener. Waterfowl seasons run concurrently with many 

big game seasons, which creates lesser interest and participation from hunters in waterfowl hunting 

on the Refuge. Overall hunter use of the Refuge is light. The Refuge offers hunters a quality 

waterfowl hunting experience with little competition, especially on opening weekend when other 

hunting locales are far more crowded. 

Hunting is in accordance with Idaho, Federal, and any special refuge regulations. Approved non-toxic 

shot is required for hunting all species. Temporary blinds of natural vegetation may be constructed, 

but such blinds are available for general use on a first-come, first served basis. Construction of 

permanent blinds is prohibited. The Refuge’s two accessible hunting blinds are available to disabled 

sportsmen on a first come, first served basis one-half hour before sunrise to one half hour after sunrise. 

After this time, they are available to the general hunting public. These blinds are open for use 

September 20-January 20 per State hunting regulations. Reservations are not required. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1969 1974‐75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006

Birds Harvested

Year

Composition of Ducks and Geese Species Harvested

Ducks

Geese
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-33 

Oxford Slough WPA. The Oxford Slough WPA is administered by Bear Lake NWR to preserve 

small natural wetlands and their associated uplands. Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) are public 

lands purchased by the Federal government for the purpose of increasing the production of migratory 

birds, especially waterfowl. WPAs are wetlands or grasslands critical to waterfowl and other wildlife, 

acquired pursuant to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act or other statutory 

authority. Federal Duck Stamp revenues are the primary funding source for the purchase of these 

lands. Every dollar spent for the purchase of a Federal Duck Stamp goes directly toward the 

acquisition of waterfowl habitat. Waterfowl production areas are administered by National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWR) or Wetland Management Districts (WMD). Unlike National Wildlife Refuges, 

Waterfowl Production Areas are subject to all of the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act except the inviolate sanctuary provisions (16 U.S.C. 718(c)). All Waterfowl Production Areas 

are open to public hunting, provided that all forms of hunting or entry on all or any part of individual 

areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions of, 

or affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. 

Although waterfowl hunting occurs on Oxford Slough WPA in accordance with Idaho State and 

Federal hunting regulations, no formal hunting or trapping program has been developed. Refuge staff 

maintains an entrance, parking lot, fencing, and boundary signs on the unit to facilitate visitor use, 

but the unit is unstaffed. 

5.4.2 Upland Game Hunting 

Bear Lake NWR. Hunting of snipe, gray partridge, sage grouse, and cottontails is allowed on 

approximately 300 acres of upland in the southeastern portion of the Refuge along Merkley Lake 

Road, seven days a week during the Idaho State seasons. All other species of wildlife are protected 

and may not be hunted. Hunting is in accordance with Idaho, Federal, and any special refuge 

regulations. 

Interest in and demand for upland game hunting has never been high. Refuge data indicate that in 

1973 hunting for chukar and Hungarian (gray) partridge was poor and participation by upland game 

bird hunters was understandably low. Only three hunters were observed taking part in this 

opportunity on the Refuge. Since the Refuge does not have much upland habitat for game birds, 

opportunities to hunt upland game are low when compared to off-refuge sites. The same holds true 

today and the Refuge has never hosted many upland game bird hunters. 

In 1979 the refuge hunting area was opened for the first time to the hunting of cottontail rabbits. 

Light hunting pressure began after the first snowfall in November. Approximately 40 hunters visited 

the Refuge by the end of December. Currently, demand for refuge upland game and small game 

hunting remains low. 

Oxford Slough WPA. As noted above, Waterfowl Production Areas are subject to all of the 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act except the inviolate sanctuary provisions (16 

U.S.C. 718(c)). All Waterfowl Production Areas are open to public hunting, provided that all forms 

of hunting or entry on all or any part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting 

upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions of, or affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife 

populations. 

Trapping on Waterfowl Production areas is covered under 50 CFR § 31.16, Trapping program: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-34 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

“Except as hereafter noted, persons trapping animals on wildlife refuge areas where trapping has 

been authorized shall secure and comply with the provisions of a Federal permit issued for that 

purpose. This permit shall specify the terms and conditions of trapping activity and the rates of 

charge or division of pelts, hides, and carcasses. Lands acquired as ‘waterfowl production areas’ shall 

be open to public trapping without Federal permit provided that trapping on all or part of individual 

areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions 

affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. Each person trapping on any wildlife refuge 

area shall possess the required State license or permit and shall comply with the provisions of State 

laws and regulations.” [36 FR 17998, Sept. 8, 1971] 

Although hunting for upland game, and trapping, occurs on Oxford Slough WPA in accordance with 

Idaho State and Federal hunting regulations, no formal hunting or trapping program has been 

developed. Refuge staff maintains an entrance, parking lot, fencing, and boundary signs on the unit to 

facilitate visitor use, but the unit is unstaffed. Over the years, several hunters have taken advantage of 

the pheasant season opener at Oxford Slough WPA. Refuge records indicate that in 1999 and 2000, 

visits for upland game hunting were estimated at 30 per year, as well as 90 for trapping. Records for 

2005-2009 indicate visits at 50 per year for upland game hunting. 

5.4.3 Fishing 

Bank fishing has occurred at the Refuge since the Refuge’s establishment, along the Bear Lake 

Outlet Canal and at the Lifton Pump Station. Although there is a sizable fishery of Bonneville 

cutthroat trout within the Thomas Fork Unit, the Unit is closed to the public. There has never been a 

fishery at Oxford Slough WPA. 

Fishing Program History 

Bear Lake NWR. In 1969, managers noted that Utah suckers (Catostomus arden) and Utah chub 

(Gila atraria) were abundant in the canals and creek channels. Local residents angled occasionally in 

the Outlet Canal in spring for trout and yellow perch, which were plentiful. Rainbow trout were also 

frequently caught on the Refuge, and cutthroat and Mackinaw (lake) trout (Salvelinus namaycush) 

were occasionally caught. Bluegill were seen infrequently. Bear Lake proper contained cutthroat 

trout, rainbow trout, lake trout, Bonneville cisco, Bonneville whitefish, Utah sucker, carp, Utah chub, 

and yellow perch (McConnell et al. 1957), so these species could have been caught on the Refuge, 

although most likely rarely. The first Annual Narrative in 1968 remarked that common carp were 

found in great enough numbers to be a nuisance and a very definite problem. 

In 1970, the public fishing area just north of the Bear Lake Outlet Canal Structure was heavily used 

during spring by fishermen before and after the ice disappeared; most fish caught were yellow perch 

or carp. In 1972, Annual Narratives noted that fishermen at the Outlet Canal started catching trout, 

Mackinaw, and cutthroat trout in the spring and fall. Other fish caught on the Refuge included yellow 

perch, chub, and suckers. 

Number of Visits 

Bear Lake NWR. Refuge records from 1970 through 1987 for fishing measured activity hours, 

which ranged from a low of 128 in 1980 to a high of 1,036 in 1974-75. Visits were estimated in 1981 

and 1982 at 105 and 85, respectively. In 1989, fishing visits were estimated at 130; this dropped to 

60-80 visits per year from 1992 to 1995. In 1996, fishing visits were estimated at 30-40. From 2005 

to present, fishing visits are estimated at 20 per year. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-35 

Current Fishing Program 

Bear Lake NWR. The areas of Bear Lake NWR currently open to bank fishing are on the Outlet 

Canal north of the Paris Dike and just north of the Lifton Pumping Station.

Archery fishing for carp is permitted on a portion of the Refuge, but few archers have taken 

advantage of the sport, probably because of the abundance of shallow carp waters near the valley’s 

population centers during the early spring months. Some ice fishing for perch occurs in late winter at 

the Outlet Control Structure. The Refuge is not known for its game fisheries; higher quality fishing 

opportunities are available in nearby streams and at Bear Lake proper. Most fishing on the Refuge is 

for carp; however, large Bonneville cutthroat trout do move from Bear Lake, via the Lifton pump 

station, the Causeway, and the fish ladder into the Outlet Canal and marsh. 

5.4.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Bear Lake NWR. As early as 1976, refuge managers noted that there was a demand for a selfguided canoe route from visitors who wanted to view wildlife from a different vantage point. Several 

special use permits were issued for members of the public to take canoe trips through the Refuge, and 

in 2005 a canoe trail was created through the marsh for access. No motorized craft are allowed on the 

Canoe Trail. The Canoe Trail is open to the public from July 1 to September 20. In recent years, 

users have included groups like Boy Scouts using four to six canoes on weekends during the summer. 

Peak use appears to be July and August. 

The Refuge’s auto tour route consists of a 2.4-mile road around the 200-acre Salt Meadow Unit 

constructed in 1978. In 1995, wetland enhancement projects completed along this route improved 

waterfowl and shorebird viewing. In recent years, turnouts have been added along the route to 

improve traffic flow. Over 90 percent of refuge visitors come for wildlife observation, and this route 

is the main way visitors view Bear Lake’s wildlife. Trips to the Refuge during mid-May by residents 

of the Bear Lake Valley are a common activity when the gosling hatch is at its peak. Most recently, 

the Salt Meadow Unit has had a breeding pair of trumpeter swans. In 2010, an interpretive panel was 

installed by the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) Crew on one of the car turnouts describing the 

swans. 

The Rainbow Unit ADA Accessible Trail Project includes two accessible photography/hunting 

blinds, and four bench/rest areas to enhance the visitors’ enjoyment of wildlife and is open from 

March 15-September 20. Hiking is permitted on all roads open to vehicle travel from July 1-January 

20 in areas of the Refuge marked on the map as seasonally open. 

Thomas Fork Unit. Because the Thomas Fork Unit is a landlocked parcel, there is no public access. 

Travelers along Highways 30 and 89 may stop to observe wildlife from the road, although there are 

currently no welcome or orientation signs to notify the public that this is a Service-owned site, or 

encourage wildlife observation and photography. 

Oxford Slough WPA. To date, no facilities designed specifically for wildlife viewing and 

photography have been developed at Oxford Slough WPA. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-36 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Number of Visits 

Bear Lake NWR. Soon after refuge establishment, managers noted the high volume of recreation 

visitors to Bear Lake State Park situated immediately south of, and visible from, the Refuge. They 

also noted that at least some of these visitors were incidentally observing wildlife on the Refuge. 

Visitors to Bear Lake North Beach State Park were estimated at 45,000 in 1970, 75,000 in 1972, and 

133,000 in 2007. 

In 1973-74, managers estimated recreation activity hours at 2,201. This included wildlife 

observation, photography, and “wildlife-wildlands” appreciation. In 1981, a traffic counter was 

installed on the Refuge’s entrance road and tallied 890 visits for wildlife observation, most of them 

along the Salt Meadow Unit’s auto tour route. In 1987, visits to the Refuge were estimated at 1,742 

people, in 1988 at 2,014, and in 1989 at 2,071. Managers noted casual visitation from users of Bear 

Lake North Beach State Park throughout these years at about 7,000 people, or 10 percent of the total 

number of visitors to the State Park. Also in 1989, managers noted a few mountain bikers and crosscountry skiers, and canoes. From 2000 on, managers estimated an additional 4,000 visitors viewing 

the Refuge (1,000 from the east county road area [Merkley Lake Road], and 3,000 from the Bear 

Lake North Beach State Park). Total wildlife observation visits for 2006-2010 equal 800 pedestrian 

visits and 8,100 auto-tour visits, and photography visits equal 2,500. 

Thomas Fork Unit. Because the Thomas Fork Unit is a landlocked parcel, there is no public access. 

Since no staff is stationed at this unit, it is unknown if or how many people might enjoy wildlife 

observation or photography here. People may observe wildlife from the road, but this use has not 

been quantified.

Oxford Slough WPA. Refuge records indicate that in 1999 and 2000, 200 visits were for wildlife 

observation. Records for 2005-2009 indicate 80 visits for wildlife observation and 10 for wildlife 

photography. 

5.4.5 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Bear Lake NWR. In the first decade of the Refuge’s establishment, public demand for interpretive 

trails, visitor centers, and environmental study areas was low. Preliminary contacts with local 

teachers and school officials had not yielded increased interest in environmental education and 

interpretation. In 1978, managers began providing slide show programs and refuge tours to Scout and 

school groups. This off-refuge focus continued through 1985. In 1986, local elementary and middle 

schools started participating in field visits to the Refuge to study water quality, nesting requirements 

of various bird species, owl pellets, wildlife habitats, learned bird and plant identification, and the 

history and importance of the marsh. The Refuge worked with the teachers to provide environmental 

education materials, information about the refuge purposes, wildlife, and habitats, and Project WILD 

activities, a widely used wildlife-focused conservation education program for students in 

kindergarten through high school. The Refuge also participated in a number of supporting projects 

with local schools to aid in outdoor classroom design and construction, preparation of migratory bird 

display collections, and forums to provide teachers with instruction on how to teach wildlife and 

habitat principles. Environmental Field Days continued until 2004 when funding shortfalls within the 

Bear Lake County School District precluded tours of the Refuge. Currently, environmental education 

services are provided opportunistically or when requested by schools or groups. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-37 

In 1989, planning started on developing an informational and interpretive display for Idaho’s Bear 

Lake State Park kiosk at North Beach with installation occurring in 1995. An interpretive kiosk was 

developed and installed at the beginning of the auto tour route on the Salt Meadow Unit in 1996. 

Until 2004, the only refuge foot trails available for use were cabled off dike roads that the public was 

allowed to hike after June 30. At that time, no official interpretive trail existed, and managers felt that 

a planned designated walking route was needed to give visitors more opportunities to view 

waterbirds. In 2003, the Refuge initiated construction of a 2,000-foot Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) interpretive trail called the Rainbow Unit ADA Accessible Wildlife Observation Trail 

Project through receipt of a $15,000 Challenge Cost Share (CCS) grant and partner contributions. 

Based on additional analysis, the trail increased to a 10,000 foot trail and included a bridge crossing 

the Canoe Trail, and three parking areas capable of supporting school buses. Monies were set aside 

from the trail fund to develop interpretive signs for eight points along the trail and three interpretive 

kiosks for 2005. The Refuge also developed a 7,300-foot Canoe Trail in conjunction with the 

Rainbow Unit ADA Trail Project. The official opening of the trail was on July 1, 2005, with the 

season of use extending from July 1-September 20. 

The Rainbow Unit ADA Accessible Trail Project also included two accessible photo/hunting blinds 

and four bench/rest areas. The blinds would serve a dual function for wildlife photography (March 

15-September 20) and waterfowl hunting (September 21-January 20). Staff from Camas and Grays 

Lake NWRs helped to develop levee approaches to the new blinds during spring. In 2010, the YCC 

Crew helped install the interpretive panels at strategic places along the Rainbow Trail, particularly at 

the resting benches and at the Rainbow Unit blind. 

Oxford Slough WPA. Refuge records do not indicate any history or current programming for 

environmental education or interpretation at this unit. 

Number of Visits 

Bear Lake NWR. For 2006-2010, environmental education participants are estimated at 40 per year. 

From 2005-2006 interpretation participants were estimated at 1,000; from 2007-2009 this number 

dropped to zero. This drop may be explained by changes in how participation in activities were 

counted. In recent years, participation in interpretation has been limited by the Refuge’s small staff. 

In 2010 the Refuge had 150 interpretation participants and 10 in 2011. The number of environmental 

education participants in 2010 was 26 and 92 participants in 2011. 

Oxford Slough WPA. Refuge records do not indicate any visits for environmental education or 

interpretation at this unit. 

5.4.6 Cultural Resources Interpretation 

Bear Lake NWR. The Refuge does not have a cultural resources interpretation program at this time. 

However, cultural resources on the Refuge include: archaeological sites (both prehistoric and historic 

and their associated documentation), buildings and structures, landscapes, objects, and historic 

documents. These items form tangible links with the past. The Service is responsible for, and 

committed to, protecting and managing these irreplaceable resources in a spirit of stewardship for 

future generations to understand and enjoy.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-38 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

The Refuge has old cabins acquired when the unit was established. These cabins were the homes of 

the early settlers to the area and included farmers, ranchers, and trappers. These cabins have been 

evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Office and found not to be historically significant. 

Bison bones have been found at various locations on the Refuge, and sometimes in large numbers. 

These bones are generally revealed when water levels are drawn down for various management 

purposes. Cultural resource surveys are required whenever the Refuge undertakes a project that will 

disturb the ground, like building new impoundments. In the course of these surveys, stone flakes and 

fire-cracked rocks have been found attesting to the use of the area by Native Americans. 

Thomas Fork Unit. The Thomas Fork Unit was once part of the Oregon Trail and pioneers traversed 

it in search of a crossing over the Thomas Fork and Bear River. No artifacts or wagon wheel ruts 

have been found on the unit to date. The area was heavily cultivated and grazed, which may have 

obliterated evidence of the Trail. Wheel ruts are found outside the western border of the unit heading 

toward Sheep Creek. No cultural resource interpretation developed by the Service occurs on-site. 

Idaho State erected a historic landmark sign at a pull-out along Highway 30 near the Wyoming 

border. The sign describes the importance of the area to pioneers along the Oregon-California trail.

Oxford Slough WPA. Like the Refuge, Oxford Slough WPA has old cabins acquired when 

established. It also has a gravestone from the 1800s in a field in the northwest corner of the unit. 

After the WPA was established, the Service erected a new fence around the grave out of respect and 

to protect it from harm. No cultural resource interpretation currently occurs at this site.

5.5 Non-wildlife-dependent Recreation 

Bear Lake NWR. Horseback riding is allowed only on certain roads and trails, but this activity 

occurs rarely, if at all. Bicycling is also allowed, and the Refuge may get five or so bicyclists per 

year. Pets are allowed on the Refuge while on leash or under the control of the owner. Cross-country 

skiing and snowshoeing are allowed in the same areas and dates as those for hiking, but would of 

course occur during the long winter months. Total other recreation (snowshoeing and cross-country 

skiing) participants are estimated at 340 from 2005-2009, and at 300 for 2010. In 2010, the Refuge 

recorded 120 visitors to the Canoe Trail with four to six canoes and one to two people per canoe per 

visit. 

Thomas Fork Unit. Thomas Fork Unit is closed to the public. 

Oxford Slough WPA. It is unknown if any non-wildlife-dependent use occurs on the WPA.

5.6 Illegal Uses 

Few illegal uses have been documented for the Bear Lake Refuge. Among those few, the most 

common violations relate to hunting: shooting from the road, no license or duck stamp, unplugged 

shotguns, and hunting in closed areas. The Refuge might have one or two violations per season, but 

not necessarily every year. Because the Refuge has only one Law Enforcement Officer whose 

bailiwick covers the entire Southeast Idaho NWRC, violations may go unreported. On occasion the 

Law Enforcement Zone Officer for the Service and an Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Conservation Officer may patrol the area during hunting season. Cattle trespass occurs every year 

and is generally quickly resolved by a call to the livestock owner and a fence repair. Sometimes 

snowmobilers clip fencing and trespass on the Refuge as evidenced by the tracks they leave. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-39 

Vandalism in the form of shooting boundary and entrance signs occurs. Littering occurs regularly, 

but no trash dumping occurs. Driving under the influence occurs rarely. Break in and theft of tools at 

the equipment shed on the Refuge occurred in 2004. The local police responded, investigated, 

apprehended the suspects, and recovered most of the stolen goods. No illegal uses have been 

documented for Oxford Slough or the Thomas Fork Unit. However, without staff presence there is 

the possibility that hunting violations and/or cattle trespass do occur, although no vandalism has 

occurred to fences or signs. 

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends 

The area surrounding Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA consists of small rural towns and 

cities. Immediately to the south are burgeoning urban populations in Logan and Brigham City, Utah. 

The Bear Lake area has steadily become a popular summer recreation area. Summer homes continue 

to be developed around the lake and summer residents as well as tourists flock to the area to enjoy 

water sports such as jet skiing, power boating, and water skiing. Most summer homes and 

condominiums are being built in the Garden City, UT, area of the lake, but Fish Haven in Idaho is 

also continuing to grow with many residents migrating south in the winter. 

Bear Lake proper is bisected by the Idaho-Utah border. Much of the area around the lake is managed 

by the Idaho and Utah State Parks and Recreation Departments and their campgrounds are very 

popular. Idaho State Parks manages the North Beach State Park just south of the Refuge. Many 

people passing through the area stop to visit the Refuge. 

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities 

Bear Lake NWR, located in rural southeastern Idaho’s Bear Lake County, is surrounded by mountains, 

and is located just north of and adjacent to Bear Lake—often called the “Caribbean of the Rockies” for 

its turquoise-blue water—and Bear Lake State Park, a major recreation area for residents of Idaho, 

Utah, and Wyoming. Oxford Slough WPA is in Franklin and Bannock counties on the edge of Oxford 

in southeast Idaho. The Refuge and Oxford Slough WPA are located less than two hours south of 

Pocatello, Idaho, and less than three hours north of Salt Lake City, Utah, making the Refuge a 

reasonable opportunity for recreational day visits from Idaho and Utah residents. Bear Lake NWR 

There are many opportunities for residents and visitors in southeastern Idaho to enjoy outdoor 

recreation, including wildlife-dependent recreation. Nearly 50 percent of Bear Lake County is public 

land, while around 36 percent of Bannock and Franklin counties are public land (IDPR 2006). In 

Bear Lake County, about 230,000 acres (37 percent) of county is National Forest land. The Refuge 

and units are located near the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, where visitors can enjoy hiking, 

camping, snowmobiling and ATVing, mountain biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, big 

game and upland game hunting, and fishing (IDPR 2006). 

Adjacent to the Bear Lake NWR, Bear Lake State Park offers opportunities for water-based sports, 

beach activities, hiking, camping, and winter activities. Bear Lake proper hosts a trophy cutthroat 

trout fishery, where the Idaho State record cutthroat of 19 lbs. was caught and lake trout (mackinaw) 

may grow to 30 lbs. There are also four endemic fish species in Bear Lake: the Bonneville cisco, the 

Bonneville whitefish, the Bear Lake whitefish, and the Bear Lake sculpin. The January-February 

spawning run on Bear Lake for Bonneville cisco draws fishing enthusiast who dip nets to capture the 

small swift fish. In 2007, Idaho State Parks counted almost 166,400 day use visitors to Bear Lake 

State Park, about 4 percent of the total day use visitation at Idaho State parks. Utah State Parks 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-40 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

provided park visitation numbers from 1990-2005 in its 2005 Bear Lake Resource Management Plan. 

Bear Lake State Park’s annual visitation has been trending upward since 1990, despite dips in 

visitation in 1994 and 1997. Visitation increased 94 percent from 160,205 visitors in 1990 to 310,175 

in 2002. Most visits to Bear Lake State Park occur between July and September (80 percent of the 

total visitation). The number of visits to the Park drops off sharply due to cooler weather October 

through April. Visits begin to increase in May and June as the weather improves, but increase 

dramatically in the peak month of July. 

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends 

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) produces the Idaho Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP), under the direction of the Idaho SCORTP Task 

Force. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from public and private organizations 

statewide with interest in outdoor recreation. The plan, which is required by the National Park 

Service (NPS) in order to maintain eligibility for participation in the Federal Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) program, is produced every five years. The plan includes a statewide 

assessment of outdoor recreation supply and demand, public involvement and a wetlands component. 

For the latest (2006-2010) SCORTP, the IDPR surveyed Idahoans statewide to determine their 

participation in a wide range of recreational activities, and to get a sense of the public’s priorities on 

issues related to outdoor recreation. In addition, staff reviewed other statewide studies related to 

outdoor recreation conducted during the past five years. 

Current Participation Rates. The most recent Idaho SCORTP (IDPR 2006) and associated 

recreation survey identified a number of major categories (activity areas) of outdoor recreation, 

subdivided into recreational activities. Survey results were organized statewide as well as regionally, 

with Bear Lake, Bannock, and Franklin counties included in the Region 5 study area for SCORTP. 

Walking was the most popular outdoor recreation activity in Idaho and in Region 5, with 78.3 

percent of adult Idahoans and 80.5 percent of Region 5 adult residents walking for exercise or 

pleasure. Idahoans also participate in wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. Idahoans and residents in Region 5 participate in 

these activities about the same amount, although Region 5 had slightly higher participation in 

wildlife watching, including outdoor photography (52.7 percent for Region 5 versus 47.5 percent for 

Idaho) and watching wildlife other than birds or fish (66 percent for Region 5 versus 63 percent for 

Idaho). Compared to national participation rates, Idahoans participate in waterfowl hunting nearly six 

times as often. Non-consumptive wildlife activities, such as viewing animals, were also higher than 

the national average. Table 5.6 shows participation for activities that are currently allowed on the 

Refuge reported statewide and in Region 5.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-41 

Table 5.6. Participation Rates for Selected Outdoor Recreational Activities in Idaho and Region 5

Recreation Activity Rank Idaho Adult Residents 

Participation 

Idaho Region 5 Adult 

Residents Participation 

Nature Activities 

Observe wildlife other than birds, fish 2 63.0% 66.0% 

Viewing fish 36.9% 34.2% 

Bird watching 46.5% 46.8% 

Outdoor photography 5 47.5% 52.1% 

Fishing 

Fishing on a river from bank or shore 4 57.7% 56.2% 

Hunting 

Waterfowl hunting 12.9% 11.8% 

Upland or small game hunting 26.5% 25.5% 

Walking/Hiking 

Walking for exercise or pleasure 1 80.5% 78.4% 

Hiking 3 59.5% 63.3% 

Cross-country skiing 16.6% 17.3% 

Snowshoeing 16.5% 16.7% 

Horseback riding 16.2% 18.9% 

Table includes those recreational activities which are currently allowed on the Refuge. 

Source: Idaho participation rates from 2004 Outdoor Recreation Needs Assessment, reported in Idaho SCORTP (IDPR 2006). 

It must be noted that there is a major discrepancy between the estimated number of waterfowl hunters 

in the 2002 Idaho Recreation Survey and numbers reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) in their hunter surveys for that year. The SCORTP 

estimated than more than 160,000 Idaho residents participated in waterfowl hunting in 2002, while the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported sales of 25,000 Ducks Stamps in Idaho that year, and the 

IDFG estimated 19,000 duck hunters and 12,500 goose hunters for that year based on their telephone 

surveys (see below; IDFG 2009). The National Survey of Hunting and Fishing reported that the state 

of Idaho had 27,000 waterfowl hunters, 16 years old or older, in 2006 (the State ranks 17th in the 

nation in waterfowl hunting participation). This raises the question of whether 2002 recreation survey 

methodology resulted in a higher percentage of hunters being surveyed than are present in the general 

population, or whether estimated participation is higher than actual participation in multiple 

categories. The 2002 survey may have captured individuals who formerly hunted but no longer do so. 

Still, the study does provide a broad basis of comparison of participation in recreational activities. 

The most recent National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey 

(FHWAR) was conducted in 2006 (U. S. Department of the Interior [USDI] et al. 2007). The Survey 

collects information on the number of anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers; how often they 

participate; and how much they spend on their activities in the United States. The 2006 Survey found 

that 1.0 million Idaho residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older fished, hunted, or wildlife 

watched in Idaho. Of the total number of participants, 350,000 fished (35 percent), 187,000 hunted 

(18.7 percent), and the majority at 506,000 participated in wildlife watching activities (50.6 percent), 

which include observing and photographing wildlife (see Table 5.7). The sum of anglers, hunters, and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-42 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

wildlife watchers exceeds the total number of participants in wildlife-related recreation because many 

individuals engaged in more than one wildlife-related activity. 

Table 5.7. Participation in Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities in Idaho, 2006

Activity Residents and 

Nonresidents Idaho Residents Nonresidents 

Wildlife watching (away from home) 506,000 179,000 326,000 

Observe wildlife 441,000 175,000 265,000 

Photograph wildlife 265,000 110,000 156,000 

Freshwater Fishing 350,000 206,000 144,000 

Rivers and streams 240,000 132,000 107,000 

Ponds, lakes, and reservoirs 220,000 150,000 70,000 

Hunting 187,000 122,000 65,000 

Small game hunting 55,000 28,000 27,000 

Migratory bird hunting 42,000 22,000 -- 

Activities are ranked by popularity by total participation, in descending order. 

Source: 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation-Idaho (USDI et al. 2007). *Sample size too small to report 

data reliably. --Residents/nonresidents grouped in these data sets. 

Comparing national hunting and fishing estimates for 1991 to 2006 based on the FHWAR survey 

finds participation declining over the entire time period. In 1991 and 1996, the number of people who 

hunted and fished remained essentially unchanged. In 2001, the number of sportspersons fell 

compared to the two previous survey estimates. In 2006, the number of anglers continued to decline 

and the number of hunters was stable. There were differing trend lines from 1991 to 2006 for wildlife 

watching. The number of overall wildlife watchers decreased 17 percent from 1991 to 1996, 

increased 5 percent from 1996 to 2001, and increased 8 percent from 2001 to 2006. Away-fromhome wildlife watching dropped from 1991 to 2001 (21 percent from 1991 to 1996 and 8 percent 

from 1996 to 2001) and stayed level with a statistically insignificant 5 percent increase from 2001 to 

2006. 

Another major recreational area is the nearby Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The National Visitor 

Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides science-based estimates of the volume and 

characteristics of recreation visitation to the National Forest System, and the latest data collection 

was completed from 2005-2009 (USFS 2010b). These data are relatively new and trend information 

is not yet available; rather, these data provide a “snapshot” of annual National Forest visitation. From 

2005-2009, the Caribou-Targhee National Forest had 1.4 million National Forest Visits, which is 

defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an 

unspecified period of time. The majority of visitors participated in viewing wildlife with 50.3 percent 

participation, although hiking/walking was most often selected as the main priority for the forest 

visit. Hunting had a 13.4 percent participation rate, fishing had a 7.4 percent participation rate, and 

nature study had a 7.5 percent participation rate. Caribou-Targhee National Forest also received high 

participation rates for viewing natural features, relaxing, skiing, snowmobiling, picnicking, and 

developed camping. 

Forecast of Future Regional Recreation Demand and Key Recreation Needs. Although the 2006 

Idaho Outdoor Recreation Survey established baseline data for recreational activities in the State, 

trend data have not yet been developed. Bowker et al. (1999) developed projection models for the 

publication Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply 

Trends (1999). It is the only ongoing, comprehensive assessment of outdoor recreation trends in the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-43 

country. The researchers created models based on today’s behavior as sampled through the National 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment. The following activity participation projections in Table 

5.8 from that study are for the Rocky Mountain Region (state by state projections are not available).

Although projections should be viewed with caution, it seems likely that demand for many outdoor 

activities generally permitted on refuges will continue to increase over the next decade. Based on the 

2002 Idaho recreation survey, walking, bicycling and recreation with dogs are increasing in 

popularity, and this trend is expected to continue long term. 

Table 5.8. Participation Projections for Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities in the Rocky 

Mountain Region 

Activity 2010 2020 

Wildlife-related activities 

Nonconsumptive uses +20% +30% 

Hunting +5% +12% 

Fishing +16% +26% 

Dispersed Land Activities 

Hiking +15% +24% 

Horseback riding +13% +23% 

Developed Land Activities 

Walking +18% +28% 

Biking +17% +26% 

Picnicking +18% +28% 

Winter Activities 

Cross-country skiing +31% +41% 

Source: Bowker et al. 1999. 

The IDPR began gathering baseline data on outdoor activities in 2002. Data used for the 2006-2010 

SCORTP were gathered mostly in 2004 and 2005. Even in that short amount of time public 

preferences have changed in some areas. Participation in outdoor photography has increased 

significantly in recent years (44 percent). Of Idahoans surveyed in 2005, 70 percent participated in 

the activity of outdoor photography. Additionally, more than half of Idahoans are considered regular 

participants or enthusiasts. This increase is likely due to the emergence of digital photography, which 

makes picture taking easier and less expensive than in the past. The rise in popularity of digital 

cameras likely feeds the increase in wildlife viewing (21 percent) and bird watching (29 percent). 

Table 5.9 below illustrates these trends for selected activities occurring on the Refuge; only activities 

with at least a 10 percent increase or decrease in participation are listed. 

Table 5.9. Idaho SCORTP Statewide Trends in Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities, 2005 

Activity Percent Change 

Outdoor photography + 44% 

Bird watching + 29% 

Snowshoeing + 28% 

Watching wildlife (other than fish) + 21% 

Classic cross-country skiing + 15% 

Table includes those recreational activities which are currently allowed on the Refuge. 

Source: Idaho SCORTP (IDPR 2006). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-44 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Trends in Waterfowl Hunting in Idaho. The number of duck hunters in Idaho declined in the 

1980s, due to declines in duck populations attributable to low nesting success, and consequently 

more restrictive seasons and bag limits. As duck populations recovered, hunters returned to the sport, 

though not in the numbers seen in the 1960s and 70s. Overall, the number of waterfowl hunters in 

Idaho has increased since the late 1980s. A near doubling of the length of the duck season in 1995-

1996, from 59 days in 1990 to 107 days in 1996, as well as more liberal daily bag limits (from four 

ducks in 1994 to seven ducks from 1996 on) led to larger numbers of ducks harvested, as well as 

increasing numbers of participants in waterfowl hunting. Although the length of the goose season and 

bag limits increased only slightly in the same period (from 93 days in 1990 to 107 days in 2003, daily 

bag limit from three to four geese) goose harvests also rose significantly. Numbers of Duck Stamps 

sold in Idaho rose from approximately 17,000 in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to approximately 

25,000 in the early to mid-2000s. Harvests rose from 113,000 ducks and 27,000 geese in 1988, to 

more than 200,000 ducks and 75,000 geese in the mid-2000s (Table 5.10, IDFG 2009). 

Table 5.10. Estimated Waterfowl Harvest Numbers from USFWS’s Waterfowl Hunter Survey for 

Idaho, 1988-2006 

Year Duck Stamps 

Sold 

Estimated Adult 

Hunters 

Total Geese 

Harvested1 

Total Ducks 

Harvested1 

1988 16,597 14,271 26,600 112,900 

1989 16,894 14,073 30,500 119,600 

1990 17,036 13,443 36,800 96,700 

1991 17,151 14,144 39,500 117,880 

1992 17,717 14,132 31,700 126,700 

1993 21,761 17,972 45,600 153,200 

1994 21,229 17,418 61,100 141,300 

1995 21,097 18,395 46,900 203,400 

1996 22,382 19,751 61,100 245,800 

1997 23,697 22,241 40,700 248,600 

1998 23,515 21,006 56,700 254,700 

1999 26,709 20,795 28,500 228,300 

2000 28,206 23,306 86,200 173,200 

2001 26,173 12,000/14,9002 64,400 138,600 

2002 24,937 14,500/9,9002 36,700 160,600 

2003 24,878 18,200/15,4002 84,200 262,900 

2004 24,320 17,100/13,3002 62,700 188,500 

2005 23,724 18,500/16,0002 74,300 258,300 

20063 25,726 18,400/14,5000b 77,800 278,000 

Source: IDFG 2009. 1Adjusted for exaggeration memory bias and juvenile hunter density. 2The first number is estimated number of duck hunters 

and the second number is estimated number of goose hunters. 3

Preliminary estimate July 2007. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-45 

5.8 Social/Economic Environment 

5.8.1 Population, Housing, and Income 

Bear Lake NWR including the Thomas Fork Unit are located in the southeast corner of Idaho in Bear 

Lake County. The Refuge is situated along the coastline of Bear Lake proper and just south of the 

city of Montpelier. Montpelier is the largest city in the county with a population of 2,867 (Bear Lake 

Chamber of Commerce 2010). Oxford Slough Wildlife Production Area (WPA) is wholly located 

within Bannock and Franklin counties in southeast Idaho. 

Table 5.11 shows the population and area economy for Bear Lake Refuge and Oxford Slough WPA. 

The local study area includes a five-county area within Idaho and Utah. Bannock, Bear Lake, and 

Franklin counties, which entirely encompass the Refuge and WPA, are included along with two other 

counties (Cache and Rich counties in Utah). Since 80 percent of recreational visitors to the Refuge 

are non-residents, the inclusion of additional neighboring counties is justified. Many shop in Logan, 

UT (70 miles away), Pocatello, ID (90 miles away), and Garden City, UT, on the shores of Bear Lake 

proper. Therefore, Bear Lake, Bannock, and Franklin counties in Idaho and Cache and Rich counties 

in Utah comprise the local study area for estimating the economic effects of the recreational use of 

the Refuge and WPA. To a lesser extent, there are also economic effects to the States of Idaho and 

Utah and the United States. 

Bear Lake County, Idaho was largely discovered by people seeking recreation during the early 

1990s. Throughout that decade, development of affordable recreational homes near Bear Lake, also 

known as the “Caribbean of the Rockies” for its spectacularly blue water, sparked nearly half of the 

county’s population growth. During the last half of the 1990s, population fluctuated but held fairly 

steady. By 2002 with population at 6,164, the county started a slow but steady decline (Idaho 

Department of Labor 2011a). By 2009 the population was estimated at 5,774. For Bannock County, 

access to higher education and the intersection of major north-south and east-west interstate 

highways helped fuel population and economic growth. The county population rose from 75,565 in 

2000 to 82,539 in 2009 as both Bannock County and southeastern Idaho were being discovered 

(Idaho Department of Labor 2011b). Franklin County has experienced rapid population growth in the 

past 10 years, becoming part of the Logan, Utah, metropolitan statistical area in the 2000 Census as a 

result of commuting patterns. The population grew 12.8 percent over the decade to 12,676 in 2009. 

Located on the Idaho-Utah border, the county became a magnet for Utah residents seeking available 

land, affordable housing, and a rural lifestyle (Idaho Department of Labor 2011c). 

Since 2000, Cache County has grown by 21,265 people overall—a nearly 24 percent increase—while 

Rich County has grown by 15 percent, almost half as much as the total growth in Utah (26 percent). 

Both counties have benefited from the development of Bear Lake as a popular recreation area with 

resorts, public beaches, and summer homes. 

The area population increased 16 percent from 1998 to 2008, compared with a 22 percent 26 percent 

increase for the States of Idaho and Utah, respectively. According to 2010 Census data, the 

population generally increased; from April 2000 to April 2010 Utah ranked third nationally in 

percentage of population growth (24 percent) and Idaho ranked fourth (21 percent), compared to 10 

percent growth nationwide (U.S. Census Bureau 2010; Idaho Department of Labor 2010). Per capita 

income in the five-county area increased by 10 percent from1998-2008, while the United States 

increased by 12 percent. Per capita income was not reported in the 2010 Census. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-46 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5.11. Summary of Population and Per Capita Income 

County Population Per Capita Income 

 20101 20082 % Change 

1998-2008 

20082 % Change 

1998-2008 

Idaho 1,567.6 1,527.5 22% $32,994 12% 

Bannock 83.8 81.3 9% $28,902 10% 

Bear Lake 6.0 5.8 -8% $28,114 30% 

Franklin 12.8 12.5 13% $26,634 14% 

Utah 2,763.9 2,727.3 26% $31,936 9% 

Cache 112.7 111.9 24% $25,863 9% 

Rich 2.3 2.1 15% $30,116 18% 

Area Total 216.5 213.6 16% $25,571 10% 

United States 308,745.5 304,374.8 10% $40,116 12% 

Population in thousands; per capita income in 2009 dollars. 

Source: 1U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 2 U.S. Department of Commerce 2010. 

Along with population growth, population in Idaho and Utah also became more diversified from the 

2000 Census to 2010 Census. Although the counties and states are still less ethnically diverse than 

the nation, as a whole, the population demographics diversified from 2000 to 2010, particularly with 

population growth of Black, Asian, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanic persons. In Bear Lake County, 

persons identifying themselves as Hispanic had a percentage growth of 40.3 percent, increasing the 

population from 2.4 percent in 2000 to 3.6 percent in 2010 (Busselberg 2011). 

Bear Lake and Franklin Counties in Idaho and Rich County in Utah homeownership rates (83.1 

percent, 80.8 percent, and 83.9 percent respectively) are higher than the State averages. Rich County 

has the lowest poverty rate. All five counties have a higher high school graduation rate compared to 

their respective States. Table 5.12 shows selected demographic characteristics and social statistics for 

Idaho and Table 5.13 shows the characteristics for Utah. 

Table 5.12. Selected Demographic and Social Statistics for Idaho 

Population Parameter Bannock 

County 

Bear L. 

County 

Franklin 

County 

Idaho % Change 

2000-2010 

(Idaho) 

White persons, percent, 2010 89.8% 96.3% 94.4% 89.1 % 18.6% 

Black persons, percent, 2010 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 79.8% 

American Indian and Alaska 

Native persons, percent, 2010 

3.2% 0.5% 0.4% 1.4% 21.5% 

Asian persons, percent, 2010 1.3% 0.4% 0.1% 1.2% 60.4% 

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 

0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 77.1% 

Persons of Hispanic or Latino 

origin, percent, 2010 

6.7% 3.6% 6.6% 11.2% 73.0% 

High school graduates, percent 

of persons age 25+, 2000 

87.5% 85.5% 88.2% 84.7% -- 

Homeownership rate, 2000 70.7% 83.1% 80.8% 72.4% -- 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-47 

Population Parameter Bannock 

County 

Bear L. 

County 

Franklin 

County 

Idaho % Change 

2000-2010 

(Idaho) 

Persons below poverty level, 

percent, 2008 

14.1% 11.7% 9.3% 12.5% -- 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. Notes: -- No data provided in 2010 Census. 

Table 5.13. Selected Demographic and Social Statistics for Utah 

Population Parameter Cache County Rich County Utah % Change 

2000-2010 

White persons, percent, 2010 89.1% 97.0% 86.1% 19.4% 

Black persons, percent, 2010 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 65.9% 

American Indian and Alaska 

Native persons, percent, 2010 

0.6% 0.7% 1.2% 10.9% 

Asian persons, percent, 2010 1.9% 0.3% 2.0% 49.0% 

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 

0.4% 0% 0.9% 62.1% 

Persons of Hispanic or Latino 

origin, percent, 2010 

10.0% 4.2% 13.0% 77.8% 

High school graduates, percent 

of persons age 25+, 2000 

90.4% 91.5% 87.7% -- 

Homeownership rate, 2000 64.6% 83.9% 71.5% -- 

Persons below poverty level, 

percent, 2008 

11.8% 9.0% 9.7% -- 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. Notes: -- No data provided in 2010 Census. 

5.8.2 Employment and Business 

In the study area, area employment increased by 25 percent but was outpaced by the Idaho state total 

(28 percent) and Utah state total (30 percent). The study area had a larger employment increase than 

the United States (15 percent). Although population has been declining in Bear Lake County, 

employment had a slight increase, although not as much as other counties. During the last 10 years 

Bear Lake County’s labor market has been tight, providing jobs for most individuals who wanted to 

live in the county. The county’s civilian labor force increased 12.5 percent since 1999, or 369 people 

(Idaho Department of Labor 2011a). Table 5.14 shows a summary of employment from 2008 in the 

study area. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-48 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5.14. Summary of Employment (in thousands), 2008 

County Employment 

2008 % Change 1998-2008 

Idaho 939.8 28% 

Bannock 48.4 21% 

Bear Lake 3.3 15% 

Franklin 5.9 29% 

Utah 1,702.5 30% 

Cache 66.0 29% 

Rich 1.4 42% 

Area Total 125.1 25% 

United States 181,755.1 15% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2010. 

The largest industry sectors of the five-county area are ranked below by employment (Table 5.15). 

The largest employer is the State and local government. Food services and retail stores, which are 

both impacted by Refuge and WPA visitation, are also important contributors to the economy. 

Cheese manufacturing has comparatively low employment, but has the highest overall output of the 

area. For Bear Lake County alone, government accounted for 37 percent of the nonfarm jobs in a 

county where the Federal government manages 46 percent of the land. During the last decade the 

industry composition has changed little with government, trade, and services supplying most of the 

nonfarm jobs (Idaho Department of Labor 2011a). In Bannock County over the last decade, food 

manufacturing and construction employment increased dramatically. While all industries suffered, 

retail, transportation, and professional and business services lost the most jobs (Idaho Department of 

Labor 2011b). With a diverse, skilled labor force, Franklin County has consistently had one of the 

lowest unemployment rates in southeastern Idaho. Many residents commute to Logan, Utah, and 

some continue to work in the oil fields of neighboring Wyoming and Utah, and over the decade, most 

job growth occurred in services, trade and construction (Idaho Department of Labor 2011c). 

Cache County was ranked 10th highest percentage of job growth from 2000 through 2009 in Utah, 

with 42.6 percent job growth during the period. Cache County has a diverse economy, with Utah 

State University conducting extensive aerospace research and the county having several medical 

services companies. It also has a young population, access to outdoors, and strong local government 

and public school job sectors. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-49 

Table 5.15. Industry Summary for the Study Area (thousands) 

Industry Employment Output Employment 

Income 

Government 18.8 $1,008,622.6 $890,509.4 

Food Services 6.1 $280,075.0 $83,133.1 

Health and Social Services 5.3 $330,486.0 $192,536.0 

Retail Stores 2.6 $134,768.6 $57,950.3 

Wholesale trade 2.5 $326,917.3 $119,171.1 

Employment Services 2.3 $59,201.8 $37,983.2 

Construction 2.3 $294,677.8 $79,969.4 

Business support services 2.0 $119,159.4 $53,423.1 

Sporting Goods Manufacturing 1.9 $411,801.1 $99,421.2 

Cheese Manufacturing 1.3 $1,180,283.4 $73,907.7 

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2008. 

5.8.3 Refuge Impact on Local Economies 

From an economic perspective, Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA provide a variety of 

environmental and natural resource goods and services used by people either directly or indirectly 

(Caudill and Henderson 2005). The use of these goods and services may result in economic impacts 

to both local and state economies. The various services the Refuge provides can be grouped into five 

broad categories: 

1. Maintenance and conservation of environmental resources, services, and ecological 

processes; 

2. Production and protection of natural resources such as fish and wildlife; 

3. Production and protection of cultural and historical sites and objects; 

4. Provision of educational and research opportunities; and 

5. Outdoor and wildlife-related recreation. 

People who use these services benefit in the sense that their individual welfare or satisfaction level 

increases with the use of a particular good or service. One measure of the magnitude of the change in 

welfare or satisfaction associated with using a particular good or service is economic value. Aside 

from the effect on the individual, use of the good or service usually entails spending money in some 

fashion. These expenditures, in turn, create a variety of economic effects collectively known as 

economic impacts. For this report, the term economic effects encompasses both economic value and 

economic impacts. 

Economic value is the economic trade-off people would be willing to make in order to obtain some 

good or service. It is the maximum amount people would be willing to pay in order to obtain a 

particular good or service minus the actual cost of acquisition. In economic theory this is known as 

net economic value or consumer surplus (see 1) Freeman and 2) Boyle et al. for a more detailed 

discussion). In the context of this report, estimates of the economic value of particular recreational 

activities are used to determine the aggregate value of recreational use of Bear Lake Refuge and 

Oxford Slough WPA. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-50 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Economic impacts refer to employment, employment or labor earnings, industrial or economic output 

and Federal, local, county and State tax revenue that occur as the result of consumer expenditures on 

refuge-related goods and services. For this report, two types of impacts are addressed: (1) impacts 

associated with annual consumer expenditures on refuge and WPA-related recreation; and (2) 

impacts associated with refuge budget expenditures. 

A comprehensive economic profile (baseline) of the refuges and estimates of the economic effects of 

alternative management strategies would address all applicable economic effects associated with the 

use of refuge-produced goods and services. However, for those goods and services having nebulous 

or non-existent links to the market place, economic effects are more difficult or perhaps even 

impossible to estimate. Some of the major contributions of the refuges to the natural environment, 

such as watershed protection, maintenance, and stabilization of ecological processes, and the 

enhancement of biodiversity would require extensive on-site knowledge of biological, ecological, 

and physical processes and interrelationships even to begin to formulate economic benefit estimates. 

This is beyond the scope of this section. 

This section focuses on a limited subset of refuge goods and services, primarily those directly linked 

in some fashion to the marketplace, such as recreation use and refuge budget expenditures. It should 

be kept in mind that the emphasis on these particular market-oriented goods and services should not 

be interpreted to imply that these types of goods and services are somehow more important or of 

greater value (economic or otherwise) than the non-market goods and services previously discussed. 

The economic area for the Refuge and WPA is the five-county area including Bannock, Bear Lake, 

and Franklin Counties in Idaho and Cache and Rich Counties in Utah. It is assumed that visitor 

expenditures occur primarily within this area. Visitor recreation expenditures for 2010 are shown in 

Table 5.16. Total expenditures were $184,900 with non-residents accounting for $171,500 or 93 

percent of total expenditures. Expenditures on non-consumptive activities accounted for 81 percent 

of all expenditures, followed by hunting and fishing at 18 percent and less than 1 percent 

respectively. 

Table 5.16. Visitor Recreation Expenditures (2009 $,000) 

Activity Residents Non-Residents Total 

Total Non-Consumptive $9.65 $140.72 $150.37 

Total Hunting $3.5 $30.7 $34.2 

Total Fishing $0.2 $0.1 $0.3 

Total Expenditures $13.4 $171.5 $184.9 

Input-output models were used to determine the impact of expenditures on the local area. Table 5.17 

summarizes the local economic effects associated with recreation visits. Final demand totaled 

$156,300 with associated employment of two jobs, $46,800 in employment income and $21,800 in 

total tax revenue. The final demand is less than the total expenditures due to leakage outside the area 

economy. That is, the five-county study area does not manufacture/support all the services and 

products that are purchased by visitors. Therefore, some of the expenditures “leak” to other areas. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-51 

Table 5.17. Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits (2009 $,000) 

Residents Non-Residents Total 

Final Demand $11.3 $144.9 $156.3 

Jobs 0.2 2.0 2.2 

Job Income $3.4 $43.5 $46.8 

Total Tax Revenue $1.6 $20.2 $21.8 

In addition to impacts from recreational visitors, there are also economic effects related to the 

Refuge’s budget which contributes to local and regional economies. Table 5.18 summarizes the 

economic impact of both salary and non-salary budget expenditures based on the 2010 refuge budget. 

Table 5.18 shows the jobs, job income, and tax revenues generated by budget expenditures. The 

Refuge’s annual budget generates approximately $176,100 in job income and three jobs. Again, the 

final demand is less than budget expenditures due to leakage outside the area economy. 

Table 5.18. Local Economic Effects Associated with 2010 Refuge Budget (2009 $,000) 

Total 

Final Demand $288.2 

Jobs 3 

Job Income $176.1 

Total Tax Revenue $44.2 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-52 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendices

Appendix AAppropriate Use Determinations

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C

Implementation

Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Appendix E

Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities

Appendix F

Integrated Pest Management Plan

Appendix G

Fire Management Plan

Appendix H

Cultural Resource Management Plan

Appendix I

Glossary

Appendix J

Statement of Compliance

Appendix K

CCP Team Members

Appendix L

Public Involvement

Appendix M

Refuge Decrees and Agreements

Appendix N

Unit Habitat Targets

Appendix O

References

Appendix P

Responses to Comments

Wilson’s phalarope/© Bill Bouton

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementDirection

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-1 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1 Introduction 

The Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy outlines the process that the Service uses to determine when 

general public uses on refuges may be considered. Priority public uses previously defined as wildlifedependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography and environmental education 

and interpretation) under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 are 

generally exempt from appropriate use review. Other exempt uses include situations where the 

Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to control the activity and refuge management activities. 

In essence, the appropriate use policy, 603 FW 1 (2006), provides refuge managers with a consistent 

procedure to first screen and then document decisions concerning a public use. When a use is 

determined to be appropriate, a refuge manager must then decide if the use is compatible before 

allowing it on a refuge. The policy also requires review of existing public uses. During the CCP 

process the refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses at Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge using the following guidelines and criteria as outlined in the appropriate use policy: 

 Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

 Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal and local)? 

 Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

 Is the use consistent with public safety? 

 Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first the use has been 

proposed? 

 Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

 Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

 Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Using this process and these criteria, and as documented on the following pages, the refuge manager 

determined that the following refuge use(s) are appropriate, and directed that compatibility 

determinations be completed for each use: research on the Bear Lake NWR, including the Thomas 

Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough WPA; agriculture (farming and haying) on the Bear Lake NWR 

and Oxford Slough WPA; dog walking on the Bear Lake NWR; canoeing and kayaking 

(nonmotorized boating) on the Bear Lake; and bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on 

the Bear Lake NWR; and cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on the Oxford Slough WPA. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-3 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-4 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.1 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: March 15, 2012 

Refuge: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Oxford Slough WPA 

Use: Conducting research on refuge lands and waters 

Summary: The Refuge receives requests to conduct scientific research on refuge lands and waters. 

Research applicants must submit a proposal that outline: 1) study objectives; 2) justification for the 

study; 3) detailed methodology and schedule; 4) potential impacts on refuge wildlife and/or habitat, 

including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, or mortality; 5) personnel required; 6) costs to 

Refuge, if any; and 7) end products (i.e., reports, publications). Research proposals will be reviewed 

by refuge staff, and others as appropriate prior to the issuance of a special use permit (SUP). Projects 

will not be open-ended, and at a minimum, will be reviewed annually. 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been provided below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

The Refuge has jurisdiction over those research projects that are sited within the Refuge’s 

boundaries. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

All approved research activities will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. A SUP will 

be issued, with stipulations and restrictions to ensure compliance with relevant laws and 

regulations. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Through the review of individual projects, the Refuge will ensure that research projects are 

consistent with applicable policies, especially Research on Service Lands Policy (803 FW 1). 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Through individual project review, the Refuge will ensure that each project is consistent with 

public safety. If necessary, stipulations to ensure public safety will be included in the project’s 

SUP. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Research activities are approved in instances where they can provide meaningful data that may 

contribute to refuge management and public appreciation of natural resources. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-5 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time the use has undergone an appropriate use determination although research 

has occurred on the Refuge since establishment. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The Refuge receives 1-4 research requests per year. Only projects that are manageable within the 

current budget and staffing will be approved. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

The proposed activity at current levels will be manageable in the future with the existing 

resources (see above). 

i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use is beneficial to the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources because approved 

research projects would inform management decisions and contribute to the understanding and 

appreciation of natural and/or cultural resources. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The Refuge will ensure that the research activities will not impair existing or future wildlifedependent recreational use of the Refuge during individual project review, prior to issuing a SUP 

for the project. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-6 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-7 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-8 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.2 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: June 28, 2012 

Refuge: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Use: Conducting research on WPA lands and waters 

Summary: The WPA receives requests to conduct scientific research on WPA lands and waters. 

Research applicants must submit a proposal that outline: 1) study objectives; 2) justification for the 

study; 3) detailed methodology and schedule; 4) potential impacts on WPA wildlife and/or habitat, 

including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, or mortality; 5) personnel required; 6) costs to 

WPA, if any; and 7) end products (i.e., reports, publications). Research proposals will be reviewed by 

WPA staff, and others as appropriate prior to the issuance of a special use permit (SUP). Projects will 

not be open-ended, and at a minimum, will be reviewed annually. 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been provided below: 

Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

The WPA has jurisdiction over those research projects that are sited within the WPA’s 

boundaries. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

All approved research activities will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. A SUP will 

be issued, with stipulations and restrictions to ensure compliance with relevant laws and 

regulations. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Through the review of individual projects, the WPA will ensure that research projects are 

consistent with applicable policies, especially Research on Service Lands Policy (803 FW 1). 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Through individual project review, the WPA will ensure that each project is consistent with 

public safety. If necessary, stipulations to ensure public safety will be included in the project’s 

SUP. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Research activities are approved in instances where they can provide meaningful data that may 

contribute to WPA management and public appreciation of natural resources. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-9 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time the use has undergone an appropriate use determination although research 

has occurred on the WPA since establishment. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The WPA receives 1-2 research requests per year. Only projects that are manageable within the 

current budget and staffing will be approved. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

The proposed activity at current levels will be manageable in the future with the existing 

resources (see above). 

i. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use is beneficial to the WPA’s natural and cultural resources because approved 

research projects will inform management decisions and contribute to the understanding and 

appreciation of natural and/or cultural resources. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The WPA will ensure that the research activities will not impair existing or future wildlifedependent recreational use of the WPA during individual project review, prior to issuing a SUP 

for the project. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-10 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-11 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-12 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.3 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: March 23, 2012 

Refuge: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Agriculture (farming and haying) to provide habitat and forage for wildlife 

Summary: The Refuge manages pastures, wetlands, and agricultural fields to provide a variety of 

foods that meet the needs of wintering and migratory waterfowl. Current refuge agricultural practices 

include haying and planting of crops such as cereal grains and clover. Crops grown on the Refuge 

(winter wheat, spring barley, and legumes) are selected primarily to provide wildlife with an easily 

accessible source of high-energy carbohydrates. Hayed ground can provide short cover habitat and 

newly sprouted browse for wildlife. The Refuge proposes to maintain crops at 154 acres and haying 

at 2,133 acres. 

The Refuge manages crop production using a Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA) 

involving a negotiated agreement between the Refuge and private farmers to manage lands for both 

parties. To benefit wildlife, the wheat or barley will be left in the field where it will be available to 

wildlife. The farmers’ share is the haying of a described acreage of refuge land. The Refuge manages 

other hay fields using Special Use Permits (SUPs). The private farmer or rancher removes hay from 

refuge lands in exchange for a negotiated or bid price per ton of hay. 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been provided below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. All proposed activities will take place within refuge boundaries and under the supervision of 

refuge staff. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

Yes. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

The proposed use will provide high energy and readily available forage and cover for wintering 

and migrating waterfowl and cranes within close proximity to other natural food sources and high 

quality resting habitat. Crops can provide wildlife with easily accessible high energy foods that 

are more digestible than native plants, and can reduce foraging time required to meet caloric 

demands (Raveling 1979, Alisauskas and Ankney 1992, Baldassare and Bolen 2006). Because it 

will be difficult to meet these conditions by managing natural foods alone, the production of nongenetically modified crops is consistent with the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity and 

Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) and will help achieve the refuge purposes. 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

The proposed use is consistent with public safety and, on Bear Lake NWR, will be sited in areas 

closed to the general public. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-13 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

The proposed use is consistent with the Refuge’s Draft Habitat Management Plan and 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

f. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The proposed use is manageable with available budget and staff. The use of cooperators and 

permit holders will save staff time and resources and increase the reliability of successful crop 

production and haying operations. 

g. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 

h. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use is can contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge 

because hay and crop fields are situated adjacent to county roads where the public can view 

wildlife. 

i. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The proposed use does not and will not impair existing or future wildlife-dependent recreational 

use of the Refuge. Approximately 154 acres will be used for crop production and 2,133 acres for 

hay; much of these areas are closed to the general public, but viewable from adjacent roads. 

Literature Cited 

Alisauskas, R.T. and C.D. Ankney. 1992. The cost of egg laying and its relationship to nutritional 

reserves in waterfowl. Pages 30-61 in: B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, 

D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding 

waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Baldassare, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. New York, NY: John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81-93 in: R.I. 

Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology of Pacific Flyway geese. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-14 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-15 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-16 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.4 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: June 28, 2012 

Refuge: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Use: Agriculture (farming and haying) to provide habitat and forage for wildlife 

Summary: The WPA manages pastures, wetlands, and agricultural fields to provide a variety of 

foods that will meet the needs of wintering and migratory waterfowl. Current WPA agricultural 

practices include haying and planting of crops such as cereal grains and clover. Crops grown on the 

WPA (winter wheat, spring barley, and legumes) are selected primarily to provide wildlife with an 

easily accessible source of high-energy carbohydrates. Hayed ground can provide short cover habitat 

and newly sprouted browse for wildlife. The WPA proposes to maintain crops at 30 acres and haying 

at 150 acres. 

The WPA manages crop production using a Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA) 

involving a negotiated agreement between the WPA and a private farmer to manage lands for both 

parties. To benefit wildlife, the wheat or barley will be left in the field where it will be available to 

wildlife. The farmers’ share is the haying of a described acreage of WPA land. 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been provided below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. All proposed activities will take place within WPA boundaries and under the supervision of 

WPA staff. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

Yes. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

The proposed use will provide high energy and readily available forage and cover for wintering 

and migrating waterfowl and cranes within close proximity to other natural food sources and 

high-quality resting habitat. Crops can provide wildlife with easily accessible high energy foods 

that are more digestible than native plants, and can reduce foraging time required to meet caloric 

demands (Raveling 1979, Alisauskas and Ankney 1992, Baldassare and Bolen 2006). Because it 

will be difficult to meet these conditions by managing natural foods alone, the production of nongenetically modified crops is consistent with the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity and 

Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) and will help achieve the WPA purposes. 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

The proposed use is consistent with public safety, separated spatially and temporally from public 

use activities. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-17 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

The proposed use is consistent with the WPA’s Draft Habitat Management Plan and 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

f. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The proposed use is manageable with available budget and staff. The use of a cooperator will 

save staff time and resources and increase the reliability of successful crop production and haying 

operations. 

g. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 

h. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use can contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the WPA 

because hay and crop fields are situated adjacent to county roads where the public can view the 

wildlife using these areas. 

i. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The proposed use does not and will not impair existing or future wildlife-dependent recreational 

use of the WPA. Approximately 30 acres will be used for crop production and 130 acres for hay; 

much of these areas are viewable from adjacent roads. 

Literature Cited 

Alisauskas, R.T. and C.D. Ankney. 1992. The cost of egg laying and its relationship to nutritional 

reserves in waterfowl. Pages 30-61 in: B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, 

D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding 

waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Baldassare, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. New York, NY: John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81-93 in: R.I. 

Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology of Pacific Flyway geese. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-18 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-19 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-20 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.5 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: March 14, 2012 

Refuge: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Dog walking 

Summary: Allowing dog walking on Bear Lake NWR has been determined to be appropriate 

because visitors enjoy walking with dogs while viewing wildlife. 

For findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary a justification has been provided 

below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes.

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations? 

Yes.

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes.

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes, walking with dogs on the Refuge is consistent with public safety Perhaps 20 visits by people 

with dogs occur on Bear Lake NWR per year. Dogs must be on leash. No negative interactions 

with other visitors have been observed. Visitors generally take the auto tour route and do not exit 

their vehicles. Dog walkers use the Entrance Road and have never been observed on the auto tour 

route. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes.

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time the use has undergone an appropriate use determination, although the use 

has historically occurred infrequently. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-21 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes.

i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Although dog-walking is not strictly being performed to understand or appreciate the wildlife on 

the Refuge, the refuge manager has observed dog-walkers watching wildlife through binoculars. 

In addition, dog-walkers provide an opportunity for staff to interact with the local community to 

explain the regulations and to share observations of wildlife within “eye-shot” of the dog-walker. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1 for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Dog-walking is restricted to areas open to the general public, and occurs infrequently; therefore it 

is not impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses. This use should be carefully 

monitored to reassess appropriateness before the use increases to the point of causing conflicts 

with wildlife and other visitors. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-22 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-23 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-24 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.6 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: March 15, 2012 

Refuge: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Canoeing and Kayaking 

Summary: Allowing canoeing and kayaking on Bear Lake NWR has been determined to be 

appropriate because of its temporal and spatial separation from nesting bird colonies. 

For findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary a justification has been provided 

below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations? 

Yes. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

The Canoe Trail on Bear Lake NWR is consistent with public safety; it is 7,300 feet long and in 

calm, relatively shallow water. There is ample room to park, offload, and load small craft safely. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time the use has undergone an appropriate use determination, although the use 

has occurred since the Canoe Trail was constructed on Bear Lake NWR in 2004. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-25 

i. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Generally canoeing and kayaking is performed for enjoyment of nature and exercise. The use 

contributes to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural resources by 

providing a perspective on wildlife and nature different from that achieved through the auto tour 

route or on foot. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1 for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Canoeing and kayaking can enhance the visitors’ experience of the Refuge and does not impair or 

reduce the experience of other more traditional wildlife-dependent recreation currently or into the 

future. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-26 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-27 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-28 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.7 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: March 14, 2012 

Refuge: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Bicycling, Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 

Summary: Allowing bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on Bear Lake NWR and 

Oxford Slough WPA has been determined to be appropriate because of its low occurrence and 

temporal separation from breeding wildlife. 

For findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary a justification has been provided 

below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations? 

Yes 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Perhaps 5 visits by people bicycling occur on Bear Lake NWR per year. Because of this 

infrequent use, management has no observations or reports of conflicts with vehicle traffic, 

pedestrians, or wildlife. Approximately 300 visitors enjoy the Refuge in the winter months, 

facilitated by snowshoes and cross-country skis. These uses have not been observed on the 

Oxford Slough WPA. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time these uses have undergone an appropriate use determination, although the 

uses have traditionally occurred infrequently. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-29 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes 

i. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Generally bicycling is performed for exercise and enjoyment. However, because the Refuge has 

graveled (not paved) roads, bicyclers move at a slower pace. Those bicycling strictly for exercise 

will probably not use the Refuge for that function. It may be postulated that bicyclers coming to 

the Refuge are doing so for exercise, enjoyment of nature, and wildlife-watching. Because 

interactions with bicyclers occur so infrequently, no data are currently available to determine 

their actual motivations. 

Snowshoeing is a leisurely activity that is conducive to stopping and watching winter wildlife. 

Because the Refuge is basically flat, cross-country skiing is also a leisurely activity, although 

faster paced than the snowshoeing. Cross-country skiing also lends itself to stopping and 

enjoying wildlife. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1 for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

At the present time bicycling, due to its infrequency, is not impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. This use should be carefully monitored to reassess appropriateness before the 

use increases to the point of causing conflicts with wildlife and other visitors. 

Snowshoeing and cross-country skiing is not a traditional wildlife-dependent recreation. Due to 

relatively low numbers of visitors partaking in these activities and the fact that they occur in 

winter when wildlife numbers and wildlife-dependent recreation visitors are at their lowest, these 

activities can be accommodated without impairing other uses. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-30 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-31 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-32 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1.8 Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: June 28, 2012 

Refuge: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Use: Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 

Summary: Allowing cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on Oxford Slough WPA has been 

determined to be appropriate because of its low occurrence and temporal separation from breeding 

wildlife. 

For findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary a justification has been 

provided below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations? 

Yes 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

These uses have not been observed on the Oxford Slough WPA but safety issues are unlikely 

because there are no vehicular roads and trails on the WPA. Conflicts with other visitors are 

unlikely because of the low level of public use in general on the WPA after freezeup. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time these uses have undergone an appropriate use determination, although the 

uses have traditionally occurred infrequently. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-33 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes

i. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Snowshoeing is a leisurely activity that is conducive to stopping and watching winter wildlife. 

Because the WPA is basically flat, cross-country skiing is also a leisurely activity, although faster 

paced than the snowshoeing. Cross-country skiing also lends itself to stopping and enjoying 

wildlife. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1 for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Snowshoeing and cross-country skiing is not a traditional wildlife-dependent recreation. Due to 

relatively low numbers of visitors partaking in these activities and the fact that they occur in 

winter when wildlife numbers and wildlife-dependent recreation visitors are at their lowest, these 

activities can be accommodated without impairing other uses. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-34 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

B.1 Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during the comprehensive conservation planning 

process evaluate uses projected to occur under Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative in the Draft 

CCP/EA for the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the Oxford Slough WPA (USFWS 2012), 

which has carried forward as the management direction for the Refuge and WPA in this CCP 

(Chapter 2). The evaluation of funds needed for management and implementation of each use is 

described in Appendix C, Implementation. Chapter 6 of the Draft CCP/EA also contained an analysis 

of the impacts of refuge uses to wildlife, and habitats. That document is incorporated through 

reference into this set of CDs. 

B.2 Uses Evaluated at This Time 

The following section consists of CDs for all refuge uses that are required to be evaluated at this 

time. According to Service policy, compatibility determinations must be completed for all uses 

proposed under a CCP. Existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses must also be re-evaluated and 

new CDs prepared during development of a CCP or every five years, whichever comes first. Uses 

other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses are not explicitly required to be re-evaluated in 

concert with preparation of a CCP, unless conditions of the use have changed or unless significant 

new information relative to the use and its effects have become available or the existing CDs are 

more than 10 years old. However, the Service planning policy recommends preparing CDs for all 

individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the following CDs are included in this document for public review. 

Refuge Use Compatible Next Year Due for 

Re-evaluation

Bear Lake NWR

Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, 

and Photography 

yes 2027 

Waterfowl Hunting yes 2027 

Upland Game Hunting yes 2027 

Sport Fishing yes 2027 

Research yes 2022 

Agricultural Practices (Farming and Haying) yes 2022 

Dog Walking yes 2022 

Canoeing and Kayaking (Nonmotorized Boating) yes 2022 

Bicycling, Cross-country Skiing, Snowshoeing yes 2022 

Oxford Slough WPA

Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, 

and Photography 

yes 2027 

Waterfowl Hunting yes 2027 

Hunting of Resident Game and Furbearers yes 2027

Trapping of Furbearers yes 2027
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Use Compatible Next Year Due for 

Re-evaluation

Research yes 2022

Agricultural Practices (Farming and Haying) yes 2022

Cross-country Skiing, Snowshoeing yes 2022 

B.3 Compatibility—Legal and Historical Context 

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of refuges. Compatibility is not new to the Refuge 

System; the concept dates back to 1918. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The Refuge Recreation 

Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses of refuge lands that 

were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.” If a general public 

use is determined to be appropriate, the use must then undergo a compatibility review. A compatibility 

review is required for all appropriate public uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

The term “compatible use” is defined as a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, would not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of 

the refuge. 

The Administration Act defines sound professional judgment as a finding, determination, or decision 

that is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available 

science and resources, and adherence to other applicable laws. Included in this finding, 

determination, or decision is a Refuge Manager’s field experience and knowledge of the particular 

Refuge’s resources. 

Part 603 FW 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual sets forth the policy and guidelines for 

determining compatibility of proposed uses and provides procedures for documentation and periodic 

review of existing uses. In addition, the policy requires an opportunity for public review and 

comment on all compatibility determinations. When prepared in conjunction with a CCP, 

compatibility determinations are distributed for public review along with the CCP. 

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or management 

use of a refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing an economic 

return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to compatibility 

determinations. The Service does not prepare compatibility determinations for uses when the Service 

does not have jurisdiction. For example, the Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas 

where property rights are vested by others; where legally binding agreements exist; or where there 

are treaty rights held by tribes. In addition, aircraft over-flights, emergency actions, some activities 

on navigable waters, and activities by other Federal agencies on “overlay Refuges” are exempt from 

the compatibility review process. 

New compatibility policy, developed in response to the 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act), was adopted by the Service in October 

2000 (http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The policy requires that a use must be 

compatible with both the mission of the System and the purposes of the individual refuge. This 

standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-3 

The Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge 

managers are required to consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best 

available science” in making these determinations (House of Representatives Report 105-106). 

Evaluations of the existing uses on Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and the Oxford Slough 

WPA are based on the professional judgment of refuge personnel including observations of refuge 

uses and reviews of appropriate scientific literature. 

The Refuge Manager has the authority to determine, by exercising sound professional judgment, 

what is a compatible use. In addition to determining if a use would materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the System mission or the purposes of the Refuge, the Refuge 

Manager must also evaluate the direct and indirect impacts of a use on refuge resources. Further, the 

cumulative impacts of the use when conducted in conjunction with other existing or planned uses of 

the Refuge must also be considered. After evaluating the anticipated impacts of a proposed use and 

determining if any stipulations (terms or conditions) are needed to avoid or minimize potential 

adverse impacts, the Refuge Manager would determine whether or not the use is compatible. This 

determination is documented in writing and is available for review by the public. 

A proposed use can be denied without determining compatibly under certain circumstances, such as 

instances in which: 

1. A proposed use would conflict with other applicable laws or regulations; 

2. The use would result in conflicts with the goals or objectives of an approved CCP; or 

3. A use is determined to be inconsistent with public safety. 

Refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened. Regulations require that adequate funds 

be available for administration and protection of refuges before opening them to any public uses. 

However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are to receive enhanced consideration 

and cannot be rejected simply for lack of funding resources unless the Refuge has made a concerted 

effort to seek out funds from all potential partners. Once found compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are deemed the priority public uses at a refuge. If a proposed use is found not 

compatible, the use must be modified to be compatible or if the use cannot be modified to be 

compatible, then the use may not be allowed. Economic uses that are conducted by or authorized by 

the Refuge also require compatibility determinations. 

B.4 References 

House of Representatives Report 105-106 (on NWRSIA): 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policyMakers/mandates/HR1420/part1.html 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wildlife Refuge System Policies. Compatibility regulations 

adopted by the Service in October 2000. Available at: 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-5 

B.5 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and 

Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education on 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, and 

Environmental Education 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Bear Lake County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1968 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-6 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use(s): 

Non-consumptive wildlife-dependent recreation (defined here as wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) are designated as priority public uses under the Refuge 

Improvement Act and can enhance the users’ appreciation of the Refuge, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, wildlife, their habitats, and the human environment. 

Current Use: Currently, most use is self-guided and occurs on roads and trails. Due to the often 

harsh and long winters in the Bear Lake area, most of this use occurs during the late spring, summer, 

and early fall. The 2.4-mile Auto Tour Route (Salt Meadow Unit Wildlife Observation Route) is 

open to vehicle and foot traffic year round, although it may be impassable in winter. The accessible 

1.9-mile pedestrian trail is open March 15-September 20. Hiking is permitted year round on all roads 

open to vehicle travel. The 7,400-foot Canoe Trail is open July 1 to September 20. Pedestrian access 

is allowed throughout the seasonally open area of the Refuge (7,450 acres, including the Salt 

Meadow, Rainbow sub-impoundment, and Rainbow units; the Mud Lake Unit north of the buoy line 

and east of the County Road, and the Merkley Lake Unit) from July 1 to January 20; however since 

most of this area is deep marsh and open water, few (if any) hikers venture off the roads, trails, and 

dikes. Motorized and nonmotorized boats can be used in this area from September 20-January 15, 

however few visitors other than hunters use the area for boating 

Proposed Use: The Refuge will maintain facilities for self-guided wildlife observation and 

photography: the 2.4-mile Auto Tour Route, 1.9-mile seasonal pedestrian trail, two ABA-accessible 

photography blinds, and the 1.5-mile seasonal Canoe Trail. To promote visitor safety and limit 

disturbance to wildlife, we propose to eliminate free-roam pedestrian and boat access in the 

seasonally open area in the management direction, other than for hunting access. Pedestrian use will 

continue to be allowed on service roads and dikes within this area, July 1-Feb 28. Nonmotorized 

boating will be permitted on the Canoe Trail July 1-Sept 20. Off-trail activities will require a Special 

Use Permit from the Refuge. 

Additional opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

intepretation will be provided under the management direction via the construction of two welldeveloped turn-out and parking areas along Merkley Lake Road (the southeast boundary of the 

Refuge) to increase opportunities for wildlife viewing and interpretation of the Mud Lake Unit. One 

of the turn-outs will have an interpretive panel; the other, interpretive panels and an observation 

platform and seasonal spotting scope. Additionally, the CCP will provide a boardwalk and elevated 

wildlife viewing platform with interpretive panels on the southeast border of the Refuge along North 

Beach Road. Spotting scopes will be added to the accessible walking trail and auto tour route. At 

least one guided wildlife-based Refuge tour per month will be provided from May-September. 

Guided tours will be limited to 15 visitors. Interpretive materials are also available to visitors through 

interpretive panels, kiosks along the Rainbow dike/road, at the Refuge Office, and from Refuge 

brochures. Other facilities supporting this use are parking areas, a boat launch for canoes and kayaks, 

and restrooms. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-7 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $5k 

Maintenance: $0 

 Existing and proposed public use facilities $50k 

Monitoring: $0 $10k 

 Law enforcement and biological 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: 

$300k 

$50k 

$0 

 Development of pull-outs and viewpoints along roads 

Design and construction of elevated viewing platform, boardwalk, 

and interpretive panels 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$350k 

$0

 TOTALS $65k 

Once the CD is approved through the CCP process, Federal funds will be requested through the 

Service budget process. Other sources (monetary and non-monetary) will be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other agencies, and additional Refuge operations 

funding to support a safe, quality public use program. Increased volunteer assistance, strengthened 

existing partnerships, and new partnerships will be sought to support these programs in an effective, 

safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff will increase volunteer recruit efforts. Volunteers, interns, 

and various user groups when provided appropriate training can assist the Refuge with monitoring, 

education and interpretation programs, and maintenance projects. With additional assistance as 

described above, staffing and funding is expected to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Impacts resulting from the proposed use include both direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources 

and the associated habitat. Direct impacts have an immediate effect on wildlife and generally result 

from the public’s interaction with wildlife. Indirect impacts include actions taken by the public that 

would impact habitat or reduce access to habitat. 

Effects to Habitat. The primary impact visitors engaged in wildlife observation and photography 

have on habitat is the trampling of vegetation and creation of social trails. Trail widening and 

creation of social trails increases the area of disturbed land (Liddle and Greig-Smith 1975, Dale and 

Weaver 1974, Adkison and Jackson 1996). Pedestrians can potentially cause structural damage to 

plants and increase soil compaction and erosion (DeLuca et al. 1998, Whittaker 1978). These impacts 

are unlikely to occur on the well-defined, gravel surface of Refuge trails, however, social trails 

associated with off-trail use remains an issue for Refuge managers as plants are trampled and wildlife 

is disturbed. Control of invasive plant species on the Refuge is a difficult and never-ending battle. 

Roads and trails often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including nonnative, 

invasive species (Benninger-Truax et al. 1992, Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Propagules of nonnative plants can be transported into new areas on hikers’ boots, clothing, and equipment (BenningerTraux et al. 1992). Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering 

habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. Invasive plants and animals will be controlled and 

monitored as part of the Refuge’s Integrated Pest Management Plan. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Effects to Wildlife. Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from 

behavioral changes including nest abandonment, altered nest placement, change in food habits, 

physiological changes such as elevated heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or 

flushing, or even death (Knight and Cole 1995, Belanger and Bedard 1990, Morton et al. 1989, 

Miller et al. 1998, Miller and Hobbs 2000, Knight and Swaddle 2007, Smith-Castro and Rodewald 

2010). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, 

productivity or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; 

and altered community species composition and interactions. 

According to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three wildlife responses to human disturbance: 1) 

avoidance; 2) habituation; and 3) attraction. The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend 

on a number of factors including the type, distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the 

disturbance, as well as the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and 

cover, energy demands, and reproductive status (Knight and Cole 1991; Gabrielsen and Smith 1995, 

Fernandez-Juricic 2007). 

Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry 

no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key factor 

for predicting how wildlife would respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife habituate to and accept 

human presence (Oberbillig 2000). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest that most animals seem to 

have a greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the terrain (e.g., off-trail hikers) 

than to humans following a distinct path. 

Direct impacts: We expect these impacts to include the presence of humans disturbing wildlife, 

which typically results in a temporary displacement of individuals. Some species, such as greater 

sandhill cranes, avoid the areas people frequent, such as the developed trails and the Auto Tour 

Route, while others such as raccoons and skunks seem unaffected by or even drawn to the presence 

of humans. 

Negative impacts to wildlife have been documented when migratory birds and humans are present in 

the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Responses of wildlife to human activities include: 

departure from site, use of suboptimal habitat, altered behavior (Burger 1981, Morton et al. 1989, 

Klein 1993), and increase in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). 

McNeil et al. (1992) found that many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead 

of during the day. The location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Miller et 

al. (1998) found that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was 

common, than at greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown greater reactions 

when pedestrian use occurred off trail (Miller, 1998). Klein (1989) found that migratory dabbling 

ducks to be the most sensitive to disturbance, and that migrant ducks were more sensitive when they 

first arrived, in the late fall, than later in winter. She also found gulls and sandpipers to be apparently 

insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger (1981) finding the same to be true for various gull 

species. Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some songbirds was altered by low 

levels of human intrusion. Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, including 

feeding, reproductive, and social behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are 

sensitive to pedestrian activity (Burger 1981, 1986). Resident waterbirds that are regularly exposed to 

human disturbance tend to be less sensitive than migrants, especially when migrants first arrive at a 

site (Klein 1993). In areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in 

areas receiving less activity. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-9 

Burger (1981) found that wading birds were extremely sensitive to disturbance in the northeastern 

United States. Disturbance during critical times in the breeding cycle may cause colony abandonment 

in colonial-nesting waterbirds. White-faced ibis are susceptible to colony abandonment resulting 

from human intrusion into colonies during the early nesting period (Ryder and Manry 1994). While 

gulls are relatively insensitive to disturbance while foraging away from breeding colonies, they can 

be extremely sensitive to human disturbance at nesting sites. Franklin’s gulls are particularly 

sensitive to human disturbance early in the breeding cycle and again during the chick phase, and 

would abandon with excessive human exposure (Guay 1968). Abandonment of nests is less likely 

with young than eggs but may still occur with repeated disturbance (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). 

Because they are relatively quiet and slow moving, canoes and kayaks cause less disturbance to 

wildlife than motorized boats, however because these boats can maneuver close to shorelines, the 

potential for disturbance exists. 

To help mitigate these impacts, wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education will be allowed only on the 2.4-mile Auto Tour Route and proposed North 

Bear Road boardwalk year round; on the 1.9-mile accessible walking trail from March 15-Sept 20; 

on the Canoe Trail July 1-Sept 20; and on roads and dikes only in the 7,450-acre seasonally open 

area, July 1-February 28. 

Cumulative and indirect/secondary impacts: People can be vectors for invasive plants by moving 

seeds or other propagules from one area to another. Once established, invasive plants can outcompete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. The threat of 

invasive plant establishment will always be an issue requiring annual monitoring and treatment when 

necessary. Refuge staff will work at eradicating invasive plants and educating the visiting public. 

Providing and maintaining access points to the Refuge indirectly impacts wildlife by creating barriers 

to movement, through vegetation removal and management, and abrupt edge creation that may lead 

to increased predation (Ratti and Reese 1988). Trail edges may concentrate prey species and may be 

used by predators as travel corridors. Other indirect impacts may include the deposition of litter and 

erosion caused by the damage to vegetation from trampling. 

Despite the potential for the above effects to result from public visitation, the physical impacts, 

disturbance to wildlife and habitat, and disturbances on the Refuge are expected to be intermittent, 

minor, and short-term, and in the context of the amount of the Refuge closed to public use 

(sanctuary) allowing these uses on the Refuge are not expected to diminish the value of the Refuge 

for its stated purposes. 

Summary and Application to Bear Lake NWR. Since Bear Lake provides important breeding habitat 

for migratory waterfowl and waterbirds, the primary concern on Bear Lake NWR will be disturbance 

to wildlife (especially colonial nesting birds) during the breeding season, which coincides with the 

peak season for public use on the Refuge. Most wildlife observation and photography takes place on 

the Auto Tour Road, the Refuge entrance road, and the 1.9-mile pedestrian trail, as well as county 

roads at the periphery of the Refuge. In the seasonally open area of the Refuge (7,450 acres), access 

for wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education will be 

restricted to pedestrian use of service roads and dikes from July 1 to February 28. The Canoe Trail is 

open to public use July 1-Sept 20. These facilities are all located at least 250 feet from nesting 

colonies of white-faced ibis, Franklins’ gulls, and other colonial nesting birds. Most birds have 

fledged before the Canoe Trail is open for public use. In addition, confining pedestrian and vehicle 

access to designated roads and trails allows wildlife to habituate to the presence of humans. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Disturbance caused by nonmotorized boats using the Canoe Trail will be limited by the small area 

(1.5-mile trail) and limited time (July 1-Sept 20) in which this use occurs. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Activities associated with this proposed use are restricted to those portions of the Refuge that 

are open to the general public during daylight hours. 

 Adherence to seasonal use restrictions to reduce disturbance to nesting waterfowl and other 

wildlife. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

 Littering is prohibited. 

 Collection of plants and animals is prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained from 

the Refuge (except wildlife captured while engaged in fishing and hunting). 

 The Refuge will provide signs and brochures. These materials will clearly state pertinent 

Refuge-specific regulations. Verbal instructions from Refuge staff will promote appropriate 

use of trails and blinds to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

 The Refuge will periodically monitor and evaluate sites and programs to determine if 

objectives are being met and the resource is not being degraded. 

Justification: 

Wildlife Photography, Observation, Interpretation, and Environmental Education are listed as priority 

wildlife-dependent uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which the public can 

develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The Service’s 

policy is to provide expanded opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses when compatible and 

consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and to ensure that they receive enhanced 

attention during planning and management. Facilitating these uses on the Refuge will increase visitor 

knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. This enhanced understanding will foster 

increased public stewardship of natural resources and support for the Service’s management actions 

in achieving the refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

There is more than an adequate amount of undisturbed habitat available to the majority of waterfowl, 

waterbirds, and other wildlife for escape and cover, such that their abundance and use of the Refuge 

will not be measurably lessened from allowing wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, 

and environmental education to occur. There is no evidence that these uses at current participation 

levels materially interfere with the purposes of the refuge. Stipulations will help reduce or eliminate 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-11 

any unwanted impacts of these uses. The relatively limited number of individual animals expected to 

be adversely affected due to these uses will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the 

physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and 

normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be 

negatively impacted. Thus, allowing wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the Refuge was established. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses 

only) 

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Adkison, G.P. and M.T. Jackson. 1996. Changes in ground-layer vegetation near trails in midwestern 

U.S. forests. Natural Areas Journal 16:14-23. 

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. 5th edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110. 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation. 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

birds of North America, no. 116. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, 

D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. Cole, David N. and Knight, Richard L. 1990. 

“Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness.” Natural Resources and Environmental 

Issues: Vol. 0, Article 6. 

Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol0/iss1/6 

 Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Deluca, T.H., W.A. Patterson, W.A. Freimund, and D.N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses, and 

hikers on soil erosion from established recreational trails in western Montana, USA. 

Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. 

Fernández-Juricic, E., P.A. Zollner, C. LeBlanc, and L.M. Westphal. 2007. Responses of nestling 

black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) to aquatic and terrestrial recreational 

activities: a manipulative study. Waterbirds 30(4):554-565. 

Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Guay, J.W. 1968. The breeding biology of Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). Ph.D. dissertation. 

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, and K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114:55-65. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. "Ding" 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. University of Florida, Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research. Gainesville, FL. 208 pp. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2): 189-197. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. In 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:238-247. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review 67:381-419. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Missoula, MT: Deborah 

Richie Communications. 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:103-112. 

Ratti, J.T. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 52:484-491. 

Ryder, R.R. and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

The birds of North America, no. 130. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-13 

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130-138. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2012b. Comprehensive conservation plan for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, 

GA. 32 pp. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-15 

B.6 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting on Bear 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Waterfowl Hunting 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Bear Lake County, Idaho 

Date Established: Bear Lake NWR: 1968 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

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

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use(s): 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to continue to allow hunting of waterfowl 

(ducks, geese, mergansers, and coots) and common snipe on Bear Lake NWR in accordance with 

State and Federal regulations. Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting in the United States is guided 

by an established regulatory process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and 

harvest data. Harvest data are reported by hunters to the State and season and bag limits are adjusted 

accordingly to ensure that overall populations of game species remain healthy into the future. 

The Refuge has provided a public waterfowl hunting area since it was established in 1968. Hunting 

of ducks, geese, coots, mergansers, and snipe is allowed on approximately 7,450 acres of the Refuge, 

on the following units: Salt Meadow, Rainbow sub-impoundment, Rainbow, Mud Lake north of the 

buoy line and east of the County Road, and Merkley Lake. Waterfowl hunting is permitted seven 

days per week, from sunrise to sunset, during the State waterfowl hunting season. No Refuge-specific 

permits or hunter check-in procedures are required. 

The State waterfowl season typically starts the first of October and runs through the end of January. 

The Refuge allows a youth hunt according to Idaho State regulations, which is usually the weekend 

prior to the regular hunting season opener. Shooting hours correspond to State regulations (1⁄2 hour 

before sunrise until sunset). Non-toxic shot is required, and hunters may not possess lead shot in the 

field. Because they reduce the loss of waterfowl to the hunter’s bag and hence can reduce the overall 

impact to the resource, dogs used in support of hunting are allowed on the Refuge. 

Because of the high elevation at the refuge, most waterfowl hunting occurs in early October before 

temperatures drop. Freezing of the marsh usually occurs by the middle of November, so quality 

hunting usually ends early, even though the Idaho waterfowl hunting season remains open into 

January. Waterfowl hunting visits are estimated at 185 visits annually. 

Primary access for hunting is by boat along the canals. Hunters may use motorized or nonmotorized 

boats to access hunting areas from September 20 to January 15. Air thrust boats are prohibited. Boats 

can be launched at the following five boat ramps: Paris, Rainbow west (two ramps), Rainbow east, 

and from Merkley Lake Road. Walk-in hunting is allowed. Walk-in access can occur from the 

Rainbow Dike. Parking is allowed in designated areas only. 

Temporary blinds of natural vegetation may be constructed, but such blinds are available for general 

use on a first-come, first served basis. Construction of permanent blinds is prohibited. The Refuge’s 

two Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)–compliant hunting/photography blinds are available to 

disabled sportsmen on a first come, first served basis one-half hour before sunrise to one half hour 

after sunrise. After this time, they are available to the general hunting public. These blinds are open 

for use September 20-January 20. Reservations are not required. 

Supporting access to the hunting area are an information kiosk devoted to current hunting 

information, five boat ramps with parking areas, restrooms along the main access road, and a trail 

spur from the Rainbow Dike. Refuge staff conducts annual maintenance on the dikes and trail spur, 

hunt blinds, boat ramps, and parking areas, including mowing and gravelling as needed. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-17 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $3k 

 

Maintenance: $0 

 Roads, boat ramps, buoys, blinds, signs, water delivery $40k 

Monitoring: $0 

 Law enforcement $5k 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0 

$0

TOTALS $48k 

Once the CD is approved through the CCP process, Federal funds will be requested through the 

Service budget process. Other sources (monetary and non-monetary) will be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other agencies, and additional Refuge operations 

funding to support a safe, quality public use program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Impacts to Habitat. The primary impact hunters have on habitat is the trampling of vegetation and 

creation of social trails, which in turn often function as conduits for movement of plant species, 

including nonnative, invasive species (Benninger-Truax et al. 1992, Hansen and Clevenger 2005). 

The impacts of waterfowl hunters on Refuge habitat is expected to be minor. The hunting season on 

the Refuge starts and ends outside of the growing season of most plants, and is short due to early 

freeze-up, so trampling and the spread of invasive plants is not a major issue. There is a possibility of 

boats used for waterfowl hunting aiding in the spread of aquatic invasive species into the waters of 

the Refuge. Informational media in hunting brochures, placards at Refuge launch areas; periodic 

inspections and early detection monitoring help reduce the likelihood of infestation. 

Impacts to Wildlife (General). Hunting, by its nature, results in the intentional take of individual 

animals, as well as wounding and disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., 

foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 1977, Raveling 

1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Bartelt 1987, Madsen 1985, and Cole and Knight 1990). 

Waterfowl are wary, seeking refuge from all forms of disturbance, but particularly those associated 

with loud noise and rapid movement (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). Numerous studies show 

human activities associated with hunting (boating, vehicle disturbance, human presence) cause 

increased flight time in waterfowl species, which requires a considerable amount of energy (Kahl 

1991, Havera et al. 1992, Knapton et al. 2000, Kenow et al. 2003). Human disturbance compels 

waterfowl to change feeding habits, for example, feeding only at night or deserting feeding areas 

entirely, resulting in weight loss (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). 

In addition to loss of individuals of target species, hunting causes disturbance to non-target species 

because of noise (most notably the report of a firearm), human presence, and general disturbance 

associated with the activity. Hunting results in the increase of non-target species being injured or 

killed (accidentally or intentionally) in addition to waterfowl being crippled or killed and not 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

retrieved. These disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, 

swimming, disablement or death in non-target species (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). 

Hunting can contribute to the well-being of wildlife by giving people a deeper appreciation of 

wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of wildlife and habitat conservation, which 

ultimately contributes to the NWRS mission. The hunting community remains the largest support 

base for funding wildlife management programs and Refuges provide an opportunity for a highquality waterfowl hunting experience to all citizens regardless of economic standing. Many 

individual Refuges have developed extensive public information and education programs bringing 

hunters into contact with Refuge activities and facilitating awareness of wildlife issues beyond 

hunting. Hunting is one of the six priority public uses of the NWRS. 

Impacts of Hunting on Waterfowl. 

Impacts on waterfowl populations: The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a 

thorough regulatory setting process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and 

harvest monitoring data. Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through 

an administrative process known as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, 

and Atlantic). Idaho is included in the Pacific Flyway. A review of the policies, processes, and 

procedures for waterfowl hunting is covered in a number of documents. 

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds be 

closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates 

regulations (50 CFR 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The frameworks are 

essentially permissive, in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, 

in effect, annual Federal regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. The 

Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for states to 

select from, which should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon 

Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird 

populations. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is 

conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings 

(Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which 

information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals 

within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held 

and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. 

For waterfowl, annual assessments used in establishing the Frameworks include the Breeding 

Population and Habitat Survey, which is conducted throughout portions of the United States and 

Canada. This survey is used to establish an annual Waterfowl Population Status Report. In addition, 

the number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the 

Harvest Information Program (HIP) and the Parts Survey (Wing Bee). Since 1995, such information 

has been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for setting duck-hunting 

regulations. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols determine the choice (package) of 

pre-determined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) that comprise the framework offered to 

states that year. Each state’s wildlife commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting 

hours, and other options from the their prospective Flyway package. Their selections can be more 

restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity 

afforded each state increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of 

waterfowl populations. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-19 

Season dates and bag limits for National Wildlife Refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger 

than the State regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed 

when a Refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive 

than the State allows. Each National Wildlife Refuge considers the cumulative impacts to hunted 

migratory species through the Migratory Bird Frameworks published annually in the Service’s 

regulations on Migratory Bird Hunting. 

Hunting on refuges as a whole, or Bear Lake NWR specifically, is not likely to have an adverse 

effect on the status of any recognized waterfowl population in North America. Several points support 

this contention including (1) the proportion of national waterfowl harvest that occurs on National 

Wildlife Refuges is small; 2) there are no waterfowl populations that occur wholly or exclusively on 

National Wildlife Refuges; 3) Annual hunting regulations within the United States are established to 

levels consistent with the current population status; 4) Refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons 

than provided for in Federal frameworks; and 5) Refuges purchased with funds derived from the 

Federal Duck Stamps must limit hunting to 40 percent of the available area. While Bear Lake NWR 

does not fall into this final category, there is sufficient sanctuary area on the Refuge to allow for 

undisturbed feeding and resting, even in the midst of the hunting season. Refuge-specific regulations 

are designed to minimize impacts. Both hunt regulations and sanctuary will be continually monitored 

and evaluated to ascertain their value in balancing the disturbance caused by allowing hunting on the 

Refuge. Under the stipulations outlined above, this activity does not materially detract from meeting 

Refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. 

Local impacts to waterfowl populations: The Federal Harvest Information Program estimates that 

16,800 hunters in Idaho spent an average of 102,700 days hunting and harvested 225,100 ducks 

annually during 2001-2010. Over that same time period, the harvest information program estimates 

Idaho hunters harvested 59,800 Canada geese annually. This is the third highest total in the Pacific 

Flyway, behind Oregon and Washington, respectively. Between 1990 and 2004 (the last year for 

which data were available), between 200 and 1000 waterfowl were harvested on the Refuge annually. 

The number of waterfowl currently harvested on the Refuge is unknown, but based on the numbers 

of hunters using the Refuge and the short season, it is likely to represent a small percentage of total 

numbers harvested in the state, and an even smaller percentage of the total flyway harvest. 

Effect on waterfowl distribution and use of habitat: Belanger and Bedard (1995) concluded that 

disturbance caused by hunting can modify the distribution and use of various habitats by birds. In 

Denmark, Madsen (1995) experimentally tested disturbance effects of hunting by the establishment of 

two experimental reserves where hunting activity was manipulated such that sanctuary areas were 

created in different parts of the study area in different hunting seasons. In both areas, waterbird 

numbers increased, most strongly in hunted species (a three- to 40-fold increase), with highest densities 

found in sanctuary areas, regardless of where these sanctuaries were sited. At Sacramento National 

Wildlife Refuge, in California, researchers found statistically significant differences in the densities of 

northern pintails among hunting units, units adjacent to hunting units, units adjacent to auto tour route, 

and units isolated from disturbance (Wolder 1993). Prior to the opening of hunting season, pintail used 

units in proportion to their availability, indicating no preference to particular areas. 

Belanger and Bedard (1989) studied the effect of disturbances to staging greater snow geese in a 

Quebec bird sanctuary over 471 hours of observation. They found that the level of disturbance 

(defined as any event causing all or part of the goose flock to take flight) that prevailed on a given 

day in fall influenced goose use of the sanctuary on the following day. When disturbance exceeded 

two events per hour, it produced a 50 percent drop in the mean number of geese present in the 

sanctuary the next day. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-20 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Effects on energetics and survival: Hunting limits access of waterfowl to food resources and may 

modify migration timing. Madsen (1988 as cited by Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992) suggested that 

hunting on the coastal wetlands of Denmark modified waterfowl movements and caused birds to 

leave the area prematurely. However, Kahl (1991) suggested that lack of adequate access to food 

may decrease survival of canvasbacks by causing birds to remain on a staging site longer and forage 

under suboptimal conditions, or by causing birds to migrate in shorter flights with more frequent 

stops. 

Disturbance due to hunting has caused waterfowl to cease feeding or resting activities, thus 

decreasing energy intake and increasing energy expenditure. At Chincoteague NWR, Morton et al. 

(1989) found that wintering black ducks experienced reduced energy intake while doubling energy 

expenditure by increasing the time spent in locomotion in response to disturbance. Belanger and 

Bedard (1995) in a quantitative analysis, estimated that neither the response to disturbance by flying 

away and promptly returning to the foraging site to resume feeding, nor the response of flying away 

(leaving the foraging site for a roosting site, thus interrupting feeding) allowed snow geese to balance 

their daytime energy budget. 

At high disturbance rates (>two/hour—these included hunting and transport-related disturbance), 

Belanger and Bedard estimated that an increase in night feeding as a behavioral compensation 

mechanism could not counterbalance energy lost during the day. Likewise, geese could not 

compensate for a loss in feeding time by increasing their daily foraging behavior to maximize food 

intake during undisturbed periods. Belanger and Bedard suggested mitigation with spatial or 

temporal buffer zones. 

Application to Bear Lake NWR: The studies cited above display the variety and scale of negative 

impacts to waterfowl from hunting. The most likely effect will be a shift in waterfowl populations away 

from hunted areas to non-hunted areas of the Refuge. Under the CCP, approximately 7,450 acres of the 

Refuge will be open to waterfowl hunting seven days per week. The sanctuary area provided for 

waterfowl (areas of the Refuge closed to hunting) is more than 10,600 acres, exceeding the size (0.5-0.7 

square miles) recommended by Kahl (1991), and it has a low edge-to-area ratio. 

The fall waterfowl habitat (permanent open water for loafing, deep emergent wetland, shallow 

emergent wetland, submerged aquatic habitat, and croplands) available to migratory birds on the 

Refuge is currently estimated at 16,167 acres. Within the hunt area, 6,624 acres will be classified as 

fall waterfowl habitat (open water, deep emergent vegetation, shallow emergent vegetation, and 

submergent aquatic vegetation.) This comprises approximately 40 percent percent of the Refuge’s 

total fall waterfowl habitat. Break out of waterfowl habitat types in hunt and sanctuary units is 

provided in Table B-1. The hunt units currently contain about 48 percent of the loafing habitat (open 

water) on the Refuge. All croplands are located within the sanctuary area. Under the habitat 

management proposed in this CCP, acreage of open water and shallow emergent wetlands will 

decrease compared to current conditions, since proposed management will convert a portion of these 

habitats to other habitat types (e.g., submerged aquatic.) Acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation 

(which provides high-quality waterfowl food) will increase, from 436 acres (current) to 

approximately 3,000 acres. Total acres of deep emergent habitat will increase slightly. Due to the 

change in habitat area and distribution in the proposed management under this CCP, although the 

hunt area will remain the same, a slightly higher percentage of the fall waterfowl habitat base will be 

hunted (47 percent), and less open water (loafing) habitat will be available. However, about the same 

percentage of the loafing habitat (open water) and shallow emergent wetland will be located within 

the hunt area. Both the total acreage and percent of deep emergent wetland located within the hunt 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-21 

area will increase (1,877 to 2,370 acres; 36 percent to 44 percent). A higher percentage (63 percent) 

of submerged aquatic vegetation will be located within the hunt area. Acres of submerged aquatics 

both within and outside the hunt area will increase compared to current conditions. As in current 

management, no crops will be located within the hunt area. Therefore overall, habitat changes under 

proposed management will change the acreage and distribution of habitat types, but adequate loafing 

and feeding areas will exist outside the hunt area. In addition to considerations concerning habitat 

availability, only non-toxic shot is permitted. 

Table B-1. Distribution of fall waterfowl habitat in hunted vs. non hunted units under current and 

proposed management. 

Cropland Shallow 

Emergent 

Wetland 

Deep 

Emergent 

Wetland 

Submerged 

Aquatic 

Permanent 

Open Water 

(Loafing) 

Total Fall 

Waterfowl 

Habitat 

Current Management 

Hunted Units 0 2258 1877 277 2212 6624 

Non Hunted Units 90 3602 3336 159 2356 9543 

Total Current Acres 90 5860 5213 436 4568 16167 

Percent of Habitat 

in Hunted Units 

0% 39% 36% 64% 48% 41% 

Proposed Management 

Hunted Units 0 1400 2370 1900 1240 6910 

Non Hunted Units 80 2370 2990 1100 1380 7920 

Total Proposed/Target 

Acres 

80 3770 5360 3000 2620 14830 

Percent of Habitat 

in Hunted Units 

0% 37% 44% 63% 47% 47% 

Notes: Proposed/target acres are estimates based on proposed management in the CCP; rounded to nearest 5 acres. 

Hunted Units: Rainbow Complex, Mud Lake Complex north of buoy line 

Non Hunted Units: North Meadow, Bloomington, and Bunn Lake Complexes; Mud Lake S of buoy line 

Given the small number of waterfowl hunting visits to the Refuge (estimated at approximately 185 

visits annually) and the short hunting season, disturbance rates are expected to be low. Disturbance 

could be expected from both hunters on foot, and hunters using motorized and nonmotorized boats. 

Since the traversable waters of Bear Lake NWR are not deep, boaters use small boats with a shallow 

draft powered by 2-cycle or 4-cycle engines. A handful of waterfowl hunters may use nonmotorized 

boats (e.g., canoes) to access the units. Although boats can cause disturbance to waterfowl, due to the 

low numbers of hunters, and the small size, and slow speeds of boats used to access waterfowl hunting, 

both the frequency and the footprint of disturbance will be limited. A 15 mph speed limit for boats will 

be instituted to reduce disturbance to wildlife. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses. Public lands attract a variety of user groups 

who often have conflicting needs. Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the potential to disturb 

Refuge visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent recreational uses. There may be safety concerns 

associated with hunters using the same areas accessed by wildlife observers and photographers. 

However, impacts to other wildlife-dependent recreational users are expected to be minimal due to the 

low number of visitors to the Refuge in fall and winter The youth hunt is generally scheduled for the 

last weekend in September, with the regular hunting season opening the first weekend in October and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

typically ending by mid to late November, depending on timing of freezeup. By October the number of 

visitors other than waterfowl hunters drops markedly due to cold weather. 

Other uses that may occur at the same time and place as waterfowl hunting include vehicle traffic on 

the Salt Meadow Unit Wildlife Observation Route, hiking on roads that are open to vehicle travel, 

and hiking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing within the hunt area. 

The accessible walking trail is closed to walking on September 20 and can only be used by hunters to 

access ABA-accessible blinds after that time. Although non-hunters may walk or drive on the Auto 

Tour Route, which is within the hunt area, the road is wide (between 12 and 20 feet) and is located 

on elevated dikes with good visibility. To promote visitor safety, hiking, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing will be limited to service roads and dikes within the hunt area from July 1-January 20 

under proposed management. Other measures to reduce potential conflicts between hunters and other 

user groups include providing information at the trailhead kiosks, and in the Refuge’s brochure that 

clearly indicates permitted uses and rules of conduct. 

Conflicts between waterfowl hunters and other Refuge users have never been documented and will 

likely remain negligible for the near future. The current low level of use does not warrant a spatial or 

temporal separation of hunting from non-hunting public uses at this time. If the number of nonhunters using the hunt area during the hunt season increases significantly, the potential for accidents 

or user group conflicts may also increase. Conflicts between hunters and non-hunters, and between 

different types of hunters, will be monitored and addressed if necessary. No significant effects to 

roads, trails, or other infrastructure from the hunting program are foreseen. Normal road, trail, and 

facility upkeep and maintenance will continue to be necessary. 

By its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very few if any positive effects on waterfowl and other 

birds while the activity is occurring, but it is well recognized that this activity has given many people 

a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their 

habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. Public review of a step-down Hunt Plan (see Stipulations) as required under Service 

policy will be conducted before implementing changes to the Refuge waterfowl hunting program. 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Hunters must obey all State and Federal hunting regulations. 

 Hunters may possess only approved nontoxic shot while in the field. 

 Nonmotorized and motorized boats are allowed September 20-January 15 within the 

designated waterfowl hunting area (the Rainbow and Salt Meadow Units, the Merkley Lake 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-23 

Unit, and the Mud Lake Unit north of the buoy line). Boats will not exceed the 15 mph speed 

limit. 

 The use of air-thrust boats is prohibited. 

 Only portable blinds or temporary blinds constructed of natural vegetation can be used in the 

waterfowl hunting area. Blinds will be available for general use on a first-come, first-served 

basis. Portable blinds must be removed from the refuge at the end of each day. 

 All personal property, including decoys and boats, must be removed from the refuge at the 

end of each day. 

 Hunting dogs will be under hunter control at all times. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. The use or possession of alcoholic 

beverages while hunting is prohibited. 

 The two ABA-accessible hunting blinds are open for use Sept, 20-Jan 20. They are available 

to disabled sportsmen on a first-come, first-serve basis one-half hour before sunrise to one 

half hour after sunrise. After this time, they are available to the general hunting public to use. 

 Hunt areas and no hunting zones will be posted at least two weeks before the hunting season 

begins. 

 Refuge staff will conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting facilities, and monitor wildlife 

impacts. 

Justification: 

Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which 

the public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The 

Service’s policy is to provide expanded opportunities for these wildlife-dependent uses when 

compatible and consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and ensure that they receive 

enhanced attention during planning and management. Facilitating hunting on the Refuge would 

increase visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. This enhanced 

understanding would foster increased public stewardship of natural resources and support for the 

Service’s management actions in achieving the refuge purposes and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Waterfowl hunting at Bear Lake NWR as described in this CD contributes to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System by providing a wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. 

Because sanctuary from human disturbance is provided in other areas of the Refuge, this waterfowl 

hunting program will not interfere with the Refuge achieving its purposes of providing sanctuary and 

a breeding ground for migratory birds. The use contributes to the purpose of wildlife-oriented 

recreational development. It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food 

resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably 

lessened from allowing hunting to occur on the Refuge. The relatively limited number of individuals 

expected to be adversely affected due to hunting will not cause wildlife populations to materially 

decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their 

behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will 

not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing hunting to occur with stipulations will not materially 

detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System 

mission. 

This program as described was determined to be compatible because: hunter use levels on Bear Lake 

NWR are relatively low during most days of the waterfowl hunting season (October through 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

November) and sufficient restrictions will ensure that high-quality feeding and resting habitat will be 

available in relatively undisturbed areas to accommodate the needs of the waterfowl and other 

wetland birds. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2027 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:713-719. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1995. Hunting and waterfowl. Pages 243-256 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Cole, David N. and Knight, Richard L. 1990. “Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness.” 

Natural Resources and Environmental Issues: Vol. 0, Article 6. 

Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol0/iss1/6. 

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated 

bibliography. Resource Publication 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/disturb/index.htm. Version 16JUL1997. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(3):290-298. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:242-248. 

Kenow, K.P., C.E. Korschgen, J.M. Nissen, A. Elfessi, and R. Steinbach. 2003. A voluntary program 

to curtail boat disturbance to waterfowl during migration. Waterbirds 26(1):77-87. 

Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point Bay, 

Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-25 

Madsen, J. 1988. Autumn feeding ecology of herbivorous wildfowl in the Danish Wadden Sea, and 

impact of food supplies and shooting on movements. Danish Review of Game Biology 13:1-32. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 25:5-14. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: The prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. Pages 73-81 in: H. Boyd, ed. Fourth western hemispheric waterfowl and waterbird 

symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2012b. Comprehensive conservation plan for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and saltmarsh feeding of wintering Brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 62 pp. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-27 

B.7 Compatibility Determination for Upland Game Hunting on 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Upland Game Hunting 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Bear Lake County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1968 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

 “... for conservation purposes ... ” 7 U.S.C. § 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to continue to allow hunting of upland game 

(gray partridge, sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, pheasants, and cottontail rabbits) on 

Bear Lake NWR in accordance with State and Federal regulations. Hunting of game as an activity is 

conducted by the general public under regulatory authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Because quality upland game hunting occurs on other lands in the area, and 

populations of these species on the Refuge is low, few hunters pursue upland game on the Refuge, 

with an estimated ten upland game hunting visits per year. Although hunting of upland game is 

allowed throughout the area open to waterfowl hunting (7,450 acres), most of this area is wetland 

habitat not used by these species. Upland habitat is limited to 300 acres on the east side of the 

Refuge, along Merkley Lake Road. The Refuge adheres to Idaho State seasons and regulations. 

Seasons are as follows: 

Gray partridge October 1-January 31 

Sage-grouse Set by IDFG in August (in 2011 Bear Lake County was closed to sage-grouse 

hunting) 

Sharp-tailed grouse October 1-October 31 

Ruffed grouse August 30-December 31 

Pheasants October 20-November 30 

Youth hunt Oct 5-Oct 11 

Cottontail Rabbit September 1-February 28 

Reference: IDFG 2012. Upland Game, Furbearer, Turkey Seasons and Rules, 2012-13 and 2013-14. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf 

Upland game hunting on Refuge lands is an extension of the activity already occurring on adjacent 

public and private lands. No Refuge-specific permits or hunter check-in procedures are required. 

Hunter access will be from the existing parking area along the Merkley Lake (County) Road. 

To ensure a quality hunt and visitor and staff safety, all hunting activities are in accordance with 

Federal, State, and Refuge-specific regulations. Use of nontoxic shotshells is required. Hunting is a 

priority public use identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and it has 

traditionally occurred at the Refuge without adverse impacts to the purposes for which the Refuge 

was established. The hunt program is administered in accordance with sound wildlife management 

principles and the utmost concern for public safety. Because they can reduce the loss of injured game 

and hence can reduce the overall impact to the resource, dogs used in the act of hunting are allowed 

on the Refuge. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

The following funds will be required to run a program as designed under the CCP. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-29 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr)

Administration and management: $0 $2k 

Maintenance: $0 $0 

Monitoring: $0 

Law enforcement; biology $3k 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0 

$0

TOTALS $5k 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Impacts to Hunted Species. The direct effect of hunting on upland game species is mortality, 

wounding, and disturbance. Hunting seasons and bag limits for upland game are set by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game with the goal of providing hunting opportunities while managing for 

sustainable wildlife populations. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s 2010 Upland Game 

Progress Report (Knetter et al. 2010) notes that of the species of upland game birds that are legal to 

hunt on Oxford Slough WPA, populations of gray partridge (an introduced species) and sharp-tailed 

grouse (native), are considered stable or increasing in Idaho’s Southeast Region over the past 10-15 

years. Populations of forest grouse (including rufed grouse) can vary widely from year to year, based 

on annual production. Indications from harvest and production data over the last 15 years suggest a 

trend in more hunters harvesting a greater number of birds. Ring-necked pheasant (another 

introduced species) have undergone a long-term decline as a result of declining habitat quality due to 

changes in farming practices. Sage-grouse, a native species and species of conservation concern, are 

declining. Populations in Idaho’s Southeast Region appear to be low. Due to declining numbers of 

sage-grouse in Idaho, the IDFG has instituted more restrictive seasons and bag limits in recent years. 

In 2011, IDFG Area 1 (including Bear Lake County) was closed to sage grouse hunting. Limited data 

on rabbits and hares have been collected in Southeast Region. 

The impacts to populations of upland game, both locally and regionally, caused by hunting of upland 

game on Bear Lake NWR are likely inconsequential due to the small amount of upland habitat on the 

Refuge, the paucity of those species on the Refuge, and the low numbers of hunters pursuing those 

species. The most frequently hunted upland game species on the Refuge are gray partridge and 

cottontail rabbit. Few grouse (of any species) or pheasant use the Refuge due to its lack of suitable 

habitat, and few, if any, grouse or pheasant are harvested on the Refuge each year. The low number 

of grouse and pheasant, and the subsequent lack of hunter pursuit means there is little impact to these 

species related to hunting on the Refuge. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife Species. Upland game hunting occurs in the fall and winter, after the 

nesting season for birds and the rearing season for all forms of wildlife. While the presence of 

hunters can temporarily influence resident game and non-game wildlife by increasing their level of 

stress and possibly causing them to flee in alarm. It is expected that impacts to non-target species will 

be minimal because hunting seasons do not coincide with nesting seasons, so reproduction will not 

be reduced by hunting. Disturbance to the daily activities, such as feeding and resting, of wintering 

non-hunted birds and other wildlife might occur. However, these occurrences are infrequent and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-30 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

short lived, and limited to a small portion of the Refuge (300 acres of upland habitat on the east side 

of the Refuge, west of the Merkley Lake Road). The impacts caused by upland game hunting to other 

species inhabiting the Refuge are likely inconsequential due to the small amount of upland habitat 

where this use occurs, and the low number of hunters engaged in this use. 

Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles 

are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any non-target wildlife is not permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead shot by non-hunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not 

relevant at the Refuge because non-toxic shot is required. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses. Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the 

potential to disturb Refuge visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Upland 

game hunting occurs in upland habitat on the east side of the Refuge, on the east side of the Merkley 

Lake Road. This area is separated from areas used by the non-hunting public. The auto tour route is 

located more than 5 miles from uplands where this activity occurs. Visitors may hike on roads and 

dikes within the hunt area from July 1-January 20, however, these activities occur 3 miles or more 

from the area where upland game hunting occurs. The walking trail and Canoe Trail are closed 

during the upland game hunting season. Since relatively few visitors engage in upland game hunting 

on the Refuge, and most upland game hunting occurs when other visitation to the Refuge is low, 

impacts to non-hunting visitors will be minimal. Conflicts with waterfowl hunters or other visitors 

have not been documented. 

Summary and Application to Bear Lake NWR. While upland game hunting has no positive effects 

on these species as the activity is occurring, it is well recognized that this activity has given many 

people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving 

their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. To date, this activity 

has shown no assessable environmental impact to the Refuge, its habitats or wildlife species. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. Public review of a step-down Hunt Plan (see Stipulations) as required under Service 

policy will be conducted before implementing changes to the Refuge upland game hunting program. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Hunters must obey all State and Federal hunting regulations. 

 Hunters may possess only approved nontoxic shot while in the field. 

 All personal property must be removed from the refuge at the end of each day. 

 Hunting dogs will be under hunter control at all times. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. The use or possession of alcoholic 

beverages while hunting is prohibited. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-31 

 Hunt areas and no hunting zones will be posted at least two weeks before the hunting season 

begins. 

 Refuge staff will conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting facilities, and monitor wildlife 

impacts. 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. Upland 

game hunting would contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by providing a 

wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. The use contributes to the purpose of wildlifeoriented recreational development. Hunting is also one of the six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. The hunting program follows all applicable laws, regulations and policies 

including: 50 CFR, National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System 

goals and objectives, and Bear Lake NWR goals and objectives. Conducting this program does not 

alter the Refuge’s ability to meet habitat goals, provide for public safety and support several primary 

objectives of the Refuge. 

Upland game hunting seasons and bag limits are established by the State of Idaho, ensuring the 

continued well-being of overall populations. Hunting does result in the taking of individuals within 

the overall population, but restrictions are designed to safeguard an adequate breeding population 

from year to year. It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and 

resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from 

allowing upland game hunting to occur on the Refuge. The relatively limited number of individuals 

expected to be adversely affected by hunting will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, 

the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior 

and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be 

negatively impacted. Thus, allowing upland game hunting to occur with stipulations will not 

materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge 

System mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 2027 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

References: 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2011. Sage-grouse seasons and rules. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandSage.pdf. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Upland game, furbearer, turkey seasons and rules 

2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf 

Knetter, J., J. Hayden, J. Crenshaw, S. Nadeau, R. Smith, T. Boudreau, D. Meints, and T. Keegan. 

2010. Upland game progress report, July 1 2009 to June 30, 2010. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Upland%20Game%2

0Statewide%20PR10.pdf 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012b. Comprehensive conservation plan for Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-33 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-35 

B.8 Compatibility Determination for Sport Fishing on Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Sport Fishing 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Bear Lake County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1968 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

 “... for conservation purposes ... ” 7 U.S.C. § 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use: 

Current Use. The Refuge is currently open to pole-and-line and bow fishing for carp, perch, and 

trout on the Outlet Canal north of the Paris Dike, between the Paris Dike south to its former location, 

and just north of the Lifton Pumping Station. Currently the Lifton Pumping Station fishing area is 

fenced off and effectively closed to fishing. The Refuge receives about 20 fishing visits annually and 

most visitors are angling for carp. Anglers must comply with all Refuge-specific and Idaho State 

regulations. The Refuge is included in the “All Waters Open All Year” general fishing season (IDFG 

2011). No fees or special permits are required to fish on the Refuge. Based upon staff observations it 

is believed that there is little fishing pressure. 

Proposed Use. We will continue to allow pole-and-line and bow fishing for carp, perch, and trout on 

the Outlet Canal north of the Paris Dike, and between the former Paris Dike south to its former 

location. We propose to close the area north of the Lifton Pumping Station to fishing because it is 

fenced off and there is no vehicle parking available. We will develop a safer and more comfortable 

fishing experience by building a fishing pier or platform immediately north of the Paris Dike. The 

Refuge will open the southeast portion of the Refuge along Merkley Lake Road to bank fishing. 

Availability of Resources: 

The following funds will be required to administer the revised fishing program: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $2k 

Maintenance: $0 

Roads, proposed fishing platform, signs $4k 

Monitoring: $0 $4k 

Law enforcement and biological 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: 

$30k 

$0 

Construct fishing platform and interpretive signs 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$30k 

$0

TOTALS $10k 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Recreational fishing can impact the aquatic community by direct and indirect mortality (both of 

target and non-target species), changes in species composition and other trophic effects, and changes 

within species (stunting, changes in behavior) when fishing occurs at high levels (Blaber et al. 2000, 

Allen et al. 2005, Lewin et al. 2006). Many of the targeted species at the Refuge are introduced 

species such as common carp and yellow perch that compete with native coldwater fish species. 

Removal of individuals of these non-native species may benefit native species by reducing 

competition and predation (Cornelius 2006). Given the low numbers of anglers using the Refuge, and 

the opportunity for most species to move freely into and out of the Refuge, Bear Lake proper, and the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-37 

Bear River, it is not likely that there are significant impacts (positive or negative) to the fish 

community. 

Fishing can cause disturbance to birds and other wildlife that use the Refuge. Species likely to 

experience some level of disturbance include foraging wading birds (great blue heron, American 

bittern, and snowy egret) foraging and nesting waterfowl (mallard, cinnamon teal, gadwall, Canada 

goose, and ring-necked duck), foraging and nesting passerines (red-winged blackbird and marsh 

wren), foraging raptors (osprey and bald eagle), and mammals (moose, skunk, and badger). 

Most research studies have focused on short-term responses to human disturbance such as flushing, 

nest abandonment, site avoidance, etc. Little information is available on long-term or large-scale 

responses such as relocation of major staging areas, changes in productivity and demographics, or 

changes in prey/forage selection. Fishing has been shown to affect the reproduction, distribution, 

behavior, and abundance of bird species (Bell and Austin 1985; Cooke 1987; Korschgen and 

Dahlgren 1992). 

When lead fishing sinkers or jigs are lost through broken line or other means, birds can inadvertently 

eat them. Water birds like loons and swans often swallow lead when they scoop up pebbles from the 

bottom of a lake or river to help grind their food. Eagles ingest lead by eating fish which have 

themselves swallowed sinkers (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2012). Lead is highly toxic to 

fish, birds, and other animals (including humans) and therefore the use of lead fishing tackle is being 

banned in a growing number of states. While the use of lead fishing tackle is legal in Idaho, the use 

of lead fishing tackle is prohibited at Bear Lake NWR. Discarded tackle and line also pose a threat to 

fish-eating birds. 

Activities associated with fishing, such as human noise, would cause some birds to flush and go 

elsewhere. In addition, vegetation trampling, and deposition of litter or lost gear are likely to occur. 

Impacts to bank stability and water quality have not been documented at the current low participation 

levels, but may occur should levels increase in the future. 

As stated above, the number of anglers using the Refuge is relatively low because there are limited 

places available for fishing opportunities. Since the level of fishing activity is low, there is very 

limited disturbance to birds and limited impacts to vegetation through trampling. Thus, impacts to 

fish and wildlife resources associated with this activity are not significant. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comment were solicited in conjunction with the release of the Draft CCP/EA for 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and with Service policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains 

a summary of the comments and Service responses. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Anglers must park in designated parking areas and walk to fishing areas. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-38 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

 Littering is prohibited. 

 All persons fishing shall be required to have a valid State license and follow applicable 

Refuge and Idaho State regulations. 

 Law enforcement patrols will be conducted periodically to ensure compliance with State and 

Refuge regulations. 

 Possession or use of lead weights and sinkers is prohibited (50 CFR Ch. 1, Section 32.31). 

Justification: 

Fishing is listed as a priority wildlife-dependent use for the National Wildlife Refuge System through 

which the public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 

25, 1996 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). 

The Service’s policy is to provide expanded opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses when 

compatible and consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and to ensure that they receive 

enhanced attention during planning and management. Although fishing can result in disturbance to 

wildlife and habitat, disturbances on the Refuge are expected to be intermittent, minor, and shortterm, and are not expected to diminish the value of the Refuge for its stated purposes. Facilitating this 

use on the Refuge would increase visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. 

This enhanced understanding would foster increased public stewardship of natural resources and 

support for the Service’s management actions in achieving the refuge purposes and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

There is more than an adequate amount of undisturbed habitat available to the majority of waterfowl, 

waterbirds, and other wildlife for escape and cover, such that their abundance and use of the Refuge 

will not be measurably lessened from allowing fishing to occur. Stipulations will help reduce or 

eliminate any unwanted impacts of the use. The relatively limited number of individual animals 

expected to be adversely affected due to fishing will not cause wildlife populations to materially 

decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their 

behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will 

not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing fishing will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2027 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-39 

References: 

Allen, J.D., R. Abell, Z. Hogan, C. Revenga, B.W. Taylor, R.L. Welcomme, and K. Winemiller. 

2005. Overfishing in inland water. Bioscience 55:1041-1051. 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 

Blaber, S.J.M., D.P. Cyrus, J.J. Albaret, C.V. Ching, J.W. Day, M. Elliott, M.S. Fonseca, D.E. Hoss, 

J. Orensanz, I.C. Potter, and W. Silvert. 2000. Effects of fishing on the structure and functioning 

of estuarine and nearshore ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:590-602. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. 

Cornelius, L. 2006. Gee Creek watershed restoration background report. Washington State 

University, Vancouver, WA. 73 pp. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.L. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and 

management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, 

D.C. 9 pp. 

Lewin, W.C., R. Arlinghaus, and T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and potential biological impacts of 

recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science 

14:305-367. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2012. Let’s get the lead out: non-lead alternatives for fishing 

tackle. Available at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/living-green/living-greencitizen/household-hazardous-waste/nontoxic-tackle-let-s-get-the-lead-out.html. Accessed June 

19, 2012. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012b. Comprehensive conservation plan for Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-40 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 4, Sport Fishing on Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-41 

B.9 Compatibility Determination for Research and Monitoring on 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Research and Monitoring 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Thomas Fork Unit 

Location: Bear Lake NWR: Bear Lake County, Idaho 

Thomas Fork Unit: Bear Lake County, Idaho

Date Established: Bear Lake NWR: 1968 

Thomas Fork Unit: 1995 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Bear Lake NWR: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Thomas Fork Unit: 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. § 2002) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Bear Lake NWR: 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-42 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Thomas Fork Unit: 

 “... for conservation purposes ... ” 7 U.S.C. § 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

The Refuge staff receives periodic requests from non-Service entities (e.g., universities, State 

agencies, other Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations) to conduct research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys on refuge lands. These project requests can involve a wide range of natural 

and cultural resources as well as public-use management issues including basic absence/presence 

surveys, collection of new species for identification, habitat use and life-history requirements for 

specific species/species groups, practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of 

environmental contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate 

change on environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and 

analyses of paleontological specimens, modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, and 

assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be speciesspecific, refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the refuge lands to larger landscapes 

(e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) issues and trends. 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 

1.10D(4)) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their 

habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge-specific needs for resource 

and/or wilderness management goals and objectives, where applicable, will be given a higher priority 

over other requests. 

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities will be primarily be limited to the 

following: review of proposals, prepare SUP(s) and other compliance documents (e.g., Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and 

monitor project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels 

(compatibility) over time. Additional administrative support, logistical and operational support may 

also be provided depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., prepare 

SUP) and annually re-occurring tasks by Refuge staff and other Service employees will be 

determined for each project. Sufficient funding in the general operating budget of the Refuge(s) must 

be available to cover expenses for these projects. The terms and conditions for funding and staff 

support necessary to administer each project on the Refuge(s) will be clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The Refuge has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research 

that is currently taking place on refuge lands (see table below). Any substantial increase in the 

number of projects will create a need for additional resources to oversee the administration and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-43 

monitoring of the investigators and their projects. Any substantial additional costs above those 

itemized below may result in finding a project not compatible unless expenses are offset by the 

investigator(s), sponsoring agency, or organization. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($) 

Annual 

($/yr) 

Administration and management $1,000 

Maintenance $1,000 

Monitoring $1,000 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvement $0 

Offsetting revenues $0 

Itemized costs in the previous table are current estimates calculated using a 3 percent base cost of a GS-12 Refuge Manager. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Use of the Refuge(s) to conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys would generally provide 

information that would benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of species and 

species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource management 

objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife 

and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If project methods impact or conflict with refuge-specific resources, priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses, other high-priority research, wilderness, and refuge habitat and wildlife management 

programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that its scientific findings will contribute to resource 

management and that the project cannot be conducted off refuge lands for the project to be 

compatible. The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in advance required to minimize or 

eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable impacts cannot be avoided, then the 

project will not be compatible. Projects that represent public or private economic use of the natural 

resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting), in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, 

must contribute to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Impacts will be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon nature and scope of 

the fieldwork. Data collection techniques will generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or animals) 

or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. To 

reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers will coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Investigator(s) obtaining required State and Federal collecting permits will also ensure minimal 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. After incorporating the above strategies, projects 

will not be compatible if they will result in long-term or cumulative effects. A Section 7 consultation 

under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended Public Law 93-

205) will be required for activities that may affect a federally listed species and/or critical habitat. 

Only projects that have no effect or result in not likely to adversely affect determinations will be 

considered compatible. Currently, no listed species occur on Bear Lake NWR or the Thomas Fork 

Unit. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary (see 

Attachment 4). If after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive species is 

anticipated to occur, then the project will be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation 

plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) will usually be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative 

unacceptable effects cannot be avoidable, the project will not be found compatible. Project proposals 

will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short-term, 

long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to refuge management issues and 

understanding of natural systems. 

At least six months before initiation of fieldwork (unless an exception is made by prior approval of 

the Refuge Manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format 

provided in Attachment 1. Project proposals will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, 

to assess the potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the 

investigation to refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment 

will form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects that result in 

unacceptable refuge impacts will not be found compatible. If allowed and found compatible after 

approval, all projects also will be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts 

remain within acceptable levels. 

If the proposal is approved, then the Refuge Manager will issue an SUP(s) with required stipulations 

(terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to refuge resources 

as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and refuge field management operations. After 

approval, projects also are monitored during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain 

within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) will ensure 

that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of 

native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge(s). As a result, these projects will help 

fulfill refuge purpose(s); contribute to the Mission of the NWRS; and maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge(s). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-45 

Projects that are not covered by the Refuge’s Inventory and Monitoring Plan, or inventory and 

monitoring strategies under the objectives in this CCP will require additional NEPA documentation. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This CD was prepared concurrent with the Bear Lake NWR CCP. Public notice was provided and 

open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the scoping 

period for the Draft CCP/EA. Public review and comment were solicited during the draft CCP/EA 

comment period. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Each project will require an SUP. Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some 

permits will be for a longer period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. All SUPs will have 

a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Renewals will be subject to Refuge 

Manager review and approval based timely submission of and content in progress reports, 

compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

 Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and applicable. 

 Investigators must possess appropriate and comply with conditions of State and Federal 

permits for their projects. 

 If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the 

refuge staff, then the Refuge Manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an ongoing project already permitted by SUP(s) on a refuge(s). 

 Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report will be provided to investigator(s) (see Attachment 2). 

 Final reports are due one year after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise 

with the Refuge Manager. 

 Continuation of existing projects will require approval by the Refuge Manager. 

 The refuge staff will be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the project 

before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication. 

 The refuge staff will be provided with copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a 

refuge project. 

 The refuge staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database 

format) at the conclusion of the project. 

 Upon completion of the project or annually, all equipment and markers (unless required for 

long-term projects), must be removed and sites must restored to the Refuge Manager’s 

satisfaction. Conditions for clean-up and removal of equipment and physical markers will be 

stipulated in the SUP(s). 

 All samples collected on refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work. For 

samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a memorandum of 

understand will be necessary (see Attachment 3). 

 Sampling equipment as well as investigator(s) clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATV, boats) will 

be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being allowed for use refuge 

lands to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests. Where necessary, use quarantine 

methods (see Attachment 4). 

 The NWRS, the specific Refuge, names of refuge staff and other Service personnel that 

supported or contributed to the project will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in all 

written and oral presentations resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

 At any time, refuge staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field. 

Investigator(s) and support staff will follow all refuge-specific regulations that specify access and 

travel on the Refuge(s). 

Justification: 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service 

because they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In addition, 

only projects that directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, 

and management of refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally will be authorized on 

refuge lands. In many cases, if it were not for the refuge staff providing access to refuge lands and 

waters along with some support, the project would never occur and less scientific information would 

be available to the Service to aid in managing and conserving the refuge resources. By allowing the 

use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife species which could 

be disturbed during the use will find sufficient food resources and resting places so their abundance 

and use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge(s). Additionally, it is anticipated that 

monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats. As a result, these projects will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling 

refuge purpose(s); contributing to the mission of the NWRS; and maintaining the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge(s). 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-47 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 5, Research and Monitoring on Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Attachment 1 

FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH OR LONGTERM MONITORING ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

A Special Use Permit (SUP) is required to conduct research and/or long-term monitoring on refuge 

lands. To receive a SUP, a detailed project proposal using the following format must be submitted to 

the Refuge Manager approximately six months prior to the start of the project. 

B.9.1.1 Title: 

Principal Investigator(s): 

Provide the name(s) and affiliation(s) of all principal investigator(s) that would be responsible for 

implementation of the research and/or long-term monitoring described in the proposal. In addition, 

provide a brief description or attach vitae of expertise for principal investigator(s) germane to work 

described in the proposal. 

Background and Justification: 

In a narrative format, describe the following as applicable: 

 The resource management issue (e.g., decline in Pisonia rainforest) and/or knowledge gap 

regarding ecological function that currently exists with any available background 

information. 

 Benefit of project findings (e.g., management implications) to resources associated with the 

Refuge. 

 Potential consequences if the conservation issue and/or knowledge gap regarding ecological 

function is not addressed. 

B.9.1.2 Objectives: 

Provide detailed objective(s) for the proposed project. 

Methods and Materials: 

Provide a detailed description of the methods and materials associated with field and laboratory 

work (if applicable) to be conducted for the project. Methods should include the following: 

 study area(s) 

 number of samples; 

 sampling dates and locations 

 sampling techniques 

 data analyses including statistical methods and significance levels. 

Previously published methods should be cited without explanation; whereas, new or modified 

techniques should be described in detail. Include number of personnel as well as all facilities and 

equipment (e.g., vehicles, boats, structures, markers) required to collect samples/data. Provide a 

clear description of the relationships among study objectives, field methods, and statistical analyses. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-49 

B.9.1.3 Permits: 

Identify all State or Territorial and Federal permits required if applicable. 

B.9.1.4 Potential Impacts to Refuge Resources: 

Describe potential impacts to threatened or endangered species as well as other refuge plants, 

wildlife, and fish species that could result from the implementation of project activities on the Refuge. 

Consider the cumulative impacts associated with this project. 

B.9.1.5 Animal Welfare Plan: 

If appropriate, attach a copy of the Institutional Animal Care and Use review and/or animal welfare 

plans that are required by the principal investigator’s affiliation. 

B.9.1.6 Partnerships and Funding Sources: 

List other participating institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals as well as the nature and 

magnitude of their cooperative involvement (e.g., funding, equipment, personnel). 

B.9.1.7 Project Schedule: 

Provide estimated initiation and completion dates for field sampling, laboratory work, data analyses, 

and report/manuscript preparation. If the project is divided into phases to be accomplished 

separately provide separate initiation and completion dates for each phase. 

B.9.1.8 Reports and Raw Data: 

Establish a schedule for annual progress and final reports; include adequate time for peer review of 

the final report/manuscript. Draft reports/manuscripts should be submitted to the Refuge Manager 

for review prior to submission for consideration of publication. At the conclusion of a research study 

(manuscripts accepted for publication), an electronic copy of the data (e.g., GIS vegetation layers, 

animal species composition and numbers, genetics) should be provided to the Refuge Manager. For 

long-term monitoring projects, the Service also requires raw data for management and planning 

purposes for the Refuge(s). 

B.9.1.9 Publications: 

Describe the ultimate disposition of study results as publications in scientific journals, presentation 

at professional symposiums, or final reports. 

B.9.1.10 Disposition of Samples: 

If the project entails the collection of biotic and/or abiotic (e.g., sediment) samples, then describe 

their storage. Although the samples may be in the possession of scientists for the purposes of 

conducting the project in accordance with the SUP, the Service retains ownership of all samples 

collected on refuge lands. If the samples would be used for subsequent research activities that are 

not described within the original proposal, a new proposal must be submitted to the Refuge Manager 

to obtain a SUP before initiation of the follow-up project. After conclusion of the research activities, 

consult with the Refuge Manager regarding the final disposition of the samples. If specimens would 

be curated at a museum, then prepare a MOU using the format provided in Attachment 3. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-50 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Attachment 2 

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS FOR REFUGE RESEARCH AND 

LONG-TERM MONITORING PROJECTS 

B.9.1.11 Study title: 

B.9.1.12 Fiscal year: 

B.9.1.13 Progress: 

In a narrative format, summarize the work that was completed on the study including the number and 

types of samples collected and/or data analyses. 

B.9.1.14 Important findings: 

In narrative format, generally describe any conclusions and/or management recommendations that 

may be drawn from the work completed to date. 

B.9.1.15 Describe problems encountered: 

In narrative format, describe any problems that were encountered during the year and their effects 

upon the study. 

B.9.1.16 Proposed resolution to problems: 

For each problem encountered, describe the actions that have been taken to remediate it. 

B.9.1.17 Preparer: 

B.9.1.18 Date prepared: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-51 

Attachment 3 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

FOR CURATORIAL SERVICES 

BETWEEN THE 

(Name of the Federal agency) 

AND THE 

(Name of the Repository) 

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this (day) day of (month and year), between 

the United States of America, acting by and through the (name of the Federal agency), hereinafter 

called the Depositor, and the (name of the Repository), hereinafter called the Repository, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory). 

The Parties do witnesseth that 

WHEREAS, the Depositor has the responsibility under Federal law to preserve for future use certain 

collections of paleontological specimens and/or biological samples as well as associated records, 

herein called the Collection, listed in Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, 

and is desirous of obtaining curatorial services; and 

WHEREAS, the Repository is desirous of obtaining, housing and maintaining the Collection, and 

recognizes the benefits which would accrue to it, the public and scientific interests by housing and 

maintaining the Collection for study and other educational purposes; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the Federal Government’s continued ownership and control 

over the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, listed in Attachment B 

which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, provided to the Repository, and the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to ensure that the Collection is suitably managed and preserved for the 

public good; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the mutual benefits to be derived by having the Collection 

suitably housed and maintained by the Repository; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties do mutually agree as follows: 

1. The Repository shall: 

a. Provide for the professional care and management of the Collection from the (names of the 

resources) sites, assigned (list site numbers) site numbers. The collections were recovered in 

connection with the (name of the Federal or federally authorized project) project, located in 

(name of the nearest city or town), (name of the county, if applicable) county, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

b. Assign as the Curator, the Collections Manager and the Conservator having responsibility for the 

work under this Memorandum, persons who are qualified museum professionals and whose expertise 

is appropriate to the nature and content of the Collection. 

c. Begin all work on or about (month, date and year) and continue for a period of (number of 

years) years or until sooner terminated or revoked in accordance with the terms set forth herein. 

d. Provide and maintain a repository facility having requisite equipment, space and adequate 

safeguards for the physical security and controlled environment for the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property in the possession of the Repository. 

e. Not in any way adversely alter or deface any of the Collection except as may be absolutely 

necessary in the course of stabilization, conservation, scientific study, analysis and research. Any 

activity that would involve the intentional destruction of any of the Collection must be approved in 

advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

f. Annually inspect the facilities, the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal 

property. Every (number of years) years inventory the Collection and any other U.S. Governmentowned personal property. Perform only those conservation treatments as are absolutely necessary to 

ensure the physical stability and integrity of the Collection, and report the results of all inventories, 

inspections and treatments to the Depositor. 

g. Within five days of discovery, report all instances of and circumstances surrounding loss of, 

deterioration and damage to, or destruction of the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned 

personal property to the Depositor, and those actions taken to stabilize the Collection and to correct 

any deficiencies in the physical plant or operating procedures that may have contributed to the loss, 

deterioration, damage or destruction. Any actions that would involve the repair and restoration of any 

of the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property must be approved in 

advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

h. Review and approve or deny requests for access to or short-term loan of the Collection (or a part 

thereof) for scientific and educational uses. In addition, refer requests for consumptive uses of the 

Collection (or a part thereof) to the Depositor for approval or denial. 

i. Not mortgage, pledge, assign, repatriate, transfer, exchange, give, sublet, discard or part with 

possession of any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal property in any 

manner to any third party either directly or indirectly without the prior written permission of the 

Depositor, and redirect any such request to the Depositor for response. In addition, not take any 

action whereby any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal property shall or 

may be encumbered, seized, taken in execution, sold, attached, lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged. 

2. The Depositor shall: 

a. On or about (month, date and year), deliver or cause to be delivered to the Repository the 

Collection, as described in Attachment A, and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, 

as described in Attachment B. 

b. Assign as the Depositor’s Representative having full authority with regard to this Memorandum, 

a person who meets pertinent professional qualifications. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-53 

c. Every (number of years) years, jointly with the Repository’s designated representative, have the 

Depositor’s Representative inspect and inventory the Collection and any other U.S. Governmentowned personal property, and inspect the repository facility. 

d. Review and approve or deny requests for consumptively using the Collection (or a part thereof). 

3. Removal of all or any portion of the Collection from the premises of the Repository for scientific 

or educational purposes; any conditions for handling, packaging and transporting the Collection; and 

other conditions that may be specified by the Repository to prevent breakage, deterioration and 

contamination. 

4. The Collection or portions thereof may be exhibited, photographed or otherwise reproduced and 

studied in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Attachment C to this Memorandum. 

All exhibits, reproductions and studies shall credit the Depositor, and read as follows: “Courtesy of 

the (name of the Federal agency).” The Repository agrees to provide the Depositor with copies of 

any resulting publications. 

5. The Repository shall maintain complete and accurate records of the Collection and any other 

U.S. Government-owned personal property, including information on the study, use, loan and 

location of said Collection which has been removed from the premises of the Repository. 

6. Upon execution by both parties, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective on this 

(day) day of (month and year), and shall remain in effect for (number of years) years, at which 

time it would be reviewed, revised, as necessary, and reaffirmed or terminated. This Memorandum 

may be revised or extended by mutual consent of both parties, or by issuance of a written amendment 

signed and dated by both parties. Either party may terminate this Memorandum by providing 90 days 

written notice. Upon termination, the Repository shall return such Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property to the destination directed by the Depositor and in such 

manner to preclude breakage, loss, deterioration and contamination during handling, packaging and 

shipping, and in accordance with other conditions specified in writing by the Depositor. If the 

Repository terminates, or is in default of, this Memorandum, the Repository shall fund the packaging 

and transportation costs. If the Depositor terminates this Memorandum, the Depositor shall fund the 

packaging and transportation costs. 

7. Title to the Collection being cared for and maintained under this Memorandum lies with the 

Federal Government. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum. 

Signed: (signature of the Federal Agency Official) Date: (Date)

Signed: (signature of the Repository Official) Date: (Date)

Attachment 3A: Inventory of the Collection 

Attachment 3B: Inventory of any other U.S. Government-owned Personal Property 

Attachment 3C: Terms and Conditions Required by the Depositor 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Attachment 4 

ALIEN SPECIES QUARANTINE RESTRICTIONS 

FOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

A. Introduction 

Thank you for your interest in conducting research/monitoring on the Refuge(s). To protect wildlife 

and habitat communities found on the Refuge, visitation is carefully regulated and requires that each 

individual, or group, secure a Special Use Permit (SUP) to gain access to the Refuge. Each SUP 

clearly outlines the responsibilities of each permittee, including specific quarantine policies, which 

may be more detailed than the policies listed within this document. Details for securing a SUP can be 

found by contacting the Refuge Manager. Prospective scientific researchers must apply for the SUP 

at least six months prior to their proposed study period. 

One of the gravest threats to the Refuge(s) is the introduction of alien plant and animal species. The 

practices described below are complex, but the Service has found them to be effective at greatly 

reducing additional introductions of invasive species on Refuge(s). 

B. Definitions 

1. Clothing: all apparel, including shoes, socks, over and under garments. 

2. Soft gear: all gear such as books, office supplies, daypacks, fannypacks, packing foam, or 

similar material, camera bags, camera/binocular straps, microphone covers, nets, holding or 

weighing bags, bedding, tents, luggage, or any fabric or material capable of harboring seeds 

or insects. 

3. New Clothing/Soft Gear: new retail items, recently purchased and never used. 

4. Refuge Dedicated Clothing/Soft Gear: items that have ONLY been used at the Refuge(s), 

and which have been stored in a quarantined environment between trips to the Refuge(s).

5. Sensitive Gear: computers, optical equipment, and other sensitive equipment. 

6. Non-Sensitive Equipment and Construction Materials: building materials, power and 

hand tools, generators, misc. machinery, etc. 

7. Suitable Plastic Packing Container: packing containers must be constructed of smooth, 

durable plastic which can be easily cleaned and would not harbor seeds or insects. Packing 

containers may be re-used for multiple trips to the Refuge(s), but must be thoroughly cleaned 

before each trip and strictly dedicated to refuge-related projects. 

a. Examples of APPROPRIATE plastic packing containers are 5-gallon plastic buckets 

and plastic totes constructed with a single layer and having a smooth surface. All 

appropriate packing containers must have tight fitting plastic lids. 

b. An example of an INAPPROPRIATE plastic packing container is US mail totes. Mail 

totes are typically constructed of cardboard-like plastic that provides a porous multilayered surface, allowing seeds and insects to easily hitch-hike. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-55 

C. Special Use Permit (SUP) 

All persons requesting use of the Refuge(s) must secure a SUP, as described in Section A above, and 

agree to comply with all refuge requirements to minimize the risk of alien species introductions.

D. Quarantine Inspections 

All personal gear, supplies, equipment, machinery, vehicles (e.g., ATVs, trucks, trailers), and vessels 

(e.g., planes, boats, ships, barges) would be inspected for quarantine compliance by Service staff 

prior to entering the Refuge(s) and again before departing the Refuge(s). A concerted effort would be 

made to ensure that alien pests are not transported. Service staff on the Refuge(s) would inspect 

outbound cargo prior to transport. 

E. Prohibited Items (Transport of the following items are strictly prohibited) 

1. Rooted plants, cuttings, flowers, and seeds (raw or propagative). 

2. Soil, sand, gravel, or any other material that may harbor unwanted plant and animal species. 

3. Animals (no exceptions). 

4. Cardboard (paper and plastic cardboard harbors seeds and insects). 

F. Regulated Items (Transport of the following items are strictly regulated) 

1. Food items have the potential to carry alien pests and are therefore selected, packed and 

shipped with great care for consumption on the Refuge(s). Foods would not be allowed on 

the Refuge(s) without prior authorization. 

2. Because wood products often harbor seeds and insect, only treated wood that has been 

painted or varnished may be allowed on the Refuge(s). Approved wood products must also 

be frozen for 48 hours or fumigated as described in Section K below. 

G. Packing Procedures 

Ensure that the environment selected for packing has been well cleaned and free of seeds and insects. 

Keep packing containers closed as much as possible throughout the packing process so insects cannot 

crawl in before the containers have been securely closed. Quarantine procedures should be performed 

as close to the transportation date as possible to ensure that pests do not return as hitch-hikers on the 

packing containers. 

H. Packing Containers 

1. All supplies and gear must be packed and shipped in SUITABLE PLASTIC PACKING 

CONTAINERS (see Section A for definitions of packing containers). Packing containers 

must be constructed of smooth, durable plastic that has been thoroughly cleaned prior to use. 

2. Packing containers may be re-used for multiple trips to the Refuge(s), but must be thoroughly 

cleaned before each trip and strictly dedicated to refuge-related projects. Cardboard 

containers are strictly prohibited because they can harbor seeds and insects. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

I. Clothing and Soft Gear 

1. All persons entering the Refuge(s) must have NEW or REFUGE DEDICATED clothing and 

soft gear (including all footwear). 

a. Freeze all clothing and soft gear for 48 hours (including both new and refuge 

dedicated). 

b. Fumigation under a tarp or in a large container is also an option. 

J. Sensitive Equipment 

All sensitive gear (e.g., optical equipment, computers, satellite phones, other electronic equipment) 

must be thoroughly inspected and cleaned. 

K. Non-Sensitive Equipment and Construction Materials 

1. All non-sensitive equipment, machinery, and construction materials that are water resistant 

must be steam cleaned or pressure washed to ensure the removal of all dirt, insects, and seeds 

from external surfaces. 

2. All non-water resistant items must be tented and fumigated to kill unwanted pests or frozen 

for 48 hours. 

3. Quarantine procedures should be performed as close to the transportation date as possible to 

ensure that pests do not return to the equipment or packing containers. 

L. Aircraft Quarantine 

Aircraft personnel would ensure that the plane has been thoroughly cleaned and free of any alien 

species prior to flying to the Refuge(s). The aircraft captain would notify the Service at least ten full 

working days prior to all flights departing for the Refuge(s) in order to arrange a quarantine 

inspection of all cargo bound for the Refuge(s). Inspections would take place the scheduled day of 

departure. 

M. Commercial Ships and Barges, and Private Sailing and Motor Vessel Quarantine 

1. Ship owners or captains would notify the Service at least ten full working days prior to all 

vessels departing for the Refuge(s) in order to arrange a quarantine inspection of all vessels 

and cargo bound for the Refuge(s). The inspection would be scheduled as close to the 

departure date as possible. 

2. Ship owners or captains would ensure that all ships and barges entering the Refuge(s) have 

had their hulls cleaned of fouling marine/freshwater organisms. The ships and barges must 

depart for the Refuge(s) within 14 days of having had the hulls cleaned. All ship and barge 

hulls must be re-cleaned should the vessel return to a port for greater than 14 days before 

returning to the Refuge(s). Results of all hull cleanings must be submitted to the Service two 

full working days prior to the vessel departure. Contact the refuge office for additional 

details. 

3. No discharge of ballast water, grey water, sewage, or waste of any kind would be allowed by 

any vessel within the refuge boundary (e.g., 12-mile territorial sea). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-57 

B.10 Compatibility Determination for Agricultural Practices 

(Farming and Haying) on Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Agriculture (Farming and Haying) 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the Thomas Fork Unit 

Location: Bear Lake NWR and Thomas Fork Unit: Bear Lake County, Idaho

Date Established: 1968 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Bear Lake NWR: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Bear Lake NWR. 

On May 15, 1968, 17,573 acres of land in Bear Lake County, Idaho, was set aside as Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge by Public Land order 4415. This was followed by Public Land Order 4545 

which withdrew an additional 48.81 acres on December 28, 1968. While no formal purposes were 

included within these Land Orders, withdrawn lands assumed the following purposes: 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species 

... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Thomas Fork Unit. 

The Thomas Fork Unit was transferred in fee title, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the 

Farm Home Administration (U.S. Department of Agriculture) on September 28, 1995. 

The Thomas Fork Unit was acquired for: 

 “...conservation purposes” under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 

U.S.C. § 2002). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

Refuge crops are planted to promote sustained use of these areas by migrating waterfowl by 

providing an accessible, high-energy food source during late fall and early winter as wetland habitats 

freeze up. Barley and/or wheat have been planted on the Refuge since 1969. Annual Narrative 

Reports from that era note two main refuge objectives were being met by the farming program: 1) To 

provide a needed food source for brooding Canada geese; and 2) to alleviate crop depredation 

complaints from neighboring land owners. 

By the mid-1980s Refuge waterfowl and cranes were consuming 100 percent of Refuge lure crops 

and depredation complaints were rising. Subsequently the Refuge increased planted crop acreage and 

from 1988 to 1994, the farming program entailed a dry farm rest rotation with small acreages of 

barley and alfalfa grown for migratory bird use through the migration and nesting periods. Mallard, 

Canada goose, and sandhill crane use on these areas was high, with still close to 100 percent 

utilization by November of each year. Summer fallowing (fall residual crop tilled and left idle the 

following growing season) was used as part of the farming rotation to build up soils and combat 

noxious weeds. In the past, no chemical fertilizers were used. Some Refuge fields have been planted 

to alfalfa for goose/crane browse and to fix nitrogen in the soils for later rotation to barley a few 

years later. 

Upon Refuge establishment, negotiated hay sale permits were awarded to individuals and entities that 

had previously hayed the lands which became Bear Lake NWR. Individual landowners adjacent to 

the hayed fields and with livestock operations in the Bear Lake Valley were given first priority to 

secure USFWS permits and continue their haying operations. The 1960s Refuge haying and grazing 

program was designed to maintain emergent bulrush and cattail encroachment. By the 1980s, Refuge 

staff recognized that conflicts with livestock grazing had affected wildlife production and damage 

had occurred to Refuge habitat (USFWS 1994b). In many cases the same units were being both 

hayed and grazed. These concerns were addressed by reducing grazing permits and changing the 

amount and timing of grazing. In 1993, the Refuge fully reexamined grazing as a habitat 

management tool to determine if it met the criteria for a compatible Refuge use. Managers concluded 

that it was not compatible, and grazing permits were phased out, with 1994 being the last year of 

issuance. Problems documented from the grazing program were: increased nutrient loading in 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-59 

wetlands, reduction of residual nesting cover that reduced nest success, and direct mortality to 

nesting sandhill cranes from impacts with grazing allotment fences (USFWS 1996). 

While grazing was removed as a compatible Refuge use, haying was still considered compatible with 

Refuge purposes and hay permits continued to be issued. Haying occurs on the Refuge under Special 

Use Permits with either a negotiated or bid rate per ton of hay harvested, or recently as Cooperative 

Land Management Agreements (CLMA). CLMAs stipulate that the cooperator plants grains and/or 

legumes for wildlife in exchange for harvesting Refuge hay. 

Current Management. Cooperative agriculture (farming and haying) is a management tool that 

allows the Refuge to provide forage and habitat for migratory birds and resident wildlife. The Refuge 

uses Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMAs) for crop production. CLMAs are 

negotiated agreements between the Refuge and a private party, and are used to implement 

cooperative programs that help achieve Refuge purposes as well as provide an economic benefit to 

the farmer. Under Refuge CLMAs, private farmers (cooperators) raise a Refuge-specified crop in a 

designated field or fields, and are entitled to remove hay from the Refuge in exchange for farming 

the agricultural crop. Cooperators also maintain fences and water control infrastructure, conduct 

weed control, manage water levels, and spray for weeds when needed. 

For landowners who do not participate in the crop production CLMAs, the Refuge issues Special Use 

Permits (SUPs) to manage haying in designated fields. Private ranchers or farmers, generally 

landowners adjacent to the Refuge, hay Refuge fields to provide short stature habitat for wildlife. The 

rancher or farmer pays the Refuge a negotiated or bid price per ton of hay removed. CLMA and SUP 

holders use their own farm equipment such as tractors, swathers, balers, and diskers. The cooperator 

in a CLMA or permittee within an SUP, are responsible for all the costs of production. 

Current farming use: Refuge farm fields currently comprise 135 acres: 91 acres (ten fields) on Bear 

Lake NWR, and 44 acres (four fields) on the Thomas Fork Unit. On Bear Lake NWR, farming 

occurs on the North Meadows Complex (two fields/10.7 acres), Bloomington Complex (five 

fields/54.7 acres), and the Bunn Lake Complex (three fields/25.1 acres). 

Currently, all farming on Bear Lake NWR and the Thomas Fork Unit is done via CLMAs. Crops 

grown include cereal grains and green forage for migratory waterfowl (primarily Canada goose) and 

sandhill crane use. Grain crops grown to meet the high energy demands of migratory waterfowl and 

cranes include, but are not limited to, winter wheat and spring barley. Winter wheat also provides 

green forage for geese. Legumes, including, but not limited to, annual clover and alfalfa, are used to 

fix nitrogen, build soil, and provide for spring and early summer use by Canada geese and sandhill 

cranes. One hundred percent of crops are left in the field where they are available to wildlife, 

primarily fall-migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes. All crop selections are agreed to by the 

Refuge, and special conditions are documented in the CLMA. Genetically modified crops are not 

allowed, however fertilizers can be used by the Cooperator. 

Crop fields planted in one year are fallowed the following year. In any given year, 70 percent of crop 

fields are planted in small grain and 30 percent are in summer fallow. CLMA crop planting and 

fallowing occur in the spring and the fall of each year. Implementation of farming is dependent on 

weather and other environmental conditions. In years with anomalous weather conditions, activity 

dates may be varied upon consultation with the Refuge staff. 

Weed control methods are used as necessary to improve the growth of desirable vegetation and 

reduce competition from weed species. Preventing infestations is the most effective strategy. Early 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

detection followed by rapid response (ED/RR) helps prevent new invasive plant occurrences from 

becoming established. The Refuge staff and cooperators conduct searches of Refuge lands and waters 

regularly to identify new occurrences and implement efforts to control and eradicate these species. 

The Refuge uses an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to control weeds (Appendix F), 

whereby management options are selected based on-site conditions. All applications of herbicides 

conform to the specific pesticide label requirements. The Refuge reviews pesticide use annually and 

submits pesticide use proposals for all applications conducted on Refuge lands. The use of 

insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals are not permitted. 

Current haying use: Previous and current hay management objectives center upon: impeding 

encroachment of deep emergent hardstem bulrush or cattail from becoming too dense or an 

impenetrable stand; providing areas of green browse for waterfowl; and increasing edge habitat 

between emergent cover and open water. Bear Lake haying operations are intended to simultaneously 

decrease the peripheral edge of emergent bulrush and cattail habitat and provide abundant green leafy 

browse within grassy meadows for Refuge species that prefer to forage within short-cover habitats. 

Haying occurs within meadow grass and forb, spike and wire rush, sedge, and even hardstem or 

alkali bulrush habitats. From 1968 to 2011, the Refuge issued from 12 to 20 hay permits annually, 

and 994 to 2,054 tons of hay was harvested on 2,117 to 2,896 acres annually. 

On the Thomas Fork Unit, refuge staff and funding was used to plant grain crops until Special Use 

Permits (SUPs) were issued to local farmers in 1998 to both hay and plant grain crops on the Thomas 

Fork Unit. Two to three permits have been issued annually to local landowners since 1998. In 2007 

the issuance of SUPs was discontinued and Refuge haying continued under Cooperative Land 

Management Agreements (CLMAs) with local landowners. From 1996 through 2011, between 49 and 

340 tons of hay were harvested to manage short-cover habitat on 337 acres of the Thomas Fork Unit. 

Since 2003, the Refuge retired hay units as permit holders decided to no longer hay on the Refuge. 

Most units that were retired were notably wet and difficult to dewater to conduct haying operations. 

Currently, 2,896 acres of Bear Lake NWR and 337 acres of the Thomas Fork Unit are hayed annually, 

either in exchange for crops under CLMAs, or under SUPs. Approximately 80 percent of Bear Lake 

NWR’s wet meadow habitat is maintained in early successional status through the Refuge’s haying 

program. The short stature habitat of hayed meadows provides productive brooding and foraging areas 

for Canada geese. Less than 20 percent of wet meadow habitat is maintained in late successional 

status. (Late successional status is defined as wet meadow habitat where greater than 90 percent of the 

community contains dense residual cover and/or greater than 20 percent of the community is forb 

dominant. Currently, hay fields must be flooded in the spring through the early summer and then 

drained to allow for haying activity. Wetland units are dewatered annually by August 1st to facilitate 

hay removal. Water levels are managed by Refuge staff using existing dikes and water control 

structures. CLMA and SUP haying activities occur from August 1 to September 15. 

Proposed Management. Considering the minimal coverage of quality upland nesting habitat on Bear 

Lake NWR, it was necessary to reassess the importance of small grain production and short-cover 

objectives within Refuge meadow grass habitats. Refuge farming and haying will continue under 

similar authorities and stipulations as current management. The Refuge will continue to use Best 

Management Practices (see Stipulations below). Special conditions currently in place will continue, 

including additional restrictions on pesticide uses, limits to the types of crops grown, and no haying 

until after August 1 to reduce the risk of destroying nests of ground nesting birds. Proposed changes 

to the farming and haying program are as follows. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-61 

Proposed farming management: The Refuge will focus proposed agriculture and forage production 

on those fields that have been receiving moderate to high goose use in recent years. Subsequently, 

the Refuge will farm 124 acres (8 percent decrease) of small grain and legume crops for waterfowl 

and other key wildlife species (80 acres/eight fields on the Bear Lake NWR, and 44 acres/four fields 

on the Thomas Fork Unit). Two crop fields on the North Meadows Complex of Bear Lake NWR (11 

acres) will be restored to native meadow grass to increase the amount of this limited habitat on the 

Refuge. This represents a 12 percent reduction in farming on Bear Lake NWR and 0 percent 

reduction in farming on the Thomas Fork Unit. 

Refuge crops will be rotated and will annually consist of approximately 65 percent small grain such 

as fall wheat or spring barley, 15 percent summer fallow, with the residual crop either left standing or 

turned over and left idle through the next summer; and approximately 20 percent of Refuge crops 

planted in legumes (15 percent planted as annual clover and 5 percent in alfalfa) and rotated within a 

ten-year legume/small grain cycle. 

The Refuge will plant annual clover on fields scheduled for summer fallow on the Thomas Fork Unit. 

This proposed approach on the Thomas Fork Unit will phase out spring wheat and move toward 

planting fall wheat to attempt to provide grain for migrating birds the following fall, and provide 

additional desirable green leafy browse for geese during the spring and early summer. The Refuge 

will reduce conventional fall tillage practices of residual planted crops and rotationally summer 

fallow rested (unplanted) fields through the next summer. 

Additionally the Refuge has proposed five-year adaptive management Refuge evaluations of the 

geographic distribution and regional acreage of small grain production operations, to determine if 

more or less Refuge agriculture production is warranted on the Refuge in the future. 

Proposed haying management: As the planning team began examining soils, vegetation, and wetland 

data for development of the CCP, it became clear that the Refuge was haying almost all (80-90 

percent) of its wet meadow habitat, as well as some additional shallow emergent habitat. 

Under the CCP, haying on the Bear Lake NWR and Thomas Fork Unit will still occur, but will be 

reduced to 1,492 acres (42 percent of the current 3,533 hayed acres) by 2027. The Refuge will 

continue haying a total of 1,342 acres (Bear Lake NWR: 1,127 acres; Thomas Fork Unit: 215 acres). 

This represents a 61 percent reduction in haying on Bear Lake NWR and a 36 percent reduction in 

haying on the Thomas Fork Unit. On Bear Lake NWR, haying will be phased out on 1,769 acres over 

a 15-year time frame. Reductions will occur in three, five-year cycles: 2013-2017; 2018-2022; 2023-

2027. The 123-acre haying reduction on the Thomas Fork Unit will be phased in over a five-year 

time frame. Retired hayed units will primarily be wetter units, which under current management, 

must be dewatered to facilitate hay removal. With the reduction in haying operations, more shallow 

marsh and wet meadow habitat will remain inundated through the summer than under current 

management. 

On Bear Lake NWR, an approximately 60:40 ratio of hayed-to-unhayed meadow will be maintained 

(no more than 60 percent of the refuge’s hay meadows will be hayed annually). By 2027, 70 percent 

of hay meadows (approx. 800 acres) will be placed in a rotational haying operation, while 30 percent 

(approx. 300 acres) will be annually hayed. On the Thomas Fork Unit, all 215 acres will be hayed 

rotationally. Approximately 40 percent of wet meadow habitat will be maintained in early 

successional status through the Refuge’s haying program, while 60 percent of wet meadow habitat 

will be maintained in late successional status. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-62 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management: $ $3,000 

Maintenance: $ $0 

Monitoring: $ $2,000 

Offsetting revenues: $

$ 

$3,000

TOTALS $2,000 

Anticipated Effects of Described Use: 

Farming. 

Effects of farming to refuge wildlife: Both current and proposed management recognize the benefits 

for providing supplemental forage for migratory waterfowl and waterbirds within the Pacific and 

Bear River migratory corridor. Refuge farming practices (both current and proposed) are designed 

for the predominate benefit of waterfowl (ducks, geese and greater sandhill cranes). However, many 

other species (e.g., long-billed curlews, porcupine, sage-grouse, bald eagles) would benefit directly 

or indirectly from Refuge crops. Croplands on the Refuge promote sustained use of the area by 

migrating waterfowl by providing an accessible, high-energy food source during late fall and early 

winter as wetlands freeze up. 

Most waterfowl are opportunistic feeders, and some species such as Canada geese, snow geese, 

mallard, northern pintails, and teal have learned to capitalize on the abundant foods produced by 

agriculture (Bellrose 1976). During the last century, migration routes and wintering areas have 

changed in response to availability of these foods (Fredrickson and Drobney 1979). Some species 

have developed such strong migratory traditions that many populations are now dependent on 

agricultural foods for their migration or winter survival (Ringelman 1990). However, during breeding 

and molting periods, waterfowl require a balanced diet with high protein content. Agricultural foods, 

most of which are neither nutritionally balanced nor high in protein, are seldom used during these 

periods. During fall, winter, and early spring, when vegetative foods make up a large part of their 

diet, agricultural foods are preferred forage except in arctic and subarctic environments (Sugden 

1971). 

Effects of farming to refuge habitats: Cropland farming currently represents approximately 1 percent 

of Bear Lake NWR (134 acres) and 4.4 percent of the Thomas Fork Unit (44 acres). Under the CCP, 

farmed acres will be reduced to >1 percent of Bear Lake NWR (124 acres) and remain the same on 

the Thomas Fork Unit. There will be a minor negative impact on availability of grain for fall 

migrating geese and cranes, since the amount of land under cultivation will decrease slightly by 11 

acres in proposed management. However, proposed management will not impart any additional 

losses to native habitats from farming, since all proposed farm fields have already been in 

agricultural production. 

Bear Lake NWR will retain eight small agricultural fields on the Bloomington and Bunn Lake 

Complexes. The juxtaposition of these fields in close proximity to other habitats is required to meet 

the life history requirements of identified key species and justifies the continued farming of these 

eight small agricultural complexes to adequately reduce waterfowl depredation on adjacent private 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-63 

property. Agricultural fields targeted for removal from production on Bear Lake NWR generally 

have low to moderate waterfowl use, so their removal should not impact waterfowl habitat use 

substantially. Refuge restoration of 11 acres of former agriculture to native meadow grass in the 

North Meadows Complex West and Center Entrance Fields will reduce the risk of bird power line 

collisions and increase limited meadow grass habitat on the Refuge. 

Activities associated with crop production, including ground disturbance and field to field movement 

of cultivating and harvesting equipment, can disturb soils. Direct impacts of cropland management 

include exposure of soils to wind erosion and impacts from farm machinery. In general, tillage and 

cropping that leaves soil bare for portions of the year negatively affect soil quality indicators (Nelson 

et al. 2006) such as aggregate stability, infiltration rates, and available water capacity. Compaction 

can result from the use of farming equipment for seeding, causing undesirable increases in bulk 

density, while tilling may also prevent the accumulation of, or accelerate the decomposition of 

organic matter (USDA NRCS). 

Current fall crop residues are generally removed by tilling after harvest, but proposed management 

will implement a conservation tillage system and fallow residual crops through the fall and into the 

next summer. Subsequently, proposed management will reduce the total tilling of agricultural fields 

on the Refuge through the implementation of conservation tillage practices and by restoring 11 acres 

of agriculture fields at Bear Lake NWR. EPA’s guidance for estimating Particulate Matter (PM) 

emissions from agricultural crop tilling involves combining a constant emission factor with countylevel activity data, including the silt content of surface soils, the number of tillings performed in a 

year for each crop type, and the acres of each crop type (EPA 2001, 2004). While no PM emissions 

data exist for Southeastern Idaho, it is estimated that the Refuge contribution to PM emissions will be 

less under proposed management, but no significantly degradation is expected to local or regional air 

quality from either current or proposed management action. While there will obviously be some 

continued impact to soil quality within proposed management, a reduction in the acreage under 

cultivation should impart a minor beneficial impact on soil and water quality when compared to 

current management. 

Cultivation and disturbance of soils fosters an undesirable opportunity for the introduction or spread 

of weeds on the Refuge. Invasive weed species have the potential to reduce habitat quality and forage 

opportunity and have been identified as one of the most serious threats to Refuge habitats. Farming 

may also result in the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from pesticide 

usage. In addition, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians may be occasionally subject to mortality 

from farm machinery, and nesting birds may be occasionally disrupted and nests destroyed. 

In the absence of irrigation water or fertilizer, Refuge crops must be planted following snowmelt and 

are then subject to annual rainfall patterns for grain production. By slowly converting some Refuge 

crops to fall planted wheat, crops will begin growing in fall, lie dormant through winter, and then 

take maximum advantage of snowmelt during early spring growth periods. Similar to spring planted 

crops, fall planted crops produce grain for the next fall migration; however, fall planted crops will 

provide additional Refuge browse during spring/early summer for geese. Among the benefits of the 

rotational practices proposed by the Refuge are higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil 

energy inputs, yields similar to those of conventional systems, and conservation of soil moisture and 

water resources, which is especially advantageous under drought conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005) 

Fall tillage as a current agricultural practice eliminates valuable winter food and cover for Refuge 

wildlife and causes soil nutrient loss. By implementing a Refuge conservation tillage system in the 

proposed management, the Refuge will improve soil retention, reduce fertilizer costs, and reduce 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

erosion. As soil-conserving measures increase, upland wildlife habitat quality also improves (Lines 

and Perry, 1978; Miranowski and Bender, 1982). Among the benefits resulting from rotational 

practices proposed by the Refuge will be higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil energy 

inputs, yields similar to those of conventional systems, and conservation of soil moisture and water 

resources, which is especially advantageous under drought conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005) 

Proposed five-year Refuge evaluations of the geographic distribution and acreage of small grain 

production operations will improve the Refuge’s ability to adaptively determine future agricultural 

needs. By monitoring regional trends in crop production within proposed management the Refuge 

will become more adaptive and be able to provide increased agricultural crop production for wildlife 

or the ability to further restore additional agriculture habitats, should conditions warrant. 

Effects to listed species from farming: Currently there are no listed species inhabiting the Refuge. 

Should agricultural farming management conflicts occur with listed species in the future; the Refuge 

will eliminate impacts to listed species or develop and implement minimization measures under 

Section 7 consultation of the Endangered Species Act. If deemed necessary, the cooperative farming 

program will be halted until all protective and minimizing measures can be evaluated and 

implemented as necessary. 

Effects to priority public uses from farming: The agricultural fields targeted to provide forage for 

focal wildlife species indirectly support wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Haying. 

Effects of haying to refuge wildlife: Current management strategies target a disproportionate amount 

(80 percent) of Refuge meadows and grasslands to be managed for short-cover habitat values, 

subsequently favoring only a few select species that have proven highly adaptable to habitats altered 

by agricultural land-use practices. In proposed management, Refuge haying reductions will be 

phased in over 15 years and limited to the acreage deemed by the Refuge staff to be suitable for 

short-cover management actions on 1,127 acres at Bear Lake NWR (a 61 percent reduction from the 

current 2,896 acres) and 214 acres at Thomas Fork (a 37 percent reduction from the current 337 

acres). 

The Refuge creates early successional short-stature habitats by haying wet meadows. These habitats 

provide easily accessible open foraging areas for several species that have proven highly adaptable to 

anthropogenic habitat alterations. Hayed Refuge areas provide preferred short-cover habitat for 

wildlife such as greater sandhill cranes, long-billed curlew, and Canada geese (Eldred 2009, La Sorte 

and Boecklen 2005). 

The Refuge current haying objectives are designed to provide extensive short statured habitat across 

the Refuge and attempt to increase wildlife foraging opportunities within artificially low stature 

vegetation. Potential wildlife benefits frequently cited for providing managed short-cover grassland 

include: increased palatability of grasses for grazers, increased invertebrate forage availability and 

detection rates, reduced physical obstruction, and increased security from predators during grazing or 

foraging activity (Deveruex et al. 2006). 

Hayed or naturally occurring short-cover habitats are comprised of low density herbaceous grass and 

forbs of 0-4 inches in height with bare ground, or light vegetative litter, easily visible. Ground 

foraging birds can easily move through this type of habitat and tend to select short cover habitat over 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-65 

dense grass habitat. Wildlife which select short-cover habitat include avian species in the Meadow 

Foraging Guild (e.g., greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Canada goose, western meadowlark, 

American robin, cattle egret; Grazing Waterfowl Guild (e.g., American widgeon, American coot, 

gadwall, Canada geese); and Upland Nesting Guild (e.g., long-billed curlew, black-necked stilt, 

killdeer). The species representative of the “short cover guild, for the purposes of this evaluation, are 

the sandhill crane (meadow foraging), Canada goose (Meadow Foraging/Grazing Waterfowl), blacknecked stilt (Upland Nesting) and, finally, long-billed curlew (Meadow Foraging). 

Dense cover habitat on the Refuge is defined as taller native or non-native unhayed herbaceous 

cover, at least 10-12 inches in height, dense enough to effectively conceal a passerine, shorebird, or 

duck nest from overhead or lateral view. Birds selecting dense cover for foraging and nesting include 

species in the Upland Nesting Waterfowl Guild (i.e., northern pintail, mallard, cinnamon teal, 

northern shoveler, gadwall); the Meadow Nesting Shorebird Guild (i.e., Wilsons’ phalarope, willet, 

common snipe); the Secretive Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., American bittern, Virginia rail, sora rail); and 

the Shallow Over-water Nesting Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., black tern, marsh wren, red-winged 

blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, northern harrier). The species considered most representative of 

the “dense cover guild” for the purposes of this evaluation are the sandhill crane (Meadow Nesting), 

Wilson’s phalarope (Meadow Nesting), Northern Pintail (Upland Nesting), and Black tern (Shallow 

Over-Water Nesting). 

Current and proposed haying will reduce the height of the meadow grasses to the benefit of passerine 

species that prefer short grass pastures as a foraging habitat (Whitehead et al. 1995, Perkins et al. 

2000, Devereux et al. 2004). Several mechanisms may underpin this choice including greater 

visibility for monitoring predators and conspecifics, improved prey accessibility and better mobility 

for foragers (Whittingham and Markland 2002, Butler and Gillings 2004, Whittingham and Evans 

2004, Wilson et al. 2005). Conventional wisdom in agricultural and range management is that 

removal of “excess” or “decadent” plant litter increases sunlight and solar radiation, thereby warming 

soils earlier and promoting more available succulent plant growth earlier in the spring than areas 

covered by dense litter (Lecain et al. 2000). In Northern California, the abundance and diversity of 

birds, particularly sandhill cranes, on hayed meadow were equal to or greater than the abundance and 

diversity of birds on nonhayed plots (Epperson et al. 1999). However, Epperson and colleagues 

(1999) noted that cranes spent more time foraging and less time alert in hayed plots and concluded 

that foraging and vigilance by cranes to be more efficient in hayed meadows. 

A second explanation of the preference of newly cut grass is that haying changes invertebrate activity 

or availability, for example by causing a temporary flush of prey (Vickery et al. 2001). The 

advantage to foraging in an area where prey is concentrated by mowing is intuitive (Dunwiddie 1991, 

Cattin et al. 2003), but it is less obvious why mowing could influence soil invertebrates. It is possible 

that the action of mowing changes the activity rates of soil-dwelling prey because of noise and 

vibration, especially when large machinery is used. Prey may respond to the disturbance by changing 

their activity rates in some way that translates into an increase in capture efficiency for short-cover 

foragers. 

Insects form particularly valuable protein-rich forage bases within wet meadows (Fredrickson and 

Reid 1988, Wissinger 1999). Mowing or haying may affect the meadows associated invertebrate 

community (Purvis and Curry 1981, Morris 1990). If a meadow is hayed annually, the timing of the 

cut will affect the invertebrates present. The later the cut, the more time invertebrates will have to 

complete their life cycle. Many insect larvae develop in the seedheads of grasses and flowering 

plants. For example, cutting in June will have the greatest effect on planthoppers (Delphacidae) and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-66 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

many fly species, whilst cutting in July/August will adversely affect leafhoppers (Cicadellidae). 

Intake efficiency of foraging passerine birds was found to be greater in recently hayed units 

(Deveruex et al. 2006). Both intake rate and foraging efficiency are important determinants of a small 

bird’s survival. Deveruex and colleagues (2006) results showed that although no more prey were 

captured on newly mown/hayed grasslands, energy expenditure was reduced because fewer searches 

were required for each prey captured. 

While increased access to invertebrates is the principal advantage cited for short-cover management 

practices (Schekkerman and Beintema 2007), an unanticipated effect of short-cover haying 

operations is that little vegetative complexity for hosting invertebrate substrate remains. Temporally 

flooded meadow wetlands are so productive because the base of the biotic pyramid is large and 

diverse and nutrient cycling is dynamic (van der Valk 1989). Because energy flows from the lowest 

levels of the pyramid in unhayed or mowed habitat, detritus sustains much of the biomass and 

structure of the community (van der Valk 1989). Excessive litter removal from current haying 

practices affects the balance between litter removal and accumulation in shallow wetland habitat, 

causing unwanted effects upon primary and secondary wetland productivity. Small litter 

accumulations may not provide adequate substrate for invertebrates; however, large accumulations 

may alter surface hydrology through peat formation or nutrient binding (Magee 1993). Invertebrate 

production may be impeded because of unfavorable conditions associated with hydrology, substrate, 

and nutrient availability in scant or heavy litter accumulations (Magee 1993). Proposed management 

will reduce hayed acreage moderately from the current levels, thereby providing a more diverse litter 

layer in wet meadows and various stages of litter size and decay. In comparison to current 

management, proposed hay management optimizes management of invertebrates for a more diverse 

array of foraging waterbirds and wildlife. 

Haying involves the use of farm equipment to mow, rake, bale, and transport hay in grassland areas. 

The greatest potential for disturbance to wildlife occurs during mowing. Disturbance varies with 

vegetation composition and density, habitat use, wildlife species distribution and density, and time of 

year. Birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles may be temporarily or permanently displaced, 

injured, or killed. Collectively, several studies show a direct and often substantial impact of the 

harvesting process on the fauna, especially from the mowing stages, and that this impact depends on 

the techniques and equipment used, as well as the equipment settings, and the habitat and ecology of 

each species (Humbert et al. 2009). In Oregon, private hay fields appear to support more than 5,000 

breeding shorebirds (inferred by Paullin et al. 1977). These authors stated that young shorebirds were 

especially vulnerable to mortality from hay cutting. In early July (July 1 and 13) hay mowing was 

documented to have killed the following: Wilson’s phalaropes; long-billed curlews; soras, common 

snipe, and blackbirds. They further found that, unlike ducks, shorebirds, especially Wilson’s 

phalarope, tend to remain in hay meadows to feed after hatching. Consequently, earlier nesting 

species may be directly vulnerable to mowing. An added indirect effect to fledging shorebirds is that 

dewatering actions within current management may concentrate young birds near limited food 

resources in remaining water, increasing their vulnerability to not only mortality from haying 

equipment, but to predators (Ivey, pers. comm.). Several studies suggest that early hay mowing 

mortality is greatest in the first two weeks of July (Labisky 1957, Braun et al. 1978, Sargeant and 

Raveling 1992, Dale et al. 1997). 

Hay cutting within the Bear Lake Valley begins as early as mid-June, likely causing very high rates 

of shorebird mortality on private property adjacent to the Refuge. Current and proposed management 

delays hay operators from initiating mowing or harvest of Refuge hay until August1 to ensure cutting 

occurs after the nesting season for grassland species is complete. Multiple researchers and 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-67 

management plans support the actions to minimize wildlife mortality from seasonal hay mowing by 

not allowing haying operations any earlier then August 1 (Warner and Etter 1989, Bollinger et al. 

1990, Licht 1997, Krapu et al. 2000, Dechant 2003, Perlut 2006, USDOA 2007) and for assessing 

feasibility in proposed management for delaying haying operations further into mid-late August. 

Recommendations from managers of some grassland management areas indicate that waiting until 

mid-July for mowing or haying operations is adequate; however, waiting until mid-August will help 

prevent impacts to double and triple-brooded species that occur at Bear Lake NWR such as savannah 

sparrows and meadowlarks (Warren and Anderson 2005). 

On Bear Lake NWR, the nesting cover provided on the Dingle Unit is of greatest value to ground 

nesting birds and those wildlife species that use moderate-to-dense vegetative cover. Subsequently 

continuance in providing short-cover habitat is a lower priority on the Dingle Unit. The three-unit, 

1,791-acre North Meadows Complex, which includes the Dingle Unit, has historically been managed 

for hay production over wildlife needs. Continuation of this approach, in current management, 

requires unnatural water management regimes with high spring flooding, followed by a very rapid 

summer drawdown to facilitate haying operations. This type of unnatural and static water 

management would continue to limit potential for fledging waterbirds that require shallow flooded 

habitats, through the summer, to reach flight stage (Slayer and Willims 1997, Horung and Foote 

2006). The 70 percent reduction in haying proposed for the North Meadows Complex will sizably 

improve wetland management capability for focal wildlife and is a sensible balance between the 

predisposition for short-cover objectives of current management. 

The western portion of the Thomas Fork is a mosaic of large hayed expanses, interspersed with areas 

of tall emergent wetland vegetation. Unhayed patches of emergent stands of cattail and bulrush occur 

in the sloughs or marsh areas that are too wet to hay. Since the Thomas Fork Unit is recognized as 

important migration habitat for sandhill cranes, as well as providing nesting/brooding habitat for a 

small number of crane pairs, haying a portion of the Unit to provide short cover is a reasonable 

management strategy. Short cover is of value on the Thomas Fork to sandhill cranes and other short 

cover foraging species, notably Canada geese and perhaps long-billed curlews. Conversely, the 

eastern segment values are more aligned with the needs for dense cover-preferring species that are 

currently restricted to a very limited amount of unhayed area of tall emergent fragments. By reducing 

the annual acreage hayed on the Thomas Fork by 36 percent, from 337 acres to 215 acres in proposed 

management, the overall wildlife value of the unit will be increased for upland and meadow nesting 

species. 

In summary, there is good evidence that food abundance is the main driver in determining bird usage 

of fields for both invertebrate-feeders (Brickle et al. 2000), and seed-eaters (Robinson and Sutherland 

199, Moorcroft et al. 2002). However, food availability (i.e., abundance modified by ease of access 

to that food) has also been shown to be an important factor in determining bird usage (Henderson and 

Evans 2000, Henderson et al. 2001). Management for short structure, and the abundance and 

availability of food resources to birds, are inextricably linked (McCracken and Tallowin 2004). 

Haying or mowing affects grass height, and hence the amount of, and access to, food resources in 

different ways. Proposed management, with low to moderate disturbance from haying is more 

compatible with maintaining rich seed and invertebrate food resources and more diverse 

heterogeneous meadow habitat. This allows for both adequate food resources and areas where birds 

can access those resources, and provides taller denser habitat for upland nesting waterfowl, secretive 

marsh birds, and shallow over-water nesting birds. Continuation of haying, as proposed in current 

management, will predominantly benefit common bird species such as meadow foragers, grazers, and 

upland nesters, as it results in low vegetative diversity, structurally uniform habitats that contain few 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

broad-leaved plant species and a reduced diversity of invertebrate food resources for birds (Lefranc 

1997). Objectives as outlined in Refuge proposed management integrate an understanding of the 

factors that determine why birds forage in particular fields as well as how the major management 

practices can be modified to produce habitats that are suitable not only for species who readily adapt 

to anthropogenic changes in habitat, but a diverse suite of species. By offsetting current agricultural 

practices on 1,965 acres, and still providing short-cover on 1,491 acres, the Bear Lake NWR and the 

Thomas Fork Unit will provide a diverse realm of nesting and foraging habitats for both breeding and 

migrating wildlife during several key times in their annual life histories (Rollins 1981, Heitmeyer 

1989). 

Effects of haying to refuge habitats: Under proposed management, the Refuge will moderately 

reduce haying operations from 3,233 acres to increase the inundation of shallow marsh and wet 

meadow habitat through the summer. The proposal is to reduce haying by 61 percent (to 1,127 acres) 

on Bear Lake NWR over a 15-year timeframe, and by 36 percent (to 214 acres) on the Thomas Fork 

Unit over a five-year timeframe. Under proposed management, the acreage of wet meadow, alkali 

meadow, and meadow grass (upland) habitats on Bear Lake NWR will increase from 1,123 acres to 

2,361 acres by 2027, as hay units are retired and restored to native habitats. We will also increase the 

coverage of late successional wet meadow habitat on remaining hayed units to a minimum of 60 

percent coverage. 

A confounding indirect effect of current hay operations requires the Refuge to dewater wetland units 

annually during late summer to facilitate hay removal. This type of annual drawdown must happen 

out of necessity, regardless of wetland habitat condition or Refuge objectives, in order to 

accommodate hay operators and permit hay removal. Because of the hay unit distribution in current 

management, many wetland units will continue to be dewatered annually by August 1 to facilitate 

hay removal and provide short-stature grasses, often at a time when fledgling waterbirds require 

these shallowly flooded habitats to reach flight stage. 

While long-term hydrologic regimes shape invertebrate adaptive strategies, annual variation in the 

hydroperiod determines the occurrence and abundance within any given season (Fredrickson 1988, 

Reid 1985). Because invertebrate communities are also linked to hydrology (Swanson 1977, 

Fredrickson and Taylor 1982, Batzer 1983) current management actions, as described in current 

management, would continue to dewater wet meadows earlier to facilitate haying operations and 

continue to shift the distribution and availability patterns of aquatic invertebrates or possibly 

eliminate more moisture-tolerant taxa from hayed habitats (Euliss 1999). Proposed management will 

reduce haying by 61 percent by 2027, from 3,233 acres to 1,491 acres and supply a diverse mosaic of 

wetland cover types, while improving hydrologic management capability on the North Meadow, 

Bloomington, and Bunn Lake Complexes of Bear Lake NWR. 

In assessing the positive and negative effect from haying on the Refuge, it is important to recognize 

the valuable role that temporarily flooded meadows play within Refuge ecosystems of larger 

seasonally and semi-permanently flooded habitats and upland dry meadows and upland shrub 

habitats. Flooded meadow habitat mosaics, where proximate to both tall emergent wetland and 

upland habitat, create a richness of habitat biodiversity that would not occur if the habitats existed in 

isolation from one another. Proposed management will moderately reduce meadow and upland 

haying operations to maintain inundation of wetland shallow marsh and wet meadow habitat through 

the summer. By decreasing haying operations and regaining as much as possible of the former 

hydrograph, proposed management will increase temporary and seasonally flooded habitats through 

properly timed inundation to provide an adequate hydrologic regime within wet meadow habitat. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-69 

This will increase habitat structure, litter accumulation, nutrient cycling, and ultimately, the 

invertebrate insects migratory waterbirds are dependent upon within these important habitat types. 

In the Refuge’s proposed management for all of Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford 

Slough Waterfowl Production Area (Please see Section B.19) haying will be immediately reduced 

Refuge-wide by 554 acres (16 percent initial reduction) in 2013, with 673 additional acres (35 

percent cumulative reduction) phased-out from 2013-2017, and an approximate 400-410 acres 

phased-out in each subsequent five-year interval of 2018-2022 and 2023-2027 (46 percent and 58 

percent cumulative reduction respectively). By 2027 the Refuge will reduce haying by 58 percent to 

hay a collective total of 1,491 acres on the Bear Lake NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough 

WPA. 

Subsequently, 2,041 acres of formerly hayed Refuge habitats will evolve through the succession of 

various annual and perennial species and form denser meadow grasslands. As most adjacent land-use 

practices throughout the Valley provide ample short-cover foraging habitat, it is anticipated that the 

reduction in the Refuge hay program will only reflect a negligible decrease in short-cover foraging 

and browsing habitat for waterfowl, geese, and cranes within the Bear Lake Valley. Although the 

Refuge acres devoted to providing short-stature forage will decrease under this proposed restorative 

management direction, it is expected that the change in annual waterfowl use days for the Refuge 

will be minor. Restoration of hayed units to native meadow and grassland habitats will provide 

slightly less accessible forage than current management, but the difference should be negligible. 

Alternatively, by not having to dewater productive wet meadows for haying operations, the proposed 

management strategy will considerably improve water management capabilities in several wetland 

units and provide increased security in waterbird roosting areas proximate to important native wet 

meadow habitats and forage. 

Birds respond to the heterogeneity of habitats at several spatial scales (Wiens 1985), from the 

landscape (e.g., Bear River Watershed) to the site (e.g., Bear Lake NWR), to the microsite scale (e.g., 

foraging areas within wetlands). Because ephemerality is a dominant characteristic of natural 

wetlands (Fredrickson and Reid 1990), waterbirds have evolved flexible behavior to take advantage 

of water level fluctuations at a variety of scales (Kushlan 1989; Skagen and Knopf 1993, 1994). As it 

is unlikely that all resource needs can be indefinitely met by one wetland patch, aquatic birds 

probably supplement their resource intake by using multiple wetlands within a mosaic (Dunning et 

al. 1992; Farmer and Parent 1997). Limitation of shallow habitats on the Refuge by dewatering 

wetlands to facilitate haying and maintaining shallow habitat into the early fall in current 

management, is a cause for concern as access to food during the nonbreeding season can be a 

significant density-dependent cause of mortality in migratory shorebirds (Goss-Custard 1979). 

Irrespective of water depth management, invertebrate resources must be abundant and periodically 

replenished if habitats are to function for extended periods (Miller 1987; Krapu and Reinecke 1992; 

Rehfisch 1994; Davis and Smith 1998). Invertebrate productivity is influenced by wetland plant 

composition, organic debris, temperature, substrate manipulations and flooding regimes (Neckles, 

Murkin and Cooper 1990; Rehfisch 1994; Batzer et al. 1997; Sanders 2000; Ausden et al. 2001). 

Invertebrate abundance is dependent upon cycles of spring flooding, summer evaporation, and fall 

inundation from rainfall. In hayed units with consistently lowered fall water levels, invertebrate 

forage resources are limited, if not depleted in current management (Eldridge 1992; Helmers 1992) 

and have lessened temporary and seasonally flooded habitat reducing the function and value of 

flooded habitat for Refuge wildlife. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Habitat fragmentation from human land-uses, such as haying, tends to increase the amount of edge 

adjacent to uplands (Laurance and Yensen 1991), thus subjecting upland wildlife populations to new 

or increased ecological interactions (e.g., predation, parasitism) associated with these edges (Wilcove 

et al. 1986). The prevailing principle of wildlife management is that increased edge and 

fragmentation of habitat negatively affect numerous species of nesting birds by increasing 

depredation or parasitism rates of nests (Paton 1994). Several specific studies report elevated rates of 

nest predation in fragmented forested and wetland landscapes (Robinson et al. 1995, Donovan et al. 

1997, Hartley and Hunter 1998) and in small habitat remnants (Small Hunter 1988, Wilcove 1985). 

In a Canadian prairie wetland study, daily survival rate of upland nesting birds was highest in dense 

nesting cover and fields hayed late in the season, while idle pasture (hayed the previous year) and 

rights-of-way exhibited similar but lower nest success (Pasitischiniak-Arts and Messier 1995). These 

researchers also found nest survival was higher in spring than in summer for one of three years 

studied. In all years and habitats, significantly, more mammals than birds depredated waterfowl 

nests. In all years and habitats, significantly more mammals than birds depredated waterfowl nests. 

The relative importance of the two classes of predators was similar among delayed hay, dense 

nesting cover and rights-of-ways, but differed from idle pasture (hayed the previous year) where 

avian predation was higher (Pasitischiniak-Arts and Messier 1995). 

Pacha and Petit (2008) studied the overall changes in vegetation and landscape structure changes due 

to management practices over two decades in Great Britain and the effects of fragmentation on a 

particular species. Their results indicated that there can be a general impoverishment in upland 

meadow vegetation from un-relinquished agricultural haying, with decreases in diversity, species 

richness and habitat quality leading to upland meadows becoming ten times more isolated than 20 

years ago. 

The east portion of Bear Lake NWR transitions into sagebrush-steppe habitat on the slope upward 

into the surrounding rolling benchlands of Merkley Mountain. Consequently, the eastern portion of 

Bear Lake NWR will benefit from the proposed reduction in haying, to decrease habitat 

fragmentation and benefit upland shrub nesting waterfowl (i.e., Northern pintail) and sagebrush 

obligate wildlife (e.g., sage-grouse, sage sparrow, sage thrasher), and provide connective corridor for 

upland and meadow nesting shorebirds (e.g., Wilson’s phalarope) to mesic brooding wetland habitat 

through the summer. 

Haying operations in wet soil types are noted to cause greater impacts to soil compaction and 

vegetation damage than on drier upland sites (Gilley at al 1996). Gilley (1996) further documented 

that soil roughness was significantly greater and bulk density significantly less on undisturbed longterm idle sites than hayed areas. The relatively large bulk densities measured on the hay fields imply 

that considerable compaction occurs at or near the soil surface from those operations (Murphy 2004). 

Recent trends for increased size and use of tractors and agricultural machinery has additionally 

increased the probability of soil compaction during farm operations (Martel and MacKenzie 1980). 

Soil compaction by machinery has an indirect effect on soil invertebrates. Some earthworms can 

burrow into compacted soil (Joschko, Diestel and Larink 1989) but others have their activity 

restricted by compaction under conditions of high water (Kretzschmar 1991). Soil compaction has 

also been shown to decrease slug populations (Ferguson, Barratt and Jones 1988). (Rabotnov (1974) 

found a decrease in proportion of soil geophytic grass in Russia, which could be partially explained 

by soil compaction as a result of hay collection. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-71 

Haying reductions proposed will reduce haying in wet or moist meadows, where equipment may 

adversely impact vegetation and soil. Additionally, haying occurs on the Refuge in mid-August and 

early September, in some of the driest months of the year. To further minimize soil compaction or 

damage in proposed management, fields that have been saturated by rain will not be hayed until soil 

conditions can support the required haying equipment. Since the Refuge proposes that haying only 

occur in a drier time of the year for warm-season grasses on well-drained soil types, impacts from 

soil compaction will be decreased in comparison to current management (Murphy 2004). 

Effects to listed species from haying: Currently there are no listed species inhabiting the Refuge. 

Should hay management conflicts occur with listed species in the future, the Refuge will eliminate 

impacts to listed species or develop and implement minimization measures under Section 7 

consultation of the Endangered Species Act. If deemed necessary, the cooperative farming program 

will be halted until all protective and minimizing measures can be evaluated and implemented as 

necessary. 

Effects to priority public uses from haying: Farming and haying on the refuge does not occur in areas 

that are open to the public; therefore there are no impacts to public uses. 

Anticipated Cumulative Effects of Agricultural Uses (Farming and Haying): 

Genetically Modified Organisms. The NWRS does not authorize refuges to use genetically modified 

organisms (GMO) for agricultural uses. However, GMO seeds could be in-use on surrounding 

private farm crops now or in the near future. Pollen blown on the wind or carried by pollinator 

species may be capable of transferring genetically engineered traits, such as herbicide resistance and 

pest resistance, to closely related wild plants on the Refuge. Genetically engineered plants with 

weedy wild relatives are of particular concern to the Refuge. If expressed in the genetic background 

of a weed species, a transgene could increase the fitness of the weed in nature (Stewart et al. 2000). 

Laboratory studies have shown non-target pollinator species may also be harmed by wind-blown 

pollen. Monarch butterfly larvae have been shown in both laboratory and field tests (Losey et al. 

1999, Jesse and Obrycki 2000) to suffer growth and mortality effects after feeding on milkweed 

plants dusted by corn pollen that was genetically engineered to express a bacterial toxin. 

Pesticides. The Refuge can select less toxic pesticides and standardize operational procedures to 

minimize the immediate and accumulative effect of pesticides in the environment. However, the 

Refuge has no control over surrounding land-use and agricultural practices, thereby increasing the 

risk of acute and chronic exposures to wildlife from herbicides. Acute exposure is a single exposure 

or multiple brief exposures occurring within a short time (e.g., 24 hours or less in humans). Chronic 

exposures are those that extend over the average lifetime or for a significant portion of the lifetime of 

the species (USFS 2005). Herbicides from the Refuge will result in a moderate to minor risk from 

acute chemical exposure. However, unquantified and increasing risks from acute and chronic 

exposure may occur via the aggregate impacts from Refuge herbicide applications when combined 

with private, county, and State herbicide applications within the Bear Lake Valley. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Farming Use on Bear Lake NWR. 

 Cropland farming will be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency 

policy. 

 Annual cooperative farming agreements will be established with the cooperator per agency 

policy. 

 The cooperative farmer is required to perform habitat maintenance work to sustain the field 

conditions for the benefit of wildlife. Work may include mechanical weed control and 

fertilization. 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area will be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 All improvements made to the Refuge as a result of this Cooperative Land Management 

Agreement become the property of the United States. 

 The Cooperator will be responsible to perform fence maintenance, weed control, crop 

planting and water management as detailed in annual work plans within each CLMA.

 The cooperative farmer will exercise care to prevent fire and will assume responsibility for 

fire, which may result from his/her operations. 

 No Refuge equipment will be provided for use by the cooperator. 

 At the end of the permit period, cooperator is responsible for removing all equipment from 

refuge lands. 

 The cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to refuge facilities or habitat 

beyond normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 Pest plants and weeds will be controlled in accordance with the refuge’s IPM program using 

methods such as crop rotation, mechanical treatment, biological controls, and approved 

pesticides.

 Insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals will not be permitted under this agreement. 

Fertilizers can be used by the Cooperator to fertilize crops. 

 Pesticide use must be in compliance with the Service policy requirements for completing an 

approved Pesticide Use Proposal, and it must meet other State and Federal requirements. 

 Cooperators will provide a record of herbicides used including chemical name, amount used, 

date, location, and how applied. 

 Pesticide applicators must meet all State, Federal and agency requirements. 

 Diligence shall be exercised in the control of county-listed invasive weeds. 

 Equipment of cooperating farmers will be cleaned prior to being moved onto the refuge and 

between fields when working in areas with weed infestations 

 No genetically modified crops are allowed. 

 Monitoring of the cropland farming program will be performed by qualified Refuge staff. 

Haying Use on Bear Lake NWR. 

 Haying will be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency policy. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-73 

 Annual cooperative haying agreements will be established with the cooperator per agency 

policy. 

 The Refuge will assess local Bear Lake Valley hay values at least every three years, or more 

often if needed, to insure CLMAs are being conducted at a fair market value. 

 Haying activities will start on or after August 1 each year and be completed by September 15, 

including removal of baled hay. 

 Haying activities will start on or after August 1 each year and be completed by September 15, 

including removal of baled hay. 

 Haying shall occur after August 1 to minimize impacts to ground nesting birds. 

 The permittee shall remove all equipment and materials from the Refuge by the end of the 

haying season. 

 Haying cooperators will provide a written report and record of annual hay harvest to Refuge 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area will be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 The cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to refuge facilities or habitat 

beyond normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 Monitoring of the haying program will be performed by qualified Refuge staff, including 

surveys to determine if haying is adversely impacting ground nesting birds. 

Special Conditions for Bid Sale Haying Permits on Bear Lake NWR. 

1. No upland grass areas, old fence lines, or haystack yards may be hayed without prior 

approval. 

2. Permittee must notify the Refuge Manager immediately upon completion of baling to set up 

time for weighing of hay. 

3. No hay may be removed from Refuge lands prior to the weighing of a hay sample unless the 

permittee is transporting the hay to a commercial scale for weighing. 

4. Permittee must notify the Refuge manager of the correct bale tally within 48 hours of 

completion of baling. 

5. No pesticides will be used and no burning will be allowed on Refuge lands. 

6. All hay cut shall be removed from Refuge lands. 

7. All waste materials from haying operation shall be immediately removed from Refuge lands 

and no hay shall be stacked on the Refuge. 

8. Nonuse of a permit shall be cause for cancellation of a permittee’s privilege. 

9. Failure to make the payment within the specified time will result in cancellation of the 

permit. 

Special Conditions for Negotiated Sale Haying Permits on Bear Lake NWR. 

1. No upland grass areas, old fence lines, or haystack yards may be hayed without prior 

approval. 

2. Permittee must notify the Refuge Manager immediately upon completion of baling to set up 

time for weighing of hay. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-74 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

3. No hay may be removed from Refuge lands prior to the weighing of a hay sample unless the 

permittee is transporting the hay to a commercial scale for weighing. 

4. Permittee must notify the Refuge manager of the correct bale tally within 48 hours of 

completion of baling. 

5. No pesticides will be used and no burning will be allowed on Refuge lands. 

6. All hay cut shall be removed from Refuge lands. 

7. All waste materials from haying operation shall be immediately removed from Refuge lands 

and no hay shall be stacked on the Refuge. 

8. All permittees shall use the hat in their own livestock feeding operation off the Refuge. 

Resale of the hay is not permitted. 

9. Nonuse of a permit shall be cause for cancellation of a permittee’s privilege. 

10. Failure to make the payment within the specified time will result in cancellation of the 

permit. 

Justification: 

The Refuge’s agricultural program is designed to provide areas of high-energy carbohydrates and 

protein (winter wheat, barley, and legumes), and green forage grasses to meet the food energy needs 

of migrating waterfowl and cranes, and to reduce crop depredation in nearby agricultural fields. 

Wildlife known to use the Refuge grain fields are primarily sandhill crane and Canada geese. One 

hundred fifty to two hundred cranes have been counted in the Refuge grain fields. In periods of 

severe weather, having a readily available source of high-energy foods can sustain waterfowl and 

cranes during critical periods of nutritional and physical stress when other food sources generally are 

unavailable. 

The Refuge manages all habitats to provide a variety of foods that will help migratory waterfowl. 

Although native vegetation provides higher levels of protein, fiber, and water than most agricultural 

crops, crops can provide easily accessible high energy foods that are more readily digestible than 

native plants and can reduce foraging time required to meet caloric demands (Raveling 1979, 

Alisauskas and Ankney 1992, Baldassare and Bolen 2006). Waterfowl are able to exploit a variety of 

habitats to meet their daily and seasonal food requirements and the Refuge provides a diversity of 

food supplies (native and non-native) in relative proximity to each other. Many birds also prefer to 

forage and rest in areas with the good visibility that hayed acreage provides to better detect predators 

such as coyotes. Haying removes tall vegetation that would restrict visibility and helps control 

weeds. In addition, the agricultural fields provided for target wildlife species indirectly support 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as wildlife observation and photography. 

While agricultural crops are typically not limiting within the regional landscape, agricultural fields 

where all grain is produced and retained for wildlife use are. Changes to local agricultural planting 

practices in the area surrounding the Bear Lake NWR and increased efficiency in harvest equipment, 

has resulted in a reduction in the availability of energy producing foods for migratory waterfowl. 

Because this trend is likely to continue in the future, Refuge cropland management will be essential 

for waterfowl management in future years, both to provide food for wildlife and reduce crop 

depredation in nearby agricultural lands. Considering recent off-Refuge conversions from small grain 

to alfalfa and meadow hay production, Refuge agricultural crops will continue to be required to 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-75 

provide a supplemental as well as a depredation benefit to local farmers still growing small grain 

crops (Mclvor and Conover 2003). 

Short stature, wet meadow hay ground provides open areas for sandhill crane foraging. Birds 

selecting short cover include the following guilds: the meadow guild represented by the sandhill 

crane, western meadowlark, and cattle egret; the grazing waterfowl guild represented by American 

widgeon, Canada goose, American coot, and gadwall; and the upland-nesting shorebird guild 

represented by the long-billed curlew, American avocet, black-necked stilt, and killdeer. When 

juxtaposed with dense cover late successional wet meadow habitat (unhayed) and other palustrine 

emergent marsh habitat types, short cover can provide seasonally valuable habitat for their use. Birds 

selecting dense cover for foraging and nesting include the following guilds: upland nesting waterfowl 

guild represented by northern pintail, mallard, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, and gadwall; the wet 

meadow nesting shorebird guild represented by Wilson’s phalarope, willet, and common snipe; the 

secretive marsh bird guild represented by American bittern, Virginia rail, and sora rail; and the 

shallow over-water nesting marsh bird guild represented by black tern, marsh wren, red-winged 

blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, and northern harrier. Other species also benefit from haying; 

however, other management tools, such as mowing and burning, provide the same habitat 

characteristics, and additionally, leave nutrients within the unit and in the case of mowing, provide 

invertebrate substrate. While hayed wet meadow habitat is certainly not in limited supply throughout 

the Bear Lake Valley, it does provide some habitat benefits for wildlife. 

Returning some agricultural fields to their former wetland habitat types will help to halt the loss of 

wetlands locally, regionally, and nationally. This will have a relatively small, but positive, impact on 

the majority of species on the Refuge dependent on wetlands for some part (or all) of their life cycle. 

By implementing phased reductions of hayed acreage and restoring retired hay units to wet meadow, 

alkali meadow, and upland meadow habitats, acreages in these habitat types will increase from 1,123 

acres to 2,361 acres on Bear Lake NWR (an increase of 110 percent). By implementing hay 

management strategies to reduce the coverage of early successional wet meadow habitat to less than 

40 percent, the structure and composition of native meadow grass habitat will be greatly improved. 

The reduction of haying on the Refuge will have a negligible impact on the availability of short grass 

habitat in the Bear Lake Valley. Hayed short-grass pastures will continue to provide optimal open 

foraging areas for several wetland dependent wildlife species such as greater sandhill cranes, Canada 

geese, and white-faced ibis, while dense late-successional wet meadows will provide habitat for a 

diverse suite of waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds during several key times in their annual life 

histories (Rollins 1981, Heitmeyer 1989). By providing a mixture of short (hayed) and dense cover, 

and both native and non-native habitats, proposed management will help maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. These factors in turn contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their 

habitats. 

By conducting the agricultural program under the management practices and stipulations described 

above, management anticipates that wildlife will find abundant native and non-native food resources 

and resting places on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that the results of monitoring will 

prevent negative impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that the agricultural program 

will contribute to achieving Refuge purpose(s) and the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

As a management tool, cooperative land management use is a beneficial Refuge operation in meeting 

purposes of the Refuge as well as goals and objectives established in the CCP. The farming and 

haying activities within the cooperative land management program contribute to achieving Refuge 

purposes and goals identified in the CCP, as well as the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, by 

providing valuable foraging areas for migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes, and habitat for 

nesting, foraging, and brood rearing for a variety of migratory birds and resident wildlife. As a result, 

cooperative farming contributes to achieving refuge purpose(s); contributes to the Mission of the 

NWRS; and helps maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge. Allowing the use as described above will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes 

for which the refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Ausden, M., W.J. Sutherland, and R. James. 2001. The effects of flooding lowland wet grassland on 

soil macroinvertebrate prey of breeding wading birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:320-338. 

Batzer, D.P., F. De Szalay, and V.H. Resh. 1997. Opportunistic response of a benthic midge 

(Diptera: Chironomidae) to management of California seasonal wetlands. Environmental 

Entomology 26:215-222. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole. 

Bollinger, E.K., P.B. Bollinger, and T.A. Gavin. 1990. Effects of hay-cropping on eastern 

populations of the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2):142-150. 

Braun, C.E, K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson, and C.D. Littlefield. 1978. Management of national wildlife 

refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. The Wilson Bulletin 90(2):309-321. 

Brickle, N.W., D.G.C. Harper, N.J. Aebischer, and S.H. Cockayne. 2000. Effects of agricultural 

intensification on the breeding success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 37:742-755. 

Butler, S.J. and S. Gillings. 2004. Quantifying the effects of habitat structure on prey detectability 

and accessibility to farmland birds. Ibis 146(S2):123-130. 

Cattin, M.F., G. Blandenier, C. Banasek-Richter, and L.F. Bersier. 2003. The impact of mowing as a 

management strategy for wet meadows on spider (Araneae) communities. Biological 

Conservation 113:179-188. 

Dale, B.C, P.A. Martin, and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):616-626. 

Davis, C.A. and L.M. Smith. 1998. Ecology and management of migrant shorebirds in the Playa 

Lakes region of Texas. Wildlife Monographs 140:1-45. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-77 

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, P.A. Rabie, and B.R. Euliss. 

2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: long-billed curlew. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Version 12DEC2003. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/lbcu/lbcu.htm. Accessed June 2012. 

Devereux, C.L., C.U. McKeever, T.G. Benton, and M.J. Whittingham. 2004. The effect of sward 

height and drainage on common starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and northern lapwings (Vanellus 

vanellus) foraging in grassland habitats. Ibis 146(S2):115-122. 

Devereux, C.L., M.J. Whittingham, J.R. Krebs, E. Fernandez-Juricic, J.A. Vickery. 2006. What 

attracts birds to newly mown pasture? Decoupling the action of mowing from the provision of 

short swards. Ibis 148:302-306. 

Donovan, T.M., P.W. Jones, E.M. Annand, and F.R. Thompson III. 1997. Variation in local-scale 

edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064-2075. 

Dunning, J.B., B.J. Danielson, and H.R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations 

in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169-175. 

Dunwiddie, P.W. 1991. Comparisons of aboveground arthropods in burned, mowed and untreated 

sites in sandplain grasslands on Nantucket Island. American Midland Naturalist 125:206-212. 

Eldred, T. 2009. Vigilance behavior and land use by sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). M.S. thesis. 

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI. Available at: http://commons.emich.edu/theses/238. 

Accessed June 2012. 

 Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. 

Leaflet 13.2.14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., Washington, D.C. 6 pp. 

Epperson, W.L., J.M. Edie, D.B. Marcum, E.L. Fitzhugh, and R.E. Delmas. 1999. Late Season hay 

harvest provides habitat for marshland birds. California Agriculture 53:12-17. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr., D.M. Mushet, and D.A. Wrubleski. 1999. Wetlands of the prairie pothole region: 

invertebrate species composition, ecology, and management. Pages 471-514 in: D.P. Batzer, R.B. 

Rader, and S.A. Wissinger, eds. Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology 

and management, Chapter 21. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bozeman, MT: Mountain Prairie 

Information Node. Available at: http://bsi.montana.edu/files/bigsky/WetlandsofthePPR.pdf 

(Version 18MAY06). 

Farmer, A.H. and A.H. Parent. 1997. Effects of the landscape on shorebird movements at spring 

migration stopovers. Condor 99:698-707. 

Fefer, S.I. 1977. Waterfowl populations as related to habitat changes in bog wetlands of the 

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. Technical Bulletin 86. University of Maine, Maine 

Agricultural Experiment Station. Orono, ME. 18 pp. 

Ferguson, C.M., B.I.P. Baratt, and P.A. Jones. 1988. Control of the grey field slug (Deroceras 

reticulatum) by stock management prior to direct-drilled pasture establishment. Journal of 

Agricultral Science 111:443-449. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1988. Invertebrate response to wetland management. Waterfowl Management 

Handbook. Paper 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO. 7 pp. Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmwfm/13. Accessed June 2012. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and R.D. Drobney. 1979. Habitat utilization by postbreeding waterfowl. Pages 

119-131 in: T.A. Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and wetlands—an integrated review. La Crosse, WI: 

La Crosse Printing. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F.A. Reid. 1988. Nutritional values of waterfowl foods. Fish and Wildlife 

Leaflet 13.1.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 6 pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for 

wildlife. Resource Publication 148. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 36 pp. 

Gilley, J.E., B.D. Patton, P.E. Nyren, and J.R. Simanton. 1996. Grazing and haying effects on runoff 

and erosion from a former CRP site. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 12:681-684. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-78 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Goss-Custard, J.D. 1979. Effect of habitat loss on the numbers of overwintering shorebirds. Pages 

167-177 in: F.A. Pitelka, ed. Shorebirds in marine environments. Berkeley, CA: Cooper 

Ornithological Society. 

Hartley, M.J. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial 

nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12:465-469. 

Heitmeyer, M.E., D.P. Connelly, and R.L. Pederson. 1989. The Central, Imperial, and Coachella 

Valleys of California. Pages 475-505 in: L.M. Smith, R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. 

Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Lubbock, TX: 

Texas Tech University Press. 

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Manomet, MA: Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network. 

Henderson, I.G., N.R. Critchley, J. Cooper, and J.A. Fowbert. 2001. Breeding season responses of 

skylarks Alauda arvensis to vegetation structure in set-aside (fallow arable land). Ibis 143:317-

321. 

Henderson, I.G. and A.D. Evans. 2000. Responses of farmland birds to set-aside and its management. 

Pages 69-76 in: N.J. Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice, and J.A. Vickery, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of lowland farmland birds. Tring, UK: British Ornithologists’ Union. 

Hornung, J.P. and A.L. Foote Hornung. 2006. Aquatic invertebrate responses to fish presence and 

vegetation complexity in western boreal wetlands with implications for waterbird productivity. 

Wetlands (26)2:1-12. 

Humbert, J.A., J. Ghazoul, and T. Walker. 2009. Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on 

field fauna. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 130(1-2):1-8. 

Jesse, L.C.H. and J.J. Obrycki. 2000. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on 

the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125(2):241-248. 

Joschko, M., H. Diestel, and O. Larink. 1989. Assessment of earthworm burrowing efficiency in 

compacted soil with a combination of morphological and soil physical measurements. Biology 

and Fertility of Soils 8(3):191-196. 

Krapu, G.L., P.J. Pietz, D.A. Brandt, and R.R. Cox Jr. 2000. Factors limiting mallard brood survival 

in prairie pothole landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2):553-561. 

Krapu, G.L. and K.J. Reinecke. 1992. Foraging ecology and nutrition. Pages 1-29 in: B.D.J. Batt, 

A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. 

Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 

Press. 

Kushlan, J.A. 1989. Avian use of fluctuating wetlands. Pages 593-604 in: R.R. Sharitz and 

J.W. Gibbons, eds. Freshwater wetlands and wildlife, CONF-8603101, DOE Symposium Series 

No. 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Oak Ridge, 

TN.Labiskyr, F. 1957. Relation of hay harvesting to duck nesting under a refuge-permittee 

system. Journal of Wildlife Management 21:194-200. 

La Sorte, F.A. and W.J. Boecklen. 2005. Temporal turnover of common species in avian assemblages 

in North America. Journal of Biogeography 32(7):1151-1160. 

Laurance, W.F. and E. Yensen. 1991. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats. 

Biological Conservation 55:77-92. 

LeCain, D.R., J.A. Morgan, G.E. Schuman, J.D. Reeder, and R.H. Hart. 2000. Carbon exchange rates 

in grazed and ungrazed pastures of Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 53:199-206. 

Licht, D.S. 1997. Ecology and economics of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska 

Press. 

Lines, I.L., and C.J. Perry. 1978. A numerical wildlife habitat evaluation procedure. Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:284-301. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-79 

Losey, J.E, L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 

214. Available at: http://ag.arizona.edu/ENTO/courses/ento446_546/readings/Losey_1999.pdf. 

McCracken, D.I. and J.R. Tallowin. 2004. Swards and structure: the interactions between farming 

practices and bird food resources in lowland grasslands. Ibis 146(Suppl. 2):108-114. 

Magee, P.A. 1993. Detrital accumulation and processing in wetlands. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.3.14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

Martel, Y.A. and A.F. Mackenzie. 1980. Long-term effects of cultivation and land use on soil quality 

in Quebec. Candian Journal of Soil Science 60:411-420. 

Miller, M.R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of northern pintails in the Sacramento Valley, California. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 51:405-414. 

Miranowski, J.A. and R.L. Bender. 1982. Impact of erosion control policies on wildlife habitat on 

private lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37:288-291. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edition. New York: JohnWiley. 

Moorcroft, D., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, and J.D. Wilson. 2002. The selection of stubble 

fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 39:535-547. 

Morris, M.G. 1990. The effects of management on the invertebrate community of calcareous 

grassland. Pages 128-133 in: S.H. Hiller, D.W.H. Walton, and D.A. Wells, eds. Calcareous 

grasslands: ecology and management. Huntingdon, UK: Bluntisham Books. 

Murphy, C.A., B.L. Foster, M.E. Ramspott, and K.P. Price. 2004. Grassland management effects on 

soil bulk density. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 107:45-54. 

Neckles, H.A., H.R. Murkin, and J.A. Cooper. 1990. Influences of seasonal flooding on 

macroinvertebrate abundance in wetland habitats. Freshwater Biology 23:311-322. 

Nelson, M.A., S.M. Griffith, and J.J. Steiner. 2006. Tillage effects on nitrogen dynamics and grass 

seed crop production in western Oregon, USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:825-

831. 

Pasitschniak-Arts, M. and F. Messier. 1995. Risk of predation on waterfowl nests in the Canadian 

prairies: effects of habitat edges and agricultural practices. Oikos 73(3):347-355. 

Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? 

Conservation Biology 8:17-26. 

Paullin, D.G., C.D. Littlefield, and R.E. Vorderstrasse. 1977. Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin study, 

Oregon. Report No. 1: A summary of biological data for calendar years 1975 and 1976. 

Perkins, A.J., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, J.D. Wilson, A.J. Morris, and P.R. Barnett. 2000. 

Habitat characteristics affecting use of lowland agricultural grassland by birds in winter. 

Biological Conservation 95:279-294. 

Perlut, N.G., A.M. Strong, T.M. Donovan, and N.J. Buckley. 2006. Grassland songbirds in a 

dynamic management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. Ecological 

Applications 16:2235-2247. 

Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, R. Seidel, and D. Douds. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and 

economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573-582. 

Purvis, G. and J.P. Curry. 1981. The influence of sward management on foliage arthropod 

communities in a ley grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology18:711-725. 

Rabotnov, T. A. 1974. Meadow Research. Publishing House of Moscow State University, Moscow, 

USSR.

Rehfisch, M.M. 1994. Man-made lagoons and how their attractiveness to waders might be increased 

by manipulating the biomass of an insect benthos. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:383-401. 

Reid, F.A. 1985. Wetland invertebrates in relation to hydrology and water chemistry. Pages 72-79 in: 

M.D. Knighton, ed. Water impoundments for wildlife: a habitat management workshop. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. St. Paul, MN. 136 pp. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-80 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Ringleman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. 13.4.3. Waterfowl Management 

Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4 pp. 

Robinson, R.A. and W.J. Sutherland. 1999. The winter distribution of seed-eating birds: habitat 

structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography 22:447-454. 

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional 

forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987-1990. 

Rollins, G.L. 1981. A guide to waterfowl habitat management in the Suisun Marsh. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 109 pp. 

Sanders, M.D. 2000. Enhancing food supplies for waders: inconsistent effects of substratum 

manipulations on aquatic invertebrate biomass. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:66-76. 

Sargeant, A.B. and D.G. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. Pages 396 422 in: 

B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. 

Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota. 

Schekkewrman, H. and A.J. Beintema. 2007. Abundance of invertebrates and foraging success of 

black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) chicks in relation to agricultural grassland management. 

Netherlands Ornithologists Union 95(1):39-54. 

Skagen, S.K. and F.L. Knopf. 1993. Toward conservation of midcontinental shorebird migrations. 

Conservation Biology 7:533-541. 

Skagen, S.K. and F.L. Knopf. 1994. Migrating shorebirds and habitat dynamics at a prairie wetland 

complex. Wilson Bulletin 106:91-105. 

Small, M.F. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1988. Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested 

landscapes. Ocecologia 76:62-64. 

Stewart, C.N., H.A. Richards, and M.D. Halfhill. 2000. Transgenic plants and biosafety: Science, 

misconceptions and public perceptions. Biotechniques 29:832-843. 

Sugden, L.G. 1971. Metabolizable energy of small grains for mallards. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 35:781-785. 

Swanson, G.A. and M.I. Meyer. 1977. Impact of fluctuating water levels on feeding ecology of 

breeding bluewinged teal. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:426-433. 

USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007. 

Early successional habitat. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 41. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat Council. Washington, D.C. and Silver 

Spring Maryland. 16 pp. 

Van der Valk, A.G. 1989. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 

Vickery, J.A., J.R. Tallowin, R.E. Feber, E.J. Asteraki, P.W. Atkinson, R.J. Fuller, and V.K. Brown. 

2001. The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices 

on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:647-664. 

Warner, R.E. and S.L. Etter. 1989. Hay cutting and the survival of pheasants: a long-term 

perspective. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):455-461. 

Whitehead, S.C., J. Wright, and P.A. Cotton. 1995. Winter field use by the European Starling Sturnus 

vulgaris – habitat preferences and the availability of prey. Journal of Avian Biology 26:193-202. 

Whittingham, M.J. and K.L. Evans. 2004. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in 

agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146(S2):210-220. 

Whittingham, M.J. and H.M. Markland. 2002. The influence of substrate on the functional response 

of an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation. Oecologia 130:637-

644. 

Wiens, J.A. 1985. Habitat selection in variable environments: shrubsteppe birds. Pages 227-251 in: 

M.L. Cody, ed. Habitat selection in birds. New York: Academic Press. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-81 

Wilcove, D.D., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. 

Pages 237-256 in: M.E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 

66:1211-1214. 

Wilson, J.D., M.J. Whittingham, and R.B. Bradbury. 2005. The management of crop structure: a 

general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds? Ibis 147:453-

463. 

Wissinger, S.A. 1999. Ecology of wetland invertebrates: synthesis and applications for conservation 

and management. Pages 1043-1086 in: D.P. Batzer, R.B. Rader, and S.A. Wissinger, eds. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. New York: 

Wiley. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-82 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 6, Agricultural Practices on Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge: 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-83 

B.11 Compatibility Determination for Dog Walking on Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Dog walking 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Bear Lake County, Idaho

Date Established: 1968 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-84 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use: 

Existing Use. Approximately 20 visits by people walking dogs occur on Bear Lake NWR per year. 

These visits occur from late spring through early fall. Visitors walking dogs have been observed 

using the Entrance Road where wildlife numbers are low. No negative interactions with wildlife or 

other visitors have been documented. Visitors using the auto tour route generally do not exit their 

vehicles. Dog walkers have never been observed on the auto tour route. 

Proposed Use. We propose to allow dog walking on Refuge roads and trails on the Bear Lake NWR, 

with stipulations to ensure public safety and compatibility of this use. Dog walking will be allowed 

on the 2.4-mile Auto Tour Route and 1.9-mile seasonal pedestrian trail (March 15-Sept 20) of Bear 

Lake NWR. Dog walking will also be allowed on the proposed boardwalk on the southeast border of 

the Refuge along North Beach Road. Dogs will be required to be on a leash at all times. Dog walking 

will not be allowed off the roads and trails. Feces must be removed from roads and trails and 

disposed of properly. Restrictions on this activity will be clearly posted at refuge entrances, parking 

lots, and in the refuge brochure and website. 

Dog walking will be monitored annually along with other uses of the Refuge roads and trails to 

ensure compliance, and compatibility with wildlife management and wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. If monitoring indicates routine non-compliance or compatibility conflicts, the Service will 

evaluate the need for limiting or prohibiting dog walking. This CD will be revised in ten years or 

sooner to incorporate additional data and new information. 

Availability of Resources: 

Maintenance of Refuge roads and trails incurs costs, but costs are not directly related to dog walking. 

Roads are routinely maintained for vehicle activity and to repair holes made by burrowing wildlife. 

No additional expense for dog walkers is anticipated. Since dog walking will be restricted to the 

roads and trails, the major portion of the funds needed to support this activity are in the form of 

salaries for maintaining the existing roads and trails, monitoring public use and biological impacts, 

enforcing regulations, and exotic species control. Thus the Refuge has sufficient staff and funding to 

allow the use. 

Need and Availability of Resources 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $1k 

Maintenance: $0 $0 

Monitoring: $0 $2k 

Biological monitoring if use increases 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0 

$0

TOTALS $3k 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-85 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

The impacts of dog walking, as conducted on Bear Lake NWR, have not been studied in detail. Dog 

walking has the potential of impacting shorebird, waterfowl, marsh bird, and other migratory bird 

populations feeding and resting near trails or roads during certain times of the year. 

Impacts to Habitat. Both hikers and dog walkers can cause structural damage to plants and increase 

soil compaction. The degree of surface compaction is dependent on topography, soil structure, and 

soil moisture (Whittaker 1978). Impacts of trampling on vegetation and soils commonly noted on 

trails (Dale and Weaver 1974, Liddle 1975) are unlikely to occur on the well-defined, gravel surfaces 

of roads and trails. The Service repairs, operates, and patrols the Auto Tour Road. Maintenance 

activities include planting trees, shrubs, and tall vegetation at points along the roadside, herbicide 

spraying, road grading, and gravel replenishment, as needed. Although dog-walkers will be required 

to remain on the roads and trails, some users may leave the trail to provide drinking water for their 

dogs, or to observe and photograph wildlife. Plants may be trampled in the process and wildlife 

disturbed. Currently, there is little evidence of this user group leaving roads and trails. 

Impacts to Wildlife (Disturbance). 

Wildlife response to dog walking: Among the proposed public uses of the Auto Tour Road, a human 

with a dog will elicit the greatest stress reaction in wildlife. In the case of birds, the presence of dogs 

may, reduce bird diversity and abundance in woodlands (Banks and Bryant 2007) and staging areas 

(Burger 1986, Lafferty 2001a,b), flush incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), 

disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and 

disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 1991). Many of these authors indicated that dogs with 

people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their 

study animals. However, the greatest stress reaction results from unanticipated disturbance. Animals 

show greater flight response to humans moving unpredictably than to humans following a distinct 

path (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). 

The effects of human disturbance can be reduced by restricting human activity to an established trail, 

having disturbance free food areas for wildlife, and requiring dogs to be on a short leash under the 

control of the owner at all times. Sime (1999) concluded that maintaining control of pets while in 

wildlife habitats reduces the potential of disturbance, injury, or mortality to wildlife. In a study 

comparing wildlife responses to human and dog use on and off trails, Miller et al. (2001) 

recommended prohibiting dogs or restricting use to trails to minimize disturbance and that natural 

land managers can implement spatial and behavioral restrictions in visitor management to reduce 

disturbance by such activities on wildlife. Korschgen and Dahlgren (1992) and Fox and Madsen 

(1997) state the importance of disturbance-free food reserves and areas as a management alternative 

to minimize human disturbances. Dog walkers will be restricted to established, well-defined roads 

and paths that are sufficiently distant from wildlife habitat to prevent significant disturbance. 

Despite thousands of years of domestication, dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given 

the appropriate stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. Dogs that are unleashed or not under the 

control of their owners may disturb or potentially threaten the lives of some wildlife. In effect, offleash dogs increase the radius of human recreational influence or disturbance beyond what it would 

be in the absence of a dog. Dog-walkers will be required to maintain physical control of their animal 

while on the Refuge, thereby reducing the potential and severity of these impacts to wildlife. Special 

competition or dog training events will not be allowed since dogs function as an extension of their 

owner, and group size has been found to increase wildlife response to disturbance (Geist et al. 2005, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-86 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Sime 1999, Yosef 2000). Restrictions on this activity will be clearly posted at refuge entrances, 

parking lots, and in the refuge brochure and website. 

The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. However, dogs host endo- and ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to, wild animals. In addition, dog waste 

is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other domesticated 

animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various diseases and transport parasites into 

wildlife habitats and to humans (Overgaauw 2009, Sime 1999). In order to minimize the risk of 

disease introduction, dog walkers will be required to pick up dog feces and dispose of them properly. 

Overall impact to Bear Lake NWR: The studies cited above show that dog walking can and does 

disturb wildlife. Based on the circumstances described in the scientific literature, it is reasonable to 

assume similar effects could occur on Bear Lake NWR in most areas where dog walking is allowed. 

However, we anticipate the impacts of dog walkers will be small, as a result of restricting this use to 

roads and trails, imposing a leash requirement, requiring removal of dog feces, and educating the 

public on the effects of recreation on wildlife and habitat. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Dog-walkers will be required to stay on trails and designated roadways throughout the year. 

 Use is restricted to daylight hours only. 

 Dogs must be kept leashed at all times. 

 Dog droppings will be collected and disposed of properly off the Refuge by the responsible 

party. If domestic animal waste becomes a problem, dog-walking will be reevaluated. 

 Regulations will be available to the public through a Refuge brochure. 

 Directional, informational and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to help keep 

visitors on trails and help educate the public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

 Use will be periodically evaluated for disturbance to wildlife, especially if use numbers 

increase. 

Justification: 

Although dog walking is not a wildlife-dependent public use of the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 

U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) this occasional use of the Refuge roads and trails is expected to have negligible 

impacts to wildlife habitat when compared to the effects of other public uses (Klein 1993). Potential 

for wildlife and habitat disturbance is minimal given the indirect approach of this activity, the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-87 

enforcement of the leash rule and removal of dog feces. Restricting the disturbance to established 

roads and trails with appropriate set-back distances (buffers) will increase the predictability of public 

use on the Refuge, allowing wildlife to habituate to non-threatening activities. Impacts of dog 

walking will be monitored and if they, or other impacts, are discovered, this compatibility 

determination will be reevaluated. Direct costs to administer existing levels of dog walking on 

Refuge roads and trails will be minor because costs will already be covered by the existing Complex 

budget for maintaining wildlife-dependent public uses. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing dog 

walking on Refuge roads and trails. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be 

adversely affected due to dog walking will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the 

physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and 

normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be 

negatively impacted. Thus, allowing dog walking to occur with stipulations will not materially 

detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System 

mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References: 

Banks, P.B. and J.V. Bryant. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds 

from natural areas. Biology Letters 3:611-613. 

Baydack, R.K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of 

Manitoba. Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 83 pp. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 

Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: Implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(1):1-13. 

Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists; coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Geist, C., J. Liao, S. Libby, and D.T. Blumstein. 2005. Does intruder group size and orientation 

affect flight initiation distance in birds? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28.1:69-73. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-88 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. MS thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 106 pp. 

Keller, V.E. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on Eider ducklings somateria mollissima in 

estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58(2):213-228. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and 

management. 13.2.15. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949-1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315-325. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. 

Wildlife Society 29(1):124-132. 

Overgaauw, P.A.M., L. van Zutphen, D. Hoek, F.O. Yaya, J. Roelfsema, E. Pinelli, F. van Knapen, 

and L.M. Kortbeek. 2009. Zoonotic parasites in fecal samples and fur from dogs and cats in the 

Netherlands. Veterinary Parasitology. Available at: doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.03.044. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Justin and H. Youmans, 

coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 

pp. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, 

GA. 32 pp. 

Yalden, P.E. and D.W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbances of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis 

apricarius. Biological Conservation 51(4):243-262. 

Yosef, R. 2000. Individual distances among greater flamingos as indicators of tourism pressure. 

Waterbirds 23 (Special Publication 1):26-31. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-89 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 7, Dog Walking on Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge: 

   
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-90 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 

   
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-91 

B.12 Compatibility Determination for Canoeing and Kayaking on 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Canoeing and Kayaking (nonmotorized boating) 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Bear Lake County, Idaho

Date Established: 1968

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-92 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use: 

We propose to allow recreational boating using nonmotorized boats (kayaks and canoes) on Bear 

Lake NWR, with stipulations described below. 

Existing Uses. Most nonmotorized boat use at Bear Lake NWR occurs on the 7,400-foot Canoe Trail 

constructed in 2004, which is open July 1-September 20. Access to the Canoe Trail is via a graveled 

ramp at the trail head. The Boy Scouts of America’s Camp Hunt brings about 120 Scouts to the 

Refuge each summer to use the Canoe Trail and earn a badge. Scouts carry binoculars and are also 

watching wildlife at the same time. Both motorized and nonmotorized boats are currently allowed in 

the 7,450-acre seasonally open (hunting) area, from September 20 through January 15; however, 

most if not all boating use appears to be by waterfowl hunters to access the hunt area. 

Proposed Use. We propose to continue to allow nonmotorized boats on the 7,400-foot Canoe Trail 

from July 1-September 20. We propose to discontinue boating in the seasonally open hunt area, other 

than by hunters to access waterfowl hunting opportunities during the waterfowl hunting season. 

Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $3k 

Maintenance: $0 $5k 

 Maintenance of boat ramps 

Monitoring: $0 

$8k Biological and Law Enforcement 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0 

$0

$16k TOTALS 

The refuge has sufficient staff and resources to allow the use. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

The Refuge provides crucial breeding, foraging, and resting habitat for migratory birds, including 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Recreational boating can affect their use in Refuge 

waters, altering distribution, reducing use of particular habitats or entire areas, altering feeding 

behavior and nutritional status, and causing premature departure from areas. (Knight and Cole 1995). 

More sensitive species may find it difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred 

habitat becomes fragmented and recreation-related disturbances increase (Skagen et al. 1991; Pfister 

et al. 1992). Motorized boats generally have more impact on wildlife than nonmotorized boats 

because motorboats produce a combination of movement and noise (Tuite et al. 1983; Knight and 

Cole 1995). For example, a significant decrease in the proportion of bald eagles feeding at a site was 

observed when motorized boating activity occurred within 200 meters of that area in the preceding 

30 minutes (Skagen 1980). Motorized boats can also cover a larger area in a relatively short time, in 

comparison to nonmotorized boats. Boating pressure on wintering waterfowl in Germany had 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-93 

reached such a high level that it was necessary to establish larger sanctuaries and implement a 

seasonal closure on water sports and angling (Bauer et al. 1992). 

Canoes and kayaks can cause significant disturbance based on their ability to penetrate into shallower 

areas of a marsh (Speight 1973; Knight and Cole 1995). In the Ozark National Scenic Riverway, 

green-backed heron activity declined on survey routes when canoes and boat use increased on the 

main river channel (Kaiser and Fritzell 1984). Canoes or slow-moving boats have also been observed 

to disturb nesting great blue herons (Vos et al. 1985). Huffman (1999) found that nonmotorized boats 

within 30 meters of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering waterfowl to flush 

between the craft and shore. However, compared to motorboats, canoes and kayaks appear to have 

less disturbance effects on most wildlife species (Jahn and Hunt 1964; Huffman 1999; DeLong 

2002). 

Although nonmotorized boating has a potential to impact wetland wildlife, the very limited number 

of visitors engaged in this activity, and the limited area and time of year this activity occurs is 

expected to result in few of the impacts described above. Implementing the prescribed measures 

listed in the “Stipulations” section should also reduce many of these impacts. Adequate amounts of 

undisturbed habitat will be available to the majority of waterfowl and other wetland birds because 

most of the Refuge is closed to boating, and boating regulations will be maintained and enforced. 

The Refuge will also implement a monitoring program to help assess disturbance effects on wildlife 

and habitat. Improved outreach and educational information for Refuge visitors involved in activities 

associated with boating will also help to reduce the impacts associated with nonmotorized boating 

activities. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Signs will be installed and maintained to mark closed areas and seasonal closures. 

 Periodic law enforcement will help ensure compliance with area closures. Regulations will be 

described in brochures and posted on informational Refuge kiosks. Boat operators are 

required to be in compliance with all applicable Refuge, U.S. Coast Guard, and Idaho State 

laws. 

 Monitoring of boating activities and associated effects on waterfowl, waterbirds, and other 

migratory birds will be conducted and evaluated regularly. Monitoring data will be used by 

the Refuge Manager in the periodic re-evaluation of this Compatibility Determination. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-94 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Justification: 

Although nonmotorized boating is not a wildlife-dependent public use of the Refuge, as defined by 

statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as environmental 

education, interpretation, and wildlife observation/photography) are facilitated by boating. Providing 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent priority public uses will contribute toward fulfilling provisions 

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended in 1997. 

Although the use can result in disturbance to wildlife, as described above, it is anticipated that 

wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance 

and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened by allowing nonmotorized boating on the 

Refuge. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to 

nonmotorized boating will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological 

condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity 

patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. 

Thus, allowing nonmotorized boating to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or 

interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established, or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References: 

Bauer, H.G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds 

wintering in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91. 

Bratton, S.P. 1990. Boat disturbance of ciconiiformes in Georgia estuaries. Colonial Waterbirds 

13:124-128. 

Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, 

the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. 

Biological Conservation 77:193-201. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds–a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

in: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the 

comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report–effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, 

Oregon. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-95 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conservation Department Technical Bulletin No. 33. 212 pp. 

Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods or red-breasted mergansers Mergus 

serrator. Wildfowl 15:222-231. 

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:561-567. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 48:999-1004. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at 

a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-126. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 231-141 in: R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and 

C.W. Servheen, eds. Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium. Seattle, WA: The 

Nature Conservancy. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging 

guild. Ecological Applications 1:215-225. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. 

Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. University College of London, England. 35 pp. 

Thornburg, D.D. 1973. Diving duck movements on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 37:382-389. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-96 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 8, Canoeing and Kayaking on Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge: 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-97 

B.13 Compatibility Determination for Bicycling, Cross-Country 

Skiing, and Snowshoeing on Bear Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Bicycling, Cross-Country Skiing, Snowshoeing 

Refuge Name: Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Bear Lake County, Idaho

Date Established: Bear Lake NWR: 1968 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Public Land Order 4415, May 15, 1968, withdrawing land for Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 7151) 

 Public Land Order 4545, December 28, 1968, addition of lands to Bear Lake NWR (33 FR 

19948) 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4) 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 742a-742j, not including 742l) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 

 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... ” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species ... or (B) plants ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

 “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities 

and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude ... ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-98 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use: 

Existing Use. Currently, cross-county skiing and snowshoeing are allowed on all roads open to 

vehicle traffic year round, and on trails/roads open from September 20-January 15 as conditions 

permit. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are allowed throughout the 7,450-acre seasonally 

open (hunt) area, July 1-Jan 20 as conditions permit. Bicycling is allowed on roads open to vehicle 

travel year-round, including the Auto Tour Route. Bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing 

are not common activities at the Bear Lake NWR. An average of five bicyclists use Bear Lake NWR 

per year. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing visits to Bear Lake NWR are estimated at 300 per 

year. Biking, skiing, or snowshoeing, visitors may view or photograph wildlife. However, these 

activities are treated separately, since these uses are not defined as wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, and they 

do not automatically support the six wildlife-dependent priority uses. 

Proposed Use. We propose to continue to allow bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on 

Refuge roads and trails on the Bear Lake NWR as noted above, except that only service roads and 

dikes within the seasonally open area (7,450 acres) of the Refuge will be open to pedestrian use 

(including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing as conditions permit) July 1-Feb 28. 

Availability of Resources: 

Maintenance of Refuge roads and trails incurs costs, but costs are not directly related to bicycling, 

cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. Roads and trails will not be groomed specifically for skiing 

and snowshoeing. Roads are routinely maintained for vehicle activity and to repair holes made by 

burrowing wildlife. No additional expense for these activities is anticipated. Since these activities 

will be restricted to the roads and trails, the major portion of the funds needed to support this activity 

are in the form of salaries for maintaining the existing roads and trails, monitoring public use and 

biological impacts, enforcing regulations, and exotic species control. Thus the Refuge has sufficient 

staff and funding to allow the use. 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $2k 

Maintenance: $0 

Posting signs and removing snow from entrance road $2k 

Monitoring: $0 

Biological monitoring if use increases $5k 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0 

$0

TOTALS $9k 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Wildlife Response to Bicycling. Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens them, while 

movement away from or at an oblique angle to the animal is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-99 

Knight and Cole (1991) suggest that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if 

animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. Depending on the level of use and compliance to 

regulations restricting off-trail use, some impact to wildlife will be expected. Although biking has the 

potential to cause flushing of birds from breeding and foraging habitats, bicycling on the Refuge is 

not anticipated to cause large disturbances to wildlife due to the small number of bicyclists using the 

Refuge. 

Wildlife Response to Cross-country Skiing and Snowshoeing. In two different studies of winter 

recreation impacts to wildlife in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), Aune (1981) and Cassirer (1990) 

found that, except for coyotes, all wildlife species observed (mostly big game) reacted more quickly 

to an approaching skier than to a snowmobile, and the flight distance was generally greater from 

skiers. Bison were found to respond dramatically to skiers who were off established trails. All 

wildlife species studied, including bison, were wary of people on foot. Aune (1981) also observed 

that in YNP, elk were less likely to flee from snowmobiles or skiers late in the winter than they were 

earlier in the season. He suggested that this was likely due in part to habituation by elk to 

snowmobile traffic and in part to decreased vigor of elk later in the season combined with the 

increasing difficulty of flight through deep, crusted snow. Proximity of escape cover that breaks the 

line of sight between elk and the disturbance may reduce flight distances and consequently the 

amount of energy used in flight. Moving automobiles and trail bikes had little effect on elk resting in 

timber at distances of only 0.13 miles (Lyon and Ward 1982). 

Ferguson and Keith (1982) researched the influence of cross-country ski trail development and skiing 

on elk and moose distribution in Elk Island National Park in Alberta, Canada. They found no 

indication that overwinter distribution of elk was altered by cross-country skiing activity. However, it 

did appear that elk moved away from ski trails, particularly those that were heavily used, during the 

ski season. 

Aune (1981) also reported average elk flight distances of 53.5 meters (175.5 feet) in response to 

skiers at Yellowstone National Park. In another study, elk began to move when skiers approached to 

within 15 meters (50 feet) in an area heavily used by humans year-round, and within 400 meters 

(1,312 feet) in an area where human activity is much lower (Cassirer et al. 1992). Elk in YNP fled 

more frequently and over greater distances from skiers off established trails than from skiers on 

established trails (Aune 1981). 

Rudd and Irwin (1985) investigated the movements of moose in response to cross-country skiing and 

found that the average distance 19 moose moved away from people on snowshoes or skis was 16.6 

yards, and the average distance at which moose were displaced was 80.7 yards. 

Overall Impact at Bear Lake NWR. The studies cited above show that these activities can and do 

disturb wildlife. However we anticipate the impacts will be small, given the relatively low numbers 

of users and the limited amount of wildlife activity on the refuge during the winter months when 

skiing and snowshoeing occur. In addition, restricting cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and 

bicycling to designated trails and/or roads should minimize the potential impacts and allow wildlife 

in the area to habituate to the use. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-100 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Bicyclists, snowshoers and cross-country skiers are required to stay on trails and designated 

roadways and adhere to temporal restrictions. 

 Regulations will be available to the public through a Refuge brochure. 

 Directional, informational and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to help keep 

visitors on trails and help educate the public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

 Uses will be periodically evaluated for disturbance to wildlife, especially if use numbers 

increase. 

Justification: 

Although bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are not a wildlife-dependent public uses 

of the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) these occasional uses of the Refuge 

roads and trails is expected to have negligible impacts to wildlife habitat when compared to the 

effects of other public uses (Klein 1993). Potential for wildlife and habitat disturbance is minimal 

given the low level of these uses, and for skiing and snowshoeing, the time of year the use occurs. 

Restricting the disturbance to established roads and trails with appropriate set-back distances 

(buffers) will increase the predictability of public use on the Refuge, allowing wildlife to habituate to 

non-threatening activities. Impacts of these activities will be monitored and if they, or other impacts, 

are discovered, this compatibility determination will be reevaluated. Direct costs to administer 

existing levels of bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on Refuge roads and trails will be 

minor because costs will already be covered by the existing Complex budget for maintaining 

wildlife-dependent public uses. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing bicycling, 

cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on Refuge roads and trails. The relatively limited number of 

individuals expected to be adversely affected due to these activities will not cause wildlife 

populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will 

not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing bicycling, snowshoeing, and crosscountry skiing to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for 

which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-101 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Aune, K.E. 1981. Impacts of winter recreationists on wildlife in a portion of Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyoming. M.S. thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 

Cassirer, E.F. 1990. Responses of elk to disturbance by cross-country skiers in northern Yellowstone 

National Park. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Cassirer, E.F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-country 

skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381. 

Ferguson, M.A.D. and L.B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk 

in Elk Island National Park, Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 96:69-78. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

Lyon, J. and A.L. Ward. 1982. Elk and land management. Pages 443-478 in: J.W. Thomas and 

D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole 

Books. 

Rudd, L.T. and L.L. Irwin. 1985. Wintering moose vs. oil/gas activity in western Wyoming. Alces 

21:279-298. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-102 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-103 

B.14 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and 

Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education on 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

RMIS Database Uses: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, and 

Environmental Education 

Refuge Name: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Location: Franklin and Bannock Counties, ID 

Date Established: 1985 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. § 718(c)) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

Current Use. Non-consumptive wildlife-dependent recreation (defined here as wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education and interpretation) are designated as priority public uses 

under the Refuge Improvement Act and can enhance the users’ appreciation of Refuge and 

Waterfowl Production areas, the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife, their habitats, and the 

human environment. 

Due to the often harsh and long winters in the Oxford Slough area, most of this use will be conducted 

during the late spring, summer, and early fall. It is expected that most wildlife observation and 

photography occurs from the County road (Oxford Road), and the 0.24-mile access road. Free-roam 

access by foot or nonmotorized boat is currently allowed year-round. Bear Lake NWR staff 

maintains facilities to support self-guided wildlife observation and photography at Oxford Slough 

WPA, including boundary fencing and signs, a 0.24-mile graveled entrance road, a small (approx. 

350 square foot) parking area, and a graveled boat ramp for shallow draft boats at the terminus of the 

entrance road. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-104 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Proposed Use. We propose to continue the use as described above, except that free-roam access by 

foot or nonmotorized boat will be allowed August 1-March 31. From April 1-July 31, the WPA, 

except for the entrance road and parking lot, will be closed to public access to protect colonies of 

nesting Franklin’s gulls and white-faced ibis. SE Idaho Complex staff will develop volunteer-led 

educational opportunities for youth groups (schools and Scouts) and the general public. The focus at 

of environmental education on the WPA will be on waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, and the 

importance of reliable water supplies to successful waterfowl production. 

One or more viewing areas will be developed that will allow visitors to enjoy wildlife from a 

distance, with information on seasons and species of wildlife that could be observed and 

photographed. An interpretive panel will be developed and installed along the roadway with a view 

of the Cooper headstone. Although this headstone is difficult to read due to wear, we can see that it 

marks the gravesite of Mary Jane Cooper, possibly wife of V.J. Cooper, one of the early settlers in 

the area. It is the only known burial on the unit. A brochure will be developed describing the WPA 

and the activities that may be enjoyed there, including wildlife to be seen. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $5k 

Maintenance: $0 $5k 

Existing and proposed public use facilities 

Monitoring: $0 $10k 

Law enforcement and biological 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: 

$20k 

$0 

Development of viewing areas and interpretive materials 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$20k 

$0

TOTALS $20k 

Once the CD is approved through the CCP process, Federal funds will be requested through the 

Service budget process. Other sources (monetary and non-monetary) will be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other agencies, and additional Refuge operations 

funding to support a safe, quality public use program. Increased volunteer assistance, strengthened 

existing partnerships, and new partnerships will be sought to support these programs in an effective, 

safe, and compatible manner. Bear Lake Refuge staff will increase volunteer recruiting efforts. 

Volunteers, interns, and various user groups when provided appropriate training can assist the Refuge 

with monitoring, education and interpretation programs, and maintenance projects on Oxford Slough 

WPA. With additional assistance as described above, staffing and funding is expected to be sufficient 

to manage these uses. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-105 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Impacts resulting from the proposed use include both direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources 

and the associated habitat. Direct impacts have an immediate effect on wildlife and generally result 

from the public’s interaction with wildlife. Indirect impacts will include actions taken by the public 

that will impact habitat or reduce access to habitat. 

Direct Impacts. We expect these impacts to include the presence of humans disturbing wildlife, 

which typically results in a temporary displacement of individuals. Some species such as sandhill 

cranes avoid the areas people frequent, while others such as raccoons and skunks seem unaffected by 

or even drawn to the presence of humans. 

Negative impacts to wildlife have been documented when migratory birds and humans are present in 

the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Responses of wildlife to human activities include: 

departure from site, use of suboptimal habitat, altered behavior (Burger 1981, Morton et al. 1989, 

Klein 1993), and increase in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). 

McNeil et al. (1992) found that many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead 

of during the day. The location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Miller et 

al. (1998) found that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was 

common, than at greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown greater reactions 

when pedestrian use occurred off trail (Miller, 1998). Klein (1989) found migratory dabbling ducks 

to be the most sensitive to disturbance, and that migrant ducks were more sensitive when they first 

arrived, in the late fall, than later in winter. She also found gulls and sandpipers to be apparently 

insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger (1981) finding the same to be true for various gull 

species. Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some songbirds was altered by low 

levels of human intrusion. Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, including 

feeding, reproductive, and social behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are 

sensitive to pedestrian activity (Burger 1981, 1986). Resident waterbirds that are regularly exposed to 

human disturbance tend to be less sensitive than migrants, especially when migrants first arrive at a 

site (Klein 1993). In areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in 

areas receiving less activity. 

Burger (1981) found that wading birds were extremely sensitive to disturbance in the northeastern 

United States. Disturbance during critical times in the breeding cycle may cause colony abandonment 

in colonial-nesting waterbirds. White-faced ibis are susceptible to colony abandonment resulting 

from human intrusion into colonies during the early nesting period (Ryder and Manry 1994). While 

gulls are relatively insensitive to disturbance while foraging away from breeding colonies, they can 

be extremely sensitive to human disturbance at nesting sites. Franklin’s gulls are particularly 

sensitive to human disturbance early in the breeding cycle and again during the chick phase, and 

would abandon with excessive human exposure (Guay 1968). Abandonment of nests is less likely 

with young than eggs but may still occur with repeated disturbance (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). To 

help mitigate these impacts to colonial-nesting waterbirds, the WPA will be closed to free-roam 

access from April 1 through July 31 under proposed management. Between April 1 and July 31, 

visitors must remain on the access road and parking area. 

Cumulative and Indirect/Secondary Impacts. People can be vectors for invasive plants by moving 

seeds or other propagules from one area to another. Once established, invasive plants can outcompete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. The threat of 

invasive plant establishment will always be an issue requiring annual monitoring and treatment when 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-106 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

necessary. Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex staff will work at eradicating invasive plants at Oxford 

Slough WPA and educating the visiting public. Providing and maintaining access points to the WPA 

indirectly impacts wildlife by creating barriers to movement, through vegetation removal and 

management, and abrupt edge creation that may lead to increased predation (Ratti and Reese 1988). 

Other indirect impacts may include the creation of social trails by visitors accessing the WPA on foot 

(trail edges may concentrate prey species and may be used by predators as travel corridors), 

deposition of litter, and erosion caused by damage to vegetation from trampling. Despite the potential 

for the above effects to result from public visitation, the physical impacts, disturbance to wildlife and 

habitat, and disturbances on the WPA are expected to be intermittent, minor, and short-term, and in 

the context of the WPA being closed to public use during the breeding season for waterfowl and 

waterbirds, allowing these uses on the WPA are not expected to diminish the value of the WPA for 

its stated purposes. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Activities associated with this proposed use are restricted to those portions of the WPA that 

are open to the general public during daylight hours. 

 Adherence to seasonal use restrictions to reduce disturbance to nesting waterfowl and other 

wildlife. No access by foot or boat will be allowed from April 1-July 31, except by permit. 

Access by foot or nonmotorized boat is permitted August 1-March 31. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

 Littering is prohibited. 

 Collection of plants and animals is prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained from 

the Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex (except wildlife captured while engaged in hunting). 

 Signs and brochures will be provided by the Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex. Verbal 

instructions from Refuge Complex staff will promote appropriate use of trails and blinds to 

minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. These materials will clearly state pertinent WPA 

regulations. 

 Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex staff will periodically monitor and evaluate sites and 

programs to determine if objectives are being met and the resource is not being degraded. 

Justification: 

Wildlife Photography, Observation, Interpretation, and Environmental Education are listed as priority 

wildlife-dependent uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which the public can 

develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 and the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-107 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The Service’s 

policy is to provide expanded opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses when compatible and 

consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and to ensure that they receive enhanced 

attention during planning and management. Facilitating these uses on the WPA will increase visitor 

knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. This enhanced understanding will foster 

increased public stewardship of natural resources and support for the Service’s management actions 

in achieving the WPA’s purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

There is a more than an adequate amount of undisturbed habitat available to the majority of 

waterfowl, waterbirds, and other wildlife for escape and cover, such that their abundance and use of 

the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing wildlife observation and photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education to occur. There is no evidence that these uses at current 

participation levels materially interfere with the purposes of the WPA. Stipulations will help reduce 

or eliminate any unwanted impacts of these uses. The relatively limited number of individual animals 

expected to be adversely affected due to these uses will not cause wildlife populations to materially 

decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their 

behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will 

not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the WPA was established. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses 

only) 

 X Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References Cited: 

Adkison, G.P. and M.T. Jackson. 1996. Changes in ground-layer vegetation near trails in midwestern 

U.S. forests. Natural Areas Journal 16:14-23. 

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. 5th edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-108 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

birds of North America, no. 116. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, 

D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 

Deluca, T.H., W.A Patterson, W.A. Freimund, and D.N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses, and 

hikers on soil erosion from established recreational trails in western Montana, USA. 

Environmental Management 22(2):255-62. 

Fernández-Juricic, E., P.A. Zollner, C. LeBlanc, and L.M. Westphal. 2007. Responses of nestling 

black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) to aquatic and terrestrial recreational 

activities: a manipulative study. Waterbirds 30(4):554-565. 

Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Guay, J.W. 1968. The breeding biology of Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). Ph.D. dissertation. 

University of Alberta, Edmonton. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, and K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114:55-65. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J. N. "Ding" 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. University of Florida, Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research Unit. Gainesville, FL. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Knight, C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2): 189-197. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists, Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review 67:381-419. 

Miller J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Missoula, MT: Deborah 

Richie Communications. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-109 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:103-112. 

Ratti, J.T. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 52:484-491. 

Ryder, R.R., and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

The birds of north america, no. 130. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130-138. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2012b. Comprehensive conservation plan for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, 

GA. 32 pp. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-110 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-111 

B.15 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting on 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

RMIS Database Uses: Waterfowl Hunting, Snipe Hunting 

Refuge Name: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Location: Franklin and Bannock Counties, ID 

Date Established: 1985 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. § 718(c)) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

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

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). 

Description of Use(s): 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to continue to allow hunting of waterfowl 

(ducks, geese, mergansers, and coots) and snipe on the Oxford Slough WPA in accordance with State 

regulations. All Waterfowl Production Areas, including Oxford Slough WPA, are open to recreational 

hunting in accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, provided that all 

forms of hunting or entry on all or any part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by 

posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions of, or affecting land, water, vegetation, or 

wildlife populations. Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting in the United States is guided by an 

established regulatory process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and harvest 

data. Harvest data are reported by hunters to the State and season and bag limits are adjusted 

accordingly to ensure that overall populations of game species remain healthy into the future. 

The entire WPA is open to waterfowl hunting. Waterfowl hunting is permitted seven days per week, 

from sunrise to sunset, during the State waterfowl hunting season. The State waterfowl season 

typically starts the first of October and runs through the end of January. Shooting hours correspond to 

State regulations (1⁄2 hour before sunrise until sunset). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-112 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Because of the high elevation at the WPA, most hunting occurs in early October before temperatures 

drop. Freezing of the marsh usually occurs by the middle of November, so quality hunting usually 

ends early, even though the Idaho waterfowl hunting season remains open into January. Waterfowl 

hunting visits are estimated at 80 visits annually. 

Non-toxic shot is required, and hunters may not possess lead shot in the field. Temporary blinds of 

natural vegetation may be constructed, but such blinds are available for general use on a first-come, 

first served basis. Construction of permanent blinds is prohibited. 

Walk-in hunting is allowed. Hunters may use nonmotorized boats to access hunting areas. Parking is 

allowed in designated areas only. Because they can reduce the loss of waterfowl to the hunter’s bag 

and hence can reduce the overall impact to the resource, dogs used in support of hunting are allowed 

on the WPA. 

Supporting access to the hunting area are a 0.24-mile graveled entrance road, a small (approx. 350 

square foot) parking area, and a boat ramp for shallow draft boats at the terminus of the entrance 

road. No other facilities are provided. Bear Lake Refuge staff conducts annual maintenance on these 

facilities. 

Proposed Use. We propose to continue waterfowl hunting on Oxford Slough WPA as described 

above, except that we will develop and administer a youth hunt according to Idaho State regulations 

(usually the weekend prior to the regular hunting season opener), and develop an ABA-accessible 

hunter access trail and parking lot. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $3k 

Improve parking area for ABA access, construct accessible hunter 

access trail 

$20k 

Maintenance: $0 

Entrance road, boat ramp, signs, water delivery $5k 

Monitoring: $0 

Law enforcement $2k 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$20k 

$0

TOTALS $10k 

Once the CD is approved through the CCP process, Federal funds will be requested through the 

Service budget process. Other sources (monetary and non-monetary) will be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other agencies, and additional Refuge operations 

funding to support a safe, quality public use program. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-113 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Impacts to Habitat. Since hunting requires off-trail use in the pursuit and/or recovery of game, 

trampling of vegetation and creation of social trails may result from hunting activity. However due to 

the low numbers of waterfowl hunters on the WPA, this is not a significant concern. Of greater 

concern is the inadvertent introduction of non-native plants. Propagules of non-native plants can be 

transported into new areas on hunters’ boots, clothing, dogs and equipment (Benninger-Traux et al. 

1992). Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats and 

indirectly impacting wildlife. Invasive plants will be controlled and monitored as part of the Refuge’s 

Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Impacts to Wildlife (General). Hunting, by its nature, results in the intentional take of individual 

animals, as well as wounding and disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., 

foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 1977, Raveling 

1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Bartelt 1987, Madsen 1985, and Cole and Knight 1990). 

Waterfowl are wary, seeking refuge from all forms of disturbance, but particularly those associated 

with loud noise and rapid movement (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). Numerous studies show 

human activities associated with hunting (boating, vehicle disturbance, human presence) cause 

increased flight time in waterfowl species, which requires a considerable amount of energy (Kahl 

1991, Havera et al. 1992, Knapton et al. 2000, Kenow et al. 2003). Human disturbance compels 

waterfowl to change feeding habits, for example, feeding only at night or deserting feeding areas 

entirely, resulting in weight loss (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). 

In addition to loss of individuals of target species, hunting causes disturbance to non-target species 

because of noise (most notably the report of a firearm), human presence, and general disturbance 

associated with the activity. Hunting results in the increase of non-target species being injured or 

killed (accidentally or intentionally) in addition to waterfowl being crippled or killed and not 

retrieved. These disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, 

swimming, disablement or death in non-target species (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). 

Hunting can contribute to the well-being of wildlife by giving people a deeper appreciation of 

wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of wildlife and habitat conservation, which 

ultimately contributes to the NWRS mission. The hunting community remains the largest support 

base for funding wildlife management programs, and Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas 

provide an opportunity for a high-quality waterfowl hunting experience to all citizens regardless of 

economic standing. Many individual Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas have developed 

extensive public information and education programs bringing hunters into contact with Refuge 

activities and facilitating awareness of wildlife issues beyond hunting. Hunting is one of the six 

priority public uses of the NWRS. 

Impacts of Hunting on Waterfowl. 

Impacts on waterfowl populations: The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a 

thorough regulatory setting process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and 

harvest monitoring data. Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through 

an administrative process known as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, 

and Atlantic). Idaho is included in the Pacific Flyway. A review of the policies, processes, and 

procedures for waterfowl hunting is covered in a number of documents. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-114 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds 

be closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually 

promulgates regulations (50 CFR 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The 

frameworks are essentially permissive, in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted 

without them. Thus, in effect, annual Federal regulations both allow and limit the hunting of 

migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other 

options for states to select from, which should result in the level of harvest determined to be 

appropriate based upon Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of 

migratory game bird populations. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting 

regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled 

meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in 

which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to 

individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public 

hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public 

comment. 

For waterfowl, annual assessments used in establishing the Frameworks include the Breeding 

Population and Habitat Survey, which is conducted throughout portions of the United States and 

Canada. This survey is used to establish an annual Waterfowl Population Status Report. In addition, 

the number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the 

Harvest Information Program (HIP) and the Parts Survey (Wing Bee). Since 1995, such information 

has been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for setting duck-hunting 

regulations. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols determine the choice (package) of 

pre-determined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) that comprise the framework offered to 

states that year. Each state’s wildlife commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting 

hours, and other options from the their prospective Flyway package. Their selections can be more 

restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity 

afforded each state increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of 

waterfowl populations. 

Season dates and bag limits for Waterfowl Production Areas are never longer or larger than the State 

regulations. Cumulative impacts to hunted migratory species are considered through the Migratory 

Bird Frameworks published annually in the Service’s regulations on Migratory Bird Hunting. 

Hunting on Waterfowl Production Areas as a whole, or the Oxford Slough WPA specifically, is not 

likely to have an adverse effect on the status of any recognized waterfowl population in North 

America. Several points support this contention including (1) the proportion of national waterfowl 

harvest that occurs on Waterfowl Production Areas is small; 2) there are no waterfowl populations 

that occur wholly or exclusively on Waterfowl Production Areas; 3) Annual hunting regulations 

within the United States are established to levels consistent with the current population status; and 4) 

WPAs cannot permit more liberal seasons than provided for in Federal frameworks. Specific 

regulations are designed to minimize impacts. Under the stipulations outlined above, this activity 

does not materially detract from meeting the WPA’s purposes or the Refuge System mission. 

Local impacts to waterfowl populations: The Federal Harvest Information Program estimates that 

16,800 hunters in Idaho spent an average of 102,700 days hunting and harvested 225,100 ducks 

annually during 2001-2010. Over that same time period, the harvest information program estimates 

Idaho hunters harvested 59,800 Canada geese annually. This is the third highest total in the Pacific 

Flyway, behind Oregon and Washington, respectively. Between 1990 and 2004 (the last year for 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-115 

which data were available), between 200 and 1000 waterfowl were harvested on the Refuge annually. 

The number of waterfowl currently harvested on the WPA is unknown, but based on the numbers of 

hunters using the WPA and the short season, it is likely to represent a small percentage of total 

numbers harvested in the state, and an even smaller percentage of the total flyway harvest. 

Effect on waterfowl distribution and use of habitat: Belanger and Bedard (1995) concluded that 

disturbance caused by hunting can modify the distribution and use of various habitats by birds. In 

Denmark, Madsen (1995) experimentally tested disturbance effects of hunting by the establishment 

of two experimental reserves where hunting activity was manipulated such that sanctuary areas were 

created in different parts of the study area in different hunting seasons. In both areas, waterbird 

numbers increased, most strongly in hunted species (3-40 fold increase), with highest densities found 

in sanctuary areas, irrespective of where these sanctuaries were sited. At Sacramento National 

Wildlife Refuge, in California, researchers found statistically significant differences in the densities 

of northern pintails among hunting units, units adjacent to hunting units, units adjacent to auto tour 

route, and units isolated from disturbance (Wolder 1993). Prior to the opening of hunting season, 

pintail used units in proportion to their availability, indicating no preference to particular areas. 

Belanger and Bedard (1989) studied the effect of disturbances to staging greater snow geese in a 

Quebec bird sanctuary over 471 hours of observation. They found that the level of disturbance 

(defined as any event causing all or part of the goose flock to take flight) that prevailed on a given 

day in fall influenced goose use of the sanctuary on the following day. When disturbance exceeded 

two events per hour, it produced a 50 percent drop in the mean number of geese present in the 

sanctuary the next day. 

Effects on energetics and survival: Hunting limits access of waterfowl to food resources and may 

modify migration timing. Madsen (1988 as cited by Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992) suggested that 

hunting on the coastal wetlands of Denmark modified waterfowl movements and caused birds to 

leave the area prematurely. However, Kahl (1991) suggested that lack of adequate access to food 

may decrease survival of canvasbacks by causing birds to remain on a staging site longer and forage 

under suboptimal conditions, or by causing birds to migrate in shorter flights with more frequent 

stops. 

Disturbance due to hunting has caused waterfowl to cease feeding or resting activities, thus 

decreasing energy intake and increasing energy expenditure. At Chincoteague NWR, Morton et al. 

(1989) found that wintering black ducks experienced reduced energy intake while doubling energy 

expenditure by increasing the time spent in locomotion in response to disturbance. Belanger and 

Bedard (1995) in a quantitative analysis, estimated that neither the response to disturbance by flying 

away and promptly returning to the foraging site to resume feeding, nor the response of flying away 

(leaving the foraging site for a roosting site, thus interrupting feeding) allowed snow geese to balance 

their daytime energy budget. 

At high disturbance rates (>two/hour—these included hunting and transport-related disturbance), 

Belanger and Bedard estimated that an increase in night feeding as a behavioral compensation 

mechanism could not counterbalance energy lost during the day. Likewise, geese could not 

compensate for a loss in feeding time by increasing their daily foraging behavior to maximize food 

intake during undisturbed periods. Belanger and Bedard suggested mitigation with spatial or 

temporal buffer zones. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife Species. In addition to loss of individual target species, hunting results in 

the increase of non-target species being injured or killed (accidentally or intentionally). Disturbance 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-116 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

to the daily activities, such as feeding and resting, of wintering non-hunted birds and other wildlife 

might occur. Hunting causes disturbance to non-target species because of noise (most notably the 

report of a firearm), human presence and general disturbance associated with the activity. These 

disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, 

disablement or death in non-target species (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). This effect is likely a 

minor negative effect due to the low numbers of waterfowl hunters using the WPA. WPA regulations 

further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Motorized vehicles are 

restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any non-target wildlife is not permitted. Although 

ingestion of lead shot by non-hunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not relevant at the 

WPA because non-toxic shot is required. The waterfowl hunting season does not coincide with 

nesting seasons, so reproduction will not be directly impacted by hunting. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses. Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the 

potential to disturb visitors to the WPA engaged in other wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

However, use of the WPA for activities other than hunting appears to be low. The hunting season 

also coincides with the onset of cold weather in the area, making it unlikely that other uses, and 

therefore conflicts, will occur. 

Application to Oxford Slough WPA. The studies cited above display the variety and scale of 

negative impacts to waterfowl from hunting. The most likely effect of hunting will be temporary 

displacement of waterfowl. Given the size of the WPA (1,840 acres or 2.875 square miles) and the 

small number of hunters using the WPA, it is likely that waterfowl will find sufficient undisturbed 

areas within the WPA during the hunting season. Potentially, especially in years with low water 

availability, waterfowl could be displaced from the WPA to nearby areas of fall waterfowl habitat 

(Swan Lake, the Twin Lakes Reservoir, the Oneida Narrows Reservoir, Weston Reservoir, and the 

Marsh Creek area). 

Given the small number of waterfowl hunting visits to the WPA (estimated at approximately 80 visits 

annually) and the short hunting season, both disturbance rates and the total number of disturbance 

events will be expected to be low. Disturbance could be expected from both hunters on foot, and 

hunters using nonmotorized boats. Due to the small size and slow speeds of boats used to access 

waterfowl hunting, disturbance will be limited to a small area. 

Impacts to other wildlife-dependent recreational users are expected to be minimal due to the low 

number of non-hunting visitors to the WPA. Conflicts between waterfowl hunters and other users or 

the WPA have never been documented and will likely remain negligible for the near future. The 

current low level of use does not warrant a spatial or temporal separation of hunting from nonhunting public uses at this time. 

By its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very few if any positive effects on waterfowl and other 

birds while the activity is occurring, but it is well recognized that this activity has given many people 

a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their 

habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012a) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012b) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-117 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Hunters must obey all State and Federal hunting regulations. 

 Hunters may possess only approved nontoxic shot while in the field. 

 Nonmotorized boats are allowed. Motorized boats are prohibited. 

 Only portable blinds or temporary blinds constructed of natural vegetation can be used. 

Blinds will be available for general use on a first-come, first-served basis. Portable blinds 

must be removed from the WPA at the end of each day. 

 All personal property, including decoys and boats, must be removed from the WPA at the 

end of each day. 

 Hunting dogs will be under hunter control at all times. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. The use or possession of alcoholic 

beverages while hunting is prohibited. 

 Hunt areas and no hunting zones will be posted at least two weeks before the hunting season 

begins. 

 Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex staff will conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting 

facilities, and monitor wildlife impacts. 

Justification: 

Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which 

the public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The 

Service’s policy is to provide expanded opportunities for these wildlife-dependent uses when 

compatible and consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and ensure that they receive 

enhanced attention during planning and management. Facilitating hunting on the Waterfowl 

Production Area (WPA) will increase visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife 

resources. This enhanced understanding will foster increased public stewardship of natural resources 

and support for the Service’s management actions in achieving the WPA’s purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Waterfowl hunting at Oxford Slough WPA as described in this CD contributes to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System by providing a wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. 

Because sanctuary from human disturbance is provided during the breeding season for waterfowl and 

other migratory birds, this waterfowl hunting program will not interfere with the WPA achieving its 

purposes of waterfowl production and any other management purpose, for migratory birds. It is 

anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that 

their abundance and use of the WPA will not be measurably lessened from allowing hunting to occur 

on the WPA. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to 

hunting will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will 

not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-118 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

hunting to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which 

the WPA was established or the Refuge System mission. 

This program as described was determined to be compatible because: hunter use levels on Oxford 

Slough WPA are relatively low during most days of the waterfowl hunting season. Consequently, 

feeding and resting habitat will be available in relatively undisturbed areas to accommodate the needs 

of the waterfowl and other wetland birds. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2027 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:713-719. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1995. Hunting and waterfowl. Pages 243-256 in: R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Natural 

Resources and Environmental Issues (0):Article 6. Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol0/iss1/6. Accessed June 2012. 

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated 

bibliography. Resource Publication 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jamestown, ND. 

Available at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/disturb/index.htm 

(Version 16JUL1997). 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(3):290-298. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:242-248. 

Kenow, K.P., C.E. Korschgen, J.M. Nissen, A. Elfessi, and R. Steinbach. 2003. A voluntary program 

to curtail boat disturbance to waterfowl during migration. Waterbirds 26(1):77-87. 

Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point Bay, 

Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-119 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Madsen, J. 1988. Autumn feeding ecology of herbivorous wildfowl in the Danish Wadden Sea, and 

impact of food supplies and shooting on movements. Danish Review of Game Biology 13:1-32. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 25:5-14. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: The prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. Pages 73-81 in: H. Boyd, ed. Fourth western hemispheric waterfowl and waterbird 

symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental Assessment for the Draft Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2012b. Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and saltmarsh feeding of wintering Brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 62 pp. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-120 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-121 

B.16 Compatibility Determination for Hunting of Resident Game, 

Upland Game, and Furbearers on Oxford Slough Waterfowl 

Production Area 

RMIS Database Uses: Hunting of Resident Game, Upland Game, and Furbearers 

Refuge Name: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Location: Franklin and Bannock Counties, ID 

Date Established: 1985 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. § 718(c)) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

All WPAs are open to recreational hunting in accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act, provided that all forms of hunting or entry on all or any part of individual 

areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions of, 

or affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. The Service will allow continued 

recreational hunting of resident game, upland game and furbearers at Oxford Slough WPA according 

to State regulations. Although open to all state seasons listed below, the majority of use occurs from 

mid-September though the end of December. Ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, mourning 

dove, sandhill crane, gray partridge, Columbian ground squirrels, and mule deer are probably the 

most hunted species, other than waterfowl, on the Oxford Slough WPA. Resident game, upland game 

and furbearer hunting visits at this unit are estimated at less than 50 per year. 

Big Game. Oxford Slough WPA is part of Idaho’s Unit 74 hunting area. Big game hunting seasons 

for Unit 74 are listed below. Hunting for deer (mule and white-tail), elk, antlered moose, mountain 

lion, and wolf are allowed in State hunting units that include the WPA. Following delisting in May 

2011, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission authorized Idaho’s second wolf hunting season and a 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-122 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

wolf trapping season in portions of the state. Two wolf tags are permitted in Idaho’s Southeast Zone. 

There has been no hunt for pronghorn in Unit 74 for more than ten years. Until 2009, a general hunt 

for black bear was allowed in Unit 74 but no bears were harvested in the unit, and very few in the SE 

Idaho region. There has been no black bear hunt in Unit 74 since 2010. 

Species/Hunt Dates 

Reg. Deer Tag General, Any Weapon Oct 10-Oct 24 

Reg. Deer Tag General Archery Only Aug 30-Sep 30 

Elk—Archery Only, Any Elk Aug 30-Sept 30 

Elk—Any weapon, Antlerless Only Oct 25-Nov 15 

Elk—Muzzleloader Only—Antlerless Only Nov 16-Nov 30 

Moose—Controlled Hunt, Antlered Only (SE 

Region) 

Controlled hunt, five tags issued Aug 30-Nov 23 

Mountain Lion Aug 30-Mar 31 

Wolf—Southern Idaho Aug 30-Mar 31 

Upland Game. Ruffed grouse may be taken from August 30-December 31. Gray partridge season runs 

from September 18-January 31. Sage grouse season is set in August each year; however, in 2011 

IDFG Area 1 (all of Franklin County and Bannock County east of I-15, including Oxford Slough 

WPA) was closed to sage grouse hunting. Sharp-tailed grouse can be hunted from October 1-31. 

Pheasant hunting occurs from October 15-November 30. Sandhill crane season and open areas are set 

in August. Mourning dove season is September 1-30. Eurasian collared doves may be taken at any 

time and in any amount. Idaho conducts spring and fall turkey hunts, both controlled and general; 

dates vary by season and open area. American crow can be taken from October 1-January 31. 

Furbearers and Unprotected Species. In Idaho’s southeast region, hunting and trapping of either sex 

of northern river otter occurs from October 22-March 15; either sex of American beaver, muskrat, 

and mink occurs from October 22-April 15; either sex of American badger and red fox occurs from 

July 1-June 30; and either sex of bobcat from December 14-February 16. However, northern river 

otter and beaver are not known to occur on the WPA. Animals classified by Idaho as “predators” or 

“unprotected” can be taken all year. Coyotes, raccoons, jackrabbits, skunks, weasels, starling, 

Columbian ground squirrels, feral pigeons, and others, are included in these categories. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

The following funds will be required to run the hunting program as designed under the CCP. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-123 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $2k

Maintenance: $0

Fencing, signs, gravel road and parking area $2k

Monitoring: $0

Law enforcement $3k

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0

$0

TOTALS $7k

Sufficient funding and staffing is available to allow the use. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

General Impacts to Habitat. Since hunting requires off-trail use in the pursuit and/or recovery of 

game, trampling of vegetation and creation of social trails may result from hunting activity. However 

due to the low numbers of waterfowl hunters on the WPA, this is not a significant concern. Of 

greater concern is the inadvertent introduction of non-native plants. Propagules of non-native plants 

can be transported into new areas on hunters’ boots, clothing, dogs and equipment (Benninger-Traux 

et al. 1992). Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats 

and indirectly impacting wildlife. Invasive plants will be controlled and monitored as part of the 

Refuge’s Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Impacts to Hunted Species. Hunting, by its nature, results in the intentional take of individual 

animals, as well as wounding and disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., 

foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 1977, Raveling 

1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Bartelt 1987, Madsen 1985, and Cole and Knight 1990). 

While hunting does cause mortality and disturbance to those species hunted, bag limits, season dates, 

and other regulations are set to protect the long-term health of wildlife populations. 

Local impact to upland birds

Population and harvest data: The Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s 2010 Upland Game 

Progress Report (Knetter et al. 2010) notes that of the species of upland game birds that are legal to 

hunt on Oxford Slough WPA, populations of gray partridge (an introduced species), sharp-tailed 

grouse (native), and turkey (introduced) are considered stable or increasing in Idaho’s Southeast 

Region over the past 10-15 years. Ring-necked pheasant (another introduced species) have also 

undergone a long-term decline as a result of declining habitat quality due to changes in farming 

practices. Sage-grouse, a native species and species of conservation concern, are declining and 

populations in southeast Idaho appear to be low. As a result, the IDFG has instituted more restrictive 

seasons and bag limits for sage-grouse in recent years. In 2011, IDFG Area 1 (including Franklin and 

Bannock Counties east of Highway 15) was closed to sage grouse hunting. 

Ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, mourning dove, sandhill crane, and gray partridge are 

thought to be the most hunted upland bird species on the WPA, as the other species are present 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-124 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

intermittently due to marginal habitat. Due to the low numbers of hunters using the WPA, the WPA 

does not contribute any significant harvest numbers to the total estimated for the Southeast region of 

the state and even less statewide. SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff participates in pre-migration 

surveys for sandhill cranes, but does not currently perform any other inventory or monitoring for the 

upland game bird, big game, or furbearer species that occur on the WPA, nor does it track harvest of 

these species on the WPA. Therefore assessment of impacts to sandhill cranes and mourning doves 

are based on USFWS population estimates and harvest statistics, while impact assessment for 

resident wildlife species are based on population estimates and harvest statistics compiled by the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Mourning dove population and harvest data: Based on Call Count Survey data (calls heard) and 

Breeding Bird Survey data, the abundance of mourning doves has decreased in the Western 

Management Unit (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon Utah, and Washington) during the 

long term (1966-2011) (Seamans et al. 2011). Currently harvest of mourning doves in the Western 

Management Unit, is governed by the Revised Mourning Dove Harvest Management Strategy 

(March 13, 2008), which is a transitional step toward implementation of the strategy envisioned in 

the Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan (USFWS 2005). Currently, callcount surveys (birds heard and birds seen), the North American Breeding Bird Survey, and indirect 

population growth rate estimates calculated from harvest and banding data are used to produce 

composite estimates of dove trends at the management unit scale that are used in the annual setting of 

mourning dove hunting seasons. The initial composite trend models used as the basis of the 2008 

Revised Strategy will likely be replaced by population models, pending continued and expanded 

support for a banding and wing survey programs, and research generating information fueling the 

population models. Idaho harvest was 143,300 doves in 2009 +/- 38 percent and 90,600 +/- 39 

percent in 2010 or about 6 percent of the total harvest in the Western Management Unit (Raftovich et 

al. 2011). 

Sandhill crane population and harvest data: Sandhill cranes are managed cooperatively by the States 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Harvest quotas are established annually by the Service. Each 

year the allowable harvest is allocated among states based on approximate sandhill crane abundance 

and seasonal distribution. The Pacific and Central Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population (RMP) of Sandhill Cranes established a population objective (17,000-21,000 birds), and 

identifies surveys used to monitor recruitment and harvest levels that are designed to maintain a 

stable abundance (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 2007). Since 1995, a 

fall pre-migration (September) survey has been used as the primary tool for monitoring population 

change of Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes. Surveys were initiated in Southeast 

Idaho at this time (Knetter et al. 2009). All sandhill crane hunters in the range of the RMP must 

obtain a state permit to hunt cranes, which provides the sampling frame for independent harvest 

estimates and allows for assignment of harvest quotas by state. In many areas, harvest estimates are 

supplemented by periodic mandatory check-station reporting. The Plan allows for the regulated 

harvest of cranes when the population index exceeds 15,000, as estimated by the average of the three 

most recent reliable surveys conducted on fall pre-migration staging areas. As outlined in the 

management plan, the most recent reliable three-year running average (2008, 2009 and 2010) was 

used to determine the 2010 harvest allocation. Based on the allowable harvest formula for this 

population, 1,270 sandhill cranes may be harvested from the RMP during the 2012-2013 hunting 

season. In 2011 17,494 cranes were counted in the September survey and the most recent three-year 

average was 19,626 cranes.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-125 

Idaho’s 2012 crane harvest allocation, as directed by the Pacific Flyway Council Rocky Mountain 

Population Crane Plan, is 225 cranes, down from 410 in 2011. There are two reasons Idaho’s 

allocation declined in 2012: (1) There were a reduced number of birds during the fall 2011 crane 

survey. As a result, the overall flyway allocation declined; and (2) The base allocation for each state 

was modified in 2012. The allocation is revised once every five years. In Idaho, the number of cranes 

and the proportion of cranes in the total population has declined. As a result, the Idaho allocation of 

the harvest declined from 22 percent to 16.7 percent (IDFG 2012b). 

In recent years, there have been five hunt areas in Idaho. To accommodate the reduced harvest 

allocation, in 2012 the Department proposed to decrease the number of tags available in each hunt 

area. Furthermore, due to increasing numbers of cranes in the Swan Lake area in the Southeast 

Region, the Department proposed to create a new hunt area with 30 tags. The proposed new Swan 

Lake Hunt Area is located in Bannock County east of I-15 and south of Hwy 30, and Franklin 

County west of Hwy 91 from the Utah state line to the junction of Hwy 34 and continuing west of 

Hwy 34 and 91 to the Franklin County-Caribou County line. The hunt area includes Oxford Slough 

WPA (IDFG 2012b). 

Big game population and harvest data: Population and hunting objectives for big game species, 

including deer, elk, and mountain lion, are set in management plans developed by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. Elk are meeting population objectives in Idaho’s Southeast Region, 

The Bannock elk management zone, and Unit 74 (Rachael et al. 2010b). Therefore, liberal seasons 

and regulations are in effect. 244 hunters took 25 elk, 166 archery hunters took 11 elk, and 31 

muzzleloader hunters took two elk. In 2006, 193 hunters took 32 elk and in 2001 240 hunters took 45 

elk. In 2010, three mountain lions were taken by hunters in Unit 74. In 2011 no moose were taken in 

Unit 74, while in 2010 five moose were taken (all tags were filled) (IDFG Harvest Statistics website). 

Mule deer populations have declined in southeast Idaho since the early 1990s. As a result, the 

number of hunters pursuing mule deer, harvest, and hunter success rates have declined. Few to no 

white-tailed deer occur in Idaho’s Southeast Region due to lack of suitable habitat (Rachael et al. 

2010a). In Unit 74 in 2011, 1,110 hunters took 255 deer, of which 0.8 percent (two deer) were whitetails; 101 archery hunters took 11 deer (all mule deer). In 2006, 1348 hunters took 491 deer (all mule 

deer) and in 2001, 1412 hunters took 593 deer (IDFG Harvest Statistics website). The IDFG notes 

that since 1970, Idaho’s population has increased 106 percent, while the number of resident deer tags 

sold has decreased 24 percent. The proportion of Idaho residents purchasing a deer tag has dropped 

from 23 percent in 1970 to fewer than 9 percent in 2006. This decline is attributable primarily to a 

changing culture, but is more pronounced in recent years because of lower mule deer numbers (IDFG 

2008). 

There has been no hunt for pronghorn in Unit 74 for more than ten years. Until 2009, a general hunt 

for black bear was allowed in Unit 74 but no bears were harvested in the unit, and very few in the SE 

Idaho region. There has been no black bear hunt in Unit 74 since 2010. 

In April 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted gray wolves in the northern Rocky 

Mountain Distinct Population Segment, excluding Wyoming, from the protections of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), and returned wolf management authorities to those states. Following a Federal 

District Court decision, wolves were relisted under the ESA on August 5, 2010. On April 15, 2011, 

the 2009 delisting rule was reissued. Wolf management responsibility returned to the State of Idaho 

on May 5, 2011. Following delisting in May 2011, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission authorized 

Idaho’s second wolf hunting season and a wolf trapping season in portions of the state. Two wolf 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-126 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

tags are permitted in Idaho’s Southeast Zone. In the 2011-2012 season, one wolf was legally 

controlled for harassing livestock in hunt Unit 73 (Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Nez 

Perce Tribe 2012). 

Mule deer are thought to be the most hunted big game species on the WPA, as the other species are 

present intermittently due to marginal habitat. Due to the low numbers of hunters using the WPA, the 

WPA does not contribute any significant harvest numbers to the total estimated for the Southeast 

region of the state and even less statewide. 

Mule deer population and harvest data: The Bannock Population Management Unit (PMU) (PMU 9) 

represents the least productive mule deer habitats in southeastern Idaho. Low quality habitat, 

combined with variable winter conditions undoubtedly cause mule deer numbers to vary 

considerably over time. Overall, mule deer numbers in hunt units within the Bannock PMU appear to 

be highly volatile with wide fluctuations over relatively short time periods. Mule deer densities in 

southeast Idaho are relatively low compared to historic levels, following the winter of 1992-1993, 

when significant winter mortality occurred. Harvest management has been conservative since that 

time. Recent observed recruitment rates are consistent with either stable or slightly declining 

populations. (Rachael et al. 2010a). There was a 28 percent hunter success rate (three-year average) 

in the PMU. Between 2003 and 2009, the percentage of four-point or higher bucks varied between 29 

percent and 45 percent. Although mule deer have undergone a long-term decline in southern Idaho 

(IDFG 2008), populations are sufficiently healthy to support hunting under conservative harvest 

management. 

Elk population and harvest data: Since the late 1980s, populations of elk in the Bannock Zone have 

expanded dramatically in most of the zone. Calf recruitment rates have not been measured in this 

zone, however, the rapidly increasing numbers observed and changes in distribution suggest a highly 

productive herd. Objectives for Bannock Zone are to maintain a wintering elk population of 510-745 

cows and 125-165 bulls, including 60-110 adult bulls (Rachael et al. 2010b). Although no population 

estimate exists for this zone, field reports, combined with incidental observations from deer surveys, 

indicate that current numbers exceed objectives. The IDFG concluded that a reduction in cows is 

necessary to alleviate significant depredation concerns and reduce the occupancy of elk in important 

mule deer winter ranges. A reduction in bulls and adult bulls will provide for hunter demand of 

antlered elk and balance bull numbers with cow numbers. Aggressive harvest rates will be necessary 

to achieve population objectives (Rachael et al. 2010b). The liberal season (the archery, any weapon 

and muzzleloader only seasons combined run from August 30-Nov 30) and inclusion of an antlerless 

harvest indicates a healthy population of elk sufficient to support hunting. 

Moose, mountain lion, and wolf population and harvest data: Prior to the 1950s, there were too few 

moose in Idaho’s Southeast Region to justify harvest. The first hunt for moose in the region was held 

in 1959 when five antlered-only permits were issued. With continued growth of the population, 

harvest has increased to recent levels of over 150 moose in 11 GMUs. Portions of the region continue 

to be colonized by moose, and populations apparently are increasing. Ninety-five antlered-only and 

65 antlerless-only permits were offered in the Southeast Region in 2009. Mandatory harvest reports 

identified high success rate (84 percent for antlered moose and 68 percent for antlerless moose). 

Conservative permit levels likely allow for passive population expansion and growth, particularly in 

those areas being newly colonized (Toweill et al. 2010). Because of the highly controlled nature of 

distributing moose permits and the limited number of permits available in Unit 74 (five permits, 

antlered only) the negative effects of hunting moose on the WPA will be negligible. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-127 

Mountain lions are judged to be at relatively high levels in most areas of the Bannock Zone (Rachael 

et al. 2010b). Only 3 mountain lion were harvested in Unit 74 in 2010. This minor harvest will have 

very little impact on the lion population in Idaho’s southeast region. Wolves are rare in the Southern 

Idaho management zone. During 2011, no documented packs or groups occupied the Southern Idaho 

Zone (Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Nez Perce Tribe 2012). Two tags are allowed. The 

impacts caused by wolf hunting on the WPA are likely inconsequential due to the paucity of wolves 

on the WPA and the subsequent lack of hunters pursuing them. 

Furbearer population and harvest data: Muskrat, mink, American badger, red fox, and bobcat occur 

on the WPA and may be hunted. Coyotes, raccoons, jackrabbits, skunks, weasels, and Columbian 

ground squirrels are classified as unprotected species and may be hunted at any time. Of unprotected 

species, ground squirrels are thought to be the most hunted species on the WPA. 

Beginning with the 2002-2003 trapping season, Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE), which measures the 

harvest of furbearers by trapping per unit of time has been used to predict population trends of 

furbearers in Idaho (White and Crea 2010). CPUE for muskrat dropped markedly from the 2002-

2003 to the 2003-2004 season; however it has been relatively stable since the 2003-2004 season. 

Statewide population trends, based upon animals trapped per 100 trap-nights were stable to slightly 

declining for bobcat, raccoon, and coyote. Trend was down for most other furbearers, although 

CPUE increased for skunk, badger, mink, and coyote compared to the 2008-9 season. Badger, 

skunks, and weasel are usually trapped incidentally to trapping for other species. Many trappers, who 

report harvest of badger, skunks, weasel, and sometimes otter, do not report trap nights or traps set 

for these four species since they are trapping for other species. Therefore, CPUE may not be an 

accurate reflection of population trend for badger, otter, skunks, and weasel. Populations of 

Columbian ground squirrels and jackrabbits are not tracked by the State of Idaho. 

Impacts to breeding waterfowl and waterbirds: Since the primary upland game and big game species 

hunted at Oxford Slough are ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, mourning dove, sandhill 

crane, gray partridge, ground squirrels, and mule deer, and hunting for these species occurs well after 

the breeding season for waterfowl and colonial nesting waterbirds (e.g., Franklin’s gull and whitefaced ibis), impact to the central purpose of the WPA (waterfowl production) and to colonial nesting 

waterbirds will be negligible. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife Species. 

In addition to loss of individual target species, hunting results in the increase of non-target species 

being injured or killed (accidentally or intentionally). Disturbance to the daily activities, such as 

feeding and resting, of wintering non-hunted birds and other wildlife might occur. Hunting causes 

disturbance to non-target species because of noise (most notably the report of a firearm), human 

presence and general disturbance associated with the activity. These disturbances are manifested by 

alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, disablement or death in non-target 

species (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). This effect is likely a minor negative effect due to the low 

numbers of hunters using the WPA. WPA regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by 

hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any 

non-target wildlife is not permitted. Although ingestion of lead shot by non-hunted wildlife could be 

a cumulative impact, it is not relevant at the WPA because non-toxic shot is be required. Hunting 

seasons do not coincide with nesting seasons, so reproduction will not be directly impacted by 

hunting. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-128 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Impacts to Other Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses. Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the 

potential to disturb refuge visitors engaged in other non-hunting wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Since relatively few visitors engage in upland game and big game hunting on the WPA, and most 

upland game and big game hunting occurs when other visitation to the WPA is low, impacts to nonhunting visitors will be minimal. 

Summary and Application to Oxford Slough WPA. The impacts to populations of resident game, 

upland game, and furbearers, both locally and regionally, caused by hunting on the Oxford Slough 

WPA are likely inconsequential due to the low numbers of hunters pursuing those species. While 

hunting has no positive effects on these species as the activity is occurring, it is well recognized that 

this activity has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of 

the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System 

mission. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012a) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012b) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. Public review of a step-down Hunt Plan (see Stipulations) as required under Service 

policy will be conducted before implementing changes to the WPA’s upland game and big game 

hunting programs. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

User Stipulations. 

 Hunters must obey all State and Federal hunting regulations. Hunters may possess only 

approved nontoxic shot while in the field, with the exception that hunters may use slugs 

and shot containing lead to hunt turkey and deer. 

 Camping, overnight use and fires are prohibited. The use or possession of alcoholic 

beverages while hunting is prohibited. 

 Vehicle access is prohibited beyond approved access roads, trails, and parking lots. 

 All personal property must be removed from the refuge at the end of each day. 

 Hunting dogs will be under hunter control at all times. 

 Hunt areas will be posted at least two weeks before the hunting season begins. 

 Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex staff will conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting 

facilities, and monitor wildlife impacts. 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use 

is being permitted as it is a priority public use and will not interfere with the WPA achieving its 

purposes of waterfowl production and any other management purpose, for migratory birds. The 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-129 

hunting of resident game, upland game, and furbearers on the Oxford Slough WPA will contribute to 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by providing a wildlife-oriented recreational 

benefit to Americans. Hunting is also one of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System as stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. 

Hunting does result in the taking of individuals within the overall population, but restrictions are 

designed to safeguard an adequate breeding population from year to year. Resident game hunting 

seasons and bag limits are established by the State of Idaho, ensuring the continued well-being of 

overall populations. Consistent with the System mission, resident game and furbearer hunting on 

WPAs results in management of populations and is not a “control” program intending to eliminate 

certain species for the benefit of others. As migratory birds, sandhill cranes and mourning doves are 

managed cooperatively by the States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the case of sandhill 

cranes, harvest quotas are established annually by the Service to maintain population objectives 

specified in the management plan for this species. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the WPA will not be measurably lessened from allowing the hunting 

of resident game, upland game, and furbearers to occur on the WPA. The relatively limited number 

of individuals expected to be adversely affected by hunting will not cause wildlife populations to 

materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be 

impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing the hunting of resident game, upland 

game, and furbearers to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the 

WPA’s purpose of waterfowl production, or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2027 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2008. Idaho mule deer management plan. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planMuleDeer.pdf. Accessed June 2012. 

IDFG. 2011a. Moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goat controlled hunt seasons and rules, 2011-

2012. Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/rules/?getPage=64. Accessed June 

2012. 

IDFG. 2011b. Sage-grouse seasons and rules. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandSage.pdf. Accessed June 2012. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-130 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

IDFG. 2012a. Idaho big game seasons and rules 2012. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/rules/?getPage=63. Accessed June 2012. 

IDFG. 2012b. 2012 Sandhill crane tag proposals. Available at: 

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/portal/form/2012-sandhill-crane-tag-proposals. Accessed 

June 2012. 

IDFG. 2012c. Upland game, furbearer, turkey seasons and rules 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. 

Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf. Accessed June 

2012. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) and Nez Perce Tribe. 2012. 2011 Idaho wolf monitoring 

progress report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID; Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery 

Project, Lapwai, ID. 94 pp. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual11.pdf. Accessed June 2012. 

Knetter, J., M. Benker, T. Boudreau, J. Crenshaw, B. Helmich, T. Keegan, R. Knight, D. Meints, 

S. Nadeau, G. Painter, J. Powell, J. Rohlman, D. Smith, and R. Smith. 2009. IDFG waterfowl fall 

and winter surveys, production, summer banding, and harvest, October 1, 2008 to September 30, 

2009. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Waterfowl%20Statew

ide%20PR09.pdf. Accessed June 2012. 

Knetter, J., J. Hayden, J. Crenshaw, S. Nadeau, R. Smith, T. Boudreau, D. Meints, and T. Keegan. 

2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game upland game progress report, July 1, 2009 to June 30, 

2010. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Upland%20Game%2

0Statewide%20PR10.pdf. Accessed June 2012. 

Kruse, K.L., J.A. Dubovsky, and T.R. Cooper. 2012. Status and harvests of sandhill cranes: midcontinent, Rocky Mountain, lower Colorado River Valley and eastern populations. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 14 pp.Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/PopulationStatus/SandhillCrane/20

12%20Status%20and%20Harvests%20Sandhill%20Cranes.pdf. 

Rachael, J., J. Hayden, J. Crenshaw, S. Nadeau, R. Smith, T. Boudreau, D. Meints, and T. Keegan. 

2010a. Idaho Department of Fish and Game mule deer progress report, July 1 2009 to June 30, 

2010. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Mule%20Deer%20St

atewide%20PR10.pdf. 

Rachael, J., J. Hayden, J. Crenshaw, S. Nadeau, J. Rohlman, R. Smith, T. Boudreau, D. Meints, and 

T. Keegan. 2010b. Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk progress report, July 1 2009 to June 

30, 2010. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%2

0PR10.pdf. 

Raftovich, R.V., K.A. Wilkins, S.S Williams, H.L. Spriggs, and K.D. Richkus. 2011. Migratory bird 

hunting activity and harvest during the 2009 and 2010 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Ser vice, Laurel, MD. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/HIP/HuntingStatistics/migratory%2

0bird%20hunting%20activity%20and%20harvest%20during%20the%202009%20and%202010%

20hunting%20seasons.pdf. 

Seamans, M.E., K. Parker, and T.A. Sanders. 2011. Mourning dove population status, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/PopulationStatus/MourningDove/M

ourning%20Dove%20Population%20Status%20%20Report%202011.pdf. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-131 

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes. 2007. Management plan of the Pacific 

and Central Flyways for the Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes. 

Subcommittees, Rocky Mountain Population Greater Sandhill Cranes, Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee, Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Technical Committee. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office. Portland, OR. 97 pp. 

Toweill, D., J. Hayden, J. Crenshaw, J. Rohlman, R. Smith, T. Boudreau, D. Meints, and T. Keegan. 

2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game moose progress report, July 1 2009 to June 30, 2010. 

Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Moose%20Statewide

%20PR10.pdf. 

USFWS. 2005. Mourning dove national strategic harvest management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington D.C. 

USFWS. 2008. Revised mourning dove harvest management strategy for the Western Management 

Unit. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/Dove/Interim%20strategy%20-

%20Western%20Management%20Unit.pdf. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental Assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2012b. Comprehensive conservation plan for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

White, C. and S. Crea. 2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game furbearer progress report, July 1 

2009 to June 30, 2010. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Furbearer%20PR10.p

df. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-132 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-133 

B.17 Compatibility Determination for Trapping of Furbearers on 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

RMIS Database Uses: Trapping of Furbearers 

Refuge Name: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Location: Franklin and Bannock Counties, ID 

Date Established: 1985 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. § 718(c)) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

Trapping of resident furbearers by the public, in accordance with State and Federal regulations, is 

allowed on the Oxford Slough WPA. This compatibility determination does not apply to trapping 

activities where the Service awards a contract or permit for the removal of animals to facilitate 

management (i.e., predator control of ground-nesting birds or protection for water control structures 

and roadways from flooding or dam blow-out). The entire WPA is open to trapping. By regulation 

(50 CFR 31.16), lands acquired as WPAs are open to public trapping unless closed under the 

authority of 50 CFR 25.21. In Idaho’s southeast region, trapping of either sex of northern river otter 

occurs from October 22-March 15; either sex of American beaver, muskrat, and mink occurs from 

October 22-April 15; either sex of American badger and red fox occurs from July 1-June 30; and 

either sex of bobcat from December 14-February 16. Animals classified by Idaho as “predators” or 

“unprotected” can be taken all year. Coyotes, raccoons, jackrabbits, skunks, weasels, Columbian 

ground squirrels, starlings, feral pigeons, and others, are included in this category. 

The presence of river otter and American beaver is not documented at the WPA, so the potential to 

trap those species is probably negligible. Muskrat and mink are probably common species, however 

population studies should be undertaken to verify population densities. Some red fox are seen at the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-134 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

WPA every year, so successful trapping is likely, but again, study is needed to ascertain populations. 

No documentation exists of the presence of American badger on the unit; however, since this species 

is secretive, trapping efforts could meet with some success. Bobcats have also been seen 

infrequently, so trapping of this species could also have limited success. Animals in the “predator” or 

“unprotected” category are probably fairly common on the WPA, so good success could be 

anticipated trapping or otherwise hunting those species. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

The following funds will be required to run the hunting program as designed under the CCP. 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $2k 

Maintenance: $0 $0 

Monitoring: $0 $3k 

Law enforcement 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0 

$0

TOTALS $5k 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Impacts to Habitat. Since hunting requires off-trail use in the pursuit and/or recovery of game, 

trampling of vegetation and creation of social trails may result from hunting activity. However due to 

the low numbers of waterfowl hunters on the WPA, this is not a significant concern. Of greater 

concern is the inadvertent introduction of non-native plants. Propagules of non-native plants can be 

transported into new areas on hunters’ boots, clothing, dogs and equipment (Benninger-Traux et al. 

1992). Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats and 

indirectly impacting wildlife. Invasive plants will be controlled and monitored as part of the Refuge’s 

Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Local Impacts to Furbearer Species. 

Population and harvest data: The direct effect of trapping on wildlife is mortality, wounding, and 

disturbance. The Idaho State Department of Fish and Game monitors furbearer populations and sets 

harvest quotas to ensure sustainable populations. Mandatory trapper reports are used to estimate the 

statewide harvest of furbearers by licensed trappers, the distribution of the harvest, and the market 

value of the state’s furbearer harvest. Beginning with the 1993-1994 trapping season, questions on 

how many days the trapper spent afield scouting and setting/checking traps, and how many hours, on 

average, the trapper spent afield each day was included. Results of this information were then 

projected to estimate the statewide trapping effort both in total hours and days afield. Beginning with 

the 2002-2003 trapping season, these questions were changed to include Catch-Per-Unit-Effort 

(CPUE). CPUE measures the harvest per unit of time and will be useful in predicting population 

trends. CPUE is based on the premise that as populations decline, fewer animals are available to be 

trapped; therefore, CPUE should decline, or vice versa, as populations increase, CPUE will increase. 

CPUE is calculated by multiplying the total number of nights trapped by the average number of traps 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-135 

set per night (for a given species) and then dividing the number of animals trapped by this number. 

CPUE is recorded as animals trapped per 100 trap nights (White and Crea 2010). 

CPUE for muskrat dropped markedly from the 2002-2003 to the 2003-2004 season; however it has 

been relatively stable since the 2003-2004 season. Statewide population trends, based upon animals 

trapped per 100 trap-nights were stable to slightly declining for bobcat, raccoon, and coyote. Trend 

was down for most other furbearers, although CPUE increased for skunk, badger, mink, and coyote 

compared to the 2008-9 season. Badger, skunks, and weasel are usually trapped incidentally to 

trapping for other species. Many trappers, who report harvest of badger, skunks, weasel, and 

sometimes otter, do not report trap nights or traps set for these four species since they are trapping for 

other species. Therefore, CPUE may not be an accurate reflection of population trend for badger, 

otter, skunks, and weasel. 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Department) sold 1,114 trapping licenses for the 2009-

2010 season. Harvest reports for the 2009-2010 season were submitted by 843 (76 percent) of the 

1,114 licensed trappers. Trappers reported harvesting 30,222 animals. The muskrat, beaver, coyote, 

raccoon, marten, and mink, were the most frequently harvested species. Statewide, 19,026 muskrat, 

2,303 coyote, 1332 raccoon, 964 mink, 715 bobcat, 752 red fox, 704 skunks, 189 badger, and 114 

weasel were trapped or harvested in the 2009-2010 season (White and Crea 2010). 

Oxford Slough WPA is located in both Bannock and Franklin Counties. Muskrat accounted for more 

than 90 percent of furbearers trapped or harvested in these counties during the 2009-2010 season 

(736 animals in Bannock County and 1,373 in Franklin County). Combined this represents 11 

percent of the total muskrat harvest statewide. These counties account for a low percentage of the 

harvest of all other furbearers (White and Crea 2010). It is unknown how many muskrat are 

harvested on the WPA annually, but given the stable trends for muskrat over the past decade it is 

unlikely that muskrat trapping on the WPA is having a significant negative effect on muskrat 

populations statewide. Given the low numbers of other furbearers harvested in Franklin and Bannock 

counties, the impact of the trapping program on these species is likely to be minor. 

Impacts to Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds. Public trapping can potentially impact the 

waterfowl production of WPAs through both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts are those 

where there is an immediate cause and effect relationship between the activity and the resources 

required to fulfill the waterfowl production purpose and System mission. Direct impacts may include 

such effects as killing or displacing of waterfowl during the pair bonding/nesting season, or 

destruction of nests by trampling. Indirect impacts are those where the effects of the permitted 

activity affect other populations or habitats that in turn have direct impacts on waterfowl production 

and the System purpose. Indirect impacts may include catch of target and non-target species that are 

predators on waterfowl and/or nests, or removal of species that induce habitat change (i.e., beaver or 

muskrat). 

Impacts, either direct or indirect, may be negative, neutral, or positive. Because of the temporal 

separation of trapping activities and the nesting season for waterfowl and other migratory birds, 

direct impacts to waterfowl production, or breeding populations of other migratory birds, by trappers 

is negligible. Muskrat trappers using the WPA after early March, undoubtedly disturb individuals on 

occasion, and cause temporary displacement of waterfowl from specific and limited areas. These 

impacts will be occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. Late-season trapping 

activity does have the potential to disturb colonial-nesting waterbirds, such as Franklin’s gull and 

white-faced ibis. While most trapping activity occurs in fall, winter, and early spring prior to the 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-136 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

breeding season for waterfowl and waterbirds, the trapping seasons for American beaver, muskrat, 

and mink (October 22-April 15) and American badger and red fox (July 1-June 30) overlap with the 

breeding season for these species. Management recommendations for Franklin’s gull and white-faced 

ibis include limiting disturbance to colonies from April 1-August 1 (Burger and Gochfeld 1994, 

Guay 1968, Ryder and Manry 1994). To date no disturbance of nesting colonies due to trapping 

activity has been documented. Any habitat change as a result of the physical impacts of trapping 

activity (trampling, etc.) has not been documented. 

Indirect impacts to waterfowl production do result from the removal of animals under a trapping 

program. Most species of interest to trappers, and common “non-target” catches (i.e., skunk, freeranging house cat), are predators on waterfowl at some point in the production cycle. Management of 

red fox and mink populations, through a regulated trapping program is, at worst, a neutral impact, 

and likely a positive one in most cases on the waterfowl production purpose. Timing of the removal 

of predators also affects the impact that this activity has on waterfowl production. Again, depending 

on the time of year, impacts on waterfowl production may be neutral or positive. Due to the low 

levels of predators trapped in Franklin and Bannock Counties, only a slight positive impact to 

waterfowl production will be likely to result from the trapping program. 

Other indirect impacts on waterfowl production occur as a result of the manipulation of populations 

of species that affect habitat, e.g., beaver or muskrat. Beaver have not been documented at Oxford 

Slough WPA, but the WPA does support muskrat. By their nature, muskrats affect habitat that, in 

turn, may affect waterfowl production. Upon initial analysis, we often think of muskrat, with their 

propensity to maintain open water, as beneficial to waterfowl production. In exceptionally large 

marshes and in pre-settlement times, this is/was likely the case. However, the landscape has been 

altered through agricultural conversion so that few historic ecosystem functions remain intact. Other 

than the fact that water continues to flow downhill, the hydrology of this landscape bears little 

resemblance to its pre-settlement conditions. Dikes, levees, roads, culverts, pumps, and water control 

structures work to move and confine water with calculated purpose. Ramifications of disruption to 

this system can include private property damage, public safety hazards, and legal liability. As a 

result, the Service intensely manages water on WPAs to provide for waterfowl production and to 

fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. High muskrat populations are detrimental 

to levees and dikes as individuals burrow into these structures and compromise the structural 

integrity. Without the ability to control water levels, our waterfowl production purpose will suffer, as 

will our ability to contribute to the System mission. A public trapping program facilitates 

management of muskrat populations at such levels that many benefits created by this species are 

realized, yet the ability of the Service to manage water levels is not compromised. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-137 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Trapping activity must be conducted in compliance with existing State regulations. 

 Southeast Idaho Complex staff will monitor colonies of white-faced ibis and Franklin’s gulls. 

If disturbance caused by trapping is documented, seasonal restrictions will be instituted. 

Justification: 

Direct impacts to the waterfowl production purpose are negligible due to the temporal separation of 

most trapping activity and the use of WPAs by waterfowl for production, and by colonial nesting 

birds. Muskrat and red fox trapping occurring after early March may cause limited disturbance of 

individuals and pairs. These temporary and isolated disturbance events result in temporary 

displacement of birds from a specific location. Due to the duration of these events, the small number 

of individual waterfowl involved, and the limited geographic area impacted by the presence of one or 

a few individuals, these impacts on waterfowl production and the System mission are negligible. 

While the potential for disturbance to colonies of white-faced ibis and Franklin’s gull due to lateseason trapping of muskrat and red fox exists, impacts of trapping to colonial nesting birds has not 

been documented to date. If monitoring demonstrates unacceptable impacts seasonal restrictions on 

trapping will be instituted. 

Consistent with the System mission, public trapping on WPAs results in management of populations 

and is not a “control” program intending to eliminate certain species for the benefit of others. 

However, indirect impacts to waterfowl production (either directly through the removal of predators, 

or indirectly, through removal of species such as beaver or muskrat that affect water management 

capabilities.) These impacts are generally positive, though they vary depending upon timing of 

removal, size of the WPA, adjacent land management practices, and other factors. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the WPA will not be measurably lessened from public trapping to 

occur on the WPA. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected by 

trapping will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will 

not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing 

this public trapping program to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the 

WPA’s purpose of waterfowl production, or the Refuge System mission. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-138 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2027 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

birds of North America, no. 116. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, 

D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Guay, J.W. 1968. The breeding biology of Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). Ph.D. dissertation. 

University of Alberta, Edmonton. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Upland game, furbearer, turkey seasons and rules 

2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf. 

Ryder, R.R., and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

The birds of North America, no. 130. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2012b. Comprehensive conservation plan for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

White, C. and S. Crea. 2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game furbearer progress report, July 1 

2009 to June 30, 2010. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Furbearer%20PR10.p

df. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-139 

 

   
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-140 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 

   
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-141 

B.18 Compatibility Determination for Research and Monitoring on 

the Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

RMIS Database Uses: Research and Monitoring 

Refuge Name: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Location: Franklin and Bannock Counties, ID 

Date Established: 1985 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. § 718(c)) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

The Southeast Idaho NWR Complex staff receives periodic requests from non-Service entities (e.g., 

universities, State agencies, other Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations) to conduct 

research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands, including the Oxford Slough WPA. These 

project requests can involve a wide range of natural and cultural resources as well as public-use 

management issues including basic absence/presence surveys, collection of new species for 

identification, habitat use and life-history requirements for specific species/species groups, practical 

methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to 

control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and 

associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, 

modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to 

disturbance from public uses. Projects may be species-specific, refuge-specific, or evaluate the 

relative contribution of the refuge lands to larger landscapes (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, 

national, international) issues and trends. 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 

1.10D(4)) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-142 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge-specific needs for resource 

and/or wilderness management goals and objectives, where applicable, will be given a higher priority 

over other requests. 

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge Complex staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities will be primarily be limited 

to the following: review of proposals, prepare SUP(s) and other compliance documents (e.g., Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and 

monitor project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels 

(compatibility) over time. Additional administrative support, logistical and operational support may 

also be provided depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., prepare 

SUP) and annually re-occurring tasks by Refuge Complex staff and other Service employees will be 

determined for each project. Sufficient funding in the general operating budget of the WPA must be 

available to cover expenses for these projects. The terms and conditions for funding and staff support 

necessary to administer each project on the WPA will be clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex has the following staffing and funding to administratively 

support and monitor research that is currently taking place on refuge lands (see table below). Any 

substantial increase in the number of projects will create a need for additional resources to oversee 

the administration and monitoring of the investigators and their projects. Any substantial additional 

costs above those itemized below may result in finding a project not compatible unless expenses are 

offset by the investigator(s), sponsoring agency, or organization. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and management $1,000 

Maintenance $1,000 

Monitoring $1,000 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvement $0 

Offsetting revenues $0 

Itemized costs in the previous table are current estimates calculated using a 3 percent base cost of a GS-12 Refuge Manager. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Use of the Refuge(s) to conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys will generally provide 

information that will benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of species and 

species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource management 

objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife 

and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If project methods impact or conflict with refuge-specific resources, priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses, other high-priority research, wilderness, and refuge habitat and wildlife management 

programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that its scientific findings will contribute to resource 

management and that the project cannot be conducted off refuge lands for the project to be 

compatible. The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in advance required to minimize or 

eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable impacts cannot be avoided, then the 

project will not be compatible. Projects that represent public or private economic use of the natural 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-143 

resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting), in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, 

must contribute to the achievement of the WPA’s purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Impacts will be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon nature and scope of 

the fieldwork. Data collection techniques will generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or animals) 

or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. To 

reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers will coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

Investigator(s) obtaining required State or Federal collecting permits will also ensure minimal 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. After incorporating the above strategies, projects 

will not be compatible if they will result in long-term or cumulative effects. A Section 7 consultation 

under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended Public Law 93-

205) will be required for activities that may affect a federally listed species and/or critical habitat. 

Only projects that have no effect or result in not likely to adversely affect determinations will be 

considered compatible. At this time, no Federally listed species occur on the WPA. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary (see 

Attachment 4). If after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive species is 

anticipated to occur, then the project will be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation 

plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support a projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) will usually be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative 

unacceptable effects cannot be avoidable, the project will not be found compatible. Project proposals 

will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short-term, 

long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to refuge management issues and 

understanding of natural systems. 

At least six months before initiation of fieldwork (unless an exception is made by prior approval of 

the Refuge Manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format 

provided in Attachment 1. Project proposals will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, 

to assess the potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the 

investigation to refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment 

will form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects that result in 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-144 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

unacceptable refuge impacts will not be found compatible. If allowed and found compatible after 

approval, all projects also will be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts 

remain within acceptable levels. 

If the proposal is approved, then designated SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff will issue an SUP(s) 

with required stipulations (terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential 

impacts to the WPA’s resources as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and WPA field 

management operations. After approval, projects also are monitored during implementation to ensure 

impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) will ensure 

that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of 

native wildlife populations and their habitats on the WPA. As a result, these projects will help fulfill 

WPA purpose(s); contribute to the Mission of the NWRS; and maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the WPA. 

Projects that are not covered by the WPA’s Inventory and Monitoring Plan, or inventory and 

monitoring strategies under the objectives in this CCP will require additional NEPA documentation. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This CD was prepared concurrent with the Bear Lake NWR CCP. Public notice was provided and 

open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public during the scoping 

period for the Draft CCP/EA. Public review and comment were solicited during the Draft CCP/EA 

comment period. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Each project will require an SUP. Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some 

permits will be for a longer period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. All SUPs will have 

a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Renewals will be subject to review and 

approval by SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff, based on timely submission of and content in progress 

reports, compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

 Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and applicable. 

 Investigators must possess appropriate and comply with conditions of State and Federal 

permits for their projects. 

 If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the 

refuge staff, then SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff can suspend, modify conditions of, or 

terminate an on-going project already permitted by SUP(s) on a refuge(s). 

 Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report will be provided to investigator(s) (see Attachment 2). 

 Final reports are due one year after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise 

with SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-145 

 Continuation of existing projects will require approval by SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff. 

 The SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff will be given the opportunity to review draft 

manuscript(s) from the project before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for 

consideration of publication. 

 The SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff will be provided with copies (reprints) of all 

publications resulting from a refuge project. 

 The SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably 

electronic database format) at the conclusion of the project. 

 Upon completion of the project or annually, all equipment and markers (unless required for 

long-term projects), must be removed and sites must restored to the SE Idaho Refuge 

Complex staff’s satisfaction. Conditions for clean-up and removal of equipment and physical 

markers will be stipulated in the SUP(s). 

 All samples collected on refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for 

review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work. For 

samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a memorandum of 

understand will be necessary (see Attachment 3). 

 Sampling equipment as well as investigator(s) clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATV, boats) will 

be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being allowed for use on WPA 

lands to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests. Where necessary, use quarantine 

methods (see Attachment 4). 

 The NWRS, the WPA, names of SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff and other Service personnel 

that supported or contributed to the project will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in 

all written and oral presentations resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

 At any time, SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field. 

 Investigator(s) and support staff will follow all refuge-specific regulations that specify access 

and travel on the WPA. 

Justification: 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service 

because they will expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In 

addition, only projects that directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally will be 

authorized on refuge lands, including Waterfowl Production Areas. In many cases, if it were not for 

the SE Idaho Refuge Complex staff providing access to WPA lands and waters along with some 

support, the project would never occur and less scientific information would be available to the 

Service to aid in managing and conserving the refuge resources. By allowing the use to occur under 

the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife species that could be disturbed during 

the use will find sufficient food resources and resting places so their abundance and use will not be 

measurably lessened on the Refuge(s). Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will 

prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. As a result, 

these projects will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling WPA purpose(s); 

contributing to the mission of the NWRS; and maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge(s). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-146 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-147 

 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-148 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-149 

B.19 Compatibility Determination for Agricultural Practices 

(Farming and Haying) on Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production 

Area 

RMIS Database Uses: Agriculture (Farming and Haying) 

Refuge Name: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Location: Franklin and Bannock Counties, Idaho

Date Established: 1985 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Oxford Slough WPA: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. § 718(c)) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Oxford Slough WPA. 

The 1,878-acre Oxford Slough WPA was purchased in fee title from the Federal Land Bank on April 

25, 1985. Lands were purchased using Federal Duck Stamp Funds, allocated by the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, which provided that the area be managed under the following 

purposes: 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

WPA crops are planted to promote sustained use of these areas by migrating waterfowl by providing 

an accessible, high-energy food source during late fall and early winter as wetland habitats freeze up. 

Current Management. Agricultural practices on the Oxford Slough WPA include haying and 

planting crops such as cereal grains and clover. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-150 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Current farming use: Staff currently farms 79 acres in seven farm fields on Oxford Slough WPA. 

Crops are rotational farmed in 70 percent small grain (split between fall wheat and spring barley) and 

30 percent summer fallow or leguminous (alfalfa) cover crops. Generally, small grain fields are 

planted one year and rotated into a spring fallow the following year. Staff previously implemented 

active restoration on over half of the agricultural fields at Oxford Slough by planting native upland 

grasses to restore historic fields to dense nesting grass cover. 

A Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA) has been in effect since WPA acquisition in 

1985. CLMAs allow private farmers (cooperator) to raise a specified crop in a designated field or 

fields, in exchange for harvest of hay from the WPA. The WPA has been working with one 

cooperative farmer at Oxford Slough WPA since 2007 for both farming and haying. Consistent with 

the annual CLMA the cooperative farmer plants WPA crops, fallows fields, repairs fences, and 

controls WPA water rights in exchange for harvesting hay and winter wheat. Water for irrigation is 

managed by the CLMA using existing irrigation and water control structures. Genetically modified 

crops are not allowed. 

Current haying use: Staff manages 300 acres of annual hayed short-cover meadow at Oxford Slough 

WPA. Hay fields must be irrigated in the spring through the early summer and then dewatered to 

allow the hayed grasses to dry before haying activity. Haying operations are restricted until August 1 

and can occur through September 15. 

Proposed Management. 

Proposed farming management: The WPA will continue to farm 30 of the 79 acres in two of the 

seven farm fields as managed crops on Oxford Slough WPA. This constitutes a 62 percent reduction 

in crops on Oxford Slough WPA within the implementation of proposed management. 

The WPA proposes to continue with using CLMAs for agricultural production and will continue to 

leave the WPA crop share in the field where it will be available to wildlife. The CLMA cooperator 

will use his/her own farm equipment such as tractors, swathers, balers, and diskers. CLMA crop 

planting and fallowing will continue as current management in the spring and the fall of each year 

and haying activities will be conducted from August 1 to September 15. In years with anomalous 

weather conditions, activity dates may be varied upon consultation with WPA staff. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual 

($/yr) 

Administration and management: $ $1,000 

Maintenance: $ $0 

Monitoring: $ $500 

Offsetting revenues: $

$ 

$0

TOTALS $1,500 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-151 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Farming. 

Effects of farming to refuge wildlife: Both current and proposed management of Oxford Slough WPA 

recognize the benefits for providing supplemental forage for migratory waterfowl and waterbirds 

within the Pacific and Bear River migratory corridor. WPA farming practices (both current and 

proposed) are designed for the predominate benefit of waterfowl (ducks, geese and greater sandhill 

cranes). However, many other species (e.g., long-billed curlews, porcupine, sage-grouse, bald eagles) 

would benefit directly or indirectly from WPA crops. Croplands on the WPA promote sustained use 

of the area by migrating waterfowl by providing an accessible, high-energy food source during late 

fall and early winter as wetlands freeze up. 

Most waterfowl are opportunistic feeders, and some species such as Canada geese, snow geese, 

mallard, northern pintails, and teal have learned to capitalize on the abundant foods produced by 

agriculture (Bellrose 1976). During the last century, migration routes and wintering areas have 

changed in response to availability of these foods (Fredrickson and Drobney 1979). Some species 

have developed such strong migratory traditions that many populations are now dependent on 

agricultural foods for their migration or winter survival (Ringelman 1990). However, during breeding 

and molting periods, waterfowl require a balanced diet with high protein content. Agricultural foods, 

most of which are neither nutritionally balanced nor high in protein, are seldom used during these 

periods. During fall, winter, and early spring, when vegetative foods make up a large part of their 

diet, agricultural foods are preferred forage except in arctic and subarctic environments (Sugden 

1971). 

Effects of farming to refuge habitats: As the only Waterfowl Production Area in Region 1 of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the extent and quality of upland habitat for nesting waterfowl is critical. 

The 79 acres currently farmed represents >5 percent of the WPAs total habitat. The WPA proposes to 

maintain 30 of the 79 acres currently farmed in agricultural production on Oxford Slough WPA. This 

constitutes a 62 percent reduction in crops. Under proposed management, farmed acres will be 

reduced to 30 acres to occur on >2 percent of Oxford Slough WPA. There will be a very minor 

impact on availability of grain for fall migrating geese and cranes, since the amount of land under 

cultivation will decrease by 49 acres in proposed management. However, proposed management will 

not impart any additional losses to native habitats from farming, since all proposed farm fields have 

already been in agricultural production. Additionally, the juxtaposition of native and cropland in 

proposed management will provide greater native and crop food diversity and habitat resiliency. 

Activities associated with crop production, including ground disturbance and field to field movement 

of cultivating and harvesting equipment can disturb soils. Direct impacts of cropland management 

include exposure of soils to wind erosion and impacts from farm machinery. In general, tillage and 

cropping that leaves soil bare for portions of the year negatively affect soil quality indicators (Nelson 

et al. 2006) such as aggregate stability, infiltration rates, and available water capacity. Compaction 

can result from the use of farming equipment for seeding, causing undesirable increases in bulk 

density, while tilling may also prevent the accumulation of, or accelerate the decomposition of 

organic matter (USDA NRCS). 

Current fall crop residues are generally removed by tilling after harvest, but proposed management 

will implement a conservation tillage system and fallow residual crops through the fall and into the 

next summer. Subsequently, proposed management will reduce the total tilling of agricultural fields 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-152 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

on the WPA through the implementation of conservation tillage practices and by restoring 49 acres of 

agriculture fields at Oxford Slough. EPA’s guidance for estimating Particulate Matter (PM) 

emissions from agricultural crop tilling involves combining a constant emission factor with countylevel activity data, including the silt content of surface soils, the number of tillings performed in a 

year for each crop type, and the acres of each crop type (EPA 2001, 2004). While no PM emissions 

data exist for Southeastern Idaho, it is estimated that the WPA contribution to PM emissions would 

be less under proposed management, but no significantly degradation is expected to local or regional 

air quality from either current or proposed management action. While there will obviously be some 

continued impact to soil quality within proposed management, a reduction in the acreage under 

cultivation should impart a minor beneficial impact on soil and water quality when compared to 

current management. 

Cultivation and disturbance of soils fosters an undesirable opportunity for the introduction or spread 

of weeds on the WPA. Invasive weed species have the potential to reduce habitat quality and forage 

opportunity and have been identified as one of the most serious threats to WPA habitats. Farming 

may also result in the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from pesticide 

usage. In addition, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians may be occasionally subject to mortality 

from farm machinery, and nesting birds may be occasionally disrupted and nests destroyed. 

The WPA previously restored over half of the WPAs former agricultural fields by planting native 

upland grasses for dense nesting cover. Crop fields surrounding the northeast hillside of Oxford 

Slough are still subject to rill erosion during summer rain events. Active sagebrush restoration, as 

developed in proposed management along the periphery of these agricultural areas is required to 

stabilize the site. Proposed management will minimize the effects occurring from the loss of quality 

topsoilm which degrades water quality in the Slough. 

Proposed five-year WPA evaluations of the geographic distribution and acreage of small grain 

production operations will improve the WPA’s ability to adaptively determine future agricultural 

needs. By monitoring regional trends in crop production within proposed management the WPA will 

become more adaptive and be able to provide increased agricultural crop production for wildlife or 

the ability to further restore additional agriculture habitats, should conditions warrant. 

Effects to listed species from farming: Currently there are no listed species inhabiting the WPA. 

Should agricultural farming management conflicts occur with listed species in the future; the WPA 

will eliminate impacts to listed species or develop and implement minimization measures under 

Section 7 consultation of the Endangered Species Act. If deemed necessary, the cooperative farming 

program will be halted until all protective and minimizing measures can be evaluated and 

implemented as necessary. 

Effects to priority public uses from farming: The agricultural fields targeted to provide forage for 

focal wildlife species indirectly support wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Haying. 

Effects of haying to refuge wildlife: The Oxford Slough WPAcontains very productive meadow 

habitat. Current management will continue to maintain 300 acres of hay, which is 96 percent (227 

acres) of the total seasonally flooded meadow grass habitat on the WPA. This approach leaves little 

habitat for nesting and fledging waterbirds and reduces secure habitat that provides corridors for 

wildlife egress to and from the WPA. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-153 

By reducing haying operations by 50 percent (150 acres), proposed management will achieve an 

equitable distribution of hayed vs. unhayed areas (60:40) on Oxford Slough WPA and improve the 

juxtaposition of early and late successional habitats for a suite of nesting and foraging wildlife (Jarvis 

and Harris 1971, Fefer 1977, Bishop and Vrtiska 2008). 

The WPA creates early successional short-stature habitats by haying wet meadows. These habitats 

provide easily accessible open foraging areas for several species that have proven highly adaptable to 

anthropogenic habitat alterations. Hayed WPA areas provide preferred short-cover habitat for 

wildlife such as greater sandhill cranes, long-billed curlew, and Canada geese (Eldred 2009, La Sorte 

and Boecklen 2005). 

The WPA’s current haying objectives are designed to provide extensive short statured habitat across 

the WPA and attempt to increase wildlife foraging opportunities within artificially low stature 

vegetation. Potential wildlife benefits frequently cited for providing managed short-cover grassland 

include: increased palatability of grasses for grazers, increased invertebrate forage availability and 

detection rates, reduced physical obstruction, and increased security from predators during grazing or 

foraging activity (Deveruex et al. 2006). 

Hayed or naturally occurring short-cover habitats are comprised of low density herbaceous grass and 

forbs of 0-4 inches in height with bare ground, or light vegetative litter, easily visible. Ground 

foraging birds can easily move through this type of habitat and tend to select short cover habitat over 

dense grass habitat. Wildlife which select short-cover habitat include avian species in the Meadow 

Foraging Guild (e.g., greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Canada goose, western meadowlark, 

American robin, cattle egret; Grazing Waterfowl Guild (e.g., American widgeon, American coot, 

gadwall, Canada geese); and Upland Nesting Guild (e.g., long-billed curlew, black-necked stilt, 

killdeer). The species representative of the “short cover guild, for the purposes of this evaluation, are 

the sandhill crane (meadow foraging), Canada goose (Meadow Foraging/Grazing Waterfowl), blacknecked stilt (Upland Nesting) and, finally, long-billed curlew (Meadow Foraging). 

Dense cover habitat on the WPA is defined as taller native or non-native unhayed herbaceous cover, 

at least 10-12 inches in height, dense enough to effectively conceal a passerine, shorebird, or duck 

nest from overhead or lateral view. Birds selecting dense cover for foraging and nesting include 

species in the Upland Nesting Waterfowl Guild (i.e., northern pintail, mallard, cinnamon teal, 

northern shoveler, gadwall); the Meadow Nesting Shorebird Guild (i.e., Wilsons’ phalarope, willet, 

common snipe); the Secretive Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., American bittern, Virginia rail, sora rail); and 

the Shallow Over-water Nesting Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., black tern, marsh wren, red-winged 

blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, northern harrier). The species considered most representative of 

the “dense cover guild” for the purposes of this evaluation are the sandhill crane (Meadow Nesting), 

Wilson’s phalarope (Meadow Nesting), Northern Pintail (Upland Nesting), and Black tern (Shallow 

Over-Water Nesting). 

Current and proposed haying will reduce the height of the meadow grasses to the benefit of passerine 

species that prefer short grass pastures as a foraging habitat (Whitehead et al. 1995, Perkins et al. 

2000, Devereux et al. 2004). Several mechanisms may underpin this choice including greater 

visibility for monitoring predators and conspecifics, improved prey accessibility and better mobility 

for foragers (Whittingham and Markland 2002, Butler and Gillings 2004, Whittingham and Evans 

2004, Wilson et al. 2005). Conventional wisdom in agricultural and range management is that 

removal of “excess” or “decadent” plant litter increases sunlight and solar radiation, thereby warming 

soils earlier and promoting more available succulent plant growth earlier in the spring than areas 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-154 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

covered by dense litter (Lecain et al. 2000). In Northern California, the abundance and diversity of 

birds, particularly sandhill cranes, on hayed meadow were equal to or greater than the abundance and 

diversity of birds on nonhayed plots (Epperson et al. 1999). However, Epperson and colleagues 

(1999) noted that cranes spent more time foraging and less time alert in hayed plots and concluded 

that foraging and vigilance by cranes to be more efficient in hayed meadows. 

A second explanation of the preference of newly cut grass is that haying changes invertebrate activity 

or availability, for example by causing a temporary flush of prey (Vickery et al. 2001). The 

advantage to foraging in an area where prey is concentrated by mowing is intuitive (Dunwiddie 1991, 

Cattin et al. 2003), but it is less obvious why mowing could influence soil invertebrates. It is possible 

that the action of mowing changes the activity rates of soil-dwelling prey because of noise and 

vibration, especially when large machinery is used. Prey may respond to the disturbance by changing 

their activity rates in some way that translates into an increase in capture efficiency for short-cover 

foragers. 

Insects form particularly valuable protein rich forage bases within wet meadows (Fredrickson and 

Reid 1988, Wissinger 1999). Mowing or haying may affect the meadows associated invertebrate 

community (Purvis and Curry 1981, Morris 1990). If a meadow is hayed annually, the timing of the 

cut will affect the invertebrates present. The later the cut, the more time invertebrates will have to 

complete their life cycle. Many insect larvae develop in the seedheads of grasses and flowering 

plants. For example, cutting in June will have the greatest effect on planthoppers (Delphacidae) and 

many fly species, whilst cutting in July/August will adversely affect leafhoppers (Cicadellidae). 

Intake efficiency of foraging passerine birds was found to be greater in recently hayed units 

(Deveruex et al. 2006). Both intake rate and foraging efficiency are important determinants of a small 

bird’s survival. Deveruex and colleagues (2006) results showed that although no more prey were 

captured on newly mown/hayed grasslands, energy expenditure was reduced because fewer searches 

were required for each prey captured. 

While increased access to invertebrates is the principal advantage cited for short-cover management 

practices (Schekkerman and Beintema 2007), an unanticipated effect of short-cover haying 

operations is that little vegetative complexity for hosting invertebrate substrate remains. Temporally 

flooded meadow wetlands are so productive because the base of the biotic pyramid is large and 

diverse and nutrient cycling is dynamic (van der Valk 1989). Because energy flows from the lowest 

levels of the pyramid in unhayed or mowed habitat, detritus sustains much of the biomass and 

structure of the community (van der Valk 1989). Excessive litter removal from current haying 

practices affects the balance between litter removal and accumulation in shallow wetland habitat, 

causing unwanted effects upon primary and secondary wetland productivity. Small litter 

accumulations may not provide adequate substrate for invertebrates; however, large accumulations 

may alter surface hydrology through peat formation or nutrient binding (Magee 1993). Invertebrate 

production may be impeded because of unfavorable conditions associated with hydrology, substrate, 

and nutrient availability in scant or heavy litter accumulations (Magee 1993). Proposed management 

will reduce hayed acreage moderately from the current levels, thereby providing a more diverse litter 

layer in wet meadows and various stages of litter size and decay. In comparison to current 

management, proposed hay management optimizes management of invertebrates for a more diverse 

array of foraging waterbirds and wildlife. 

Haying involves the use of farm equipment to mow, rake, bale, and transport hay in grassland areas. 

The greatest potential for disturbance to wildlife occurs during mowing. Disturbance varies with 

vegetation composition and density, habitat use, wildlife species distribution and density, and time of 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-155 

year. Birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles may be temporarily or permanently displaced, 

injured, or killed. Collectively, several studies show a direct and often substantial impact of the 

harvesting process on the fauna, especially from the mowing stages, and that this impact depends on 

the techniques and equipment used, as well as the equipment settings, and the habitat and ecology of 

each species (Humbert et al. 2009). In Oregon, private hay fields appear to support more than 5,000 

breeding shorebirds (inferred by Paullin et al. 1977). These authors stated that young shorebirds were 

especially vulnerable to mortality from hay cutting. In early July (July 1 and 13) hay mowing was 

documented to have killed the following: Wilson’s phalaropes; long-billed curlews; soras, common 

snipe, and blackbirds. They further found that, unlike ducks, shorebirds, especially Wilson’s 

phalarope, tend to remain in hay meadows to feed after hatching. Consequently, earlier nesting 

species may be directly vulnerable to mowing. An added indirect effect to fledging shorebirds is that 

dewatering actions within current management may concentrate young birds near limited food 

resources in remaining water, increasing their vulnerability to not only mortality from haying 

equipment, but to predators (Ivey, pers. comm.). Several studies suggest that early hay mowing 

mortality is greatest in the first two weeks of July (Labisky 1957, Braun et al. 1978, Sargeant and 

Raveling 1992, Dale et al. 1997). 

Hay cutting within the Oxford Slough area begins as early as mid-June, likely causing very high rates 

of shorebird mortality on private property adjacent to the WPA. Current and proposed management 

delays hay operators from initiating mowing or harvest of WPA hay until August1st to ensure cutting 

occurs after the nesting season for grassland species is complete. Multiple researchers and 

management plans support the actions to minimize wildlife mortality from seasonal hay mowing by 

not allowing haying operations any earlier then August 1 (Warner and Etter 1989, Bollinger et al. 

1990, Licht 1997, Krapu et al. 2000, Dechant 2003, Perlut 2006, USDOA 2007) and for assessing 

feasibility in proposed management for delaying haying operations further into mid-late August. 

Recommendations from managers of some grassland management areas indicate that waiting until 

mid-July for mowing or haying operations is adequate; however, waiting until mid-August will help 

prevent impacts to double and triple-brooded species that occur at Oxford Slough WPA such as 

savannah sparrows and meadowlarks (Warren and Anderson 2005). 

In summary, there is good evidence that food abundance is the main driver in determining bird usage 

of fields for both invertebrate-feeders (Brickle et al. 2000), and seed-eaters (Robinson and Sutherland 

199, Moorcroft et al. 2002). However, food availability (i.e., abundance modified by ease of access 

to that food) has also been shown to be an important factor in determining bird usage (Henderson and 

Evans 2000, Henderson et al. 2001). Management for short structure, and the abundance and 

availability of food resources to birds, are inextricably linked (McCracken and Tallowin 2004). 

Haying or mowing affects grass height, and hence the amount of, and access to, food resources in 

different ways. Proposed management, with low to moderate disturbance from haying is more 

compatible with maintaining rich seed and invertebrate food resources and more diverse 

heterogeneous meadow habitat. This allows for both adequate food resources and areas where birds 

can access those resources, and provides taller denser habitat for upland nesting waterfowl, secretive 

marsh birds, and shallow over-water nesting birds. Continuation of haying, as proposed in current 

management, will predominantly benefit common bird species such as meadow foragers, grazers, and 

upland nesters, as it results in low vegetative diversity, structurally uniform habitats that contain few 

broad-leaved plant species and a reduced diversity of invertebrate food resources for birds (Lefranc 

1997). Management objectives as outlined in the WPA proposed management integrate an 

understanding of the factors that determine why birds forage in particular fields as well as how the 

major management practices can be modified to produce habitats that are suitable not only for 

species who readily adapt to anthropogenic changes in habitat, but a diverse suite of species. By 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-156 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

offsetting current agricultural practices on 150 acres, and reducing current hayed areas from 300 

acres to 150 acres, the Oxford Slough WPA will provide a diverse realm of nesting and foraging 

habitats for both breeding and migrating wildlife during several key times in their annual life 

histories (Rollins 1981, Heitmeyer 1989). 

Effects of haying to refuge habitats: Under proposed management, the WPA will moderately reduce 

haying operations from 300 acres to increase the inundation of wet meadow habitat through the 

summer. The proposal is to reduce haying by 50 percent (to 150 acres) on Oxford Slough WPA over 

a five-year timeframe and change the proportion of total wet meadow habitat hayed from 94 percent 

to only 60 percent hayed. 

While long-term hydrologic regimes shape invertebrate adaptive strategies, annual variation in the 

hydroperiod determines the occurrence and abundance within any given season (Fredrickson 1988, 

Reid 1985). Because invertebrate communities are also linked to hydrology (Swanson 1977, 

Fredrickson and Taylor 1982, Batzer 1983) current irrigation regimes in the Oxford Slough area, will 

continue to dewater wet meadows earlier to facilitate haying operations and continue to shift the 

distribution and availability patterns of aquatic invertebrates or possibly eliminate more moisturetolerant taxa from hayed habitats (Euliss 1999). Proposed management will reduce haying by 62 

percent by 2017, from 300 acres to 150 acres and supply a diverse mosaic of wetland cover types, 

while working to improve the hydrologic management capability on the WPA. 

In assessing the positive and negative effect from haying on the WPA, it is important to recognize the 

valuable role that temporarily flooded meadows play within WPA ecosystems of larger seasonally 

and semi-permanently flooded habitats and upland dry meadows and upland shrub habitats. Flooded 

meadow habitat mosaics, where proximate to both tall emergent wetland and upland habitat, create a 

richness of habitat biodiversity that would not occur if the habitats existed in isolation from one 

another. Proposed management will moderately reduce meadow and upland haying operations to 

maintain inundation of wetland shallow marsh and wet meadow habitat through the summer. By 

decreasing haying operations and regaining as much as possible of the former hydrograph, proposed 

management will increase temporary and seasonally flooded habitats through properly timed 

inundation to provide an adequate hydrologic regime within wet meadow habitat. This will increase 

habitat structure, litter accumulation, nutrient cycling, and ultimately, the invertebrate insects 

migratory waterbirds are dependent upon within these important habitat types. 

By 2017 staff will reduce haying by 50 percent on the WPA. Subsequently, 150 acres of formerly 

hayed WPA habitats will evolve through the succession of various annual and perennial species and 

form denser meadow grasslands. As most adjacent land-use practices throughout the Oxford Slough 

area provide ample short-cover foraging habitat, it is anticipated that the reduction in the WPA hay 

program will only reflect a negligible decrease in short-cover foraging and browsing habitat for 

waterfowl, geese, and cranes. Although the WPA acres devoted to providing short-stature forage will 

decrease under this proposed restorative management direction, it is expected that the change in 

annual waterfowl use days on the WPA will be minor. Restoration of hayed units to native meadow 

and grassland habitats will provide slightly less accessible forage than current management, but the 

difference should be negligible. Alternatively, the management strategy will work to improve water 

management capabilities in several wetland units and provide increased security in waterbird 

roosting areas proximate to important native wet meadow habitats and forage. 

Birds respond to the heterogeneity of habitats at several spatial scales (Wiens 1985), from the 

landscape (e.g., Bear River Watershed) to the site (e.g., Oxford Slough WPA), to the microsite scale 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-157 

(e.g., foraging areas within wetlands). Because ephemerality is a dominant characteristic of natural 

wetlands (Fredrickson and Reid 1990), waterbirds have evolved flexible behavior to take advantage 

of water level fluctuations at a variety of scales (Kushlan 1989; Skagen and Knopf 1993, 1994). As it 

is unlikely that all resource needs can be indefinitely met by one wetland patch, aquatic birds 

probably supplement their resource intake by using multiple wetlands within a mosaic (Dunning et 

al. 1992; Farmer and Parent 1997). Limitation of shallow habitats on the WPA due to the current 

irrigation regime in the Oxford Slough area, and maintaining shallow habitat into the early fall in 

current management, is a cause for concern as access to food during the nonbreeding season can be a 

significant density-dependent cause of mortality in migratory shorebirds (Goss-Custard 1979). 

Irrespective of water depth management, invertebrate resources must be abundant and periodically 

replenished if habitats are to function for extended periods (Miller 1987; Krapu and Reinecke 1992; 

Rehfisch 1994; Davis and Smith 1998). Invertebrate productivity is influenced by wetland plant 

composition, organic debris, temperature, substrate manipulations and flooding regimes (Neckles, 

Murkin and Cooper 1990; Rehfisch 1994; Batzer et al. 1997; Sanders 2000; Ausden et al. 2001). 

Invertebrate abundance is dependent upon cycles of spring flooding, summer evaporation, and fall 

inundation from rainfall. In hayed units with consistently lowered fall water levels, invertebrate 

forage resources are limited, if not depleted in current management (Eldridge 1992; Helmers 1992) 

and have lessened temporary and seasonally flooded habitat reducing the function and value of 

flooded habitat for WPA wildlife. 

Haying operations in wet soil types are noted to cause greater impacts to soil compaction and 

vegetation damage than on drier upland sites (Gilley at al 1996). Gilley (1996) further documented 

that soil roughness was significantly greater and bulk density significantly less on undisturbed longterm idle sites than hayed areas. The relatively large bulk densities measured on the hay fields imply 

that considerable compaction occurs at or near the soil surface from those operations (Murphy 2004). 

Recent trends for increased size and use of tractors and agricultural machinery has additionally 

increased the probability of soil compaction during farm operations (Martel and MacKenzie 1980). 

Soil compaction by machinery has an indirect effect on soil invertebrates. Some earthworms can 

burrow into compacted soil (Joschko, Diestel and Larink 1989) but others have their activity 

restricted by compaction under conditions of high water (Kretzschmar 1991). Soil compaction has 

also been shown to decrease slug populations (Ferguson, Barratt and Jones 1988). (Rabotnov (1974) 

found a decrease in proportion of soil geophytic grass in Russia, which could be partially explained 

by soil compaction as a result of hay collection. 

Haying reductions proposed will reduce haying in wet or moist meadows, where equipment may 

adversely impact vegetation and soil. Additionally, haying occurs on the WPA in mid-August and 

early September, in some of the driest months of the year. To further minimize soil compaction or 

damage in proposed management, fields that have been saturated by rain will not be hayed until soil 

conditions can support the required haying equipment. Since the WPA proposes that haying only 

occur in a drier time of the year for warm-season grasses on well-drained soil types, impacts from 

soil compaction will be decreased in comparison to current management (Murphy 2004). 

Effects to listed species from haying: Currently there are no listed species inhabiting the WPA. 

Should hay management conflicts occur with listed species in the future; the WPA will eliminate 

impacts to listed species or develop and implement minimization measures under Section 7 

consultation of the Endangered Species Act. If deemed necessary, the cooperative farming program 

will be halted until all protective and minimizing measures can be evaluated and implemented as 

necessary. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-158 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Effects to priority public uses from haying: The agricultural fields targeted to provide forage for focal 

wildlife species indirectly support wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Anticipated Cumulative Effects of Agricultural Uses (Farming and Haying). 

Genetically modified organisms: The NWRS does not authorize refuges to use genetically modified 

organisms (GMO) for agricultural uses. However, GMO seeds could be in-use on surrounding 

private farm crops now or in the near future. Pollen blown on the wind or carried by pollinator 

species may be capable of transferring genetically engineered traits, such as herbicide resistance and 

pest resistance, to closely related wild plants on the WPA. Genetically engineered plants with weedy 

wild relatives are of particular concern to the WPA. If expressed in the genetic background of a weed 

species, a transgene could increase the fitness of the weed in nature (Stewart et al. 2000). Laboratory 

studies have shown non-target pollinator species may also be harmed by wind-blown pollen. 

Monarch butterfly larvae have been shown in both laboratory and field tests (Losey et al. 1999, Jesse 

and Obrycki 2000) to suffer growth and mortality effects after feeding on milkweed plants dusted by 

corn pollen that was genetically engineered to express a bacterial toxin. 

Pesticides: The WPA can select less toxic pesticides and standardize operational procedures to 

minimize the immediate and accumulative effect of pesticides in the environment. However, the 

WPA has no control over surrounding land-use and agricultural practices, thereby increasing the risk 

of acute and chronic exposures to wildlife from herbicides. Acute exposure is a single exposure or 

multiple brief exposures occurring within a short time (e.g., 24 hours or less in humans). Chronic 

exposures are those that extend over the average lifetime or for a significant portion of the lifetime of 

the species (USFS 2005). Herbicides from the WPA will result in a moderate to minor risk from 

acute chemical exposure. However, unquantified and increasing risks from acute and chronic 

exposure may occur via the aggregate impacts from WPA herbicide applications when combined 

with private, county, and State herbicide applications within the Oxford Slough region. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipluations Necessary to Ensure Compatility: 

Farming Use. 

 Cropland farming will be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency 

policy. 

 Annual cooperative farming agreements will be established with the cooperator per agency 

policy. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-159 

 The cooperative farmer is required to perform habitat maintenance work to sustain the field 

conditions for the benefit of wildlife. Work may include mechanical weed control and 

fertilization. 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area will be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 All improvements made to the WPA as a result of this Cooperative Land Management 

Agreement become the property of the United States. 

 The Cooperator will be responsible to perform fence maintenance, weed control, crop 

planting and water management as detailed in annual work plans within each CLMA.

 The cooperative farmer will exercise care to prevent fire and will assume responsibility for 

fire, which may result from his/her operations. 

 No Refuge equipment will be provided for use by the cooperator. 

 At the end of the permit period, cooperator is responsible for removing all equipment from 

WPA lands. 

 The cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to WPA facilities or habitat beyond 

normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 Pest plants and weeds will be controlled in accordance with the WPA’s IPM program using 

methods such as crop rotation, mechanical treatment, biological controls, and approved 

pesticides.

 Insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals will not be permitted under this agreement. 

Fertilizers can be used by the Cooperator to fertilize crops. 

 Pesticide use must be in compliance with the Service policy requirements for completing an 

approved Pesticide Use Proposal, and it must meet other State and Federal requirements. 

 Cooperators will provide a record of herbicides used including chemical name, amount used, 

date, location, and how applied. 

 Pesticide applicators must meet all State, Federal and agency requirements. 

 Diligence shall be exercised in the control of county-listed invasive weeds. 

 Equipment of cooperating farmers will be cleaned prior to being moved onto the WPA and 

between fields when working in areas with weed infestations 

 No genetically modified crops are allowed. 

 Monitoring of the cropland farming program will be performed by qualified WPA staff. 

Haying Use. 

 Haying will be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency policy. 

 Annual cooperative haying agreements will be established with the cooperator per agency 

policy. 

 Staff will assess local hay values at least every three years, or more often if needed, to insure 

CLMAs are being conducted at a fair market value. 

 Haying activities will start on or after August 1 each year and be completed by September 15, 

including removal of baled hay. 

 Haying activities will start on or after August 1 each year and be completed by September 15, 

including removal of baled hay. 

 Haying shall occur after August 1 to minimize impacts to ground nesting birds. 

 The permittee shall remove all equipment and materials from the WPA by the end of the 

haying season. 

 Haying cooperators will provide a written report and record of annual hay harvest to WPA 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-160 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area will be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 The cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to WPA facilities or habitat beyond 

normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 Monitoring of the haying program will be performed by qualified WPA staff, including 

surveys to determine if haying is adversely impacting ground nesting birds. 

Justification: 

The Oxford Slough WPA agricultural program is designed to provide areas of high-energy 

carbohydrates and protein (winter wheat, barley, and legumes), and green forage grasses to meet the 

food energy needs of migrating waterfowl and cranes, and to reduce crop depredation in nearby 

agricultural fields. In periods of severe weather, having a readily available source of high-energy 

foods can sustain waterfowl and cranes during critical periods of nutritional and physical stress when 

other food sources generally are unavailable. 

At present, migratory needs of key wildlife species compared to the relative paucity of small grain 

production in the surrounding landscape justifies the continuation of a scaled-back farming program 

at Oxford Slough WPA. As the only Waterfowl Production Area in Region 1 of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the extent and quality of upland habitat for upland nesting waterfowl is also critical. To that 

end, the WPA must balance agriculture forage crop production with suitable upland nesting cover. 

The WPA manages all habitats to provide a variety of foods that will help migratory waterfowl. 

Although native vegetation provides higher levels of protein, fiber, and water than most agricultural 

crops, crops can provide easily accessible high energy foods that are more readily digestible than 

native plants and can reduce foraging time required to meet caloric demands (Raveling 1979, 

Alisauskas and Ankney 1992, Baldassare and Bolen 2006). Waterfowl are able to exploit a variety of 

habitats to meet their daily and seasonal food requirements and the WPA provides a diversity of food 

supplies (native and non-native) in relative proximity to each other. Many birds also prefer to forage 

and rest in areas with the good visibility that hayed acreage provides to better detect predators such 

as coyotes. Haying removes tall vegetation that would restrict visibility and helps control weeds. In 

addition, the agricultural fields provided for target wildlife species indirectly support wildlifedependent recreational activities such as wildlife observation and photography. 

While agricultural crops are typically not limiting within the regional landscape, agricultural fields 

where all grain is produced and retained for wildlife use are. Changes to local agricultural planting 

practices in the area surrounding the Oxford Slough and increased efficiency in harvest equipment, 

has resulted in a reduction in the availability of energy producing foods for migratory waterfowl. 

Because this trend is likely to continue in the future, WPA cropland management will be essential for 

waterfowl management in future years, both to provide food for wildlife and reduce crop depredation 

in nearby agricultural lands. Considering recent conversions from small grain to alfalfa and meadow 

hay production, WPA agricultural crops will continue to be required to provide a supplemental as 

well as a depredation benefit to local farmers still growing small grain crops (Mclvor and Conover 

2003). 

Short stature, wet meadow hay ground provides open areas for sandhill crane foraging. Birds 

selecting short cover include the following guilds: the meadow guild represented by the sandhill 

crane, western meadowlark, and cattle egret; the grazing waterfowl guild represented by American 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-161 

widgeon, Canada goose, American coot, and gadwall; and the upland-nesting shorebird guild 

represented by the long-billed curlew, American avocet, black-necked stilt, and killdeer. When 

juxtaposed with dense cover late successional wet meadow habitat (unhayed) and other palustrine 

emergent marsh habitat types, short cover can provide seasonally valuable habitat for their use. Birds 

selecting dense cover for foraging and nesting include the following guilds: upland nesting waterfowl 

guild represented by northern pintail, mallard, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, and gadwall; the wet 

meadow nesting shorebird guild represented by Wilson’s phalarope, willet, and common snipe; the 

secretive marsh bird guild represented by American bittern, Virginia rail, and sora rail; and the 

shallow over-water nesting marsh bird guild represented by black tern, marsh wren, red-winged 

blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, and northern harrier. Other species also benefit from haying; 

however, other management tools, such as mowing and burning, provide the same habitat 

characteristics, and additionally, leave nutrients within the unit and in the case of mowing, provide 

invertebrate substrate. While hayed wet meadow habitat is certainly not in limited supply throughout 

the Oxford Slough region, it does provide some habitat benefits for wildlife. 

Returning some agricultural fields to their former wetland habitat types will help to halt the loss of 

wetlands locally, regionally, and nationally. This will have a relatively small, but positive, impact on 

the majority of species on the WPA dependent on wetlands for some part (or all) of their life cycle. 

By implementing hay management strategies to reduce the coverage of early successional wet 

meadow habitat to less than 60 percent, the structure and composition of native meadow grass habitat 

will be greatly improved. 

The reduction of haying on the WPA will have a negligible impact on the availability of short grass 

habitat in the Oxford Slough region. Hayed short-grass pastures will continue to provide optimal 

open foraging areas for several wetland dependent wildlife species such as greater sandhill cranes, 

Canada geese, and white-faced ibis, while dense late-successional wet meadows will provide habitat 

for a diverse suite of waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds during several key times in their annual 

life histories (Rollins 1981, Heitmeyer 1989). By providing a mixture of short (hayed) and dense 

cover, and both native and non-native habitats, proposed management will help maintain the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the WPA. These factors in turn contribute 

to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and 

their habitats. 

By conducting the agricultural program under the management practices and stipulations described 

above, management anticipates that wildlife will find abundant native and non-native food resources 

and resting places on the WPA. Additionally, it is anticipated that the results of monitoring will 

prevent negative impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that the agricultural program 

will contribute to achieving WPA purpose(s) and the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

As a management tool, cooperative land management use is a beneficial WPA operation in meeting 

purposes of the WPA as well as goals and objectives established in the CCP. The farming and haying 

activities within the cooperative land management program contribute to achieving WPA purposes 

and goals identified in the CCP, as well as the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, by 

providing valuable foraging areas for migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes, and habitat for 

nesting, foraging, and brood rearing for a variety of migratory birds and resident wildlife. As a result, 

cooperative farming contributes to achieving WPA purpose(s); contributes to the Mission of the 

NWRS; and helps maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the WPA. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-162 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Allowing the use as described above will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for 

which the WPA was established or the mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Ausden, M., W.J. Sutherland, and R. James. 2001. The effects of flooding lowland wet grassland on 

soil macroinvertebrate prey of breeding wading birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:320-338. 

Batzer, D.P., F. De Szalay, and V.H. Resh. 1997. Opportunistic response of a benthic midge (Diptera: 

Chironomidae) to management of California seasonal wetlands. Environmental Entomology 

26:215-222. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 

Bollinger, E.K., P.B. Bollinger, and T.A. Gavin. 1990. Effects of hay-cropping on eastern populations 

of the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2):142-150. 

Braun, C.E, K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson, and C.D. Littlefield. 1978. Management of national wildlife 

refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. The Wilson Bulletin 90(2):309-321. 

Brickle, N.W., D.G.C. Harper, N.J. Aebischer, and S.H. Cockayne. 2000. Effects of agricultural 

intensification on the breeding success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 37:742-755. 

Butler, S.J. and S. Gillings. 2004. Quantifying the effects of habitat structure on prey detectability and 

accessibility to farmland birds. Ibis 146(S2):123-130. 

Cattin, M.F., G. Blandenier, C. Banasek-Richter, and L.F. Bersier. 2003. The impact of mowing as a 

management strategy for wet meadows on spider (Araneae) communities. Biological Conservation 

113:179-188. 

Dale, B.C, P.A. Martin, and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):616-626. 

Davis, C.A. and L.M. Smith. 1998. Ecology and management of migrant shorebirds in the Playa 

Lakes region of Texas. Wildlife Monographs 140:1-45. 

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, P.A. Rabie, and B.R. Euliss. 

2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: long-billed curlew. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Version 12DEC2003. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/lbcu/lbcu.htm. Accessed June 2012. 

Devereux, C.L., C.U. McKeever, T.G. Benton, and M.J. Whittingham. 2004. The effect of sward 

height and drainage on common starlings Sturnus vulgaris and northern lapwings Vanellus 

vanellus foraging in grassland habitats. Ibis 146(S2):115-122. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-163 

Devereux, C.L., M.J. Whittingham, J.R. Krebs, E. Fernandez-Juricic, and J.A. Vickery. 2006. What 

attracts birds to newly mown pasture? Decoupling the action of mowing from the provision of 

short swards. Ibis 148:302-306. 

Donovan, T.M., P.W. Jones, E.M. Annand, and F.R. Thompson III. 1997. Variation in local-scale 

edge effects: mechanisims and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064-2075. 

Dunning, J.B., B.J. Danielson, and H.R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in 

complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169-175. 

Dunwiddie, P.W. 1991. Comparisons of aboveground arthropods in burned, mowed and untreated 

sites in sandplain grasslands on Nantucket Island. American Midland Naturalist 125:206-212. 

Eldred, T. 2009. Vigilance behavior and land use by sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). M.S. thesis. 

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI. Available at: http://commons.emich.edu/theses/238. 

Accessed June 2012. 

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. 

Leaflet 13.2.14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

Epperson, W.L., J.M. Edie, D.B. Marcum, E.L. Fitzhugh, and R.E. Delmas. 1999. Late season hay 

harvest provides habitat for marshland birds. California Agriculture 53:12-17. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr., D.M. Mushet, and D.A. Wrubleski. 1999. Wetlands of the prairie pothole region: 

invertebrate species composition, ecology, and management. Pages 471-514 in: D.P. Batzer, 

R.B. Rader, and S.A. Wissinger, eds. Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: 

ecology and management, chapter 21. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bozeman, MT: Mountain 

Prairie Information Node. Available at: http://bsi.montana.edu/files/bigsky/WetlandsofthePPR.pdf 

(Version 18MAY06). 

Farmer, A.H. and A.H. Parent. 1997. Effects of the landscape on shorebird movements at spring 

migration stopovers. Condor 99:698-707. 

Fefer, S.I. 1977. Waterfowl populations as related to habitat changes in bog wetlands of the 

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 

86. University of Maine. Orono, ME. 

Ferguson, C.M., B.I.P. Baratt, and P.A. Jones, 1988. Control of the grey field slug (Deroceras 

reticulatum) by stock management prior to direct-drilled pasture establishment. Journal of 

Agricultral Science 111:443-449. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1988. Invertebrate response to wetland management. Waterfowl Management 

Handbook. Paper 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO. 7 pp. Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmwfm/13. Accessed June 2012. 

Fredrickson L.H. and R.D. Drobney. 1979. Habitat utilization by postbreeding waterfowl. Pages 119-

131 in: T.A. Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and wetlands—an integrated review. La Crosse, WI: La 

Crosse Printing. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F.A. Reid. 1988. Nutritional values of waterfowl foods. Fish and Wildlife 

Leaflet 13.1.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for 

wildlife. Resource Publication 148. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington, D.C. 31 pp. 

Gilley, J.E., B.D. Patton, P.E. Nyren, and J.R. Simanton. 1996. Grazing and haying effects on runoff 

and erosion from a former CRP site. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 12:681-684. 

Goss-Custard, J.D. 1979. Effect of habitat loss on the numbers of overwintering shorebirds. Pages 

167-177 in: F.A. Pitelka, ed. Shorebirds in marine environments. Berkeley, CA: Cooper 

Ornithological Society. 

Hartley, M.J. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial 

nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12:465-469. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-164 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Heitmeyer, M.E., D.P. Connelly, and R.L. Pederson. 1989. The Central, Imperial, and Coachella 

Valleys of California. Pages 475-505 in: L.M. Smith, R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. 

Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Lubbock, TX: 

Texas Tech University Press. 

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network. Manomet, MA. 58 pp. 

Henderson, I.G. and A.D. Evans. 2000. Responses of farmland birds to set-aside and its management. 

In: N.J. Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice, and J.A. Vickery, eds. Ecology and Conservation of 

Lowland Farmland Birds:69-76. Tring, UK: British Ornithologists’ Union. 

Henderson, I.G., N.R. Critchley, J. Cooper, and J.A. Fowbert. 2001. Breeding season responses of 

Skylarks Alauda arvensis to vegetation structure in set-aside (fallow arable land). Ibis 143:317-

321. 

Hornung, J.P. and A.L. Foote. 2006. Aquatic invertebrate responses to fish presence and vegetation 

complexity in western boreal wetlands with implications for waterbird productivity. Wetlands 

(26)2:1-12. 

Humbert, J.A., J. Ghazoul, and T. Walker. 2009. Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on 

field fauna. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 130(1-2):1-8. 

Jesse, L.C.H. and J.J. Obrycki. 2000. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on 

the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125(2):241-248. 

Joschko, M., H. Diestel, and O. Larink. 1989. Assessment of earthworm burrowing efficiency in 

compacted soil with a combination of morphological and soil physical measurements. Biology and 

Fertility of Soils 8(3):191-196. 

Krapu, G.L., P.J. Pietz, D.A. Brandt, and R.R. Cox Jr. 2000. Factors limiting mallard brood survival in 

prairie pothole landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2):553-561. 

Krapu, G.L. and K.J. Reinecke. 1992. Foraging ecology and nutrition. Pages 1-29 in: B.D.J. Batt, A.D. 

Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology 

and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Kushlan, J.A. 1989. Avian use of fluctuating wetlands. Pages 593-604 in: R.R. Sharitz and 

J.W. Gibbons, eds. Freshwater wetlands and wildlife, CONF-8603101, DOE Symposium Series 

No. 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Oak Ridge, 

TN. 

Labisky, R.F. 1957. Relation of hay harvesting to duck nesting under a refuge-permittee system. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 21(2):194-200. 

La Sorte, F.A., and W.J. Boecklen. 2005. Temporal turnover of common species in avian assemblages 

in North America. Journal of Biogeography 32(7):1151-1160. 

Laurance, W.F. and E. Yensen. 1991. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats. 

Biological Conservation. 55:77-92. 

LeCain, D.R., J.A., Morgan, G.E. Schuman, J.D. Reeder, and R.H. Hart. 2000. Carbon exchange rates 

in grazed and ungrazed pastures of Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 53:199-206. 

Licht, D. S. 1997. Ecology and economics of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska 

Press. 

Lines, I.L. and C.J. Perry. 1978. A numerical wildlife habitat evaluation procedure. Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:284-301. 

Losey, J.E, L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 

399:214. Available at: 

http://ag.arizona.edu/ENTO/courses/ento446_546/readings/Losey_1999.pdf. 

McCracken, D.I. and J.R. Tallowin. 2004. Swards and structure: the interactions between farming 

practices and bird food resources in lowland grasslands. Ibis 146(Suppl. 2):108-114. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-165 

Magee, P.A. 1993. Detrital accumulation and processing in wetlands. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Martel, Y.A. and A.F. Mackenzie. 1980. Long-term effects of cultivation and land use on soil quality 

in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 60:411-420. 

Miller, M.R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of northern pintails in the Sacramento Valley, California. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 51:405-414. 

Miranowski, J. A. and R.L. Bender. 1982. Impact of erosion control policies on wildlife habitat on 

private lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37:288-291. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edition. New York: JohnWiley. 

Moorcroft, D., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, and J.D. Wilson. 2002. The selection of stubble 

fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 39:535-547. 

Morris, M.G. 1990. The effects of management on the invertebrate community of calcareous 

grassland. Pages 128-133 in: S.H. Hiller, D.W.H. Walton, and D.A. Wells, eds. Calcareous 

grasslands: ecology and management. Huntingdon, UK: Bluntisham Books. 

Murphy, C.A., B.L. Foster, M.E. Ramspott, and K.P. Price. 2004. Grassland management effects on 

soil bulk density. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 107:45-54. 

Neckles, H.A., H.R. Murkin, and J.A. Cooper. 1990. Influences of seasonal flooding on 

macroinvertebrate abundance in wetland habitats. Freshwater Biology 23:311-322. 

Nelson, M.A., S.M. Griffith, and J.J. Steiner. 2006. tillage effects on nitrogen dynamics and grass seed 

crop production in western Oregon, USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:825-831. 

Pasitschniak-Arts, M. and F. Messier. 1995. Risk of predation on waterfowl nests in the Canadian 

prairies: effects of habitat edges and agricultural practices. Oikos 73(3):347-355. 

Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? 

Conservation Biology 8:17-26. 

Paullin, D.G., C.D. Littlefield, and R.E. Vorderstrasse. 1977. Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin study, 

Oregon. Report No. 1: A summary of biological data for calendar years 1975 and 1976. 

Perkins, A.J., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, J.D. Wilson, A.J. Morris, and P.R. Barnett. 2000. 

Habitat characteristics affecting use of lowland agricultural grassland by birds in winter. 

Biological Conservation 95:279-294. 

Perlut, N.G., A.M. Strong, T.M. Donovan, and N.J. Buckley. 2006. Grassland songbirds in a dynamic 

management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. Ecological Applications 

16:2235-2247. 

Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, R. Seidel, and D. Douds. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and 

economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573-582. 

Purvis, G. and J.P. Curry. 1981. The influence of sward management on foliage arthropod 

communities in a ley grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology: 711-725. 

Rabotnov, T.A. 1974. Lugovedenie [Meadow Management]. Moscow, pp. 1-384. 

Rehfisch, M.M. 1994. Man-made lagoons and how their attractiveness to waders might be increased 

by manipulating the biomass of an insect benthos. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:383-401. 

Reid, F.A. 1985. Wetland invertebrates in relation to hydrology and water chemistry. Pages 72-79 in: 

M.D. Knighton, ed. Water impoundments for wildlife: a habitat management workshop. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. St. Paul, MN. 136 pp. 

Ringleman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. 13.4.3. Waterfowl management 

handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4 pp. 

Robinson, R.A. and W.J. Sutherland. 1999. The winter distribution of seed-eating birds: habitat 

structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography 22:447-454. 

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional 

forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987-1990. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-166 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Rollins, G.L. 1981. A guide to waterfowl habitat management in the Suisun Marsh. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 109 pp. 

Sanders, M.D. 2000. Enhancing food supplies for waders: inconsistent effects of substratum 

manipulations on aquatic invertebrate biomass. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:66-76. 

Sargeant, A.B. and D.G. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. Pages 396-422 in: 

B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. 

Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota. 

Schekkewrman, H. and A.J. Beintema. 2007. Abundance of invertebrates and foraging success of 

black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) chicks in relation to agricultural grassland management. 

Netherlands Ornithologists Union 95(1):39-54. 

Skagen, S.K. and F.L. Knopf. 1993. Toward conservation of midcontinental shorebird migrations. 

Conservation Biology 7:533-541. 

Skagen, S.K. and F.L. Knopf. 1994. Migrating shorebirds and habitat dynamics at a prairie wetland 

complex. Wilson Bulletin 106:91-105. 

Small, M.F. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1988. Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested 

landscapes. Ocecologia 76:62-64. 

Stewart, C.N., H.A. Richards, and M.D. Halfhill. 2000. Transgenic plants and biosafety: Science, 

misconceptions and public perceptions. Biotechniques 29:832-843. 

Sugden, L.G. 1971. Metabolizable energy of small grains for mallards. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 35:781-785. 

Swanson, G.A. and M.I. Meyer. 1977. Impact of fluctuating water levels on feeding ecology of 

breeding bluewinged teal. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:426-433. 

USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007. Early 

successional habitat. Fish and wildlife habitat management leaflet no. 41. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat Council. Washington, D.C. and Silver Spring 

Maryland. 16 pp. 

Van der Valk, A. G. 1989. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 

Vickery, J.A., J.R. Tallowin, R.E. Feber, E.J. Asteraki, P.W. Atkinson, R.J. Fuller, and V.K. Brown. 

2001. The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices 

on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:647-664. 

Warner, R.E., and S.L, Etter. 1989. Hay Cutting and the survival of pheasants: a long-term 

perspective. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):455-461. 

Whitehead, S.C., J. Wright, and P.A. Cotton. 1995. Winter field use by the European starling Sturnus 

vulgaris - habitat preferences and the availability of prey. Journal of Avian Biology 26:193-202. 

Whittingham, M.J. and K.L. Evans. 2004. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in 

agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146(S2):210-220. 

Whittingham, M.J. and H.M. Markland. 2002. The influence of substrate on the functional response of 

an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation. Oecologia 130:637-644. 

Wiens, J.A. 1985. Habitat selection in variable environments: shrubsteppe birds. Pages 227-251 in: 

M.L. Cody, ed. Habitat selection in birds. New York: Academic Press. 

Wilcove, D.D., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. 

Pages 237-256 in: M.E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 

66:1211-1214. 

Wilson, J.D., M.J. Whittingham, and R.B. Bradbury. 2005. The management of crop structure: a 

general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds? Ibis 147:453-

463. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-167 

Wissinger, S.A. 1999. Ecology of wetland invertebrates: synthesis and applications for conservation 

and management. Pages 1043-1086 in: D.P. Batzer, R.B. Rader, and S.A. Wissinger, eds. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. New York: 

Wiley. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-168 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-169 

B.20 Compatibility Determination for Cross-Country Skiing and 

Snowshoeing on the Oxford Slough WPA 

RMIS Database Uses: Cross-Country Skiing, Snowshoeing 

Refuge Name: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) 

Location: Franklin and Bannock Counties, ID 

Date Established: 1985 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. § 718(c)) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to ... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

(Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) 

 “... for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

We will continue to allow cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on the WPA. Currently, crosscounty skiing and snowshoeing is allowed throughout the WPA as conditions permit. Seasonal 

restrictions on wildlife observation and photography (the WPA is closed to these activities from 

April 1-July 31) also apply to cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. Cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing are not common activities at the Oxford Slough WPA. Skiing or snowshoeing, visitors 

may view or photograph wildlife. However, these activities are treated separately, since these uses 

are not defined as wildlife-dependent recreational uses under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended, and they do not automatically support the six wildlifedependent priority uses. 

Availability of Resources: 

Maintenance of the WPA entrance road incurs costs, but costs are not directly related to crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing. The road will not be groomed specifically for skiing and 

snowshoeing. Roads are routinely maintained for vehicle activity and to repair holes made by 

burrowing wildlife. No other facilities (e.g., trails) will be provided for this use. No additional 

expense for these activities is anticipated. The major portion of the funds needed to support this 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-170 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

activity are in the form of salaries for maintaining the existing entrance road, monitoring public use 

and biological impacts, and enforcing regulations. Thus the Refuge has sufficient staff and funding to 

allow the use. 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $1k 

Maintenance: $0 $2k 

Posting signs and removing snow from entrance road 

Monitoring: $0 $1k 

Biological monitoring if use increases 

Offsetting revenues: $0

$0 

$0

TOTALS $4k 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

In two different studies of winter recreation impacts to wildlife in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), 

Aune (1981) and Cassirer (1990) found that, except for coyotes, all wildlife species observed (mostly 

big game) reacted more quickly to an approaching skier than to a snowmobile, and the flight distance 

was generally greater from skiers. Bison were found to respond dramatically to skiers who were off 

established trails. All wildlife species studied, including bison, were wary of people on foot. Aune 

(1981) also observed that in YNP, elk were less likely to flee from snowmobiles or skiers late in the 

winter than they were earlier in the season. He suggested that this was likely due in part to 

habituation by elk to snowmobile traffic and in part to decreased vigor of elk later in the season 

combined with the increasing difficulty of flight through deep, crusted snow. Proximity of escape 

cover that breaks the line of sight between elk and the disturbance may reduce flight distances and 

consequently the amount of energy used in flight. Moving automobiles and trail bikes had little effect 

on elk resting in timber at distances of only 0.13 miles (Lyon and Ward 1982). 

Ferguson and Keith (1982) researched the influence of cross-country ski trail development and skiing 

on elk and moose distribution in Elk Island National Park in Alberta, Canada. They found no 

indication that overwinter distribution of elk was altered by cross-country skiing activity. However, it 

did appear that elk moved away from ski trails, particularly those that were heavily used, during the 

ski season. 

Aune (1981) also reported average elk flight distances of 53.5 meters (175.5 feet) in response to 

skiers at Yellowstone National Park. In another study, elk began to move when skiers approached to 

within 15 meters (50 feet) in an area heavily used by humans year-round, and within 400 meters 

(1,312 feet) in an area where human activity is much lower (Cassirer et al. 1992). Elk in YNP fled 

more frequently and over greater distances from skiers off established trails than from skiers on 

established trails (Aune 1981). 

Rudd and Irwin (1985) investigated the movements of moose in response to cross-country skiing and 

found that the average distance 19 moose moved away from people on snowshoes or skis was 16.6 

yards, and the average distance at which moose were displaced was 80.7 yards. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-171 

Overall Impact at Oxford Slough WPA. The studies cited above show that cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing can and do disturb wildlife. However we anticipate the impacts will be small, given the 

relatively low numbers of users and the limited amount of wildlife activity on the WPA during the 

winter months when skiing and snowshoeing occur. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2012) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Appendix P of the CCP (USFWS 2012) contains a summary of the comments and Service 

responses. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Snowshoers and cross-country skiers are required to adhere to temporal access restrictions. 

 Regulations will be available to the public through a WPA brochure. 

 Directional, informational and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to educate the 

public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

 Uses will be periodically evaluated for disturbance to wildlife, especially if use numbers 

increase. 

Justification: 

Although cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are not a wildlife-dependent public uses of the 

Refuge, as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) these occasional uses of the WPA are 

expected to have negligible impacts to wildlife habitat when compared to the effects of other public 

uses (Klein 1993). Potential for wildlife and habitat disturbance is minimal given the low level of 

these uses and the time of year the use occurs. Impacts of these activities will be monitored and if 

they, or other impacts, are discovered, this compatibility determination will be reevaluated. Direct 

costs to administer existing levels of cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on the WPA will be 

minor because costs will already be covered by the existing Complex budget for maintaining 

wildlife-dependent public uses. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessoned from allowing crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing on the WPA. The relatively limited number of individuals expected 

to be adversely affected due to these activities will not cause wildlife populations to materially 

decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their 

behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will 

not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing snowshoeing and cross-country skiing to occur with 

stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the WPA was 

established or the Refuge System mission. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-172 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2022 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Aune, K.E. 1981. Impacts of winter recreationists on wildlife in a portion of Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyoming. M.S. thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 

Cassirer, E.F. 1990. Responses of elk to disturbance by cross-country skiers in northern Yellowstone 

National Park. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Cassirer, E.F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-country 

skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381. 

Ferguson, M.A.D., and L.B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk 

in Elk Island national Park, Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 96:69-78. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Lyon, J. and A.L. Ward. 1982. Elk and land management. Pages 443-478 in: J.W. Thomas and 

D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole 

Books. 

Rudd, L.T. and L.L. Irwin. 1985. Wintering moose vs. oil/gas activity in western Wyoming. Alces 

21:279-298. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-173 

 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-174 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge

322 North 4th St.

Montpelier, ID 83254-1019

Phone and Fax: 208/847 1757

http:// www.fws.gov

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

March 2013

The mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.

Front Cover

Sandhill cranes

Justine Belson/USFWS

Back Cover

White-faced ibis

© Bill Bouton

Inside Front Cover

Sandhill crane on wing

Steve Emmons/USFWS